This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD.NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

दिल्ली, फरवरी 20 , फरवरी 26 , 2011 , शनिवार/फाल्गुन 1 फाल्गुन 7, 1932

सं. १ ]

नई NEW DELHI , FEBRUARY 20 , FEBRUARY 26, 2011 , SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 1-PHALGUNA 7, 1932 No. 9]

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

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

भाग II- खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II Section 3-Sub-section (ii)

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

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार एतद्‌द्वारा सम्पूर्ण केरल राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

[सं. 228/49/2010- ए वी डी- II ( पार्ट -1 ) ].

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2011

वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2011

S.O. 548. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) ofsection 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department , Thiruvananthapuram, vide Notification GO. (Ms.) No. 94/ 2010/Home dated 23-4-2010, hereby extends the powers andjurisdiction ofthe members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation ofCase Nos . 202/09, 223/09, 339/09, 340/09 का.आ. 548.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज्य सरकार, गृह ( एम ) विभाग , तिरूअनंतपुरम कीदिनांक 23-4-2010 की अधिसूचना सं जी.ओ. ( एम.एस. ) सं. 94/2010/गृह द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से जीआईएसए इंटरनेशनल , पोनीक्कारा, कोच्चिद्वारा जनता को ठगे जाने के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 34 के साथ सपठित धारा 420 और उत्प्रवासन अधिनियम , 1983 ( 1983 का अधिनियम सं. 31 ) की धारा 24 ( 1 ) ( जी ) के तहत पुलिस स्टेशन कालामासरी , जिला- एर्नाकुलम ( केरल ) में दर्ज मामला सं. 202/09 , 223/09 , 339/09 , 340/09 और 348/09 तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरण तथा षडयंत्र या इसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत अन्य किन्हीं अपराधों के अन्वेषण के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों तथा

(1717)

540 GI/2011 1718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] and 348/09 under sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section 24 (1 ) (g) ofthe Emigration Act, 1983 (Act No. 31 of 1983) registered atPolice Station Kalamassery, District Ernakulam (Kerala) relating to the cheating of public by GISA International, Ponekkara, Kochi and attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No.228/49/2010- AVD- II(Pt. -I)] V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2011

6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए बिहार राज्य सरकार, गृह ( पुलिस ) विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 1/सी.बी.आई.80-01 /2011 एच( पी ) -179 दिनांक 10-1-2011 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्री राजकिशोर केसरी , सदस्य विधानसभा की हत्या के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 302 और 120- बी के अधीन पुलिस स्टेशन खजांची हाट ( पूर्णिया ) में दर्ज मामला सं. 4/11 दिनांक 4-1-2011 तथा प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों अथवा उपर्युक्त अपराधों के संबंध में या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उ‌द्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण बिहार राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/5 /2011 - एवीडी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th February, 2011 का.आ. 549.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जिला एवं सेशन जज , पटना के न्यायालय में एएचडी मामलों के उद्भूत आपराधिक विधि संशोधन अध्यादेश , 1944 के अधीन सम्बद्ध प्रक्रियाओं और विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों के अपील, पुनरीक्षण का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

सर्वश्री

1. प्रमोद कुमार गाया दत्तां

2. बैजनाथ गुप्ता

[सं. 225/ 19/2009- एवीडी- II ]

वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2011

S.O.550.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent ofthe State Government of Bihar, Home (Police) Department, videNotification No. 1/C.B.I.80-01/2011 -H (P)-179 dated 10-1-2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of themembers ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of Case No. 4/11 dated4-1-2011 under sections 302 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Khajanchi Hat (Purnea) relating to the murder of Sh. Rajkishore Keshri, Member of Legislative Assembly and attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in course ofthe same transaction or arising out of the same- facts.

[No.228/5/2011 -AVD- II] S.O. 549. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (8 ) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates , as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting attachment proceedings under Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, arising out of AHD cases , pending in the Court of Distt. & Sessions Judge, Patna and appeals/revisions or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law :-

V. M. RATHNAM , Dy. Secy.

S/Shri

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2011 1. PromodKumar GayaDutta

2. BaijnathGupta

[No.225/19/2009-AVD- II]

V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 550.-केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा

का.आ. 551. केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनिषम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए महाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग मंत्रालय , मुम्बई की दिनांक 10-01-2011 की अधिसूचना दिनांक सं ईएआर-0311/सी-6/पोल-9 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं 45 ) , की धारा 216 के अंतर्गत अपराध का अन्वेषण तथा प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और इससे संबंधित षडयंत्र या उपर्युक्त अपराध के सम्बन्ध में 1719

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण महाराष्ट्र राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

[सं. 228/6/2011 - एवी डी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 17th February, 2011

S.O. 551. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) ofsection 5 read with section 6 ofthe Delhi Special Police EstablishmentAct, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Maharashtra , Home Department , Mantralaya, Mumbai, vide Notification No. EAR -0311/C- 6/Pol.9 dated 10-1-2011, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Maharashtra for investigation of offence under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence .

[No. 228/6/2011 - AVD- II] V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग )

(केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली , 15 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 552.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 से आगे सिन्हा इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ मेडिकल साइंस एंड टेक्नोलाजी , कोलकाता को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

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

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

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

(iv) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

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

(ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिकः अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त धनराशि का विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।.

[अधिसूचना सं. 09/2011/फा. सं. 203/31 /2010-आ.क.नि.- II ]

अजय गोयल , निदेशक MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ofRevenue) (Central Board ofDirect Taxes)

New Delhi , the 15th February, 2011

S.O. 552. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Sinha Institute of Medical Science & Technology, Kolkata has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub- section(1 ) ofSection 35 of the Income-taxAct, 1961 ( said Act) , readwith Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules), for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 onwards in the category of 'Other Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :--

(1) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

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

1720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से सामाजिक विज्ञान या सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान करेगा;

The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verifiedby such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 139 of the said Act ;

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

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above.

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

(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । (a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1; or

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

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

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

(ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph ( iv) ofparagraph 1; OF

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

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

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 35 ofthe saidAct read with rules 5C and SE of the said Rules .

[NotificationNo.09/2011 /F. No. 203/31 /2010/ΙΤΑ - Π]

AJAY GOYAL, Director

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2011

(ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 10/2011/फा. सं. 203/33/2010-आ.क.नि.- II ]

अजय गोयल, निदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th February , 2011 का.आ. 553.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 के आगे से संगठन इस्टीट्यूट फॉर फाइनेन्सियल मैनेजमैंट एण्ड रिसर्च, चेन्नई को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

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

S.O. 553. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Institute for Financial Management and Research, Chennai has been approved bythe CentralGovernment for the purpose ofclause ( iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (saidAct) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules ), from Assessment year 2009-10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

onwards in the category of ' Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:-

1. (1) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for research in social sciences;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out research in social science or statistical research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums receivedby it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act; (iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for research in social science and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

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

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

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

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for research in social science or satistical research referred to in sub- paragraph (iv) ofparagraph 1; or

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

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( iii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 10/2011/F. No. 203/33/2010/ITA- II ] AJAY GOYAL, Director (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 15 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 554.- भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 की धारा 8 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( घ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का

1721

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्द्वारा , श्री आर. गोपालन, सचिव , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग , वित्त मंत्रालय को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय निदेशक मंडल में श्री अशोक चावला के स्थान पर निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2010- बीओ-1 ]

समीर के. सिन्हा , निदेशक (Department ofFinancial Services) New Delhi, the 15th February, 2011

S.O. 554. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of IndiaAct, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri R. Gopalan, Secretary, Department ofEconomicAffairs , Ministry of Finance, to be a director onthe Central Board of Directors of Reserve Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Ashok Chawla

[No. 6/1/2010- BO- I]

SAMIR K. SINHA , Director नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी, 2011

का.आ. 555. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 ( 1955 का 23 ) की धारा 19 के खण्ड ( ङ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्‌द्वारा , श्री शशि कान्त शर्मा , सचिव , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग , वित्त मंत्रालय को श्री अशोक चावला के स्थान पर तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के केन्द्रीय निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2010- बीओ -1 ] समीर के. सिन्हा , निदेशक New Delhi, the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 555. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of Section 19 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Secretary, Department ofFinancial Services, Ministry ofFinance, to be a Director on the Central Board of Directors of State Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Ashok Chawla .

[No. 6/ 1/2010-BO- ] SAMIR K. SINHA , Director

विदेश मंत्रालय (सीपीवी प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 556.-राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में , केंद्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा श्री राजीव रंजन , अपर श्रेणी लिपिक को 4-2-2011 से भारत के कौंसलावास , ऑफना में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी. 4330/1/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर ) 1722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPVDivision)

New Delhi , the 4th February, 2011

1952 (37 of 1952) read with rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rulés , 1983, the Central Government is pleased to extend the tenure of Smt . Sharmila Tagore as Chairperson ofthe Central Board of Film Certification in an honorary capacity till 31st March, 2011 .

[F. No. 809/2/2010- F(C) Pt. I ]

AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) S.O. 556. In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Rajeev Ranjan , UDC, Consulate General of India, Jaffna to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officer with effect from 4th February, 2011 .

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय (वाणिज्य विभाग)

[No. T. 4330/1/2006]

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2011 R. K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. (Consular) नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 557.-राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में , केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री पी . के. शर्मा, अपर श्रेणी लिपिक को 7-2-2011 से भारत के राजदूतावास , कुवेत में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

का.आ. 559.- केन्द्र सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में वाणिज्य विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन भारतीय निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद्, नई दिल्ली के अधीन निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण , कोच्ची के निम्नलिखित उप- कार्यालय को एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है :-

[सं. टी. 4330/1/2006 ]

आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव (कोंसुलर) New Delhi , the 7th February, 2011

निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण , कोच्ची उप कार्यालय, मंगलौर स्कूल बुक बिल्डिंग , तीसरी मंजिल , टेंपल स्कवायर , कार स्ट्रीट , मंगलौर-575 001

[संई 11013/ 1 /2008- हिन्दी] S.O. 557. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri P. K. Sharma, UDC, Embassy of India, Kuwait to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officer with effect from 7th February, 2011 .

श्रीमती देवकी , निदेशक ( राजभाषा) MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Departmentof Commerce) New Delhi , the 17th February, 2011 [No. T. 4330/1/2006] R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. ( Consular) सूचना एवं प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2011

S.O. 559. In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the union) Rules , 1976, the Central Govt. hereby notifies the following Sub office of Export Inspection Agency, Kochi underExport Inspection Council of India, New Delhi , which is under administrative control of Department of Commerce, ' whereof more than 80% staff have acquired a working knowledge ofHindi :-

का.आ. 558.-चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 3 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मानद अध्यक्ष के रूप में श्रीमती शर्मिला टैगोर का कार्यकाल दिनांक 31 मार्च , 2011 तक बढ़ाती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/2/2010- एफ( सी) पीटी. I ] अमिताभ कुमार, निदेशक (फिल्म)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

Export Inspection Agency - Kochi Sub Office - Mangalore , School BookBuilding, Third Floor, Temple Square, CarStreet, Mangalore-575001

NewDelhi , the 9th February, 2011

S.O. 558. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act,

[No. E. 11013/1/2008 -Hindi ] Smt . DEVKI , Director (O.L. ) 1

1723 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 22 नवम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 560.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया हैकि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वैलटैक वेइंग सिस्टम , 85 , सार्थी बंगला , राधे टेनामेंट के पास , हरी दर्शन चौकड़ी, कठवाडा रोड, नया नरोदा, अहमदाबाद- 30 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डब्ल्यूडब्ल्यूएस- एफ" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज टाइप ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " बैल- टैक " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/206 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण अंकक सूचन सहित ( वेब्रिज टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 कि ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

BACK SIDE

0000

TOP OFINDICATOR

398

Wel-tech

max-10 tonna 100 ky tiky choseItt

आकृति -2 माडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडीकेटर में बनाए गए होल्ज में से वायर निकाल कर और उस पर लीड सील लगाकर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन 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. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 141 )/2010 ] .

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

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

(Department ofConsumer Affairs )

New Delhi , the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 560. 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 (Weighbridge type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series - WWS-F and with brand name " WEL- TECH " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), maunfactured by M/s Wel- Tech Weighing System, 85 , Sarthi Bungalows , Nr. Radhe Tenament, Hari Darshan Chokadi , Kathvada Road, Nava Naroda, Ahmedabad-30 andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/206;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge type) with digital indication of maximum capacity of40 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 5kg . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

BACK SIDE

TOP OF INDICATOR

398

Wel-tech

Figure- 2 Sealing arrangement

Sealing is done through the holes made in the indicator, then a wire is passed through these holes and the lead seal is applied on the wire . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[ F.No.WM- 21 / ( 141)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1725 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 नवम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 561.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स बैल - टैक बेइंग सिस्टम , 85 , सार्थी बंगला , राधे टेनामेंट के पास , हरी दर्शन चौकड़ी, कठवाड़ा रोड, नया नरोदा , अहमदाबाद- 30 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डब्ल्यूडब्ल्यूएस- सी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (क्रेन स्केल टाइप ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " बैल -टैक " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/205 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन स्केल टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 5,000 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 कि. 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 ।

METAL FRAY

Crene Scale

SEAL WIRE

ME HUCK

0000

SEAL .

max-5000 kg min - 20 kg @ the catss -ili

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 30 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 141 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 540GI/11-2 1726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd November , 2010

S.O. 561. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) ofSection 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Crane Scale type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of series - WWS-C and with brand name " WEL- TECH" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , maunfactured by M/s Wel- Tech Weighing System, 85, Sarthi Bungalows , Nr. Radhe Tenament, Hari Darshan Chokadi, Kathvada Road, Nava Naroda, Ahmedabad-30 andwhich is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/205;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Crane Scale type) withdigital indication of maximum capacity of5000 kg. and minimum capacity of 20 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 1kg. 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 alternate current power supply.

Figure- 1

CreneScale

SEALWIRE

METAL BODY

MS HUCK

STAMPING PLATE

0000

SEAL .

max- 5000 kg min - 20 kg e 1kg ciass - 11 :

SEA

Figure-2 Sealing arrangement

The sealing is done by passing a leaded wire through the holes of the body of indicator and lead seal is fixed. A typical schematicdiagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Theinstrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board todisable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 30 tonne and with number of verificationscaleinterval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance withthe same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM- 21/ ( 141 )/2010]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1727 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 562.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत्त 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 शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स गणेश प्रसाद अवध बिहारी , लोहा मंडी, चौक बाजार , बहराइच , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता- III ) वाले " जीपीएफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " गोदरेज " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/377 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 व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

TOPOF INDICETOR

Max_1000 Kg

Min_02 Kg E_100 g

Class_III

000

1562

EAD SQUARE SEAL

ARE

BOTTOM OFINDICATOR

562

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (240 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 562. 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 ofthe powers conferred by sub- sections ( 7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series "GPF " and with brand name " GODREJ" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), maunfactured by M/s Ganesh Prasad Avadh Bihari, Loha Mandi , Chowk Bazar, Bahraich , Uttar Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/377;

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

Figure-1

TOP OF INDICETOR

Max_1000 Kg

Min_02 Kg

E_100 g

Class_III

000

1562

SEA

BESL WIRE

562

BOTTOM

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of theModel

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

The instrument has external control to calibration . 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 above 50 kg . and up to 5000 kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 *, er 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 (240)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1729 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 563.- 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 शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स गणेश प्रसाद अवध बिहारी , लोहा मंडी, चौक बाजार , बहराइच , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता- II ) वाले " जीटीटी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " गोदरेज " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन. डी/09/ 10/376 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 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 ।

SCALE

FAL WIPE

GODREJ

TEAD SQUARE

000.00

SUAL

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्तदिया 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 100,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 100,000 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. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 240)/2010 ]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 563. 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 conferredred 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 " GTT " and with brand name " GODREJ" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s Ganesh Prasad Avadh Bihari, Loha Mandi , Chowk Bazar, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/376;

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

Figure- 1

JOP BODY OF

SEAL WIRI

0000

LEAD SMA SLA

SCAL WIRE

GODREJ

LEAD SQUARE SFAL

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display . The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover ofdisplay, than 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 A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e' value of 1mg . to 50 mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 100,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k, or5x10k, 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 (240)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1731 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 564. 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 स्वर्ण वेट स्केल सेल्ज एंड सर्विस , सर्वे नं. 12/14/4 , शांति नगर , भोसारी , पुणे-411039 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एसडब्ल्यूजे-13 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वर्ण " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/401 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. न्यूनतम क्षमता 100ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई) 2 ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव हैं । 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।

SEALING

SWARN

SEAL WITH

STAMPING PLATE

843 564

564 568

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है। मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्तदिया 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 हैकि 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 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 100,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 100,000 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 शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 247 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi , the31st January, 2011

S.O. 564. 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 conferredby 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 " SWJ - 13 " and with brand name " SWARN" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s Swarm Weight- Scale Sales & Service, SurveyNo. 12/14/4, Shanti Nagar, Bhosari , Pune-411039 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/401 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type) with amaximum capacity of 30kg. and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verfication scale interval (e) is 2g.It has ature devicewith a100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

-300mm

330m

SWARN

SEAL WITH STAMPING PLATE

643564

5645681

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e' value of 1mg to 50 mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to100,000 for' e' value of 100mg. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negativewhole number or equal to zero, martufactured 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 (247)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1733 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 565.- 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 स्वर्ण वेट स्केल सेल्ज एंड सर्विस , सर्वे नं. 12/14/4 , शाति नगर , भोसारी , पुणे 411039 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसडब्ल्यूएल -11 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वर्ण " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/402 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

SWARN

コ

STAMPING PLATE

REAL ING

565

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले पर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम 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 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 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के "ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और "ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 5x10 के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (247 )/2010]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 540G1 /11-3 1734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 565. 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 of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " SWL - 11" and with brand name " SWARN" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), maunfactured by M/ s Swarn Weight -Scale Sales & Service, Survey No. 12/14/4 , Shanti Nagar , Bhosari, Pune-411039 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 10/402;

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type) with amaximum capacity of 30kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verfication 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 results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

STAMPING PLATE SEA ING

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision oftheModel

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

The instrumenthas external control to calibration. Adip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board todisable 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. with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of Img . to 2 g . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 /(247)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1735 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 566.-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 स्वर्ण वेट स्केल सेल्ज एंड सर्विस , सर्वे नं. 12/14/4 , शांति नगर , भोसारी , पुणे-411039 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसडब्ल्यूपी -7 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम "स्वर्ण " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/403 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 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 ।

SPALING

SEAL WITH STAMPING PLATE

PLAR

FRONT VIEW

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 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 और 5x10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्यहैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 247) /2010 ] बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1736

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

New Delhi , the 31st, January, 2011

S.O. 566. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained-use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " SWP -7 " and with brand name " SWARN " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Swarn Weight-Scale Sales & Service, SurveyNo. 12/14/4 , Shanti Nagar, Bhosari , Pune- 411039 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/403;

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 of 2 kg. The verfication scale interval (e) is 100g. It has atare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing resultes . The instrument operates on 230 Volts or 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

SEALINKG

SEAL WITH STAMPING MAΓΕ

PLAY よりま

FRONT VIEW

Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

The instrument has external control to calibration. Adip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board todisable 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 ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and up to 5000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k or 5x10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21(247)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1737 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 567.-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 मांप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त 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 स्वर्ण वेट स्केल सेल्ज एंड सर्विस , सर्वे नं. 12/14/4 , शांति नगर , भांसारी , पुणे-411039 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसडब्ल्यूबी-5 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वर्ण " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/404 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 कि.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 ।

08000

VAL

SWARN

B1559

8:56

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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 का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन 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 ( 247 )/2010 ]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 31st, January, 2011

S.O. 567. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " SWB - 5 " and with brand name " SWARN" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/s Swarn Weight- Scale Sales & Service, Survey No 12/14/4, Shanti Nagar, Bhosari , Pune- 411039 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/404;

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

Figure- 1

SEAL WO SIAM STAMPING MATH

WARN

B1550

Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of the sealing provision of the Model

Sealing is done on the right side /back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display The seal is connected by 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. 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 above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21(247)/2010]

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

1739 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 568.-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 बजरंग दास स्केल , उद्योग नगर , अमरेली रोड, सावरकुंडला, जिला अमरेली , पिन -364515 , ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता - II) वाले " एसएच टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शिवालिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/391 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र 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 अंतराल (ई ) 2 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 ।

MANS

STAMPINKE PLA SIDE SGALAND

LOAD SEAL

OFF

888888

ON- OFF

TARE

ZERO

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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 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 100,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 100,000 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 घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 243 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1740

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 568. 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 Accruacy (Accuracy class - II) of series " SHT " and with brand name " SHIVALIK" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s Bajrang Das Scale Udyog Nagar, Amreli Road, Savarkundla, Dist. Amreli, Pin- 364515 , (Guj .) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/391;

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

Figure- 1

MANS

STAMPUNKE PLATK SADE REALI

LOAD SEAL

ON OFF

888888

ON- OFF

TARE

ZERO

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

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

The instrument has external control to calibration. 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 ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance ofs e series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e' value of 1mg. to 50mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the renge of 5000 to 100,000 for ' e' value of 100mg. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No.WM- 21/(243 )/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1741 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 569,-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 बजरंग दास स्केल , उद्योग नगर , अमरेली रोड , सावरकुंडला , जिला अमरेली , पिन -364515 , ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III) वाले " एसएचटीटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शिवालिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/392 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 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 तोल परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

-300mm

120mm

240mm

330mm

OTHER SIDE SEALING

SHIVALIK

SEAL WITH STAMPING PLATE

569

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । माडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्तदिया 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 उक्तमॉडल 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 मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5.ग्रा. 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 या 5x10 *, के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (243 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 540GI/11-4 1742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the31st January, 2011

S.O. 569. 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 conferredby sub- sections (7) and (8) ofSection 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 Accruacy (Accuracy class - III) ofseries " SHTT" andwith brand name" SHIVALIK " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), manufactured by M/s Bajrang Das Scale Udyog Nagar,Amreli Road, Savarkundla, Dist. Amreli, Pin- 364515, (Guj .) and which is assigned the approval mask IND/09/10/392;

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

Figure-1

300mm-

240mm

SHIVALIK

OTHES AIDE SEALING

SEAL WITH STAMPING PLATE

564

563

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision oftheModel

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body ofthe display. The seal is connectedbyhole inbase plate andtop cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model is given above.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Govemment hereby declares that this certificate ofapproval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval (n) intherange of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 1mg . to 2g and with verification scale interval (n) in the renge of5000 to 10,000 for ' e' valueof 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , 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 withwhich, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No.WM-21/(243)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 1743 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 570.-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 शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स बजरंग दास स्केल , उद्योग नगर, अमरेली रोड , सावरकुंडला, जिला अमरेली, पिन -364 515, ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग - III) वाले " एसएचपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शिवालिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/393 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. 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 उपर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

SEAM

OTHER SIDE

SEALING

STAMPIONEPLATE

570

1248

570

आकृति 2 - मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुडे हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कचर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्तदिया 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 धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या सूज्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (243)/2010] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 570.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accruacy (Accuracy class - III) of series " SHP" and with brand name " SHIVALIK" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Bajrang Das Scale, Udyog Nagar, Amreli Road, Savarkundla, Dist. Amreli, Pin- 364 515 (Guj .) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/393;

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

Figure- 1

SEN WAH PING PLATE

OTERSDE SEAT

570

1249

570

Figure 2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe Model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by whole in base płate & top cover of display, than 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 A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 5000kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10 kor 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 (243)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1745 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 571.-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 शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री नकोदा स्केल्स, नं. 83 , नालन्दा इंड. एस्टेट , गिरनार स्कूटर कंपाउंड, कठवाड़ा रोड, ओढव रिंग रोड सर्किल , ओढव , अहमदाबाद-382415 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III) वाले " एसएनएसटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " रिलायबल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/252 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 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 वोल्टऔर 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

200mm-

240mm

OTHER SIDE SEALING

SEAL,WITH STAMPING PLATE

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 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 1 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधि क के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 10,000 तक 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. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 159 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 571. 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 Accruacy (Accuracy class - III) ofseries " SNS- T" and with brand name " RELIABLE" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Shree Nakoda Scale. No. 83, Nalanda Ind. Estate, Girnar Scooter Compound, Kathwada Road , Odhav Ring-Road Circle, Odhav, Ahmedabad- 382415 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/252;

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

Figure 1

200mm-

120mm

240m

ABLE

OTHER SIDE SEALING

SEAL WITH STAMPING PLATI

Figure 2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 1mg . to 2g . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value 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 andwith the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No.WM-21 ( 159)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1747 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 572.- 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 श्री नकोदा स्केल्स , नं. 83 , नालन्दा इंड. एस्टेट , गिरनार स्कूटर कंपाउंड , कठवाड़ा रोड, ओढव रिंग रोड सर्किल, ओढव , अहमदाबाद-382415 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता- III) वाले " एसएनएसपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " रिलायबल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन' डी/09/10/253 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 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 ।

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्प्ले के राइट साइड/बैक साइड में 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 निकालकर 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 डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 159 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART I-SBC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 572. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series " SNS- P " and with brand name "RELIABLE " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s . Shree Nakoda Scales , No. 83 Nalanda Ind. Estate, Girnar Scooter Compound, Kathwada Road, Odhav Ring Road Circle, Odhav, Ahmedabad- 382415 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/253;

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

Figure- 1

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision oftheModel

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. 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 1x10 * , 2x10k or 5x10 * , 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 ( 159)/2010]

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

1749 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 573.-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 , पटनवा , रामनगर , चन्दौली जिला , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता - III ) वाले " वीईडब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलैक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) 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/ 313 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलैक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोल परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

Head hole screw

Fastrack

325650

Lead seal

Head hole screw

868886

(Indicator oftheWeighbridge - Front Side)

573

Leed seal

Sealing wire

513

(Indicator of the Weighbridge Lower back Side)

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्केल की बाडी के छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । माडल को सीलबन्द 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 विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन 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 ( 180 ) /2010 ]

बी, एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 540Gl/11-5 1750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 573. 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 över periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of Medium Accruacy ( Accuracy class - III) of series " VEW" 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/ 313 ;

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

Figure- 1

Headhole screw Fastrack

325650

Lead seal

Head hole screw

888888

(Indicator of theWeighbridge -Front Side)

573

Lead seal

0000

Sealing wire

573

( Indicator of the Weighbridge -Lower back Side) Figure - 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe Motel

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the indicator 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 of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or above and with ' e' value 1x10k, 2x10 kor 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 /( 180)/2010 ]

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

1751 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

भास्तीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 21 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 574.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए बामक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 12177:1987 की संशोधन संख्या 1

31-12-2010

1, दिसम्बर 2010

आई एस 12958 : 1990 की संशोधन संख्या 1

31-12-2010

1, दिसम्बर 2010

इन भारतीय संशोधानों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चैन्नई , मुम्बई , तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : ईटी 03 /टी -16 , टी , -28 ] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 21st January , 2011

S.O. 574. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau ofIndian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:-

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Sl . No.

No. & year of theAmendment

Datefromwhich the Amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 .

31-12-2010

1, December 2010

IS 12177 : 1987 Methods of Tests for OxidativeAgeing of Electrical Insulating Petroleum Oils by Open Beaker Method

31-12-2010

1, December 2010

IS 12958 : 1990 Oxidation Stability ofInhibited Mineral Insulating Oil by Rotating Bomb Method of Test

Copy ofthisAmendment is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai, Mumabi and also Branch offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ET03 /T- 16, T-28 ]

R. K. TREHAN, Scientist ' E ' & Head (Electro Technical ) 1752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 575.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

28 फरवरी , 2010 आई एस 15890: 2010 लकड़ी के लिए सौर शुष्कन भट्टी के डिजाइन , संस्थापन और

परीक्षण - मार्गदर्शिका

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

तिथि: 9-2-2011

[संदर्भ : सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 9th February , 2011

S.O. 575. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

28 February, 2010 IS 15890 : 2010 Design , Installation and Testing of Solar Timber Seasoning Kiln Guidelines

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

[Ref: CED/Gazette]

A. K. SAINI, Sc ' F ' & Head (Civil Engg .) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1753 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 576.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 4984: 1995

6 जनवरी , 2011

7-2-2011

आई एस 15778 : 2007

7-2-2011

1जनवरी , 2011

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110 002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुबनेश्वर , कोअम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र]

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 576.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) ofRules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :-

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. No. & Year of the Indian Standards No.& year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 4984: 1995

6January, 2011

7 February, 2011

IS 15778 : 2007

1 January, 2011

7February, 2011

Copy of these amendments are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyerabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune, Triruvananthapuram.

[Ref.CED/Gazette]

A. K. SAINI, Sc'F' & Head (Civil Engg.) [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1754

नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2011

का.आ. 577.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे . स्थापित हो गए हैं: -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1मार्च 2011

आई एस 1879 :1987

1. आई एस 1879: 2010 - धातवर्ध्या ढलवां लोहा पाइप फिटिंग- विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकावा , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी6/टी-1 ]

पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2011

S.O.577.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each ::

SCHEDULE

Date of Established SI.No. No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

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

(3)

(2)

(1)

1March, 2011

IS1879: 1987

1. IS 1879 : 2010 malleable cast iron pipe fittings - Specification (third revision)

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata,Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MTD 6/T- 1 ]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' F' & Head (MTD)

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 578.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: - 1755 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

अनुसूची

क्रम

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या

सं. वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 मार्च 2011 आई एस 6047 : 2009 बर्तनों की सफाई के लिए अभिमार्जन उत्पाद विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ : सीएचडी 25/आईएस 6047 : 2009 ] ई. देवेन्दर , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2011

S.O. 578. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each ::

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date of Established No. &Year of the Indian Standard Established

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1March, 2011 1. IS 6047: 2009 Scouring Products for Utensil Cleaning - Specification (FirstRevision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: CHD 25/IS 6047 : 2009]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F & Head (Chemical)

नई दिल्ली , 15 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 579.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मामक ( कों ) की संख्या सं. वर्ष और शीर्षक

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

12832 : 1989

30सितम्बर 2010 1. आई एस 12832 : 2010 स्वचल वाहन भीतरी शोर मापन पद्धति एवं अपेक्षाएँ (पहला पुनरीक्षण) 1756

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालप्पों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : टी ई डी/जी-16 ]

टी. वी. सिंह, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी )

New Delhi , the 15th February, 2011

S.O. 579. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each ::

SCHEDULE

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

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

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

12832: 1989

30 Sept. 2010 IS 12832 : 2010 Automotive vehicles - interior noise Method of measurement and requirements ( first revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: TED/G- 16]

T. V. SINGH, Scientist F & Head (Transport Engg.)

कोयला मंत्रालय

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 580.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 2414 तारीख 28 अगस्त, 2009 के भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खण्ड -3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 5 सितम्बर, 2009 में प्रकाशित होने पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , आई. बी. ब्लाक XIII , ( तालाबीरा- II ) , तालाबीरा क्षेत्र , जिला- सम्बलपुर, उड़ीसा ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शतों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इसे निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि और इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार , तारीख 5 सितम्बर , 2009 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाए , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-

1. सरकारी कंपनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज , नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गये सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;

2. सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता करने के 1757 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंधो में उपगत सभी व्यय, सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किये जायेंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार के लिए या उसके संबंध में जैसे अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी , इसी प्रकार सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे ;

3. सरकारी कम्पनौ , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की , ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी , जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में कैस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आबश्यक हो;

4. सरकारी कम्पनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि के सभी अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्तियों को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी ; और

5. सरकारी कम्पनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[फा. सं. - 43015/2/2007- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ]

एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 580.- Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 2414 dated the 28th August, 2009 published in the Gazette of India , Part - II Section 3 , Sub-section (ii), dated the 5th September, 2009 issued under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the land and all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub -section ( 1) of Section 10 of the saidAct;

And, whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited , IB Block XIII (Talabira - II) , Talabira Area, District- Sambalpur. , Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby direct , that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall, with effect from the 5th September, 2009, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions , namely : -

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

2.A Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under conditions ( 1 ) , and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. , for or in connection with the rights , in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government Company;

3. TheGovernment Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials , regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested.

4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and

5. TheGovernment Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land , as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/2/2007 - PRIW - I ] S. C. BHATIA , Director 540G1/11-6 1758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 581.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विक्तिस ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 कीउप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1238 तारीख 5 मई , 2010 जो भारत के -II , खण्ड -3 , उप - खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 15 मई 2010 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिरिष्ट सत्र की भूमि बन अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी गई थी ;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर बार करने के पश्चात् और मध्य प्रदेश सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 237.00 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या. 511.50 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि एवं उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिएं ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 की धास की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 207.00 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 511.50 एकड़ ( लगभग ) वाली भूमि व भूमि पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या एनसीएल/मुख्यालय/ राजस्व/ 2010/64 तारीख 9 दिसम्बर , 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर, सिंगरौली मध्य प्रदेश के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता ( पिन 700 001 ) के कार्यालय में या नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राजस्व अनुभाग , सिंगरौली , मध्य प्रदेश-486889 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

खुबीयुआ ब्लाक विस्तार- ( कोल माईनिंग ब्लाक )

नार्दर्न कोळावील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सिंगरौली ,

किल्ला-सिंगरौली ( मध्य प्रदेश )

(रेखांक संख्या एनसीएल/मुख्यालय/ राजस्व/ 2010/ 64 तारीख 9 दिसम्बर, 2010 )

सभी अधिकार :

क्रम सं

मौजा/ग्राम का नाम

ग्राम संख्यांक

थाना का नाम

131

मोरवा

1. मेढ़ौली .

140 पंजरेह (पिजरेह ) मोरवा

चटका

135

मोरवा

मोरवा 137 झिगुरदा

टिप्पणी

तहसील जिला

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टर में)

क्षेत्रफल ( एकड़ में)

भाग

87.001

214.98

सिंगरौली सिंगरौली

भाग

सिंगरौली सिंगरौली

81.999

202.62

भाग सिंगरौली

86.50

सिंगरौली

35.006

7.40

भाग

2.994

सिंगरौली सिंगरौली

कुल क्षेत्र 207,00 (लगभग)

511,50 (लगभग)

1. ग्राम मेढ़ौली में अर्जित प्लाट संख्यांक :-402( भाग ) , 403 , 404, 405( भाग ) , 410( भाण) , 411 ( भाग ) , 412 ( भाग ) , 513 ( भाग ) , 514( भाग ) , 522 ( भाग ) , 523 ( भाग ) , और 414/603 ( भाग )

2. ग्राम पंजरेह ( पिजरेह ) में अर्जित प्लाट संख्यांक:-172( भाग ) , 186 ( भाग ) , 188 ( भाग ) , 189( भाग ) , 190 ( भाग ) , 193 ( भाग ) , 194( भाग ) , 195 , 196, 197 , 198 , 198/1 ( भाग ) , 198/2 , 198/3 , 198/4, 199 और 200

3. ग्राम चटका में अर्जित प्लाट संख्यांक:-53 ( भाग ) , 54( भाग ) , 55 ( भाग ) , 56 ( भाग ) , 58 ( भाग ) और 53/59 ( भाग ) , 4. ग्राम झिंगुरदा में अर्जित प्लाट संख्यांक: -403 ( भाग ) और 404( भाग )

सीमा वर्णन:-

क-ख रेखा बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम मेढ़ौली के प्लाट संख्यांक 410 , 411 से होकर जाती है और जयन्त ब्लाक विस्तार ( सब ब्लाक- V ) की पूर्व अर्जित सीमा पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा प्लाट संख्या 411 और 406 की सम्मिलित सीमा के बिन्दु "ख " पर मिलती है । 1759 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

ख- ग रेखा बिन्दु " ख " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम मेढ़ौली के प्लाट संख्यांक 411 और 406 की सम्मिलित सीमा , प्लाट संख्यांक 404 और 405 की सम्मिलित्त सीमा और दुधीचुआ ब्लाक विस्तार की पूर्व अर्जित सीमा पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।

ग- घ रेखा बिन्दु " ग " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम मेढ़ौली के प्लाट संख्यांक 405 , 513 , 523 और 522 से होकर जाती है और दुधीचुआ ब्लाक विस्तार की पूर्व अर्जित सीमा पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-ङ रेखा बिन्दु " घ " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम मेढ़ौली के प्लाट संख्यांक 522 , 513 और 514 से होकर जाती है और दुधीचुआ ब्लाक -1 की पूर्व अर्जित सीमा पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा ग्राम मेढ़ौली और ग्राम पंजरेह ( पिजरेह ) की सम्मिलित सीमा के बिन्दु " ङ " पर मिलती है ।

ङ- च रेखा बिन्दु " ङ " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम मेढ़ौली और ग्राम पंजरेह ( पिजरेह ) मेढ़ौली- चटका, करवारी- चटका और करवारी - झिगुरदा की सम्मिलित सीमा पर से होकर जाती है और दुधीचुआ ब्लाक -1 की पूर्व अर्जित ( उपरोक्त वर्णित सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा और अर्जित खान श्रीमा बिन्दु " ङ " और " च " के बीच वही है ) सीमा पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च - छ रेखा बिन्दु " च " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम झिगुरदा के प्लाट संख्यांक 404 एवं 403 से होकर जाती है तथा ग्राम चटका के प्लाट संख्यांक 58 से होकर गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।.

छ - ज रेखा बिन्दु " छ " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम चटका के प्लाट संख्यांक 58 , 55 , 56 , 54 , 53 , 53/59 से होकर और ग्राम पंजरेह (पिजरेह ) के प्लाट संख्यांक 186 , 198/1 से होकर गुजरती है तथा प्लाट संख्यांक 198/1 और 188 की सम्मिलित सीमा के बिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है ।

ज- झ रेखा बिन्दु " ज " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम पंजरेह ( पिजरेह ) के प्लाट संख्यांक 188 , 189 ,190 193 और 172 से होकर से होकर गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती है ।

झ - क रेखा बिन्दु " झ " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम पंजरेह ( पिजरेह ) के प्लाट संख्यांक 172 और 194 से होकर तथा ग्राम मेढ़ौली के प्लाट संख्यांक 402 , 412 , 414/603 , पुनः412 और 410 से होकर गुजरती है तथा आरम्भिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/15/2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ]

एस. सी. भाटिया, निदेशक New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 581. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1238 dated the 5th May, 2010, issued under sub- section ( 1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India , Part - II , Section- 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) , dated the 15th May, 2010, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 207.00 hectares (approximately ) or 511.50 acres ( approximately ) lands and all rights in or over such land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And, whereas , the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government;

And, whereas , the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 207.00 hectares (approximately ) or 511.50 acres ( approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto should be acquired ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Gentral Government hereby declares that the land measuring 207.00 hectares (approximately) or 511.50 acres (approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number NCL/HQ/REVENUE/2010/64 dated the 9th December 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh or at the office of the Coal Controller, I , Council House Street , Kolkata (Pin - 700 001) or at the office of the Northern Coalfields Limited, Revenue Section, Singrauli , Madhya Pradesh -486889.

1760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Dudhichua Block Extension - II ( Coal Mining Block)

Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli ,

District- Singrauli ( Madhya Pradesh)

(Planbearing number : NCL/HQ/REV/2010/64 dated the 9th December 2010 )

AllRights:

S1 . No

Village Number

Nameof Tehsil

Nameof Police Thana

Name of Mouzal . Village

1. Medhauli

Morwa 131

Singrauli

140

Singrauli

Panjreh (Pijreh) Morwa.

Morwa 135 3. Chatka

Singrauli

Morwa 137 Jhingurda

Singrauli

Remarks Nameof District

Area (in hectares)

Area ( in acres)

87.001

Part

214.98

Singrauli

81.999

Part

202.62

Singrauli

35.006

86.50

Part Singrauli

7.40

2.994

Part Singrauli

TotalArea:

207.00

511.50

(approximately) (approximately)

( 1) Plot Numbers acquired in village Medhauli : 402 (P) , 403 , 404, 405 (P), 410 (P), 411 (P) , 412 (P), 513 (P) , 514 (P) , 522 (P) , 523 ( P) , and 414/603 (P) .

(2) Plot Numbers acquired in village Panjreh ( Pijreh) : 172 (P), 186 (P) , 188 (P) , 189 (P), 190 (P) , 193 (P) , 194 ( P) , 195, 196, 197,198 , 198/1 (P) , 198/2 , 198/3 , 198/4, 199 and 200 .

(3 ) Plot Numbers acquired in village Chatka : 53 (P), 54 (P) , 55 (P) , 56 (P), 58 (P) and 53/59 (P) .

(4) Plot Numbers acquired in village Jhingurda : 403 (P) and 404 (P) .

Boundary Description :

A-B The line starts from point "A" and passes through Plot Nos . 410, 411 of village Medhauli and passes over the previously acquired boundary of Jayant Block Extension (Sub Block-V) and meets on common plot boundary of PlotNo. 411 and 406 at point "B " .

B- C Line starts from point " B " and passes through common plot boundary of plot Nos . 411 and 406 and common plot boundary of Plot Nos . 404 and 405 of village Medhauli and passes over the previously acquired boundary ofDudhichua Block Extension and meets at point "C" .

C-D Line starts from point " C" and passes through plot nos . 405, 513 , 523 and 522 of village Medhauli and passes over the previously acquired boundary of Dudhichua Block extension and meets at point "D" .

D-E Line starts from point " D" and passes through plot nos . 522, 513 and 514 , of village Medhauli and passes over the previously acquired boundary of Dudhichua Block - I and meets on common village boundary of village Medhauli - Panjreh (Pijreh) at point "E" E-F Line starts from point "E" and passes over common village boundaries ofMedhauli - Panjreh (Pijreh) , Medhauli- Chatka, Karwari Chatka and Karwari - Jhingurda, and the same line passes over the previously acquired boundary of Dudhichua Block - I (the common village boundary of above mentioned and the acquired mine boundary are the same between point "E" and " F " ) and meets at point "F " .

F-G Line starts from point "F" and passes through plot nos . 404 and 403 ofvillage Jhingurda and plot no . 58 of village Chatka and meets at point "G" .

G -H Line starts from point " G" and passes through plot nos , 58 , 55, 56, 54, 53 and 53/59 of village Chatka and plot Nos . 186 and 198/1 of village Panjreh (Pijreh) and meets on common plot boundary of plot No. , 198/1 and 188 at point "H" .

H-I Line starts from point " H" and passes through plot Nos . 188,189,190, 193 and 172 of village Panjreh (Pijreh) and meets at point "I " 1761 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

Line starts from point "I" and passes through plot nos . 172 and 194of village, Panjreh (Pijreh) and plot nos .402, 412, 414/603 and again 412 and 410 of village Medhauli and meets at the starting point "A" . I -A

[F. No. 43015/15/2009 -PRIW - I] S. C. BHATIA, Director

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 582.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उप - धास ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1933 , तारीख 3 अगस्त, 2010 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खण्ड -3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 7 अगस्त , 2010 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि और उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और छत्तीसगढ सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 45.996 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 113.66 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिएं;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 45.996 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 113.66 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्याक एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम( पीएलजी ) /भूमि/392 , तारीख 4 अक्तूबर, 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर, कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत राड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

सरईपाली खुली खदान ( पहला विस्तार ) कोयला ब्लाक, कोरबा क्षेत्र ,

जिला-कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

[रेखांक संख्यांक एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम( पीएलजी )/ भूमि/392 , तारीख 4 अक्तूबर 2010 ]

सभी अधिकार: -

जिला

तहसील

टिप्पणियां ग्राम का नाम

क्षेत्र (हेक्टर में)

पटवारी हल्का संख्यांक

ग्राम संख्यांक

क्रम सं

भाग

41.277

पाली

कोरबा

बुडबुड

भाग

पाली

कोरबा

4.719

राहाडीह

66 68

कुल:- 45.996 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 113.66 एकड़ ( लगभग ) 1. ग्राम बुडबुड ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले ब्लाट संख्या -1/3 , 1/4 , 2 से4,6, 7( भाग ) , 14 से 22, 23 ( भाग ) , 27/3 (भाग ) , 139 ( भाग ) , 140/1 ( भाग ) , 140/2,165 से 167 , 169 ( भाग ) , 178 ( भाग ) , 179 से 196 , 197( भाग ) , 198 से 247 , 251 ( भाग ) , 259 ( भाग ) , 260 ( भाग ) , 261 ( भाग ) , 262 से 264 , 265( भाग ) , 380 से 388 , 511 , 512 , 518 से 522 , 532 से 534 , 535( भाग ) , 540 ( भाग ) , 617( भाग ) , 618 से 620 , 621 ( भाग ) ।

2. ग्राम राहाडीह ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:-48 ( भाग ) , 49,66,67 , 68( প্রাণ ) , 73 , 74, 75( भाग ) , 76(भाग ) , 77/2, 78 ( भाग ) , 79 ( भाग ) , 81 ( भाग ) , 95( भाग ) 103/7 । 1762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] सीमा वर्णन: -

ब्लाक 1 :

क- ख रेखा, ग्राम बुडबुड में बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और उसी ग्राम के प्लाट संख्यांक 165 , 166 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा 140/1 , 139 , 197 , 621 से होकर प्लाट संख्यांक 619 की पूर्वी सीमा और 621 , 617 से होती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 230 , 264 के भागतः पूर्वी सीमा से होकर बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख- क रेखा , ग्राम बुडबुड के प्लाट संख्यांक 264 के भागतः पूर्वी सीमा तथा 261 , 265 , 260 , 259 से होकर फिर प्लाट संख्यांक 261 के भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा और 251 से गुजरती हुई फिर 247 के भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा तथा 251 , 178 से होती हुई 180 ,181 , 182 के दक्षिणी सीमा और 169 से गुजरती हुई फिर 167 के दक्षिणी सीमा और 167 , 165 के पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई आरम्भिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

ब्लाक 2 :

ग - घ रेखा , ग्राम बुडबुड ढुकुपथरा की सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " ग " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम बुडबुड के प्लाट संख्यांक 4 , 1/4 , 1/3 , के पश्चिमी , 1/3 के उत्तरी , 1/3 , 3 के पूर्वी सीमा तथा 7 से होकर 15 , 14 के पूर्वी सीमा और 27/3 , 23 से गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 384 , 385 , 388 के उत्तरी और पूर्वी 387 , 386 के पूर्वी 386 के दक्षिणी सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है । घ- ग रेखा , ग्राम बुडबुड ढुकुपथरा के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और आरम्भिक बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है । ब्लाक 3 :

ङ - च रेखा , ग्राम बुडबुड- तालापार की सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " ङ " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम बुडबुड के प्लाट संख्यांक 518 , 519 के पश्चिमी, प्लाट संख्यांक 519 के उत्तरी , प्लाट संख्यांक 512 के भागतः दक्षिणी और पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लाट संख्यांक 511 के भागतः पश्चिमी और उत्तरी , प्लाट संख्यांक 512 , 522 , 521 , 532 के उत्तरी और पूर्वी, प्लाट संख्यांक 532 के दक्षिणी , 534 के पूर्वी, प्लाट संख्यांक 535 के उत्तरी तथा प्लाट संख्यांक 540 के उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा से होती हुई ग्राम बुडबुड - राहाडीह के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च- ङ रेखा , ग्राम बुडबुड के प्लाट संख्यांक 540 , 535 से होकर जाती है फिर ग्राम बुडबुड- तालापार की भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई आरम्भिक बिन्दु " ङ " पर मिलती है ।

ब्लाक 4 :

छ - ज रेखा, ग्राम बुडबुड में बिन्दु " छ " से आरंभ होती है और प्लाट संख्यांक 620 के उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा से होती हुई ब्रिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है ।

ज- छ रेखा , ग्राम बुडबुड के प्लाट संख्या 620 के दक्षिणी और पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

ब्लाक 5 :

झ -ञ रेखा , ग्राम बुडबुड- राहाडीह की सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " झ " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम राहाडीह के प्लाट संख्यांक 49 के उत्तरी और पूर्वी प्लाट संख्यांक 48 की पूर्वी सीमा प्लाट संख्यांक 79 , 78 , 77/2 , 81 , 74 , 66 , 67 , 68 की उत्तरी सीमा प्लाट संख्यांक 95 , 103/7 के पश्चिमी , उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ञ " पर मिलती है ।

ञ- झ रेखा , ग्राम राहाडीह के प्लाट संख्यांक 103/7 की दक्षिणी सीमा और प्लाट संख्यांक 95 , 68 से होकर प्लाट संख्यांक 67 के दक्षिणी सीमा तथा 68 से होती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 73 की दक्षिणी सीमा तथा 75 , 76 , 81 से गुजरती हुई 77/2 के दक्षिणी सीमा और 78 , 79 , 48 से होकर प्लाट संख्यांक 49 के दक्षिणी और पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/20/2009-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ] एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 18th February, 2011

S.O. 582. Whereas by by the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1933 dated the 3rdAugust, 2010 issued under sub -section ( 1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) 1763 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932.

Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - II, Section 3, Sub- section ( ii) dated the 7th August , 2010, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 45.996 hectares or 113.66 acres land as all rights in or over such land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government;

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government of Chhattisgarh, is satisfied that the land measuring 45.996 hectares (approximately) or 113.66 acres ( approximately) as all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto , should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuing 45.996 hectares (approximately) or 113.66 acres ( approximately) as all rights in or over such land as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The Planbearing number SECL/BSP /GM( PLG) /LAND/ 392, dated the 4th October, 2010 ofthe area covered by this notification may be inspected at the Office ofthe Collector, Korba (Chhattisgarh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkata- 700001 or at the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh) .

SCHEDULE

Saraipali OC ( 1st Extension) Coal Block, KorbaArea District- Korba (Chhattisgarh)

(Planbearing number SECL/BSP /GM (PLG)/LAND/392, dated the 4th October, 2010)

All Rights:

Remarks

District

Tahsil

Name of village

Area in hectares

S1 . No.

Village number

Patwari halka number

Part

Korba

41.277

Pali

1. Budbud

Part

Pali

4.719

Korba

2 . Rahadih

Total : 45.996 hectares ( approximately) or 113.66 acres ( approximately) 1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Budbud (Part) : 1/3 , 1/4, 2 to 4, 6, 7 (P) , 14 to 22, 23 (P ) , 27/3 (P) , 139 (P) , 140/1 (P) , 140/2 , 165 to 167, 169 (P) , 178 (P), 179 to 196, 197 (P) , 198 to 247, 251 (P), 259 (P), 260 (P) , 261 (P), 262 to 264, 265 (P ) , 380 to 388 , 511 , 512, 518 to 522 , 532 to 534 , 535 (P) , 540(P) , 617 (P) , 618 to 620, 621 (P) .

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Rahadih (Part) : 48 (P) , 49, 66, 67, 68 (P) , 73 , 74, 75(P ) , 76(P) , 77/2 , 78 (P) , 79( P) , 81 (P ) , 95 (P ) , 103/7 .

Boundary Description :

Block- 1 :

A-B Line starts from point " A " in village Budbud and passes along the northern boundary of plot number 165,166 , through 140/ 1,139,197,621 , eastern boundary ofplot number 619, through 621, 617, partly eastern boundary ofplot number 230 , 264 and meets at point "B " .

B-A Line passes in village Budbud along partly eastern boundary ofplot number 264, through 261, 265, 260, 259, then along partly southern boundary of plot number 261 , through 251 , then along partly southern boundary of plot number 247 , through 251 , 178, along southern boundary of plot number 180,181 , 182, through plot number 169, then along southern boundary ofplot number 167, western boundary of plot number 167, 165 and meets at starting point "A".

Block- 2 :

C-D Line starts from point "C " on the common boundary of villages Budbud -Dhukupathara and passes in village Budbud along western boundary of plot number 4, 1/4, 1/3, northern boundary of plot number 1/3 , eastern 1764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] boundary ofplot number 1/3 , 3 , through 7, eastern boundary ofplot number 15 , 14, through 27/3 , 23 , northern and eastern boundary ofplot number 384, 385 , 388 , eastern boundary of plot number 387 , 386, southern boundary of plot number 386 and meets at point "D " .

D-C Line passes along the partly common boundary ofvillages Budbud - Dhukupathara and meets at starting point 'C' .

Block- 3 :

E-F Line starts from point "E" on the common boundary of villages Budbud-Talapar and passes in village Budbud along western boundary of plot number 518, 519 northern boundary of plot number 519 , partly southern and western boundary of plot number 512 , partly western and northern boundary of plot number 511 , northern and easternboundary of plot number 512, 522 , 521 , 532 , southern boundary ofplot number 532, eastern boundary of plot number 534, northern boundary of plot number 535, northern and eastern boundary ofplotinamber 540 and meets at point "F " on the common boundary of villages Budbud- Rahadih .

F-E Line passes in village Budbud through plot number 540, 535 then along partly common boundary of villages Budbud -Talapar and meets at starting point "E" .

Block-4:

G-H Line starts from point "G " in village Budbud and passes along northern and eastern boundary of plot number 620 and meets at point "H " .

HG Line passes in village Budbud along southern and western boundary of plot number 620 and meets at starting point "G".

Block - 5 :

I-J Line starts from point "I " on the common boundary of villages Budbud - Rahadih and passes in village Rahadih along northern and eastern boundary of plot number 49 , eastern boundary of plot number 48, northern boundary of plot number 79, 78 , 77/2 , 81 , 74, 66 , 67 , 68 , western , northern and eastern boundary of plot number 95, 103/7 and meets at point "J" .

J-I Line passes in village Rahadih along southern boundary of plot number 103/7, through 95, 68, southern boundary ofplot number 67, through 68, northern boundary of plot number 73, through 75, 76, 81 , southern boundary ofplot number 77/2 , through 78 , 79, 48 , southern and western boundary ofplot number 49 and meets at starting point " I " .

[F. No.-43015/20/2009- PRIW- I] S. C. BHATIA, Director

;

आदेश

नई दिल्ली , 18 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 583.-कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( i ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 2323 तारीख 13 सितम्बर 2010 , जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 18 सितम्बर , 2010 में प्रकाशित होने पर, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहितं हो गए थे;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह संमाधान हो गया है कि साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सीपत रोड, डाकघर संख्या 60 , जिला-बिलासपुर -495006 ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए तैयार है;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार, तारीख 18 सितम्बर , 2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाए, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-

1. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज , नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गये सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1765 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

2. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता करने के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंधों में उपगत सभी व्यय , उक्त कंपनी द्वारा वहन किए जायेंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार के लिए या उसके संबंध में जैसे अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी , इसी प्रकार उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे;

3. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी , जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो;

4. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि के सभी अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. उक्त सरकारी कम्पनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

[फा. सं. 43015/22/2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

ORDER

New Delhi, the 18th, February, 2011

S.O. 583. Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2323 , dated the 13th September, 2010 published in the Gazette of India, Part - II, Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii) , dated the 18th September , 2010 issued under sub - section ( 1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the lands as All Rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub - section ( 1) of Section 10 of the said Act ;

And , whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, P. B. No. 60, District-Bilaspur - 495006 ( hereinafter referred to as the Government Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the said land and all rights in or over such land so vested shall, with effect from 18th September, 2010, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government shall vest in the Government Company , subject to the following terms and conditions namely: -

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

2.A Tribunal shall be constituted under Section 14 of the said Act , for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under condition ( 1 ) , and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said land so vested shall also be borne by the Government Company;

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure thatmay be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;

4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said land all the rights to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and

5. The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/22/ 2008 -PRIW - I ] S. C. BHATIA , Director 540GI/11-7 1766

[ Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 584.- 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 वासुदेबपुर हावडा पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और, भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, उस भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन 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 (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 घोपणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर 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 रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला:भद्रक

राज्य: ओडिशा

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक भंडारी पोखरी

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं./ सब डिविजन सं

आर.ओ.यूअर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

सि एयर

एयर

291

53 1 ) राणीपडा

289

287

1323

286

1322

285

280

1324

276

00 08

279

277

274

273

278

272

00 04

263

262

261

257

27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

259 1 ) राणीपडा (निरंतर)

258

260

179

165

171

166

164

163

162

160

1336

1341

159

158

550

551

157

1337

156

151

150

149

1352

148

147

2 2) बडाकंटापडा

1455

1024

1454

1453

1465

1466

1451

1449

1450

1530

1529

1444

1445

1446

1439

1438

1437

1436

1435

1402

1400

1399

1767 3

00 01

51 00

43 00 02

94 00

82 00

17 00

24 00

30 00 03

48 00 07

79 00 08

29 00 02

55 00 02

37 37

00 04

00 19

00 00

00 01

00 02

00 00

00 09

00 12

00 06

00 05

00 08

00 04

50 1768

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

2 1

1392

2) बडाकंटापडा (निरंतर)

1393

1394

1395

1391

1390

1389

1296

1295

1294

1293

1292

1290

1289

1288

1287

1285

1283

जिला: भद्रक मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक भद्रक देहात

545

1) एरेंडेयी

546

549

547

548

550

551

552

538

557

489

488

487

486

485

484

458

जिला:भद्रक मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: वंत

2413 1 ) तरागो

2404

2405

2403

2402

2400

2401

2399

2398

2408

2406

98 02

57 00

99 00

25 00 08

10 00 00

20 00

29 00 00

40 00

07 00

राज्य:ओडिशा

07 00 04

13 00 05

49 00

22 00

12 00 00

50 00

89 00

40 00 04

94 00

राज्य:ओडिशा

56 00 09

73 00 00

55 00

79 00

93 00

50 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

2397 1) तरागो (निरंतर)

2396

2395

2415

सर्वे सं 2415 और 2420 के बीच में

2420

2421

2370

2663

2360

2362

2359

2358

2357

1520

1564

1526

1528

1529

1530

1527

1536

1561

1554

1555

1552

1553

1551

1550

1547

1548

1549

1538

1539

1467

1540

1541

1465

1466

1439

1463

1461

1441

1459

1442

1769 3

55 00

10 00

00 00

27 00 20

32 00

54 00

70 00

49 10

08 00

10 00

88 00

66 00

82 00

64 12

55 00 16

00 03

18 00

00 00

00 01

00 02

00 06

00 00

00 09

90 1770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

2 1

1444

1) तरागो (निरंतर)

1443

1449

1448

1450

1451

1434

1452

1432

1483

1242

1243

1240

1244

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

82 00

00 04

93 00 04

00 01

51 02

49 04

04 00

00 02

01 03

31 00

27 00

21 00

66 00 07

12 00

27 00

41 00

सर्वे सं 1244 और 1245 के बीच में

1245

1246

1247

1248

1230

1172

1170

1169

1171

1168

1167

1164

1165

1166

1162

1160

1161

1159

1176

1080

1156

1081

1147

1082

1146

1145

16 00

78 00

62 00

20 00

59 00

08 00

00 00

13 00

70 00

72 02

06 02

13 03

40 00 00.

00 04

00 00

33 00

00 09

30 02

14 00

31 00 02

58 00

32 00

47 00

00 05

93 00 00

63 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

1117

1 ) तरागो (निरंतर)

1118

1119

1120

1121

1112

1122

1123

1111

1110

1105

1103

1106

1102

1104

1097

1098

1101

1099

1095

1100

1126

684

869

700

701

702

703

704

705

728

727

708

726

734

725

735

736

3160

749

737

1771 3

08 00

86 00

65 00

39 00 02

06 00

27 00

56 00 02

01 00 02

25 00

76 00 04

39 00

00 05

00 02

00 06

00 00

00 02

00 00

00 02

00 01

00 09

00 01

00 00

00 07

00 06

00 03

00 00

72 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1772

2 1

738

1) तरागो (निरंतर)

739

744

743

740

10 00 00

69 00

01 00

84 00 01

राज्य:ओडिशा

जिला:वालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:सिमिलिया

1079

1) नुआ

1080

1077

2346

1083

1088

1086

1087

1071

1070

1069

1068

1067

1036

1035

1033

1034

1029

10:27

1026

1025

1023

985

986

259

984

981

982

978

268

269

270

266

271

272

275

34 00 05

72 00

90 00 00

52 00 45

32 00

29 00 00

63 00 00

00 01

00 05

09 00

10 00

81 00

22 00 13

10 00

47 00 00

54 00 10

23 00 05

00 00

67 00

00 02

83 00 01

57 00

84 00

20 00 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

273

1) नुआ (निरंतर)

274

197

177

178

179

181

188

187

183

184

186

185

151

150

149

153

154

155

156

157

160

159

158

132

131

130

129

344

128

346

2340

347

348

349

356

355

357

358

540GI/11-8

1773 3

47 00 04

00 22

22 00 00

69 02

83 00 00

12 02

06 03

66 00

46 02

05 00

95 09

23 00 06

51 00 04

59 07

87 00

33 05

71 00 05

43 00

10 00 01

99 00

50 00

00 04

14 00 05

09 00

06 00 05

02 00 06

00 04

99 00

00 03

00 05

32 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1774

2 1

359

1) नुआ (निरंतर )

360

361

362

384

364

363

365

366

367

369

368

2343

2) चक माणतिरी

3) अछुतिपुर

674

4) माणतिरी

672

673

675

676

:677

679

678

692

680

688

690

92 04

08 05

14 07

43 10

10 00

72 03

52 07

69 00

05 00 06

52 00

00 02

11 00

19 00

70 0004

02 00 06

95 00

00 08

12 00

49 00 04

00 02

93 00 05

24 00 05

49 00

86 00 02

10 00

69 00 00

28 00. 01

82 11

16 06

28 00

77 00

00 02

94 00

91 15

76 00 07

15 00

71 00

54 17

89 00

45 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

687 4) माणतिरी (निरंतर)

689

725

737

738

736

1105

739

748

749

799

804

806

811

810

809

808

814

815

830

845

842

841

843

936

937

838

942

941

965

963

962

960

961

34 5 ) सालोमधपुर

22/29

21/28

20/27

7/12

7/13

1775 3

32 00

00 07

69 00 19

10 00

15 06

63 00 00

29 00 06

52 00

92 00

00 13

21 02

80 05

26 00

52 00

45 00

00 00

10 00

86 00

06 04

65 00

00 04

50 00

35 02

06 00

28 12

13 00 00

53 00

97 00

39 00 03

98 00 00

58 19

39 00 03

14 07

84 00 00

97 06

06 00

00 06

72 00 02

33 00

46 11

00 1776

[ Part II-Sec. 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

2 1

8/14

5) सालोमधपुर (निरंतर)

9/15

4/4

1230

6) चंदनपुर

1234

1233

1232

1231

1235

1236

1237

1243

1241

1242

1240

1239

1238

1147

1145

1146

1149

1148

1131.

1132

1130

1129

1122

1121

1118

945

-944

943

48 01

38 00

86 02

94 02

60 00

82 00

92 00

26 03

29 02

31 00

38 00

35 00

48 00

76 00

93 00

76 00

16 01

90 15

45 00

02 00

10 00 00

79 00

59 00

56 00

62 00 08

65 00 00

60 00

36 00 18

13 00

10 00

42 00 04

58 02.

93 00

41 05

28 00

00 08

91 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

6) चंदनपुर (निरंतर)

1837

103

104

101

102

142

141

143

150

149

151

469

7) ओलदपुर

471

472

473

464

219

220

223

225

224

365

364

363

362

337

338

339

336

340

341

334

335

329

1777

10 00 00

22 00 02

89 00 05

16 11

71 04

05 00 00

79 15

67 00

04 00 02

12 01

19 00 01

27 06

06 07

17 02

73 00

18 00 10

54 00

33 00

20 01

93 00

50 05

24 00

35 07

07 00

66 00

06 00 14

37 00 11

63 03

48 04

91 00 19

62 00 03

32 00 05

95 00

70 06

84 02

47 00 08

28 00

85 00

13 00

50 01

46 01

00 1778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

333

7) ओलदपुर (निरंतर)

331

330

327

326

313

315

314

316

312

296

299

298

297

287

282

285

286

284

276

269

275

274

270

271

8) अदा

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

00 04

64 00 00

94 00

22 04

00 05

13 00

50 00 06

73 00

27 03

00 02

95 00 00

1.7 00

12 00 0.1

87 00

99 00 00

93 00 09

08 00 00

12 00 00

24 00

39 04

00 02

23 00 02-

16 00 10

48 00

65 00

51 00 02

18 00 05

17 00 09

05 00 00

10 00

23 00 02

57 00 06

85 00 01

20 00 00

05 00 12

00 07

83 00 04

59 00

22 00

62 00 00

00 02

51 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

5 8) अदा (निरंतर)

899

900

901

897

908

910

907

906

905

909

911

915

919

998

997

999

1005

1003

1002

1025

1004

1024

1023

1022

1028

1021

1020

1017

1018

1072

1074

1290

1070

1075

1076

4253

1779 4

00 02

64 00

58 01

26 00

19 05

50 00

88 02

88 01

72 00

29 00

69 00. 00

60 00

05 00

00 00

00 05

91. 00 00

00 01

00 06

00 00

00 02

00 01

00 07

00 01

00 00

00 16

00 00

11 [Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1780

2 1

1249

8) अदा (निरंतर)

1250

4346

1247

1248

1251

1242

1254

1256

1255

1238

4338

1235

1237

1236

1233

1232

1366 9 ) बेगुनिआ

1374

1375

475

10) चुडंगा

476

478

479

480

485

669

666

668

667

663

665

664

662

661

660

486

649

642

643

648

93 00

04 00

51 00

15 00

93 01

50 00 06

10 00

36 14

98 00

31 00

40 00

06 00 06

15 04

31 00

86 04

47 00 12

10 00

32 00

10 00 00

52 00

00 06

38 00 10

18 00 03

26 00 05

10 00 00

42 00 03

75 00

29 00

41 00 05

43 00

55 00

92 00

26 00 02

56 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

647 10) चुडंगा (निरंतर)

646

645

637

653

636

558

559

557

635

560

561

562

628

629

627

568

569

570

590

624

623

608

606

609

607

605

600

592

503

599

598

597

311

308

498 11 ) छबाटिआ

47.1

499

529

285

527 540GI/11-9

1781 3

64 00 02

65 00

90 00

84 00

36 01

00 06

21 00 00

22 00

06 00

09 00

00 00

67 00 05

74 00 05

95 00 03

56 00

18 00 02

64 00 07

72 07

51 00

35 00 05

00 00

11 00 02

46 00

10 00

00 02

98 09

37 00

12 00

66 00 04

65 00 10

64 00

96 00 05

00 00

94 05

74 00 10

75 00

56 01

38 00 02

75 00

59 00 01

47 00

78 01

13 03

69 00 1782

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

2 1

503.

11 ) छबाटिआ (निरंतर)

502

504

526

506

505

508

507

771

770

773

774

769

766

767

768

775

761

763

762

749

759

758

757

756

151

12) सानामधुसुदनपुर

190

149

133

132

131

135

129

128

127

26 00 00

20 00

14 02

00 00

36 00

84 02

42 02

02 00

01 00

22 00 07

00 00

56 -00 00

99 00 00

12 00

04 00

22 00

33 00

00 03

56 00 01

83 00

64 00

30 00

25 00 00

20 00

25 00 07

04 00

35 00

93 00

जिला:बालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:सिंगला

482

1) हातीमरा

253

254

474

257

261

राज्य:ओडिशा

64 00 06

89 00

01. 28 00 01

78-

13 00 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

262

1) हातीमरा (निरंतर)

256

252

267

268

266

269

270

290

275

276

274

277

278

282

279

280

281

283

284

230

285

286

226

227

228

218

222

219

220

216

215

214

159

158

400

2) गिलाजोरी

399

398

395

394

485

1783 3

65 00

00 01

38 00

00 02

92 00

00 00

52 00 02

84 00

00 05

58 00 00

35 00

32 00 00

51 00

47 00 02

00 07

64 00 02

03 00

97 00 00

10 00

00 00

79 00 06

07 00

00 08

64 00 06

26 00 03

78 >

00 05

34 00

87 00 00

68 00 05

32 00

17 00 00

94 00

10 00 1784

[ Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

486

2) मिलाजोरी (निरंतर)

487

491

492

390

386

385

384

383

387

382

381

380

372

373

374

370

369

622

623

351

2932

352

355

350

349

348

347

342

343

341

345

344

340

309

310

306

305

297

304

299

27 00

00 03

40 00 01

29 00 00

42 22

67 00

46 00 00

85 00 00

00 00

83 25

77 00

86 00 00

20 00 09

76 00 00

10 00

40 00 00

49 01

54 00

55 03

16 00

00 09

43 00 02

54 00 00

66 00

00 01

86 01

98 01

09 00

83 00

08 00 08

79 00

10 00

04 00

00 06

62 00 04

93 00 03

00 01

92 00

09 00 03

66 00 01

39 00

03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

300 2) गिलाजोरी (निरंतर)

298

301

274

275

276

273

272

277

278

271

279

258

281

280

245

246

247

11 3) आमकुरुची

152

151

150

149

142

143

185

186

141

187

140

188

189

190

191

192

197

198

206

205

204

1785 4

10 00 04

85 00

36 00

25 00 02

76 00

00 00

32 00

56 00 02

60 00

64 00 02

00 02

29 00 09

40 00

55 00 02

00 07

98 01

37 00

62 00

00 06

09 00

00 02

83 00

00 04

00 02

00 07 . 98

28 00 09

00 00

28 1786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 / PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

207

3) आमकुरूची (निरंतर)

203

311

310

313

312

322

323

321

320

353

354-

376

355

375

356

357

358

364

365

366

368.

367

369

370

444

445

363

1575

446

1576

1560

443

452

450

451

453

454

455

457

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

93 00 05

93 00

00 02

28 00 00

33 00 02

08 00

09 00 02

06 00 06

51 00 00

32 00 05

67 00

43 00 05

10 00 00

00 02

84 00

18 00 01

33 00

48 00 00-

14 00

40 00

74 00 01

04 00

40 00

00 00

10 00 05

99 00

25 00

75 00

63 00

69 00 03

00 02

जिला:बालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:रूपसा

1) गडपदा

राज्य:ओडिशा

10 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

1) गडपदा (निरंतर)

103

295

102

100

127

101

126

111

125

124

123

118

119

120

121

136

114

138

जिला:बालेश्वर मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: रूपसा

414

1) गंगाधरपुर

465

466

467

468

469

470

475

480

1787

00 14

90 00

74 00

00 00

90 00 06

50 00

11 00

00 05

98 00

79 00 03

66 00

77 00

14 00

42 00 06

58 00

40 00

20 00

22 00 02

81 00

50 00

76 00 08

50 00 01

09 00

58 00 04

राज्य:ओडिशा

96 00 06

10 00 03

88 00

03 00 02

36 00

00 02

49.

1788

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

2 1

483

1) गंगाधरपुर (निरंतर)

481

474

482

378

375

371

227

219

230

233

235

234

232

236

201

202

203

204

205

206

175

176

207

174

173

170

171

172

167

168

165

166

2) वागपंचमी

00 00

41 00

96 00 00

25 00 02

30 00

57 00 02

67 00 03

30 00

77 00

00 02

14 00 03

27 00 03

73 00 13

03 00 07

05 00 03

84 00

11 00 14

75 00 07

07 00

63 00 00

27 00

31 00 04

39 00

50 00 07

13 00

73 00 03

00 00

50 00 19

12 00 10

24 00

84 00

00 03

03 00 15

39 निरंतर... 25 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

3) बलरामपुर

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:वैसिंगा

जिला: मयुरभंज

135

1 ) कैनफुलिआ

136

209

205

210

211

198

212

231

213

238

462 2) बड गोपालपुर

399

400

398

396

392

3) महुलपाटणा

533

4) बाछुरिपदा

534

662

532

698

540G1/11-10

1789

71 00

00 03

59 00

90 00 : 02

32 00

62 00

15 00

69 00

78 00 08

87 राज्य:ओडिशा

65 00 01

34 00

17 00 17

62 00 09

67 00

39 02

16 00 16

09 00 02

35 00

22 00 17

00 00

85 00 28

79 00 36

09 00 04

17 00

55 05

35 03

48 00

00 00

00 15

17 04

23 00

00 15

12 00

76 03

94 00.00 [Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1790

531

4) बाछुरिपदा (निरंतर)

529

523

528

524

525

527

370

701

311

314

00 03

293

318

317

316

319

685

321

322

291

323

00 11

675

00 00 13

596

677

00 06

678

194

197

186

156

679

184

163

167

168

189

173

703

84 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

4) बाछुरिपदा (निरंतर)

1667

5 ) आम्बागाडिया

1668

1679

1681

2008

2009

2007

2010

2012

2013

3594

4094

4091

3596

3588

3602

3586

3580

3603

3579

3604

3605

3608

3607

3606

3514

3422

3421

3418

3417

3416

3402

3409

3408

1791 3

73 00

98 00

43 00 02

40 00 08

48 00

85 00 07

37 00 01

43 00 18 39 00 04

25 00 05 05

75 00 03

00 02

87 00 04

25 00 00

10 00

65 00

90 00

23 00 02

46 00 08

89 00

99 00 08

00 05

00 07

00 08

00 29

89 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1792

2 1

3407

5) आम्बागाडिया (निरंतर)

3403

3391

3378

3382

3379

3381

3380

3242 52

3241

3243

3240

3248

3249

3250

3252

3251

3234

3233

3253

3228

3232

3231

3229

3230

3164

3214

3213

3170

3212

3169

3171

3207

3206

3172

3168

3174

3167

3089

3088

3090

[Part 11-Sec. 3( ii ) ]

00 00

33 00 43

66 00 01

70 00 04

56 00

16 00

21 00 19

36 00 12

70 00

00 17

39 00 18

27 00 10

67 07

77 06

53 00 04

05 00 03

42 00

99 00 00

11 00 00

20 00

57 00 02

10 00 00

37 21

35 02

34 10

38 14

92 04

24 01

13 00

98 03

19 00

51 00

00 13

17 00. 00

28 00

41 00

25 00

39 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

2 1

3082 5 ) आम्बागाडिया (निरंतर)

3081

3051

3080

4275

3079

3053

3075

3054

3071

3070

3055

3069

3068

3059

3057

3058

2553

2552

2551

2550

2549

2541

2542

2536

2532

2531

2530

2528

2527

2494

2495

376

6) पुरुणिया

377

378

379

406

405

413

415

404

1793

82 00 09

53 00

48 00

93 00

60 00 02

39 12

86 00

76 00

03 01

00 08

36 00 21

36 00

56 00

88 00

18 00

11 00

79 00

86 00 02

85 00 01

96 00 04

84 00

29 08

89 00

49 00

18 00

00 06

52 00

01 05

22 07

37 00

26 00 27

12 00 01

21 00

27 10

00 28

48 00

75 07

41 00 09

64 00 00

96 00

89 07

16 00 Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 / PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1794

02. 47

402

6) पुरुणिया (निरंतर)

00 00

2742

417

2765

439

00 03

441

442

443

446

2581

00 42

456

2632

ορ

453

464

[फा सं. एल. -14014/14/2011 - जी.पी. ]

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

New Delhi , the 24th February, 2011

S. O. 584.- 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 .

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुनं 7 , 1932

1795

Schedule

District: Bhadrak Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk : Bhandari Pokhari

Village

State:Orissa

Survey No./Sub-Division

291

1) Ranipara

289

287

1323

286

1322

285

280

1324

276

279

277

274

273

278

272

263

262

261

257

259

258

260

179

165

171

166

164

163

162

160

1336

1341

159

158

550

551

Area to be acquired for Rou Are 4

Hec 3

C-Are 5

37 [Part II -Sec. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1796

2 1

157

1) Ranipara ( Contd)

1337

156

151

150

149

1352

148

147

1455 2) Badakantapada

1024

1454

1453

1465

1466

1451

1449

1450

1530

1529

1444

1.445

1446

1439

1438

1437

1436

1435

1402

1400

1399

1392

1393

1394

1395

1391

1390

1389

1296

1295 4

24.

22 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

1294 2) Badakantapada(Contd)

1293

1292

1290

1289

1288

1287

1285

1283

District: Bhadrak Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk: Bhadrak Rural

545

1) Erendei

546

549

547

548

550

551

552

538

557

489

488

487

486

485

484

458

District: Bhadrak Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk: Bant

2413

1) Tarago

2404

2405

2403

2402

2400

2401

2399

2398

2408

2406

2397

2396

2395

2415

540Gl/11-11

1797 4

State: Orissa

State:Orissa

27 [ Part II-Sec . 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1798

In bet suy no . 2415 & 2420

1) Tarago (Contd)

2420

2421

2370

2663

2360-

2362

2359

2358

2357

1520

1564

1526

1528

1529

1530

1527

1536

1561

1554

1555

1552

1553

1551

1550

1547

1548

1549

1538

1539

1467

1540

1541

1465

1466

1439

1463.

1461

1441

1459

1442 14

00.

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

1444 1) Tarago (Contd)

1443

1449

1448

1450

1451

1434

1452

1432

1483

1242

1243

1240

1244

In bet suy no. 1244 & 1245

1245

1246

1247

1248

1230

1172

1170

1169

1171

1168

1167

1164

1165

1166

1162

1160

1161

1159

1176

1080

1156

1081

1147

1082

1146

1145

1799

01.

00 1800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1117 1) Tarago (Contd)

1118

1119

1120

1121

1112

1122

1123

1111

1110

1105

1103

1106

1102

1104

1097

1098

1101

1099

1095

1100

1126

684

869.

700

701

702

703

704

705

728

727

708

726

734

725

735

736

3160

749

737

[ Part II Sec. 3 ( ii) ] 3

-86

72 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

2 1) Tarago (Contd)

738

739

744

743

740

Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk : Similia

District: Baleshwar

1079 1) Nua

1080

1077

2346

1083

1088

1086

1087

1071

1070

1069

1068

1067

1036

1035

1033

1034

1029

1027

1026

1025

1023

985

986

259

984

981

982

978

268

269

270

266

271

272

275

1801 3

State: Orissa

20 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 / PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1802

2 1

273

1) Nua (Contd)

274

197

177

178

179

181

188

187

183

184

186

185

151

150

149

153

154

155

156

157

160

159

158

132

131

130

129

344

128

346

2340

347

348

349

356

355

357

358

00.

10-

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

359

1) Nua(Contd)

360

361

362

384

364

363

365

366

367

369

368

2343

2) Chaka Manatiri

3) Achhuti Pur

674

4) Manatiri

672

673

675

676

677

679

678

692

680

688

690

1803 3

-69

00 1804

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

2 1

687

4) Manatiri (Contd)

689

725

737

738

736

1105

739

748

749

799

804

806

811

810

809

808

814

815

830

845

842

841

843

936

937

838

942

941

965

963

962

960

96.1

5) Salomadhapur

22/29

21/28

20/27

7/12

7/13

00 00

02 46

44 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

2 5) Salomadhapur (Contd)

8/14

9/15

4/4

1230 6) Chandanpur

1234

1233

1232

1231

1235

1236

1237

1243

1241

1242

1240

1239

1238

1147

1145

1146

1149

1148

1131

1132

1130

1129

1122

1121

1118

945

944

943

90 540GI/11-12

1805 3

76.

91 1806

[Part 1 Sec . 3 ( in) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

6) Chandanpur (Contd)

1837

103

104

101

102

142

141

143

150

149

151

469

7) Oladpur

471

472

473

464

219

220

223

225

224

365

364

363

362

337

338

339

336

340

341

334

335.

329

0010

71-

00,

: 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii )]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

333 7) Oladpur (Contd)

331

330

327

326

313

315

314

316

312

296

299

298

297

287

282

285

286

284

276

269

275

274

270

271

82 8) Ada

1807 3

00.

01-

51 .

1808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

2 8) . Ada ( Contd)

899

900

901

897

908

910

907

906

905

909

911

915

919

998

997

999

1005

1003

1002

1025

1004

1024

1023

1022

1028

1021

1020

1017

1018

1072

1074

1290

1070

1075

1076

4253

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

11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/ फाल्गुन 7, 1932

2 8) Ada( Contd)

1249

1250

4346

1247

1248

1251

1242

1254

1256

1255

1238

4338

1235

1237

1236

1233

1232

1366

9) Begunia

1374

1375

475

10) Chudanga

476

478

479

480

485

669

666

668

667

663

665

664

662

661

660

486

649

642

643

648

1809 3

56 1810

[ Part H Sec . 3(#) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

647

10) Chudanga (Contd)

646

645

637

653

636

558

559

557

635

560

561

562

628

629

627

568

569

570

590

624

623

608

606

609

607

605

600

00:

592

503

599

598

597

311

308

498 11) Chhabatia

471

499

ہیں

529

285

527 4

.00

00.

03 71932APIT

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन

503

11 ) Chhabatia ( Contd)

502

504

526

506

505

508

507

771

770

773

774

769

766

767

768

775

761

763

00.

762

749

759

758

757

756

151

12) Sanamadhusudanpur

150

149

133

132

131

135

129

00 .

128

324

0022

127

State: Orissa

District: Baleshwar

Mandal/Tehsil / Taluk : Singla

482

1) Hatimara

253

254

474

257

261

13 1812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

262

1) Hatimara (Contd)

256

252

267

268

266

269

270

290

275

276

274

277

278

282

279

280

281

283

284

230

285

286

226

227

228

218

222

219

220

216

215

214

159

158

400

2) Gillajori

399

398

395

394

485

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

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

2 1

486

2) Gillajori ( Contd)

487

491

492

390

386

385

384

383

387

382

381

380

372

373

374

370

369

622

623

351

2932

352

355

350

349

348

347

342

343

341

345

344

340

309

310

306

305

297

304

299

540GI/11-13

1813 3

.00

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1814

2 1

300

2) Gillajori ( Contd)

298

301

274

275

276

273

272

277

278

271

279

258

281

280

245

246

247

3) Amakuruchi

152

151

150

149

142

143

185

186

141

187

140

188

189

کم

190

191

192

197

198

206

205

204 4

94 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

207

3) Amakuruchi (Contd)

203

311

310

313

312

322

323

321

320

353

354

376

355

375

356

357

358

364

365

366

368

367

369

370

444

445

363

1575

446

1576

1560

443

452

450

451

453

454

455

457

District : Baleshwar Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk : Rupsa

1) Garapada

1815

.00

State: Orissa

10 1816

[Part 11 Sec. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1) Garapada(Contd)

103

295

102

100

127

101

126

111

125

124

123

118

119

120

121

136

114

138

District: Baleshwar Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Basta

414

1) Gangadharpur

465

466

467

468

469

470

475

480 4

State:Orissa

05 03

02 15

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

2 1) Gangadharpur (Contd)

483

481

474

482

378

375

371

227

219

230

233

235

234

232

236

201

202

203

204

205

206

175

176

207

174

173

170

171

172

167

168

165

166

2) Bagpanchami

1817 3

39 1818

[Part Il-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

2 1

3) Balarampur

State:Orissa

District: Mayurbhanj

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Baisinga

135

1 ) Kainphulia

136

209

205

210

211

198

212

231

213

238

462

2) Badagopalpur

399

400

398

396

392

3) Mahulapatana

533 4) Bachhuripada

534

662

532

698

21.

94 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

531

4) Bachhuripada ( Contd)

529

523

528

524

525

527

370

701

311

314

293

318

317

316

319

685

321

322

291

323

675

596

677

676

194

197

196

156

679

164

163

167

166

168

169

173

703

1819 3

98 1820

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

2 1

4) Bachhuripada(Contd)

1667 5) Ambagadia

1668

1679

1681

2008

2009

2007

2010

2012

2013

3594

4094

4091

3596

3588

3602

3586

3580

3603

3579

3604

3605

3608

3607

3606

3514

3422

3421

3418

3417

3416

3402

3409

3408 4

00 .

00 ,

1.5

00 .

89 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

3407 5) Ambagadia (Contd)

3403

3391

3378.

3382

3379

3381

3380

3242

3241

3243

3240

3248

3249

3250

3252

3251

3234

3233

3253

3228

3232

3231

3229

3230

3164

3214

3213

3170

3212

3169

3171

3207

3206

3172

3168

3174

3167

3089

3088

3090

3082

3081

3051

3080

4275

3079

3053

3075

3054 540GI /11-14

1821 4

00 1822

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 / PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

2. 1

3071 5) Ambagadia ( Contd)

3070

3055

3069

3068

3059

3057

3058

2553

2552

2551

2550

2549

2541

2542

2536

2532

2531

2530

2528

2527

2494

2495

376 6) Purunia

377

378

379

406

405

413

415

404

402

2742

417

2765

439

441

442

443

446

2581

456

2632

453

464 4

[F. No. L-14014/14/2011 -G.P. ] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

1823 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

APPEARANCES :

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2011

M/s. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate .

Forthe 1 st Party- Management.

: Forthe 2nd Party- Union.

ShriArjun Sahu , Secretary,BMS.

AWARD

का.आ. 585.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वरसुवा आयरन माइन्स आर एम डी स्टील आथॉरटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Barsua Iron Mines , RMD , SAIL and their workmen in exercise ofthe powers conferredby clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide their letter No. L-26011/8/99- IR(M) , dated 24/29-12-1999.

[सं. एल-26011/8/99- आई आर ( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

2. The dispute giving rise to the present reference is mentioned below .

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Barsua Iron Mines of RMD , SAIL in not paying canteen allowances to the workmen and employees of the mines at par with the workmen and employees of Meghataburu , Kiriburu , Bhawanathpur and RMD headquarters , Calcutta office employees is justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workmen/employees are en- titled?"

S.O. 585. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 69/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar- 2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Barsua Iron Mines RMD SAIL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government 24-1-2011. on

[No. L- 26011 /8 /99 -IR (M)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present : Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer , C.GI.T. -cum -Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar .

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 69/2001

Date of PassingAward - 31st December 2010

Between:

TheManagement of the General Manager , Barsua IronMines , RMD , SAIL ,

Po . Tensa, Dist . Sundargarh .

1stParty-Management .

And

Their workmen represented through the General Secretary, Bonai Mazdoor Sangh , PO. Tensa, Dist . Sundargarh .

2nd Party-Union.

3. The 2nd Party- Union representing the workmen submitted its statement of claim wherein it has been stated that the 2nd Party - Union is a registered trade Union affili- ated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and is operating at Barsua Iron Mines and represents the majority of the workmen employed in the said mines . The 1st Party -Management is a public sector undertaking under the Raw Materials Divi- sion, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited. Initially the different steel plants under SAIL namely Rourkela Steel Plant, Bhilai Steel Plant, Durgapur Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel Plant etc. had their captive mines to produce and supply raw materials required for production of steel in the said steel plants . Barsua Iron Mines was one of the captive mines ofRourkela Steel Plant at Rourkela till 1990. Later on SAIL created a separate unit called Raw Materials Division and most of the captive mines of different steel plants un- der SAIL including the captive mines of RSP were trans- ferred and brought under the administrative control of RMD with its headquarters at Calcutta . Thus the services of all the employees of Barsua Iron Mines were placed under Raw Materials Division with effect from 1-5-1990 without any change in their service conditions . Under the relevant statute the steel plants and the mines are to provide and maintain canteens for the use of their employees . There- fore canteen set - up was established as per approved speci- fications and food items , snacks etc. were supplied on non- profitbasis . Later , on the plea of cost control the different units of SAIL including mines started withdrawing the fa- cilities provided in the departmental canteens unilaterally. The number of food items and snacks were reduced and [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1824

the standard was deteriorated . The employees had no choice for food items because of very limited items sup- plied in the canteen and their poor quality. Resultantly the Unions in different units including the 2nd Party - Union started demanding canteen allowance in lieu of canteen facilities . Although different units of SAIL including the mines under Raw Materials Division and its headquarters at Calcutta granted canteen allowance to their employees , butthe 1 st Party- Management did not pay any heed to the rightful demands of its employees . Because of callous attitude of the 1st Party - Management, the 2nd Party- Union had no other alternative but to raise an industrial dispute. The conciliation officer tried his best for an amicable settlement, but the conciliation proceedings ended in fail- ure and the matter under dispute was referred for adjudica- tion . The different mines of Raw Materials Division and its headquarters at Calcutta are paying canteen allowances as under.

}

Rs . 12.00

(a) RMD Head Quarters

Rs . 15.50) Per day

(b) Maghataburu

Rs.15.50 ) actual

(c)Kiriburu

Rs . 15.50} atten-

(d) Bhawanathpur

dance

Rourkela Steel Plant namely Rourkela Shramik Sangh and Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha filed writ petitions in the High Court of Orissa which were dismissed. During the pen- dency of the writ petition the 1st Party- Management was under compulsion to follow the policy/rules of Rourkela Steel Plant to avoid any contempt of court. Under the Mines Act, 1952 the Management is statutorily required to run canteen to provide tea, snacks and food items on subsi- dized rate to the workmen of the establishment . With the running of canteen, no canteen allowance was being paid to the employees . The 2nd Party- Union has no mass following whereas Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha, another rec- ognized Union of Barsua Iron Mine is having sizeable number of followers in the mines . Both the aforesaid Unions demanded canteen allowances for the workmen engaged in the establishment of the 1st Party- Management . After having several discussions with the recognized Union canteen allowance at the rate of Rs . 6 per day was settled to be paid to the employees in lieu ofthe canteen facilities with effect from 1-4-2000 and the employees have received payments on this score. The Rourkela Steel Plant had in fact introduced canteen allowance at the rate of Rs . 6 per daywith effect from 1-4-1999 . The same was taken as basis of settlement for Barsua Iron Mines , Kiliburu Iron Mines and Purunapani Lime & Dolomite Quarry mines . The erstwhile captive mines of the steel plants were enjoying the benefits attached to their respective steel plants . The conditions of service of the employees working therein are different from mine to mine based on the plant to which they are attached as captive mines . Settlement with the recognized Union on the issue cannot be said to be high handed attitude of the 1st Party -Management and anti labour practice. The Management of Barsua Iron Mines has no say over the affairs of KIOM, MIOM, Bhawanathpur , and Head Quarters of RMD at Calcutta. The reference is thus not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act as there is no demand and refusal to constitute a dispute.

4. The denial ofcanteen allowance to the 2nd Party- workmen at par with the employees of other mines and RMD headquarters is highly illegal, arbitrary and discrimi- natory. During pendency of this reference the 1 st Party- Management most clandestinely and hurriedly signed the settlement behind the back of the 2nd Party- Union for payment of Rs . 6 per day of actual working days as canteen allowance which is lower than the amount paid to the similarly situated workers in other mines or mines of the RMD headquarters . It is interesting to note that the employees of RMD headquarters at Calcutta, who have no contribution for production in mines and only perform coordinating job and office work are paid canteen allow- ance at Rs . 12 per day. The Raw Materials Division being one of the units of SAIL with different mines under its control denying the workers of Barsua Iron Mines the ben- efits of canteen allowance at par with other mines and RMD headquarters at Calcutta amounts to discrimination and anti labour practice. Therefore the 2nd Party - workmen are entitled to canteen allowance at par with the above mines and RMD headquarters at Calcutta from the date the em- ployees of the said mines have been granted the said benefits .

6. In its rejoinder the 2nd Party- Union has challenged the authority of the Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha to enter into settlement on the ground that it was granted recognition by the Rourkela Steel Plant about 20 years back. Recognition status under the Code of Discipline is granted to theUnion having majority support for a period of two years after which fresh verification of membership is done to ascertain the majority support and fresh recog- nition is granted. Therefore , verification of membership under the secret ballot has to be done after every two years as per instructions from the Government of India. Hence recognition granted to Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha after two years is not valid. The 1st Party - Management has not taken any steps for verification of membership of the Union . The said Union is neither a recognized Union in the eye of law nor it has majority support . The employees of different mines hold transferable post . As such if an employee is transferred in Kiriburu , Meghataburu and Bhawanathpur mines which are paying canteen allowance inthe name of canteen subsidy at the rate of Rs . 15.50 per 5. The 1st Party- Management filed reply through its written statement stating that the captive mines of Meghatuburu , Kiriburu , Bhawanathpur then under the ad- ministrative control of Bokaro Steel Plant , Barsua Iron Mines , Kalta Iron Mines , Purnapani Limestone and Dolo- mite Quarry under the administrative control of Rourkela Steel Plant and Bolani Ores Mines under the administra- tive control of Durgapur Steel Plant were kept under the administrative control of Raw Materials Division . Against the decision to place the administrative control of the mines under Raw Materials Division , the operating unions of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1825 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

day as per actual attendance will be financially benefited and ifthe employee from the aforesaid mines is transferred to Barsua Iron Mines he will suffer financial loss .

ISSUES

7. Following issues were settled on the pleadings of the parties for adjudication.

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the action of the Management in not paying canteen allowances to the workmen and employees of the mines at par with the workmen and employees ofMeghataburu, Kiriburu, Bhawanathpur and RMD Headquarters , Calcutta office employees isjustified?

3. If not , to what relief the workmen/employees are entitled?

8. From the side of the 2nd Party - Union one Pravakar Mallick has been examined as W.W.I and documents exhibited as 1 to 10 have been filed and proved .

were taken back from the administrative control of the Steel Plants and placed under the Raw Materials Division. The captive mines at Meghataburu , Kiriburu , and Bhawanathpur under the administrative control ofBokaro Steel Plant , Barsua Iron Mines , Kalta Iron Mines , Purunapani Lime Stone & Dolomite Quarry under the administrative control of Rourkela Steel Plant and Bolani IronMines under the administrative control of Durgapur Steel Plant were kept under the Administrative control of Raw Materials Division. All the mines were having independent establishments . The erstwhile captive mines of the plants are so far enjoying the benefits attached to their respective Steel Plants . The Rourkela Steel Plant had in fact introduced canteen allowance at the rate ofRs . 6.00 per day with effect from 1-4-1999. The same was taken as basis of settlement for Barsua Iron Mines , Kiriburu Iron Mines and Purunapani Lime Stone and Dolomite Quarry Mines . After negotiation with the recognized Union the canteen allowance was introduced in the establishment of the Ist Party -Management with effect from 1-4-2000 in lieu of subsidized facilities . The Ist Party- Management has no say over the affairs KIOM, MIOM, Bhawanathpur and RMD Head Quarters at Calcutta .

9. The 1st Party- Management has filed Sworn Affidavit of Shri R. K. Das , Senior Manager (Vigilance ) in evidence and filed six number of documents proved and exhibited as Ext . A to B/ 03 .

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

12. The 2nd Party- Union has claimed canteen allowance at par with the workmen of other mines i.e. Meghataburu , Kiriburu , Bhawanathpur and RMD headquarters at Calcutta from the date the employees of the said mines have been granted the same benefit. The 2nd Party-Union has quoted the rates of canteen allowance at different mines and offices in Paragraph- 6 of their Statement ofclaim which are given below:-

Rs.12.00

( a) RMD Head Quarters

(b) Maghataburu

Rs . 15. 50 Per day

Rs.15.50 actual

(c) Kiriburu

Rs. 15. 50 attendance

(d) Bhawanathpur

10. The 1st Party - Management has challenged the maintainability of the reference in its written statement on the grounds firstly that no constituents of demand and refusal exist here in this case to constitute a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and secondly, that the Ist Party-Management is not concerned with the affairs of KIOM, MIOM, Bhawanathpur and RMD Head Quarters at Calcutta . So far as the first ground is concerned it holds no good as the 1st Party- Management has itself admitted in Para- 7 of its written statement that the 2nd Party -Union and Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha , the recognized Union demanded canteen allowance in respect of workmen engaged in the establishment of the Ist Party-Management. Therefore it cannot be said that there was no demand for canteen allowance from the side of the 2nd Party - Union and subsequent refusal by the 1st Party-Management to grant canteen allowance which ultimately gave rise to conciliation and then referral of dispute to this Tribunal . The second ground is also not valid one as the 2nd Party- Union is simply demanding canteen allowance at par with KIOM , MIOM, Bhawanathpur and RMD Head Quarters at Calcutta which are similarly situated . In this view of the matter it is held that the reference is maintainable before this Tribunal. This issue is decided against the 1st Party- Management .

Issue No. II

Undisputedly before the year 1990 different units of SAIL i.e. Steel Plants had separate captive mines under their administrative control . In the year 1990 captive mines

13 , W.W. 1, Pravakar Mallick deposed to the same effect in his statement before the Tribunal . He also stated that a sum of Rs . 10.60 per day is being paid to the workers of Bolani Iron Mines . According to the 2nd Party- Union the different rates of canteen allowance being paid to different captive mines is not only illegal and arbitrary but also discriminatory. The contention of the 1st Party- Management is that the conditions of service of employees working in different captive mines are different from mine to mine based on the plant to which they are attached . Therefore this difference cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. But here it has to be seen as to parity with which rate of canteen allowance is being claimed by the 2nd Party- Union when rates of canteen allowance at RMD Headquarters at Calcutta is said to be Rs . 12.00 per day of actual attendance whereas at Meghataburu , Kiriburu , Bhawanathpur the rates are Rs . 15.50 per day of actual attendance and at Bolani Ore Mines it is Rs . 10.60 per day. The 1st Party - Management has led the evidence of Shri R. K. Das who has stated that in Rourkela Steel Plant canteen allowance has been raised from Rs . 6.00 to 1826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

Rs. 15.00 with effect from 1-4-2005 . The same is applicable to Barsua Iron Mines along with other mines under the administrative control of RMD including RMD, Rourkela and Liason Office , RMD , Bhubaneswar. Ext . B /2 is the circular (order) of the Senior Manager (Personnel) of SAIL, RMD , Kolkatta dated 27-4-2005 with regard to the enhancement of canteen expenses from Rs . 6.00 to Rs . 15.00 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 . Therefore only a difference of 0.50 paise remains to be achieved as canteen allowance by the 2nd Party -Union which is being paid in excess to the employees of captive mines of Meghataburu , Kiriburu and Bhawanathpur. Since canteen allowance at RMD Headquarters is being paid at the rate of Rs . 12.00 per day of actual attendance and parity with different rate of canteen allowances has been claimed by the 2nd Party - Union , it is not clear whether parity at the rate of RMD Headquarters or parity at the rate of Meghataburu , Kiriburu , Bhawanathpur Mines which are paying Rs . 15.50 per day of actual attendance is to be granted to the 2nd Party- Union? The 1st Party - Management has raised this issue by saying that when there is no parity in payment of canteen allowance in the mines and RMD Headquarters withwhom the 2nd Party- workmen claim parity the claim of the 2nd Party-Union cannotbe allowed being Untenable . Hence, there is no specified demand in the eye of law. The contention holds good . How can parity be granted when there is no parity in payment of canteen allowance in various captive mines ? Thus the demand of parity itself becomes fallacious and redundant. Therefore the action of the 1st Party-Management in not paying canteen allowance to the 2nd Party-workmen and employees of the mines at par with the workmen and employees of Meghataburu , Kiriburu , Bhawanathpur Mines and RMD headquarters , Calcutta office employees cannot be described as illegal , unjustified, arbitrary and discriminatory . This issue is accordingly decided against the 2nd Party -Union .

Issue No. III

14. In view of the findings given under Issue No. II the 2nd Party-workmen are not entitled to the relief claimed.

15. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated& Corrected by me .

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 586.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30011 /28/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 24th January, 2011

S.O. 586. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Mumbai - 2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24-01-2011 .

[No. L-30011 /28/2001 - IR ( M ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 , MUMBAI .

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/ 41 OF 2002 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman , Mumbai Port Trust , Shoorji Vallabhdas Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038 .

AND

Their Workmen

The Secretary,

Transport and Dock Workers Union, P. D' mello Bhavan , P. D' mello Road , Carnac Bunder, Mumbai -400 038 .

APPEARANCES:

Mr. M. B. Anchan , Advocate .

Forthe Employer :

Mr. J. H. Sawant , Advocate .

Forthe Workmen :

Mumbai , dated 12th November , 2010 .

AWARD

The Governinent of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L - 31011 / 28 /2001 - IR( M) dated 1-5-2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clasue (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management ofMumbai Port Trust in recovering compensation towards non-vacation of quarters in respect of 7 employees namely S/ Sh . D. Y. Sarode , Tindel , K. M. Pojari , Hatch Usman , Dock Clerk and Krishna T. Salian , Tindel is legal and justified? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled to ?" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1827 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

permissible in terms of notices of cancellation, as permissible under clause (D) of sub- clause (2) ofSection 7 of the Payment of Wages Act , 1936. It is case of the first party that, the Bombay Dock Labour Board had merged with the Mumbai Port Trust on 1-3-1994 and on merger, the registered workers of the Ex . BDLB were absorbed with the Mumbai Port Trust and that upon absorption as a separate entity the BDLB employees /registered workers would accept all the conditions of employment as are presently applicable to the employees ofthe Mumbai Port Trust in all respects including over time and house rent allowances , recovery of rent etc. and they will be subject to all rules , bye-laws , regulations of service conditions applicable to the regular employees of Mumbai Port Trust in terms of clause ( i) and (xviii ) of the Memorandum of settlement dated 25-1-1994 and clauses ( vii) and (viii ) of theMemorandum of Agreement dated 13-12-1991 .

2. Claim Statement is filed by the second party through its Joint Secretary at Ex. -7 stating and contending that , the Management first party unlawfully and unauthorisedly recovered from the wages , arrears payment and settlement dues in respect of these concerned seven workmen the following amount on the plea of recovery of compensation for alleged unauthorised use and occupation or erstwhile BDLB quarters by these workmen viz D.Y. Sarode Rs . 30,849.80 , K.M.Pujari Rs.20,942.87, R. S. Jaiswal Rs . 71,326.96, Sitaram Mahangi Rs . 26,693.03, S.M.Jadhav Rs . 39,163.78 , Shaikh Usman Rs . 1,49,928.48 and Krishna T. Salian Rs.45,201.54. It is case ofthe second party Union that the action of the management in recovering the above amounts from the wages , arrears payments and from the settlement dues in respect of the above named workmen is illegal and unjustified and is in violation of principles of natural justice, in contravention ofthe provisions made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It is case of the second party union that , it amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the Management . According to them, the said workmen are entitled to receive the said amounts with 18 % interest and officers of the management responsible for such unauthorized and unlawful deductions are liable for severe punishments . It is therefore, prayed by the second party Union to hold the action of the first party in recovering the above amounts as illegal and unjustified and the concerned workmen are entitled to receive the said amounts with 18% interest thereon and the officers responsible for such recoveries are liable to be penalized heavily.

4. It is case of the first party that Ex - BDLB employees on absorption are governed by the same set of rules and regulations of the Mumbai Port Trust and in 1997, this Tribunal by its judgement dated 28-11-1997 dismissed some applications under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by Ex- BDLB employees in application Nos.LC- 2/ 8,9,10 and 11 of 1995 for getting over time for working beyond 6 & 1/2 hours per day and for monetary benefits for working on Saturdays and Sundays which are paid holidays as not maintainable upholding the contentions of the Port Administration that the employees of the erstwhile Bombay Dock Labour Board are to accept all the conditions of employment as are applicable to the employees of MBPT in all respects in accordance with the four clauses mentioned herein. It is case of the first party that the unauthorized occupation of quarters after cancellations ofthe same and refusal to pay compensation for use and occupation ofquarters and other charges , therefore , is essentially is a misconduct on the part of the employees . It is contended by the first party that the matter of recovery of compensation for unauthorized overstay by the employees was not referred to the Estate Officer under Section 7 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupations ) Act, 1971. It is further contended by the first party that direct recovery of compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of quarters and other charges is permissible in terms of Regulation 21 of the MBPT Employees ( Allotment & Occupancy ofResidential) Regulation, 1975. It is therefore, contended by the first party that it has recovered the compensation from employees concerned in the above reference after following all the rules and regulations applicable to the MBPT Employees and is therefore, legal and justified and such deductions are also permissible under clause (d) of sub - section (2 ) of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and its action is legal and justified and pray that the reference be rejected .

3. First party resisted the statement of claim vide their written statement Ex- 8 stating and contending that the concerned workmen were allottees of residential quartersat Ex -Bombay Dock Labour Board Colonies . They sub - leted their quarters to other employees /outsiders and thus violated the provision of Regulation 21 of the MBPT Employees ' ( Allotment and Occupancy of Residential Regulation) 1975. It is case of the first party that said workmen were only licensee and not tenants and hence they were liable to vacate the respective quarters after the order of cancellation . It is case of the first party, before ordering them to vacate the quarters , notices of cancellation of allotment of quarters were issued to each of them as required under the regulations indicating that on failure to deliver up the vacant possession of the quarters allotted to them , they shall have to pay compensation for use and occupation of quarters from the date on which the cancellation became effective till the date of actual vacation at the rate fixed for the same . It is case of the first party that inspite of the receipt of cancellation notices , the employees continued to stay in the quarters unauthorisedly. It is case of the first party thatthese employees overstayed in the quarters . Therefore, recovery of compensation for use and occupation of the residences and other charges were deducted from their salary, as direct recovery of compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of quarters and other charges as

5. Rejoinder is filed by the Joint Secretary of the second party Union at Ex . - 9 repeating the same story as made in Claim Statement and denying the contentions 1828

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

raised by the first party in their Written Statement which are contrary to the statement of claim.

6. In view of the above pleadings , following issues were framed by my Learned Predecessors at Ex - 10, which I answer as under:

Issues

therefore, these seven workmen were served with show cause notices . After hearing them, the order was passed and their respective allotments were cancelled . Four of the workers have preferred appeals . The copies of their appeals are at Ex - 19 page 15 to 18. Their appeals were also dismissed . In this background, the plea of the workmen does not stand to the reasons that they were not served with notice and no opportunity was given to them of being heard . There was no violation of principles of natural justice . The inquiry was just and proper.

1. Whether the action ofthe management ofMumbai Port Trust in recovering compensation towards non - vacation of quarters in respect of 7 employees namely S/Sh . D.Y. Sarode, K. M. Pujari , R. S. Jaiswal Sitaram Mahangi , S. M. Jadhav , Shaikh Usman and Krishna T. Salian is legal and justified ?

2. What relief the workmen are entitled?

:Reasons

Issue No.1 :

9. For the facts and circumstances on record , it is also revealed that these workers have retained possession oftheir quarters even after cancellation oftheir respective allotment . Therefore , they were liable to pay the compensation and water charges , etc. to the Mumbai Port Trust . In the circumstances , I hold that the action of management of Mumbai Port Trust is just and proper. Therefore, it needs no interference . Accordingly, I decide issue no.1 in the affirmative . Consequently I hold that the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly I decide issue no . 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

Theaction ofthe management ofMumbai Port Trust in recovering the compensation from their seven employees referred above is just , proper and legal . Dated 12-11-2010

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 587.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जवाहर लाल नेहरू पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम. न्यायालय , मुम्बई 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-31011 /30/92- आई आर ( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2011 7. In the case at hand, the seven workmen were admitedly in the service of Mumbai Port Trust . They were allotted residential quarters . During the course of surprise inspection, it was found that these workmen have sub- letted their respective quarters to some others . Therefore , themanagement ofMumbai Port Trust have cancelled the allotment and asked the respective workmen to pay the charges for occupying the quarters even after cancellation of their respective allotments . It is a fact that, as these workers have not deposited the charges of the quarters , the management deducted the charges from their wages and arrears of payment . According to the workmen, the said recovery of compensation for alleged unauthorized use and occupation of BDLB quarters was illegal action on the part of the management . According to them, neither they were served with show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them. It amount to violation of principles of natural justice . In this respect , the learned advocate for the management has submitted with list Ex -20 page Nos . 1 to 16 the copies of the notices with signature/thumb impression of the respective workman for having received the show cause notice . From these office copies of the notices it is clear that show cause notices were given to the respective workmen .After hearing the workmen, the concerned officer cancelled the allotment of respective workers . Thereafter the order of cancellation was also served on each of the worker and they were directed to pay the compensation for occupying the quarters unauthorisedly after the order of cancellation . The cancellation orders were served on the workmen . Office copies thereof are with list Ex- 19 page 1 to 13. Some of the employees have made application to the President ofMumbai Port Trust and requested to cancel the orders of cancellation of residential quarters . Their representation/appeal to Chairman/ President , Mumbai Port Trust copies thereof is on record with Ex- 19 of page 15 to 18. The Chairman has dismissed their appeals .

S.O. 587. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011 .

[No. L-31011/30/92- IR (M)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 8. From the facts and circumstances on record, it is revealed that the residential quarters allotted to the respective workers , were found occupied by some others [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , MUMBAI .

JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer REFERENCE No. CGIT- 16 of1994

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For theManagement : Shri S. Amdoskar Management Representative FortheUnion : Shri . J. P. Sawant , Advocate State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated 29th day of December , 2010

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (The Act for short ) vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L - 31011/30/92 - IR(Misc) ( It . 20-1-1994 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust in not absorbing the workmen as per the Annexure A - J on the permanent roll of the J.N.P.T. and thus depriving them of their wages and other service conditions applicable to regular workmen is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

2. An application has been filed on behalf of the representative of the workmen wherein it has been stated that the management constituted a Committee of Trustees of J.N.P.T. in connection with regulation of service conditions of contract labour deployed in J.N.P.T. and the Committee of Trustees has submitted its report on 21-3-2005 and the Management has accepted the said report and the dispute is otherwise resolved. It has therefore, prayed that the reference may be disposed of for want of prosecution .

3. Learned counsel for the Management has no objection.

4. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the workmen, this reference stands disposed of for want of prosecution.

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 588.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स कैलाश 540GI/11-15

1829

स्टोन वर्क्स मैसर्स आर. आर. एस. एण्ड कम्पनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5 ( सी )/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29011/44/2006- आई आर ( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th January, 2011

S.O. 588. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award [ Ref. No. 5 (c)/ 2006 ] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Kailash Stone Works M/ s . R.R.S. & Co. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-01-2011 .

[ No. L- 29011 /44/2006- IR ( M) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD , PATNA

REFERENCE CASE No. 5 ( C) of 2006

Between the Management of M/s . R.R.S. &Comapny and M/ s . Kailash Stone Works , Rep . by Sh. Rochal Das , Sindhipara , Pakur and their workmen represented by the General Secretary, Quarry Workers Union , P.O. & Dist . Pakur, Jharkhand , Pakur.

For the Management : Shri D. K. Jha & Shri Birendra Kumar Jha Vice President and Assistant Secretary of Traders &Manufacturers Association , Bihar.

For the Workmen : Shri Subash Chandra Ray & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh , Representatives of the Quarries Worker's Union , Pakur.

Present:

Shri Harish Chandra Singh , Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna .

AWARD

Patna, dated the 22nd December , 2010

By adjudication order No. L- 29011 /44/2006 IR(M) dated 14-09-2006, the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter called ' the Act' for brevity ) has referred the dispute between the management of M/s . R.R.S. & Company and M/s . Kailash [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1830

Stone works , Rep . by Sh . Rochal Das , Sindhipara , Pakur and their workmen represented by the General Secretary, Quarry Workers Union, P.O. & Distt. Pakur, Jharkhand- Pakur to this Tribunal for adjucation on the following :

" Whether the action of the management of M/s . Kailash Stone Works and M/s . R.R.S. & Co. Pakur in terminating the services of32 workmen i.e. S/Sh. Rajat Purotihar and 31 others (As per list attached) and non - payment of legal dues is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

Secretary ofthe union . In this additional written statement it was stated that termination on of service of these workmen by the management is illegal and arbitrary act of the management . With the view to give a colour of justification to the illegal termination of these workmen the management began to proclaim falsely that these workmen have resigned from their post. The case of the workmen is that one A. C. Pandey alias Ashim Pandey alias A. K. Pandey procured the signature of workmen on several blank papers saying that he would persuade the management to give their due Bonus and salary and later on the said blank papers were fradulently manipulated and fabricated as so called resignation letter of these workmen. The case of the workmen is that their signatures were obtained by said A. K. Pandey on blank papers in deceitful and fradulent manner assuring them that these papers would be used to persuade the management for settlement of their dues . But these papers were converted deceitfully and fradulently as so called resignation letter. Further the case of the workmen is that later on A. K. Pandey began to proclaim that he is Chairman of Jharkhan Mazdoor Morcha. This is speceific case of the workmen that they never authorised A. K. Pandey or Jharkhan Mazdoor Morcha for representing them in the dispute with the management . It is alleged that said A. Κ . Pandey is Agent of the management and presenting himself as Agent of the management he fradulently persuaded the workmen to believe that he was sympathetic to them and was trying to solve their problems and thus obtained the signature of the workmen on the blank papers and letter on manoeuvred deceitfully those paper to help the management . The case of the workmen is that they never resigned from their services and their termination is illegal .

3. The case of the management as stated in their written statement is that the workmen themselves tendered their resignation from service on 12-11-2005 and left working since then . Thereafter workmen got their cases espoused through their union namely Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha, Pakur before the Regional Commissioner ( C) , Patna vide union's letter dated 19-11-2005 . Subsequently there was aBipartite Settlement between the workmen and the management on 23-11-2005 for payment of all legal dues of the workemen . Workmen received 1st instalment of legal dues on 23-11-2005 to tune of Rs . 1,50,000.00 (Rs . one lac fifty thousand) only . Subsequently the management made payment of four more instalments of legal dues on 13-3-2006 & 20-5-2006. According to Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 there was an agreement that the management would clear all legal dues to each staff. Rs . 1,50,000.00 was to be given as 1st instalment and rest payment of Rs . 1,00,000.00 was to be paid in the first week of every month till their all legal dues were clear . A period of 18 months was fixed for this purpose . All the workmen signed the Bipartite Settlement alongwith Sri A. C. Pandey, President of their union , who had espoused Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ), Patna. The case of the 2. On notice workmen through General Secretary, Quarries Worker's Union, Pakur, Jharkhand appeared and filed their written statement . Management also appeared and filed their written statement . The case ofthe workmen is that all the 32 workmen (Rajat Purotihar and 31 others as per list attached with the reference ) had been working for M/ s . Kailash Stone Works and M/s . R.R.S. & Company, Pakur for 5 to 35 years continuously . They were discharging their respective duties and responsibilities , dilligently and honestly. The management stopped the payment of Bonus in the year , 2000. Later on from the month of June, 2005 payment of monthly salary of these workmen was also stopped . However inspite of opperessing and harassing attitude of the management of workmen continued to work. Several request for salary and other dues were made to the management but no heed was paid by the management . Finding no other way the workmen approached their union, called Quarries Worker's Union , Pakur. The said union raised an Industrial Dispute before the Regional Commissioner ( Central Govt. ) by their letter No. 2058/05 dated 28-12-2005 . A letter bearing No. 2061/05 dated 31-12-2005 was also sent by the union to the management requesting them to pay Bonus and monthly salary, which was due the workmen. On the basis of letter No. 2058/05 dated 28-12-2005 , Regional Commission ( Central ) , Patna started conciliation proceeding and sent notice to the management and the union for conciliation proceeding . The management did not attend the conciliation proceeding for two dates and on 3rd date management appeared and contended that relevant documents relating to the workmen which were sought by the Regional Commissioner by his letter 2/54/ 2005 -RRC dated 31-1-2006 were burnt . The Regional Commissioner could not be able to decide the matter due to non- co - operation by the management and lastly the Regional Commissioner forwarded the dispute to the secretaryto the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, who ultimately referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjication . Further case of the union is that management had not been contributing to the Provident Fund of the several workmen . Further the case of the union is that management had given a written undertaking to the union on 4-7-2005 to pay all the dues of the workmen till 9-7-2005 , but that obligation was not fulfilled . Subsequently an additional Written Statement was filed on behalf of the workmen through the General [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1831 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

were management . Firstly the management stopped the payment of salary to the workmen. Later on their services discontinued under the garb of resignation . Workmen have challenged the genuinness ofthe resignation. Obviously, there is industrial dispute.

management is that management is willing and ready to fulfill their obligation arising out of Bipartite Settlement . After this Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Patna was requested to close the case . The case of the management is that since Industrial Dispute was raised by Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha, through its President Sri A. C. Pandey, there was hardly any justification for raising the same Industrial Dispute by another union , namely Quarries Worker's Union, Pakur. A plea has been taken in written statement that the claim of the workmen is hit by the principle of resjudicata. There is no relationship of employer and employees between the management and theworkmen in view of their resignation dated 12-11-2005, and Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 for payment of all legal dues . The case ofthe management is that workmen were not terminated from their service and this is not a case of termination of service because workmen themselves resigned from service on 12-11-2005 . The workmen have committed fraud by raising Industrial Dispute after their resignation and settlement of their legal dues in Bipartite Settlement . Therefore the claim ofthe workmen is fit tobe rejected. The management have denied the settlement made by workmen in each and every paragraph of their written statement specifically and insisted repeatedly that the workmen resigned on 12-11-2005 and there was Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 for payment oftheir legal dues . The allegations regarding non -payment of contribution towards Provident Fund of some of the cmployees has also been denied and it is submitted that this can not be subject matter of this reference . Another written statement has been filed by the management as rejoinder to the additional written statement filed by the workmen. It has been stated that workmen were member of Trade Union led by A. C. Pandey and all the allegations against him are false and mischievious .

4. On the basis ofpleadings of the parties following points emerge in this case for decision :-

( i) Whether termination of services of the 32 workmen is justified ?

(ii) Whether non - payment of legal dues is justified ?

(iii) To what relief the workmen are entitled to ?

6. Firstly I take up the issue of termination of services of 32 workmen. The case of the management is that services of 32 workmen were not terminated. They resigned voluntarily on 12-11-2005 and stopped their work. They espoused their cases through their union namely Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha, Pakur before the Regional Labour Commissioner vide letter dated 19-11-2005. Subsequently on 23-11-2005 there was a Bipartite Settlement and the management agreed to play all their legal dues in instalments . Some instalment were paid by the management and received by the workmen . The case of the management is that this is not a case of termination of service but this is a case of resignation and workmen left their job voluntarily and now there is no relationship of Master and Servant between the company and the workmen . To the contrary the case of the workmen is that they did not resign . Resignation letter is not genuine and it is forged . Their case is that the management stopped payment to the workmen from the month of June, 2005. The workmen continued their work and kept requesting the management to pay their due salary but it was not heard . Workmen raised their grievance of non - payment of salary through their union called Quarries Worker's Union , Pakur. The management gave written undertaking to the union on 4-7-2005 that the management shall pay all the dues of the workmen till 19-7-2005 . However the management failed to discharge the aforesaid undertaking . It is specific case of the workmen that the management incollusion with A.C. Pandey alias Ashim Pandey alias A. K. Pandey obtained the signature of the workmen on several blanks papers in deceitful manner . Said A. C. Pandey alias Ashim Pandey alias A. K. Pandey said that he would persuade the management to give their salary and obtained signature of the workmen on blank papers . Later on these blank papers were deceitfully and fradulently manupulated as resignation letter. This specific case of the workmen that they are not members of Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha and said A. C. Pandey alias Ashim Pandey alias A. K. Pandey is not their leader rather he is agent of the management .

5. At the very outset it was argued on behalf of the

management that the reference itself is bad . There was no industrial dispute in existence . The Government made this reference in mechanical way without any application of mind . There was no material before the Government to indicate that there was any demand raised by the workmen or the union before management and refusal of the said demand by the management . I do not find any merit in this argument . Once a reference is made this tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine if the reference is bad or good . This tribunal can not go behind the reference . The tribunal is obliged to answer the reference . Moreover, this is a case of termination of service of 32 workmen by the

7. Thus in this case the factum of resignation is disputed. So called resignation letter has been produced by the management . There are two resignation letters . One is hand written and marked Ext . M. Two signatures thereon i.e. signatures of Tannu Shekh and Uttam Kumar are marked Exts . M/ 15 and M/ 20 respectively . Then there is another resignation letter. Signature of Raju Singh on that resignation letter is marked Ext . M/9. This resignation letter is computer printed letter. Handwritten resignation letter bears signature and thumb impresson of 38 workmen, whereas computer printel resignation letter bears the signature and thumb impression [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

owner to show the resignation letter. This request was made in writing vide letter dated 31-12-2005 (Ext . W/4) . There was direction by the Regional Labour Commissioner to make payment by 12-1-2006 but the payment was not made. Again union wrote a letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner, on 17-1-2006, which is Ext . W/5 . 12-1-2006 and 30-1-2006 were the dates fixed before the Regional Labour Commissioner , but the owner did not appear. Dashrath Mishra appeared for the workmen. A notice was sent by the Regional Labour Commissioner to the owner to produce documents..

of 41 workmen including the signature and thumb impression of those whose signature and thumb impression are already there on Ext . M. Existence of two resignation letters creats doubt about the genuinness of the resignation letters . The management has not explained as to how these two resignation letters came into existence . M.W.1 Vimalendra Kumar has proved resignation letter Ext. M. He has simply stated that there are signatures and thumb impression of the workmen on the resignation letters . But he has not stated that as to who wrote the contents of the resignation letters and whether workmen signed the same or put their thumb. impression thereon in his presence . Another witness M.W.2 Dayal Das is owner of the company. His evidence is self contradictory. He has stated that workmen resigned voluntarily but in the second sentance he has stated that there was pressure of the management on the workmen to give resignation. In his cross - examination he stated that the resignation letter was in English . He did not know as to who typed the same. He did not verify the same from the workmen. Similar is the evidence of M.W. 3, M.W. 4 and M.W. 5 about resignation .

8. Workmen have examined 8 witnesses . W.W.1 , Raju Singh, W. W.2- Ajramul Shekh, W.W.3 - Tannu. Shekh , W.W.4, Allimudin Shekh, W.W.5 - Uttam Kumar Hazra , W.W.6 , Zalwa Shekh , W.W.7 , Mirrudin all are workmen . They have stated that they never resigned. They were not members of Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha . Ashim Pandey alias A. C. Pandey alias A. K. Pandey was not their leader and their signature on resignation was obtained by fraud . W.W.1 Raju Singh admitted his signature Ext . M/9 but said that the signature was obtained fradulently. W.W.2 Ajramul Shekh has stated specifically that he did not sign any resignation letter.

10. It obvious from the evidence of W.W.6 Vijay Kumar Jha that Quarries Worker's Union, was representing the workmen of the industries under reference . The management gave written assurance to the General Secretary of the said unión to make payment of dues of the workmen on 4-7-2000 , which is Ext . W/ 1 . Thus the plea of the management that workmen were represented by Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha, Pakur can not believed . A. C. Pandey or A. K. Pandey , according to the management espoused the cause of the workmen for the first time on 23-11-2005 and prior to that i.e. 12-11-2005 the workmen had electively resigned . Ext . W/ 1 is a document dated 4-7-2005 which clearly shows without any doubt thatthe interest ofthe workmen was being looked after by Quarries Worker's Union, Pakur and the management was also dealing with the same union. Therefore subsequently repersentation by another union and leader of another union appears to be doubtful and it appears to be only a story concocted by the management to take a defence that workmen resigned. The story ofresignation appears to be doubtful and not credible for another reason also that so called resignation letter is not one resignation letter rather there are two resignation letters by the same set of workmen . One is hand written and without any date . It is written in English. Another is computer printed. On this resignation letter dated 12-11-2005 is written by pen. Contents of both the resignation letters are same and identical with the same set of workmen . In the computer printed resignation letter four more names have been added by pen. In computer printed resignation letter there are names of 41 workmen but there are thumb impression and signature of the only 35 workmen . The existence of two resignation letters has not been explained by the management . Under this circumstances I am inclined to believe the plea of the workmen that their signature was obtained fradulently, which was later on used to fabricate resignation letter. Therefore the resignation letter is not genuine .

11. It has been argued with emphasis by the management that after resignation when the workmen left the work and their cause was espoused by A. C. Pandey ofJharkhand Mazdoor Morcha , there was negotiation on 23-11-2005 and settlement in presence of A. C. Pandey, President ofJharkhand Mazdoor Morcha. That settlement is Ext . M/ 2 . The management agreed to make payment of all legal dues of each staff @ Rs . 1,50,000.00 (Rs . one lac 9. Evidence of W.W.8 Bijay Kumar is very important . He is Assistant Secretary of Quarries Worker's Union, Pakur . He has stated that his union i.e. Quarries Worker's Union, Pakur represented the workmen of R.R.S. & Kailash Stone Works . Bonus and salary of workmen was stopped by the management . Union office bearers and representatives of workmen met owner Dayal Das and Manager , Ramashankar . The management gave one undertaking in writting to make payment of all the dues within fifteen days and by 19-7-2005 . They assured to make payment of Rs . 4,50,000.00 (Rs . four lacs fifty thousand) only. This assurance was given in writting and itwas addressed to Dashrath Mishra, General Secretary, Quarries Worker's Union , Pakur. The assurance and undertaking given by the management in writing is Ext . W/ 1. photocopy of the same document has been marked Ext . W. However this commitment was not honoured. When the payment was not made , Dashrath Mishra wrote a letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner on 28-12-2005 , copy ofwhich is Ext. W/2. When the union's leader talked with the owner, he said that the workmen had resigned, union leader Dashrath Mishra requested the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

fifty thousand) only in instalments . First instalment was paid on same day and remaining instalments were paid later on . The management has proved a few signature of the workmen to show that payments were made. These signature are Ext.M/9 to M/21 . I have already held in forgoing paragraph that workmen were being represented by Quarries Worker's Union , Pakur under the leadership of Dashrath Mishra . The management also recognised that union and gave written undertaking to that union in the month of July, 2005 to make payment of all the dues of the workmen . Therefore the story created by the management that Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha and its President A. C. Pandey espoused the cause ofthe workmen in the month of November, 2005 and there was a settlement under his leadership can not be believed. It is important to mention here that said A. C. Pandey alias A. K. Pandey was named as a witness by the management in the list of witnesses submitted by the management but for the reasons best know to the management he was not examined . An attempt was made by the management to implead A. C. Pandey as party to this reference and send a notice to him . This prayer for addition of party to the proceeding was rejected by this Tribunal vide order dated 4-10-2007. Under these circumstances the story of resignation by the workmen on 12-11-2005 and subsequent settlement and agreement on 23-11-2005 can not be believed . On the very face of it the story brought forward by the management appears to be improbable . Why should all the workmen resignation without any reason and then after seven days espouse there cause through a leader. Then after five days (23-11-2005) there is a Bipartite Settlement and management not only agrees to make payment of all the dues of workmen but also makes payment of first instalment on the same date unbelievable fast and quick sequence of these events considered in the light of two resignation letters as also the part played by A. C. Pandey make whole story put forward by the management highly improbable .

12. It was argued on behalf of the management that the workmen were signatory to the Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 and the same is binding upon them . That settlement can not be challeged in this proceeding . The Bipartite Settlement can not be subject matter of this proceeding . I do not find any merit in this argument . In this case the Bipartite Settlement is not under challeged or in question . Bipartite Settlement in this case is not an admitted fact . The fact of Bipartite Settlement has been placed by the management as a defence to the reference in which termination of services of 32 workmen is in question. The case of the workmen is that so called Bipartite Settlement is a forged document prepared on the basis of signature of workmen obtained in decietful manner and fradulently. In such circumstances where Bipartite settlement is alleged to be a forged documents and there is evidence to that effect as such there is no question to rely upon the same .

13. Itwas argued on behalf of the management that the workmen in question were members of Jharkhand

1833

भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

Mazdoor Morcha under the leadership ofA.C. Pandey and there is no evidence that they were member of Quarries Worker's Union . Therefore it was argued , Quarries Worker's Union has no legal right to raise the dispute . It was argued that no documentary evidence has been filed to prove that the workman in question were members of Quarries Worker's Union . This argument is also without any merit . The managment dealt with the Quarries Worker's Union and gave written undertaking to Sri Dashrath Mishra of Quarries Worker's Union to pay all the dues of the workmen in question by 19-7-2005 vide Ext.W/ 1 . This document is evidence of the fact that Quarries Worker's Union was recognised by the management and that union was representing the cause of the workmen in question .

14. It was argued on behalf of the managment with reference to Ext.M/9 to Ext.M/21 that settlement dated 23-11-2005 between the managment and workmen was acted upon. Payments were made in accordance with Bipartite Settlement and the same were accepted by the workmen . Signature of some of workmen in lieu of receipt of money have been proved . It was argued on behalf of the management that having received money in the light of Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 , the workmen have accepted the position that they have resigned and that they are not in the service of the company. Thus they have accepted the fact of severence of the relationship ofMaster and Servant between the company and the workmen . As I have already held in forgoing paragraph that according to the workmen . A.C. Pandey took their signature on several papers fradulently and in decictful manner which were used to fabricate resignation letter and receipt of money, compensation etc. and this fact has been proved . Therefore any document including Ext . M/ 9 to M/21 based and fabricated on the papers upon which signature of the workmen were obtained fraudulently and decietfully can not be used to support the story of resignation to subsequent settlement . There papers cannot be used as proof of the fact that the workmen actually received compensation and the Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 was acted upon. I do not find any force in this argument.

15. In the light of aforesaid discussion of the facts circumstances and evidence of this case I Have come to the conclusion that the 32 workmen never resigned from the service of the company and their services were terminated illegally, in decietfull manner by the company.

16. Second point consideration in this case is whether non-payment of legal dues of the workmen is justified. In this regard the case of the management is that after resignation of the workmen there was Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 . Mode of payment or dues of workmen was settled in that agreement . According to Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 dues of workmen was to be paid in instalments . Four instalments were paid videExt . M/3 , M/4, M/ 5 and M/8 . According to Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 all legal dues were to be paid in 14 instalments . It was argued on behalf of the management , the management are still ready and prepared [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1834

ANNUXTURE

to clear all the legal dues in terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 25 of 2001

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of The Dy. Chairman, Haldia Dock Complex, Calcutta Port Trust, Jawahar Tower

AND Theirworkmen .

17. I have already discussed evidence in details in forgoing paragraphs while deciding the question of termination of service of workmen or their resignation and it has been held that signature of workmen were obtained in fraudulent and decietfull manner by A. C. Pandey and the same were used to fabricate resignation, Bipartite Settlement dated 23-11-2005 as also documents showing payment of legal dues . In view of this finding I am ofthe view that the management has not paid the legal dues of the workmen and non - payment is not alljustified.

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, Presiding Officer APPEARANCE:

Onbehalf of the : Mr. J. Ghosh Dastidar ,

Jr. Assistant Manager .

Management

Mr. A. Bhadury,

Vice President of the union .

Onbehalf of the : Workmen

State: West Bengal :. Industry: Port & Dock .

Dated: 27th December, 2010 .

AWARD

By Order No.L- 32011/6/2001 - IR( M) dated 10-08-2001 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:

18. Now third and last question is as to what relief the workmen are entitled to . It is admitted that all the 32 workmen were employed by the company. The case ofthe management is that they resigned from the service of the company and stopped work . This story set up by the management has been disblieved and the finding is that signature of workmen were obtained fraudulently and in decietfull manner and the same were used to fabricate their resignation letter, Bipartite Settlement and documents showing payment of a few instalments of settlement dues to them . Having regard to the peculier circumstances of this case. I am ofthe view that all the 32 workmen are entitled to re- instatement with full back wages and all other legal dues to which they were entitled before termination oftheir services . The management is directed to comply the same within 30 days from the date ofpublication ofthe Award .

19. And this is my Award . Dictated & Correction by me . HARISH CHANDRA SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of Haldia Dock Complex(Calcutta Port Trust) in not paying the scale ofpay ofRs.2250-4430/- to Sh. Basudeb Bera , Anil Kumar Tripathi , Nanigopal Das , Sk . Fazlur Rahaman, Ahibhusan Maity and Mantu Kr . Pramanik, Senior Drivers as demanded by the union is justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

का.आ. 589.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हल्दीया गोदी परिसर कलकत्ता पत्तन न्यास 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 25/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -32011/6/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

2. One application has been filed today from the side of the workmen expressing that the dispute has been resolved in between the parties which is a result ofmutual understanding in between the parties and the workman does not want to proceed with the present reference in view ofthe said mutual understanding. Representative from the management side also agreed and endorsed such prayer ofthe workman concerned who is personally present today. Since Mr. Bhadury the authorized representative of the workmen union is present , I think endorsement of the workmen union itself in the application is not needed as he stated that the workmen union has knowledge of the said mutual understanding .

In view of the said prayer in the application filed today and as per oral version made by the workman on a query from my side, I am satisfied that the prayer made on behalfofthe workmen is genuine . Let the present reference be disposed of as resolved in between the parties outside the Tribunal . An Award is passed accordingty.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer S.O. 589. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Culcutta Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011 .

Dated, Kolkata,

27th December, 2010.

[No. L- 32011 /6/2001 - IR (M) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1835 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

Corporation Ltd. , Madras and the Regional Manager , H.P.C.L.Belgeum Regional Office, Sambhaji Road , Rani Chennamma Nagar, P.B. No.529. Belgaum- 590 006 in terminating from services of Shri Sayad Hasan Yakub Ex - Tank Truck helper, PR No.002306 of Vasco daGama (Goa) . Terminal of H.P.C.L. , Resident ofNonMonkhariwada, House No.207 w.e.f. 20-3-91 isjustified and proper ? Ifnot, to what relief the above workman entitled? "

का.आ. 590.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय पंणजी गोवा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/8/93- आई आर( एम ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

Notices were issued to both parties and thereafter Party I/workman appeared and filed his claim statement vide Ext.5 whereas Party II/ employer filed written statement at Ext.6 . Thereafter the workman filed his rejoinder at Ext.7 .

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 590. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.74 /94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Panaji (Goa) now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011 .

[No. L-30012/8/93 - IR (M) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I AT PANAJI

Before B. P. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

RefNo. IT/ 74/94

Shri Sayed Hasan Yakub , House No.207 , Non Mon ,

Kariwada, Vasco da Gama

...Workmen/Party I

V/s

TheGeneral Manager, South Zone , M/ s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.. ,

3. In nut shell it is the case of the workman that he was employed as a tank truck helper with Party II at its Vasco da Gama Terminal at Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. since 1980. He was served with a charge sheet dated 29-8-88 issued by Sr. Regional Manager, Belgum. Regional Office . The enquiry was instituted against the workman by the General Manager ( SOD) ofH.P.C.L. Head Quarter at Mumbai . After the said enquiry the management. took a decision to terminate the services of the workman vide letter dated 9-11-1990 issued by ChiefGeneral Manager Bombay and conveyed to the workman to show cause against proposed penalty . However a copy of the findings and the report of the enquiry officer was not given which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice . Vide letter dated 21-11-90 workman replied to the show cause notice. However , the General Manager , South Zone at Madras issued a letter dated 20-3-91 thereby imposing punishment of termination of services with immediate effect . The workman claimed that the enquiry was initiated by the Head Quarter at Bombay and hence the General Manager, the South Zone, Madras had no jurisdiction to issue the termination orders . The workman approached appellate authority. However, the chairman and the Managing Director failed to consider all these aspects and rejected the appeal . The workman thereafter raised the dispute and since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to this Tribunal .

Madras

...Employer/ Party II

Party I/Workmen is represented by Adv. T. Pereira, Party II/Employer is represented by Adv . G K. Sardesai

AWARD

(Passed on this 16th day of November, 2010)

In exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (d) ofSub- Section 1 and Section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , the Government of India referred the dispute vide No. L - 30012/8 /93 - IR( Misc .) dated 9-10-1993 for adjudication to this Tribunal and the schedule reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, South Zone, Hindustan Petroleum

4. The employer in their written statement claimed that the workman committed serious misconduct by committing theft of the company property and therefore the charge sheet was issued to him and enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner by giving full opportunity. The workman in clear terms admitted his guilt along with the other employee regarding aspect of theft and apart from that management proved alleged misconduct against the workman by independent evidence . Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the workman regarding proposed punishment and since Vasco office is coming within the jurisdiction of South Zone, the orders of termination was issued by the competent authority. In the rejoinder filed at Ext.7 the workman denied all aspects [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

Findings

in the written statement and claimed that there is no material to prove the misconduct and hence order of termination is illegal .

5. After considering rival contention issues were framed vide Ext.8 and additional issue was framed vide Ext. 13. Issue no.1 and 1A were treated as preliminary issues and thereafter both parties led evidence . An order was passed vide Ext.21 dated 4-12-2008 by my learned predecessor thereby deciding both preliminary issues . In the said order it was observed that issue No.1 is answered in negative whereas issue No. 1A is answered in affirmative . Thus remaining three issues are with respect to the punishment aspect and the same are considered at present . The Party I stepped into the witness box vide Ext.22 and claimed that the punishment of termination of services is shockingly disproporationate and his past record was clean and unblemished. The Party II did not lead any evidence with regard to the present issues . Both parties submitted written arguments which are at Ext.23 and 24 respectively.

6. I have perused the said written submisions as well as the entire record . Issue reads as under together with my findings against it

7. Issue No.2: In the present matter this Tribunal vide order dated 4-12-2008 has already held that the enquiry was held in fair and proper manner and the misconduct are proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal by acceptable evidene. The misconduct alleged against the workman is found in the charge sheet which is a part and parcel of the enquiry proceedings at Ext.E - 5 colly. The charge sheet dated 29-8-88 show that there are four charges levelled against workman ( 1 ) theft or dishonesty in connection with the Employer's business or property; (2) Wilful damage to or loss of Employer's goods or property; (3 ) Taking bribes ; (4) Wilful insubordination in connection with Employer's property . The fact leading to the above charges are that on 3rd March 1988 the workman was on duty in first shift at Vasco Terminal and he was assigned the duty to accompany Shri J. M. Palha , H. V. Driver to carry 8 KL of M. S. ( Petrol) and 4 KL of HSD ( Diesel ) in tanker truck No. GDU 4650 for the supply to retail outlet of M/s K.W,. Kenny and Associates Panjim as per invoice No. 005409. The seal ofthe tank trouk was checked by the Operation Officers befoere the trcuk left the terminal . At around 10.00 a.m. on 3-3-88 Deputy Manager and Bulk operator went to the retail outlet to check the contents of the tanker truck No. GDU 4650 and they found that seals of the compartment no.1 & 2 were tempered and the samples taken out from the tanker truck in presence of the workman and the driver failed in the filter paper test .

1 Whether Party I proves that the action of the Party II in terminating the services of Party I is vitiated for not supplying the copy of the findings and report ofthe enquiry officer ? Negative (vide order dt.4-12-09)

1A. Whether the charges of misconduct are proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal by accep- table evidence ?

8. During the investigation the workman and the driver admitted in writing that they removed one barrel (approximately 200 litres ) of the product from each compartment and added equal quantities of Kerosene after tampering with the seals . They further admitted that they collected an amount of Rs . 1200 towards sale of removed product out of which Rs . 500 was kept by the workman and the remaining by the driver. The charge sheet was signed by the Senior Regional Manager Belgaum Regional Office and thereafter enquiry was conducted against the workman wherein he participated and was afforded fair opportunity to defend himself.

Affirmative(vide order dt.4-12-08 )

2. Whether Party I proves that Party II has no jurisdiction to issue the letter of termination of services of the Party I ?

not proved.

negative

3. Whether Party I proves that the termination of his services by the Party II w.e.f. 20-3-91 is illegal , improper and justified ?

negative.

4. Whether party I is entitled to any relief ?

5. WhatAward ?

As per order below

9. In the present matter there it is claimed that the termination order issued by General Manager, South Zone has no authority but the workman failed to produce any material to that effect . The only evidence led by the workman is regarding punishment which is disproportionate to the misconduct and nothing else . However, written submission filed by Party II clearly show that the Vasco Terminal comes within the jurisdiction of South Zone and therefore the General Manager is the competent authorty to issue the order oftermination . Since the workman has failed to disclose any material to prove his contention regarding issue No. 2 and also there is no reference or arguments advanced in the written submissions at Ext . 23 , it is to be considered that the workman failed to discharge the burden regarding issue No. 2 and hence the same is answered as not proved.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1837 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

14. In the case ofAD Sandbor Pune V/ s Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. , reported in 2000 LLR 933 , the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the powers of the Tribunal under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act are required to be exercised carefully and it is the discretion ofthe Tribunal to grant or refuse the relief depending on the facts and circumstances of each case .

10. Issue Nos . 3 & 4 : It is the contention of the workman that the termination order dated 20-3-1991 is illegal, improper and unjustified . In this respect the evidence of workman at Exb . 22 discloses that his past record was unblemished and therefore he could have been awarded lesser punishment instead of dismissing from service . Не further claimed that after the dismissal, he was unemployed for a period of two years and now he is working at STD booth with a salary of Rs . 2000 per month . The written submission filed at Exb . 23 on behalf of the workman shows that the misconduct alleged against the workman was not serious warranting maximum punishment and it was involving meager amount . It is also claimed that there was no loss suffered by Party II . Further the workman was not suspended during the enquiry till the order of dismissal and therefore it showed that the employer did not lose confidence with Party I and hence the punishment is disproportionate, harsh and unwarranted .

11. The written submission filed on behalf of Party II , refers to various decisions with regard to the imposition ofpunishment and on that basis it has been claimed that when the employee is found guilty for the misconduct of a grave nature like theft of the property of the employer , punishment of dismissal cannot be considered as disproportionate.

15. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V/ s N.B. Narawade 2005 Vol . 3 SCC 134, theApex Court has held that the Tribunal/Labour Court, under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is having discretion in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management . However such discretion has been well defined by various judgements of the Apex Court and it is certainly not unlimited . The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being so disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court , or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court/Tribunal to reduce the punishment . In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court/Tribunal cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A of theAct and reduce the punishment .

16. In the case of Regional Manager RSRTC V/ s Ghanshyam Sharma reported in 2002 (1 ) LLJ 234 , theApex Court has held that there is no place for considering misplaced sympathy to reduce punishment and the power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is to be used judiciously..

12. While deciding preliminary issues , this Tribunal has confirmed the contentions of Party II with regard to the charges levelled against the workman and acceepted the material placed before it to hold that the workman was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him . Considerig this aspect , it is but natural to lose faith and confidence with such employee by the employer as the property was entrusted to be delivered safely and the same was tampered with during the transit . Apart from it the workman was involved in adulteration of the product which was in the tank by adding Kersone to it in order to bring bulk at the original level and thereafter by selling the removed product to third party and appropriating the amount clandestinely . The behaviour of the workman certainly bring disrepute to the good will of the company and also to retail or as contaminated product is supplied with . Such case amount to committing theft , irrespective of the account invloved in it and such acts certainly cause a huge loss and disrepute of the employer in all respects . The seals of the tanker truck were also tampered with for the purpose of removing the product shored in it and thus it also amounts in damaging the property of the employer for ulterrior motive .

17. Many other decisions have been referred by the learned counsel for the Party II in their written submissions . However, the ratio in all these decisions is similar wherein it has been consistently held that the misconduct if proved regarding the aspect of theft has to be considered as grave misconduct irrespective of amount involved in it since it is the question of faith of the employer on the employee which is a main factor and one there is a lost faith , the employer cannot be forced to retain such employee in service . Hence , all these aspects clearly prove that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the employee/ workman to be considered as the misconduct stands proved which is connected with theft and therefore the punishment imposed by the management cannot be termed as disproportionate . No other circumstances is brought on record to invoke the discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act in favour of the workman . Thus, I answer the Issue Nos . 3 & 4 in negatve.

18. Considering the above discusions , it is clear that Party I is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the present reference and thus the following order.

13. In the case of Depot Manager APSRPC V/ s Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad reported in 2007 LLR 113 , the Apex Court has clearly observed that an employee who is found guilty of committing theft of the property of employer deserved dismissal from service .

540GI /11-16 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1838

Versus

ORDER

The Chairman ,

Khadan Shramik Sahkari Samiti , Mahamaya Mines , Post Mahamaya, Tah . Balod,

Management

Distt . Durg (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 23rd day of December , 2010 The action ofthe management of General Manager , South Zone , Hindustan Petroleum Corpn . Ltd. , Madras and the Regional Manager, H.P.C.L. Belgaum Regional Officer, Sambhaji Road, Rani Chennamma Nagar, P.B. No. 529, Belgaum- 590 006 in terminating from services of Shri Sayad Hasan Yakub , Ex - Tank Truck Helper , PR No. 002306 of Vasco da gama (Goa) , terminal of H.P.C.L. Resident of Non Monkhariwada, House No. 207 w.e.f. 20-3-91 is legal, justified and proper.

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 26012/21 /97 - IR( Misc ) dated 11-9-97 has referred the follwing dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

No order as to cost. Inform the Government accordingly.

Dated: 16-11-2010

Panaji .

B. P. DESHPANDE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Khadan Shramik Sahakari Samiti , Mahamaya in terminating the services of Shri Kaliram w.e.f. 25-5-96 is lawful andjustified ? If not , whether the workman is justified in claiming departmentalization by the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in accordance with the settlement dated 14-11-95 alongwith back wages and benefits . "

2. Initially the workman appeared on 18-10-2000 but did not file statement of claim and subsequently became absent . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the workman on 6-5-2008 .

का.आ. 591 .-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार खदान श्रमिक सहकारी समिति महामाया माईन्स 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 273/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

3. The management also appeared in the reference but no written statement was filed . As such the right to file Written Statement was closed on 9-12-2010.

[सं. एल-26012/21/ 97- आईआर (एम ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

4. Under the circumstances , it is clear that the workman has no Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal . Accordingly the reference is answered.

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

5. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

6. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011 S.O. 591. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 273/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Khadan Shramik Sahkari Samiti, Mahamaya Mines and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011 .

[No. L- 26012/21/97 - IR (M) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

का.आ. 592.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स गनेश कोन्टेनर मुवर्स सिंडिकेट मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

[सं. एल-31011 /18/2001- आईआर( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी No. CGIT/LC /R/273/97

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2011 PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Kaliram,

C/o Shri Sahadeb Sahu ,

At/PO Dallirajhara,

S.O. 592.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

... Workman/Union

Distt . Durg (MP) 1839 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

3. Bajirao M. Khuspe

4. Vishnu P. Jadhav

5. Vijay R. Nimbalkar

Court , Mumbai - 2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Ganesh Container movers Syndicate Mumbai and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011 .

6. Ashok V. Kate

7. Anil S. Shinde

[No. L- 31011/ 18/2001 IR (M) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

8. Dayanand L. Mishra

ANNEXURE

9. Dhanaji S. Taware

10. Jaysingh T. Yadav

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

11. Subash M. Katkar

Present : K. B. KATAKE Presiding Officer

12. Sayaji D. Suryavanshi

Reference No. CGIT- 2/ 1 OF 2002

13. Subash K. Dalvi

14. Shivaji D. Jagdale

Employers in Relation to the Management of M/s . Ganesh Container Movers Syndicate , Mumbai

15. Appa G. Jadhav

The Proprietor

M/s . Ganesh Container Movers Syndicate

16. Ashok N. Sawant

26/27 , Vyapar Bhawan

17. Bhausaheb P. Mane

18. Dashrath S. Katkar

CarnacBunder Mumbai -400 009.

AND

19. Dattatraya N. Yadav

Their Workmen

20. Hindurao V. Ghadge

The Secretary

21. Sanjay Jadhav

Transport and Dock Workers Union

22. Chandrakant Kate

P. D ' mello Bhavan

P. D' mello Road,

23. Dnyandeo G. Jadhav

24. Devidas Bote

Carnac Bunder Mumbai-400 038 .

25. Hanumant J. Jagdale

APPEARANCES :

26. Kaka Ghadge

: Mr. B. K. Ashok ,

For the Employer

27. Narayan N. Pawar

M/s . Sonia Sunil Advocates .

28. Uttam Sawant

For the Workmen : Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant,

Advocate .

29. Vittal Suryavanshi

Mumbai , dated the 9th November, 2010 .

30. Vittal Ballal

AWARD

31. Vayas Mane

32. Pandrinath Nimbalkar

33. Shivaji K. Fadtare

34. Suresh N. Madane

35. Tatoba M. Jagdale

Helper

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No. L- 31011 / 18/2001 [ IR ( M) ] , dated 26-12-2001 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 adjucation :

1. S/Shri Arvind Darekar

2. Balekhan Shaikh

3. Dattu B. Gawde

4. Dilip Temkar

Whether the action of the employer M/s . Ganesh Container Movers Syndicate , Mumbai in terminating the services of 212 permanent workmen (list enclosed) under the guise of retrenchment is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?

5. Khandu Gawde

List ofworkmen

6. Shivaji Gawde

Drivers

7. Ashok Khude

1. S /Shri Birbhan C. Saravo

8. Ashok Khodade

2. Rafique J. Khan 1840

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

9. Arun Londhe

10. Balu Gawde

11. Kilachand Khupte

12. Navnath Nighut

13. Ramdas Nangre

14. Suhas Dongre

15. Ramdas Bhor

16. Shankar Vighe

17: Vasant Gawde

18. Kantaram Taware

19. Ramesh Nousupe

20. Vilas T. Shinde

21. Vithal Dhadambe

22. Rakhma Gawde

23. Sitaram Ghatkar

24. Gopinath Narsale

25. Raju Jadhav

26. Salim Khothiwale

27. Atul Kamble

28. Kaluram Gawde

29. Kumar Shinde

30. Prashant Mohite

31. Mehboob Baig

32. Ravindra Bansode

33.Sopan Lawate

34. Sunil Mohite

35. Sonyabapu Sherkar

36. Shivaji Khodade

37. Dnyaneshwar Dhygude 38. Ramesh Sonawane

39. Arun R. Temkar

40. Eknath Gawade

41. Dattatray Tambe

42. Hemant Mhatre

43. Sudhakar Gawade

CLEANER

1. S/ Shri Appa S. Suryawanshi 2. Dadaji W. Panpatil

3. Nandkumar T. Jagtap 4. Kundlik H. Yadav

5. Mohan G Jagdale

6. Anand D. Mane

7. Dattu N. Auti

8. Vishwas R.Shinde

9. Ram S. Bhosale

10. Ganpat N. Masal

11. Ragunath Ghorpade

12. ViajyP. Kadam

13. Dadasaheb S. Jagdale

14. Dashrath A. Wagh

15. Sampat V. Sawant

16. Govardhan Rokade

17. Vasant S. Jagdale

18. Sanjay B. Jagdale

19. Arun B. Shinde

20. Ashok K. Depe

21. Anil V. Mohite

22. Ashok B. Mane

23. Bhausabeh Narsale

24. Mohan D. Bodare

25. Rajnarayan P. Singh

26. Suresh P. Ghadge

27. Sayaji B. Suryavanshi

28. Tukaam K. Pawar

29. Hanumant R. Pawar.

30. Yuvraj G Thorat

31. Viajy D. Patole

32. Arun A. Shirke

33 .. Arun N. Kumbhar

34. Vijay D. Olekar

35. Dashrath T. Gawade

36. Macchindra V. Katkar

37. Devidas Satre

38. Krishna B. Ahire

39. Şanjay M. Ingle

40. Mahadeo A. Bhoslae

41. Rahim A. Sattar

42. Snajay P. Ghadge

43. Shivaji B. Gaekwad

44. Shahji S. Bhosale

45. Dnydeo E. Jadhav

46. Mahadeo T. Katkar

47. Prakash S. Katkar

48. Ajit M. Gaekwad [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

49. Datatray P. Pawar

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

1841 36. Umarkahn Appasaheb

50. Sayaji N. Suryavanshi 37. Vijay Pagare

51. Subash M. Wagh

38. Pradeep Nalawade

52. Ganesh Khude

39. Bharat S. Pagare

53. Yasin G. Jamadar

40. Baban S. Kharat

54. Srikrisha B. Jadhav

41. Dhruv B. Rao

DOCK STAFF

42. Lala J. Jagdale

1. S/ Shri Jaiprakash Lokhande 43. Shivaji W. Saste

2. Laxınan L. Naik

44. Dhanaji R. Kadam

3. Yashwatn D. Yadav

45. Ganesh Hule

4. Satyavijay Shirwadkar 46. Nitin B. Sevekar

5. Cyril Fernandes

47. Ramprasad Ghauhan

6. Unnikrishna Nair

48. Satish M. Dongre

7. Shriram J Yadav

49. Suhas B. Sawant

8. Avinath Dumbre

50. Rahul B. Chabukswar

9. Gajanan Bhingarde

51. Sadashiv M. Kharat

10. Ganesh Dhekane

52. Santosh P. Bhalerao

11. Sanesh Sawant

53. Narayan B. Yadav

12. Vidhyadhar Vengurlekar 54. SanjayA. Ghade

13. Jaywant Suryawanshi 55. Sandeep L. Sawant

14. Hcramb Kambli

56. Motilal H. Diwadkar

15. Krishnandan Pandit

57. Govardhan Pawar

16. Prakash Bhalekar

58. Sanjay Pabale

17. Ramkrishna Naidu

59. Sudharkar Sawant

18. RadheshyamYadav

19. Rajesh R. Yadav

60. Mangesh Mayekar :

61. Subash Gawde

20. Sambhaji Ghadge

62. Mahdeo M. Dongre

21. Surendra Yadav

63. Kisan B. Mengde

22. Suresh Dongre

64. Haridas S. Suryawanshi

23. Surendra P. Singh

24. Utta Khot

65. Sunil G Kini

66. Santosh S. Deshmukh

25. Balu K. Jadhav

67. Rahim D. Mulani

26. Dilip Jagdale

68. Zameerkahn Ameerkahan

27. Deepak P. Salvi

28. Dinesh Suryawanshi

29. Madhukar Mohite

30. Natwar Samal

31. Prabhakar Kadam

32. Prakash Date

33. Pradeep Zende

34. Ravindra Jondhale

35. Rahidas Saste

2. The Second party, Secretary thereof has filed Statement of claim at Ex . 9. According to them, the first party is operating in major ports including Ports of Mumbai and JNPT and also in various cities in India . More than thousand workmen are in the employment of first party in various categories . The first party has issued a general notice of retrenchment dt.8-8-2001 to 212 workmen informing them that they were retrenched w.e.f. 10-8-2001 . According to them, second party moved the Regional Labour Commissioner , Mumbai about the illegal termination of 212 workmen and requested to intervene and advice first party not to act upon the retrenchment [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1842

notices . The said dispute was admitted in conciliation . Second party had informed to the first party that they had not displayed seniority list on notice board . Therefore they cannot retrench 212 junior most workers as there is no seniority list.

established practice prevailing in the port that , when contractor is changed , the same workers are continued by the new contractor/company. As per the order of Hon'ble High Court, the first party lost the contract and the new contractor, inspite of repeated request did not employ any existing employee of the first party. As per the said order ofHon'ble High Court, contract was given to M/ s . Hillson Dinshaw Ltd. w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to carry out the contract work ofShipping Corporation of India. The Hon'ble High Court had also given direction to the new contractor to consider these workmen while recruiting new workmen. However new contractor neither recruited these workmen nor continued any of them . Therefore first party had no alternative but to retrench 186 workmen as it has lost the contract work of Shipping Corporation of India .

3.According to second party, first party by its letter dt. 18-8-2001 informed the union that they were maintaining status quo as on 9-8-2001 accordingly all workers were allowed to resume their duties . The first party issued another notice dated 27-8-2001 to 186 workmen out of212 informing them that they would be retrenched from services w.e.f. 29-8-2001 . They informed 26 workers that , their services would be continued . The second party again informed Dy. CLC about the illegal termination of services of 186 workmen . The conciliation proceedings were held on 12-1-2002 . However dispute could not be settled on account of adamant , rigid and unlawful attitude of first party. The failure report was submitted by conciliation officer to Central Government and Government has sent the reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

7. Alongwith the retrenchment notice, the first party sent the cheques of one month's pay and compensation of trenchment to the respective workmen . They were retrenched lawfully as first party was required to close down its business at the site of Port Trust of India, Mumbai . According to them, the concerned workers are gainfully employed after their retrenchment. In the circumstances , the first party claims that the workers are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected.

8. Second party filed its rejoinder at Ex. 12. They repeated the same story as they have put in the statement of claim and also denied the contents in the written statement .

9. In the light of rival pleadings , my Learned Predecessors has framed issues at Ex.13 for determination . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow: Issues

4.According to second party, the first party illegally terminated the services of 186 workmen under the guise of retrenchment notices dated 27-8-2001 . The notices are illegal and unjustified . The first party did not comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 77 of Industrial Dispute ( Central ) Rules whileterminating the services of 186 workmen. The services of these workmen were terminated during pendency of conciliation proceedings violating provisions of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act . The action of first party amount to unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 13 & 14 of V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act . Therefore second party prays that the retrenchment notices dt . 27-8-2001 be declared illegal and unjustified and direction be given to first party to reinstate these 186 workmen with full backwages and continuity of their respective services .

(i) Whether the action of the employer M/s . Ganesh Container Movers Syndicate , Mumbai in terminating the services of 212 permanent workmen under the guise of retrenchment is legal and justified?

(a) Whether the employer has closed its business from June, 2002 ?

(ii) What reliefthe concerned workmen are entitled to? REASONS

ISSUE No. 1

5. First party resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex . 11. According to it, the Government has committed and apparent error of law and fact by sending this reference . It is wrongly mentioned in the reference order that , 212 workmen were retrenched. In fact only 186 workers were retrenched. The earlier notice to 212workmen was already withdrawn . The Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to adjudicate the termination/ retrenchment of 186 employees w.e.f. 29-8-2001 . Out of 186 workmen , 11 were working in a supervisory capacity and were drawing pay more than Rs . 1,600 p.m. therefore those 11 employees are not ' workmen ' as defined under Industrial Disputes Act. The seniority list was displayed on the notice board as well as the workplace of the employees on 21-8-2001 .

10. In the case at hand, facts are not disputed that the first party was the employer and it has served 212 workmen with notice of retrenchment . The fact is also not disputed that subsequently, the notices were taken back and fresh notice of retrenchment were issued to 186 workmenwhose services were terminated w.e.f. 29-8-2001 . The fact is also not disputed that along with the retrenchment notice, a cheque of one month's pay and retrenchment compensation was also sent to each workman. It is the case of second party union that the 6. According to first party, as per the contract of Shipping Corporation of India, it has engaged 232 employees to carry out the said contract work. It was an [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1843 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

action of retrenchment taken by the employer is malafiel. complied with the requirement of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act .

Under the guise of retrenchment the employer alleged to have illegally terminated the services of 186 workmen.

11. It is the case of the first party company that as per the orderdt . 15-5-2000 passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a WP, the: contract of work of first party was allotted to new contractor, Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. , therefore first party had no alternative but to retrench its workers . In this respect, the fact is not disputed even by the second party thatas per the order of Hon'ble High Court , the work of first party for which these workmen were employed was allotted to new contractor Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. According to first party as its work was allotted to new contractor, Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. , it had no alternative but to retrench the workmen employed for the same work .

15. It is the case of the union that there is no seniority list published and some workers junior to the retrenched 186 workers are still in service . However, the second party has not pointed out any such instance. Furthermore as the first party has lost the contract of work of Shipping. Corporation of India Ltd. they were compelled to stop their activities as the work contract was given to the new contractor Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. It was allottod to new contractor as per the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court . In the circumstances , the averment does not stand to reasons that the , workers junior to the retrenched workers are still working there . In the circumstances , it cannot be said that first party has terminated the service of 186 workmen illegally under the guise of retrenchment . Onthe other hand in the light of facts and circumstances discussed therein above, the action of retrenchment appears just and proper . Accordingly, I decide this issue no. 1 in the affirmative .

ISSUE No. 2

12. In this respect , the learned advocate for the second party pointed out that the workman not only have raised this point, but have also sought direction from the Hon'ble High Court to give them preference while making the appointment of workers by Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. The Learned Advocate pointed out that in notice ofmotion No. 1761/1998 in Suit no . 2308/98 , the Hon'ble High Court has given directions in clear words that " 5th defendant (Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd.) shall be at liberty to engage the permanent workers referred to in the bid document submitted to the plaintiffs as also the 26 Drivers and 26 Cleaners whose numbers are listed in the affidavit of defendant no . 5 dated 15-5-2000 . However in the event the 5th defendant requires any additional workers for doing the work under the contract the 5th defendant shall engage only workers from amongst the 232 workers whose names have been submitted to this Court and copies of which are given to the plaintiffs and defendant no . 5. The defendant no . 5 shall not engage any workers from outside or any other workers unless the aforesaid 232 workers are first offered employment ."

16. The retrenchment is held just and proper and proper procedure was followed. Furthermore these workmen have also approached the Hon'ble High Court . Hon'ble Bombay High Court has given direction to the new contractor Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. Not to appoint any additional workers at workplace except these 232 workers whose names have been submitted (who were retrenched from the service) . It also indicates that the retrenchment was neither arbitrary nor at the whim ofthe employer but employer was constrained to take the said action as he has lost the work contract, as it was allotted to the new contractor. The employer has also paid one months ' pay and retrenchment compensation to all these workers, therefore, I hold that the retrenchment is legal and these workmen are not entitled to any relief as claimed for . Accordingly, I decide this issue no.2 in the negative.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1- ( a)

13. In the light of the facts and circumstances on record, it is clear that the employer was constrained to issue the retrenchment notices as their contract of work was allotted to new contractor, Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. Therefore , it cannot be said that the retrenchment was at the whim of the employer . So also it cannot be said that under the guise of retrenchment , the employer has terminated the services of the workmen illegally.

14. In this respect , further I would like to point out thatthe employer has not terminated the services of the workmen abruptly. On the other hand , he has issued notices to each of the workman . He has also sent alongwith the notice, the cheque of one month's pay and compensation for the retrenchment . The witness of union Mr. Krishnanandan Pandit in para 3 of his affidavitat Ex.19 stated that he had been paid retrenchment compensation. The fact is not disputed even by second party that a cheque of one month's pay and retrenchment compensation was sent to each workman alongwith the retrenchment notice. It indicates that the employer has

17. It is the averment of the first party that it has closed down their business at Mumbai Port since June 2002. It was denied by second party. However this issue has no relevancy with the subject matter or the point in dispute. When retrenchment is held legal and proper, it has no relevancy whether the company has closed its business since June 2002 or not . In the circumstances , it is unnecessary to deal with this issue . However as this additional issue is framed, I am dealing with it. On the issue, I would like to point out that witness Shri Jaiprakash Khare on behalf of first party denied in his cross at Ex- 34 that the company is still functioning. Furthermore witness of second party Mr. Krishnanandan Pandit says in his cross at Ex- 19 last para therein that after June 2002 after closing of the business of Ganesh Containers at Mumbai PortTrust he did not apply to the High Court about non- compliance of order. In short he has admitted that in June 2002, the business of Ganesh Containers was closeddown.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1844

Dated, 13th December 2010

AWARD

There is also no evidence on record to show that business of first party is still going on after 2002. In the circumstances , I decide this issue no . 1 (a) in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

ByOrderNo. L- 29011/ 10/2000- IR(M) dated 31-5-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the follwoing dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

Action of the Management of Ganesh Containers Movers ' Syndicate, Mumbai in retrenching the workmen is legal and justified.

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

Date: 9-11-2010

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2011

"Whether Shri Panchanand and 34 others have worked for 240 days with the management ofM/s . SulemanAnsari & Bros. ? If so , whether the action of the management in issuing termination order to these workmen is proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?" का.आ. 593.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सुलेमान अंसारी एण्ड ब्रदर्स पटना के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 179/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29011 / 10/2000- आई आर ( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. This dispute was received in this Tribunal on 3-7-2000. Despite notice being sent to the parties till 24-2-2010 no written statement has been filed on behalfof the workman. Again registered notice was sent to the union on 8-3-2010 to file written statement on behalfof the workmen by 1-6-2010 as a last chance, failing which no dispute award would be passed. But even on 1-6-2010 neider the sponsoring union nor the concerned workmen appearedto file written statement. It, therefore, seems that neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workmen are interested to contest the case.

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

3. In such circumstances , I render a 'No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2011 S.O. 593. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , (Ref. No. 179/ 2000. ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Dhanbad - 1 , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Suleman Ansari & Brothers and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011 .

[No. L-29011/10/2000- IR (M)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का. आ. 594,-औद्योगिक बिवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सस्कार क्षेत्रीय किसान ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केल्ट्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 290/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD .

[सं. एल-12012/239/99 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी In the matter of a reference U/s . 10 (1 )( d) (2A) of I. D. Act .

Reference No. 179 of 2000

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011 Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofM/s . Suleman Ansari & Brothers .

AND

Their Workmen .

Present : Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

None.

For the Employers :

S.O. 594. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 290/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kshetriya Kissan Gramin Bank and their workman, received by the Central Government on 25-1-2011.

None.

Forthe workmen :

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Mines .

[No. L- 12012/239/99- IR(B - I)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 1845 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PRAKASH, HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 290 of 99

Between

Sri Aditya Prakash Dubey, C/o Sri B. P. Saxena , 426 , W- II Vasant Vihar, Kanpur.

And

The Chairman , Kshetriya Kissan Gramin Bank, Kuchehari Road, Mainpuri .

industrial dispute in the year 1990 before the ALC, but the appropriate government refused to refer the case of the applicant for adjudication. It is stated that on coming to know of the awards delivered by this Hon'ble Tribunal , the applicant wrote to the government detailing the position of references of other similar cases, whereupon the Ministry wrote a letter dated 2-4-98 to the ALC ( C) Lucknow to consider all such cases . Ultimately the reference was made to this tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate government. Lastly it is stated that as the entire action of the opposite party bank is in gross violationofthe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore , the same is liable to be set aside and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages and all consequential benefits .

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL , New Delhi vide notification No. L- 12012/239/99 - IR ( B- 1) dated 9-11-1999, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Mainpuri , in terminating the services of Sri Aditya Prakash Dubey and not reinstating him under the provisions 25H is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled .

4. The claim of the applicant has been refuted by the opposite party on a number of grounds viz , that the claimant was engaged as a temporary employee on daily... wages inBhogaonBranch of the opposite party bank; that theclaimant did not hold any regular and permanent post in the bank, that the claimant had never worked for 240 days in any calendar year or preceding 12 months in the bank; that the services of the claimant had been disengaged by thebank with effect from 13-9-83 ; that the claimant was never interested in his temporary nature of duties ; he was irregular and in sincere in performing his job in the bank; that the claimant is trying to seek back door entry by way of litigation; that the claimant had no lien or right on any regular and permanent post in the bank ; that the engagement of the claimant was as per exigency of work; that he did not work continuously against any regular vacancy; that the claim of the claimant is highly belated; that the appointment of the post ofclerk on regular basis is made through selection board after interview on the basis of suitability, eligibility and other qualifying criteria ; that the claim of the claimant is not covered by the provisions of Section , 25B, 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act; that the claimant is not entitled to any reliefcompensation what so ever on the basis of present reference order; that since the claimant is not a workman and as such section 2= -A of the Act is not applicable in the present case, therefore, the reference order is liable to be decided against the claimant being bad in law and without jurisdiction . Lastly on the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed by the opposite party that the claim of the workman is baseless , devoid of merit and thereby is liable to be rejected.

5. Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant but nothing new has been pleaded therein except reiterating the facts already pleaded in his statement of claim .

6. Claimant has filed as many as 7 documents vide list dated 23-11-2001 which is paper no.9/ 1 . It may be pointed outthatall the documents are in the nature of photocopies .

7. Claimant has also filed affidavit in support ofhis claim. Along with his affidavit the claimant has filed photocopy of attendance register.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the claimant was appointed as Assistant cum Cashier by the opposite party bank on 11-7-80 and posted at the bank's Bhogaon Branch in District Mainpuri . It is stated that he was required to perform all the duties which devolve in this bank as Assistant cum Cashier for the full hours of work the branch and the applicant performed his duties to the full satisfaction of his superiors and he was paid salary at the prescribed scale of pay on monthly basis . It may be pointed out that although there is no mention of the date in the reference order on which claimant alleges that he was removed from the service by the opposite party. However he has given the date of his removal as 13-9-83 in paragraph no.5 of his claim statement . It is stated that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination and as no reasons for termination was advised , no notice pay and retrenchment compensation was paid to him by the bank therefore, the bank has breached the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It is stated that the time of termination of his services , the applicant was not thejunior most thereby terminating his service is in breach of provisions of Section 25G of the Act . It is also stated that the opposite party while inducting fresh hands in the service of the bank did not provide any, opportunity of re - employment to the applicant thus the action of the opposite party bank is in breach of section 25H of the Act. It is also stated that after termination of his services he continued approaching the Chairman of the bank who always assured him to wait and also always assured that He will be taken back in service . It is also alleged that finding the assurance given by the bank to be follow he raised

540GI/11-17 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011 8.Whereas the claimant appeared in the witness box and examined himself as W. W. 1 and against it the opposite party examined its witness Sri Ram Kumar Tewari , who is Manager , in the bank as M.W. 1 .

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. I have anxiously considered the facts and pleading of the case adduced by the parties in the instant case in the light of the reference order .

S.O. 595.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court - 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 25-1-2011 .

[No. L-41012/20/06- IR (B- 1) ] .

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1

MUMBAI

Present: Justice G S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer

Ref. No. CGIT- 7 of 2008

Parties :Employers in relation to the management of Western Railway

And

11. It may be pointed out that by a bare perusal of the terms ofreference order it is quite clear that the date of termination of the services of the workman has not been mentioned in itself. However, even if assuming the fact that the whole action of the opposite part bank is violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, then a normal question arises before the tribunal as to from date the claimant should be ordered to be reinstated in the service of the bank. It is settled legal position of law that the tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope and ambit of Section 10(4) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act , and since there is no date mentioned in the order of reference showing the termination of the workman, the tribunal ipso facto cannot assumed the date of termination of services of the workman as 13-9-83 on the basis of mere pleadings of the parties .

Their workmen (Shri Bimal Ram and 21 others )

APPEARANCES :

Absent.

For the Management :

Absent.

For the Union

12. Therefore, it is concluded that since there is no date of termination of the service of the workman in the reference reference order itself, the workman cannot be held entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order.

Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated the 17th day of January, 2011

AWARD

13. However it is made clear that the reference order should be clear and specific and at the same time it was also the responsibility of the workman to have mentioned the date of termination of his services by the opposite party before the Assistant Labour Commissioner while endorsing his claim before him . No mention of the date of termination of his services in the reference order itself is sufficient to hold that the reference order is bound to be answered against the workman for the reasons given in the body of the award.

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes. Act 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L- 41012/20/2006- IR (B - I ) dated 5-12-2007 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

14. For the reasons recorded above it is held that the claimant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference and the reference is answeredagainst him and in favour of the opposite party.

18-7-2011

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of the management ofWestern Railway Admistration, Mumbai Division, Mumbai by not promoting Shri Bimal Ram and 21 others is justified ? If not, what relief these 22 workmen are entitled to?"

2. None is present on behalf of the Management .

3. None is present on behalf of the Union inspite of service of notices four times .

4. Since no statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman the reference stands disposed of as not prosecuted.

का. आ. 595.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41012/20/06- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

5. An Award is passed accordingly. JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

1847 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

APPERANCES :

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

Mr. F.M. Battiwala, Advocate for the First Parties ,

Mr. Manilal G Gandhi , Advocate for the Second Parties ,

AWARD

का.. 596.-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 , भावनगर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2009 ) को प्रकाशितं करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-7-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/107/93- आई आर( बी- I ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

1. This Reference was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Central , Ahmedabad for the adjudiction , by the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi , vide it's Office order No. L- 12012/107/93 - IR( B- I) dated : 28-10-1993 . But later, order below Civil Application No. 2024/2009 dated : 3-9-2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, this Reference has been transferred to this Tribunal . The schedule of the dispute is as under :

" Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra in terminating the services of Smt. Savitaben Naran's Farash/Sweeper is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

S.O. 596. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 2/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal ( Central) Bhavnagar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Saurashtra andtheir workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 8-7-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/107/93 - IR(B- I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Exhibit-83

2. In the present case first party no . 1 General Manager, ( P. & A.) State Bank ofSaurashtra now the State Bank of India, Bhavnagar will be referred as a " first party No. 1 " , and the Branch Manager, State Bank of Saurashtra , Junagadh will be referred as a " First Party No. 2 " , while concerned workman and its legal heir son Mr. Bharat Narain will be referred as a " Second Party concerned workman. " BEFORE SHREE S.S. PANCHAL, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CENTRAL, BHAVNAGAR

Reference I.T.C. (New) No. 2 of 2009 Reference I.T.C. ( Old) No. 11 of 1993

FirstParty : ( 1 ) The General Manager , ( P. & Α. ) State Bank of Saurashtra , Now State Bank of India , HeadOffice, Nilam Baugh Circle Chowk , Bhavnagar.

(2) Branch Manager, State Bank of Saurashtra , Now State Bank of India , Circle Chowk Junagadh

V/s

Second Party :

3. After that the second party concerned workman has filed his statement of claim vide Ex- 10 and has represented to this Tribunal that , Second Party concerned workmanwas working as a Class IV workman since 1984. Concerned workman was serving in the Bank sincerely and honestly. During her service she had never been given any Charge sheet , Memo or Show cause Notice, or has never been punished before. Second Party concerned workman was retired due to her age . Second Party concerned workman has worked on the vacant post continuously up to more than 240 days . Therefore Second Party concerned workman had represented before the appropriate authority to regularized her but unfortunately she had been retrenched from her service vide their Office OrderNo. JND/ Staff/ 162 Dated, 8-02-1990 with immediate effect . After that, Second Party concerned workman had had represented before the appropriate authority in written an orally to regularized her but there was no result. She had not been retrenched without paying any compensation and without any notice , notice pay. Second Party concerned workman submits that she had worked in the first party up to seven years . Thus it is a clear breach of the Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act- 1947 . After terminating her First Party has engaged oth It'sWorkman Smt . Savitaben Naran's Legal heir son Bharat Naran C/o Manibhai Gandhi , 113 , City Center Complex , KalaNala, Bhavnagar.

1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] workmen in their institute . And thus it is a clear breach of the Section 25H and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act- 1947. Thus , the aforesaid order of the dismissal is liable to be illegal , malafied and unjustified in the eyes of law and therefore the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Smt. Savitaben Naran , vide order dated : 8-2-1990 is illegal and unjustified , and therefore the said order of the management shouldbe set- a - side. In the above- mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the second party workman has prayed that , the First Party may be directed to reinstate the second party workman on her original post with full back wages and continuity of service and with all consequential benefits the interest ofjustice .

the First Partyto produce the documentary evidence askol in the said Exhibit . Vide Ex. 12 the First Party has given their reply and has objected the same. Vide presenting Ex.13 the Second Party concerned workman had requested to this Tribunal to join the legal hair Mr. Bharat Naran, the son ofthe concerned workman late Mrs. Savitaben Naran . In support to the said request Mr. Bharat Naran has submitted his affidavit vide Ex . 14. On the aforesaid Ex . 13 the Ex-Tribunal had passed order to join as a party to the same. The Second Party concerned workman has submitted their documentary evidence i.e. the death certificate ofthe Mrs. Savitaben Naran and the Birth Date Certificate ofMr. Bharat Naran Vadher vides Ex . 15. Further, in edition to their reference case the Second Party concerned workman has submitted their documentary evidence vide Ex. 17 and vide Ex 19. The Second Party concerned workman has submitted an application to change the name of the First Party Bank and the same was granted by this Tribunal . The oral evidence ofthe Second Party concerned workman has been represented through an affidavit vide Ex. 27 and the affidavit presented by the concerned Second Party workman was cross examined by the First Party. The Second Party concerned workman has submitted their documentary evidences vide Ex. 71. The second party workman has produced its closing purses on 21-12-2009.

6. The First Party has submitted its documentary evidence i.e , an affidavit of the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bhavnagar, vide Ex. 30 and the same was cross examined by the Second Party. The First Party has submitted their Recruitment Rules and Circulars Ex . vide 76.

7. The Second Party concerned workman has produced their written argument vide Ex. 78. While the FirstPartymade their argument in oral . Both the arguments madeby the parties have been taken into the consideration .

8. After taking into the consideration the arguments of the both the parties this Tribunal has to decide that , whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra in terminating the services of Smt . Savitaben Naran, Farash/Sweeper is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to ?

4. In reply of the Statement of the Claim, the First party has submitted his reply vide Ex- 32 and submitted that, the reference made by the Government is bad in law and , therefore the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further the First Party has submitted that there is no reference order against the Regional Manager , Rajkot who is joined directly as a party in the statement of claim and, therefore, the reference deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. Further in the written statement the First Party has submitted that , this Tribunal has no right . to rule the present Reference case. First Party has denied all the facts shown in the Statement of Claim , and further represented that, eligibility criteria for appointment in the subordinate cadre of the Bank is that a person should have passed 8th standard and the maximum age limit prescribed is 24 years . Further in the written statement the First Party has submitted that, applicant of the present reference was temporarily engaged for filling drinking water in the pots and cleaning utensils on fixed remuneration of Rs . 100 per month which work was of only half an hour in a day. Further in the written statement the First Partyhas submitted that, the concerned workman does not possess the requisite educational qualificatons . Also it was found that she was 31 years old when she was temporarily engaged on purely ad hoc and temporary basis . Further in the written statement the First Party has submitted and invite the attention towards the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surendra Kumar Gyani V/ s . State ofRajasthan & Others , reported in 1993 II LLJ P. 903 wherein it has been observed that, when it was expressly made clear that the appointment was purely on temporary basis, the termination cannot be interfered by the Court . The same observations are made by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Krishnalal V /s . S. Bahadur Sing & Others reported in 1993 II CLR P. 790. Hence , the present Reference is liable to iejected with the cost.

5. Vide presenting Ex . 11 the Second Party concerned workman had requested to this Tribunal to order

9. The First Party has made argument that, applicant ofthepresent reference was temporarily engaged for filling drinking water in the pots and cleaning utensils onfixed remuneration ofRs . 100 per month which work was ofonly half an hour in a day. Further the First Party has made an argument that, the concerned workman does not possess the requisite educational qualifications . The SecondParty concerned workman was engaged only for cleaning the Bank premises . She was engaged only for two hours a day. Second Party concerned workman was רו [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1849 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

illiterate. She was appointed without any interview or any legal procedure. Hence, the present reference case is liable to be rejected.

more than 240 days in the preceding twelve months. Thus , itis very clear that the concerned workman is entitled to getthe protection of the Sections 25 -B and 25-F.

10. In other side Second Party concerned workman has argued in written and has submitted that, looking into thisReference, case, there is no dispute between the parties that , Second Party concerned workman was working in the First Party with effect from 1-12-1983 . It has been proved by the Second Party concerned workman Second Party concerned workman vide Ex. 72. There is no dispute between the parties that the Second Party concerned workman was retrenched from his services with effect from 8-2-1990 . Looking to the documents presented by the Second Party concerned woorkman it is very clear that the Second Party concerned workman has worked more than 240 days during the every year. In the case on hand, vide Ex . 17 the Second Party concerned workman has submitted their documentary evidences i.e. the Certificate given to the Second Party concerned workman by the Manager of the S.B.S. Junagadh , an office order of the appointment for the months of the September, 1987, October , 87, November , 87, December , 87, January, 1988 , May, 1989 to December, 1989, January, 1990 and February, 1990. Looking to the saiddocumentary evidences it is very clear that , the Second Party concerned workman was engaged by the First Party during the different months to months with the specific remunerations . Thus , it is proved by the Second Party concerned workman that she was working in the FirstParty during the period she has shown in her written statement .

13. In the present reference case the First Party has taken defense that, while retrenching the workman it is not necessary to give the notice, notice pay to the concerned workman . But in the case on hand, the First Party has submitted their oral evidence through an affidavit of Mr. Ashwinbhai Gunvantrai Bhatt, vide Ex. 30, and in his cross - examination the said witness has confessed that, " He has no any other information about that , the concerned workman had given notice or compensation . " Thus , the oral evidence produced by the First Party goes against the First Party, that the before the retrenchment to the concerned workman was not given any notice , notice pay and even retrenchment compensation. In reply of the said argument ofthe First Party, the Second Party concerned workman has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, R.M. Yellatti V/s . The Asst. Executive Engineer, published in 2005, III , CLR, 1028. The principle laid down in the said judgment that the daily wager is entitled to get protection of Sec. 25- F. In the present case also it is found that the concerned workman is a daily wager Farash/Sweeper . And further the said principle is also laid down in the case of Ramesh Kumar V/s . State of Haryana, published in 2010 ( 1 ) L.L.N. 831. Looking into the said judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is noted by the Supreme Court of India in its Judgement para- 13 as under:

11. Looking into this Reference case, the second party concerned workman's legal heir Mr. Bharat Naran has submitted his affidavit vide Ex. 27 , and was cross- examined by the first party but nothing has been brought out in his oral evidence by the First Party which can help to the First Party. The Second Party concerned workman was serving in the First Party as a Farash/Sweeper since 1-12-1983 . The Second Party concerned workman has submitted that, she has worked more then 240 days in the presiding year in the First Party.

12. The Second Party concerned workman has produced office orders vide Ex . 34 to 59 issuedby the Manager, State Bank of Saurashtra, Junagadh . In the said written documentary evidences the working days of the concerned workman has been shown . There is no dispute between the parties about the date of the rentrenchment i.e. 8-2-1990. It is very clear that the concerned workman was retrenched from her service on 8-2-1990. In the present case the concerned workman had been retrenched on 8-2- 1990, while looking to the Ex. 47 to 59 it is very clear that the concerned workman has worked 359 days , thus it is

" 13. We are conscious of the fact that an appointment on public post cannot be made in contravention ofrecruitment rules and constitutional scheme of employment. However in view of the materials placed before the Labour Court and inthis Court, we are satisfied that the said principle would not apply in the case on hand . As rightly pointed out, the appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement with continuity ofservice for which he is legally entitled to . It is to be noted in the case of termination of casual employee what is required to be seen in whether a workman has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months or not . If sufficient materials are shown that workman has completed 240 day then his service cannot be terminated, without giving notice or compensation inlieu ofit in terms of S. 25F. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case appellant has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in lieu of it was given to him, in such circumstances his termination was illegal." [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

2. It is ordered to the First Party that the legal heirofthe concerned workman Smt . Savitaben Naran, Mr. Bharat Naran is entitled to get 50% of the back wages as per the remuneration shown in the last appointment order, i.e. vide Ex. 59, for the period from 8-02-90 to 18-09-2001 within the 30 days of the publication of this award.

3. The First Party will pay Rs . 500 as a cost to Second Party concerned workman's legalheir Mr. Bharat Naran.

Bhavnagar.

Dated: 28-6-2010.

S. S. PANCHAL, Industrial Tribunal , Central नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 597.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑर्डनेन्स फैक्ट्री बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एनजीपी/201/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14025/ 1/2011- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011

S.O. 597. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/201 /2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory Board and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-1-2011.

[No.L- 14025/ 1/2011 - IR (DU)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 24-01-2011 ..

CaseNo.CGIT/NGP/201/2003

14. In the case on the hand , it is proved by the documentary evidence by the Second Party concerned workman that, appellant has completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in lieu of it was given to her. It is settled law that the any workman is entitled to reinstate on the post only ifshe should have worked more than 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date of his retrenchment . Thus , now the question arise in the case on hand , that, when the termination of the services of Smt . Savitaben Naran is legal , and unjustified? If not what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ? Looking into the matter , the Second Party concerned workman has cited the reported case to support his case i.e. P. V. K. Distillery Ltd. V/s . Mahendra Ram, reported in 2009, I , CLR, 883. In the said reported case The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that if the breach ofthe Sec . 25- F is proved by the appellant , then he is entitled to get 50% of the back wages . In the case on the hand, the breach of the Sec . 25 -F is proved by the Second Party concerned workman, and hence, the legal heir of the concerned workman is entitled to get 50 % of the back wages . The witness of the First Party Mr. Ashwinbhai Gunvantrai Bhatt has been examined vide Ex. 30, and has confessed in his cross - examination that , they have not presented any proof in the case on hand that, the concerned workman was earning doing some work at any other place . Thus , the concerned workman was thoroughly unemployed during the retrenchment period. Here it should be noted that the, Second Party concerned workman has died on 18-09-2001 . While she was retrenched from her services from 8-02-90 . In the case on hand the concerned workman has produced her last appointment order vide Ex. 59, and in the said office order it has been showed that the concerned workman had been appointed as a Chaprashi and her monthly salary has been indicated Rs . 815 per month. Hence , the concerned workman is entitled to Rs . 815 per month , and is entitled to reinstate on the post showed in the aforesaid office order. But, in the case on hand, the concerned workman was retrenched from her services on 8-02-1990 and she has died on 18-1-2001 . Therefore it is clear that she is no more from 18-1-2001 and hence, she is not entitled to reinstate on the post, but , she is entitled to get compensation. Thus , Second Party concerned workman's legal heir is entitled to get the compensation during the period from 18-02-90 to 8-9-2001 . Thus , the reference on the hand is liable to grant partially. Therefore, this Tribunal passes the following order :

Shri M. S. Bhurbhure & 25 Others ,

Petitioner/

ORDER

PartyNo.1 C/o Shri M. S. Bhurbhure , Village Sumthan, Tah . Bhadrawati , Dist. Chandrapur.

1. The Reference made by Smt . Savitaben Naran is granted partially accordingly.

1851 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

Versus

Respondent/ : 1. The Secretary,

PartyNo. 2 Ministry of Defence through the Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, 10/A, Auckland Road, Calcutta-700001 .

2. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Chanda, PostOffice: Chandrapur Ordnance Factory, Tah. Bhadrawati , Dist. Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 24th January, 2011)

3. The case of the applicants as per their statement of claim is that they are employees of Ordnance Factory, Chanda and are covered under Section 2(2) of Indian Factories Act, 1948 and the non -applicant No. 1 is Union of India and non - applicant No. 2 is the drawing , disbursement and appointing authority and prior to 1983, they were being paid overtime at double the rate, but from 1983 , over time is not being paid to them at double the rate, as per the provisions of Section 59 of the Indian Factories Act, although other similarly situated employees are being paid overtime at double the rate and thus , the non -applicants are causing discrimination between the similarly situated employees and creating class amongst class and not following the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act uniformly, for payment of overtime and they are directly working under the non - applicant No. 2 and policydecisions are taken by the non -applicant No. 1.

This is an application, filed by Shri M. S. Bhurbhure and twenty five others , who are the employees of Ordnance Factory, Chanda in the District of Chandrapur under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act" in short) for computation oftheir overtime wages .

2. It is necessary to mention here that the original application was first filed by the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Bombay, making the Union of India, Ministry of Defence Production, through its Secretary, New Delhi and through the Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, 10/A , Auckland Road , Calcutta and the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Chanda as the opposite parties . The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay vide order dated 16-10-1997 dismissed the original application filed by the applicants , on the ground ofwant ofjurisdiction, with liberty to file a case in the appropriate forum . So , the applicants filed I. D. Case No. 21 of98 u/s 33 -C(2) of theAct , in the Labour Court , Chandrapur. The opposite parties raised the preliminary objection of the Labour Court, Chandrapur of having nojurisdiction to try the case, for want of notification of Central Government . The applicants , therefore, moved an application for transfer of I.D. Case No.21/98 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Nagpur, before the Labour Court , Chandrapur. The Labour Court, Chandrapur rejected the application on 25-2-2003 . Then the applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay, Bench of Nagpur for redress . The Hon'ble Court as per orders dated 2nd May, 2003 in Misc . Civil Application No.148 /2003 ( arising out of writ petitionNo. 983/2003) directed the transfer of I. D. case No. 21/98from the file of Labour Court, Chandrapur to this Tribunal for disposal according to law, with a direction to proceed with the case from the stage at which it was pending in the Labour Court , Chandrapur . According to the direction of the Hon ' ble High Court, the record and proceedings of I. D. Case 28/98 were transferred to this Tribunal by the Labour Court , Chandrapur.

The further case of the applicants is that they are working as Barber , Dhobi , Cook, Masalchi and Mali and are lowest paid employees and are workers and they jointly agitated the matter of payment of overtime at double the rate, through the Union, "Bharatiya Suraksha Karmacharya Sangh Ordnance Factory, Chanda and submitted the first representation on 9-12-1985 , demanding the implementation of the orders of the non- applicant No. 1 given in letter No. 2010/AT-P(PC- 6) dated 6-11-1974 and CDA ( Pys ) Calcutta letter No. Pay/Tech ./I/ 73/General dated 14-4-1975 and the letter dated 6-11-1974 was issued by theAsstt . Controller of Defence Accounts and the said letter states that, "who are employed in the section locate outside the factory premises but within the outer fencing ofthe factory can also be treated as covered by Factories Act and paid overtime allowance accordingly in terms of Ministry of Defence ..... " and they are posted to security, hospital yard and estate sections for performing their duties andthey have to perform shift duties within the premises ofthe factory and their normal duty hours are 44½ hours in a week, but , actual work taken from them is 48 hours în a week and thus they work for 3½ hours extra than the allotted hours , hence normally they are entitled for overtime wages for 3½ hours every week and accordingly payment of overtime with bonus is being paid to the employees of the Ordnance factory but though they are similarly situated , they are not paid overtime at double the rate like others and initially the employees such as Darwan, Fire-brigade staff , Telephone Operators and Security Assistants working in Ordnance Factory, Chanda were not paid overtime at double the rate, but after thejudgement and order of the Hon'ble High Court of judicature of Calcutta, those categories were made entitled to get overtime at double the rate beyond 44% hours. It is further pleaded by the applicants that they are being paid the overtime allowance according to fix slab rate and the nature [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

ofthe work carried out by them cannot be classified as work of the office staff and they are directly responsible for defence production and they are entitled to get for productivity linked bonus and Cooks , Vendors , Masalchi cooking in the canteen of the ordnance factory and barber attachedto security are paid overtime allowance at double the rate, as per the provisions of the Factory Act and even though they are attached to Ordnance Factory Hospital and other establishments situated within the factory premise are not paid overtime allowance at the rate oftheir colleagues and the whole ofthe establishment of Ordnance Factory, Chanda is registered under Factory Act and the provisions of the Factory Act are applicable to each and every employee working within the premises ofthe factory, irrespective oftheir individual activities and as such, they are to be paid overtime as per provisions of Factory Act and even employees working at the Head of water works and sewerage plants , which are 8 to 9 kilometers from the factory are paid overtime as per provisions of Factories Act and the Tribunal of Mumbai Bench in OA No.459/94 , in the case of Mrs. Manorama John and 68 others Vs U.O.I. and others by order dated 20-10-1995 have held that the staffworking in Ordnance Factory, to whatever categories they belong, are governed by Factory Act . The same view has been taken by CAT Bench of Madras in OA No.980/89 and OA No.983/ 89 decided on 30-9-91 and CAT Bench, Jabalpur in OA No.363/ 86 decided on 4-3-1994 has also followed the view of CAT, Madras and the relief claimed bythem is common, which can be granted by one common judgement and they have not claimed individual benefit and the individual benefit will flow out of the judgement after acceptance of their challenge to the acts of discrimination and arbitrariness of the non - applicants . The applicants have prayed to direct the non - applicant No.2 to compute the overtime wages from 1983 of each of them as per the provisions of Section 59 of the Indian Factories Act, to declare that they are entitled to get overtime at double the rate as pr the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 . from 9-12-1985 and to direct the non - applicant to pay the arrears of difference .

Factories Act and as such, the applicants do not come under the definition of " workers " provided under the said Act and therefore not entitled for any overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act and the services of the applicants , who are working as Barbar, Dhobi , Cook , Masalchi and Mali are governed by executive order ofthe Government and executive order dated 19-3-1991 of DOPT isvery clear about the payment of overtime to such Dhobi , Cook, Masalchi, Barber etc. working in hospital, DSC barracks , Inspection Bungalow and gardens etc. which are not directly or indirectly connected with the manufacturing process or the premises of factory and the applicants were always governed by executive orders stipulating payment of overtime at slap rate and they were never treated as factory workers and they were also never been paid overtime in accordance with Section 59 of the Factories Act and at present overtime is being paid as per DOPT dated 19-3-1991 only. It is further pleaded by the management that the applicants are not doing duties within the premises of the factory and their services are of shift duties and shift duties are governed by the set off departmental Rules and the applicants are not working extra time then the allotted hours and as such they are not entitled to draw overtime wages for 3½ hours every week and there is no dispute regarding payment of overtime and bonus to the employees of the ordnance factory, who are working in factory but the applicants are not working in similar situation, so they are not entitled for the overtime atdouble the rates like others working in the factory and the applicants are entitled for production link bonus like other staff and not connected with manufacturing process and mere entitlement to the production of link bonus is not a yard stick to establish and classify them as worker under the Factories Act and Cooks , Vendors , Masalchi , cooking in the canteen inside the ordnance factory are paid overtime allowance as the provision of Factories Act , as they are directly, indirectly or incidentally connected to manufacturing process but the applicants are not connected with manufacturing process or premises . situated within the premises of the Ordnance Factory, Estate and as such, not entitled for overtime allowance at double the rate and the factory premises of Ordnance Factory, Chanda is different unit than the Ordnance Factory Estate and the Estate includes different establishments outside the factory premises like school , hospital , guest house , parus etc. for the benefit and welfare ofthe residents of estate and thus whole area of estate of ordnance factory cannot be taken as factory premises and employees working at the Head of water works and sewerage plants are directly or indirectly connected with the manufacturing process as water is essential for running boilers , preserving the wp ammunitions and washing of the components and raw materials required for production activities of the 4. The management of the non - applicants refuting the allegations made by the applicants , have filed their written statement pleading inter - alia that the applicants are though the employees of Ordnance Factory, Chanda, they are not covered under section 2(2 ) of Indian Factories Act, 1948 and they are (non - applicants ) not causing any discrimination between the similarly situated employees by not following the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act and the applicants are working in hospital , DSC Barracks , Guest House and gardens situated in the estate of Ordnance Factory, Chanda , which are not connected directly or indirectly or incidentally to any production or manufacturing process as mentioned in the 1853 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

factory and unless the entitlement of the applicants is proved to receive the overtime compensation at double the rate, the applicant u/s 33 - C (2) is not maintainable .

5. It is necessary to mention here that since 8-4-2010 neither the applicants nor their advocate appeared to take part in the case . On 22-9-2010 , in the interest of justice, a last chance was givento the applicants to take part in the hearing of the case and the case was posted to 10-11-2010 . On 10-11-2010 also , neither the applicants nor their advocate appeared , so the case was posted to 21-12-2010 for hearing of argument on merit of the case . However, on 21-12-2010 , as the applicants remained absent and none appearspears on their behalf, the matter was taken ex- parte against them and argument was heard from the side of management and the case was closed and posted for award.

"The Legislative history to which we have just referred clearly indicates that having provided broadly for the investigation and seulement of industrial disputes on the basis of collective bargaining , the legislature recognized that individual workmen should be given a speedy remedy to enforce their existing individual rights , and so Pinserted S. 33 -A in the Act in 1950 and addled S.33 - C in 1956. These two provisions illustratethe cases in which individual workmen can enforce their rights without havingto take recourse to S.10 ( 1 ) of the Act, or without having to depend upon their Union to espouse their cause. Therefore, in construing S. 33 - C . we have to bear in mind two relevant considerations . The construction should not be so broad as to bring within the scope of $, 33 - C cases which would fall under $ .10 ( 1 ) . Where industrial disputes arise between employees acting collectively ibmand their employers , they must be adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Act , as for instance, #zultan by reference under, S.10 ( 1 ) . These disputes cannot mobe brought within the purview of S.33 - C , Similarly, 1101having regard to the fact that the policy of the Legislature inein enacting S.33 - C is to provide a spexly remedy to the individual workmen to enforce or voillo zexecute their existing rights , it would not be reasonabletoto exclude from the scope of this section cases of existing rights which are sought to be

Simplentured by indivichaal workanen, In other words , Moughrinn Hetermining are soope of$ 33 - C we must take careenotnot to exclude cases which legitimately fall within its purview, we must also bear in mind that cases which fallunder S.10( 1 ) ofthe Act for instance, cannot be brought within the scope of $33 .

Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, it is found that in the statement of claim itself, the applicants have prayed for declaration that they are entitled to get overtime at double the rates as per the provision of the Factories Act, which does not come under the purview of Section 33 - C(2) of the Act . For such declaration, the reference of the question whether they are entitled for overtime at double the rate is necessary under section 10 of the Act . Hence , I find that the application filed by the applicants under Section 33 - C ( 2 ) is nots not maintainable and the same is rejected . ( A (0)

6. In this case, the applicants have filed the application under Section 33 - C (2 ) of the Act for computation of the overtime wages from 1983, of each applicant as per the provision of Section 59 of the Indian Factories Act . The applicants have also prayed for a declaration that they are entitled to get overtime at double the rate as per the provisions of Factory Act , 1948 from 9-12-1985 i.e. the date from which they started agitating for the same . Their case is that though the are working as Barber, Dhobi , Cook, Masalchi and Mali a posted to security, hospital , yard and estate sections situate within the factory premises and are covered under Section (2 ) ofthe Indian Factories Act, 1948 , overtime wages at double the rate is not being paid to them , even though their counterparts working in the canteen of the ordnance factory are paid overtime allowance at double the rate as per the. provisions of the Factories Act and as such, they are entitled to the overtime payable to their counterparts working in the canteen of the ordnance factory, The management has contested the claim of the applicants stating that the applicants are not entitled for overtime at double the rate lie their counterparts, as the applicants are working in establishment for up keep and welfare activities for the residents of the estate , which are not connected with any production or manufacturing process or factory premises and the application is not maintainable since the principal question involved in the application relates to the classification of the applicants and as to whether the applicants are entitled for overtime at double the rate like their counterparts working in canteen of the ordnance factory and such reliefs cannot be claimed under Section 33 -C(2) of theAct.

Send the copy of the order to the Central Government To for notification.ht

J. P. Officer JP CHAND, Presiding Of 7. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 1988 ( II ) CLR- 229 ( P.K.Singh Vs. the Presiding Officer) that :-

540GI/11-18 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1854

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2011 का.अ. 598. 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 नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीथी/211 / 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40011 /30/2003- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011 S.O. 598. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/211 /2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BSNL and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on 28-1-2011.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] workman, Shri Z.P. Mawalwala for adjudication, as per letter No.L-40011 /30/2003 - IR(DU) dated 31-7-2003 , with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action ofthe management ofDivisional Engineer, Telecom Microwave Project , CTO Compound, Nagpur- I, in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Z.P. Mawalwala , TSM w.e.f. 2-11-2002 is legal andjustified?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement in response to which , the workman filed his statement of claim , where as , the Party No.1 filed its written statement .

[No. L-40011/30/2003 - IR (DU)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAQ, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

SPYCHANBUR

CORE-CUN -LAMOUR

te: 20-1-2011 .

Case No.CGIT/NGP/211/2003

Petitioner/ PartyNo.1

The General Manager (Telecom), Telecom Bhavan, Zero Miles, CivilLines,

Nagpur-4400001.

Versus

Shri Y.R. Begade,

Respondent PartyNo.2

stinct Secretary, harat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Workers Union , P &TColony, OnNo.A/8 , T- 1 Katol Road, Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 20th Jannary, 2011 ).

Inexerciseofthe powers conferredby clause (d)of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) "theAct" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management ofTelecom ("Party No.1 " in short ) and their

3. The case of the workman as projected in his statement of claim is that he was initially appointed on 21-1-1986 as a casual labourer orally with the General Manager , Railway, electrification Project, Telecom and then, he was transferred to the Divisional Engineer, Telecom Microwave, w.e.f. 5-10-1987 and thereafter, he was asked to work under the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Microwave (survey) and in the year 1989, he was transferred to the office ofDivisional Engineer, Telecom project and the Party No.1 was extracting the service of electrician , mechanic etc. from him and he worked continuously without any break with the Party No.1 and as such , he was given temporary status we.f. 25-6-1993 vide. letter dated 20-3-1998 under the provisions of casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation Scheme) and his service record was clean and unblemished and the Chief General Manager , Western Telecom Project vide order dated 18-2-1999, asked to regularize 69 mazzloors including himself (workman) and though number ofjunior labourers were issued with the orders of regularization, deliberately no such order was issued to him and thereby, he was deprived offrom various facilities ofregular mazdoor and suddenly on 2-11-2002, the Party No.1 terminated his service with immediate effect by a written order, on payment of one month's salary and on 8-11-2002, he ibmitted a representation requesting for withdrawal of dhe termination order, stating that the termination order did not disclose the reason of termination of his service and as he had already worked for 16 years continuously, his service should not have been terminated in such a hectic manner , but as there was no response from the side PartyNo. 1 , he raised the issue before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) ( " the RLC " in short ) vide representation dated 2-12-2002 and he also pointed out that as number of juniors had been retained by the Party No.1, the termination of his service can be termed as "retrenchment " and is against the principles of " last come first go " and before the RLC for the first time, the Party No. 1 submitted that his service was terminated for same misconduct and the Party No.1 in their reply before the RLC mentioned that on 31-7-2002, he was asked to drive 1855 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

was not retrenched but terminated due to gross negligence on his part and the termination order was issued in accordance with Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules and on the date oftermination, the workman was working as Temporary Status Mazdoor, which does not come under status of confirmed employee and as such Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Status ) Rules is applicable to his case and as per the said Rule 5, charge sheet to Temporary Status Mazdoor is not necessary and the statements of GMs . were obtained and kept on record and the said statements were made understood to the workman and after that his statement was recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the workman was not working as casual mazdoor but working as casual motor driver and for number ofmonths, hehad driven the departmental vehicle willingly andhadbeen paid the difference of wages between TSM and Motor driver and on the date of occurrence, the GM and Dy. G.M. left the vehicle only after informing the workman ofkeeping of two valuable laptops in the vehicle and the. workman assured them that he would not leave the vehicle till their return and the officers left the vehicle after getting such assurance from the driver and as such , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

the official vehicle and when two of the officers of the Party No.1 asked him to wait for them , outside a hotel and left the vehicle, two Laptops kept in the said official vehicle (car) were stolen and such theft was committed due to his negligence ( workman's negligence) and they conducted internal enquiry and on the basis of such internal enquiry, his service was terminated and from the said reply, it is clear that his service was terminated on the ground of misconduct, but, before termination of his service , no charge sheet was issued and if any enquiry was conducted, then such enquiry was conducted without complying the principles of natural justice , as at no point of time, depositions or statements were recorded on behalf of the Party No.1 in his presence and no opportunity of cross- examination was granted to him and thus the alleged enquiry was in utter disregard to the settle procedure for conducting departmental enquiry and he had acquired the status of confirmed employee, as his services were ordered to be regularized vide order dated 18-2-1999 and as such, he should not have been thrown out from the service in such a hasty manner and the simple show cause notice cannot take the place of charge sheet . The workman has also pleaded that basically he was working a a mazdoor and he was compelled to drive the official car by the officers of the Party No. 1 and he was also harassed by making false report against him in the Police and ultimately Police authorities also found that he had no role in the theft of the said laptops and he was never told by the officers of keeping laptops in the official car and under such circumstances , to attribute negligence against him and to terminate his service is nothing but colorable exercise of employer's right and as such , the termination order dated 2-11-2002 is liable to be quashed and set aside and he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service .

5. It' is necessary to mention here that as no regular departmental enquiry was held against the workman before termination of his service, the merit of all the matters involved in the case was taken into consideration at a time. It is also necessary to mention here that the parties ledboth oral and documentary evidence . The parties were permitted the examination- in- chief of the witnesses to be recorded by way of affidavits , subject to cross -examination by other side . The workman examined himself as the only witness on his behalf and reiterated the facts mentioned by him in the statement of claim. One Shri Bhaurao Pundlikrao Akhare was examined on behalf of the Party No. 1. The said witness has also reiterated the stands taken by the Party No. 1 in the written statement .

6. The learned advocate for the workman submitted a two fold argument in support ofthe claim oftheworkman. Itwas susubmitted that as it is the admitted position that the workman was appointed as a general mazdoor with the Party No.1 on21-1-1986 and continued in service and was granted with the status of temporary employee by Party No.1 by order dated 20-3-1998 with retrospective effect from 25-6-1993 and number of junior employees were regularized by the Party No.1 and that the workman worked continuously from 21-1-1986 to 1-11-2002 , his service cannot be terminated merely on the basis of some allegations , without holding the domestic enquiry by following the established procedure for the same and as no charge sheet was submitted and no enquiry was conductedby following the procedure of examination of witnesses, opportunity of cross - examination etc , the termination of the service ofthe worknian is quite illegal and Raile 5 of CCS ( Temporary Status ) Rules is not at all applicable to the workman.

4. The Party No.1 in their written statement has admitted about the appointment of the workman in service and working continuously from 21-1-1986 till 2-11-2002 and termination of his service on 11-2-2002. However, it is pleaded by the Party No.1 that the workman joined in service on the recommendation of the local employment exchange and his service was utilized as casual motor driver on daily rates basis and the workman had also filed a case for regular appointment as " Motor driver " and thus he could not be régularized in view of the Court's order and as such, the contention of the workman of not regularizing him deliberately is denied in toto and service of the workman was not terminated suddenly and the incident took place on 26-7-2002 and termination order was issued on 2-11-2002, after following legal and proper procedure in the matter and receipt of report of the Inquiry Officer and the termination order was given after reasonable enquiry and the prescribed format of CCS ( Temporary Services ) Rules , 1965 , do not include any point/column for mentioning the reasons for termination and the workman [PART II-SEC . 3(ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1856

The second contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman was that it is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that as the mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F and 25 - G of the Act had not been complied with, such retrenchment order was illegal and therefore the workman is entitled for reinstatement and full back wages . In support of such contentions , reliance was placed on the decisions reported in 2010 (5 ), MbLJ 244 ( SC ) (Amoon Sharma Vs Executive Engineer ) , 1998 S.C.C (L & S) 170 ( Rattan Singh Vs Union of India ) , 19881 CLR 504: (Bank Karmachari Sangha Vs Cosmos Co op Urban Bank Ltd. ), 2007 II CLR 486 ( P& H) (Muncipal 1 CLR-480 ( Trade... Corporation Vs Swaranjit Singh), Wings Limited Vs Prabhakar) , 1992. 1.CLR- 571 ( P& H) (Lakshmi Pandit Vs Industrial Tribunal ) , 2003 1 CER 952 (Rajasthan) (Muncipal Board Vs Labour Court ) and FER ( 1981 (42) -113 (P. PrabhakaranVs General Manager ). L

In all the abovejudgments , except in 1998 1 CLR 504. (supra) , the Hon'ble Courts after consideration of the Principles of Section 450 3425- in relation 19th termination of servicevaf an employee, by way of retrenchment have held that compliance of conditions of Section 25 -F and 25 684 the Actas applicable are mandatory in nature and as such termination of service without complying with the said conditions is

also taken the stand that the termination of the workman is in accordance with Rifle's orme CCS (Temporary Status ) Rules applicable to the workman , as on the date of termination of his service , he was a Temporary Casual Mazdoor and the termination order was issued in the prescribed format given in Rule 5 of the said Rules . However, on perusal of the record including the documents filed by the parties, I find no force in the stands ... taken by the Party No.1 and in the contentions raised in its whiten notes of argument. The Party No. 1 has filed the format prescribed under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules as document No. 3. The order oftermination of service of the workman has been filed as document No. 13' on behalf of the workman . On perusal of the termination order of the workman issued by the Party No. 1 , it is found that the same is not a termination order in the prescribed format as given in Rule 5 of the Rules as claimed by it . In the said termination order, no where it has been mentioned that the same is a termination order under Rule s'of the CCS (Temporary Services ) Rules . Rather in the said termination order, it has been mentioned that " in pursuance of the proviso as per letter 209-11 /89 STP, New Delhi dated 7-11-1989 " the service of the workman is terminated forthwith . However, the letter feferred to in the termination order has not been produced by the Party No.T'Berore this Thounal fof perasat and consideration. Moreover, Rule s'of the CS (Temporary Service) Rules does not provide afly type of enquiry for termination of the service of a temporary employee but the Party No.1 made sofie sort of enquiry as claimed by it, which also clearly shows that the Party No.1 did not terminate the service ofthe workman under Rule 5 ofthe CCA (Temporary Service) Rutes as chammerby

7. On the other hand it was mentioned by theit learned advocate for the Party Noul in theiwnitten motes of argument that the workman was workingtas castral motor ( { driver and the termination older was issued after following legal and proper procedure inthe matter andon receiptofed Inquiry Officer's report, the termination order was issuedw in accordance with Rules of entrar Civil Serviced (Temporary Services Ripend the workhardwa Temporary Státus Mazdoor at the time of the termination ofhis service and asvice and as per Rife scharge shetid Pethporary Status Mazdoor is not necessary and the statements of the GMs . were obtained and the said stateme made understood to the workman, and after that bis ار statement was recorted by the Enquiry Officerdes such, the reference istombe dismissed.1-1-15 по 1.00

9. On perusal of the documents filed by the Party No.1 , it is found that one Shri S.C.Tiwari , D.E.T. (Scp ) Raipur was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and he submitted his report as per document Noil of the Party No.1 Holding that thue to gross negligence of the workman.. thể two laptops were stolen. Such report of the Inquiry oider is found to be based on the statements ofthe GM ald Dy GM of the Party Nolandthe workman, the copies, ofwhich have been filed as thocuments 4, 5 and 6. On, perusal of the said documents , it is found that the same are not statenients received by the Inquiry Officer but letters' Written by the GM ., Dy. GM and the workman to Shri S.CTiwari , regarding the alleged incident of theft of two laptops from the car , which the workmanwas driving . There is also nothing on record to show that the so called statements of the GM. and Dy GMiwere brought to the noticeofthe workhdam Ingol uni woltot ufis

τουίΠο νπωρηl oft to ποτ 10 HT bag hele At is found from the documents, that the workman was given the status of Temporary StatusTemporary Status Mazdoor from 1-4-1996. It is also found that his name was under consideration for making him a permanent, employee and some of juniors were already made permanent by over 8. As according to the pleadings of the Pany Ko the termination of the workman is not a retrenchment and the same is termination of serviceservice due to gross,ue to grass,negligence, ofthe workman , now it is to be considered as to whether the termination of the workman is legal and proper. U is 10 be mentioned here that the Party No. I took contradictory stands in the written statement and so also in the evidence adduced by it before this Tribunal , It has taken the stand that the termination order was passed after following legal, and proper procedure in the matter and after reasonable.. inquiry and receipt of the Inquiry Officer's report, and the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the GMs and the said statements were made understood to the workman and then his statement was recorded . The Party No.1 has [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1857 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

looking the case of the workman , without any valid reason. ofservice within one month after pablication of the award in the Government Gazette . The workman is not entitled for anyback wages .

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 599. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरदर्शन केन्द्र 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 59/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/15/2008- आई आर (डीयू) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011

$ .O . 599. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 59/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Doordarshan Kendra and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-1-2011 .

[No. L42012/ 15/2008- IR (DU) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RÃO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 59 of 2008

BETWEEN

In this connection , I think it necessary to mention about thedocument No. 8 filed by the workman , which is a letter issued by the Party No. 1 on 1-3-2000 in regard to grant of Temporary Status to casual labourers. In the said letter, the Party No.1 has mentioned the rules and conditions applied to the Temporary Status Mazdoors . According to the said conditions , " If a labourer with temporary status commits a misconduct and the same is proved in an enquiry after giving him reasonable opportunity, his service willbe dispensed with " . The condition as mentioned above is also applicable to the workman . However , in this case , no charge sheet for the alleged misconduct was issued against the workman . He was not intimated the appointment of the Inquiry Officer . No witness was examined before the so called Inquiry Officer in presence ofthe workman. The workman was not given any chance for cross -examination of the witness or to lead evidence in his defence. The workman was never given any reasonable opportunity to defend his case . It is found from the record that from the beginning , the workman was denying of his knowledge about keeping of laptops in the car, which he was driving. It is also found that though there was a F.I.R. regarding the theft of the laptops in the Police Station , there is nothing on record to show as to what was the result of the investigation and as to whether , the workman washeld responsible by the Police for such theft or that the theft of the laptops was committed due to the negligence of the workman. Taking into consideration the materials on record and applying the ratio ofthe principles laid down by the IHon'ble Court in the decision reported.in 1998 1.CLR - 504 ( supra ) , it is found that the termination of the service of the workman is illegal and unjustified and as such, it is necessary to set aside the order of termination dated 2-11-2002 . From the facts and circumstances of the case , it is also found that the workman is entitled for einstatement in service with continuity including egularization of service . So far the back wages is concerned, there is no pleading from the side of the workman that he was not gainfully appointed after his dismissal from service . No evidence has also been adduced in that respect: So taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case , I think that the workman is not entitled for any back wages . Hence it is ordered :

ORDER

Sri Ram Vinod, Medli S/o Sri Chhotey Lal , Villge Rangpura Phaphamu Soram, District Allahbad .

AND

The Director, Doordarshan Kendra Lajpat Rai Marg, Mumfordganj . Allahabad

The action of the management of Divisional Engineer , Telecom , Microwave Project , CTO Compound , Nagpur- 1 in terminating the services of the workman Shri Z. P. Mawalwala , TSM w.e.f. 2-11-2002 is not legal and proper . Hence , the order of termination of the service of the workman , Shri Z. P. Mawalwala dated 2-11-2002 is set aside . It is ordered that the workman be reinstate in service with continuity in service including regularization THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1858

AWARD

1. Central Government , MoL , New Delhi vide notification no . L- 42012 / 15/2008 - IR( DU) dated 17-6-2008 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Allahabad in terminating the services oftheir workman Sri Ram Vinod with effect from 17-01-06 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

3. In the instant case after receipt of reference order registered notices were issued to the contesting parties for filing of their respective claims . Both the parties have filed their respective statement of claim and counter claim in the case .

4. It may be pointed out that though the workman has filed document no . 5/1 purported to be an affidavit dated 5-9-08 in support of his claim but by a bare perusal of the same it appears that the alleged affidavit filed on behalf ofthe workman is neither notarized nor authenticated by an oath Commissioner. Therefore , the said document cannot be treated to be an affidavit of the workman in support of his claim statement .

5. On the contrary the opposite party has not put in their appearance in the case despite availing of sufficient opporturtities . Likewise the workman too has not come before the tribunal to prosecute his case on merit . Claimant neither has adduced any evidence nor proved the documents filed by him along with the so called affidavit which are in the shape of photocopies . It is settled legal position that if the claimant is not coming forward to press his claim or to prove the same by cogent and reliable evidence he cannot be granted any relief for want ofproof by this tribunal .

6. In short it may be pointed out that the claimant has claimed his reinstatement on the ground that he was appointed on the post of peon/office boy by the opposite party on 1-1-2001 , and all of sudden he was orally terminated from his services on 17-1-06 , by the opposite party. It is also stated that during the aforesaid period he has tendered more than 240 days service during the preceding 12 months from the date of his service with the opposite party and also that the time of terminating his service the opposite party has not paid notice pay, one months notice or retrenchment compensation thereby the opposite party has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . It is also stated that junior employee that the concerned workmen were working in the department but the opposite party without

[PART 11 - SC. 3 ( ii ) ] following the provisions of First Come Last Go terminated the services of the workman which is in breach of provision of Section 25 -G of the Act , at any rate the whole action of the opposite party is illegal unjust arbitrary and ab - initio void and thus is liable to be quashed. Lastly he has prayed that he be reinstated in service of the opposite party with full back wages and all consequcatial benefits as he was working with the opposite party and discharging the duties of the establishment and was working under the control and supervision of officer of the opposite party and getting salary from the opposite party..

7. On the contrary the opposite party has filed its reply denying all the allegations as set up by the claimant and has prayed that the there is no merit in the case ofthe claimant and his claim berejectedl being devoid of merit . It is also stated by them that the claimant was not the direct employee of the opposite party rather his services were hired through a contractor M/ s Jai Durga Security Service , Jhunsi , Allahabad . There was no relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the opposite party. It is also stated by the opposite party that at any point of time either the applicant or any such person has ever worked as workman of the opposite party but they were engaged on the work contract basis allotted to them from time to time for which contracted amount was paid by the opposite party since the year 2001 to 31st January, 2005 .

8. Be that as it may, there is no evidence from the side of the claimant that he was ever engaged by the opposite party in their employment . From the order sheet of the file it is crystal clear that the claimant neither appeared . in the case despite availing of repeated opportunity granted by the tribunal nor even has proved the documents filed by him in support of his claim . Heavy burden lies on the claimant to prove his claim before the tribunal .

9. Since the claimant has failed to discharge his obligation and proving his case , he cannot be held entitled for any relief for want ofproof pursuantto the present reference order .

10. Accordingly from the discussions made above it is held that the claimant is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in his claim statement for want of cogent evidence and thereby the reference is bound to be answered against him and in favour of the opposite party.

11. Reference is answered accordingly against the workan and in favour of the opposite party. 19-1-2011

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1859 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2011

AWARD

Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as 'the management ' , was not prepared to accept the demand madeby the Lord Krishna Bank Employees ' Union, in short 'theunion' , for revision of the wages of Part- time Sweepers working in the branches ofthe bank where the carpet area is more than 3000 sq.ft and hence the union raised the industrial dispute which led to this referénce under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

का.आ. 600.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार लॉर्ड कृष्णा बैंक लि. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/01/2011 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The reference is :

[सं. एल-12011/54/2002- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011

"Whether the demand of the Lord Krishna Bank Employees ' Union to enhance the wages ofthe Part Time Sweepers working in Lord Krishna Bank Limited as contained in the statement of claim annexed is legal andjustified ? If so, what reliefthey are entitled to ?"

3. The reference was originally made to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and the same was later transferred to this Tribunal as per the Order dated 22nd January, 2007 ofthe Ministry of Labour , Government of India, New Delhi .

S.O. 600. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court- Earnakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managementof Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/54/2002- IR(B- I)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR-COURT, EARNAKULAM

Present : Shri . D. Sreevalabhan, B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Thrusday the 20th day of January, 2011/30th Pousha ,

1932)

I. D. 05/2007

(I.D.84/2006 of CGIT-cum - Labour Court, Chennai) .

Union

: The General Secretary,

Lord Krishna Bank Union, Central Office, Nairsamajam Building,

Chendamangalam-683 512

ByAdv. Sri . H.B. Shenoy.

4. The part-time sweepers in the branches of the bank where the carpet area is above 3000 sq.ft. are now being paid wages equal to one-third of the scale wages payable to full time subordinate workmen with proportionate annual increments . According to the union the present payment of wages to those employees is not in tune with Clause- 18 of the All India Level 5th Bipartite Settlement . They have to work for more than 21 hours in a week and hence entitled to get three-fourth of the scale wages payable to full time subordinate workmen with proportionate annual increments as per the terms of that Bipartite Settlement . The wages of the part- time sweeper in the Bangalore branch was enhanced to one-half of the scale wages without any enhancement to the part - time sweepers in the other branches where also the carpet area is above 3000 sq.ft. It amounts to an unfair labour practice and is discriminatory, illegal and violative ofthe provisions of the Bipartite Settlement . Hence the union claims for enhancement of the wages of those part- time sweepers to one-half of the scale wages in the branches having carpet area of 3000 to 4000 sq.ft. and three- fourt of the scale wages in the branches having carpet area of more than 4000 sq.ft.

Management : The Management Director, Lord Krishna Bank Limited, Regd . &Admn . Office, Indian Express Building , Kaloor, Cochin- 17 .

ByAdv. Sri . Saji Varghese .

This case coming up for hearing on 14-01-2011 , this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court on 20-01-2011 passed the following.

5. The claim of the union is opposed by the management by filing written statement raising the contentions that the fixation of wages for part-time sweepers in the bank is in accordance with the internal settlements entered into between the management and the union on 10-02-1981 and 30-06-1989 and the mutual understanding of 17-01-1997 on agreement that the part- time sweepers will be paid wages based on carpet area and not on the basis of hours of work . The bank became a [PART-II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26,2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

Settlement dated 10-04-1989 is not relevant as the management is not a party to it is incorrect. The dispute Pisin no way hitby Clause -37 ( 3 ) of the 7th Bipartite Settlement since it is not in respect of the matters covered by that Bipartite Settlement. The enhancement ofwages to the part - time sweeper in the Bangalore branch was made by the management since the carpet area of that branch was more than 3000 sq . ft . requiring him to work beyond 21 hours in a week. Bank is governed by time wise formula evolved by those Bipartite Settlements coupled with and supplemented by the area wise formula evolved by the internal settlements . The union and the subject workmen in respect of whom the industrial dispute is raised are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the claim statement.

In the light of the above pleadings the following arise for consideration Вылет теат matters covered by the memorandum of settlement and sustainable.points

Whether the claim for enhancement ofwages of part- time sweepers made in the statement of claim is legal and justified ?

2What relief, if any, they are entitled to ?

8. On the side of the union one witness was -examined as WW1 and Exts . W1 to 13 were got marked . No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the management . The documents prosproduced by the management were marked as Exts .MI to M4 and Exts. X1 to X5.

member of the All India Bank's Association only in the year 1974 after its establishment in 1940 and hence it was not covered by the Bipartite Settlements entered into between All India Banks ' Association and the unions representing the workmen . It is for the first time the bank joined as a party to the 4th Bipartite Settlement dated 28-02-1985 . It does not deal with the payment ofwages to part- time sweepers . The All India Banks ' Association to which the union is affiliated was a signatory to the 7th Bipartite Settlement dated 27-03-2000 wherein there was modification with regard to wages ofthe part -time sweepers getting consolidated wages based on hours of work . As per Clause 37 (3 ) ofthat Bipartite Settlement it was expressly agreed that during the operation of the settlement the workmen will not raise any dispute of any nature whatsoever pertaining to any of the banks in respect of hence the demand made by the union is not The wages of the part- time sweeper in the Bangalore branch with the carpet area of 3894 sq .ft. was enhanced from 1-12-1998 based on his representation after taking note of certain special features of that building and other consideration . It was purely personal and not based on the carpet area or hours of work and it came to an end with the shifting of that branch and with his promotion as a sub- staff. It was an increase given in wages granted to one particular workman and not to the cadre of part - time sweepers in the branches, having carpet area ofmore than 3000 sq.ft. No revision can be sought for based on that reason since the management always, retain its discretion. to grant increase in wages and it cannot be said that there is any discrimination, The allegation that the said part- time sweepers have to work for more than 21 hours in a week is denied. The hours of work is hardly relevant to consider the demand of the union . The union cannot rest the claim on the basis of Clause- 18 of the 5th Bipartite Settlement since the management was not a party to it. The consolidated wages for part - time sweepers in the bank will be determined based on floor area or on internal settlement and not on hours of work. The bank has not indulged in any unfair labour practice. Hence the union is not entitled to the declaration sought for and the demand is liable to be rejectedisi Pow sheaths

ЗАТЯ ДАРЫМЕNo Union seeks for a declaration that Mthe claim for enhancontent of wages for the part - time sweepers working in the branches of the bank where the carpet area is more than 3000 sq . ft . is just and legal so as to allow them to get one half of the scale wages for those working in the branches having a carpet area of more than 3000 sq.ft. and below 4000 sq.ft . and three fourth of the scale wages to those in the branches with carpet area of more than 4000 sq . ft.The claim is made by resorting to the provision contained in Clause- 18 of All India Level 5th Bipartite Settlement which provides for payment of wages for part- time employees on the basis of hours of work . As per Clause -18 the wates ofthe part -time employees coming within the category of subordinate staff based on hours ofwork is as given below:

"Iftheir normal total working hours per week are :

Upto 3 hours

At Bank's discretion with a minimum of Rs . 60 p.m.

More than 3 hours At Bank'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 : One half of the scale wages with :proportionate annual increment . to 19 hours

6. Union filed replication denying the contentions in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the claim statement. Further it is stated that the service .... conditions of the workmen in the bank were and are governed all through out by the provisions in the All India Awards and Bipartite Settlements entered into from time to time at all India level in the banking industry. The ..... settlements dated 10-02-1981 and 30-06-1989 and memorandum of understanding dated 17-01-1997 were entered into between the union and the management as supplementary to the All India Level Bipartite Settlements . The management's plea that Clause- 18 ofthe 5th Bipartite [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

More than 19 hours to 29 hours

Three fourth of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment.

Beyond 29 hours : Full scale wages" .

10. The management would contend that the bank is not a party to that settlement and hence it is not binding and not relevant for considering the question of enhancement of wages to those part- time sweepers . According to the management it is based on the internal settlements and the memorandum of mutual understanding, part- time sweepers are being paid wages and all those settlements were entered into between the bank and the union based on carpet area and not on hours of work.

11. In the claim statement there is no whisper of any settlement with regard to payment of wages for the part- time sweepers in those branches . It is only stated thatat present the bank is paying one third of the scale wages to those part - time sweepers considering the carpet area and not the hours of work . After raising the contention that it is based on the internal settlements and mutual understanding the wages are being paid, further allegation is made in the rejoinder that the same are supplementary to the All India Level Bipartite Settlements . The union was not able to deny that the present wage structure is based on those internal settlements and memorandum of understanding .

12. Ext . M1 is the copy of the internal settlement entered into between the bank and the union on 10th February, 1981. Clause - 3 of that settlement deals with the wages to Part -time Sweepers and it is as follows :-

" 3. Proper wages to part- time sweepers :

Itismutually agreed that with effect from 1-01-1981 the payment of wages to part-time sweepers shall be as follows :--

(a) Places where the carpet area of the office premises is 800 sq . ft . or less at the discretion of the management .

(b) Carpet area above 800 sq . ft . and up to 2000 sq . ft. atthe rate of Rs . 60 per mensem .

13. Ext.M2 is the next internal settlement entered into on 30-06-1989 . Clause - 3 of that settlement provides some modifications in the matter of payment of wages to part- time sweepers and it is extracted below :----

"3. Proper wages to part -time employees (Sweepers ) Payment of wages to part- time employees (Sweepers) shall be continued on the basis of the 540GI/11-19

1861

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

area-wise formula in force , the sweepers engaged for areas above 800 sq.ft . and up to and inclusive 2000 sq . ft . shall be paid consolidated wages at the minimum rate of Rs.100 p.m. as per the relevant clause applicable to part - time employees in the 4th Bipartite Settlement dt . 17-09-1984 with effect from 1-07-1983 . The management agree to pay if there are any claims on the basis of this formula deducting therefrom the payment already made" .

14. Afterwards on 17-01-1997 there was enhancement of wages to part-time employees, who were receiving consolidated wages on the basis of mutual understanding and the same is evidenced by copy of the minutes of the joint discussion between the management and the representatives of the union , which is marked as Ext.M3 . It is seen to have been dealt with as item No.5 in that joint discussion and the mutual agreement is as follows :--

" 5. Part Time Sweepers:

(a) Fixation of scale wages at par with Bipartite Settlement:

Management agreed to fit the PTSs in the scale of wages as per the internal agreement and also agreed to fit the PTSs of the branches the carpet area of more than 1750 sq. ft . in the 1/ 3rd scale of wages with effect from 1-01-1997 and enhance the wages of the PTSs of all branches irrespective of the area from Rs . 325 and Rs . 375 to Rs . 500 with effect from 1-01-1997" .

15. Ext . M4 is produced to prove that there was again an increase of wages to those part - time sweepers who were getting consolidated wages . It is the minutes regarding the bilateral discussions held on 26-06-2000 , 14-09-2000 and6-10-2000 . It would go to show that the demandmade by the union for enhancement of wages for the part -time sweepers in the branches where the carpet area is more than 3000 sq . ft . was not accepted expressing the inability of the management to consider the same at thattime.

16. There cannot be any dispute as to the fact that the payment of wages to the part- time sweepers is based on internal settlements and the mutual understanding between the management and the union . The fixation of wages is on the basis of carpet area and not on the basis ofhours of work . The part - time sweeper of the Ottapalam branch of the bank when examined as WWI has also admitted that the payment of wages is on the basis of carpet area .

17. Clause- 18 of the All India Level 5th Bipartite Settlement provides for payment of wages to the part-time employees solely on the basis of hours of work . All the other All India Level Bipartite Settlements also envisage [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1862

carpet area is more than 3000 sq.ft are to be considered without any differentiation as to the hours of work based on carpet area .

18. The union must stick to the time wise formula and not area wise formula if they want to have revision on the basis ofClause - 18 of5th Bipartite Settlement as claimed in the claim statement . Union wants to have a combination ofboth in the case of only some of the part -time sweepers and the same cannot be brought into effect without having anew settlement after termination ofthe prevailing internal settlements . For that purpose it is necessary to have a termination of the internal settlements by issuing notice as contemplated under S. 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no case for the union that there was any termination of the internal settlements . The operation of those settlements still continues .

19. The demand for the revision of wages for those part- time sweepers was made by the union after the enhancement of the wages for the part -time sweeper in the Bangalore branch of the bank . It is put forth as the trump card by the union to make such a claim . According to the union the enhancensent was made on the basis of the carpet area but the management denied the same and contended that the enhancement was made taking note of certain special features of that building and the peculiar circumstances . There is absolutely no evidence in this case to prove that the enhancement was made on the basis of the carpet, area or hours of work . If it amounts to discrimination or an unfair labour practice as alleged by the union appropriate reliefs could have been sought for by the union as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . For the reason that there was enhancement ofwages of a part-time sweeper in the Bangalore branch ofthe bank for sometime by itself is not sufficient to have revision ofwages by flxing different scales as claimed by the union on the basis of carpet area and hours of work .

20. Management has got a case that the union cannot make a demand for the enhancement of wages for thosepart time sweepers in view ofClause 37(3 ) of theAll India Level 7th Bipartite Settlement . Both union and management are parties to that settlement . As per Clause 37(3) ofthat Bipartite Settlement it was agreed that during the operation of the settlement the workman would not raise any demand of any nature whatsoever on any of the banks in respect of matters covered by the memorandum of settlement. But even according to the management it was not on the basis of that settlement wages are being paid to the part -time sweepers . In para 4 of the written statement it is expressly stated that there was no revision ofwages in terms of that settlement and it was based on a discussion between the management and the union in September/October 2000 certain modifications were made with regard to the wage structure ofthe part -time sweepers .

the payment of wages on the basis of hours of work. If the fixation ofwages for the part - time sweepers is to be based onClause- 18 ofthe 5th Bipartite Settlement then it is tobe solely on the basis of hours of work. It cannot be on the basis of carpet area. If the hours ofwork is to be reckoned onthe basis of carpet area it is necessary to have a specific formula or otherwise there must be cogent and convincing evidence to calculate the hours of work corresponding to the carpet area. In the claim statement the only allegation is that the part -time sweepers in the branches in the bank where the carpet area is more than 3000 sq.ft. have to work for more than 21 hours in a week . There is no reliable evidence in this case to prove it . WW 1 is working as Part time sweeper in a branch , where the present carpet area is stated to be 2302 sq.ft. It was stated by him that the carpet area of that branch was 3472 sq.ft. when he had joined service on 1st April 2001. There is nothing on record to show that he had to work for more than 21 hours in a week atthat time . Besides that it was also stated by him that the sweeping work starting at 8.30 in the morning used to be over by 12-12.30 in the afternoon and even after that he has to attend other duties till 4.30 to 5 O'clock in the evening . Ext.X5. is there to support his version . If that be so he has to work for more than 29 hours even though the carpet area is below 3000 sq.ft. His evidence cannot be relied on to prove the hours of work in the branches having carpet area of more than 3000 sq . ft. Exts.X1 to X4 attendance registers will not in any way help the union to prove that the part-time sweepers in such branches have to work for more than 21 hours in a week as those do not contain anything about the hours of work. Exts . W8 and W9 will also render the case that they have to work for more than 21 hours unacceptable. The hours of work based on carpet area is differently shown in those documents . As per Ext .W8 for the carpet area of 2001 to 4000 sq. ft . the working hours is shown to be 13 hours in a week . But it is chown as more than 13 to 19 hours in a week in Ext .W9 . As per Clause - 18 ofthe 5th Bipartite Settlement the part time employees who have to work for more than 19 to 29 hours are entitled to get ½ of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment of wages and those who work beyond 29 hours will get fuil scale wages . The claim of the union is for payment of ½ of the scale wages for the part-time sweepers in the branches where the carpet area is more than 3000 and of the scale wages where the carpet area is more than 4000 sq . ft. It is also not in consonance with Clause- 18 of that Bipartite Settlement. Further it cannot be said that the pan - time sweepers in the branches having carpet area of more than 4000 sq . ft . have to work for less than 19 hours of more than 29 hours in a week . There is no evidence in this case for fixation of the wages on the basis of hours of work or to hold that the clain made by the union is correct . It is not known on what bass it is stated that the part- time sweepers in all the brarafes where the 1863 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

WI Letter dated 2-6-2001 to the Chief General Manager of the bank from General Secretary ofthe Union .

Hence it cannot easily be said that the demand is not sustainable as it is hit by the said clause in that Bipartite Settlement.

W2 Letter dated 16-07-2001 to the Executive Director of the bank about the number of branches having carpet area of more than 3000 sq.ft.

W3 Letter dtd . 4-1-2002 to the Managing Director by the General Secretary.

W4 Copy of the petition submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central by theGeneral Secretary dated 3-6-2002.

W5 Copy of the proceedings of the conciliation meeting held on 26-8-2002 .

21. Union has produced Exts . W8 to W- 11 to prove that there was enhancement of wages in the other banks based on fixation of wages by taking into consideration of the carpet area and hours of work . Based on Exts . W8 to W11 it cannot be said that the demand of the union is legaland justifiable . Those documents will also go to show that the payment of wages in those banks are also not strictly in accordance with Clause - 18 of the All India 5th Bipartite Settlement and the present claim of the union is not acceptable . If the demand was made for payment of wages on the basis of hours of work as provided under thatclause ofthat Bipartite Settlement it could have been easily said that the demand of the union isjustifiable . The demand made without the termination of the existing internal settlements governing the payment of wages cannot be said to be lawful .

W6 Copy of the failure of conciliation report sent tothe Secretary, Government of India , Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi by the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 19-9-2002.

W7 Certified copy of the Order dated 12-7-2006 in Ο.Ρ. 36895/2002 ( P) ofthe High Court ofKerala.

W8 Copy ofstaff circular No. 83/1992 .

W9 Copy of details of wages of part - time employees in the Canara Bank.

W10 Copy of service conditions of part- time employees in the Central Bank of India .

WII

22. The claim for revision is not in accordance with Clause- 18 of the 5th Bipartite Settlement . It is the internal settlements that govern the payment of wages to the part- time sweepers and there cannot be any change until those are terminated or superseded in accordance with the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . The revision of wages of only a set of part -time sweepers is not justifiable without any revision of the wages of other part-time sweepers as it is to be considered as a package. In view of the aspects discussed above I hold that the demand of the union is not legal and justiflable.

Copy of circular - wages payable to part - time sweepers in Bank of Baroda .

W12 Copy of appointment order dated 4-2-2006 of Ms. Beena .

W13 Copy ofcircular No. 79/2006 dated 3-3-2006.

Exhibits for the Management

23. Point No.2 :-In view of the above finding I hold that no relief can be granted in respect of the demand made by the union . In the result an award is passed finding that the demand of the Lord Krishna Bank Employees ' Union to enhance the wages of the Part Time Sweepers working in Lord Krishna Bank Limited as contained in the statement of claim annexed is not legal and justified and they are not entitled for any relief.

MI . Copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th February 1981. (page-3 ) .

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette .

M2 Copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 30-6-1989 (page 21 ) .

M3 Copy ofMinutes of the Joint Discussion held on 17-1-1997 .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 20th day ofJanuary, 2011 .

M4 Copy of Minutes of the bilateral discussion held on 26-6-2000 , 14-9-2000 and 6-10-2000 .

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer Appendix

Court Exhibits

Witness for the Union

X1 Attendance Register for the period December 1999 to February 2004 .

WWI M.Krishnadas, Sweeper , HDFC Bank , Ottappalam branch .

X2 -do- March 2004to April , 2008 .

Witness for the Management - Ni

X3 -do- May 2008 to December 2008.

Exhibits for the Union

X4 -do - January 2009 to July 2009 .

1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

X5 Certified copy of the Attendance Register for the period from July 2009 to March 2010.

नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 601.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ सोराष्ट्रके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भावनगर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-7-2010 प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12011/57/93- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

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

Mr. F. M. Battiwala , Advocate for the First Party, Mr. Manilal G. Gandhi , Advocate for the Second Party.

AWARD

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011 S.O. 601.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 5/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal ( Central ) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managementof State Bank of Saurashtra and their workman , received by the Central Government on 8-7-2010.

1. This Reference was referred to The Industrial Tribunal , Central , Bhavnagar, for the adjudication , by the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar , Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi , vide it's Office order No. L- 12011 /57/ 93 - IR(B - I) dated : 28-3-1994 . But later , this reference was transferred to Industrial Tribunal , Central , atAhmedabad , but later on, order below Civil Application No. 2024/2009 dated: 3-9-2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, this Reference has been transferred to this Tribunal . The schedule of the dispute is as under:

"Whether the three employees of State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumer Co - op . Store Ltd. , are the workmen of State Bank of Saurashtra , Bhavnagar ? If so , whether the demand of the Bhavnagar Jilla Mazdoor Sangh for treating them as regular employees of State Bank of Saurashtra is justified ? What relief, if any, the workmen are entitled "

[No. L- 12011/57/93 - IR(B - I) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. In the present reference case first party Managing Director , State Bank of Saurashtra now the State Bank of India, Bhavnagar will be referred as a " First Party No. 1 " , while the First Party No. 2 State Bank ofSaurashtra Employees Consumers Stores Ltd. will be referred as " First Party No. 2", while concerned workmen " Concerned Workmen " .

Exhibit- 158

BEFORE SHREE S. S. PANCHAL, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL, BHAVNAGAR Reference I.T.C. (New) No. 5 of 2009 Reference I.T.C. (Old) No. 12 of 1994 FirstParty : ( 1 ) The Managing Director, State Bank of Saurashtra , Now State Bank of India , HeadOffice, Nilam Baugh Circle Chowk, Bhavanagar.

(2) State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumers Stores Ltd. , Bhavnagar.

V/s.

Second Party

It'sWorkman Bhavnagar Jilla Mazdoor Sangh , C/ o . Manibhai Gandhi , 113 , City Centre Complex , KalaNala, Bhavnagar.

3. After that the Second Party concerned workmen has filed their statement of claim vide Ex- 5 and has represented to this Tribunal that, Second Party is a State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumers Co. op. Ltd. , has published a hand - book for the Staff welfare activities and inthe Chepter -5 of the said hand - book it is established that the Store will work for the benefit of the workmen of the Bank . Managing Director of the Bank is a Supreme Authority of the Bank and is an official Chairman of the Store. Not only that but also the workmen for the Store is appointed by the Chairman of the Bank . And the workmen ofthe Consumer Store are paid their wages as workmen of the Bank management . Further, the Second Party has submitted that, the Land, Building , Furniture , Fixture and Stationary for the Consumer Store is provided by the Bank management . Even Audit and Books of Account is also managed by the Bank Management. This the Consumer Store is the one of the welfare activities of the Bank Management . Though , the Consumer Store is registered under the Co. op . Societies Act , but there is no any workmen employed in the Store are elected , but they are the workmen of the Bank Management . One of the workmen Mr. Atulbhai Patel who was working in the Consumer Store was inclusion in the 1984 in the regular cadre . Even one of the workmen of the Consumer Store [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

1865 was died , and therefore his wife Mrs. Pravinaben was appointed as workman of the Bank by the Bank Management on the Compensatory ground . Thus, it proves that the Bank Management and the Consumer Store are not different establishment . The Second Party workmen have cited different judgments delivered by the different High Courts and Supreme Court of India . They are as under:

(1) Saraspur Mills Co. V/s . Ramanlal ,

(2) Misc . I Appeal No. 2574 of 1991 , LLN, Jan. 93 , Karnataka High Court , P. 45,

(3) LLN, March 92, P. 423-426 Andhra Pradesh High Court.

(4) LLN , March 92 P. 489-495 Bombay High Court .

the First Party to join the party to the Employees Consumers Co.op. Stores are not legal , fair and tenable in the eyes of the law hence it is liable to rejected. After hearing both the parties the former Tribunal has come to the conclusion and ordered on the Ex . 9 , to join the Consumers Stores as a Party in the present reference case . Vide Ex. 13 the Second Party has produced documentary evidences , and the same has been exhibited No. 29 to 35. Vide presenting Ex. 16, 17, 19, 28 , 36, 86, 96, 107, 118, 128 , 139 , 151 the Second Party concerned workmen has produced more documentary evidences . The Second Party concerned workman Mr. Dilip Bhikhalal has been examined vide Ex. 53 in this reference case. Second Party Consumers Stores has produced their documentary evidences vide Ex. 60 , 85 , 113. The Second Party concerned workman Mr. Dasrathbhai J. Patel has been examined vide Ex . 117 in this reference case ..

7. The First Party has examined their witness Mr. S. Narayan vides Ex. 130, Mr. Muthyala Sudhir Pratap vides Ex . 138 and both the witnesses have been cross examined by the Second Party Consumers Stores .

4. The Rules and Regulations are made by the Bank Management for the Consumer Store . In the above- mentioned facts and circumstances ofthe case , the second party workmen has prayed that, the first party may be directed to treat the concerned workmen as regular employees ofthe State Bank of India with all consequential benefits in the interest ofjustice.

8. The Second Party Consumers Stores has produced their written argument vide Ex. 152. While the First Party has produced their written argument vide Ex . 155. Both the arguments presented by both the parties have been taken into the consideration .

9. After taking into the consideration the arguments , documents presented by the both the parties , oral evidences taken on oath by the both the parties this Tribunal has to decide that , whether three employees of State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumer Co - op. Store Ltd. are the workmen of State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar ? If so , whether the demand of the Bhavnagar JillaMazdoor Sangh for treating them as regular employees of State Bank of Saurashtra is justified ? What relief, if any, the workmen are entitled ?

5. In reply of the Statement of the Claim , the First party has submitted their reply vide Ex- 08 and submitted that, the Bank is constructed by the Govt. of India and is working for money lending , Govt . pensions , Gratuïty, Insurance Scheme and is a Bank for the Businessmen . Bank is working through its workmen , and workmen are engaged through Seleotion Board ofthe Bank . There is no duty of the Bank to establish the Consumer Store , and to provide essential commodities to its workmen. Consumer Store is a separate body. The workmen of the Consumer Store cannot be treated as workmen of the Bank. The Consumer Store is a registered under the Gujarat Co. op. Societies Act , and its registration No. is BH/ 1144 Dated: 29-7-1965 . Τo be a member of the Consumer Store is voluntary. There is a separate body maintenance and administration of the Consumer Store . The workmen of the Consumer Store are not an employee of the Bank under Sec . 2 ( S) of the I.D.Act . It cannot be proved that if a Chairman of the Bank is established as an M.D. for the Consumer Store, then the Store is run by the M.D. There is no any control of the M.D , over the Consumer Store . hence the reference made by the Government is bad in law and , therefore , the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Hence, the present reference is liable to rejected with the coast .

6. Vide presenting Ex . 9, the First Party Bank has requested to this Tribunal to join to " Shree Employees's Consumers Co. op . Stores Ltd" as a party. Vide presenting Ex. 10 the second party concerned workmen has given theirreply in addition and represented that , the demand of

10. During the hearing case on the hand, the present reference has been transferred from Ahmedabad to the present Tribunal for the consideration and the New No. 05/2009 has been given to the present reference case. After registering the case on hand both the parties had been issued notices . Before that , the First Party No. I had raised a preliminary issue about the legal aspects and about the facts of the case vide Ex . 156 and vide Ex . 147. About the said preliminary issue the Learned Advocate for the Second Party concerned workmen Mr. Manibhai Gandhi has presented their reply on 2-12-2009 and submitted that the preliminary issues should be decided at the time where the present reference case may be decided . Taking into the consideration of pleadings and representations made by the both the parties , this reference cannot be decided only on the preliminary issue , because in the preliminary [PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1866

issue there have been raised legal aspects and factual aspects also . And without taking into the consideration the said legal and factual aspects this Tribunal cannot come to the conclusion . Hence , it has been ordered that , the preliminary issues raised by the First Party No. 1 will be decided at the time when the reference will be decided on the merits.

to the effect that no letter of appointment is given to each ofthem by the bank nor there is any direction or control test to be applicable to each of them by any authority of the bank in the context of the work they perform in the said Co-operative stores where they are aid to be employed. The manager and Accountant who are associated with the Stores are only assisting the operation in the interest of member employees of the bank as a welfare mission . Section 2 (s) which defines the workman gives the criteria as towhen any person can be termed as workman which we find in a series ofjudgments of High Court and Supereme Court and also indicated certain factors which make on to be a workman. In this connection , the factors which are to be considered so as to arrive at the conclusion as to when a person is a workman . Following factors are to be considered;

1. Who is the appointing authority ?

2. Who is the pay master ?

3. Who can dismiss ?

4. How long alternative service lasts ?

5. The extent of control and supervision .

6. The nature ofthe job.

7. Whether it is professional or skilled work.

8. Nature of Establishment ,

9. The right to reject,

11. In the case on the hand, the legal aspects ofthe case has been raised by the First Party No. 1. One of them is the S.B.I. Employees Consumer Co -operative Stores Ltd. has been established under the Co - operative Societies Act and registered with the Registrar of Co. operative Societies and has been in existence for 39 years . Another legal aspect raised by the First Party is , the S.B.I. Employees Consumer Co -operative Stores Ltd. has been set up by a few like mined employees of the Bank under the provisions ofthe Co -operative Societies Act in order to provide essential commodities of good quality at reasonable price to all employee members as a social objective . This Co - operative Store also obtained License under Shops & Establishments Act to operate the stores atBhavnagar at the relevant time initially. The executive Committee of the Stores has the discretion to employ their own independent workers to run the stores and fix the terms of employment applicable to the concerned employees referred to in reference mentioned above. The management of the bank is authorized to apportion a small percentage of the profit to meet the expenditure related to the welfare of the employees by way of subsidy. The bank also provides the infrastructure required for the welfare activities of the employees . Accordingly, Stores , canteen, dispensary, recreation room etc. has been permitted to function in the bank's premises for the convenience of these employees of stores as a welfare measures and not as a statutory measure at all in any sense of the services of such employees of Co-operative Stores at Bhavnagar. The management of all these activities is vested with independent bodies , trustees , committees , contractors , retainers etc. of the Co- operative Stores . The Bank may depute/ lend the services of an employee to work as Manager for a period of 2/3 years in the interest of employees shareholders of stores .

13. Respondent Bank has raised preliminary issue vide Ex. 147 that, S.B.J. Consumer Co -operative Stores Bhavnagar where these two persons are employed is not anindustryas per Section 2 (1 ) of the I.D.Act- 1947, Hence, present reference is bad in law and void in the said context of the matter. Further First Party has submitted that , Consumer Co. operative Store is in fact a small shop and that too to the need only the need of the small group of working members of the Consumer Co-operative Store and the working of the stores has nothing to do with the banking activities of the First Party which is a public utility service operating under the Central Govt . jurisdiction . Reference is also bad in law on the ground that these two persons who are related to this case are not at all working under the direction and control of any competent authority ofthe First Party who can even not take disciplinary action against the employees of Consumer Co - operative Store in the event of the situation where any such person working in Cansumer Co - operative Store commits any misconduct while on duty and while in service of Consumer Co- operative Store at Bhavnagar. Further First Party has submitted that , Consumer Store employees are the permanent employees of the Consumer Store and wages and salary are required to be paid by the Consumer Store only and not by the First Party. The present Consumer Store is in operation for the last 39 years and since then , 12. By the First Party No. 1 it has been submitted that , they have raised an issue on the jurisdiction as legal objections on the jurisdictional point and has submitted that, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this case on the ground that there is no existence of master and servant relationship between these three persons (now only two as third one already retired) who are working in S.B.S. Consumer Co- operative Stores Ltd. Bhavnagar and the bank has nothing to do with their respective services with their Stores in the sense that they are not workmen with the meaning as defined u/s . 2 (s) ofthe I.D. Act - 1947. There is no any evidence to prove that , they are the employees of the respondent bank. There is no evidence 1867 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

StaffCanteen Workers Union, 2000, ( 1 ), 1618 , S.C. and in the said case law it has been laid down that , where the canteen was run by Bank to cater to the needs of its employees through a Co - operative Society formed by employees to which Bank provided premises , furniture , utensils, electricity etc. the factual findings ofthe Industrial Tribunal with regard to existence of master servant relationship cannot be interfered with the High Court , in exercise ofits writ jurisdiction as a case of no evidence . In the light of the objections made as above and when the reference is bad in law based on settled position of law referred to above and the above persons working in Co- operative Stores should not be construed to the employees ofthe Bank when there is no any employer and employee relationship between the Bank and these persons and then the reply to the reference may be made by this Tribunal operating under the Central Govt. for the purpose ofthis reference , as legally bad reference owing to various grounds referred to above contrary to the factual position of the present reference in the eye of law accordingly.

all the disciplinary power is in the hands of committee of the Consumer Store and the First Party has nothing to do with the same in any context of the service conditions of these employees in question . Further the First Party has submitted that , the Central Govt . Labour Dept. had paid no attention to the nature of service of these persons which is evidently a very dominant factor for making a reference to Industrial Tribunal under the I.D. Act . In view ofthe above it is established that, this reference has been made by the Labour Ministry, New Delhi without giving attention to the real factor of this case . Therefore, whole reference is void, illegal and bad in law. Further the First Party has submitted that , the Consumer Stores employees can never be said to the employee of the First Party that banking services are rendered in a very wide amplitude or ina wide circumference of the banking activities whereas Consumer Store being an independent entity has to operate under the guidlines of the Govt. Authorities operating under the Co - operative Societies Act and for which the registration with the Co - operative society is very much essential . This is the statutory obligation on the part ofthe Consumer Store operation in Gujarat under the saidAct. There is no any such activity of this Consumer Store which can ever be treated to be part of the banking service in a wide area of operation in whole of the State in Gujarat.

15. In reply of the said preliminary issue raised by the First Party, the Second Party concerned workmen have produced their written answer vide letter dated : 2-12-2009 and in the said letter the Second Party concerned workmen has submitted that, the reference case on hand is raised on 28-3-1994 i.e. before fifteen years ago , and in the case the schedule was as under:

"Whether the three employees of the State Bank of Saurashtra Employees ' Consumer Co- operative Store Ltd. are the workman of the State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar ? If, so , whether the demand of Bhavnagar Jilla Mazdoor Sangh for treating them as regular employees of State Bank of Saurashtra is justified ? What relief, if any, the workmen are entitled ?"

14. In support of his case the First Party has cited number of cases , and in the one of them the First Party has cited the case of Management of Reserve Bank of India V/s . Their workmen , 1996, (2) , LLJ . 42, S.C. In the aforesaid caseHon'ble Supreme Court has established that, employee in canteen run by Reserve Bank of India through Committees or Co- operative Societies or contractors without any statutory or legal obligation on the employer bank to run canteens . They are not workmen of the Bank nor is there any relationship of master and servant between the Bank and those employees . Demand for regularization of such employees cannot be sustained. Further, the First Party has represented that , no obligation on the part of the Bank to provide canteen facilities and the canteen was non statutory and run by Local Implementation Committees having no recongnition by Bank. Employees of such canteens , neither under the control of the Bank or their appointments governed by the rules framed by the Bank. Promoting canteen facilities by providing subsidy or other facilities is altogether different from running the canteen . The canteen was run by LIC and the Bank did not have any control in the appointment of the canteen employees . Held , the employees would not become employees of the Bank and there was no employer - employee relationship between the employees and the Bank . The said ruling is made in the case of State Bank of India V/ s . Canteen Emp . Union , 2000 , (1 ) , LLJ , 1441 , S.C. Further , the First Party has submitted a citation of the case of Indian Overseas Bank V /s . I.O.В.

16. Thusfrom at the bottom of the case was raised the Second Party concerned workmen has raised their case for treating them as a workmen of the bank as the Bank is running " Staff Dispensary " , " Staff Library " , " Staff Canteen" etc. The Bank is treating them the staff of the Bank , and hence the workmen of the Consumers Stores , also should be treated as workmen of the Bank . In the said letter the Second Party concerned workmen has given their reply, and further said that, in the present reference case was raised on 28-3-1994 and during the time , both of the parties have produced their documentary evidences , written arguments , oral evidences and thus , most of the case has come to the end . And at the end time the First Party has raised the preliminary issue vide Ex. 147 , this is not fair . And at the end time no any party can raise the preliminary issue . It is true that , a legal issue can be raised at any time , but the issue raised by the First Party is not a legal issue . The issue raised at this time , does not touch at 1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

the root of Territorial Jurisdiction or at the root of the law. The Bank has raise their a preliminary issue in Para 3( c) that , the Consumers Stores is not an industry and therefore the reference is bad in law, but the Bank has not produced anydocumentary evidences in the case on hand.

17. Looking to the preliminary issue raise by the FirstParty and reply of the the Second Party concerned workmen given in letter dated 2-12-2009 it is very clear that , the name of the Consumer Store is " State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumers Co - op . Stores Ltd. ". This shows that , it's construction and motive of the Stores is mostly concerned with the Bank. It is provisioned that, only an employee of the Bank can be a members of the Consumers Stores and no any other person can be a member of the Stores . And the motive of the Consumers Stores is to provide necessary substances for the life to their employees . The construction of the Consumers Store is done under the guidlines of the State Bank of India . The construction ofthe Consumers Store is done accordingto the State Bank of the India Handbook on Staff Welfare Activities as per Ex. 41 and 121. Further in the said handbook it is ordered to obey the said guidlines to all the subordinate Banks. And further in the Chapter - IV Close 1 to 13 guidelines has been given that how to construct the Consumers Stores , how to help by the Bank to the Stores , the rate of the subsidy, number of Staff providing by the Bank, rent free accommodation etc. All these instructions shows very clear that , there is a clear control and supervision of the Bank over the Consumers Stores .

18. Further , looking to the records produced in the present reference case i.e. Ex. 138 shows that , two managers and an accountant has been appointed by the Bank in the Consumers Stores and is the employees of the Bank . It shows very clear that , the administration of the Consumers Stores is run by the Bank. In document Ex . 53 it has been accepted by the Bank that , the Executive Council of the Consumers Stores are made from the Bank Employees . The Consumers Stores is situated in the Bank Building , and the Bank has provided the said accommodation rent free to the Consumers Stores . Stationary, furniture and fixtures , it's repairing , telephone facility, computer , electricity, water etc. are provided by the Bank. In response of the said arguments , the Second Party concerned workmen has cited some cases . One of them is G.M. O.N.G.C. V/ s . O.N.GC. Contractual Worker's Union , L.L.N. , 8, 2008, page-490 to 497 it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that , behind the curtain the status of the employees are of the workers of the O.N.G.C. Not only that, but also in the case of Indian Overseas Bank V/ s . Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Worker's Union and Ors . L.L.N. 6, 2000 Page-930 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down that, in the said case the dispute was raised that , workers of the Co - op . Staff Canteen are not the employees of the Bank , but looking to the behind of the curtain it seems that , the

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] workers of the Co -op . Staff Canteen is the employees of theBank.

130

19. Looking to the nature of the preliminary issue, it has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of the Gujarat in LLN . Vol . 5 , 2008.Page- 160 that , a Labour Court or Tribunal can hear preliminary issue together. Further in the said case it has been decided that , if during the conciliation the preliminary issue is not raise then it can be rejected at any stage . Further , the Second Party concerned workmen has cited more some cases in response ofhis case are as under :

1. LLN . 34-2008 , -Page-628 .

2. LLN . Vol . 5-2005 , Page-944 .

3. LLN. Nov. 2008 , Page- 588 .

20. Looking to the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases and documents and looking to the evidences produced by the both the parties it is necessary obligation ofthis Tribunal to obey the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courts . Hence , the preliminary issue raised at the end time by the Bank is liable to be rejected . Hence, an application to decide first the preliminary legal issue presented by the First Party Bank vides Ex. 147 is rejected.

21. Now the question arise in the case on hand that, whether the three employees of the State Bank of Saurashtra Employees ' Consumer Co - operative Stores Ltd. are the workman of the State Bank of Saurashtra , Bhavnagar or not ? And further sub-question arise that, if, so, whether the demand of Bhavnagar Jilla Mazdoor Sangh for treating them as regular employees of State Bank of Saurashtra is justified or not ? First of all , to get the answer of the above questions it is necessary to observe that when and by whom the demand was raised . Documentary evidence produced by the Second Party concerned workmen vide dated 30-5-1991 is on the record ofthe case and is an approach letter written by the Second Party concerned workmen . Three concerned workmen have written the said approach letter and have signed as under:

1 .. Shri Jitubhai B. Zakhara ,

2. Shri Dilip B. Mandaviya ,

3. Shri Kishore C. Sheth .

22. Thus , aforesaid three workmen have raised the demand and their demand is to treating them the staff of the workmen of the State Bank of Saurashtra , now State Bank of India . Because , the Bank is running " Staff Dispensary" , "Staff Library " , " Staff Canteen " etc. The Bank is treating them the staff of the Bank, and hence the workmen of the Consumers Stores , also should be treated asworkmen of the Bank . Looking to the records of the case on hand, the present reference case was raised on [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1869 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

28-03-1994 and the case was referred to this Tribunal for the adjudication on the said date . The Bank has argued that, the Consumers Store is not an industry and therefore the reference is bad in law, but the Bank has not produced any documentary evidences in the case on hand .

23. Before come to the conclusion regarding the questions arose in this case it is very necessary to take into the consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . In the case of GM . ONGC Shilchar V/ s . ONGC Contractual Workers Union , 2008 , (3 ), LLN . 490, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed on para 17 as under:

" 17. It is true that the underlined portion of the reference prima facie does give the impression that it presupposes that the workmen were contractual employees and the only dispute was with regard to the regularization of their services. It is equally true that the reference appears to have been other loosely worded but as observed by the Industrial Tribunal and the Division Bench ,both parties were aware ofthe real issues involved in the light of the protracted litigation and the efforts made during conciliation proceedings . The Division Bench has , thus , rightly observed that it was open to the Industrial Tribunal to have lifted the veil so as the determine the nature of the employment and the dispute between the parties and for that purpose to look into the pleadings and evidence produced before it. "

obligation to provide the canteen services , though there may not be any statutory obligation and it will be too late to contend that the provision of canteen had not become a part ofthe service conditions of the employees . The materials placed on record also highlight the position that the bank was always conscious of the fact that the provision and availing of canteen services by the staff are not only essential but would help to contribute for the efficiency of service by employees of the bank . That it was restructed to the employees only, that the subsidy rate per employee was being also provided , and the working hours and days of the canteen located in the very bank buildings were strictly those of the bank and the further fact that no part of the capital required to run the same was contributed by anybody else , either the promoters or the staff using the canteen are factors which strengthen the claim ofthe workers . It was also on evidence that the canteen workers were enlisted under a welfare fund scheme of the Bank besides making them eligible for periodical medical check up by the doctors of the bank and admitting them to the benefits of the provident fund scheme . The cumulative effect of all such and other facts noticed and considered in detail provided sufficient basis for recording its findings by Tribunal as well as the Division Bench of the High Court ultimately to sustain the claim of the workers , in this case .

24. Further, in the case between Indian Overseas Bank V/ s . Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union andAnother, 2000 ( 2 ), LLN . 930 , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed on paras 20 and 21 as under:

"20. the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal and the Division Bench as also the materials relied upon therefore , have been already se out in detail , supra and it is unnecessary to refer to them in greater detail once over again . The canteen in question was being run from 1.January, 1973 and even before that , indisputably, the bank itself had arranged for running of the same through a contractor and similar arrangement to run through a contractor was once again made by the bank on its closure on 26April , 1990, though after a period of some break from 21 October, 1992. Besides this , the nature and extend of assistance , financial and otherwise in kind, provided which have been enumerated in detail , would go to establish inevitably that the bank has unmistakably and for reasons obvious always undertaken the

21. The learned Single Judge seems to have not only overlooked certain relevant material but by adopting a negative approach had belittled the relevance and importance of several vital and important factual aspects brought on record . If on the fact proved the findings recorded by the Tribunal are justified and could not be considered to be base upon no evidence , there is no justification for the High Court in exercising writjurisdiction to interfere with the same . The promoters of the canteen being permanent employees in the service ofthe bank , permitted to run the canteen , by merely being in control of the day - to -day affairs of the canteen, the bank cannot absolve of its liabilities when it was really using the canteen management as its instrumentality and agent. The cloak apart the " voice definitely is that of Jacobs. " Consequently, we could neither find any error of law or other vitiating circumstances in the judgment of the Division Bench nor any 540GI/11-20 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1870

infirmities in the process of reasoning or gross unreasonableness and absurdities in the conclusions arrived at to restore the award , so as tojustify and warrant out interference in the matter.

25. Looking to observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in aforesaid both the cases , the following questions arise in the case on hand to come to the conclusion to one way or the other :

done under the guidlines of the State Bank of India. The construction of the Consumers Store is done according to the State Bank of India Handbook on Staff Welfare Activities as per Ex . 41 and 121. Further in the said Handbook it is ordered to obey the said guidelines to all the subordinate Banks . And further in the Chapter- IV Close 1 to 13 guidelines has been given that how to construct the Consumers Stores , how to help by the Bank to the Stores . Thus , the answer of the second question falls in positive .

1. Are there any permanent employees of the Bank have been appointed to run the Consumers Stores?

2. Has the Bank taken upon itself the responsibility of providing the Consumers Stores facilities to the employees of the Bank ?

3. Has the Bank provided the basic requirements like building , stationary, furniture and fixtures , telephone facility, computer , electricity, water etc. to the Consumers Stores ?

28. In answer of the third and fourt question , we should see the Ex. 53 , and in the said document it is very clear that, the Consumers Stores is situated in the premise of the Bank, and thus Bank has provided the said accommodation rent free to the said Consumers Stores . Not only that, but also the Stationary, furniture and fixtures , it's repairing , telephone facility, computer , electricity, water etc. are provided by the Bank to the Consumers Stores . Not only that , but also the rate of the subsidy is also decided by the Bank . All these circumstances and documentary evidences show very clear that , there is a clear control and supervision of the Bank over the Consumers Stores .

4. Whether the Bank is giving subsidy to the Consumers Stores or not ?

5. Is the Consumers Stores runs in the premise of the Bank ?

6. Is the Consumers Stores for the exclusive use ofthe Bank Staff ?

29. In the answer of the fifth question it is very clear that there is no dispute and it is also accepted by the Bank that , the Consumers Stores is situated in the Bank Building, and the Bank has provided the said accommodation rent free to the Consumers Stores .

7. Has the Bank provided the infrastructure facilities?

30. In connection with the question No. 6, if we see the Ex. 53 , in an oral evidence of the Second Party concerned workmen Mr. Mandavi Dilip Bhikhalal confess that, the main motive of the Consumers Stores is to provide necessary substances for the life to their employees . Thus , the answer of the said question is also fall in positive .

26. Looking to the records produced in the present reference case i.e. Ex . 138 shows that , two managers and an accountant has been appointed by the Bank in the Consumers Stores and is the employees of the Bank. It shows very clear that, the administration of the Consumers Stores is run by the Bank. In document Ex . 53 it has been accepted by the Bank that, the Executive Council of the Consumers Stores are made from the Bank Employees. The answer of the said question comes in positive .

31. Last question is that , has the Bank provided the infrastructure facilities to the Consumers Stores or not ? Looking to the documentary evidences produced in the present reference case it is very clear that, Bank provided the infrastructure facilities to the Consumers Stores . Hence the answer of the said question is also comes in the positive manner.

32. Looking to the result of the aforesaid test , and looking to the documentary evidences and lifting of the veil , if we see that who is actual master and servant , then we can very easily find out that who actual master is ? Aforesaid result itself shows that , the actual master ofthe present concerned workers is not a Consumers Stores , but actual master of the concerned workers of the Consumers Stores is the State Bank of India . Looking to the aforesaid observations laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , in the case of workers of the O.N.G.C. the principle is laid down that, the Tribunal should 27. Looking to the facts and documentary evidences produced by both the parties , and looking to the reply of the Second Party concerned workmen has shown in letter dated 2-12-2009 it is very clear that , the name of the Consumer Store is " State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumers Co.op. Stores Ltd. " This name itself shows that, construction and motive of the Stores is mostly concerned with the Bank. It is also provisioned that , only a employee of the Bank can be a member of the Consumers Stores and no any other person can be a member of the Stores . And the motive of the Consumers Stores is to provide necessary substances for the i'fe to their employees . The construction of the Consumers Store is [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1871

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

find out that , who is a actual master and servant and it is also directed in the said judgment that , the Tribunal has a power to lifting up the veil . Not only that, but also in the case of Indian Overseas Bank V/ s . Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Worker's Union and Ors . L.L.N. 6, 2000 Page, 930Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down that , in the said case the dispute was raised that , workers of the Co.op. Staff Canteen is not the employees of the Bank, but after lifting up the veil , it seems that , the workers of the Consumers Stores are the employees of the Bank . All these circumstances force to this Tribunal to obey the principles laid down by the aforesaid Apex Courts .Hence , this Tribunal is in opinion of that, the three employees of State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumers Co - op . Stores Ltd. are the workmen of State Bank of India , Bhavnagar. Not only that , this Tribunal has convinced by the Second Party concerned workmen through the documentary evidences that , the demand of the Bhavnagar JillaMazdoor Sangh for treating them as regular employees of State Bank of India is justified.

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in the aforesaid judgment, the workmen of the present case are also entitled to treated them as Class IV employees , because the workmenofthe present case are working in the Consumers Stores as salesmen , as stated by Mr. Dashrathbhai Jesangbhai Patel vide Ex . 117. Hence , in the present case also it is decided that , the workmen of the Consumers Stores are also entitled to treated at par Class - IV workmen of the State Bank of India . Further, it should be clarified that, while considering the present case it has been decided that , the Second Party concerned workmen are the workmen of the State Bank of India, and are entitled to treat them as Class - IV workmen of the Bank from 1-4-1994, The Second Party concerned workmen are entitled to get difference ofpayment, which they have already got during the working as a workmen of the Consumers Stores , i.e. the difference of payment will be deducted from those payment which they have already got as a workmen ofthe Consumers Stores . In considering all aforesaid circumstances , this Tribunal believes that the present reference should be granted. Therefore , this Tribunal passes the following order:

ORDER

1. The Reference made by the Second Party concerned workmen are granted partly, accordingly.

33. In the aforesaid circumstances , question arise for the adjudication for this Tribunal that , from which date the Second Party concerned workmen should be treated as employees of the State Bank of India ? The present reference case has been raised by the Second Party concerned workmen from 28-03-1994 . This date may become odd to calculate the figures of payment of the differences applicable to the the Second Party concerned workmen . Hence it is decided that , the Second Party concerned workmen are entitled to treat them employees of the workmen of State bank of India from 1-4-1994 . For the straight and easy calculation the date decided above will be justified for the Second Party concerned workmen .

2. It is declared that , three employees Mr. Jitubhai B. Zankhara, Dilipbhai B. Mandaviya and Mr. Kishore C. Sheth of the State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumer Co.op. Stores Ltd. Bhavnagar are the employees of State Bank of India, Bhavnagar. The State Bank of India i.e. First Party No. 1 will treat the aforesaid workmen as Class - IV, workmen of the State Bank of India from 1-4-1994 , within the 30 days from the date of publication ofthis award .

3. The Second Party concerned workmen will be entitled to get the difference of payment but , Bank has a right to deduct the difference of payment which the concerned workmen have already got as workmen of the Consumers Stores . Mr. Kishore C. Sheth who has already retired from the services will entitled to get the differences up to the date of his retirement .

34. Now coming to the end part of the judgment , this Tribunal has to decide that , what relief workmen are entitled to ? Before giving any conclusion , it is necessary to observe the views given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . In case of Indian Overseas Bank V/ s . Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union and Another, 2000 (2 ) LLN . 930 , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid downthe principle as under :

4. The Second Party concerned Union Bhavnagar Jilla Mazdoor Sangh , Bhavnagar is entitled to get Rs. 5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) from the First Party No. 1 State Bank of India, Bhavnagar and from the First Party No. 2 the State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumers Stores Ltd. , Bhavnagar, jointly and severely.

Bhavnagar. Dated 30-6-2010 .

"Held , bank had unmistakably undertaken the obligation to provide canteen facilities though there was no statutory obligation - Bank had also extended certain medical and welfare facilities to the canteen workersbesidesproviding all facilities and financial assistance for running the canteen. In such factual matrix Tribunal was justified in holding the canteen employees as workmen of the bank and ordering their reinstatement as Class IV employees ."

S. S. PANCHAL, Industrial Tribunal 35. Taking into the consideration to the views given 1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 602.-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 , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/266/1991- आई आर ( सी-11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 602. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 31-1-2011 .

[No. L -22012/266/ 1991 - IR (C- II )] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 24-01-2011 .

Case No.CGIT/NGP/60/2003

Petitioner/ : Shri Bisan Soma Kolwate , C/o Shri Sadashiv Salame, Dhantoli , PartyNo.1

Takiya, Nagpur.

Versus

The General Manager (N ),

Respondent/

PartyNo. 2

: Western Coalfields Limited, Jaripatka, Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 24th January, 2011)

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their workman , Shri Bisan Soma Kolwate (" the workman " for brevity ) as per letter No.L- 22012/266/91 - IR(C- II ) dated 24-10-1991 , with the following schedule to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur for adjudication: -

"Whether the action of the management to cancel the offer of appointment without giving any show- cause to Shri Bisan Soma Kolwate is justified ? Ifnot, what relief he is entitled to ?"

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] Subsequently the reference was transferred to this Tribunal (CGIT, Nagpur ) for disposal according to law.

2. This order arises out of the petition filed by the management on 27-9-2010 , for disposal ofthe reference on the basis of settlement arrived at by the workman and the management .

3. The case of the management is that the workman had filed an application dtd.28-8-1996 making prayer to the CGIT, Jabalpur for disposal of the case on the proposed arrival ofmutual agreement and the parties had arrived at a Bipartite Settlement in Form No.H, with mutual terms and conditions for re - employment of the workman on 6-9-1996 and in view of the said settlement, vide application dated 16-6-1998 , both the parties had requested for passing of a consent award before the CGIT, Jabalpur and subsequent to the said settlement, the workman was re- employed w.e.f. 9-6-1996 and after attaining the age of60 years , he was also superannuated on 30-6-2005 and all dues were paid to him .

Alongwith the application, the management filed the copies of the application dated 28-8-1996 filedby the workman, the Bipartite Settlement in Form No.H dated 6-9-1996, the joint application dated 16-6-1998 and reference letterNo. dated 17-6-1998 .

4. In spite of giving chance to file his say, the workman did not file the same .

5. Perused the record alongwith the documents filed by the management and as it is found from the documents that there was a Bipartite Settlement between the workman and the management and the management agreed for re- employment of the workman and also re - employed the workman and the workman after his re - employed was also superannuated, on attaining the age of60 years . Hence, in the interest ofjustice , I think it proper to pass a consent award and to dispose of the case accordingly. Hence , the petition filedby the management is allowed and it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference may be treated as a " consent award" . The copy of the memorandum of the settlement filed by the management be made a part of the " consent award" .

Send a copy of the order to the Central Government for notification .

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 603.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 124/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/ 10/2005 - आई आर ( सी एम -11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1873 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

for more than 48 days in a year. Hence the workman was not entitled for regularization or promotion or change of designation . It is submitted that the award be passed in favour of the management .

4. On the basis of the reference and pleading the issues are as follows-

S.O. 603. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Pali Sub Area of M/s . SECL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 31-1-2011 .

I. Whether the , action of the management in not changing the designation of the workman is justified ?

[ No. L-22012/ 10/2005 -IR (CM- II )]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

II. Whether the workman was entitled for promotion to the post of Bunker Operator?

III . To what relief the workman is entitled?

ANNEXURE

5. Issue No. I & II

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 124/05

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

The Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (UTUC) , OldGuest House , Room No.2 , Umaria(MP)

Workman/ Union

Versus

The Dy.Regional Manager,

Pali Sub Area ofM/ s . SECL , PO Birsinghpur Pali , Umaria(MP)

.Management

To prove the case of the management , one witness is examined . Management witness Shri Tilak Kumar is Dy.Personnel Manager in Pali Sub Area . He has stated that the workman was appointed as loader but there was no job ofLoader and therefore the designation of several loaders were changed vide order No. 537 dated 3-6-2005 . The copy ofthe said order is filed which is marked as Exhibit M- 1 . The said order shows that the workman was piece rated loader and his designation was changed as Time rated Cat- 1 with pay protection . His evidence further , shows that the workman worked on surface casually. The said witness has stated that the workman is not entitled to get his designation changed and for promotion to the post of Bunker Operator . There is no other evidence in rebuttal . There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness . Both the issues are decided in favour of the management .

AWARD

6. Issue No. III

Passed on this 19th day of January, 2011

On the basis of the discussion made above , the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/ 10/ 2005 - IR (CM - II ) dated 8-11-2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

7. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules .

Whether the action of the Dy.Regional Manager , Pali Sub Area of SECL in not promoting Shri Yagyasen Patkar to the post of Bunker Operator after changing the designation is legal , proper and justified? If not, towhat relief the workman concerned is entitled for? "

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

2. The workman/Union did not appear inspite of proper notice as such the reference proceeded exparte on 29-9-09 against the workman/Union .

का.आ. 604. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं केन्द्रीय विद्यालय 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 27/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement. The case of the management in short is that the workman was initially appointed on the post of Loader w.e.f. 28-7-1988. Subsequently there was nojob of Loader and therefore the designation of several loaders were changed vide order No. 537 dated 3-6-2005 to grant him pay protection and they were deputed on surface at Birsinghpur Colliery for few days on shortage of manpower as and when required but they were not engaged on surface

[सं. एल-42012/ 157/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी 1874

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

stated that he was never given any appointment letter or was ever appointed by them against any vacancy. He was never subject to any regular selection procedure. His name was never sponsored through the employment exchange . But they have admitted that he was engaged as a causal labour as per exigency ofwork . The claimant has been paid his wages according to the work . They have challenged the authenticity of the certificate which is annexure " A" filed by the claimant .

S.O. 604. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 27/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya and their workman, received by the Central Government on 31-1-2011 .

5.No rejoinder has been filed .

[ No. L-42012/ 157/2002- R (CM - II) ]

6. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence .

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desi: Officer

ANNEXURE

7. The only short question is to be decided in this case is whether the claimant had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding 12 months from the date ofhis termination of service that is 1-11-1994.

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH HJS PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPOR

Industrial Dispi te No. 27 of 2003

In the matter of dispute between

8. Claimant W.W.1 has accepted in the cross that he was engaged as a daily casual worker. He has not given any application for appointment , he was not interviewed . He also stated that his name was not called from employment exchange . He stated that he was removed from service on 1-11-1994. But opposite party has denied it .

Sh . Sunil Kumar Dubey, S/ o Sh . Madhysudan Dubey, C/o Sh . Rishi Kant Tiwari , 78/52 Latasha Road, Kanpur.

AND

9. Claimant has relied on the certificate which is photocopy which is paper no.7/ 1 but original has not been filed .Moreover, claimant has not given any application to summon the original document from the opposite party. He has not stated in his evidence that he wants to rely on his certificate . There is no word in his evidence regarding this certificate; therefore, I think that the claimant cannot take any advantage of this certificate unless proved by him .

ThePrincipal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kanpur Cantt. Kanpur.

10. Prima -facie the burden lies on the claimant to prove this fact.

AWAND

11. Opposite party has relied upon a number of decisions vis . ,-

1. Central Government, MoL, New Delhi vide its notification no.L -42012/ 157/2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 8-8-03 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

a. 2008 ( 116) FLR 558 Allahabad High Court Junior Engineer U. P. Jal Nigam Construction Division Mirzapur and Presiding Officer Labour Court Mirzapur and another.

2.Whether the action of the management ofKendriya Vidyalaya Kanpur in terminating the services of Sh . S. K. Dubeywith effect from 1-11-94 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what reliefhe is entitled?

b . 2007 ( 115) FLR 638 Allahabad High Court U. P. Corporation Limited Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court, where in the Hon'ble High Court held that the burden of proof of actual working period of workman span of work shown in the certificate would not mean-that workman has carefully worked for 240 days in or more 12 calendar months in a calendar months .

12. I feel that the claimant should have proved with some cogent evidence that he worked for 240 days before his termination . He did not summon the muster roll if he was being marked present .

3.Brieffacts are that the claimant has alleged that he was appointed on 22-7-93 at the post of peon in group "D" . The nature of work was of permanent nature. He performed inis services sincerely. He alleged that his services were terminated on 1-11-94 without following the provisions in an illegal manner . He stated that he had worked for 240 days with effect from 22-7-93 to 31-10-94. He has filed and annexure A issued by the opposite party. His services have been terminated without issuing any show cause notice etc. Therefore, he has prayed that he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits .

13. Claimants has also filed certain decision of the Hon'bleHigh Court like 2008 ( 119) FLR 937 State ofU.P. & P.O. Labour Court Agra and 2001 ( 89) FLR 32 Rajasthan High Court in between Municipal Corporation Kota and Ram Chandra Singh.

4.Opposite party has filed written statement wherein the allegations of the workman have been refuted. It is [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1875

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

Petitioner : The Secretary,

PartyNo.1

14. After going through the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, I find that the claimant is not entitled to get any relief according to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (SKIMS) , Sanyal Bhawan, Gandhi Nagar, Ghugus -442, Chandrapur

Versus

Respondent :

PartyNo.2

15.As prima -facie initial burden lies on the claimant to prove fact that he had rendered his services for 240days ormorepreceding one calendar year preceding the date of his termination. Thereafter the burden may shift on the opposite party to prove that the workman in fact had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination, but actually claimant did not say a single word in his evidence regarding the papers on which he wants to rely.

16. Therefore, I am of the view that the claimant has failed to prove his case.

17.Accordingly it is held that the claimant is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order and as such the reference is answered against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 605.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/99/2008- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 605. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 11/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Wani area ofWestern Coal fields Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 31-1-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/99/2008 - IR( CM - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/ 11/2009

Date: 24-1-2011 .

The ChiefGeneral Manager, WaniArea ofWestern Coalfields Ltd. , Post Tadali , Dist- Chandrapur. Chandrapur

AWARD (Dated: 24th January, 2011)

Inexercise 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 Wani Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, Shri S.Shende & Shri Prakash Amle for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/ 99 /2008 - IR (CM- II) dated 24-3-2009 , with the following schedule: -

"Whether the action of the management of Wani Area of WCL. denying the accidental benefits and subsequently recovering the injury wages already paid from the salaries of Shri G. S. Shende & Shri Prakash Amle is legal and justified ? To what reliefs are the injured workmen represented through SKMS Union entitled ?"

2. Though , in this case , the reference had been received by the Tribunal on 3-4-2009 and the union representative on behalf of the workmen had been directed to file the statement of claim, till 11-11-2010, statement of claim had not been filed by the union representative . However, in the interest ofjustice, on 11-11-2010, a last chance was given to the union representative to file the statement of claim on 24-1-2011. On 24-1-2011 , none appeared on behalf ofthe workmen . No statement of claim was also filed on that date. Hence the case was closed for passing award .

3. As no statement of claim was filed by the workmen, it is found that the workmen are not interested to proceed with the case. Hence, it is necessary to pass a " no dispute award" . Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The case be treated as " no dispute award " , due to the default of the workmen.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 606.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1876

में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2005 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

the employers in relation to the management of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and their Workman in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide their letter No. L- 22012/4/2005 - IR(CM - II), dated 8-11-2005

[सं. एल-22012/4/2005 - आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्कअधिकारी

2.The disputes as mentioned under the schedule of reference reads as follows:-

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, MCL, Talcher Area in terminating the service of Shri Suresh Chandra Pradhan , workman with effect from 01-12-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

S.O. 606. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . Mahanadi Coalfileds Limited, and their workman, received bythe Central Government on 31-01-2011 .

[No. L -22012/4/2005 - IR (CM- II )] D.S.S. SRINIVAS RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT: Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.GI.T. -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Case No. 28/2005

Date of Passing Award 12th January, 2011

BETWEEN:

TheManagement of the Chief General Manager , M/ s . MCL, Talcher Area , Po . Dera Talcher, Orrisa ,

... 1st Party-Management

AND

Their workman represented through the General Secretary, Talcher Koila Khani Mazdoor Sangh , At/Po . South Balanda, Dist.Angul , Orrisa- 759116

2nd Party-Union.

APPEARANCES :

3.The 2nd Party- Union representing the concerned workman has filed the statement of claim stating that the workman joined as P.R. Loader under the 1st Party- Management on 19-10-1993 . He was discharging his duties sincerely, but he fell seriously ill and got bedridden from the year 1994 to June, 1996. In the mid of June, 1996 he reported for duty along with medical fitness certificate and other medical papers , but his joining report was not accepted and he was not allowed to resume his duties . In. themeantime a memorandum dated 1-8-1996 was issued to him showing absence from duty without sufficient cause. The 2nd Party-workman submitted his explanation before theManager, Deulbera Colliery, Talcher stating that he was seriously ill and bedridden. He also mentioned the fact of his reporting for duty in June , 1996 and the Management refusing him to take on duty. Despite repeated approaches the 1st Party -Management did not take him back in service. All of a sudden the Chief General Manager, Talcher Area awarded him a punishment of removal from service with effect from1-12-1999 vide his letter dated 26-11-1999. Не was never given any notice about the enquiry and its sitting. The whole enquiry was conducted exparte . The materials collected during enquiry were not supplied to him nor he was afforded any reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation, Such an enquiry cannot be said to bevalid and as perthe procedure prescribed in the certified standing order . The 1st Party-Management in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice conducted enquiry exparte with a view to do away with his service. Thus the punishment order is not sustainable in the eye of law . The 1st Party - Management has infringed the workman's right to . life and livelihood and therefore the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated and the order of punishment ofremoval from service is liable to be set aside .

: For the 1st Party Management

Shri P.K. Mohapatra, Personnel Manager.

: For the 2nd Party Union

Shri Mohan Nayak, Authorized Representative ,

AWARD

4. The 1st Party- Management has stated in reply that the disputant- workman was appointed as a Loader on 19-10-1993 . He had not been regular in his duties and was a habitual unauthorized absentee from duty. In the year 1993 he worked for 33 days and in the year 1997 he worked only for 10 days . In the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 he recorded attendance for nil days . Absence from The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred the present industrial dispute existing between [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1877 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

3. Whether the order of termination was proportionate to the charge?

4. Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

7. The Ist Party -Management has examined two witnesses in evidence namely M.W- 1 Shri Chandra Deo and M.W. -2 Shri Binod Kumar Sahu and also filed documents which have been proved and marked as Ext . -1 to 11.

8. The2nd Party-Union has failed to adduce any oral evidence and remained absent on several dates after closure ofthe evidence ofthe 1 st Party- Management . After issuing notice to the 2nd Party - Union its authorized representative appeared on 15-2-2010 but thereafter none of the parties appeared and ultimately the case was reserved for passing award.

FINDINGS

IssueNo. 1

duty without prior sanction of leave and/or habitual unauthorized absence from duty is misconduct under the certified standing orders of the company. The disputant- workman did not mend his way and continued to abstain fromduty. He was therefore charge-sheeted by the Manager, Deulbera Colliery for his misconduct, under the standing orders for his habitual unauthorized absence from duty without any information and sufficient cause and for his absence from duty with effect from 24-11-1993 without sanctioned leave or without prior information. The 2nd Party -workman received the charge -sheet and submitted his explanation. Despite receipt of notice of enquiry vide letter No. 1771 dated 30-7-1999 the 2nd Party- workman did not attend the enquiry on the date fixed nor sent any information. He was issued four more notices regarding holding of enquiry but he did not appear before the enquiry committee. Finally the enquiry was conducted in 5th sitting on24-9-1999.After conclusion of domestic enquiry a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the delinquent official vide letter dated 27-9-1999. He was given an opportunity to show cause about punishment but the delinquent official did not respond to the show cause notice. Taking into account the past record of the delinquent he was awarded punishment of removal from service vide letter dated 26-11-1999. The quantum of punishment is just and proportionate in view of the fact that he had voluntarily abandoned the service for which he was himself responsible. The disputant - workman did not bother to respond to the enquiry notice received by him . As such conducting the enquiry exparte was the only option. Any consideration in the case will be granting premium to indiscipline that will bring disastrous consequence to the business organizations .

5. The 2nd Party - Union filed rejoinder to the written statement of the 1st Party -Management and stated that notice of sitting of enquiry on 9-8-1998 was served on the disputant -workman, but he could not attend the enquiry onthat date due to his illness , He also informed this fact to the enquiry officer . He has not received any other notice regarding conduct of enquiry. He was not given the copy of the enquiry report before imposition of punishment . The punishment of removal from service is disproportionate and illegal . The enquiry report is not sustainable in the eye of law and the punishment is liable to be set aside .

6. On the basis of above contentions of the parties the following issues were framed for adjudication .

ISSUES

1. Whether the workman was a probationer or was appointed as regular basis by the time the alleged termination took place on 1-12-1999.

2. Whether the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly with due regard to the principle ofnatural justice.

9. The disputant- workman was given appointment as a land oustee on the post of P.R. Loader, Grade V- A on 19-10-1993 . After completion ofhis vocational training on 23-11-1993 he was to report to the Project Officer, Deulbera Colliery for further placement. But he absented himself from dutyfrom24-11-1993 all along without sanction of leave or prior information. In this view of the matter the 1st Party- Management's plea is that the disputant - workman was appointed as a probationer on the post of piece rated loader. M.W. - 1 , Shri Chandra Deo and M. W. - 2 Shri B.K. Sahoo have stated that he was appointed as a probationer. According to the statement of M.W. - 2 Shri B.K. Sahu clause 3.5 of the certified Standing Orders speaks that a permanent workman is one, who was employed against the permanent job for a period of six months or who has satisfactorily put in six months continuous service in a permanent post as a probationer , The disputant- workman was appointed on 19-10-1993 and terminated on 1-12-1999 and during this period he had worked only for a period of 43 days and as such he can only be considered as a probationer, not a permanent workman. In his cross- examination he has further stated that an employee would be made permanent only if he worked continuously for six months and during these six months he would be treated as a probationer. In the appointment letter Ext . -6 there is no mention of the fact that the disputant- workman was appointed as a probationer ?A probationer has been defind under clause 3.6 of the certified Standing Orders as to mean apersonwho has been appointed to fill up the permanent post at least for six months in a temporary way and who has not completed the probation period . As per facts of the case as the disputant- workman has only put in 43 days of service till his termination on 1-12-1999 , he can only be designated as a probationer, though he might have been appointed on a regular post . This Issue is accordingly answered and decided in favour of the 1st Party- Management .

540GI/11-21 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1878

Issue No. 2 & 3

10. Since both the issues are co -related and inter dependant they are taken together for convenience sake .

thatdespite sending registered notices to the disputant- workman he did not attend the enquiry. Therefore the enquiry was conducted exparte in his absence. The enquiry report was finalized and filed before the Project Officer, Deulbera Colliery. The said report is exhibited as Ext.3 . The record of sitting of enquiry committee has also been filed along with the enquiry report. The Project Officer sent the copy of the enquiry report to the disputant- workman and called for his representation in writing within three days of receipt of the letter for consideration of the 1st Party- Management . But no reply was received. Hence after accepting the fmdings of the enquiry report and taking into account the seriousness of charges levelled against the disputant - workman punishment of removal from service was awarded to him with effect from 1-12-1999 vide office Order dated 30-11-1999 , photocopy of which has been exhibited as Ext . 5/1 . Clause 26.24 ofthe Certified Standing orders relates to the habit of late attending to duty or habit of remaining absent from duty without sufficient cause and Clause 26.30 relates to the absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or remaining absent from duty beyond the period of sanctioned leave. All these deeds constitute misconduct on the part of the employee and for this misconduct punishment of removal or dismissal from service can be awarded . The disputant- workman although has alleged that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled, yet his contention cannot be accepted. Without prior sanction of leave or prior information absence from duty for years together cannot be taken lightly and that too in the case of a new entrant . It is a serious misconduct . The disputant- workman was a new entrant in service and he kept himself absent from duty almost for three years without any information or leave application to the 1st Party- Management . Therefore, I cannot disagree with the punishment awarded to the disputant -workman . The punishment awarded is not disproportionate to the charges of long absence from duty without prior sanction of leave or prior information . Therefore the punishment ofremoval/dismissal from service is held appropriate to the charges . The disputant -workman could not show as to how the domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly with due regard to the principle ofnatural justice . The disputant - workman was every time informed through registered notice about the sitting of the enquiry committee, but he chose to remain absent. Therefore the enquiry committee cannot be fastened with any fault regarding conduct of the enquiry. Both the issues No. 2 and 3 are decided in the affirmative and against the 2nd Party-Union.

Issue No. 4

12. Since the disputant- workman's long absence from duty without sanctioned leave and prior information comes under gross misconduct for which punishment ofdismissal/ removal from service can be awarded as per the Certified Standing Orders and the 2nd Party- Union could not show that the domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly with due reagrd to the principle of natural justice and disproportionate punishment was awarded with respect to 11. It has been borne out from the evidence on record that the disputant - workman had only worked for 43 days under the 1st Party- Management, 33 days in the year 1993 and 10 days in the year 1997. He remained absent through- out the years 1994 to 1996, 1998 and 1999 till his dismissal from service . The disputant- workman has taken the plea that he was seriously ill and bed -ridden from the year 1994 to mid of June, 1996. But there is not a single utterance from his side that he had informed the 1st Party- Management about his illness any time during the period of his absence . He reported for duty in the mid of June, 1996 along with medical certificates of illness and fitness . Hehas filed papers of his treatment along with his rejoinder to the written statement ofthe 1stParty -Management . These documents have not been proved and exhibited in evidence. They are in shape ofphotostat copies . On casting a glance on these papers it appears that the medical treatment started from 13-5-1997 and ended on 22-9-1998 . These papers do not speak of illness of the disputant workman from the year 1994 to mid of June, 1996. He has also filed three papers in the shape of xerox copies . The first two papers are medical certificates for the period from 25-11-1993 to 16-7-1994 and 18-7-1994 to 16-2-1996 . In both of these papers he was declared fit to resume his duty with effect from 17-7-1994 and 17-2-1996 respectively. The third paper is the medical prescription. He had not explained as to why he had not joined his duties on 17-7-1994 and again on 17-2-1996 . These medical certificates have been taken from the Medical Officer , G M. Hospital , Talcher and P.H.C. Godipada , Dist Angul respectively. The 1st Party- Management had got him examined from the medical board ofMCL, Central Hospital , Talcher whose report in the shape of xerox copy has been exhibited as 1/11 . In the medical examination the disease was reported as chronic gastritis . No abnormality was detected and the disputant- workman was found fit for duty. But he did not join his duty even after being declared fit to resume duties . Thereafter a letter dated 1-8-1996 raising the charges of long absence from duty without prior sanction of leave and information was sent by the Management to the disputant- workman . The Photostat copy of this letter constituting charge- sheet was filed and proved by the 1st Party - Management as Ext . - 1 to which a reply dated 23-8-1996 was received from the disputant- workman. The photostat copy of which has been filed and proved as Ext. - 1/ 1 . But the disputant -workman has not given any justifiable and satisfactory reply to the charges raised against him by letter/charge- sheet dated 1-8-1996. There upon a departmental enquiry was instituted and enquiry committee was appointed vide order dated 27-7-1999 . Copy of this office order was sent to the disputant -workman . The photostat copies of registry receipt and stamp account book have been filed and exhibited by the Management witness No.1 . Notice regarding sitting of enquiry committee are Ext . 1/12, Ext . 2 and Ext . 2/1 to 2/5 . The Management witness has deposed [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1879 भारत का राजपत्र :

फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

the charges levelled against him he is not entitlled to any relief.

13. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me .

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

transferring the workman Shri G P. Dubey from AG - I (Ministerial ) Cadre to Accounts Cadre without considering seniority and in terms ofhis option dated 21-3-77 given vide Circular No. Accounts Cadre- 76- 77 dt . 4-3-77 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

2. The Workman/Union did not appear in the reference inspite of proper notice . As such the then Tribunal proceeded the proceeding exparte on 22-7-05 and 20-9-07 against the Workman/Union .

का.आ. 607.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी. आई. 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 135/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/31/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 607. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 135/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 31-1-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/31/2002 - IR (CM- II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management in short is that the workman Shri G. P. Dubey while working on the post of AG- I (Ministerial) had given option for transferring his services in theAccounts Cadre on the basis of his seniority in terms of circular dated 4-3-1977 . Since the workman was not fulfilling the requisite criteria and qualifications for transferring his services to the Accounts Cadre , his application was rejected by the management . It was not mandatory right tothe workman that his option was required to be accepted by the management . However subsequently theworkman sought voluntary retirement from the service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. His application was acceptedby the competent authority vide order dated 3-9-04. The workman voluntary retired from the services w.e.f. 7-10-04 and had accepted the retirement benefits which was paid to him vide Account Payee Cheque dated 18-11-04. Since the workman is no more in service, the claim for transferring his services has become infructuous . It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of the reference and the pleadings of the management, the following issues are framed- BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/135/2002

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

1. Whether the workman is entitled to be transferred from AG - 1 ( Ministerial) to the Accounts Cadre?

The Regional Secretary,

II . To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

Workman

Food Corporation of India Employees Association, 1-102, New Subhash Nagar , Bhopal(MP)

Versus

The District Manager ( West) , Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , D.W. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai

...Management

The Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Bhopal

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day ofJanuary, 2011

To prove the case the management has examined one witness . The Management witness Shri Ashok Rambhau Wankhade is Area Manager . He has stated that the workman Shri G.P.Dubey had given option for transferring his services in theAccounts Cadre on the basis of circular dated 4-3-1977 but he was not fulfilling the requisite criteria and qualification and therefore his option was rejected by the non - applicant corporation . His evidence isunrebutted and there is no other evidence to disbelieve his evidence . Moreover the burden is on the workman/ Union to establish his claim . Considering the discussion above, it is clear that the action of the management is justified in not transferring his services to Accounts Cadre . This issue is decided in favour of the management .

6. Issue No. II

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/ 31 /2002 - IR(CM - II ) dated 19-9-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :--

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Mumbai/Bhopal in not

On the basis of discussion, made above , it is clear that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

7. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 608, 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 जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 183/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/340/97- आई आर( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 31st January, 2011 S.O. 608.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 183/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 28-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/340/97- IR (B- 1) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NOCGIT/ LC/R/ 183/98

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri H.R.Minz,

Ex. Cashier-cum -Clerk,

StateBank of India , Saragaon Branch , Distt . Champa Janjgir, R/o Pataka Dukaan, Majhli Talab , Station Road, Barpali Chowk ,

Champa, Distt . Champa- Janjgir (MP)

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of January 2011 I. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its NotificationNo. L- 12012/340/97- IR(B- I) dated 10-8-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

"Whether the action ofthe management ofState Bank ofIndia, in awarding the punishment ofremoval from services ofBank to Shri H. R. Minj , Ex- Cashier Cum Clerk, SaragaonBranch ofDistt. Bilaspur (MP) , vide order, dt. 15-5-96 of Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Raipur (MP) is justified? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled?" 2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was cashier -cum-clerk at Saragaon Branch ofState Bank of India. He was served with a charge sheet dated 6-10-95 for cheating and forgery in the Bank's record for wrongful gain. The departmental proceeding was initiated. The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed . The E.O submitted his enquiry report on the basis of admission by the workman without holding any enquiry. The Disciplinary authority also without considering the points raised passed the order of removal from service. The Appellate Authority had also not considered the points and rejected the, appeal . The workman did not admitted regarding cheating and forgery rather he had admitted only with respect to withdrawal of amount . The managment had not adduced any valid evidence in the departmental enquiry. It is also stated that the punishment is also disproportionate and severe by passing order of removal from service . It is submitted that the order ofpunishment be set aside and the workman be reinstated with back wages .

Workman/Union

Versus

The Dy.General Manager, State Bank of India, Region -V, Zonal Office, Raipur (MP)

Management

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management, interalia, is that admittedly the workman was cashier-cum-clerk in the bank but committed serious irregularity in his current account by fraudulent act of alteration and forgery for wrongful gain. He was served with chargesheet . He filed reply and admitted the charges . The departmental enquiry was initiated and the E.O was appointed. The E.O explained the charges and theworkman again admitted the charges . Since he had repeatedly admitted the charges , the E.O submitted his enquiry report on the basis of admission by the workman. The enquiry report was given to the workman and was asked to give explanation if any. The workman again admitted the charges . The Disciplinary authority served the proposed punishment of removal from service and asked to showcause under Shastri Award read with Desai Award . He had also been given opportunity of personal hearing. He again apologized the misconduct and request for lenient punishment. The Disciplinary Authority considering the serious misconduct committed by the workman passed the order of removal from service . It is submitted that the punishment is just and proper and the reference be answered in favour ofthe management.

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1881

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

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

i. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted bythe management against the workman is just and proper?

ii. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages ?

iii. Relief and costs .

5. Issue No.1

The issue No.1 was taken up as a preliminary issue and after considering all the materials on record, it was held that the departmental proceeding conducted by the management is legal and valid on 4-3-2010 . Accordingly this issue is already answered .

6. Issue No.2 & 3

Both the parties have not adduced any evidence after the order on preliminary issue. The parties have relied the documents filed during departmental enquiry. Exhibit W/6 is filed by the workman and is admitted by the management . This document clearly shows that the workman admitted all charges during the course of departmental proceeding. The workman filed reply of showcause to the disciplinary Authority which is marked as Exhibit M/2 . The reply of the showcause shows that the workman apologized the conduct committed by him due to family tension and begged to pardon the misconduct . Thus it is clear that it was voluntary admission of the serious charges of misconduct. Under the circumstances , he appears to be not entitled to be reinstated with backwages .

7.Another important point for consideration is as to whether the punishment awarded to him was disproportionate to the misconduct committed to him . The learned counsel for the workman has argued that the workman has himself admitted the charges on the given assurance that the punishment would be dealt leniently. He has relied a decision reported in ( 1991 ) 17Administrative Tribunal Case K/E/Vavichi Versus Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Palghat and 4 others .The decision is not applicable with the facts of this case because he had admitted the charges of lack of integrity. This decision is not applicable .

8. The learned counsel for the management has urged that the Bank employee is required to exercise higher standards of honesty because he deals with the money of the depositors and the customers . This misconduct is a serious misconduct and the Bank lost confidence on the employee . The learned counsel has relied the decision reported in (2005) 1 S.C.C.13 , Ganesh Santa Ram SirurVrs . State Bank of India and another wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that-

"The Bank Manager / Officer and employees of any Bank, nationalized/ or non - nationalised, are expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the bank . Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and trust and a misconduct. In the instant case Charge 5 framed against the appellant is very serious and grave in nature . We have already extracted the relevant Rule which prohibits theBank Manager to sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan the appellant did not appear to have kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realized the mistake later and tried to salvage the sameby not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name ofhis wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decision. Rule 34 (3 ) ( 1) is a rule of integrity and, therefore, as rightly pointed outby Mr. Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as Bank Manager . The punishment of removal awarded by the appellate authority isjust and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.Before concluding, we may usefully reply on thejudgment Regional Manager , U.P SRTC V. Hoti Lal wherein this court has held as under-

" If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning , it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has tobe dealt with iron hands . Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable , Judged in that background , conclusions of the division Bench of the High Court donot appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order ofthe learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal . "

The learned counsel has also relied the decision reported in(2003)4 S.C.C.364 , P.C.Kakkar versus Chairman and Managing director, United Commercial Bank and another and (2004 ) 8.S.C.C.218 Regional Manager , Rajasthan , State Road Transport Corporation versus Sohanlal . I find that the workman had committed serious misconduct by interpolating in the record and for withdrawing the amount and therefore there is no need to interfere in the punishment order. These issues are decided against the workman and in favour of the management. The reference is accordingly answered.

costs . 9. In the result, the award is passed without any 10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asperrules.

MOHD SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer 1882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

committedby Sh . Mithlesh Kumar is in proportion ornot? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

3. Brieffacts are-

का.आ. 609.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , 508 ,आर्मी बेस वर्कशॉप 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 92/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -14011 / 10/2000- आई आर(डी यू) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 609. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.92/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of 508 Army Base Workshop and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 31-01-2011.

[No. L- 14011/10/2000- IR (DU) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 92 OF 2000

Between

TheGeneral Secretary, Defence EME Employees Union , Allahabad, 586/74-A/25 -B Dlelkapurwa Allahabad.

And

The Commandant & MD , 508. Army Base Workshop , Allahabad Fort, Allahabad.

AWARD

4. It is an admitted fact that the claimant Sri Mithlesh Kumar who is serving with the opposite department took an LTC advance for the block year 1994-97 of Rs . 19800 which was paid to him on 19-12-98 . It is alleged that the journey was to be commenced on the same day. He tried his best to get reservation in the railway before 31-12-98 , being the last date of availing of LTC for the aforesaid block of 4 years , but he could not succeed to get reservation in the railway for the declared place of Kanya Kumari . Meantime his wife became ill and he spent the amount ofLTC advance in her treatment thereafter he submitted an application dated 28-01- 99, requesting the opposite party to recover the amount of LTC advance paid to him from workman's pay and allowances under the provisions of LTC Rules , 1988, copy ofthe application dated 28-1-99 is filed as annexure one . Amount to him as LTC advance has been recovered but the General Administration illegally served with a memo of charge bearing no. dated 23-3-99 . The GM . (Admin) used illegally the powers of disciplinary authority against the workman copy of the same is enclosed and filed as Annexure 2. Workman submitted the reply of the said memo and denied the allegation ; copy of the reply is annexure 3 . Workman did not submit any fraudulent claim to the department as such charge- sheet served on him iswholly illegal , but the GM (Admn) [passed an arbitrary order dated 10-5-99 imposing the penalty of " withholding of increment of pay for two years without cumulative effect, " the said order is wholly illegal and arbitrary . The disciplinary authority did not discuss the defence of the workman and no opportunityofhearing was given to him and holding an inquiry under sub- rule (3 ) to sub-rule 23 ofRule 14 of CCS Rules , 1965. As such the order of the disciplinary authority is a non speaking order ; copy ofthe order is filed as annexure 4. He also made an appeal against the order ofthe disciplinary authority, but the appellate authority also passed an arbitrary and non speaking order which is filed as annexure 5 and 6. Therefore , he has prayed that the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority be set aside .

1. Central Govt . MoL aNew Delhi vide Notification No. L- 14011 /10/2000- IR (DU) dated 31-07-2000, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal--

5. Opposite party has filed the Written Statement. They have alleged that the claimant has not produced reservation ticket within ten days from receipt of advance as per existing instructions and misuse the government money GM ( Admn) and disciplinary authority issued a charge -sheet/ memorandum dated 23-3-99 under Rule 16 of CCS 2. Whether the action of the management of 508 Army Base Workshop , Allahabad while awarding the punishment "withholding of increment of pay for two years without cumulative effect" as a disciplinary action is in proportionate act [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1883

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

Rules 1965 , to the claimant and also framed article of charges which was duly served on the applicant which is filed . Sri Mithlesh Kumar submitted his explanation in which he stated that he received the amount on journey day and journey without reservation could not be made and also stated that in the meantime his wife became ill and spent amount ofmoney of LTC in treatment ofhis wife.

6. Opposite party has contradicted the other allegations of the claimant and stated that it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to conduct the inquiry and he can waive off holding an inquiry inthe case of minor charge- sheet . Therefore , they prayed that the claim statement be dismissed.

7. Both the parties have filed the documentary evidence.

8. Claimant has not adduced any oral evidence . Opposite party has adduced M.W. 1 Sri Vijai K. Tyagi .

9. Heard and perused the records .

10. The only short question is to be decided in this case is whether the claimant has commited any misconduct or not . Second if yes whether the penalty imposed upon him falls under minor punishment.

11. It is an admitted fact that he received the LTC advance on 19-12-98 . It is also an admitted fact thatthe memorandum which was issued to him on 23-3-99 shows in Para 2 of statement of imputations that-- It reveals that Sri Mithlesh Kumar has also not deposited the said amount with finance section as is evident from minute sheet offinance section No. 2 dated 17-02-99 , thereby he has misused the government money and contravened the instructions besides written undertaking . It is also a fact not disputed that Mithlesh Kumar has not produced any reservation Ticket within ten days from receipt of advance as per existing instructions .

12. Now it is a fact that the claimant has not deposited the advance of LTC of Rs . 19800 till the issuance of the memorandum/charge - sheet . It is alleged by the claimant's authorized representative that he had submitted an application dated 28-1-99 before the authorities . I have gone through this application this is a photocopy and it was not been proved by the claimant in coming the witness box. When he has received the LTC advance and when he could notperformed the journey due to non reservation or otherwise , it was incumbent upon him to deposit theLTC advance in one go or in lump sum . Even it was not expected from him to spent the LTC advance of Rs . 19800 for the treatment of his wife, asalleged by him . As he has alleged that there was a mala fide on the part of the opposite party, but thismala fide cannot be assumed unless the witness comes in the witness box and alleges the same contents .

13. Opposite party has adduced oral evidence also .

14. Therefore, considering the facts , I do not want to interfere in the result drawn by the disciplinary authority regarding the misconduct ofthe claimant . He has drawn his verdict on the basis of record. Therefore , it cannot be held that the workman has not committed any misconduct . The first part is therefore , decided against the claimant .

15. Now it has to be seen if the opposite party has committed any illegality or violated the rules of natural justice .

16. There is no force in the contention of the claimant that his defence has not been considered while awarding punishment . Punishing authority has clearly mentioned all the details of the reply submitted by the claimant in his punishment order but he was not satisfied with the reply of the claimant.

17. Opposite has contended that according to CCS Rules there are two kinds of penalties i.e. minor and major as defined in Part V of the Rules . It is alleged that withholding of increment of pay falls under minor penalties . It is provided that the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereafter provided , be imposed on a government servant, namely

Minor penalties-

1. Censure

4. Withholding of increment of pay.

18. Thereafter major penalties are provided.

19. The disciplinary authority has specifically and clearly mentioned in his order that he has personally inquired into all aspects of the case and feels no necessity of inquiry and find that the charge- sheeted employee is guilty of the charge formed against him and opines that the penalty of charge (Withholding of increment of pay for two years without cumulative effect, if awarded will meet the ends of justice) . He has also mentioned that he has been empowered under rules 12(2 ) of CCS Rules 1965 read in with MoD letter dated 1-9-79 .

20. Therefore , considering all the facts and cirnumstances it is found that a minor punishment hasbeen imposed which also after issuing charge [PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

Vs.

TheGeneral Manager , 2nd Party/Respondent

IndianBankHead Office ,

66, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai- 600001

APPEARANCE :

sheet obtaining a reply and considering the same , I find that there is no breach of any provisions of rules of principle of natural justice or rule of self defence. As such it is held that the opposite party has not committed any illegality in awarding the punishment on the claimant . Claimant as such held not entitled for any relief.

Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. K. M. Ramesh , Advocates 21. Reference is accordingly decided against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer Forthe 2nd Party/Management : M/ s . T. S. Gopalan & Co.Advocates नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

AWARD

TheCentral Government Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12012 / 72/ 2008 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 11-02-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

का.आ. 610. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद कें केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रमन्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/72/2008- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action ofthe management of Indian Bank in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits on Sri R. Kasinathan is justified? What reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 36/2009 and issued notices toboth sides. Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be .

3. The Claim Statement averments berefit of unnecessary details are as follows:

S.O. 610. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/ 2009) 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 Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-201-1 .

[No. L- 12012/72/2008- IR(B- II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 18th January , 2011

PRESENT : A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 36/2009

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their Workmen]

The petitioner who joined service under the Respondent/Bank in 1979 as Clerk/Shroff was proceeded against on disciplinary action by issuing Show Cause Notice on 2-1-2003 alleging him to have had sent remittance of Rs . 11.00 lacs to T. Nagar Currency Chest through Sri . E. Vijay Kumar , Clerk/Shroffat GuindyBranch. Atthe CurrencyChest 3 sections ofRs. 100 denomination (soiled notes) were found to contain only 90, 86 and 89 pieces with a total shortage of 35 pieces and the said sections were returned from the Currency Chest to the Branch .There was found the Cash Receipt Stamp of GuindyBranch with date 08-10-2002 and another 2 sections withdated September, 2002 without clearly visible the exact date. The petitioner had put his signature as a Shroff on all those sections and the Officer's signature available thereon do not tally with the signature of any of the officials of the branch . The Ist party is alleged to have accepted having put his signature and that of the Officer as though verifid by the Officer. On 26-10-2002 the petitioner was suspended . In his explanation dated 7-3-2002 he denied them . On 27-3-2003 Charge Sheet was BETWEEN

Sri R. Kasinathan

: 1stParty/ Petitioner

issued. In the enquiry commenced on 21-4-2003 Ex . MEXI to Ex. MEX8 were marked and MWI to MW4 were examined. On the petitioner's side DWI was examined . As [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

per the Enquiry Report dated 29-11-2003 he was imposed the proposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefits under Clause - 6 ( C) of the Settlement dated 10-4-2002 . Appeal was dismissed on 28-6-2006 as being meritless without a speaking order . Hence the ID raised and reference occasioned . The statement of the petitioner was obtained under duress and coercion under an unfair investigation. Confession of the petitioner was obtained after calling the petitioner on leave , to the Branch . Due to pressure of work in the Cashier's counter shortages in the making of each sections would happen . Finding of Enquiry Officer are not based on evidence , which is perverse . Finding is on the basis of assumptions , presumptions surmises and conjectures . Appeal is disposed of without application of mind . The enquiry held is not in accordance with law and principles of natural justice . Hence the punishment of Compulsory Retirement is illeal and unjustified . The petitioner is to be reinstated into service with all benefits invoking Section - 11A of the ID Act .

4. Counter Statement contentions briefly read as follows:

1885

फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7, 1932

8. The arguments on behalf of the petitioner advanced by his learned advocate Mr. K. M. Ramesh are in terms of his pleadings . Though enquiry was conducted the reliance is placed only on Ex. M5 Admission Letter without any independent evidence . The punishment is also assailed as discriminatory and arbitrary.

9. The contra contentions advanced by Sri T. S. Gopalan, learned counsel for the Respondent are that the petitioner accepted the guilt voluntarily and is not out of any coercion or compulsion . His versions are inconsistent as an outcome of afterthought after a gap of time . There is no case ofdiscriminating the petitioner for his misconduct punishment him and without punishing some other Officer who are not responsible or liable for the misconducted by the petitioner. Petitioner has not got examined to defend the charge . DW1 who has given evidence on his behalf as a3rd party is not apt to disprove the charges . Compulsory Retirement given with superannuation benefits is with benevolence in nature and the same in only to be maintained.

10. On consideration of the rival contentions 1 objetively derive the satisfaction that this as a case in which there is nothing, either in the enquiry, the manner of holding it and the finding or the punishment rendering it unsustainable . Therefore , the punishment imposed is also onlytobe kept intact. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any relief.

11. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P. A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 18th January, 2011 )

A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Exmined:

: WW1 , Sri R. Kasinathan

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Forthe 2nd Party/Management : None

On 17-10-2002 though petitioner was on leave he cameto the Guindy Branch . Petitioner then disclosed the truth that in order to pay interest to his creditors for the loans incurred by him who were pressurizing him he utilized thebank money ofRs . 3,500 to clear those debts which he invariably made good on the day and the next day . In fact he admitted removal of 36 pieces whereas actually only 35 pieceswere missing. He also wrote letter dated 17-10-2002 voluntarily. Later on 7-3-2002 he alleged the letter to have been given out of compulsion , which further shows lack of negligence of petitioner for missing but that it was deliberate . He had not assailed the enquiry . The punishment isjustified. The petitioner has received his PF dues and Gratuity. He has not substantiated his case of compulsion and coercion by evidence . Petitioner cannot find fault with the investigation which is a unilateral act of theManagement . The finding is not perverse . There is no scope for interference under Section - 11A of the ID Act . Bank has lost confidence on the petitioner. The claim is to be dismissed.

Documents Marked:

From the Petitioner's side

5. Points for consideration are :

Date

Ex. No.

Description

26-10-2002

(i) Whether Compulsory Retirement of petitioner with superannuation benefits is justified?

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

6. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of WWI and Ex . WI to Ex . W11 on the petitioners side and of Ex . MI to Ex . M18 with no oral evidence on the Respondent side.

Points ( i) & ( ii )

7. The case of the petitioner in the box as WWI is that he got fair opportunity in the enquiry which was held in an impartial manner.

540G1/11-22

Ex. W1

Order of suspension serverd on the workman .

16-12-2002

Ex. W2

Show Cause issued to the concerned workman .

07-03-2003

Ex.W3

Reply submitted by the concerned workman reply to the Show Cause Notice .

27-03-2003

Ex. W4

Charge Sheet issued to the concerned workman .

31-10-2003

Ex. W5

Summing up of the Defence Representative on the enquiry THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1886

proceedings held against the concerned workman 27-12-2003

Ex.W6

Comments on the Enquiry Officer's findings submitted by the employee

10-04-2004

Ex. W7

Second Show Cause Notice served on the concerned workman

31-05-2004

Ex. W8

General Manager/Disciplinary Authority's punishment order 14-07-2004

Ex. W9

Appeal preferred by the workman before the Appellate Authority

26-06-2006

Ex. W10

Letter from the Chief Manager (HRM ) intimating the decision of the Appellate Authority 09-04-2007

Ex.W11

Industrial Dispute raised by workman under Section - 2A of the ID Act. 1947

From the Management side:

Date

Ex. No.

Description

Ex.MI 21-04-2003 Proceedings of the enquiry 25-04-2003

25-06-2003

17-07-2003

21-07-2003

29-07-2003

21-04-2003

Ex. M2

Letter of R. Kasinathan to EnquiryOfficer informing that Mr. Thomas Jeyaprabhakar will be appearing as his Defence Representative .

17-10-2002

Ex. M3

Cash Remittance Slip Rs . 11,00,000

17-10-2002

Ex.M4

Letter from Chief Manager to DGM on cash shortage.

Ex.M5 17-10-2002 Letter from Petitioner to Chief Manager,

17-10-2002

Ex. M6

Investigation Report of Mr. Valmikinathan , Manager- Vigilance.

21-10-2002

Ex.M7

Letter from Chief Manager , Guindy Branch to Chief Manager, Vigillance.

16-12-2002

Ex . M8

Letter from DGM and DisciplinaryAuthority Vigilance to Petitioner.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 07-03-2003

Ex. M9

Letter from Petitioner to DGM and Disciplinary Authority. 09-09-2003

Ex.M10

Letter from Ramakrishanan to EnquiryOfficer enclosing the Presenting Officer's Summing Up.

Ex.M11

Findings of the Enquriy Officer 29-11-2003

08-12-2003

Ex. M12

Letter to Petitioner enclosing findings of the Enquiry Officer and calling for his comments. 20-03-2004

Ex. M13

Letter from GM and Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner proposing the punishment and. advising the Petitioner to call on him for personal hearing 29-03-2004. on 26-03-2004- Communication to the Petitioner Ex.M14

03-04-2004 Advising him to attend the personal hearing on 16-4-2004.

Ex.M15 10-04-2004 Representation of the Petitioner to the GM and Disciplinary Authority. 16-04-2004

Ex. M16

Proceedings ofpersonal hearing. 30-06-2007

Ex. M17

P.F. Settlement Receipt .

30-06-2007

Ex. M18

Gratuity Settlement Receipt .

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 611.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आईसी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय II , चंडीगढ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 520/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/3/2000-आई आर( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 611. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.520/2K5 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court- II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011.

[No. L- 17012/3 /2000- IR(B - II )] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1887 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi , PresidingOfficer

Case No. I.D. 520/2K5

Registered on 22-08-2005

Sh . Ramesh S/ o Sh . Mittan Lal , House No. 1553 , Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh

....Applicant

Versus

LIC of India The Senior Divisional Manager , LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash Building, Sector 17- B , Chandigarh.

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh . M.R. Dhiman, AR of Workman

1-5-1998 , which was extended for another three months w.e.f. 1-8-1998. In the meantime P & I.R. Department of Regional Office, Chandigarh obtained the orders of competent authority for appointment of two temporary sweepers and the appointment to the said posts was to be made in accordance with rules of the Corporation and the workman was further given the contract for the job till the filling of two temporary sanctioned posts of sweepers .The contract ofthe workman automatically terminated onjoining ofpersons selected for the post in accordance with rules. The termination of contract of workman does not amount to retrenchment . It was denied that the workman entered into employment of respondent on 26-4-1996 as Sweeper on daily wages and the termination of contract of the workman amounts- to unfair labour practice and is in violation of Section 25G ofthe Act and that workman worked for more than 240 days and he is entitled to the benefits of theAct. According to the respondent after appointment to the newly sanctioned posts in accordance with the rules no person was employed on contract for sweeping and washing.

For the Management Sh . P.K. Longia, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 11-01-2011

Workman filed rejoinder to say that he had been employed by the respondent and there was a relationship of master and servant . It was further alleged that there was no contract and he is not a contractor. He had been employed against the sanctioned post as the washing and cleaning is ajob of permanent nature and is to be performed daily.

Following issues arise for consideration in the present matter :-

Central Government vide Notification No. L- 17012/ 3/2000- IR(B - II ) Dated 22-6-2000 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d) and sub- Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

1. Whether the workman was an employee of the respondent/management and his services were terminated by the respondent management?

2. Whether the workman was a contractual labour and his contract terminated on the expiry of period for which the contract had been granted?

" Whether the action of the Senior Divisional Manager (O.S. ) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sector 17 - B , Chandigarh in terminating the services. ofSh . Ramesh S/o Sh . Mittan Lal w.e.f. 7-1-1999 is just and legal? If not, what relief is the workman entitled?"

3. Whether the services of the workman were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act and the respondent/management retained persons junior to workman while terminating the services of the workman?

To what relief the workman is entitled?

The workman has raised an Industrial dispute stating that he had joined the respondent as Sweeper on daily wagesbasis on 26-4-1996 and his services were terminated. on 07-1-1999 by oral order without any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation . Prior to his termination for about three months he was being paid the fixed wages of Rs . 1500 per month . While terminating the services the juniors were retained . The termination is an unfair labour practice and is violative of provisions of the Act . He has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages .

In evidence the workman filed his affidavit and relied on certain papers , while on behalf of management , the affidavit of Swaranjit Kaur , AAO , LIC , Divisional Office,Sector 17 -B , Chandigarh was filed. On the application ofthe workman the respondent filed certain office orders and payment vouchers . Attendance Register was not produced as it was said on behalf of management that it is not maintained of contractual sweepers .

I have heard the AR of the workman and the learned counsel for the management and have perused the material on record .My findings on various issues are as follows:-

The claim was contested by the management/ respondent . It was stated in the written statement that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the workman . The clamant was never in continuous service of Corporation . He worked of and on for a few days in 1996 and 1997 and subsequently he was given a contract of cleaning and washing on a lump sum of Rs. 2300 per month for a period of three months w.e.f.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1888

Issue No. 1 & 2 .

Asboth issues are inter - linked , hence they are being taken up together .

No. 76-78 go to show that the workman had worked on contract basis . Papers Ex . MW- 1 /37 and MW- 1 /38 are the office notes in which sanction has been sought for engaging the workman on contract basis w.e.f. 01-05-1998 , and then from 1-08-1998 for three months . In Paper No. MW- 1/43 the permission has been sought for allowing the workman for carrying out the work of sweeper on contractual basis till thetemporary sweeper is appointment . These Office notes contain the approval of the concerned authority also .

It issettled position of law that the person who sets the plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him . The concept of employment involves three ingredients ; ( 1 ) Principal employer (2) Employee (3 ) Contract of employment . The employer is one who employs i.e. who engages services of other persons. An employee is one who works for another for hire or reward . The employment is a contract of service between the employer and the employee and there is a difference between and ' contract of service ' and ' contract for service . In order to establish the employer and employee relationship , the workman has to prove that there was a contract of service between him and the employer.

The voluminous evidence produced by the management/ respondent and also the evidence of the workman himself goes to show that the workman was a contractual labour. There is no evidence to show that the Corporation had employed the workman and there was a contract of service between the respondent and the workman. Rather the evidence of the parties shows that there was a contract for service for the washing and cleaning job , which terminated on the appointment of persons to the sanctioned posts of temporary sweepers . It is a matter of termination of service with the termination of contract and the termination of the contract does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(00) Clause (bb ) of the Act. Issue No. 1 is decided against the workman and issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the management , accordingly.

Issue No. 3.

The question arises as to how the relationship of employee and employer is to be determined . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in workman of Nilgiri Co- operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs State ofTamil Nadu 2004- II LLJ 253 observed that " No single test-be it control test, Organization test or any other test was determinative test for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee ". The Hon'ble court held that the Court is required to consider several factors which would have a bearing on the results (a ) Who is appointing authority ? (b ) Who is Pay Master? (c) Who can dismiss ? (d) How long alternative service last ? ( e) The extent of control and provison (f) The nature ofjob i.e. whether it is professional or skilled work ? (g) Nature of establishment (h ) The right to reject.

As it has been held above there was no contract of service between the workman and the respondent and there was only a contract of service between the two, therefore , no violation of the provisions of the Act in the termination of the service of the workman is involved . The workman was not a retrenchee . Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefitofSection 25G of the Act also. It is also important that the management has denied the violation of Section 25G of the Act and has stated that after appointment to the newly sanctioned posts in accordance with the rules , no person was employed on contract for sweeping and washing . Issue No. 3 is , therefore , decided against the workman.

Issue No. 4.

Inthe perspective of the above stated legal position , the evidence of the parties is to be scruitinized for the determination of the issues involved . The workman in his cross -examination has admitted that he had not been given any appointment letter and he has no record to show that he was engaged on monthly basis . He has filed certain papers marked as ' A' cumulatively. Paper No. 1 to 15 are the payment vouchers , in favour of the workman.Out of these papers No. 1 , 13 & 14 has a mention that the amount paid through them was regarding the wages on contractual basis.According to the AR of the workman the other papers filed by him shows that the workman had worked for the management.

From the findings recorded above , it is clear that the workman is not entitled to any relief. The action of the Senior Divisional Manager (O.S.) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sector 17 - B , Chandigarh in terminating the services oftheworkman is just and legal . The reference is answered against the workman. Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

As it was submitted by the learned counsel for the management it is not disputed that the workman had worked for the management but the documents relied on by him do not prove that he was an employee of the management . Rather the payment vouchers mentioned above supports the plea of the management that the workman was a contractual labour .

ASHOK KUMAR, RASTOGI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 612.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, From the documents filed by the management on the request of the workman, the plea of the management is also established . The Office Order dated 15-06-1997 paper No. 74 and the details ofpayments made to the workman Paper [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

1889 अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 04/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/67/2008 - आई आर( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 31st January, 2011

3. The case of the workman , Saroj Kumar Shukla, in brief, is that he was engaged by the Extension Counter, Sarojini Nagar Branch , Lucknow @ Rs . 10 per month as waterman . Subsequently, all works of class IV was being taken from him w.e.f. 1989 and later he was stopped from working w.e.f. 01-07-2007 by the then bank manager, without any reason or written order. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his removal from services be declared illegal and he be reinstated w.e.f. 1989 since he got major, with back wages and continuity in service.

S.O. 612.- 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 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/67/2008 - IR (B- II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4.The management of the Central Bank of India has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement wherein it has submitted that the workman was never engaged by the bank, therefore , the question of his dismissal on 04-11-2007 does not arise . Further , it has been submitted by the management that there is well prescribed procedure for recruiting Class - IVemployees in the Banks which includes calling names from Employment Exchange, followed by test/ interview selection etc. and the workman was not recruited by following any of the these procedures. Accordingly, the managerment of the Bank has prayed that the claim ofthe workman may be rejected without any reliefto him.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Dr. Manju Nigam , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 04/2009

Ref. No. L- 12012/67/2008 - IR (B - II ) dated 11-02-2009

BETWEEN

5.After filing of written statement the workman was givenopportunity to file its rejoinder. When the workman did not put up his appearance nor filed rejoinder for long, a registered was issued to the workman on 16-12-2009 to file rejoinder by 12-01-2010 , which was received back 'underlivered' with endorsement that " dariyaaft karne se chala ki praaptkartaa ki mritu ho chuki hai , atah , vaapas ." Shir Saroj Kumar Shukla S /o Late Sh . Suray Narayan Shukla Nai Basti , Sarojini Nagar , Lucknow

AND

The Zonal Manager Bank of India Zonal Officer

The authorized representative filed an application dated 26-06-2009, paper No. W- 9 , enclosing death certificate ofthe workman; requested to proceed in accordacne with the Rules since the workman died on 25-05-2009 .

StarHouse, Vivek Khand, Gomti Nagar , Lucknow

AWARD

27-12-2010

1. By order No. L- 12012/67/2008 - IR(B- II ) dated : 11- 02-2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Saroj Kumar Shukla S / o Late Sh . Suray Narayan Shukla, Nai Basti , Sarojini Nagar , Lucknow and the Zonal Manager, Bank of India , Zonal Officer, Star House, Vivek Khand , Gomti Nagar , Lucknow foradjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Lucknow in disengaging Shri Saroj Kumar Shukla from the work of waterman w.e.f. 01-7-2007 is legal and justified . To what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

6. The authorized representaitve of the Bank has argued that a dispute does not necessarily cease to be an industrial dispute upon the death of the workman concerned and has relied upon 1968 Lab . I.C. 515 B.W. Journalists ' Union v . H.K. Chaudhuri and placed reliance on 1979 Lab. I.C. NOC 14 M/s Gwalior Rayons , Mavoor vs. Labour Court , Kozhikode & others wherein the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has observed that there is no reason whythe Labour Court should cease to exercise jurisdiction in considering the question whether the termination ofthe services of certain employees was justified or not merely because they died during the course of the proceeding. Beside, Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down that no proceeding pending before a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman , and such Labour Court ,Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such proceedings and submits its award to the appropriate Government .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1890

Accordingly, in view of the above legal preposition this Tribunal proceeds further to adjudicate the present reference, even after demise of the workman during pendency of the case and non- substitution in his place.

Further, it has been stated by the management witness that there are prescribed procedure for recruiting the sub-staff in the Bank and the workman never gone through said procedure and any appointment by other mode shall amount to back door entry, which is not tenable . The services of the workman might have been availed by the Bank in exigencies , on daily wages , as and when required and wages /payments were made to him as per work by the Bank.

7.On the date fixed i.e. 12-01-2010 since the workman had died and no substitution application has been filed by the heirs of the workman even after he service of notice, and also that no representative ofthe workman was present, therefore, 16-03-2010 was fixed for evidence ofthe opposite party.

15. Thus , in view of the above discussions , the workman has failed to establish that he was engaged as waterman by the Bank management and he worked as such till 1-7-2007; and that his services were terminated by the management in violation of the Section 25 F of the I. D. Act; whereas the management has been able to prove that the workman has never been engaged by the Bank at any point of time in any capacity nor he had gone through the prescribed recruitment procedure .

8.The management filed affidavit of its witness Shri B.Vishwanath, Regional Manager on 20-04-2010 , in support of their case . Since there was no one on behalf of the workman to cross- examine the management's witness; accordingly opportunity to cross -examine the management's witness was closed on 23-08-10 and 29-09-2010 was fixed for further proceeding . The parties remained absent on 29-09-2010 and on 25-11-2010 . Accordingly, 22-12-2010 was fixed for arguments .

9. On 22-12-2010 also none appeared on behalfofthe workman, his representative too remained absent . The authorized representative of the management put up its oral argument and the case was reserved for award.

10. Heard, the representative of the opposite party and scanned entire evidence on record.

11. It was the case ofthe workman that he worked as waterman and since he became major, in 1989 , all works of class IV was being taken from him till 01-07-2007 when he was stopped from working by the then bank manager.

16. In 2006 ( 109) FLR 826 Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Uma Devi & others Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that Constitution does not contemplate any employment outside Constitutional Scheme and without following requirements laid down therein . But the States and Union have a right to employee persons on posts which are temporary, on daily wages , as additional hands, by taking them in without following the required procedure .Nothing in Constitution prohibits such engaging ofpersons temporary or on daily wages to meet the needs of situation . But such temporary employment cannot be resorted to defeat the very basic Constitutional Scheme of public employment . Further , it has been observed that when relevant rules have been made under Article 309 , government can make appointments only in accordance with rules.

12. Per contra, the management of the Bank has denied ofengagement of the workman at any point oftime in any capacity. Apart from this it has submitted that appointment ofthe workman was not in accordance with the recruitment procedure , specified for the class IV employee.

17. Thus , in view of the discussions and above legal preposition the workman , whose was not appointed following prescribed Rules , cannot claim for reinstatement; and accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the action ofthe management of Bank of India, in disengaging the services ofthe workman was neither illegal nor unjustified. Hence, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

18. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

19. Award as above .

Lucknow

27-12-2011 Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31जनवरी , 2011

13. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality ofthe action of the management and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. In the instant case the burden was on the workman to prove that the action of the management of Bank of India in disengaging the workman was illegal and unjustified. Apart from filing statement of claim the workman did not file any rejoinder or adduce any oral evidence in support of his case nor he has turned up to cross -examine the management's witness or to forward his arguments neither oral nor written . Thus , the workman has failed to discharge the burned that lay upon him and has failed to prove that the action of the management of the Bank in disengaging him w.e.f. 01-07-2007 was illegal and unjustified.

का.आ. 613. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2008 ) 14. On the other hand the management by way of its oral evidence on oath, has well proved that the workman was never engaged by the Bank at any point of time .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1891

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -33012/ 1 /2008- आई आर( बी- II ) ]

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal hasnumbered it as ID 25/2008 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement as the case mayby.

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

3. The Claim Statement averments bereft of unnecessary details are as follows :

S.O. 613. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 25/2008) 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 Chennai Port Trust and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 24-01-2011 .

[No. L- 33012/ 1 /2008 - IR(B- II )]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 17th January, 2011

PRESENT : A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 25/2008

The petitioner employed as Assistant Shed Master under the Respondent w.e.f. 08-08-1966 with unblemished service of 19 years was terminated from service by ex-parte order dated 20-04-1983 . Appeal preferred by his wife in consideration ofhis mental health on 03-05-1983 within time, butkept pending for more than 19 years without any decision, was rejected without hearing . Petitioner submitted petition to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport . In WP No. 14736/2005 filed before the High Court of Madras it was directed by order dated 29-04-2005 that ID be raised before the Industrial Tribunal . ID was raised. Conciliation failed and the reference is thereafter occasioned . In terms of Section -4 ofthe Gratuity Act, petitioner is entitled to the terminal benefits and Gratuity. Hiswife as a member of the family as per the Act is competent to prefer appeal . The amount was neither settled within one month nor deposited with controlling authority in accordance with the procedure established by law. Management committed latches . Hence the claim .

4. The Counter Statement contentions briefly read asfollows:

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Chennai Port Trust and their Workmen]

BETWEEN

Sri M. Amanullah

: 1stParty/Petitioner

Vs.

: 2nd Party/Respondent

The Chairman , Chennai Port Trust , Rajaji Salai , Chennai -600 001

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

SriA . G. M. Bhaimia,

Advocate

Forthe 2nd Party/Management : M/ s . M. R. Dharanichandar, Advocates

AWARD

TheCentral Government, Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L- 33012/ 1 /2008 -IR (B - II) dated 15-05-2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

" Whether the demand of Sri M. Amanullah for terminal benefits like pension , gratuity, from the management of Chennai Port Trust is just and right ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

The petitioner was discharged from service during 1982 and after 25 years dispute was raised . Hence it is to be dismissed on the ground of lateches . Dispute is not maintainable for want of challenge of his discharge from service for misconduct, thus with no dispute involved in the eye of law. Petitioner had unauthorizedly absented from 09-08-1980 for 88 days from 12-11-1980 to 24-11-1980 . Charges framed against him were established but was leniently dealt with by a severe warning . But he did not imporve . Again disciplinary action was initiated for his chronicunauthorized absence from duty from 01-01-1981 to 21-01-1981 , 03-02-1981 , 07-02-1981 to 15-02-1981 , 19-02-1981 , 21-02-1981 , 23-02-1981 to 25-02-1981,01-03-1981 to03-03-1981 , 07-03-1981 to 16-03-1981 and thereafter from 19-3-1981 onwards he had not at all turnd up for duty without prior sanction rendering himselfliable for discharge under Clause-42.B ( ii) read with 10(e) ofthe Standing Orders forthe Port ofMadras . He had not submitted any Medical Certificate. Charges framed against him were proved in the departmental enquiry. Subsequently he was discharged from service w.e.f. 19-03-1981 by an Office Memo dated 24-08-1981 . Under order dated 28-08-1982 ofthe Appellate Authority viz . Central Government in appeal he was permitted tojoin duty and he resumed duty on 10-09-1982 . Thepetitioner continued to be on frequent leave and made request therefor, last ofwhich dated 22-09-1982 was rejected but he did not resume duty. He was issued Show Cause Notice on 30-10-1982 for unathorized absence . Disciplinary actionwas initiated as per Memo dated 25-11-1982 under [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

Clause-42- B (II ) read with 10 (e) of Standing Orders . On 30-11-1982 by letter dated 15-11-1982 he requested for 3months leave due to his wife's alleged psychosis . He did not attend the enquiry or personal hearings . He was discharged from service w.e.f. 19-09-1982 as per order dated 20-04-1983 .His belated appeal submitted on 2-04-1991 after gap of 8 years and not on alleged 3-05-1983 was dismissed being meritless . His representation dated 15-03-2002 for reinstatement to the Chairman was informed dismissed on 5-06-2002. The 1st party is the proper person to file appeal and not his wife who is allegedly suffering from psychosis . He had not completed unblemished service of 16 years and was not eligible for terminal benefits and pension but was informed deserving for grant of compassionate allowances . There are no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view after a gap ofmore than 25 years . Only terminal benefits admissible to discharged employee are payable to him and not for pension /compassionate allowance . The claim is to bedismissed.

5. Points for consideration are :

has not turned up for enquiry before the forum to give oral evidence or to give documentary evidence though some documents have been filed. The petitioner being a Shed Master is really in a Managerial Cadre and is not a workman . Petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice on 30-10-1982 for unauthorized absence and disciplinary action was initiated against him under Clause -42 (B )( ii ) read with 10( e) ofthe Standing Orders of Port of Madras. But he continued to request for leave from time to time alleging domestic affairs as well as his wife suffering from psychosis in spite ofhe having been directed to attend the enquiry. On his failure to attend the enquiry was held ex-parte . He had been given ample opportunity. He has not submitted any Medical Certificate or furnished any explanations . The appeal filedwas after a gap of 8 years which was dismissed beingdevoid ofmerits .As per the regulations the petitioner is the proper person to file appeal . For want of challenge of the termination order dated 10-09-1982 discharging him from service the dispute herein is not maintainable . Petitioner also did not offer explanation or personal hearing against Show Cause Notice against discharge . The discharge is for proved misconduct which is second in the ordinal numeral of the same kind .

(i) Whether the claim for terminal benefits like Pension , Gratuity, etc. to the petitioner is just and right?

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

6.No evidence was adduced on the petitioner's side. Onthe Respondent's side MW1 was examined and Ex. M1 to Ex. M29 marked.

Points (i ) & (ii )

7. On the petitioner's side written arguments -were filed without any oral arguments . From the Respondent's side arguments were addressed and written arguments were also filed . No documents were sought to be admitted in evidence on the side ofthe petitioner. MW1 was not cross- examined on behalf of petitioner. Perused the records and the written arguments . The main arguments on behalf of the petitioner, by way of written submissions , are that the petitioner was discharged from service without any proper reason by an ex-parte order on 20-04-1983 but for which he would have retired only on 30-11-1997 . He was denied pension, gratuity and terminal benefits . On Writ No. 14736/ 2005 before the High Court it was directed on 28-04-2005 to approach the appropriate industrial forum . It was petitioner's wife who preferred an appeal against the discharge filed within time but the Management kept it for 9years alleging latches . The Management did not deposit his terminal benefits and gratuity with the Controlling Authority. The Claim is not barred by limitation or latches. The Management has admitted at the conciliation that no amount was paid to the petitioner. Gratuity is not in the realm of charity but is a statutory right.

9. Here is a workman , an Assistant Shed Master under the Respondent Port Trust who was discharged by the Management for habitual absenteeism after holding an enquiry which is assailed by the petitioner as being ex- parte one .According to petitioner as per Section -4 of the GratuityAct, he is entitled to terminal benefits and grauity, which the controlling authority is under a duty to settle within one month and keep in deposit, which was not done , Respondent's contention is that there is no challenge against the discharge and what is demanded is terminal benefits like pension, gratuity, etc. from the Management , which according to it cannot be given following a punishment of discharge from service . The petitioner un- authorizedly absented from 9-08-1980 for 88 days and from 12-11-1980 to 24-11-1980 in the wake ofwhich after enquiry on framed charges he was imposed a lenient punishment . Even thereafter he did not improve and his habitual absenteeism stretched further from 1-01-1981 to 31-01-1981, 3-02-1981,7-02-1981 to 15-02-1981 , 19-02-1981,21-02-1981 , 23-02-1981 to 25-02-1981 , 1-03-1981 to 3-03-1981 , 7-03-1981 to 16-03-1981 and thereafter from 19-03-1981 onwards endlessly without turning up for duty. All these had been without prior sanction from the Management rendering himself liable for discharge under Section -42B (ii ) read with Section- 10 (e) of the Standing Orders of the PortTrust of Madras . For any reasons of sickness , he has not submitted Medical Cerificates. Accordingly charging him enquiry was held where after he was discharged from service w.e.f. 19-03-1981 as per Memo dated 24-08-1981 . The petitioner challenged this before the Ministry of Shipping and Transport and he was permitted to join duty and he did resume duty on 10-09-1982 . Thereafter also he continued to be on frequent leave , of course with request therefor, last ofwhich dated 22-09-1982 was rejected . Still he did not resume duty. Therefore , he was issued Show 8. Contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent are that the discharge was after an enquiry for un- authorized absenteeism from duty by the petitioner. The dispute is raised only after 25 years with no explanation for delay and latches . ID is only to be dismissed . Petitioner [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1893 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

Cause Notice on 30-10-1981 for unauthorized absence . Disciplinary action was launched. By letter dated 15-11-1982 on 30-11-1982 he requested for 3 months leave due to his wife's alleged psychosis . He did not attend for personal hearing. He was discharged again from service w.e. f. 19-09-1982 as per order dated 20-04-1983 . He filed belated appeal only on 2-04-1991 after a gap of 8 years which according to the petitioner was filed on 3-05-1983. Appeal was dismissed . Further his representation dated 15-03-2002 for reinstatement to the Chairman was dismissed on 5-06-2002 . It is for him to appeal and not by his wife who is allegedly suffering from psychosis also . He had not completed unblemished service of 16 years and was not eligible for terminal benefits but was entitled to compassionate allowances . There are no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view after a gap of25 years.. Onlyterminal benefits admissible to discharged employees are payable to him and not for pension/ compassionate allowances , the contention is emphasized.

derived, that he cannot be found to be of service to it if continued to be employed thereby losing confidence in him , the only course left with it is to send him out of service . Such a course could be resorted to by the Management by various methods of punishment like dismissal , discharge , removal, compulsory retirement , etc. Here the mode ofpunishment chosen by the Management wasdischarge from service under which according to it the petitioner is not entitled to pension or compassionate allowance but what he is entitled to receive are only terminal benefits admissible to discharged employees . Thenit is pertinent to ask what are the enumerated terminal benefits admissible to discharged employees . In the Counter Statement the same is not made mention of in unambiguous terms . Discernibly it is admitted that petitioner is entitled to some benefits by way of terminal benefits as a discharged employee but is not eligible for pension/ compassionate allowance . The claim of the petitioner in the Claim Statement is for terminal benefits and gratuity. From the very admission of the Management aswell it could be found that the said liabilities are not executed ones but are executory ones , they having not been paid already. The Management has no specific case that petitioner is not entitled to gratuity. It is not made known in vivid terms as to what are the various items falling under the caption " Terminal Benefits . "

11. Inconsistent or contradictory contentions appear to have been advanced on behalf of the Management that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity or pension but is entitled to only compassionate allowance . It is also not made clear what items of payment come under the caption "Compassionate Allowances " . The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that he is entitled to gratuity, pension, etc. also on humanitarian and compassionate grounds .

12.The claim as set forth in the Claim Statement is not vivid enough to comprehend under what all heads the petitioner seeks to realize terminal benefits . In the same cloudy way the claim is met in defence by the Management by not clearly making it known as to exactly what are the benefits towhich the petitioner is eligible and to what he is not eligible . An element of obscurity is allowed to perch on the entire realm .

13. In this context it is relevant to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to the terminal benefits such as pension, gratuity, etc. As per the discharge it is made to appear that the petitioner is not entitled to pension or gratuity but only to such terminal benefits admissible to discharged employees which is the case of the Management, but the same is shrouded in mystery as to whatthey are exactly.

14. True, the challenge is against non -payment of terminal benefits like pension , gratuity, etc. and therefore the demand is for the same and the negation of which is whether just and right . Here actually the case of the petitioner is that he has been denied terminal benefits , gratuity, etc. If on discharge such benefits cannot be extended to him he could not have raised such a demand 10. The contention that the claim is barred by limitation and latches cannot be upheld for the reason that ever since his discharges , twice in number he has been agitating before the various authorities for appropriate reliefs . He even approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras as per the direction of which he approached this forum . It was as per the Government order permitting him to join duty though to a reverted post that he actually resumed duty where after also , petitioner has not been able to attend to his duties . He has been applying for leave continuously or intermittently keeping himself absent from the office without prior sanction, which is nothing short of habitual absenteeism . There is no case for the Management that he has not been applying for leave but they have a case that he has not produced any Medical Certificate to show that he or his wife has been suffering from any serious illness of such a nature as to detain him from attending duty and also from submitted any explanation to the various Show Cause Notices issued to him calling upon him to submit explanation, attend for personal hearing , etc. before he is sought to be imposed with the proposed punishment after the culmination of the enquiry. The case of the petitioner is that he was discharged from service ex - parte whereby meaning that the enquiry was held ex - parte. The reason for the enquirybeing ex - parte cannot be attributed against the Management for the reason that he has been endlessly atdefault neither giving explanation to the various notices , nor by participating in the enquiry or in attending the personal hearing. As regards the petitioner , the situation being as above the Management could never be found fault with for proceeding to impose upon him the appropriate punishment after holding ex-parte enquiry, which it really did. When the Management lost confidence on the petitioner the Management is left with no other go than to suitably deal with himby way of imposing punishment so as to correct him and make him worthy to continue to serve the cause of the Management or if it is the only satisfaction of the Management , objectively

540G1/11-23 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1894

as a lawful claim to be recovered from the Management for which raising an Industrial Dispute he got it referred for adjudication.

15. In this context it is germane to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to terminal benefits such as pension , gratuity, etc. It is settled position that an adjudication is to be rendered on the real controversy involved between the parties , as well that could be gathered from the pleadings or reference and it is not to be circumscribed by the terminology as found in the reference which may at times be cryptic and vice- versa . When from the couching terminology in the reference the dispute discernibly is regarding the claim for pension , gratuity, etc. by way of terminal benefits , the Claim Statement of the petitioner while referring to terminal benefits inclusive of gratuity does not make mention of " pension " at all . From both the reference and the respective contentions on either side what is spelt out is that the claim ofthe petitioner is for pension , gratuity, etc.by way of terminal benefits . Therefore, the question that falls for consideration is to be understood: --as whether the petitioner is entitled to the terminal benefits such as pension , gratuity, etc. and that the real controversy centres around the same issue .

16. The petitioner challenges the discharge as being by an ex-parte order in nature . This challenge cannot be . sustained. The Management has had given notices to the petitioner but he is at fault for not participating in the enquiry. He was discharged for habitual absenteeism , a major misconduct . This the Management did as inevitable course since the petitioner could not be relied upon by them by reason of his habitual absenteeism due to which he has faulted himself to attend to duty as Assistant Shed Master. Though it is orally contended that he being a Shed Master, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute cannot be sustained for the reason that said contention is merely a surplusage without any factual foundation in the pleadings or quotation of any relevant provision under any statute. The nature of the employment of a Shed Master is not so consipicuous or notorious a matter which could be known by anybody merely on hearing or knowing about it. So law could also only be oblivious to what is not obvious to anybody or others . The said argument cannot be countenanced without any point in elucidation . On his footing as a reverted Assistant Shed Master the ID is raised and not in the capacity of a Shed Master even.

alone . It is pertinent to ask why he had been absenting himselffrom participating in the enquiry or not reciprocating to the Show Cause Notices issued to him for giving explanations and or to attend personal hearings . A probable question arises as to whether he has been actually prevented by any genuine reason from appearing for the enquiry or reciprocating to the Show Cause Notices forthe various requirements to be met by him . Even the appeal against the discharge is seen filedby his wife . Why he has not chosen to prefer the appeal by himself? Wife through whom he sought to file the appeal has been described by him as a person suffering from psychosis in a subdued manner as a reason for not attending to the enquiry by him . Had he actually been suffering from any illness or had he been placed in any such a disadvantageous position of not being able to participate in the enquiry or to give explanations to the Show Cause Notices , proposed punishments and attend the personal hearings? What necessitated his wife, allegedly suffering from psychosis , if it be true, to prefer an appeal against the discharge ofthe petitioner if he himself could have filed it. Answers to all these questions are pertinent but are not forthcoming .Here is another question why the petitioner who would have normally retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30-11-1997 came forward in the year 2002 before the Chairman of the Port Trust with a request for his reinstatement into service? All these are materials supporting a view, if taken, to hold that petitioner together with his wife or either ofthem may not have been in a conducive or ideal situation to protect themselves during certain durations compelling one ofthem to act for the other during contingencies not unfolded for reasons best know to them . It is not known whether they were entangled in any intricate problems in life or health so as to be unable to do what is usually or normally expected ofthem as ordinary pursuits in their personal or domestic life and the official life of the petitioner. There are indications asto something negative in relation to the mental health of petitioner as well on records. Law has to be alive to the social problems . The background circumstances in which a crime or misconduct is committed should receive the attention in the matter of dispensation ofjustice , say social justice. Though the non -participation of the petitioner in the enquiry and the inaction to the various notices led to the culmination of the ex-parte order of discharge of the petitioner, not a fault of the Management, yet it may not have supervened due tothe deliberate fault ofthe petitioner himself. Why petitioner had not come forward to disclose the factual scenario , if any , in relation to his personal or domestic life which really may, have inhibited him from acting in the direction in which he ought to have , we are at dark. If for any reasons too personal or domestic he is not out to or not able to divulge a matter and by reason ofthat fact he has abstained from participating in the enquiry and from reciprocating to the various notices and the proposed action he is not to be blamed. Such social realities also have to be borne in mind by any authority charged with the dispensation of justice by not acting in a peripheral , superficial and mechanical manner. So viewed, while the enquiryheld ex-parteand the finding ofguilty ofmisconduct for habitual absenteeism are to be kept intact , yet the 17. Here is an employee who has been agitating continually against his discharges , two in number. Though he was inert in the matter of participation in the enquiry and in the response to various notices calling for explanation , requiring personal hearing etc. and in giving explanations and personal hearings before a proposed action was to be taken against him realy he has been discernibly very agile in seeking remedies after the proposed actions of punishment were ordered. That is to say, he has been challenging the punishment of discharge tooth and nail alleging the same to be ex- parte . The reason for the order being ex - parte is attributable to the petitioner [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1895

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

punishment imposed on the petitioner needs to be interfered with as being shockingly disproportionate to the gravity ofthe misconduct . The punishment of " discharge " being one capital in nature tends to put the petitioner in economic death and the same is too harsh upon him and his family. U/s 11A of the ID Act , the power of Tribunal extends to interfere with the punishment in appropriate cases when the impugned one is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct , the same which power as held or clarified by the Supreme Court is available for any other valid or good reasons too . This approach of the Tribunal would, in appropriate cases , be harmonizing to reconcile between the " Laws in the Books" and the laws in reality. To quote, Anachar Sis , a learned author. " written laws are like spider webs ; they well catch , it is true the weak and poor , but would be torn in pieces by the rich and the powerful " . The Management could have imposed some punishment under which he could have received his terminal benefits to which he is actually entitled. Though petitioner has to such contentions in his Claim Statement and his only is that the order of discharge is " purely ex- parte" , the said term has to be read as speaking in volumes to comprise everything including the challenge against his discharge , as a capital punishment shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct as discussed by me above . Therefore , his claim is to be read as one challenging his very discharge as invalid and seeking to be set aside without which there cannot be foundation for him to make his claims for terminal benefits like pension , gratuity, etc.

18. In the light of my above discussion , I hold that the discharge of the petitioner is not fair and proper. The same is set aside . The Management is directed to disburse his terminal benefits as though he has retired from service under Compulsory Retirement . Even if the petitioner has had any length of period that remained to be served out as on 30-11-1997 , an order for reinstatement could not follow, since it is made to appear that in the fitness of things it is good that he quits the service for his proved inability to serve the institution even if reinstated ; but such quitting shall be based the doctrine of quid pro quo. The petitioner is entitled to the relief as above .

19. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 17th January, 2011 ) .

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:

: None

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

MW1 , Smt . C. For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

Mahalakshmi Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Date

Ex.No.

Description

Ex. M1

Service Sheet

05-11-1971

Ex.M2 16-07-1981 Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex.M3 24-08-1981 Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex. M4 08-09-1981 Letter from the petitioner to the Ministry ofShipping and Transport

Ex. M5 08-02-1982 Settlement of Accounts

Ex. M6 07-04-1982 Letter from the Traffic Manager to the Petitioner

Ex.M7 07-05-1982 Letter from the Respondent to the Ministry of Shipping and Transport

Ex. M8 28-08-1982 Government of India, Ministry ofShipping and Transport Order

Ex. M9 03-09-1982 Letter from the petitioner to the Respondent

Ex. M10 06-09-1982 Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex. M11 22-09-1982 Letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.M12 29-09-1982 Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex. M13 30-10-1982 Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex. M14 15-11-1982 Letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent

Ex. M15 25-11-1982 Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex.M16 01-12-1982 Letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent

Ex. M17 07-12-1982 Enquiry Proceedings

Ex. M18 28-01-1983 Enquiry Proceedings

Ex. M19 08-02-1983 Enquiry Proceedings

Ex,M20 14-03-1983 Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.M21 23-03-1983 Enquiry Findings

Ex. M22 20-04-1983 Discharge Letter

Ex.M23 1987

Madras Port Trust ( Pension) Regulations , 1987

Ex.M24 13-06-1991 Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex.M25 05-06-1992 Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex.M26 20-11-2002 Reply Notice from the Respondent Advocate to the Petitioner Advocate

Ex. M27 01-09-1993 Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex. M28 07-01-2005 Letter from the Respondent to thePetitioner

Ex.M29 26-04-2005 Counter filed by the Respondent before theAssistant Commissioner ofLabour ( Cental ) -1 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

1896

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 614. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/4/2009- आईआर (बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 614. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court- 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011.

[No. L- 12012/4/2009- IR (B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX DELHI I. D. NO. 27/2009

Shri K.L.Chhabra , WZ-20 A , Om Vihar, Phase -I , Uttam Nagar, NewDelhi

Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager ,

Punjab National Bank . Zonal Office , DAC Cell , 4th Floor , Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place , NewDelhi

PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] reinstated vide order dated 16-8-89 and directed to report at CDPC branch, Ram Tirath Nagar, Delhi . A writ petition, being CWP No.141 of 93 , was filed by Shri K.L. Chhabra before High Court of Delhi , which petition was disposed ofwith a direction to the bank that Shri Chhabra shall be paid all benefits accrued to him during the period of suspension from 1985 to 1989. A contempt petition being CCP NO.131 of 1995 was filed wherein Shri Chhabra claimed arrears of annual increment from 1985 onwards , besides officiating allowance for the post of teller during 8-10-85 to 6-8-89 and leave fare concession . His contempt petition was dismissed vide order dated 5-10-99 , being devoid of merits.

2. On 21st of March , 91 Shri Chhabra was suspended again by the bank . His suspension was revoked on 18-7-92 , pending enquiry. On conclusion of the enquiry, Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, vide order dated 4-5-95, His period of suspension was treated as not spent on duty. On 25-9-93 he was suspended again. His suspension was revoked on 4-11-94 , pending enquiry . Onconclusion of enquiry punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was awarded to him vide order dated 28-1-95 . Period of his suspension was treated not spent on duty.

3. From 4-11-94 to 25-5-95 Shri Chhabra remained absent from his duties in an unauthorised manner. He was deemed to have voluntarily retired from his employment w.e.f. 25-5-95 . Shri Chhabra raised an industrial dispute , being I.D.No.92/06. The said dispute was adjudicated in hisfavour vide award dated 25-7-2002 , wherein the Tribunal concluded that order dated 25-5-95 , declaring Shri Chhabra deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the bank, was illegal . He was reinstated in service with full back wages and arrears ofpay.

.Management

AWARD

Riotious and disorderly behaviour shown by Shri K.L.Chhabra on 15-1-1995, while posted at printing and stationery department, Punjab National Bank (in short the bank) resulted in his suspension . Charge sheet was served on Shri Chhabra on 28-1-85 and after an enquiry punishment of stoppage of one annual increment was awarded with cumulative effect , vide order dated 22-6-85. On 28-10-85 while posted at Najafgarh , Delhi , branch of the bank , Shri Chhabra was again suspended. He was 4. On 16-1-2004, while posted at Naraina Vihar branch of the bank, Shri Chhabra was suspended again . He was charge sheeted on 4-2-2006. On conduct of an enquiry punishment of dismissal was imposed upon him vide order dated 16-8-2007 , which punishment was assailed by Shri Chhabra by way of raising an industrial dispute . The appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal as 10 No.26/2009 , which dispute has been adjudicated vide award' dated 27-8-2010 , wherein it was commanded that punishment of dismissal would be substituted with a punishment of discharge simpliciter, with release of retrial benefits to Shri Chhabra .

5. On 7-5-2007 Shri Chhabra raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer wherein he challenged his first suspension order dated 15-1-85 , award of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 22-6-85 and second suspension order dated 28-10-85. In claim statement he agitates that charge sheet was not served upon him for a considerable long period [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

1897

were not credited in his leave account upto 24-5-95. Shri U.K.Gupta, Manager, Stationery Department, became biased and vindictive towards him , who wanted to get rid ofhim by hook or crook . He took steps to get him declared physically unfit to serve the bank, which failed . Shri Gupta illegally deducted a sum of Rs . 1242 out ofhis wages, for which LCA No.4/97 was filed before the Tribunal . Shri Gupta suspended him on 15-01-85 on false and flimsy grounds.Acharge-sheet was served upon him on 28-1-85, whichwas vague and unspecific . Enquiry was conducted , which was neither fair nor proper . Punishment of stoppage of one increment was awarded to him. He made various representations against that action. Vide letter dated 28-6-95 he was directed to report to Najafgarh branch of the bank . His representations in that regard evoked no response . He joined Najafgarh branch on 5-7-85. The Branch Manager , Najafgarh branch dealt him in indifferent manner. Though he was senior most clerk in the branch , yet not allowed officiating powers for the post of teller or special assistant on regular basis . His genuine demands for collection of sick leave record , payment of balance wages for suspension period on first occasion, maintenance ofproper leave record and for revocation of penalty of stoppage of increment were not considered .by the bank.

and the bank reinstated him in service on 16-8-89 , pending disciplinary enquiry, which order was notjustified . A claim has been made by him that he was entitled to payment of fullwages , after adjustment of subsistence allowance paid to him . Officiating allowance has also accrued in his favour. Payment of leave fare concession cannot be denied to him. He was also entitled to accumulation of leaves of various types , besides yearly increments . He presents that after his reinstatement , as detailed above , he was made to work on subsistence allowance from 18-8-89 to 30-3-91 , which action of the bank was not justified. It has been detailed that his third suspension by the bank on 21-3-91 was illegal and as such he made a representation to the ChiefManager, Paharganj Branch ofthe bank for payment of his subsistence allowance in accordance with rules . According to him subsistence allowance, paid to him was not in consonance with rules . He was reinstated on 18-7-92 . His annual increments were not released in his favour. He unfolds that he filed a writ petition before High Court ofDelhi , which petition was granted since the bank was commanded to pay him all benefits from 1985 to 1989. In his claim statement he unfolds history of litigation between him and the bank and enlists various payments which are to be made by his employer . A prayer was made to the Conciliation Officer that recovery order may be issued against the bank in respect of amount mentioned by him in para No. 73 of his claim statement.

6. Conciliation Officer initiated conciliation proceedings . The Bank presented its defence , detailing thatall dues ofthe claimant stood paid. Since conciliation proceedings failed, Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report before the appropriate Government. On consideration of the failure report , so submitted , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 12012/4/2009- IR (B - 11 ) , New Delhi dated 2-6-2009, with followingterms ofreference:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , New Delhi in not paying payment of the recovery of due amounts & benefits as mentioned in the claim application dated 7-5-2007 and benefits of Shri K.L.Chhabra is just, fair and legal ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date ? " 1

8. He went on to detail that on 24-10-85 , he was implicated in a false case . He was arrested and detained by the police in that case . Ultimately he was released by the police when he was not found responsible for the crime, alleged to have been committed . He was suspended again on 28-10-85 , on suspicious ground. Subsequently he was reinstated, pending disciplinary enquiry. No charge- sheet was issued to him untill 25-5-95 . Since no inquiry was initiated for fairly long period, he became entitled for payment of full wages , after deduction of subsistence allowance drawn by him , during period of suspension , payment of special allowance , payment of officiating allowance and payment of leave fare concession . His increments for suspension period were not released . He wassuspended again on 21-3-91 , which suspension was revoked vide letter dated 18-7-92, without holding an enquiry. He was not granted any annual increments for this period also.

7. In his claim statement Shri Chhabra narrates alpha to omega of his dispute . He unfolds that he joined services of the bank on 12-8-77 as clerk/ cashier and was confirmed as such on 12-2-78 . He was transferred to three different branches of the bank upto September, 1981 and ultimately posted in Printing & Stationery Department, Wazirpur, Delhi , in October, 1981. He submitted an application on 26-3-83 for collection of leave recordfrom previous branches . Despite the fact that a letter was written by the Branch Manager to R. M. Office , leaves

9. He joined Dev Nagar branch of the bank on 24-9-93.He realized that the bank was adopting a policy of victimizing him. Hence he filed a writ petition before High Court ofDelhi . During adjudication of that writ petition the bank made a statement on 3-3-94, admitting various aspects of his claim made in the petition . High Court granted his petition directing the bank to grant his benefits accrued between 1985 to 1989 , when he remained under suspension . Despite admission of his claim , the bank did not release his full wages and other benefits .

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1898

10. Detailing series of events which led to his victimization, the claimant pleads that the bank be directed to set aside orders of stoppage of his increments and period of his suspension be treated as spent on duty. He claims that the bank be commanded to permit him to avail all benefits accrued to him during above illegal suspension periods . He claims payment of an amount of Rs.2768 with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 1-8-85 till date ofactual payment . He also claims payment of special officiating allowance for the post of Teller/Head Cashier or Computer Operator or Special Assistant, payment of leave fare concession and accumulation of various types of leaves w.e.f. 15-1 -.85 to 24-5-95 .

punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was awarded to him vide order dated 4-5-95 . On account of punishment order referred above , he is not entitled to salary and other allowances , except subsistence allowance already paid to him . He was suspended again on 25-5-93 , which suspension was revoked on 4-11-94 pending disciplinary enquiry. The enquiry was conducted and punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was awarded to him , vide order dated 28-2-95 . Period of suspension was treated not, spent on duty.Hence he was not entitled to any other benefits other than subsistence allowance already paid to him. He was suspended again on 25-5-93 , which , suspension was revoked on 4-11-94 pending disciplinary enquiry. The enquiry was conducted and punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was awarded to him , vide order dated 28-2-95 . Period of suspension was treated not spent on duty. Hence he was not entitled to any other benefits other than subsistence allowance already paid to him . A claim has been made that the cause projectedby Shri Chhabra is liable to be dismissed , being devoid of merits .

13. In view of the pleadings of the parties following issues were settled:

1. Whether without espousal by the union the present dispute does not fall within the ambit of industrial dispute?

2. Whether the workman is entitled for release of arrears of consequential benefits in view of his release of increment w.e.f. 25-5-95 ?

3. As in terms of reference?

4. Relief.

14. Claimant had tendered his affidavit Ex . WW1 /A in support of his claim. He was cross examined at length onbehalfof the management . Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma tendered his affidavit Ex: MW1 /A in support of defence of the bank . He was cross examined at length on behalf of the claimant . No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

15.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri J.N.Kapoor, authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf ofthe claimant. Shri Rajat Arora, authorised representative, raised his submissions on behalf of the 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 the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

11. Claim was demurred by the bank pleading that an individual dispute has been referred by the appropriate Government , which could not acquire status of an industrial dispute , for want of valid espousal by a recognized union of the establishment of the bank . The Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction for adjudicating an individual dispute . It has also been pleaded that a stale claim has been made , which cannot be entertained. The bank concedes action of suspension of the claimant on 15-1-85 and award of penalty of stoppage of one annual increment vide order dated 22-6-85 . Shri Chhabra moved two LCA No.05/ 97 and No.47 /98 before Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Rajendra Place , New Delhi . In LCA No.5/97 he claimed payment of minimum wages w.e.f. 15-1-85 to June , 85 which LCA was decided vide order dated 31-8-05 . A subsequent order dated 14-8-06 was passed in the matter by the Tribunal , detailing that an amount ofRs . 4969/88 with an interest @ 10% was to be paid the claimant . In LCA No. 47/98 he raised a claim for release ofhis incremental benefits for the period 1985 to 1995. LCA was disposed of vide order dated 14-3-2007 withdirection to the bank to calculate arrears of wages of the claimant and pay it within a period of four months . The bank projects that the writ petition was filed by the claimant beforeHigh Court of Delhi in 1993 which was disposed of with a direction to pay all benefits accrued to him for the period 1985 to 1989. Contempt petition , filed by the claimant, was dismissed by High Court of Delhi , vide order dated 5-10-99. LCA No.55/07 was filed by the claimant before Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 claiming interest on certain payments from 28-10-85 to 16-8-89, made by the bank on the directions of High Court ofDelhi . L.C.A. was dismissed vide order dated 15-9-2005 LCA No.46/98 was filed claiming officiating allowance for the period from 5-7-85 to 25-5-95 which LCA was dismissed vide order dated 17-1-06 . LCA No. 16/1999 was moved claiming Leave Fare Concession for the period 28-10-85 to 16-8-89 , which LCA was dismissed vide order dated 15-3-07.

16. The bank agitates that the claimant cannot raise a claim without being espoused by a trade union or by any substantial number of workmen . Since the claimant had raised an individual dispute this Tribunal has no 12. The bank presents that Shri Chhabra was suspended third time, on 21-3-91 . Suspension was revoked on 18-7-92 pending enquiry. On conclusion of the enquiry [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1899

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

the case , the Authority does not dispute that the claimant is a workman within the meaning of clause (s) of Section 2 oftheAct,

jurisdiction to entertain it. To rebut the contention raised by the bank, the claimant project that since a dispute has been referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication , this Tribunal is under an . obligation to answer it on merits . It has been projected that this Tribunal cannot discard the matter on technicalities . However, the claimant opted to adduce no evidence on the issue that his dispute was espoused by a trade union or substantial number of workmen .

17. The appropriate Government, on being satisfied that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended , may refer it to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , enacts clause (d) sub - section ( I ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) . Therefore , the appropriate Government has to satisfy that an industrial dispute exists or apprehended between the workmen and their employer. Consequently, definition of the word " industrial dispute " is to be appreciated. Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act defines the word " industrial dispute " in the following manner..

"(k) industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between the employers and employers orbetween employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen . which is connected with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any persons " .

18. The definition of the word " industrial dispute" referred above can be divided into four parts viz . (i ) factum ofdispute , ( ii ) parties to the dispute, viz (a) employers ; and employers (b ) employers and employees or ( c) workmen and workmen; (3 ) subject matter of the dispute , which should be connected with ( i ) employment or non employment, or (ii ) terms of employment, or (iii ) conditions of labour of any person , and (iv) it should relate to an " industry" .

20. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt .) Ltd. [1958 (2) LLJ 660 ] Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute need not be a dispute between the employer and his workman and that the definition of the expression " industrial dispute " is wide enough to cater a dispute raised by the employer's workman with regard to non employment of others, who may not be employed as workman at the relevant time . The Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalist [ 1961 (II ) LLJ 436] has observed that in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was adopted by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom , the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number of the employees of the establishment. As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty, since such workmen who are members of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman . But difficulty arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the workmen of that establishment but is one of which membership. is open to workmen of their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a case a union , which has only microscopic number of the workmen as its member , cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen and the management . A representative character of the union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual number of co- workers sponsoring the dispute . The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the establishment in which the concerned workman was employee were also members of the union would not constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were connected together and arrived at an understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively submitted the dispute .

19. The definition of the word " industrial dispute " is worded in wide terms and unless it is narrowed by the meaning given to the word " workman " it would seem to include all " employers " , " all employments " and all "workmen " whatever nature of the scope of the employment may be . Therefore except in the case where there can be dispute between the employer and employers and workmen and workmen , one of the parties to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of employees . The first point , therefore , to be noted , perhaps self evident , is that the phrase " employer and workman, the plural may include singular on either side , or any permutation of singular , the mesculine including the feminine . In order , therefore , to determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an " industrial dispute" or not it must be determined whether the workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his case satisfy the conditions of clause ( s) of Section 2 of the Act. Here in

21. The expression " industrial disputes " has been construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes , because of the scheme of the Act . In Raghu NathGopal Patvardhan ( 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 27 ) the Apex Court ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute . It was laid thereon that ( 1 ) a dispute between the employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial dispute, (2) it can not be per-se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number ofworkmen . In Dharampal Prem Chand ( 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 668) it was commanded by the Apex Court that a [PART 11-SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1900

espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized union does not mean that they were not " industrial dispute".

dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial number of workmen . Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt .) Limited [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 132 ] . However in Western IndiaMatch Company [ 1970 (II ) LLJ 256 ] , The Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona Kuchi Tea Estate's case [ 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ] and ruled that a dispute relating to " any person becomes a dispute where the person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose employment, non employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour, the parties , dispute for a direct or substantial interest " .

24. It is not expedient that same union should remain in-charge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment, through a particular union for making such a dispute an "industrial dispute " , while the workman may be represented before the Tribunal for the purpose ofSection 36 ofthe Act by a member ofexecutive or office bearer of altogether another union. The crux ofthe matter is that the dispute should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen . It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union . Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would not affect the maintainability of the order of reference . Lawto this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon India Limited [ 1974 ( II ) LLJ 34 ] . For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an individual dispute , the test is whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an appreciable number of the workman . In other words , the validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause occurs . Reference can be made to aprecedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. [ 1970 ( II) LLJ 256].

22. What a substantial or considerable number of workmen would be in a given case , depend on particular facts of the case . The fact that an " industrial dispute " , is supported by other workmen will have to be established either in the form of a resolution of the union of which workman may be member or of the workmen themselves who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the mere fact that a general union , at whose instance an "industrial dispute " concerning an individual workman is referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few ofthe workmen ofthe establishment as its members , it cannot be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted into an "industrial dispute " . The Tribunal has therefore , to consider the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman by participating in the particular resolution of the union . In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute . Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute , it is not necessary that there should always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be some express or collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of the workmentreating the cause of the individual workman as their own cause . Law to this effect was laid in P. Somasundrameran [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ] .

25. Industrial law makes it clear that an individual dispute would not be an industrial dispute . For acquiring status of an industrial dispute , an individual dispute should be taken up by a trade union or a substantial number of workmen of the establishment . Reference can be thade to the Precedent in Raghu Nath Gopal Patvardhan [ 1957 (1 ) LLJ 27] and Shri Ram Tiwari (1979 Lab : I.C. 513) . This decision of law created hardship for an individual workman who were discharged, dismissed , retrenched or whose services were otherwise terminated when they could not find support by a union or any appreciable number of workman to espouse their cause . Section 2 -A ofthe Act was engrafted by the Legislature and it has to be read as an extension of the definition of " industrial dispute" as contained in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act . Provisions of Section 2 - A of the Actdo away with the requirement of espousal of an individual dispute for converting it into an industrial dispute in cases where the dispute arises out of ( i ) discharge ( ii ) dismissal ( iii ) retrenchment, or ( iv) otherwise termination of service of an individual workman . By introducing the legal fiction that the dispute of an individual workman connected with 23. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a registered trade union or a recognized trade union . Once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute . In Pardeep Lamp Works [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual workmen themselves . But their case was subsequently taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co- workmen, if not a majority of them . Since this union was not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1901 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

administrative function ofthe Government . The adequacy orsufficiency of material on which opinion was formed is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny.

28. However the appropriate Government has no jurisdiction to refer an individual dispute for adjudication . Since an individual dispute was referred , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain it . Accordingly the Tribunal refrains its hands from adjudication of this individual dispute for which the appropriate Government was not competent to make a reference . Reference order is answered, accordingly. Award passed, in terms of above reasons , be sent to appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 30-11-2010 Dr. R.K.YADAV, Presiding Officer or arising out ofhis discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services by his employer will constitute an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workman is a party to the dispute, the definition of word " industrial dispute " has been enlarged . After enactment of Section 2(A) of the Act it is not necessary that a dispute relating to discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of a workman must be sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workmen . In other words , even ifitisnot sponsored by a trade union or substantial number of workmen such a dispute will be deemed to be an industrial dispute . Therefore , such a dispute can either is so facto be deemed to be an industrial dispute on a demand made bythe workman himself or by espousal ofthe dispute by a trade union or a body of workmen.

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 615.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/54/2009- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 615. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 12/2k 9) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court - II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 /54/2009- IR (B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 26. Now I would turn to the facts of the present controversy to assess as to whether the dispute is an individual dispute or an industrial dispute. In his affidavit Ex . WW1 / A the claimant draws a blank on the issue that hisdispute was adopted by a union of the workmen ofthe bank. He had also not put forward a case that his claim was espoused by a substantial number of workmen. It is not a case relating to discharge , dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of the claimant . Therefore , it is evident that no evidence worth name was projected by the claimant to show that his dispute was espoused by a recognized trade union of the establishment of the bank or by a substantial number of workmen . It is not a case which acquires a character of an industrial dispute by use of legal fiction enacted in Section 2 -A of theAct . Therefore , it is evident that the dispute projected by the claimant before the Conciliation Officer had not acquired a character of an industrial dispute , without being espoused by a recognized union of the establishment of the bank or substantial number of workmen . Individual dispute raised by the claimant can not be referred for adjudication . Consequently it is concluded that an individual dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication . Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the bank and against the claimant.

ANNEXURE

Issue No.2 , 3 and 4 .

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT-IП CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

Case No. I. D. No. 12/2K9

Registered on 22-10-2009

The President, Central Bank of India Employees Union , Haryana, 129 Lal Kurti , Ambala Cantt . (Haryana)

...Applicant 27. For referring an industrial dispute to adjudication , the appropriate Government should satisfy itself, on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice , in 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 take it out of

540G1/11-24 1902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

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

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011 The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, 160, Railway Road, Regional Office , Ambala Cantt. (Haryana)

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj , Adv.

For the Management Sh . A.K. Batra Mgmt . , Rep .

S.O. 616. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/209/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011 .

AWARD Passed on 10 Jan. 2011

[No. L - 12012/70/2003 -IR (B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CaseNo.CGIT/NGP/209/2003 Date: 17-1-2011 Central Government vide Notification No. L- 12011/ 54/2009- IR ( B - II ) Dated 12-10-2009, by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and sub - section 2 (A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -

Petitioner/Party No. 1

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in denying full pay & allowances to Shri Ramesh Chand, Clerk during the period of suspension w.e.f. 12-1-1994 to 10-12-1997 isjust and legal ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? י

Versus

Shri Sachidanand R. Khase , C/o Shakti Singh Thakur, Ward No. 16, Adarsh Colony, Murtizapur, Akola. Respondent/Party No. 2 The Regional Manager, Bank ofBaroda, West High Court , Dharampeth, Nagpur- 440010

AWARD

(Dated: 17th January, 2011 ) The claimant, the President Central Bank of India Employees Union , Haryana failed to appear despite notices sent on 15-4-2010, 16-6-2010 , 20-5-2010 andby Registered post on 15-7-2010 . Notices were not received back undelivered . Hence the service is presumed on the claimant . Claimant did not file any Claim Statement also . The concerned workman Ramesh Chand however, had appeared on 9-9-2010 and filed the authority also , but thereafter he did not turn up and file claim statement on 15-10-2010 , 19-11-2010 , and 10-1-2010 . It is clear that the claimant the President Central Bank of India Employees Union, Haryana is not interested in pursuing the reference. Hence , the reference is answered against it. Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

Inexercise 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 Bank of Baroda and their workman , Shri S. R. Khase for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 12012/ 70/2003 - IR( B - II ) dated 31-7-2003 , with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the managemant of Bank ofBaroda, through its Regional Manager, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri S. R. Khase w.e.f. 7-5-2002 orally, is proper, legal and justified ? Ifnot, what relief the said workman is entitled to ?" का.आ. 616: औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/209/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012 /70/2003- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. On receipt of the reference , the workman , Shri S. R. Khase (hereinafter referred as "the workman ") and the management of Bank of Baroda were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman filed his [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1903 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन7, 1932

statement of claim , whereas the management filed their written statement.

vitiated on that count only and the petitioner by concealing the material facts before the ALC ( C) as well as before this Tribunal has attempted to believe the authorities that he was in the regular service of the Bank . It is also pleadedby the Bank that the petitioner was not appointed in any post at any point of time at Murtizapur Branch of Bank of Baroda and he was engaged only during leave vacancy of Sweeper during the year 1999 and his , engagement was intermittently, purely on temporary basis during the absence of the regular Sweeper and his engagement was only for 19 days in all and the claim of the petitioner that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in preceding 12 months is totally incorrect and as such , his claim for appointment is unjustified and after 15-9-1999 , the petitioner was not engaged in Murtizapur Branch and hence there is no question of alleged discontinuance of his service and the petitioner was accordingly paid on daily wages basis , as his appointment was not on regular basis , and as such , there was no necessity to follow the procedure of retrenchment and there was no question of giving notice oftermination or retrenchment compensation and all other allegations made by the petitioner are false and he is not entitled for any relief.

5. To prove their respective stands , parties were allowed to lead evidence. The workman besides examining himself, examined one Shri Sashikant G. Kulkarni, a retired Bank employee of Bank of Baroda in support of his case . The management examined Shri B. Priyakumar, Manager HRM at Regional Office of Bank of Baroda as a witness and also relied on documents Exts.M - IV to M -XI .

3. According to the pleadings made by the workman inhis statement of claim , he has studied upto Class -X and he was appointed as a peon and posted in Murtizapur Branch ofBank of Baroda with effect from 1-1-1999 and worked continuously till 28-5-2002 and his service record during the said period was clean and excellent and though he was in continuous service , the Branch Manager , Murtizapur Branch was showing him as temporary employee on daily wages basis and also showing technical break of only one day, during his service period, with malafide intention and to deprive him the benefits and privileges of a permanent employee and in February, 2002, he raised objection about the same and made representation on 12-2-2002 for issuance of an experience certificate in his favour to the management and when he pressed his demand for issuance of the service certificate , on 28-5-2002 , he was informed by the Branch Manager, Shri Lawade about termination of his service for a short period of two months with the assurance of reinstatement in service thereafter but thereafter, he was not allowed to resume his duties in spite of his repeated approach to the Branch Manager and his service was terminated on 28-5-2002 by an oral order , even though he had already completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding 12 months of 28-5-2002 and his service was terminated without following the due procedure of law andwithout following the principles of natural justice and atthe time oftermination of his service , the rule of seniority was not followed and neither one month notice nor one month of pay in lieu of the notice was given to him and he was also not paid the retrenchment compensation prior to his termination and the requirements of Section 25 - F and 25-H oftheAct were not complied with and after termination of his service , the Bank engaged one Shri Ramdas Vinchurkar aged about 50 years and during his service period , wages had been paid to him in the name of Shri Vinchurkar on several occasions and he was getting a meager amount of Rs . 55 per day towards his wages at the time oftermination of his service but the mode of payment of salary was on monthly basis and as he was not allowed to resume his duties he approached the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) , Nagpur for redressal of his grievances and as the conciliation failed , the matter was reported by the ALC to the Central Government . The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the oral termination order dated 28-5-2002 and to reinstate him in the post of Peon with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits .

4. In the written statement , the management has raised the preliminary objection regarding the reference stating that the reference is bad in law as the petitioner had not entered the employment of the Bank and as such , thereference suffers from material infirmity and is therefore

The workman in his examination - in- chief, which is on affidavit has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the statement of claim and in the rejoinder. However , in his cross -examination , he has stated that there was a publication calling application for the post of Peon ofthe Bank but he does not know the name of the news paper, in which the advertisement was published and he has not filed the said news paper and he also cannot assign any reason as to why he did not mention the fact of publication ofadvertisement for the post of Peon either in his statement ofclaim or in his examination - in- chief given on affidavit . The workman has also further stated that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was interviewed but he cannot assign any reason as to why he has not mentioned about the said facts in the statement of claim or in his affidavit. The workman has further stated that Shri Nandgaonkar and Shri Lonare were working in the Bank, who were regularly appointed by it and he was paid Rs.1500 monthly and Bank did not issue any order appointing him specifying his salary and he used to sign the voucher as and when payment was made . This witness has also admitted the eleven vouchers shown to him of having his signatures . The eleven vouchers have been exhibited and marked as Ext . M - IV, through the petitioner [PART IH-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1904

by the management . The workman has denied the suggestions given by the management that he had worked only for 19 days in the Bank during the leave vacancy of anyone of the two regular Peons .

Lawade informed the workman about termination of his service for a period of two months with the assurance of his reinstatement after the said period, but , thereafter the workman was never allowed to resume duty and the workman had already completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding 12 months of 28-5-2002 but his service was terminated without following the due procedure of law and without observing the principles of natural justice and at the time of termination of service, the rules of seniority was not followed and the workman was neither given any notice nor any payment was made in lieu of the notice nor any retrenchment compensation was given and thus the oral termination is illegal and deserved to be set aside . It was also submitted that the workman had asked the Bank to produce muster- cum-attendance register, details of payment made to the petitioner, name and details about sanction of leave of regular Sweeper and service book of regular Sweeper but the Bank avoided to file the original documents . The learned advocate for the workman also made reference to certain provisions of the service conditions of the Bank and submitted that at the time of the appointment of the workman in service and so also at the time ofthe termination ofservice, the same were not followed by the management and as such , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service.

One Shri Sashikant G. Kulkarni , a retired Bank Clerk ofBank ofBaroda has been examined as the witness No.2 on behalf of the workman . The said witness has stated that he was working in Bank of Baroda from 1967 to 2001 and the workman , Sachidananda Khase was working as a Peon in Murtizapur Branch during his tenure and he was working from 1999 and sometimes he was working on daily wages and sometimes on leave vacancy and when he (witness) took voluntary retirement, Khase was working, but he cannot say upto when , Khase worked and Mr. Lawade was the Branch Manager at that time and Khase was given work when Lonare and Nandgaonkar were also onduty and Lonare and Nandgaonkar opted for voluntary retirement in 2001 and the Bank has engaged some local persons in place of Lonare and Nandgaonkar , and Vijay Singh Thakur, who was earlier working as daily wager was made permanent and he was working as a Peon . In his cross -examination , this witness has admitted that the name of Shri S. R. Khase was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he had not applied in accordance with advertisement for the post and he does not know if Khase was interviewed and he does not know the qualification required for Class - IV post and what was the qualification of Khase . He had admitted that Shri Lonare and Nandgaonkar were the regular employees of the Bank and the entries in the muster roll filed by the Bank are proper and correct . It is also necessary to mention there this witness has stated that he cannot say if Shri Khase worked for 19 days in leave vacancy of Lonare and Nandgaonkar asreflected in the muster roll and ifappointment letter was issued to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the management witness has stated that the workman was engaged in Murtizapur Branch only during the leave vacancy of Sweeper in the year 1999 and he worked for 19 days in total purely on temporary daily wages basis and he had not completed 240 days of continuous service and after 15-9-1999 , the petitioner was not engaged in the Bank and he was not appointed by any competent authority and as per the statutory rules and regulations . Such assertion of the management witness has not been challenged in the cross -examination .

8. On the other hand , the learned advocate for the Bank submitted that the workman was never in the regular employment of the Bank and he had worked for only 19 days in total in the year 1999 and his such engagement was also not continuous and the contention of the workman that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in preceding 12 months is totally incorrect and as after 15-9-1999, the workman was not engaged, there was no question of the alleged discontinuance of his service and as the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service, there was no question of giving him any notice or to make payment of one month salary in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation and the engagement of the workman was purely temporary basis without following the laid down procedure of the Bank and as such , there is no question of employment of the workman in the Bank and the petition filed by the workman for production of documents was rejected by the Tribunal on4-5-2006, so there is no ground for drawing any adverse interference against the Bank and the two circulars filed bythe workman after closure of evidence are not applicable to the case of the workman and the case at hand has to be decided as per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (4) scale 197 ( Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi ) and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement in service or back wages or any other relief. In support of such contentions , the learned advocate for the Bank relied on the decisions reported in 2003 (3 ) SCC- 483 ( Dr. Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of 7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was appointed on 1-1-1999 in Bank of Baroda and worked in Murtizapur Branch till 28-5-2002 continuously without any break, but the Manager of the Branch had shown him as temporary employee on daily wages basis and also showing technical gaps of only one day during the service tenure, only to deprive him the benefits and privilege of permanency and on 28-5-2002 , the Branch Manager , Shri 1905 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

rate ofRs.40 per day and at the rate of Rs.55 per day only for three or four days .

Rajasthan) , (2004) 7 SCC - 112 (Umarani Vs. Registrar, Co- operative Societies and others ) , 2006 (6) Scale - 107 (State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur Vs. Om Prakash Sharma) , 2006 (6) scale - 101 (National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Somvir Singh), 2006(6) scale 197 (Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi ) and 14 other cases . Keeping in mind the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon'ble Courts in the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the Bank, the present case at hand is to be decided .

Though the witness No.2 for the workman has stated that the workman was working in the Bank at Murtizapur from 1999 , he has not stated that the workman was appointed as a Peon on 1-1-1999 and worked till 28-5-2002. Rather, he has stated that the workman was working sometimes on daily wages basis and sometimes on leave vacancy and he cannot say upto when the workman was working. This witness did not deny the suggestion given bythe Bank that the workman worked for only 19 days in leave vacancy of Lonare and Nandgaonkar as reflected in theMuster Roll but has answered that he cannot say about the same, which clearly goes to show that this witness has no knowledge as to for how many days , the workman worked in the Bank. As already mentioned, this witness has also stated that the name of the workman was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and there was no advertisement for appointment of Peon in the Bank . It is clear from the evidence adduced from the side of the workman that the workman has not able to show that he worked continuously from 1-1-1999 to 28-5-2002 or that he had completed 240 days of work preceding 12 months of 28-5-2002.

9. In this case , though the workman has claimed that after acquiring required educational qualification he came to be appointed with Party No.1 (b) bank at Murtizapur, on the post of Peon with effect from 1-1-1999 in the statement of claim and so also in his affidavit , he has neither mentioned as to the manner of his appointment nor as to who appointed him . It is also necessary to mention here that the workman has not filed any document showing his appointment as a Peon on 1-1-1999 . The workman has also not filed any document in support of his claim that he worked continuously from 1-1-1999 to 28-5-2002 with the Bank. Even though, he has claimed that on 12-2-2002 , he made representation to the Bank Authority for issuance of experience certificate , no document has been filed by him to show that such a representation was submitted by him and the same was received by the Bank .

On the other hand from the virtually unchallenged evidence of the witness of the management coupled with Exts.M-4 and M -5 , it is clear that the workman only worked for 19 days in the Bank.

As the workman failed to show that he had completed 240days ofwork preceding 12 months of 28-5-2002 , there is no question ofgiving him any notice or to make payment in lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation .

There is also no evidence on record that anybody else was also working in the Bank with the workman on dailywages basis and the said workman was junior to the present workman and the Bank retained the junior workman and disengaged the present workman and as such , I do not find any force in the contention that while terminating the service of the workman, the rule of seniority was not followed.

10. So far the two circulars filed by the workman are concerned, on perusal of the same, it is found that the same are not applicable at all to his case . The first circular is dated 24-3-2008 , under which the memorandum of settlement dated 18-3-2008 was circulated to all the Branches of the Bank . In this case , the workman has claimed that he was working in the Bank from 1-1-1999 to 28-5-2002 . According to the above mentioned settlement, casual/temporary sweeper /peon who have worked for 240 days or more in consecutive twelve months between 1-3-1996 and 28-7-1987 and are still working will be absorbed in phase - III during the financial year 2009-2010. In this case , it is already held that the workman did not So far the oral evidence is concerned, no reliance canbe placed either on the evidence of the workman or on the evidence of the other witness examined on his behalf, as their evidence is quite inconsistent and contradictory to each other . It is clear from the cross - examination ofthe workman that he has tried to make improvement of his case by saying that there was advertisement in the news- paper regarding appointment of Peon in the Bank and his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was interviewed. As such facts have not been pleaded which have been admitted by him in the cross - examination , such statements cannot be taken into consideration . According to his own claim , the workman was being paid Rs.55 per day as his wages. It is also the claim of the workman that he was regularly and continuously working in the Bank though the Manager was showing technical break. However, in his cross -examination , he has stated that he was getting Rs . 1500 per month . If, according to his own claim, he was getting Rs.55 per day, then his monthly wages should have been at least Rs . 1650 and not Rs. 1500 as told by him . Moreover, when the workman had been confronted with the vouchers under which, he had been paid his wages , he admitted to have signed the said vouchers . The said vouchers , Ex.M - 4 show that the workmanworked only for 19 days in the year 1999 and out of the same on most of the days , he was being paid at the

interest thereon as prayed for?

me time of employing the workers had given empty promises to them that they would be absorbed as regular 1906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

complete 240 days of work preceding 12 month of 28-5-2002 and moreover he was also not working with the Bank when the memorandum of settlement was executed and as such , the said settlement is of no use as far it is concerned for the workman .

The other circular dated 6-8-2005 is regarding payment ofwages in terms of Eight Bipartite Settlement and according to the said circular, wages in terms ofEight Bipartite Settlement was to be paid to the temporary peons/ sweepers etc. engaged against clear sanctioned vacancies continuously, from 2nd June , 2005. As the workman was not working on 2nd June , 2005 or thereafter, the said circular is also of no avail to him .

11. It is clear from the evidence on record that the workman had not completed 240 days of service . In view of the matter, the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 was not required to be compliedwith. Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of India, through its Regional Manager , Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri S.R.Khase w.e.f. 7-5-2002 orally, is proper, legal and justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1908

ORDER

Reference stands rejected .

Date: 15-12-2010

K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 618. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/29/2008- आईआर ( बी 2 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 618.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court ,Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1- 2011.

[No. L- 12012/29 /2008 - IR (B- II)]

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K. B. Katake , PresidingOfficer Reference No.CGIT- 2/ 12 of 2007 Employers in Relation to The Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust

The Chairman

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Administrative Building Sheva, Tal . Uran Navi Mumbai - 400 707

And

Their Workmen

The General Secretary Raigad Shramik Aekata Sangh Khetkari Kamgar Paksha Karyalaya Plot No. 228/1 , Savali Society Opp .Rupali Talkies Talukar Panvel Raigad (MS)410206

APPEARANCES:

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )]

AWARD

29-12-2010 .

1. By order No. L - 12012/ 29 /2008 - IR( B - II ) dated : 18-06-2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Dinesh Kumar , S /o Sh . Ram Lal , R/o Village - Devinpurwa, Post-Bahar, Distt . - Hardoi and the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, 88 B, Civil Lines , Sita Kiran Hotel Building, Bareilly (U.P. ) foradjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Bareilly & Hardoi in terminating the services ofShri Dinesh Kumar, temporary peon w.e.f. 29-4-2006 is legal and justified . If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

3. The case ofthe workman , Dinesh Kumar, in brief, is that he was appointed by the Manager of the Bank as temporary peon in November , 2002 and was paid accordingly@ Rs . 30 per day on payment vouchers , made in different names . The workman has alleged that though he performed the duties of temporary Peon for more than 240 days in a calendar year, still his services has been terminated by the management in June , 2006 without assigning any reason or notice or notice pay in lieu thereof inviolation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has further alleged that after terminating his services the management has appointed another person [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1909 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुनं 7 , 1932

11. Thus, it is well settled position of law that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the action of the management and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail . In the instant case the burden was on the workman's union to prove that the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of the workman was illegal and unjustified. Apart from filing statement of claim the workman did not adduce any oral evidence in support of his case nor has he turned up to cross - examine the management's witness nor to forward his arguments either oral or written . Thus, the workman has failed to discharge the burden that lay upon him and has failed to prove that he has worked 240 days and the action of the management of the Bank in terminating his services w.e.f. 29-4-2006 was illegal and unjustified.

6. The workman has filed documents in support of his claim whereas the opposite party did not file any . The workman was afforded opportunity to substantiate its case by way of evidence and accordingly, he was called upon to extend his oral evidence; but he failed to avail the same even lapse of several dates i.e. on 11-8-2009 & 27-10-2009, which lead to proceed the case ex- parte against him on 27-1-2009 presuming that the workman does not intend to produce any evidence ; and next date i.e. 12-01-2010 was fixed for opposite party's evidence . The management filed its evidence in form of affidavit and the workman was called upon to cross - examine the management's witness on 8-7-2010 . But the workman again remained absent on 8-7-2010 , 26-8-2010 and 6-10-2010 and accordingly, the opportunity to cross- examine the management's witness was closed , fixing 26-11-2010 for arguments . The workman again remained absent on 26-11-2010 and 29-12-2010 ; and accordingly, the case was reserved for award after hearing representative of the opposite party.

7. Heard, the representative of the opposite party and scanned entire evidence on record .

12. On the other hand the management by way of its oral evidence , on oath , has well proved that the workman was never appointed by the Branch Manger ; rather he Iwas engaged as part timer @ Rs . 30 per day. It has also proved that the workman never worked for 240days in any calendar year, therefore , in event of non- appointment by any Competent Authority, there arise no question of termination of services of the workman at any point of time.

8. It is the case of the workman that he was appointed by the Branch Manager on the post of temporary Peon in November, 2002 and he worked as such till his services has been terminated by the opposite party on 29-04-2006 in violation of Section 25 F, without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof; as he has worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year.

13. Thus , in view of the above discussions , the workman has failed to establish that he was appointed as temporary Peon by the Bank management and he completed 240 days in each calendar year of his employment ; and his further that his services were terminated by the management in violation of the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act; whereas the management has able to prove that the workman has never been appointed by the Competent Authority ofthe Bank at any point oftime in any capacity, instead he was engaged as daily rated labourer as and whenrequired.

9. Per contra , the management of the bank has denied the claim of the workman out rightly and has submitted that the workman has never been appointed by the Branch Manager in any capacity, in as much as the Branch Manager has no authority to appointment any person .Moreover the services of the workman have been availed by the bank on few occasions as and when required and for that he was paid at daily rates . Accordingly, there arise no question of either his termination nor of violation of any of the provisions of I.D. Act.

10. In 2006 ( 108 ) FLR R.M. Yellatti & Asstt . Executive Engineer

14. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of the workman is neither illegal nor unjustified. Hence , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:

15. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

16. Award as above .

LUCKNOW. 29-12-2010.

"However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestatedjudgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden ofproof is on the claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year . This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden isdischarged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. "

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer 540GI /11-25 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

1910

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India , Nodal Office , Barasat, Distt. 24 Parganas (North) in issuing 101 transfer and posting orders of Computer Operators on 10-4-2007 in violation of Bank's own Circular No. PA ( AS)/GA/ OM- 151 /04 dated 11-6-2004 isjustified ? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ? "

का.आ. 619.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार युनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011/106/2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. On being called today, Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mishra, Probationary Manager ofDisciplinary & Industrial Relations Division of the Bank is present on behalf of the management. None is present on behalf ofthe workmen.

NewDelhi , the 31st January, 2011

3. It is found from the record that notice was issued to the workmen union on 7-7-2010 and acknowledgment card received in the record shows that the notice was duly served on the said workmen union on 9-7-2010 . Thereafter dates passed in the present reference numbering five, but none made any appearance on those occasions from the workmen side, nor any intimation has been given in writing for the cause of their absence .

S.O. 619.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2008 ) of the 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 United Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/ 106/2007- IR (B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4. In such circumstances , it is presumed that the industrial dispute raised in the schedule of the order of reference is not persisting at present and for that reason , may be the workmen union is not interested to appear in the present reference . So , presuming existence of no industrial dispute , present reference is disposed of. An Award is passed accordingly.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Dated, Kolkata, 10thJanuary, 2011

REFERENCE No. 03/2008

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of United Bank of India

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011 AND Their workmen

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, Presiding officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf ofthe : Mr. Mahesh Prasad Mishra, Management

का.आ. 620. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 771/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Probationary Manager of Disciplinary & Industrial Relations Division of the Bank.

[सं. एल -12012/157/2004- आई आर( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी Onbehalf of the : None Workmen

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011 Industry: Banking

State: West Bengal

Dated: 10th january, 2011

AWARD

S.O. 620. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 771 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their ByOrder No. 12011 / 106/2007 - IR (B - II ) dated 8-1-2008 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) and (2A) ofthe Industrial [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1911 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 157/2004- IR (B - II ) ]

this act of the workman amounts to gross negligence in discharge of her duties constituting an act of gross misconduct in terms of Clause 5 (J ) in Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-04-2002 . Her appeal also failed.

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: Sri . A. K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

Case No. I. D. 771/2005

Registered on 5-9-2005

Smt. Surinder Kaur W/ o Sh . Harjit Singh Vohra C/ o Sh . Ranjeet Singh Kaushal , H. No. 1219 , Sector 44 - B , Chandigarh.

...Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager , Bank of India , Ludhiana Zone , 579- R, Model Town , Ludhiana - 141001

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Sh . D. R. Kaith , Advocate

For the Management Sh. Ranjan Lohan , Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 3 January, 2011

Central Government vide Notification No. L - 12012/ 157/2004- IR (B - II) dated 9-11-2004 by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub- section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and Sub- section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

The workman has raised an industrial dispute by stating that in connection of the marriage of her son she had borrowed money from friends and relatives . Kewal Krishan; in whose favour the DD was issued, was one of the moneylenders and he was insisting for some security for the amount lent by him . To save her honour, in a hurry, the workman gave a cheque on a DD Leaf, instead from her Check book, ofher OD Account No. 19. It was payable at Sitogunno Branch . She had not used the DD Leaf as Demand Draft and nor it could have been used as such; because Demand Draft cannot be issued on the same branch and is issued to some other branch and it is signed by an authorized signatory with his code Number and an advice is sent to the Branch where the money is to be paid. She issued DD Leaf instead of cheque but did not intend to cause any financial loss to the bank . The said Kewal Krishan, however, presented the check on DD Leaf at Sitogunno branch but the same was returned by the bank as it was not a valid negotiable instrument . On 02-02-2003 the workman was called by the Assistant Manager (Administration) and was asked about the DD Leaf. The workman admitted her mistake and on being forced by the AssistantManager (Administration ) she admitted in writing also to have taken away the DD Leaf. The Assistant Manager (Administration) reported the matter to Zonal Office and the workman was served with a Suspension Order and subsequently with a Chargesheet dated 05-03-2003 . A Departmental enquiry was followed but the Enquiry Officer without affording any opportunity to the workman to present her case through defence representative concluded the proceedings in very first sitting in a one sided and prejudicial manner. The claimant was made to sign the enquiry report on a promise of taking a lenient view. The disciplinary authority did not provide her an opportunity of personal hearing and passed the punishment order. The workman had prayed for her reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages .

"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Ludhiana Zone , Ludhiana to dismiss the service of Smt . Surinder Kaur from the Bhullar Branch of the Bank w.e.f. 25-4-2003 on the allegation of removing one DD Leaf and issue the same with her own signature for financial benefit of Rs . 36000 is illegal and unjustified? If so , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"

The workman was dismissed on the charge that on 18-01-2003 working on Demand Draft seat in Sitogunno Branch ofthe Bank she fraudulently removed one DD Leaf No. 829738 from the DD Book and used that leaf as DD for Rs. 36000 in favour of one Kewal Krishan son of Haveli Ram with her own signature to get financial benefit from said Kewal Krishan . As per charge - sheet dated 5-03-2003

The claim was contested by the respondent management . It has been alleged in the written statement that in the preliminary hearing on 21-03-2003 and subsequently during personal hearing on 22-04-2003 the workman admitted her guilt without any pressure, coercion and promise etc. After the admission of the guilt by the workman in preliminary hearing, the Enquiry Officer was left with no option but to submit his report that the charge- allegations against the workman is proved . A fair and just departmental enquiry was held in the matter as per principles ofnatural justice and the disciplinary authority, after giving the personal hearing to workman , passed the punishment order. The personal hearing had been attended by the workman as well as by her defence representative . It [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

is further alleged that earlier on one occasion she had been warned for issuing cheque without keeping sufficient amount in her account and on another occasion for her unauthorized absence exceeding 30 days , the punishment of bringing down her basic pay to one lower stage in the time scale had been given and she was given several opportunities to make amendments in her work, conduct and attendance but she failed to improve her conduct .

In her evidence the workman filed her own affidavit and the management filed the affidavit ofP.J.S. Walia, Senior Manager , Zonal Office , Ludhiana . The management also filed certain documents by way of Annexures to its written statement .

to explain it and Enquiry Officer was simultaneously appointed to enquire into the charge . He argued that in service jurisprudence the authority has to apply his mind upon receipt of reply to the charge - sheet or show cause , as the case may be, as to whether a further enquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is the affirmative the enquiry follows , but not otherwise . The appointment of the Enquiry Officer simultaneously with the issuance of the charge-sheet indicate the mindset of the disciplinary authority that the enquiry shall proceed irrespective ofthe reply and it cannot be said that the attitude ofthe authorities towards delinquent was free and fair. In support of his arguments the learned counsel of workman relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State ofPunjab Versus B.K. Khanna AIR 2001 SC 343 .

On the pleadings of the parties the following issue arises for consideration : -

1. Whether the enquiry was conducted according to the principle of natural justice and was fair ? If not, its effect?

2. Whether the alleged act on the part of the workman amounts to gross misconduct ? If it does not , its effect ?

3. Whether the action of the management to dismiss the service of workman on the said charge is legal and justified?

4. To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record as well as the written arguments of the parties .

Issue No. 1

Aperusal of the charge- sheet Annexure M - 1 of the written statement shows that the workman was not provided any opportunity to explain the charge or allegation levelled against her. Further the charge-sheet is dated 5-03-2003 and from the enquiry findings Annexure M -2 of the written statement it is clear that on the same date the disciplinary authority appointed the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against her. It shows the biased attitude of the disciplinary authority and is indicative of his mindset that in any case the enquiry shall proceed. I agree with the learned counsel for the workman that the attitude of the disciplinary authority was not fair towards the workman and it vitiates the enquiry proceedings held against the workman. It was against the principles of natural justice not to give the workman an opportunity to put her case regarding the charge levelled against her. In State of Punjab Versus B. K. Khanna (supra), the Chief Minister had made an announcement appointing any Enquiry Officer to go into the charges even before reply was filed by the delinquent Chief Secretary to the charge- sheet issued to him. In the present case even the reply of the workman was not called for. I am, therefore, ofthe view that the enquiry was not conducted according to the principle of natural justice and it was not fair. It vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings . Issue No.1 is decided accordingly , against the respondent/management .

Issue No. 2

According to the management the truth of the chargés levelled against the workman was enquired into in a full - fledged departmental enquiry. The charge against her was explained to her in a language understood by her and she had pleaded guiltyto the charge without any pressure coercion or promise . The Enquiry Officer , therefore , reported a finding of guilty. The disciplinary authority proposed a punishment of dismissal without notice and issued a Show Cause punishment notice to the workman . An opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the workman . She had attended the personal hearing along with her defence representative and the punishment order was passed by the disciplinary authority after that hearing. According to the management counsel the punishment was ordered after a fair and just enquiry held according to the principal ofnatural justice .

The charge against the workman is that while working on demand draft seat, she fraudulently removed one DD leaf from the DD Book and used that leaf as DD for Rs . 36,000 in favour of one Kewal Krishan to get financial benefit from said Kewal Krishan and this act of the workman amounts to gross negligence constituting an act ofgross misconduct .

The case ofthe workman is that she had issued a cheque of his own account on the said DD leaf and she had not used the DD leaf as Demand Draft.

It is important to note that it has been stated in the charge-sheet that the DD leaf was used as DD for the amount The learned counsel for the workman however, has disputed the arguments of the management that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and according to the principle of natural justice . It was pointed outby the learned counsel for workman that while servicing the charge- sheet on the workman , she was not called upon 1913 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन7, 1932

decided in favour of the workman and against the management/respondent accordingly.

but it has been admitted by the respondent/management in its written statement in para 4 on merits that the DD leaf had been issued by the workman as a cheque .

IssueNo. 3& 4

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the workman that the alleged act of the workman was an innocent mistake on her part without any ill motive or mala fide intention to cause any loss to the bank and neither any loss was expected nor it was caused to the management hence , no disciplinary action was warranted in this case and the workman is entitled to the reliefsought.

The learned counsel for the management on the other hand has cited :

Itwas argued by the learned counsel of the workman that from the DD leaf in question , which has been filed by the management witness and is marked as Ex. M- I/ll it is clear that the workman had filled her own Account No. and it was Account Payee and it shows that it was to be used as a cheque only after clearance from the personal account of the workman . It was not intended to cause any financial loss to the bank hence , she cannot be held guilty of any misconduct . She had inadvertently used the DD leaf as cheque . It was only an innocent mistake on her part .

(1) Chairman and Managing Director V.S.P. Versus Sri Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008 ) 5 SCC569;

(2) Regional Manager, U.P. S.R.T.C. Versus Hori Lal (2003) 3 SCC605 ;

It was not shown by the parties as to what is meant by the term ' gross negligence ' and whether it has been defined in the Memorandum of Settlement . As per Section 3 of Indian Trust Act , gross negligence means the negligence marked by total or nearly total disregard for the rights of others and by total or nearly total indifference to the consequences of an act .

(3) State Bank of IndiaVersus Bela Bagchi AIR 2005 SC3272.

In common parlance negligence is the absence of proper care caution and diligence ; of such care caution and diligence , as under the circumstance reasonable and ordinary prudence would require to be exercised.

From Clause 5 (j ) of Memorandum ofSettlement dated 10-04-2002 as quoted in the charge -sheet gross misconduct means: -

(i) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank; or

( ii) Gross negligence ; or

(iii) Negligence involving or likely to involved banking serious loss .

It is clear from Clause 5 (j ) of the Memorandum of Settlement that gross negligence itself is a gross misconduct and it is different from negligence involved or likely to involve bank in serious loss .

about the judicial review of the punishment . But in the present case the review of punishment is not involved . It has been held that without affording any opportunity to the workman to put his defence in answer to charge- sheet and appointing the Enquiry Officer simultaneously with the issuance of charge- sheet was not proper and the enquiry was not fair on this account and further the workman is not guilty of gross misconduct and she cannot be punished for the same . It is , therefore , clear that the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Ludhiana Zone, Ludhiana to dismiss the workman from service on the allegation of removing one DD leaf and issuing the same for financial benefit of Rs . 36,000 is illegal and unjustified . The punishment order is therefore , set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the workman within 15 days from receiving the copy of the award. The workman will be entitled to the continuity of service and full back wages . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

Going by the definition of ' gross negligence' given in the Indian Trust Act , the existence of the rights of other persons or the consequence of the alleged act is a must to constitute a gross negligence . In the present case neither the rights of other persons were involved nor was the alleged act of the workman was of any consequence .

का.आ. 621.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Therefore, she cannot be held guilty of a gross negligence. No doubt she committed a mistake in using the DD leaf instead of using a cheque leaf from her cheque book and shemay be considered careless towards her duties but her negligence does not involve bank in a loss nor it is prejudicial to the interest ofbank . Therefore , the disciplinary authority was wrong in holding the workman guilt of gross misconduct and punishing her for the same . The workman may be guilty of a minor misconduct and could have been punished for the same if the Memorandum of Settlement or any other rules provide for the same . Issue No. 2 is

[सं. एल-12011 /30/2009- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 1914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on Sri P. Chakaravarthy is legal and justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

S. O. 621.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75 / 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-1-2011 .

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 75/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Authorized Representatives and filed their Claim, Counter and Rejoinder Statements as the case may be .

[No. L- 12011 /30/2009- IR (B -11) ]

3. The Claim Statement averments , bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 20th January, 2011

Present: A. N. Janardanan, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 75/2009

[ In the 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 Bank and their Workman ]

BETWEEN

Sri P. Chakaravarthy

: IstParty/Petitioner

Vs.

The Asstt . General Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent

(HRM) Indian Bank Circle Office Chennai

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Petitionerwhojoined the services of the Respondent/ Bank as sub- Staff in Odugathur Branch in Vellore District was proceeded against by way of disciplinary action for allegations ofhaving fraudulently withdrawn Rs . 44,000at Rs .22,000 each on 17-5-2004 and 18-5-2004 colluding with Mr. M. Ramachandran , Peon . They jointly gave a letter dated 16-8-2004 accepting the withdrawal from the SB A/ c No. 12989 of Late Mr. G. Dhanakotti forging the signature of the deceased depositor and undertaking to remit the amo: tt, which accordingly was remitted at Rs . 31,000 under his sign on 20-8-2004 . The acts are prejudicial tothe bank. Charge Sheet was issued on 17-6-2005 that he in collusion and conspiracy with Ramesh and Mr. М. Ramachandran enabled Mr. Ramesh to fraudulently withdraw the amounts . In the enquiry held from 11-8-2005 MEX- 1 to MEX- 19 were marked on the Respondent's side. Following the report of enquiry dated 10-7-2006 after the comments of the petitioner and after personal hearing the proposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefits was imposed on 09-12-2006. Appeal filed on 20-1-2007 was dismissed on 06-2-2008 . Confession was obtained under coercion . It was in the presence of Panchayat and Policeman . The receiver ofthe deceased party's money named only Ramachandran and not petitioner. Compulsory Retirement is illegal and unjustified being in victimization and unfair labour practice. Money was handed over to Ramachandran only. The guilt is not established against the petitioner . Hence the claim for reinstatement with all benefits .

: Sri J. Thomas Jeyapra- bhakaran , Authorised Representative

4. Counter Statement contentions briefly read as follows:

Forthe 2nd Party/ Management

: Sri R. Dakshinamurthy, Authorized Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12011 / 30/2009 - IR ( B- II ) dated 18-8-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

On 17-04-2004 there was a credit balance of Rs . 44,257 in the SB A/c of deceased Dhanakotti . On 13-08-2004 one Mrs. Amsa made a death claim application for Rs . 44,257 ofher deceased husband died on 17-4-2004 . On verification the alleged withdrawals were seen made purported to have been signed by deceased Dhanakotti leaving a balance of only Rs . 257. The unauthorized withdrawal was reported by Amsa to Serpadi Village Panchayat whose official on 14-8-2004 came and enquired before whom Petitioner and M. Ramachandran admitted the withdrawal . They also gave a joint statement on 1915 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

made a scapegoat by being put into trap at the bank whereto Panchayat people were collected noticeably in the presence ofa Policeman . Ifthe statement was not signed ithad been made to appear that the whole staff would have beenbeaten up by those who gathered there as Panchayat people and others . Evidently, money was paid to Ramachandran only and not to the petitioner . There is no evidence to show who forged the signature of the account holder.

16-8-2004 . On 20-8-2004 Petitioner remitted Rs . 31,000 and Ramachandran remitted Rs . 13,000. It was revealed in investigation that petitioner and Ramachandran conspired withK. Ramesh, petitioner's relative giving him a duplicate PassBook of the SB Account with a filled - in withdrawal slip dated 17-5-2004 for Rs . 22,000 and with a request to present it on which day the Manager and the Asstt. Manager were on leave and the Asstt. Manager of the Vaniyambadi Branch was acting . M. Ramachandran unauthorizedly made the withdrawal entry in the ledger and issued token to Ramesh . Ramachandran also persuaded the Manager - in- Charge to pass the withdrawal . ' Ramesh collected the amount. Other amount of Rs . 22,000 was withdrawn on 18-05-2004. No reply was given by petitioner to the Show Cause Notice issued on 20-11-2004. Petitioner and his wife were also examined in the enquiry. Charges were proved and the proposed punishment of Compulsory Retirement was imposed which is only justified and valid with no scope for interference . Nexus betweenthe petitioner and the withdrawal is established in evidence . Respondent lost confidence in the petitioner. Punishment is to be upheld .

5. Rejoinder Statement allegations in a nutshell are as follows :

9. The contra contentions on behalf of the Respondent are that the petitioner was colluding to withdraw the amount through Ramachandran , Sub- Staff with the assistance of Ramesh, a relative of both. The guilt is admitted by the petitioner and the same is voluntary and is not out of any coercion . The intention of the petitioner was to remit back the withdrawn money before a claim is made on account of the death of Dhanakotti . Though petitioner has a case of having signed the confession letter under compulsion he has not had such astand for a long time . If it was so why he did not lodge complaint to Police for such detrimental acts towards him as a normal human conduct ? Therefore , the said contention is an afterthought . The signatures in the withdrawal slips are discernibly forged ones . They could also be found to be so from the FSL report . Only the petitioner raised dispute against the action . Only a just punishment has been given and the same is not to be interfered with .

M. Ramachandran is the brain behind the happening. The Petitioner has been falsely implicated . Petitioner was not aware ofhanding over of the amount to Ramachandran . Fearing threat to life of petitioner his wife only prevailed uponpetitioner to remit Rs . 31,000 .

6. Points for consideration are :

(i) Whether the compulsory retirement of the petitioner is legal and justified ?

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

7. The evidence consists ofthe oral evidence of WWI and Ex. W1 and Ex. W2 on the petitioner's side and Ex.M1 to Ex.M19 on the Respondent's side , all marked on consent with no oral evidence adduced on the Respondent's side.

Points (i) & ( ii)

10. It is alien to comprehension why if the Co- Substaff Ramachandran has not been proceeded against. In spite of that there is no challenge against the inaction to proceed against Ramachandran , a Sub - Staff who has had a major role in perpetrating the misconduct of fraudulent withdrawal of money from the account of the deceased account holder . The explanation of the Management as made out in the oral argument is that no ID has been raised by him . What is stated by the Petitioner, that too in a sub - dued manner is that Ramachandran is the brainchild of the transaction . But that he has not been proceeded against is not whispered in the pleadings of the petitioner. Again according to the Bank that too stated in a vague manner in the oral arguments that petitioner alone has raised the ID . We are at dark as to what has been done in respect of Ramachandran , a co- delinquent who played active role in bringing about the fraudulent transaction . It is not known whether he has been proceeded against or not . What appears is that he has been proceeded against and dealt with by way of disciplinary action . That is what is spelt out from the oral argument of the Management representative . If it be that the other co -delinquent has not been proceeded against it is to be deprecated . It has not been put in black and white in the pleadings of the petitioner as to whether the co -delinquent Ramachandran was or was not proceeded against in disciplinary action . What is mentioned is that Ramachandran is the brainchild 8. Heard the representatives on either side and perused the records . It is orally argued on behalf of the petitioner that while the charge is that the petitioner instigated the fraudulent withdrawal through another employee M. Ramachandran to withdraw the amount, he alone is proceeded against by issuing Charge Sheet . The confession statement could be seen to be fabricated after obtaining signatures thereon . It is argued that the Admission Letter was signed under coercion in the presence of Panchayat people and Policeman also . Since there was threat to the life of the petitioner on the persuasion ofpetitioner's wife he was signing and the same is not voluntary. Accordingly only the amounts were also got remitted back into the bank. The petitioner has been 1916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II SEC. 3( ii )]

DocumentsMarked on the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex. W1 20-1-2009

and nothing else . If actually Ramachandran also has been punished there is " suppressiovari " and " suggestio falsi " in the conduct of the petitioner with a misleading tendency.

Appeal preferred by Sri P. Chakravarthy against the punishment.

Ex. W2 Nil

Letter from P. Dayanidhi , Panchayat President , Serpadi Panchayat.

On the Management's side

Date

Εχ. Νo.

Description

Ex. M1 10-1-2006 Show Cause Notice No. CO/TAN/VIG/419/2005-06.

Ex. M2 17-6-2005 Charge Sheet No.CO/VLR/ VIG/F280/102/2005 issued to Sri P. Chakravarthy, SSRNo. 41372, Cash Peon, Odugathur Branch.

Ex. M3 11-8-2005

22-8-2005

8-9-2005

Enquiry Proceedings alongwith exhibits marked therein.

8-12-2005

13-12-2005

16-12-2005

Ex.M4

Summing up Sri M. G Loganathan Enquiry Officer .

Ex. M5

Defence summing received on 16-5-2006 of Sri S. L. Suriya Sam.

Ex.M6 10-7-2006 Findings ofSri M. G. Loganathan Enquiry Officer .

Ex.M7 19-7-2006 Comments on the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer by the CSE

Ex.M8 16-9-2006 Second Show Cause Notice No.CO/VLR/VIG/ F280/247/2006 issued to theCSE.

11. Coming to the petitioner, the enquiry against him discernibly went of well and the finding arrived at is not assailable as invalid or perverse . Though the confession letter is the crucial document for fixing the liability upon him together with the other there is nothing to show that the same is the outcome of any coercion or threat . The fact that the said document remained unchallenged for a long time without being called in question indicates that the same is a valid, voluntary and genuine document executed by the petitioner and the other. The fact that the amounts were remitted back by both the delinquents in quick succession on 20-8-2004 amounts to ratification of the admission by subsequent acts , a relevant aspect intimately related to the fact in issue . Based on the document , an enquiry was conducted in which the document passed through the ordeal of challenge at the instance of the petitioner in spite of which the same could not be rendered ineffective for being relied upon in a legal manner . That the amount was handed over to M. Ramachandran, even if true, as spoken to by Ramesh but apt to be un -creditworthy, is of no avail to exonerate the petitioner from the joint liability. Could it be taken to connote the idea that if the money had been handed over to the petitioner himself Ramachandran could not be faulted? The answer is an emphatic negative . That M. Ramachandran is the brainchild of the transaction is only to be rejected for the reason that it is a self- serving statement of the co- delinquent, the petitioner ; attaching no credence . The very same admission of petitioner tantamounts to acceptance of the misconduct in another way. The petitioner has not chosen to mind to give an explanation to the Show Cause Notice which is not a normal conduct once he is indicted of amisconduct . No blemish could be found attached to the document, the enquiry or the finding as to guilt . The punishment being only Compulsory Retirement, the same is alsojust proportionate or commensurate with the gravity of the offence of fraudulent withdrawal of money committed by the petitioner. Therefore , the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Ex. M9 14-11-2006 Proceedings of the personal hearingheld.

12. The reference is answered accordingly.

Ex. M10 6-11-2006 Reply of the CSE for the Second Show Cause Notice issued.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 20th January, 2011)

Ex. M11 9-12-2006

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1 , Sri P. Chakravarthy

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Speaking Order No. CO/VLR/ VIG/F/280/353/2006 ofthe Asstt . General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment on theCSE.

1917 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

Ex.M12 6-2-2006

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD Orders ofthe General Manager /Appellate Authority under Ref. No. HRM/DPC/ 093/2008 dated 6-2-2008

Inthe matter ofa reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act .

Ex. M13

REFERENCE NO . 319 of2000

Parties:

Petitionfiledby P. Chakravarthy under ID Act Section-2(a) before Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central ), Chennai .

Employers in relation to the management of Godhur Colliery ofM/s . BCCL .

4-12-2008

Ex.M14

AND TheirWorkmen

Counter filedby the Respondent/Bank before Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central ), Chennai .

PRESENT: Shri H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

31-12-2008

Ex. M15

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers : Shri R. N. Ganguly, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

For the Workman : Shri R. K. Mukherjee, Advocate . Industry: Coal Letter to Government of India, Ministry ofLabour from Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) , Chennai Ref. No. M.7/17/2008-B2 regarding failure of conciliation under copy to us .

8-5-2009

Ex. M16

Dated, the 10th January, 2011 AWARD

HO: HRM: Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central)/340/2008-9 dated 8-5-2009 addressed to Sri Rajinder Kumar, Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi .

By Order No. L -20012/266/2000- IR (C- I ) dated 25-10-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

नईदिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Godhur Colliery of M/s . BCCL in refusing to refer Sri Lalu Paswan to Apex Medical Board for ascertaining his age is fair and justified? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

का.आ. 622.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 319/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -20012/266/2000 - आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 622. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes-Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 319/2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011 .

[No. L-20012/266/2000- IR (C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

2. The case ofthe concerned workman is that he was initially appointed at Industry Colliery in a capacity of Linemazdoor and later on he was transferred to Godhur colliery inthe same capacity. The management introduced the service excerpts in the year 1987 and accordingly the concerned workman furnished his service particulars including his date ofbirth as 30-10-53 , but the management recorded his date of birth as 1-2-1942 arbitrarily to which the concerned workman raised objection in the service excerpt at that very time. He had made an affidavit also to produce the management in favour of his actual date of birth as 30-10-53 with his application for correction ofhis date of birth. But the management never conducted any MedicalBoard Examination ofrecording ofhis actual date ofbirth. The concerned workman represented before the management several times for correction ofhis date of birth butwithout any effect . As per I. I. 76 of NCWA the management should assess the age of the concerned by the Apex Medical Board as the age of the concerned workman was also assessed by the Medical Board duly 540GI /11-26 1918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

birth as 1-3-42 .

In this respect management counsel argued that his date of birth was recorded in Form ' B ' Register as 1-3-42 which is a statutory register maintained under the Mines Act. He has also argued that the concerned workman accepted the same by putting his L.T.I. and it cannot be altered.

constituted under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon- Cum-ChiefMedical Officer, Dhanbad and the said Medical Board assessed his age about 45 years on 7-12-99 . The management prematurely superannuated the concerned workman w.e.f. 1-3-1942 instead of 30-10-53 which is arbitrary, illegal , prejudiced and unjustified and violation of natural justice . Thereafter , an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad, which was ended in failure and ultimately this dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication ..

Inthis respect the concerned workman argued that he has his age assessed by the Appex Medical Board duly constituted under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon- Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad who assessed his age 45 years on 7-12-99. It has also been argued that when dispute of age has been assessed the management should have referred him to Apex Medical Board for assessment ofhis age.

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to hold that the action of the management in not accepting the age of assessed by the State Medical Board and in refusing the concerned workman to Apex Medical Board for ascertaining his age is not fair and not justified and the concerned workman is entitled to consider his age as 30-10-1953 and be re - instated with continuity of his service with full back wages and other benefits .

7. As per Ext. W- 1 , From ' B' Register , in which date of birth has been mentioned as 1-3-42, he has joined on 18-10-71 . If his date of birth is considered as he wants 30-10-53 then on that date his age was on 17 years which is not possible and if this date of birth i.e. 30-10-53 be considered then his date of birth on that date as per Form 'B ' Register merelyjust 18 years below which is not possible and permissible under law because less than 18 years majority cannot be achived. He moved application Ext . W-2for correction ofhis age but he has not mentioned that he should be referred to Apex Medical Board , so that management can consider his case . Moreover , this application had been moved on 27-12-90 though he received service excerpt in the year 1987 as per Ext. W- 1 . Keeping upto three years it shows that he was kept mum , even after getting service excerpt as per Ext . W- 1 in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 1-3-1942. WW- 1 in cross- examination has stated that I do not know if my particulars were entered in From ' B ' Register or not. I cannot say my date of birth in Form ' B ' Register is recorded as 1-3-42. 1 cannot say if I have put my L.T.I. or not against that entry. I cannot say if in Ext . W- 1 my date ofbirth is mentioned as 1-3-42. I have not raised objection in the service excerpt but I have submitted application in this regard.

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman is a permanent worker of Godhur Colliery who wasappointed on 18-10-71 . At the time ofhis appointment his date of birth was recorded in Form ' B ' Register as 1-3-1942 and the concerned workman had put his signature/ L.T.I. in token of this acceptance of the same. Form 'B ' Register is a statutory register maintained under the Mines Act. On the basis of Form ' B ' Register the date of birth ofthe concerned workman was recorded as 1-3-1942 in all the records ofthe company. Service Excerpt was issued to the concerned workman in the year 1987 wherein his date ofbirth was recorded as 1-3-1942. There is no variation ofdate ofbirth of the concerned workman in the records of the company. Reference to the Apex Medical Board for ascertaining age is called for only when there is variation of date ofbirth in different records ofthe company, but in the instant case there is no variation of age in any of the records of the company and hence it was not considered nccessary by the employers to refer him to Apex Medical Board for ascertaining his age .

It has been prayed that this Tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management in refusing to refer the concerned workman to Apex Medical Board for ascertaining his age is fair and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. Considering the evidence it shows that the concerned workman has not moved any application for assessment of his age through Apex Medical Boardto the management . Moreover , if his age assessment of date of birth as 30-10-53 be considered then it is not possible to get employment at the age of below 18 years as he got employment on 18-10-71 and not completed 10 years of age.

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 .

9.Accordingly, I render the following award-- 5.The management has produced MW- 1 , hanshyam Pd. Sinha. The concerned workman has produced himself as WW- 1 and has proved documents as Exts. 4-1 to W-4 .

The action of the management ofGodhur Colliery ofM / s . BCCL in refusing to sefer Lalu Paswan to Apex Medical Board for ascertaining his age is fair and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that his date of birta is 30-10-53 but the management has illegally mention his date of

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer 1919 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action ofthe management of BCCL in denying final decision on enquiry by the disciplinary authority even after four years and not paying wages for the period of suspension to Shri G. Dubey, workman is just and proper? If. not, to what relief the concerned workman entitled ?"

का.आ. 623. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 246/99- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 623. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011.

[No. L-20012/246/99- IR(C-I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD

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

REFERENCE No. 35 of2000

PARTIES:

2.Written statement has been filed on behalf ofthe concerned workman stating that the concerned workman is a permanent of Central Excavation Workshop Sinidih of BCCL and has been working as Store Keeper of the above workshop . He was issued chargesheet dated 21-7-94 and was put under suspension from 21-7-94 to 27-11-94. He replied to the chargesheet which was duly received by the management on 23-7-94 . During the period of suspension from 21-7-94 to 27-11-94, the departmental enquiry in the charges against the charge - sheeted workmen was completed. He was paid subsistence allowance during the above mentioned period of his suspension, but even after completion of the enquiry during the period of his suspension from 21-7-94 to 27-11-94 he has not been communicated about findings of the enquiry officer although from examination of the enquiry proceedings it will emerge that the charges against him as contained in the chargesheet are not established against him nor he has been supplied with copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, although after completion of the enquiry, he was allowed to resume duty from 28-11-94 vide letter dated 28-11-94. Though the charges against him were not established still then he has not been paid his full wages also for the period of his suspension over and above what he was paid as subsistance allowances for the period of suspension despite his repeated requests to the management. Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised which was ended in failure and hence the present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication .

Employers in relation to the management of BCCL.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT : Shri H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCES :

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass Award holding that the action ofthe management in denying final decision on enquiry of disciplinary authority and not paying full wages to the concerned workman for the period of his suspension from 21-7-94 to 28-11-94 is notjustified.

For the Employers : Shri S. N. Sinha , Advocate

Industry: Coal

FortheWorkman : Shri B. N. Singh, Gen. Secretary State: Jharkhand

Dated, the 10th January 2011

AWARD

3. Written statement has been filed by the management stating that the concerned workman was working as Storekeeper Grade - I at Sinidin Workshop Stores in the year 1974. In the course of making surprise inspection and checking of the aforsaid Sinidih Excavation Workshop Stores it was observed that 13 nos . of wheel shaft with the marking No. 3504344 were found missing from the 13 packets under the possession and control of the concerned workman in the capacity of Storekeeper Grade- I ofthe aforsaid Sinidih Excavation Workshop Stores .

By Order No. L - 20012/ 246/99 - IR (C- I ) dated 20-1-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of 1920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

was suspended from 21-7-94 to 27-11-94 , but during this period he was only given subsistance allowance and his pay has not been released till now though he was not found guilty and enquiry report and findings were not supplied by the management to the concerned workman.

7. In this respect the management's representative argued that regarding shortage of 13 nos . of wheel shaft a FIR was lodged but the management's conclusion was kept pending till finalisation ofthe police report . When no chargesheet was filed upte such long time and he was reinstated then it is duty of the management to release his pay for suspension period 21-7-94 to 27-11-94 .

8. In this respect the concerned workman is entitled suspension allowance which has not been paidby the management to him and also salary of the period. In this respect management's witness MW- 1 , Madhab Mishra in his cross -examination at page 2 stated that I have no information regarding the criminal case and its result . I cannot say bywhose connivance the file relating to enquiry has been mis -placed . Again he has stated that I cannot say if charges against Dubey were not substantiated therefore the management has suppressed the enquiry proceeding. I cannot say if criminal case is pending against Dubey or not.

On detection of such theft of materials , a FIR was lodged before the Officer Incharge, Madhuban P. S. on 21-7-94 and a chargesheet was also issued to the concerned workman on 21-7-94 . It has been submitted that the concerned workman received 13 packets from the supplier, M/s. Diesal Sales and Service (India) Ltd. , Katras Road, Dhanbad, on 21-4-94 against cash memo/delivery note No.662305 . He made necessary inspection, checking and took the 13 packets into the store and kept the same under his custody. As per usual procedure , each pocket was required to contain all the parts comprising a set including the wheel shaft . It was surprising to know that only the wheel shaft from each of the packets was found missing and the concerned workman failed to explain the reason for the manipulation of the packets.so as to cause loss of one wheel shaft from each of the packets . The concerned workman submitted his reply to the chargesheet and a departmental enquiry was constituted to conduct the departmental enquiry against him. He was kept under suspension during the time of enquiry so that fair and impartial enquiry could be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice . The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding to the disciplinary authority and some interested persons caused the enquiry procedings , enquiry report and other relevant documents traceless and the management could not take final decision on the basis of the aforesaid enquiry. He was allowed to resume his duties pending further decision ofthe management either to start denovo enquiry or to wait for the criminal action initiated by the Police on the basis of FIR lodged on 21-7-94 . The management preferred to keep the matter pending till finalisation of the police report and the finding of the trial court with regard totheft ofmaterials etc.As the management is not aware of the outcome of the criminal case , has not yet initiatedde- novo enquiry by appointing fresh enquiry officer and the presenting officer to conduct the departmental enquiry relating to the chargesheet issued to the concerned workman.

Management's witness MW- 2 , Amar Nath Jha , stated in cross -examination at page 2 that those materials which were found to be missing had been received from CDSS Depot, Dhanbad on 21-4-94. Against P. K. Sinha also who was working as Store Clerk during the relevant period, the same charge of theft was there , who was, later exonerated of the said charge and against whom also the enquiry was . conducted. During the relevant period immediate Controlling Officer of the concerned workman was Sri Madhob Mishra , the then Depot Officer. I am not in a position to say as to who had received those articles of the Receiving Section during the relevant period, which were later found to be missing. I do not know whether in the Receiving Section those articles were received by Sri Madhob Mishra, Sr. Depot Officer or not.

Under such circumstances it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass the Award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

Thus the statement of the management's witnesses shows that they have no knowledge regarding criminal case and its result and enquiry file is missing and above statement of the workman that the charge against him was not proved . When the charges were not proved against the concernedworkman then there is no ground to withhold his pay from 21-7-94 to 27-11-94.

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 .

9.Accordingly, I render the following award-- 5. The concerned workman has produced himselfas WW- 1 and has proved documents as Ext . W- 1 to Ext . W- 3

The management has produced MW- 1 , Madhab Mishra , and MW-2 , Amar Nath Jha and has proved documents as Exts.M- 1 to M3/2 .

The action ofthe management of BBCL in denying final decision on enquiry by the disciplinary authority even. after four years and not paying wages for the period of suspension to Shri G. Dubey, concerned workman, is not just and proper. Therefore, the management is directed to pay full wages tothe concerned workman for the period of his suspension from 21-7-94 to 27-11-94 within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he was suspended by charge- sheet No. BCCL/Exc/SWC/94/ 1033 dated 21-7-94 and he

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1921 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

का.आ. 624. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या-1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the services of the workman Sri Chandrika Barhi , Clerk of Central Workshop under Kustore Area is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" [सं. एल-20012/425/2000- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 624. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2001 ) 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 M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 1-02-2011 . on

[No. L-20012/425/2000- IR(C-I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was employed as Clerk in the Central Workshop of Kustore Area of B.C.C.L. In addition to the general clerical nature of jobs assigned to him, he was also entrusted to send advice to E. D. P. department responsible for billing to wage bilis of workers about the deduction small saving amounts in respect of the workers employed in the Central Workshop of Kustore . After payment of wages, he was responsible to deposit the respective cheques issuedby the employer relating to deduction of Small Savings to the Post Office. In the process of aforesaid nature of job , there is no lapse on the part of the concerned workman. The postal department has not made any complaint against the workman concerned nor any complaint from the members contributing for small saving to the Post Office against the concerned workman. The signature of the members are quite confidential and it can only be seen by the authorised official of the Post BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . I DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10 (1 ) (d) (2A) ofI.D.

Act.

Reference No. 27 of2001 .

Office for verification at the time of withdrawal of amount of small saving by the member concerned . As regards the domestic enquiry against the workmen concerned, the workman has not been provided full opportunity in course of enquiry to defend his case and the principles of natural justice has been fully violated in this case.

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B. C.C. Ltd.

AND

In view of the above facts , it has been prayed by the concerned workman before this Hon'ble Tribunal to answer the reference in favour of the concerned workman.

TheirWorkman .

Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

: None .

Forthe Employers

For the Workman : Shri P. N. Prasad, Advocate

State : Jharkhand. : Industry: Coal .

Dated, the 3rd January. 2011 .

AWARD

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman while working as a clerk at the Central Workshop was entrused with the duties of maintaining all records relating to small saving scheme i.e. Cumulative time deposit and was made responsible to maintain account in respect of all the workers at Kustore with regard to amount deducted from each of them from their pay slips , the amount deposited in their respective names in the Post Office and to deposit the cheque on the basis of total amount deducted in the Post Office and to ensure proper posting of all such amounts in the name of respective account holders . It has been 2. By Order No. L -20012/425/2000 (C- I) dated 25-1-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of 1922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

evidence could be produced by the management, in course of domestic enquiry, no any opportunity was given to him to produce witness by the Enquiry Officer. No second show-cause notice was given to him .

In this respect the management argued that the chargesheet was issued to the concerned workman for embasslement of a huge amount of Rs . 1,80,000 of the employees for which concerned workman replied by Ext . M -2 and by Ext . M- 3 the Enquiry Officer was appointed , Ext.M -4 is enquiry notice and Ext. M- 5 enquiry proceeding and Ext . M-6 enquiry report .

8. The concerned workman was appointed by the management to the general clerical nature ofjobs assigned to him, he was also entrusted to send advice to E.D.P. department and deduction of small saving amounts in respect of the workers employed in Central Workshop of Kustore Area . After payment of wages , he was responsible to deposit the respective cheques issued by the employer relating to deduction of small savings to the Post Office. In the process of aforesaid nature of job, there is no lapse on the part of the workman concerned. He has manipulated employees money.

stated that the concerned workman during the period from January, 1994 to 1997 developed a practice of depositing more amounts against his deposits and deposits of his son and associates by depositing less amount than actually deducted in the name of other workers and in some cases , he omitted to deposit the amount actually deducted from the pay slips of some account holders and by this process , he embozzled a large sum of Rs. 1,80,000 with malafide intention by fraudulently manipulating relevant records. He was charged under clause 26.1.11 of the Certified Standing Order on the allegation of commission of misconduct of theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with company's business or property. He submitted his reply to the shargesheet denying the allegation levelled against him . The management appointed Sri J.D. Pandey, the then Sr. Personnel Officer, Kustore Area as Enquiry Officer and Sri D. Jha , Superintending Engineer, Central Workshop , as Management's representative in the matter of conducting departmental enquiry relating to the chargesheet issued to the concerned workman by order dated 22-10-98. The enquiry was held on 19-11-98, 16-12-98 , 21-4-99 and 19-5-99 in presence of the chargesheeted workman . The departmental enquiry was held fairly and properly in which the concerned workman was given full opportunity. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 6-6-99 holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him . The disciplinary auuthority examined the enquiry report, enquiry proceedings and all relevant papers and documents and after observing necessary formalities pass the order of dismissal dated 8-9-99 dismissing the concerned workman from his service .

Inthis respect WW- 1 , concerned workman , stated in cross -examination that I had replied to the charge- sheet Ext. W- 2 and I was working as Clerk and I am a literate person. The entire enquiry proceedings is in Hindi and I had put my signature over the same . I had not given any complaint either before the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority regarding my allegation that I was not given opportunity to give evidence and I was not allowed to read over the contents of my statement before the enquiry officer.

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman is legal and justified and he 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 statements .

5. The management has produced MW- 1 , Janakdeo Pandey, who has proved documents as Exts . M- 1 to M 5.

The concerned workman has produced himself as WW- 1 who has proved documents as Ext . W- 1 to W-7.

6. The domestic enquiry was held fairly and properly on 3-8-2009 .

The concerned workman with malafide intention connived with the Postal Staff of Kustore Post Office and embezzled a huge sum amounting to Rs . 1,80,000- which charges were levelled against him as per Cl . 26.1.11 of the Certified Standing Order of the Company. The concerned workman gave his reply in the charge- sheet . The enquiry proceeding shows that after preliminary enquiry final order was passed and he had taken money of the employees , detailed report and deduction of employees fund has been proved during domestic enquiry . Total deduction has also been enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and the details of discussion is Ext . M - 2 -A and M-2- B . The concerned workman had deducted from the salary of the employees . The concerned workman had given letter Ext . M-2 to the Enquiry Officer on 22-8-97 regarding his confession about the embezzlement . He had given such application by his own hand dated 22-8-97 .

7. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that no witness has been examined during the domestic enquiry by the management, No any

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances , the employee who is maintining salary bills of the 1923 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन7, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AND

Their Workmen .

Present : Shri H. M. Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

management and deducted from their salary and after deduction deposited in the Post Office. He withdrew the money by getting signature on blank paper and embezzled a sum of Rs . 1,80,000 . He has also given his confession for recovery of amount from his salary.

: Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate.

For the Employers

: None.

For the Workmen

State: Jharkhand. : Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 17th Jan. 2011

Itshows that he does this act and desire sympathy from the management, so the action of the management ofM.S. BCCL in dismissing the services of the concerned workman, Clerk of Central Workshop under Kustore Area is legal and justified, hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

AWARD

This is my Award .

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

By Order No. L-20012/75/88 D- IV (A)/IR Coal- I dated 24-11-1989 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labourhas in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management ofKapasara Colliery indenying residential Quarter to Shri Rampat Rajwar and suspending him during the pendency of Conciliation proceedings is justified ? Ifnot, towhat relief is the workman entitled ?"

का.आ. 625. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 181/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/75/88 डी- IV ( ए)/आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 625. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 181/89) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011 .

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he has been working as permanent workman at Kapasara Colliery since long. A quarter was vacated by Shri D. D. Sinha and Shri Rampath Rajwar , concerned workman, applied to the Housing Committee for alloting the quarter to him. Ameeting ofHousing Committee was held on 27-4- 88 to allot this quarter to the concerned workman. The Housing Committee appreciated the difficulties and need ofquarter for the concerned workman as because he is residing only of a distance of 1/4 Km. from the colliery and he has his own house . The concerned workman and the union represented before the management for allotment of the quarter which annoyed the management to suspend him during the pendency of conciliation proceeding . Thereafter the dispute has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication . The action of the management in denying the residential quarter to the concerned workman isnotjustified.

[No. L- 20012/75/88-D- IV(A) /IR (C- I)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

It has been prayed before this Tribunal to answer the reference in favour of the workman by directing the management to allot the quarter to him and to pay him full backwages.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . I DHANBAD.

In the matter ofa reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofI.D. Act .

Reference No. 181 of 1989 .

3. The case of the management, Insbrief is that Kapasara Colliery of the management has a Housing Committee consisting of the representatives of the management and different functioning trade Unions in the colliery for considering the cases of worker desirous of havingresidential quarters allotted to them . It to happened that D. N. Kanjilal one ofthe workman was allotted a quarter Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Kapasara Colliery ofM/s . E. C. Ltd.

1924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 626.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 156/90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court- 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M/s . E.C.L. and their workman, which wasreceived bythe Central Government on 1-02-2011 .

[No. L-20012/332/89- IR(C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. I, DHANBAD

Inthe matter ofa reference U/s . 10 (1 ) (d ) (2A) ofI.D.Act.

Reference No. 156 of1990 in Kapasarą Colliery which is situated near Premier Hard Coke at Mugma out of the 15% quota reserved for the management. The key ofthe quarter was handed over toD. N. Kanjilal on 28-3-88 and he kept his belongings in the quarter, but Rampat Rajbhar, Security Guard broke open the lock of the quarter on 30-8-88 and took away the belongings ofShri Kanjilal and allegedly occupied the said quarter forcibly. When Shri Kanjilal asked the concerned workman to return his belongings and vacate his quarter the latter abused the former and also threatened him with direconsequences . Shri Kanjilal made a complaint dated 1-4-88 to the management . On receipt of the above complaint the concerned workman was charge- sheeted vide order dated 7 /8-4-88 and was placed under suspension Pending enquiry. He replied to the chargesheet which was not found satisfactory. After conclusion of the domestic enquirythe workman was released from suspension with effect from 16-6-89 . It has been submitted that the action of themanagement in not allotting a residential quarter to the concerned workman and placing him under suspension pending enquiry is fully justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Rajapura Colliery ofM/s . E. C. Ltd. AND Their Workmen.

Present : Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers : Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate

For the Workmen None

State : Jharkhand : Industry: Coal 4. After filing their written statements both the parties did not take any step from 1-9-97 till 17-5-10. Registered notice was sent to both the parties on 20-5-10 fixing the case for adducing evidence by the workman on 19-8-10. On 19-8-10 Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate , for the management appeared but none appeared on behalf ofthe workmen. The case was adjourned on that date fixing on 22-10-10 for the same purpose. But again on that date management's counsel appeared, but heither the concerned. workman nor union representative appeared. It appears that neither the concerned workman nor the union is interested to contest the case . It appears from the record that this case is pending since last 20 years .

Dated, the 19th January, 2011

AWARD

5. In such circumstances, it is needless to keep this case pending for such a long period. Accordingly, I render a 'No Dispute' Award in the present case.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

By Order No. L-20012/332/89 IR ( Coal -1 ) dated 13-7-90 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: :

"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (CITU) for employment of the dependent son of Shri M.B. Patel, Attendance Clerk, Rajpura Colliery ofM/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , w.e.f. April , 1983 is justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?"

का.आ. 626.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 156/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/332/89- आईआर ( सी-1 ) . ]

डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. In this reference case both the parties have filed their respective written statements and rejoinders . Thereafter by order dated 22-7-2010 the case was fixed for 1925 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Dated, the 18th January, 2011 AWARD WO

TOR

atto By Order No. 1-20012/273 /89 - IR (Coal - I) , dated 324-41990 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section (1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal siteubers adducing evidence by the workmen on 25-8-10 for which registered notices were sent to the parties . But on 25-8-10 no evidence was produced by the workman though a last chance was given, so the case was adjourned to 21-9-10 for same purpose. On 21-9-10 also none appeared on behalf ofthe concerned workman . In such circumstances , I was constrained to hold that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is not interested to contest the case. This case is of the year 1990. So, it is needless to keep this case pending so long .

3. Accordingly, I render a ' No. Dispute' Award in the present industrial dispute.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

Whether the action ofthe management of Jharkhand hether the action Colliery of M/s . " C.C.L. , P. O. Jharkhand, Dist. Hazaribagh by not promoting S/ Shri Mahendra Prasad, (2) Binod Kumar Chaudhury, (3 ) Yogeshwar Bharti , (4) Shobhi Lal , (5 ) Ambika Rajak, ( 6) Anil Kumar and, (7)1.(7 ) Rambachan Prasad of Jharkhand Colliery w.e.f. 29-9-86 and not making Payment of their arrear dues is justified? If not, towhat relief the workmen concerned entitled

का.आ. 627. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स 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 संख्या-1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या) 102/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को-1-2-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं., एल-20012/273/89- आईआर ( सी- I ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

220In this reférence true to noh- appearance of sponsoring union, Organising Secretary, Indian Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association , to file statement of claim inspite of repeated notice , a ' No Dispute ' Award was passedon 27-12-90. But on 17-1-91 a petition was filed by the sponsoring union praying to re-call the award and to hear the matter afresh. Considering the Potition of the sponsoring union the ' no dispute award was set aside and restored the reference to its original file .

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

i 3. After that both the parties appeared and took steps. But again the sponsoring union failed to appear on some dates . Thereafter the casecase was fixed for adducing evidence by the management for which notices were sent to both the parties by registered post fixing the case on. 11-8-10. Since the case related to the year 1990, a last chancewas given to adduce evidence by the manaement .

S.O. 627. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 102/90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court- 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-02-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/273/ 89 - IR (C- I ) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

On 11-8-10 neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring union appeared . In such circumstances I am constrained to hold that neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring union are interested to contest the case further.1-2-001ca1005- ok 101 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

4. Accordingly, Irender a 'No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .

NHM. SINGH , Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of a reference U/ S . 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofI.D. Act .

नई दिल्ली . फरवरी 201

Reference No. 102 of 1990

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Jharkhand Colliery of M/ s . C. C.L.

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

का.आ. 628. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी. एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीचे , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक गा अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायाहव संख्या 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) 32/2001) को प्रका शत करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को -2-11 की प्राप्त हुआहुआ था ร อย่างไวथा ।

: Shri D. K. VERMA, Advocates

For the Employers

ной botnsеби эй чи [ सं/ एल -20012/321/99-आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] : None protetaan

For the Workmen

डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी State: Jharkhand . Industry Co

ante sool of

340G1 /11-27 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

[PART II-SEC,3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 628. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011 .

[No. L-20012/321 /99- IR(C-I) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2 , ATDHANBAD.

Present: Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 )

(d) ofthe I.D.Act . , 1947,

Reference No. 32 of2001

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of E. J. Area ofM/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf ofthe workman :

Mr. S. N. Goswami , Advocate.

Onbehalf of the employers :

Mr. U. N. Lall,

Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry:Coal.

ill and under went treatment, so the circumstances being beyond control he could not report . it and after his recovery and completion of Shradh Ceremony he submitted his medical certificate and requested the management to resume his duty but he was not allowed. Though the departmental enquiry to be held was fixed on 22-12-1994 yet it was adjourned to 30-12-1994, the enquiry proceeding was concluded on the same day without giving him reasonable opportunity to defend. The Enquiry Officer under influence and pressure submitted his enquiry report without supplying its copy, depriving him of his right to appealing before the Competent Authority. The aforesaid enquuiry was not fair, proper rathor against the principle of naturaljustice. Accordingly the management dismissed the workman from his service on the basis of the enquiry report which was quite illegal and unjustified. Besides that the chargesheet and the letter of dismissal being issued by the Project Officer of the colllery concerned who was neither competent disciplinary authority nor appointing authority under the Mines Act 1952 as well as the Certified Standing Order. The chargesheet was too vague , for the proceeding so his dismissal as a major penalty was liable to be set aside and the workman was legally entitled for his reinstatement in the service, because his aforesaid compelling absence being unintentional was not a misconduct of higher gravity nor it lost any lien on his employment . It is alleged that the management has considered similar cases of dismissal for absentism and reinstated them in the employment . Thus the case of the workman, whose wrongly disemployment might put his family members to distress , is worth considering.

Dated Dhanbad, the 11th January, 2011

AWARD

3. During the reference, the workman since died on 25-2-2004 as per his death certificate dtd . 13-3-2004, has been substituted with his son Basdeo Mallick by virtue of his affidavit dated 2-7-2004 vide Order dated 5-7-2004 on his petition .

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act . 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. 1-20012/321/99-IR(C- I ) dated, the 2nd February, 2000-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofBhowra (N) Colliery of Mr. BCCL in dismissing Shri Bhikha Mallick from the services of the company w.e.f. 30-1-1995 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman in entitled ? "

4. Whereas the case of the management is that the original workman Bhikha Mallick was though working as D.C. Loader ofBhowra (N) U.G. Mine yet was a habitual absentee, for which several chargesheets Nos. 163 dated 3-9-93 , 193 dated 19-11-93 and 95 dated 4-7-94, against which he was given warning and 10 days suspension were confirmed respectively. Despite ample opportunity to him to improve himself, he could not improve up to the mark in his performance . His attendance during the last 3 years before his dismissal were Nil , 91 and 1.18 days in the years 1991 , 1992 and 1993 respectively. In the present case he unauthorisedly absented again from his duty since 22-9-1994 . On filing his reply (Ext. M-2) to the chargesheet (Ext . M - 1 ) unsatisfactory the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer,who submitted his report (Ext. M-5). The workman also participated in the enquiry. On the consideration of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority found the 2. The case of the workman Bhikha Mallick (now deceased) is that he was a permanent D. C. Loader of Bhowra (N) U.G. Colliery/Mines continuously since 1-10-1979 . He maintained his service without any stigma during his long tenure . The management issued chargesheet dated 12-11-1994 for unauthoriosed absence from his duty from 22-9-1994 , because he absented from his duty in order to attend to his seriously ailing aunt as a sole member of his family to look after her; despite his best efforts , she expired, subsequently he became 1927 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

settled law that the pleading cannot be a substitute for proofas held in the case of Manager, R. B. I. Bangalore- versus S. Mani and other reported in 2005 ( 105) F. L.R. 1067(S).

charges of habitual absentism and habitual indiscipline fully established , and accordingly dismissed him as per dismissal order dated 30-1-1995 (Ext . M- 7) . On supplying the copy of the enquiry report to the workman before his dismissal, he had accepted his guilty in course of enquiry. So the action of the management in dismissal of the concerned workman from his service of the company due to habitual absentism is alleged to be just, fair and proper as per policy of the company.

9. All along the enquiry proceeding , the representation of workman as stated in his reply dated 9-12-94 (M-2) as also in his statement (Ext. M-4/1 ) before the Enquiry Officer is that due to serious illness of his auntwhom nobody was to look after except him he got busy in her treatment though she expired. The Enquiry Report (Ext . M- 5) also carries the aforesaid statement of the workman under its para-5.

5. In the instant case I find that on the examination ofMW- 1 R. J. Ram , Personnel Manager posted at Sudamdih Colliery who had held the enquiry as the Enquiring Officer, the predecessor of the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice as per Order dated 5-4-2006 . The aforesaid Mr. R. J. Ram as MW- 1 in addition to the aforesaid enquiry documentary proof has also proved the note dated 13-12-94 , enquiry proceeding dated 30-12-94, notesheet prepared by the office of the General Manager dtd . 19-1-95 and the approval of the dismissal approved by the Q. M. on 23-1-95 as Exts . M-3 , M-4 series , M- 6, series respectively.

FINDING WITH RESASON

6. At the very outset I find worth noting that in the instant case MW- 1 R. J. Ram has been examined as the Enquiry Officer on the preliminary point whether the domestic enquiry was held fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. After holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper by this Tribunal on 5-4-2006 the case came up for hearing argument on merits.

7. On the consideration the evidence of MW- 1 R. J. Ram the Personnel Manager at Sudamdih Coal Washery who held domestic enquiry against the workman Bhikha Mallick I find the following facts as indisputable:-

(1) The workman was a permanent employee as D. C. Loader at Bhowra (N ) U.G. Mines l.e. 16 A

Incline.

10. The aforesaid chargesheet issued to the workman had the direction to him to explain in writing within 48 hours of the receipt of it but such explanation of his conduct within 48 hours relates to Minor Penalty under cisuse 27.1 as contrasted with Clause 27.2 under hearing "Major Penalty" of the Certified Standing Order and the later sub-clause provides an opportunity to the workman to explain his conduct within a period of 7 days though the concerned workman submitted his reply to the chargesheet on 9-12-1994 . On the consideration of the dismissal order given by the management to the workman (Ext . M -7) which is based on the enquiry report dated 4-1-94 (Ext . M- 5) I find that the workman was allegedly found guilty of the charges of unauthorised absence as levelled against him in the Chargesheet . But unfortunately only first charge for his wilful absence from 22-9-94 has been proved against him and the workman had fully justified his absence due to serious illness of his aunt followed by her demise during the domestic enquiry. It is evident from the aforesaid stance of the management that the workman was apparently victimised because of his dismissal from the permanent service on the vague charges stated in the chargesheet . The very dismissal order dated 27/30-1-95 was issued by the Project Officer who appears not the competent authority to do so. In addition to the aforesaid facts, I find the glaring mistake on the part of the management no second show cause was issued by the competent authority concerned to the workman about his punishment before dismissal as per the principle of natural justice.

(ii) The workman faced the domestic enquiry for his unauthorised absence from his duty from 22-9-1994 as per his chargesheet dtd. 12-11-94 (Ext . M-1 ).

11. In view of the aforesaid finding 1 find that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman concerned for his absence was quite disproportionate to his absence in issue . Therefore, I hold that the action ofthe management concerned in dismissal of Shri Bhikha Mallick from his service ofthe company with effect from 30-1-1995 is thoroughly illegal and unjustified . Since the workman died on 25-2-2004 as per his death certificate dated 13-3-2004 (a public document ) during the tenure of his service, his dependent son Basdeo Mallick as substituted petitioner deserves appointment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father late Bhikha Mallick as the aforesaid dependant son Basdeo Mallick is entitled to. Management is directed 8. In the instant case, I find that the chargesheet (Ext . M- 1 ) relates to two charges (a) Habitual late attendance or wilful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause and (b) Habitual indiscipline or wilful in subordination of disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of higher authority was under clause 26.1.1 and 26.1.10 of C. S.O. (Certified Standing Order) respectively. So far as previous chargesheets as pleaded by the management in the W. S. having been issued against the workman as well as the aforesaid second charges of habitual indispline has not been substantiated by the MW- 1 R. J. Ram as the Enquiry Officer. It is 1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011/PHALGUNA 7, 1932

to implement the Award within 3 months from the datetod of its pulication in the Gazette of India, bar inn 2202100

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 1 फरवरी, 2011

ça

soupon

का.आ. 629, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947-(1949-1- का 14 )) कीकी धाराधारा 1717 केके अनुसरणअनुरअनुसरण में,में, केन्द्रीयकेन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल.के. एल. के प्रबंधितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्टऔद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकारको 1-2-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था mind of witosi sitt bad Tonkin doua sud it to garen od te zood 86 नं एल -20012 /50/2005 - आईआर ( li डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

Dis New Dolhic the lat February, 2011 S.O. 629. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Centrafvod Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2004 ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal cum Labour oft Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ms. B.C.C.L. and their workman, as which was received by the Central Governalent ons 1-02-2011 wineda tait virno γλυτεαυπολαν

[ No.1-20012/50/2005 -IR (C-Dutt

DISS SRINIVASA BAO, Desk Officers mayur chartók: sh mast suabive at si grip to steamob

Пром период на конеаd to ANNEXURE mon name i to samboed bezimitiv

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT to soivier INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. ZAT DHANBAD SAT

Present Shri Kishorf Ram , Presiding officers κα

Inthe matter ter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1 ) (d) of the D. Act, 1947.

BusReference No. 83 of2005. 17οσίου γάτους

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofBCC W. W. Zone and their workman .

APPEARANCEus : annak kami s

Onbehalf ofthe workmanworkman

Mr. D. N.N. Banerjee Advocated

Mr.U. Lal morita vt mch list i quit Onbehalf of the employerster

mt cutis atiw vestros alt Advocate JoifleM

[ PART IISEC. 3( ii)] 01

of "Whether the action of the management o Moonidin Coal Washery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Tushar Kanti Chaudhary, Sr. Technical Inspector (Q.C.) from the services wef 2-8-2004 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman in entitled bagelis za matonda lacliδική ως κοινοτητα

se 2. Shri D. N. Banerjee , Ld . Advocate with authorisation petition duly under signature ofworkman Tushar Kanti Chatuchury along with pétition for withdrawal of industrial dispute filed on behalf of thert aforesaid workman, is present on his behalf and Mr. U.N. Lall , Ed. Advocate for the management is also present . mhiw Moving the petition of withdrawal of the industrial dispute case on behalf of workman , Mr. Banerjee Lid Counsol for the workman submits that the case has been garned fixed for filing W.S. by the parties, but the workman does be not want to proceed with the case further. So he begs tow for permission of the Count to withdraw the dispute or to drop it. Mr. U. N. Lall , Ed. Advocatefor the management.. did not oppose to itzMwMM30-1-18 3. Perused the case rebord: I find diat the schedule relates the dismissal of workman, Tushar Kanti Chaudhury, Senior Technical Inspector ( OC) from the services with effect from 2-8-2004 under adjudication. The case has beenbeen running for filing documents on behalf of of the workman . But meanwhile , the workman does not not want to proceed for the reason as orallyas orally submitted by his aforesaid LdLd. Counsel D. N.ID. N. Banerjee , Advocate that he has already retired from his service 5 years back. So he seeks withdrawal of his case . Since the case has been referred by the Labour Ministry, Now Delhi , so it cannot be withdrawn, rather in de of his disinclination to proceed with the case, the same is olosed and accordingly, order sin passed niwolfot ont bed 1 Jaillard sozite

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer A , 1 फरवरी, 2011

का.आ. 630.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 कीधारा के अनुसरण मेंकी धारा के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.) सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था a louridal co aittiw w wodne big - 20012/ 220 / 98- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ]

Industry Coal.200-1.00

State: Jharkhandi bpa lagali

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th January , 20112011. Horow

ativM vabe ORDER án Trávna zid to

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act. 1947 has referred the following set dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/50/2005 - I.R. (C- I), dated, the 26th July, 2005 .

usb की एस एन श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्कअधिकारी Dehas New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011

Government herebypublishes the award (Ref: No. 116/99) SO. 630.In pursuance of Section 17 of the w Industrial: Disputes Act 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Centrali of the Central Governmerid Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court -2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the 1929 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-02-2011.

4. The present schedúle under adjudication relates to unregularisation of workman Habu Das in Clerical Grade by the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL, despite his performance as a clerk as per order of the management on various dates.

[No. L- 20012/220 /98 - IR (C- I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 2 AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer. Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )

(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 116 of 1999

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area ofM/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the

Shri Habu Das , the concerned workman himself.

workman

None

Onbehalfofthe management

Industry:Coal.

State : Jharkhand

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th January, 2011

5. From the perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement it is clear that none of the copies thereof bears the signature of the representative of the union..... concerned, though it bears the signature of the workman Habu Das as well as those of the management authority concerned. Yet the Office Order dated 28-2-2009 , which has been filed along with the petition on behalf of the workman representative RCMS , mentions the name of workman Habu Das along with other 11 workmen Arjun Singh and others; it mentions the regularisation of this workman along with his colleagues in Clerical Grade-III with pay protection . The petition filed on behalf of the representative union through his Lawyer Shri B. N. Singh , Advocate mentions that the workman/union unequivocally but amicably settled the dispute in issue with the management as also agreed by the management that the services of the workman Habu Das has been regularised in Clerical Grade - III with effect from 31-12-2000 and on his transfer, he has been working accordingly at Basseriya Colliery Kusunda Area VI of M/ s . BCCL .

AWARD

Under these circumstances , I find that the dispute under adjudication has been amicably settled. So no dispute exists anymore for adjudicaiton , as it requires no proceeding further for the present . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly order is passed.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1) (d) of the ED . Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/220/98- I.R. dated, 29-1-99.

SCHEDULE

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in not regularising Sri Habu Das in Clerical Cadre although he is performing the work of a clerical as per order of the management of various dates , is justified? If not, to what reljef the workman is entitled to?"

का.आ. 631.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या: 75/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The concerned workman Habu Das is personally present . But none appears on behalf of the management.

[सं. एल-20012/44/2005- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 631. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011ИМА УЧ

[ No. L-20012/44/2005 - IR (C- I) ]

adway D.S.S SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer 3. Today, it is fixed for hearing over the petition previously filed on behalf of the union represented through Ld . Lawyer B. N. Singh, Advocate and also under the signature of workman Habu Das as a witness accompanied with the Office Order of the management . 28-2-2009 as well as a petition along with a Memorandum of Settlement in Form H ( in six copies ) in the pen and signature of the workman . The workman Habu Das himself submits that he has got from BCCL Headquarters , Koyla Bhawan the letter No.154 dated 28-2-2009 that he along with other PR/TR employees, who were engaged/ deployed in Ministerial/Clerical job prior to 31-12-2002, are continuing on the said job till the date , they have been regularised in Clerical Grade - III with pay protecion . As such the workman prays for not contesting the case .

1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

Present: Shri Kishori Ram, PresidingOfficer

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )

(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

principle of natural justice, and found him guilty ofthe charges . So the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report (Ext . M -7) along with notesheets (Ext . M- 8 ) . The Disciplinary Authority conceding to the finding of the enquiry report and in lack of non -representation of the workman in response to the enquiry report dismissed him as per his dismissal letter dated 3-7-2003 (Ext , M9) .

Reference No. 75 of2005

Parties:Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area ofM/s . B. C.C.L. and their workman

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Workman

: Shri Ram Ratan Ram , Advocate'

: Shri D. K. Verma,Advocate.

Onbehalf of the employers

State: Jharkhand : Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th January, 2011

AWARD

4. Further, it is alleged that before his dismissal , the Disciplinary Authority had considered past record of the workman and found him as habitual absentee; that previously he was also chargesheeted for his absentism and accordingly he was awarded punishment of stoppage of 2 S. P. R.A. , even then the workman committed the same misconduct . His attendance for the last three years were found 163 , 152, and 73 days in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001 upto 28-8-2001 respectively. As such, his dismissal was quite legal justified after holding a domestic enquiry fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice.

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) (d) of the 1.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/44/2005-1.R. (C-1 ) dated, the 26th July, 2005.

SCHEDULE

5. From the perusal of the case record, I find the union representative of the workman in writing accepted the domestic enquiry as fair and proper but with request for argument on merit, and in that prospective, on the- submission of Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate for the management, the relevant documents concerning the domestic enquiry were marked as Exts . M- 1 to M-9; hence it came up for argument on behalf of baththe sides on merit.

6. In view of the admitted facts in the present case, I find the following facts as indisputable;

"Whether the action of the management ofLoyabad Colliery of M/ s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Nil Madhab Bhuia from the services of the company w.e.f. 03-7-2003 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

(i) The workman concerned was permanent employee as Miner/Loader in Loyabad Colliery:

(ii) The concerned workman unauthorisedly got absent from his duty since 11-7-2001 for which he faced the domestic enquiry by participating in it.

(iii) The case has proof of punishment by stoppage ofThis 2 S. P. R. A. awarded against the workman for his previous absentism in the year 2000 as apparent from Ext . M-8 .

2. The case of the workman Nil Madhab Bhuia is that ex-M/L as permanent M/L had been sincerely and punctually working in Loyabad Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL since his appointment on 25-9-95 . Suddenly he went to his village where he seriously fell ill suffering from peculiar disease, for which he got Baidic treatment of herbal medicine. After recovery from his illness.he represented before the management to resume his duty on 28-8-2001 but he was not allowed to do so rather the management took long time to hold a domestic enquiry which was unfair and unjustified. Being illiterate , he could not inform the management of his illness. But the management dismissed him from his service with effect from 3-7-2003 without any rhyme or reason, so the workman is entitled to reinstate in his service with full back wages .

7. On the consideration of the documents which was exhibited for the management on the basis of the admission of the union representative-cum -Advocate Ram Ratan Ram for the workman, I find that though the workman tried to justify his absence from the duty for the disputed period due to his sudden illness he had represented in the enquiry which was held, he sought apology for it as apparent from his statement under his signature before the Enquiry Officer and the same appears to be contradictory as stated in his reply (Ext . M-3) (under his signatures) . I am tempted to quote the case of General Manager, Hindustan Zinc Ltd -versus- Union of India 2005 LLR 328 (Rajasthan High Court), in which it has been held : ' Dismissal of a workman for habitual absence will be justifled even if the absence was due to alleged illhealth' .

8. Therefore, I find and hold that the action of the management of Loyabad Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissal ofworkman Nil Madhab Bhuia from his services with effect from 03-7-2003 was fair and justified. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief.

3. Whereas specifically denying the aforesaid facts of the workman, the management pleaded that though the workman was a permanent Miner /Loader of Loyabad Colliery yet he began to absent from his duty since 11-7-2001 in an unauthorised way which amounted a misconduct as per clause 26.7.1 of C. S.O. Hence he was chargesheeted vide chargesheet dated 4-2-2003 (Ext . M-2) for his aforesaid unathorised absence . On receipt of the chargesheet (Ext . M -2 ) followedby notices Ext . M -4 & M-5 series . The workman submitted his reply (Ext . M-3 ) which was found unsatisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority. Consequently Shri Surendra Prasad, Sr. Personnel Officer of the Colliery was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority (Ext . M - 1 ). Accordingly he had held a domestic enquiry into the charge against the workman in accordance with the

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer 1931

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their OrderNo. L-20012/425 /96- IR(Coal -I), dated the 20th February, 1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management in denial to regularise Sri Yogeshwar Yadav as Electrical Supervisor , T & S Grade -A since 7-1-86 is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

का.आ. 632, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/98) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/425/96- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 632. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref, No. 50/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011.

[No. L-20012/425 /96- IR (C-I ) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

Present: Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Disputes under Section 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947

Reference No. 50 of 1998

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workman

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : Shri Yogeshwar Yadav the concerned workman himself.

2. The case of the workman Yogeshwar Yadav is that with his Supervisory licence/certificate in electrical trade.from the Licencing Board, Govt . ofBihar since earlier than 7-1-86 as a pre-requisite qualification for the work of Electrical Supervisor, he had been independently working as Electrical Supervisor by performing the work over high tension line , overhead line, those connected with the yard of33 KV or 11 KV O.C.B. and their distribution thereof in hisshift as per entries in the registers ofdaily log book and registers concerned of D.G. Station, sub- station Jealgora. From 28-1-94 the works to be done by an Electrical Supervisor, were being taken from him in his shift after his posting in Bararee No. 6 Section of Bhulanbararee Colliery where he also performs the work ofrepair of overhead line , that ofsub-station O.C.B. , ofunderground mines , electrical starters , S.D.L Machine , Haulage , resistance and control as well as other high tension machineries . The aforesaid workswere and are being performed by him independently as per Indian Electricity Rules by virtue of his aforesaid qualifications since earlier than the aforesaid date , yet he was not regularised in T & S Grade-A Electrical Supervisor from appropriate retrospective date with all benefits therefor by the management , though upon his persuasion and representation, the management regularised him with much below in lower T & S Grade -C with his designation as Asstt. Foremannot befitting for him with effect from 28-1-94 only with the notional seniority from 7-1-86 which is contraryto the Cadre Scheme to be followed in his case . Upon the failure of the conciliation in his industrial dispute raised before the ALC (C) , Dhanbad , the case came up for adjudication before this Tribunal . However , pleaded in the rejoinder ofthe workman that he comes under NCWA , and that a person having 3 or more than 3 years experience with the Supervisory licence for surface is to be promoted as an Electrical Supervisor in the aforesaid Grade-A.

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate .

Industry: Coal

State: Jharkhand

Dated, Dhanbad, the 6th January, 2011

AWARD

3.Whereas the pleadings of the management as the opposite party is that he is not a workman as defined in the I.D. Act, 1947. He only supervises the job ofthe workman ofthe colliery, but doing not any manual job . The workman Yogeshwar Yadav was posted as Electrician in Cat. VI at D.G. Station of Jealgora , was subsequently promoted to T& S Grade as Asstt . Foreman Electrical with effect from 7-1-86 having supervisory certificate for surface . Since his transferto Bararee Colliery in January, 1994, he has been The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on then under Section 1932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] working as Technical Supervisor Grade - C , his certificate was not valid for mining purpose , because promotion in next higher grade as for the Cadre Scheme for E & M personnel pré - supposes the requisite qualification- supervisory certificate for mining post, but the workman has no such essential qualification for it . Moreover , the designation ofElectrical Supervisor , Grade-A does not exist as per job nomenclature in cadre scheme etc. of the company. However, on consideration of stagnation , the management provided him supervisory Grade- B under S.L.U. The present qualification of the concerned workman does not make him eligible for any regularisation in Technical Supervisory Grade-A. So his such demand is illegal and unjustified.

4. On the secrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence as adduced on behalf ofthe concerned workman and the management , I find the admitted facts as stand out as under :-

(1) Initially before 1986 , the workman was posted as Electrician in Cat. VI at D.G. Station, Jealgora.

6. The concerned workman Yogeshwar Yadav as WW- 1 on the basis ofhis present qualification has claimed for his entitlement to get Technical Grade- A with effect from 1986 instead ofGrade-C as justified. But on the other side, Awadesh Sharma, Superintending Engineer (E & M) , MW- 1 , of Bararee Colliery has clearly stated the claim of the concerned workman as unjustified, because for getting promotion in the post of Electrical Supervisor, the workman must possess Electrical Supervisory licence ( for surface and the underground) which is granted by the D.G.M.S. who is the licencing authority. In view ofthe present status of the workman, Shri D. K. Verma, Ld. Counsel for the management relying upon the authority; 2004 SCC (L & S) 264 (DB) , Ramanuj Prasad- versus - Coal India Ltd. & others has submitted as held therein , that in absence ofthe order of promotion passed in his favour, the employee has no legal right/ claim based on officiation in the promotional post for the last 10 years (para -7) appears to be plausible in the present case . I find that the claim of this workman for promotion to the Electrical Supervisor ( T & S) Grade-A with retrospective effect i.e. 7-1-86 in baseless anddevoid ofmerits whatsoever worth considering.

(ii) The management promoted him to the post of Asstt. Foreman Electical Grade-C with effect from 1-7-1986.

(iii) On the basis of S.L.U. ( Service Linked Upgradation) , the management provided him the wages ofGrade-B.

7. On all considerations of the entire facts and legal position of both the parties , I find and hold the action of the management in denial of regularisation of workman Yogeshwar Yadav as Electrical Supervisor, T & S Grade-A since 7-1-86 is quite justified and legal . So the workman concerned is not entitled to get any relief.

(iv) And lastly the workman does not possess a licence to work in the underground.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 633.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा, 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स 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 संख्या-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/ 194/2002- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 633. 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 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court - 2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M/ s . C.C.L. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 1-02-2011 .

5. The contention ofthe workman in the back drop of his own case is that he has been possessing Electrical Supervisory Certificate issued by the competent authority on7-1-1986. But not a single document produced as a proof ofhis such claim . His further plea that other workman of the BCCL concerned possessing the same qualification of Electrical Supervisory Certificate have been given T & S Grade-A from the date of their certificate issued by the competent authority is untenable , because of the fact that it was never pleaded in his pleading . However, office order dated 16-7-1982 (Ext . W- 1 ) as also contended by the workman , shows 9 persons as enumerated therein on passing their electrical supervisory examination followed by authorisation to work as Electrical Supervisor, were regularised to the post of Electrical Supervisor Grade -A in the pay scale of Rs . 722 , ... 1278 whereas admittedly the workman as anAsstt. Foreman in Grade -C was promoted. Office Order dated 22-10-2001 of C.M.E./Project Officer Bararee Colliery (Ext . W- 2) shows that the workman Yogeshwar Yadav along with 2 others was assigned the work of Electrical Supervisor at Bararee Colliery which seems to have been passed for the purpose of smooth functioning and rationalisation of work concerned . So this proof by no means supports the claim ofthe workman.

[No. L- 20012/ 194/2002 -IR(C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer 1933 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

and it has been prayed on his behalf that since the management has provided employment to him with effect from 28-6-2010 , for which this reference case was brought by him, so the union and he decline to contest the case and 'No dispute' Award or any order may be passed.

Present: Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947

Reference No. 34 of2003

5.On the perusal of the case record, it is evident that the case was running for the evidence of the management but meanwhile the aforesaid petition has been filed for passing an order on the ground that he has got employment as dependent son of his late father Jago Mahato (Jego Mahato), Ex. P.R./T.R. The Learned Counsel D.K. Verma for the management also conceded to it.

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Kalyani Project of M/ s . C.C. Ltd and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : Shri Bharat Mahato , the concerned workman himself.

Onbehalf of the employers Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate.

Industry: Coal .

State: Jharkhand.

6.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find and hold that to proceed with the case under consideration related providing employment to the petitioner Shri Bharat Mahato as the dependent son of late Jago Mahato (Jego Mahato ) , Ex . P.R./T.R. which has been given to the petitioner by letter No. PD/ MP/Apptt ./9-3-0./ 2710 dated 1-6-2010 is unwarranted, because he has been provided employment in Cat . I under NCWA.VIII . Therefore, the case is closed, and accordingly it is held that the main issue in this reference has been settled . Accordingly the order is passed.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th January, 2011

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

The Central Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. 0012 / 194 /2002 - IR (Coal - I ) , dated, the 10th March, 2003

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 634. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या- 178/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/94/88- डी आई वी (ए) -आईआर (सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Kalyani Project of M/ s . C.C. Ltd. not to provide employment to Sh. Bharat Mahato , dependent son of late Jego Mahato ex - PR/TR is justified ? If not, to what relief is the said dependent of the workman concerned entitled ?"

2. The case under reference relates to the providing of employment to Sh . Bharat Mahato , dependent son of late Jago Mahato (Jego Mahato) by the management of Kalyani Project ofM/s . C.C. Ltd.

3. To-day the petitioner Bharat Mahato as well as Sari D. K. Verma , Ld . Advocate for the management is present.

S.O. 634.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 178/ 1989) 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 o M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011.

[No. L-20012/94/88 - D.IV (A)-IR (C- I) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 4.Apetition filed on behalf of the union as well as the aforesaid petitioner along with its one copy and one photo copy of this appointment letter issued by the Imanagement to the petitioner himselfpresent in the Court,

540 G1/11--28 1934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

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

regularisation of the concerned workanan is unjustified and he is entitled to be regularised from the date his co-workers have been regularised.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 DHANBAD

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

Act. ,

Reference No. 178 of 1989.

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Dahibari Colliery ofM/s . B CCL.

AND

Theirworkmen ,

Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers

: Shri B. M. Prasad, Advocate .

For the workmen

: None

State: Jharkhand.

Industry:Coal.

Dated, the 13th January, 2011

AWARD

3. The case of the management is that Sri Sahadeo Singh was a supplier of clay cartridges at the rates fixed betweenthe perties. He was not a contractor for carrying on contract jobs under the direction of the management. Therefore , the claim of the concertied workman that Sahadeo Singh was a contractor and he was a contract labour is incorrect . For meeting the demand of clay cartridges on regular besis , the management decided to manufacture clay Certridgesby engaging it's own workthen . The management did not went to remain at the mercy of a Clay Cartridge Suplier. The management took the decision to select the clay cartridge makers out of the workman engaged by the Clay Cartridge Suppliers on the job ofmanufacture ofcley cartridges . The management called for interview all the applicants who applied for the jobs of Clay Cartridge Mazdoors andwere selected according to their merits after escartaining their previous experience . The edñeerned workman did not apply for the job of a Clay Cartridge Mazdoor and his name did not appear in the list ofworkman employed by Sahadeo Singh . Therefore, he was tieither called for interview nor was selected as Clay Cartridge Mazdoor, as such not employed: Hence, the concerned workman has no right to claim for employment on any court. He is not entitled to any relief.

ByOrderNo. L-20012/ 94 /88 - D.IV(A )-IR(Coal -I), dated 24-11-89 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

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

"Whether the action of the management of Dahibari Collieryunderthe General Manager, Chanch Victoria Area in debarring from departmentalisation of Sri Nand Kumar Singh is justified ? Ifnot, towhat relief the workman is entitled ?"

5. The concernedworkman produced himselfasWW- 1. He also produced WW- 2 , Narendra Prasad Singh and WW- 3 , Chandra Bhusan Mishra . The workman has produced documents which have been marked as Exts . W- 1 toW-5.

The management has produced MW- 1 , Upendra Kumar Sinha and MW-2, P.K. Malaker. Management has proved documents as Exts . M- 1 toM-4.

6. By order dated 17-5-2010 the case was fixed for 19-8-2010 for hearing argument. But on 19-8-2010 neither side appeared inspite of sending registered notice to them. Again the case adjourned to 17-9-10 for the same purpose. On 17-9-2010 Shri B.M. Prasad, Advocate , appeared on behalf ofthe management, but even that date none was present on behalf of the workman . It seems that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested for their demand .It appears from the record that this case is pending since 1989.

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he wasworking as Clay Cartrige Maker under Sahadeo Singh, Contractor of Clay Cartrige supplier since February, 1985under the control of the management, Clay Cartrige is an essential material used in blasting of coal comes under prohibited category of work given to the contractor. While he was working as such he got a letter from home that his mother is seriously ill . He went home in the month of November, 1987. While at his home he was informed by his friend that contractor and management are going to regularise the Clay Cartrige maker in which his name has been left out. The concerned workman and the Union represanted to the management regarding regularisation of the concerned workman but the management did not listen at all and hence an industrial dispute was raised which has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously be pleased to hold that the action of the management of Dahibari Colliery in deberring from

7. In view ofsuch circumstances , after hearing Shri B.M. Prasad, Advocate for the management and after going through the written statements of both the sides and considering the evidence on record. I come to the conclusion that the action ofthe management of Dehibari Colliery under 1935 भारत का राजपन्न : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग !!- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Dated, the 11th January, 2011

AWARD

tha General Manager, Chanch Victorie Area in debarring from departmantalisation of Sri Nand Kumar Singh, concerned workman , is justified and accordingly he is not entitled to any relief,

This is myAward.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

By Order No. L- 20012 /353/ 99 - IR ( C - I ) , dated 28-1-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the demand of the Union before the management ofNichitpur Colliery under Sijua Area ofM/s . BCCL to regularise Srijogindra Nonia, as Time Rated Driver, since the workman continuously working as such since 1993 is proper and justified ? Ifso, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

का.आ. 633, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-1 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/353/99- आईआर(सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 635. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court- 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 01-02-2011 .

[No. L-20012/353/99 - IR (C- I) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 DHANBAD

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

Reference No. 84 of2000

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was appointed on 4-8-1986 as a piece -rated Miner/Loader, In the year 1989 the management engaged him as haulage Operator, a time-rated job, in Cat - III but continued to pay Group A-AMiner/Loader, without converting from piece- rated to time -rated. In the year 1993 the management directed the workman from Haulage Operator to the job of Driver, a T/Rjob in Cat. V of NCWA on clear vacancy. Due to scute shortage of Drivers in Nichitpur Colliery, the workmanwas picked- up for the job , as he had valid Driving Licence issued by the competent District Administrative/ authority. The management neither properly recategorised the workman as Driver nor paid proper Category wages but also intentionally did not pay difference ofwages of Cat. V and Cat. V- A. During the period from 1993 to 1996 the workman had put in more than 240 days attendance each year. The management authorised the concerned workman under the Mines Act, 1952 and Rules made thereunder to work as Driver and did not give designation ofDriver but as Driver (T) with Group Wages ofGroup V-A piece ratedjob . The concerned workman represented before themanagement several times for his regularisation as time- rated Driver in Cat. V but without any effect. An industrial dispute raisedbefore A.L.C. (C) which was ended in failure and thereafter the present dispute has been referred for adjudication by this Tribunal . 48 employees doing regular jobsofT/R were regularised in Time Rated in the year 1997 butthe workman's case was not considered.

Parties Employers in relation to the management of SijuaArea of M/ s . B.C.C.Ltd .

AND

Theirworkmen

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble be pleased to pass an award by directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as Driver in time- rated Job in Cat. V

Present: Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

: Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate .

Forthe Employers

For the workman : Shri S.C. Gour, Advocate , & Vice- President, N.C.W.C.

3. The case ofthe management is that the concerned workman was appointed as a Miner /Loader and was working as a Miner / Loader. In the year 1993 , the management gave an opportunity to the workman and posted him as a Driver (trainee) to improve his skill . The Time Rated jobs are divided into six categories on the basis Industry: Coal.

State : Jharkhand.

1936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932 .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

another place on 17-3-2001 and as per Ext . W- 2/4 Office Order the concerned workman was transferred from one place to another as Dumper Driver. As per Ext . W- 2/5 Office Order dated 7-6-2000 the concerned workman was ordered to report for dutyto S.E. (Excvn.) NCCP and as per Ext .W- 3 the concerned workman's name has been placed at Sl . No. 9 for reporting to Driver (T) Cat . V. In this respect the concerned workman moved number of application as per Ext. W-4, W-4/ 1 , Ext. W-4/2 and Ext. W-4/3 fromtime to time .

of skill required for performance of such job . A General Mazdoor performed the unskilled job and is fixed in Category- I , whereas the semi - skilled workers are put into Category- II and other type of skilled workman put into Category - III to Cat. IV, according to the skill required by them and adjudging their capacity to perform the skilled job. When the piece rated workers offered the time rated jobs on some consideration or others , they are selected for different time rated job after necessary trade test and according to the skill required by them for performing the verious kinds of time rated jobs . They are placed in particular category according to skill they possess . The Union demanded regularisation ofthe workman concerned as a Driver in Category- V through an industrial dispute. It is relevant to mention that the promotion of any workman in a particular post is a managerial function and precgative ofthe management . According to the Rules and Regulations of the management the promotion is to be made through D.P.C. after giving equal opportunity to all workman working in the Indusrty. The demand of the Union is neither legal not justified . The management can not promote a single workman byway of regularisation .

7. Management's witness MW- 1 , Babulal Turi , has stated in cross -examination that I cannot say if the concerned workman possessed the heavy driving licence when he was engaged as a driver. As per document proved bythe concerned workman Ext . W- 1 , the management has accepted that he has got Heavy Driving Licence and so he was transferred from one place to another place on 9-7-93 . Management's witness also stated further in cross- examination that without driving licence nobody can work as a driver. He has stated that from 1993 the concerned workman is working as a Driver till now. I cannot say ifthe concerned workman deserves regularisation in Category- V. Still nowhe is getting wages ofGroup VA Miner/Loader. I cannot say if any disciplinery action was taken against him.As per Ext . W- 3 the concerned workman was proposed by the management to be given Category-V.

It has been prayed that this Tribunal be pleased to hold that the demand of the Union is neither legal nor justified and the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief.

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

5. The concerned workman , Jogendra Nonia, has examined himself as WW- 1 and has proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W- 6 .

The management has examind MW- 1 , Babulal Turi and has proved document as Ext . M-1 .

The concerned workman has referred BCCL's Certified Standing Order, letter No. D(P)/PS/90/880 dated 20-10-1990 in which it has been mentioned in Para 7.2 at page 2 that a permanent workman is one who is employed on ajob ofpermanent nature for a period ofatlieast 6 months orwho has satisfactorily put in 6 months continuous service in a permanent post as probationer. It shows that the management has taken work from the concerned workman asHeavy Vehicle Driver since 9-7-93 , so he is entitled for regularisation as time - rated Driver.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances , I hold that the demand of the Union before the management of Nichitpur Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s . BCCL to regularise Sri Jogendra Nonia as Time-Rated Driver since the workman has been continuously working as such since 1993 is proper and justified . So the concerned workman is entitled tobe regularised as Time-Rated Driver in Category- Vafter completion of one year's service as Driver (T) with

difference of wages . The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of theAward.

Thisis myAward.

H, M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011 6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he is doing the job of heavy vehicle driver since 1993. He was appointed as Driver (Trainee) . In this respect the concerned workman has filed documents , Ext . W- 1 which shows that letter was issued by the management on 9-7-93 by which the concerned workman was transferred from HP Inc. to Nichitpur Garrage and as he was having Heavy Vehicle Driving licence his services was utilised as Driver (Trainee) . Another order issued by the management Ext . W- 2 on 13-9-97 which shows that he was transferred from one place to another place as Driver (Trainee) . As per Ext . W-2/ 1 Release order dated 24-3-2001 he was released as Driver from Nichitpur Colliery to Sendra Auto Workshop and as per Ext . W- 2/2 another office order dated 2-6-2000 it has been mentioned that the concerned workman with other Drivers be placed in Excavation Category ' D ' after successfully completion of total training of one year. Again as per Ext . W-2/ 3 the concerned workman was transferred from one place to

का.आ. 636.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स गैस 1937 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Authority of India and they should be regularized from the date of their appointment . In case it is so, to whatrelief these workmen are entitled to ? " अथॉरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2, दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30012/147/97- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011

There are total 15 workmen in this case. Workmen namely, B.R.Bharti, P.C.R.Krishsnan, Bhopal Singh and Murari have amicably settled their dispute with the management in the Lok Adalat held by this Tribunal on 14-12-2010 and they have received the settled amount of Rs.45,000 each by way ofbanker's Cheque in full and final settlement of their claim in this ID No. 12/1999 . These four workmen have already submitted that with this settlement, their entire claim stands satisfied and they have no further claim for reinstatement, any kind of wages or any kind of other allowances /compensation .

S.O. 636.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court -2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Gas Authority of India Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011 .

[No. L- 30012/147/97 -IR (C-I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT- II, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI- 110032

Asregards the remaining workmen , 5 workmen of this case , namely workmen Ashok ( claimant no.14) , B.K.Santosh ( claimant no . 3 ) , Bholu ( claimant no . 15 ) ,Mahipal (claimant no.12) , and Umesh Aggarwal (claimant no . 4) , have already withdrawn all their claims/ dispute against the management in this case. The other six workmen are not attending the proceeding for a very long time. They evidently are not interested in the outcome ofthis reference. In these circumstances , there is no way out except to pass a no dispute award in this case qua the remaining workmen which is passed accordingly. The reference sentby the Central Govt . in ID No. 12/99 stands disposed of accordingly.

ID No.12/1999

Dated: 21-12-2010

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer In the matter of dispute between:

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

Shri Murari Lal & others

Workmen

Versus

The Manager (personal ), GasAuthority of India Ltd. , Bhikaji Camma Place, R.K. Puram , New Delhi.

का.आ. 637.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स गो एयरलाइन्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या -2, दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

..Management

AWARD

[सं. एल -11012/56/2009- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 1st February, 2011 The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No.L -30012/ 147/97 - IR-(C - 1 ) dated 30-11-98 has referred the industrial dispute written in Hindi to this Tribunal for adjudication, the English translation ofwhich is as under:

S.O. 637. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court- 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. , and their "Whether the demand of All India Mazdoor Trade Union regarding workmen Murari Lal and others as mentioned in the list who are employed through the contractor and working in Gas Authority of India should be treated as direct employees of Gas 1938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA- 7 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/56/2009 - IR (C-I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110032

का.आ. 638.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इण्डियन एयरलाइन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या -2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

ID No.67/09

Dated:20-12-2010

[सं. एल -11012/65/98-आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी In The Matter Of Dispute Between:

NewDelhi , the 1st February, 2011

Jitendra Kumar, son of Shri Lakshmi , Airport Employees Union , 3 , V.P.House , Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001 .

Workman

Versus

1.The Base Incharge ,

S.O. 638.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 47/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour CourtNo. -2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Indian Airlines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011.

GoAirlines Pvt.Ltd. , Delhi Regional Office, Terminal-I , IGIAirport, New Delhi - 110001

[No. L- 11012/65/98- IR(C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 2. TheGeneral Manager (HR),

ANNEXURE

GoAirlines Pvt.Ltd. , J.N.Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai -400001

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI- 110032

...Management

ID No.47/99

AWARD

Dated: 16-11-2010

In the matter of dispute between:

Shri Nitin Kumar Wahi ,

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No.L- 11012/56 /2009- IR (CM- I) dated 9-11-2009 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

StoreHelper Staff No.256051 B-4/37 , Ashok Vihar - II

Delhi-52.

Workman "Whether the action of the Management ofM/sGo Airlines ( India) Pvt.Ltd . as claimed by the Union in terminating the services of Sh . Jitender Kumar, driver, w.e.f. 16-10-2008 is justified and legal ? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"

Versus

The Management of Indian Airlines , Through its General Manager, (Store& Purchases ) Indian Airlines Ltd.IGI , NewDelhi .

.Management Ever since the reference has been sent to this court, workman has never appeared . Notice through registered post was also sent to the workman , but he has not appeared . It appears that he is not interested in the outcome of this reference . In this situation , there is no way out except to pass a no dispute award in this case which is passed accordingly. The reference sent by the Central Government stands disposed of accordingly.

AWARD

Dated: 20-12-2010

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No.L- 11012/65 /98- IR( C- I ) dated 22-1-1999 has SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer 1939

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Misc.Application No. 01 of2001 U/ s . 33A of the I.D. Act 1947 (Arising out ofReference No. 07 of2001 ) "Whether the dismissal dated 27-1-1995 of Shri Nitin Kumar Wahi , store helper by the management of Indian Airlines, New Delhi isjustified, fair and legal ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

Parties: Bangladesh Biman Employees Union, 78C, Park Street (Ground Floor), Kolkata-700017.

...Applicant.

-Vs-

Biman Bangladesh Airlines , (Bangladesh Biman Corporation) Chowringhee Mansions , 30/C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata - 700016.

...Opp. Party.

Present :Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, Presiding Officer Theworkman filed his statement of claim in February, 2001. Thereafter , written statement was filed by the management . Rejoinder too, was filed by the workman. Vide orders dated 11-2-2008 this case was transferred from CGIT- I to CGIT- II . Ever since the transfer of this case to this court , the workman has never appeared . No evidence has been led in this case so far. As the workman has not been attending this court sever since the transfer of this case to this court , it is evident that the workman is no longer interested in the outcome of this refererice. Inthese circumstances, there is no way out except to pass a nó dispute award in this case which is passed accordingly. The reference sent by the Central Government stands disposed of accordingly.

APPEARANCES :

Dated: 16-11-2010

Onbehalf of the

Mr. Mihir Bandopadhyay, Vice President of the Union

Applicant

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer

Onbehalf of the :

Mr.Safiqul Islam , नई दिल्ली , 2 फरवरी , 2011

DeputyGeneral Manager

Opp . Party

Industry: Airlines

State: West Bengal

Dated: 27th December, 2010

AWARD

का.आ. 639. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 को 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बिमान बग्लादेश एयरलाइन्स 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 01/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को2-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20013/01/2011- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2011

One joint application from the parties has been filed today and it is contained therein and also submitted by the authorized representatives of both the sides that the dis- pute involved in the present application under Section 33A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been disposed of by way of a mutual settlement in between the parties and as the matter has been settled in between the parties . They do not want to proceed any more with the present refer- ence and a prayer has been made for a consent Award in this application.

2. I have gone through the terms of settlement in the memorandum of settlement annexed with thejoint applica- tion filed today and I find that the terms are fair, reasonable and in the interest of the parties and the same can be entertained alone; with this application for disposal of the matter.

S.O. 639. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 01 / 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Biman Bangladesh Airlines , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-2-2011 .

[No. L-20013/01 /2011 - IR (C- I)]

3. Inview ofthe prayer made in the joint application filed today and also by the version of the authorized representatives of the respective parties . let the present reference be disposed of on amicable settlement in terms D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 1940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

of the memorandum of settlement annexed with the said application filed today.

4. In such a view, an Award on the basis of memorandum of settlement in between the parties is passed accordingly. The joint application together with the memorandum of settlement is made Annexure ' A' of this Award.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata.

27 th December, 2010 .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL KOLKATA MISC . CASE No. 01/2001

BETWEEN BANGLADESH BIMAN CORPORATION (NOW BIMAN BANGLADESH AIRLINES LTD. )

AND

BANGLADESH BIMAN EMPLOYEES UNION JOINT PETITION OF COMPRISE

The humble joint petition on behalf of both parties Mostrespectfully Sheweth

1. That the above matter is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.

2. That both the parties desired to settle the dispute mutually and with that objective held prolonged discus- sions time to time as Dhaka and Kolkata finally reaching an amicable settlement .

3. That the parties resolved the dispute and signed a Memorandum of Settlement on 06-12-2010 . A copy ofthe said settlement is annexed hereto .

It istherefore prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to pass a consent award in terms of the settlement annexed hereto .

And for such act of kindness the parties as duty bound shall ever pray.

Sd/- Mr. Md. Shafiqul Islam Deputy General Manager Legal Affairs BimanBangladesh Airlines Limited Dhaka.

Sd/-- Mr. Quazi Golam Mohammad (Panna) Secretary Bangladesh Bima Employees Union Kolkata .

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

We,Md. Shafiqul Islam and Quazi Golam Mohammad (Panna) do hereby state that the statements contained in paragraphs 1 , 2 & 3 of above petition are statements of facts, true to the best of our knowledge and rest is our humble submission .

Sd/- Mr. Md. Shafiqul Islam DeputyGeneral Manager Legal Affairs BimanBangladesh Airlines Limited Dhaka.

Sd/- Mr.Quazi Golam Mohammad ( Panna) Secretary Bangladesh Bima Employees Union Kolkata.

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SEC 2 (P) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 BETWEEN

BIMAN BANGLADESH AIRLINES LTD . AND BANGLADESH BIMAN EMPLOYEES UNION, KOLKATA

This agreement has been entered into on this the sixthday of December 2010 between Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. here- in - after referred to as " Airline" .

And

Bangladesh Biman Employees Union, Kolkata here- in-after referred to as "Union "

Short Recital

Whereas 05 ( five) casual workers as per Annex- ure A have filed case No. 7/2000 and Misc case No. 01/2001 claiming re - instatement of service with full back wages.

Whereas, the Bangladesh Biman Employees Union , Kolkata representing the workers before the Industrial Tri- bunal ( Central) , Kolkata .

Whereas , all the efforts for a settlement failed and the dispute was then referred to the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kolkata by the appropriate government for adjudication.

Whereas, the disputes are under litigation for a very long time, both the parties considered to settle the matter afresh and expressed their desire to settle the disputes mutually. Prolonged discussions were held time to time at Dhaka finally reaching to an understanding . A memorandum of understanding was signed at Kolkata on J 1941 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Quazi Golam Mohammed (Panna)

Secretary

20th November 2009 subject to approval by the Airlines and acceptance of the concerned workmen.

-sd-

illeleigible

Sd/- MadanKumar Banik VicePresident

Whereas, the Airline informed that Biman Manage- ment had approved and accepted the said MOU .

ANNEXURE -A

07/2000 & MISC . 01/2001

Whereas , the union also informed the management ofAirline , that the workers had approved the said MOU.

Rs.40,000

Night Guard

1. Mohammed Sharif

Rs . 40,000

Peon-cum-Cleaner

2. Mohammed Kalam

Inconsideration of the above matter, the dispute has beenresolved on the following terms and conditions:

Rs .40,000

Sweeper

3. Umesh Raj Banshi

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

Rs .40,000

4. Nanda Lal Turia

It is agreed by and between the parties that

Rs.40,000

Loader, Airport

5. Satyajit Sarkar

-Sd-

1. The airline will pay INR 40,000 (Forty thousand) only to each of the workmen concerned in the dispute under reference No.7/2000 and Misc 01/2001 .

illeigible

Annexure-B

Receipt

2. The table showing the amount payable to each workman is given in Annexure A which forms a part ofthe settlement.

3. The airline and the union with jointly approachthe Hon'ble Tribunal with the appeal to approve this agree- ment and graciously be kind enough to pass a consent award on the basis of this agreement .

I, the undersigned have filed case reference no . 7/2000 and misc case no . 01/2001 before Industrial Tribunal ( Central ) claiming re - instatement of service with full backwages through Bangladesh Biman Employees Union, Kolkata .

Thatduring the pendency of the suit before the In- dustrial Tribunal (Central ) effort was made by the union and the Airline to settle the matter out of court .

4. The payment as applicable to the workmen or per- sons concerned will be made by the airline within 15 days , after such consent award by the court and subject to declaration as such , by the worker concerned as per Annexure -B which forms a part of the agreement .

-sd-

illeigible

Inwitness here of, the parties have signed this agree- ment on this the sixth day of December 2010.

That after prolong discussion a Memorandum of Settlement was signed between the union and the Airline management and that I am aware of the contents of the said settlement and also gave consent as such in the matter.

For and on behalf of Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd.

Sd/- Mr. Md . , Shafiqul Islam Deputy General Manager Legal Affairs

Accordingly, undersigneddo hereby receive INR 40,000 ( Forty Thousand) being full and final settlement of the dispute as above and further I have no claim whatsoever against the Airline management in the matter.

Sd/- Mr. Md. , Sahidul Islam Deputy General Manager Revenue

Signature ofthe Union Executive Sd./-illigible Signature ofthe Worker

Sd/- Mr. Mohammed Alauddin Regional Manager (Eastern India)

Sd./-illigible Name:

For and on behalf of Bangladesh Biman Employees Union Kolkata

Designation:

Sd/-

Address:

-Sd-

Mr.Mihir Bandyopadhyay Vice President

illeigible

Sd/-

540 GI /11-29 A 1942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 2 फरवरी , 2011

2. The Director/The Sr. SecurityManager , AirIndia Ltd. , Air India Buildings , Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021 .

...Respondents

AWARD

का.आ. 640.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एयर इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-02-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

This dispute has been raised by the petitioners u/ s. 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 agianst the respondent seeking backwages and all other attendent benefits .

2. The respondents have filed counter statement .

[सं. एल -11012/37/97- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2011

3. Today the case is posted for hearing . Both parties called absent . No representation on behalf of both parties till 5.00 p.m. today. Today posted for arguments of the petitioners finally as last chance . Inspite of that , the petitioners called absent . No representation on behalf of the petitioners till 5.00 p.m. today. It is along pending case . Even in previous hearings also, the petitioners called absent . Sufficient opportunity given . It seems to be the petitioners are not intrested in conducting the case . Hence , due to non - appeareance of the petitioners , this I.D. is dismissed for default . No costs .

S.O. 640. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.15 /98) of the Central Government Industrial - Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Air India Ltd. , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-2-2011 .

2010. Dated at Chennai , this the 30th day of November, [No. L- 11012/37/97 - IR (C -I) ] D. S. S , SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

THIRUG V. SANKARANARAYANAMOORTHY, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 2 फरवरी , 2011 IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. LABOUR COURT, CHENNAL

PRESENT : Thiru G. V. Sankaranarayanamoorthy, M.A. (Socia .), M.A. (Pub . Adm .) B.L. , D.P.M. , Presiding Officer

Tuesday the 30th day ofNovember , 2010

Central Government Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1998

1. B. G. K. Moorthy (Deceased)

का.आ. 641.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/47/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-02-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Mrs. Bhagavathi Raji ( wife)

3. K. Geetha (Daughter)

4. K. Sudha ( Daughter)

[सं. एल -12012/44/2000- आई आर ( बी II ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 5. K. Indira (Daughter)

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2011 No. 75, Abilash Apartments , 4thBlock, SF - 16 , 2nd Floor , Kannan Nagar, 4th State , Nanganallur. Chennai -600061 .

... Petitioners

Vs.

S.O. 641. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.CGIT- 2/ 47 of2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court -2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement ofUnion Bank of India, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 1-2-2011 .

1. The Managing Director, Air India Ltd. , Air India Buildings , Nariman Point , Mumbai-400021 .

[No. L- 12012/44/2000- IR (B - II )] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

540 GJ / 2011-298 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

1943

ORDER

The reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.

Date: 05-01-2011

PRESENT

K. B. KATAKE , PresidingOfficer

Reference No. CGIT- 2/47 of 2009

Employers in Relation to the Management of Union Bank of India

The Chairman- cum- Managing Director,

Union Bank of India,

Union Bank Bhavan ,

239, Backbay Reclamation , Nariman Point,

Mumbai 400 021 .

AND

Their Workmen

Shri Gurdeep Singh (Retd .) ,

103 , Carlisle Court ,

CloverVilla, 66, Wanawadi , Pune411040.

APPEARANCES:

Ms. P. S. Shetty, Advocate .

Forthe Employer :

No appearance .

For the Workmen :

Mumbai , dated the 5th January 2011 .

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment by its Order No.L- 12012/44 /2000 - IR (B - II) , dated 25-05-2009 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 action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating the services of Major Gurdeep Singh (Retd . ) vide Order dated 23-11-1995 is legal and justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? "

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 642.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-1-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/84/2007- आई आर ( बी 11 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2011

S.O. 642. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2010) 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 Canara Bank, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 26-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 /84/2007 - IR (B - II )]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Monday, the 24th January, 2011

PRESENT: A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 10/2010

[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 theManagement of Canara Bank and their Workmen ]

BETWEEN

: 1st Party/Petitioner The Asstt. Secretary

2. After receipt of the reference from Ministry of Labour and Employment, notices were sent to both the parties . The notices of second party workman returned unserved twice with postal endorsement " left address" . The workman has neither approached the Labour Commissioner nor to this Tribunal . His present address is not known . There is no statement of claim on record , therefore , this reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be rejected for want of prosecution. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

Canara Bank Staff Federation

Vs.

2nd Party/ 1st Respondent 1. The Deputy Manager :

Canara Bank, HRM Section ,

CircleOffice, 563/1 , Anna Salai , Teynampet, Chennai -600018 1944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 / PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 2. The General Manager , : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Personnel Wing

Canara Bank Head Office

112 , J.C. Road , Bangalore -560001

APPEARANCES :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/ s Balan Haridas , Advocates .

: Sri T.R. Sathya Mohan, Advocate.

For the 2nd Party/ Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. 12011/ 84/2007- IR(B - II) dated 29-03-2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of the Canara Bank in denying the stagnation to Sri K. V. Raman, Clerk after reaching the maximum stage of increment (20th Stage) in the year 1991 is legal and justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

consequent arrears of wages from the date of eligibility. Theworkman attained maximum pay in the Clerical Cadre only on 1-05-1991. Vth Bipartite Settlement was in vogue then. As per note to Clause -4B of Vth Bipartite Settlement stagnation increment is not there if only he refuses promotion and not in a case where he had worked in the promoted cadre for a period of 3 years and whereafter only got reverted . This was not a case of refusal of promotion . Asper Vlth Bipartite Settlement in force from 14-02-1995 under Clause- 5 (c ) ( ii ) states ineligibility for stagnation increments in the event of reversion on request after 1 year from the date of promotion . Clause - 5 ( d) states that in respect of employees who in terms of the Bipartite Settlement dated 8-09-1983 have not received stagnation increments will now be eligible for the same w.e.f. 1-11-1994 to the extent available to others under the previous settlements . Hence the workman will be entitled to the same at least from 1-11-1994 , a fact suppressed by the Management . That the employee is covered by Clause- 1 ( ii ) (b) of the supplementary Settlement dated 8-09-1983 is not correct . The withdrawal of stagnation increment as inadvertently given is not correct. It is on wrong assumption . The reversion ofthe workman cannot be labeled as unilateral onhis part. Reversion order did not provide for non -payment of stagnation increment . The omission of Clause- 1 ( ii)(b) is not by mistake . The workman had been representing to the bank for the same . Hence the claim .

4.Counter Statement allegations are as follows:

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 10/2010 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim , Counter and Rejoinder Statements as the case may be .

3.The Claim and Rejoinder Statement contentions briefly read as follows:

Reversion of workman at request amounts to his refusal to work as Officer. Hence Clause- 1 ( ii)(b) is applicable and he is not eligible for stagnation increments . The said settlement is binding on him . In May, 1994 stagnation increment inadvertently released was withdrawn subsequently. The ineligibility after reversion was made clearunder Clause-5 (c)(ii) ofVIth Bipartite Settlement dated 14-02-1995 . He is not eligible for stagnation increment if after accepting promotion he seeks for reversion and is reverted after 1 year from the date of promotion . After having kept silent for 12 years being aware of ineligibility ID is raised . The very purpose and object of stagnation increment is to give benefit to a person who is not given promotion or cannot get promotion for long time . Promotion if once accepted and thereafter reverted the same would apparently amount to his not being promoted at all . Reversion after promotion on own volition is equal to non- acceptance of promotion . Since K.V. Raman on his own action got reverted, he will certainly be not entitled for stagnation increments . K.V. Raman suppressed the fact of the withdrawal of inadvertently granted stagnation increment . Non-extending of stagnation increment to the workman is fullyjustified. The claim is to be dismissed.

5. Points for consideration are:

The workman K.V. Raman while working re- designated as a Clerk from his initial appointment as Steno was promoted as Officer at Madurai Circle Office in 1987 and thereafter he sought and got reverted to the post of Clerk on 7-2-1987 and was posted at Thanjavur Main Branch. Reversion was during the operation of IVth Bipartite Settlement . In 1991 he reached the maximum stage of increment. IVth Bipartite Settlement provided for stagnation increment to Sub- Staff and Clerical Cadres . Settlement debars stagnation increment to those who refuse to accept promotion to the next cadre i.e. Sub- Staffto Clerical to Officer. It does not entitle workman who after promotion reverts to the original cadre . K.V. Raman did not refuse promotion initially. For the first time in Vth Bipartite Settlement stagnation increment was provided to be given to workman on reversion 1 year after promotion . VIth Bipartite Settlement again restored stagnation increment. Management provided stagnation increment to K. V. Raman butwithdrewthe same most illegally. Demand of K.V. Raman not being acceded to the dispute is raised which was got referred as per order of High Court dated 23-02-2010 in WP No. 6065/2008 . The workman is entitled for stagnation increment . Hence the claim for stagnation increment with

(i) Whether the denial of stagnation given to K.V. Raman after reaching maximum stage of increment in 1991 is legal and justified?

1945 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011 /फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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

6. Evidence consists of Ex . W1 to Ex . W22 on the petitioner's side and Ex.M1 to Ex.M4 on the Respondent's side, all marked on consent with no oral evidence adduced on either side .

Points ( i) & ( ii )

clauses of the relevant Bipartite Settlements . While the benefit cannot be extended to person refusing to accept promotion under the IVth Bipartite Settlement, the same also cannot be given to a workman who after promotion reverts to the original cadre . Under Vth Settlement it was payable to workman on reversion , 1 year after promotion . Butas per note to Clause -4B of the same settlement stagnation benefit is not payable if the workman refuses promotion . At Clause -5(c)( ii) ofthe Vlth Settlement there is again ineligibility for stagnation increment on reversion upon request after 1 year from the date ofpromotion . Further eligibility is there as per Clause-5(d) under which employees who have not received stagnation increments in terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 8-09-1983 are entitled to the same to the extent available in terms of the previous settlements w.e.f. 1-11-1994.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Balan Haridas canvassed for the contention that only person to whom promotion is offered but refused to accept , it he alone is not entitled to stagnation increment and the petitioner's case is not covered under the provision , on the understanding of the plain meaning of the provision . Petitioner never refused promotion at the first instance . An existing dispute gives rise to a continuing cause of action and there cannot be any limitation . Furthermore, though the ID raised is with some delay, prior to the same petitioner had been agitating for the claim consistently without having slept over his right. Further according to him at least from 1-11-1994 he is entitled to the increment with arrears , interest, etc.

8. Respondent's learned counsel Sri T.R. Sathya Mohan diametrically opposed the claim of the petitioner and contended that the stagnation benefit is not payable to petitioner who was promoted as an Officer after 4 years of which got himself reverted back on his request . The representation of the petitioner was rejected long back whereafter the dispute was raised at a long distance oftime with the awareness that he is not entitled to the claim .

9.Asconceded to by both sides the question revolves round solely on the aspect as to the interpretation of Bipartite Settlement . The concept of stagnation increment was introduced for the first time under the IVth Bipartite Settlement . It is admissible only to Sub - Staff promoted to Clerical Cadres and Clerks promoted to Officer Cadre . It does not entitle workman who after promotion reverts to the original cadre . As per the Vth Bipartite Settlement stagnation increment was given to workman on reversion, 1 year after promotion . As per noteto Clause -4B of Vth Bipartite Settlement no stagnation increment is payable only if one refuses promotion . As per VIth Bipartite Settlement operative from 14-02-1995 stagnation increment is ineligible in the event of reversion on request after 1 year from the date of promotion vide Clause-5 (c)( ii ). Under Clause- 5 (d) stagnation increment are payable to those who have not received stagnation increments in terms of the Bipartite Settlement dated 8-09-1983 w.e. f. 1-11-1994 . The extent of eligibility is as the same is available to others under previous settlements .

11. Now the cardinal point is whether in any view of the matter the petitioner could be said entitled to the stagnation increment . Apertinent question is in the case of petitioner his reversion on request after 3 or more years of promotion whether could be said as refusal for promotion . Refusal for promotion could be expressed either at the time ofoffer of promotion by not accepting to changeover to the higher post as well as at a later point of time after having worked in such post whereafter one may refuse to continue in the promoted post and seeks reversion . Here is apetitioner who got reverted after rendering a certain years ofservice in his promoted post, at his request which might be to suit his own personal convenience , whatever it be or in whatever manner. A provision in a statute or Bipartite Settlement has always to be read subject to a proviso , if any, as a non -obstante clause subject to which alone the meaning of the said provision has to be understood . So in a case where stagnation increment was provided to a workman on reversion 1 year after promotion while under the note to Clause-4 (b) of the Vth Settlement stagnation increment is not payable if he refuses for promotion, as to how the two provisions could be harmonized to understand the true object of the provision requires deep scrutiny. Both initial refusal ofpromotion and refusal after acceptance of promotion , come under the same specie of the relinquishment or refusal of promotion . The only difference is that one is at the inception of the offer of promotion and the other after acceptance and the appointee on promotion may have worked for sometime. Refusing promotion or relinquishing the same or reversion for own reasons is seentreated distinctly from reversion otherwise or not for own reason or request . The reversion of the petitioner herein is on a request and the same amounts to refusal by petitioner to continue his promotion till its culmination levels. Therefore the request for reversion to the lower cadre is still a refusal for promotion , in that it is refusal for thecontinuation of the promotion which once commenced. Apromotion which commenced , not intended to be revoked 10. The controversy could be set at rest by a genuine endeavour to harmonize the subtleties in the various connotations of the couched respective provisions and 1946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 24th January, 2011) .

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

None

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

Documents Marked:

Onthe Petitioner side :

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex. W1 22-10-1986 Petitioner representation.

Ex.W2 7-02-1987 Proceedings ofthe GM.

Ex.W3 29-06-2000 Representation ofthe Petitioner regarding stagnation increment.

Ex.W4 5-07-2000 Reply to the representation given by the Respondent .

Ex.W5 May 1994 Petitioner Salary Slip.

Ex.W6

VI Bipartite Settlement.

Ex.W7 30-09-1987 Letter of Appreciation.

Ex.W8 30-11-1981 Letter ofAppreciation.

Ex.W9 30-09-1982 LetterofAppreciation .

Ex.W10 21-10-1983 Letter ofAppreciation .

Ex.W11 14-09-1985 Letter ofAppreciation .

Ex.W12 10-11-1986 Letter ofAppreciation.

Ex.W13 10-09-1987 Letter ofAppreciation.

Ex.W14

Letter ofAppreciation given by the Chairman of Canara Bank tothe petitioner.

Ex.W15 16-05-1990 Letter ofAppreciation.

by the authority, is to continue unobstructed unless the authority has to reverse it , for any reasons , approved by theManagement . But if its continuity ceases for any reason occasioned by the promotee the resultant reversion is at the instance or request of the said promotee, which in effect is a refusal to continue the promotion thereby meaning refusal of promotion only. Hence, reversion on request couldbe nothing short of refusal ofpromotion. An employee cannot be found entitled to stagnation increment . The distinctive interpretation as could be gathered from the intendment of the relevant provision as explained by the Management is discernibly on a rational nexus for the classification of employees as those who are entitled to andthose who are not entitled to the stagnation increments . So viewed, it is not illogical , arbitrary, unethical or unconstitutional . Those who are entitled to stagnation increments on reversion after 1 year of promotion understandably belong to cases where the reversion is not at the request of the promotee but is for departmental reasons or otherwise . The benefits extended to them understandably is by way of some gratis for their having had to be reverted to the feeder category for a reason not attributable to them but is attributable to the Management . This could be better understood by reading in the absence of such a gratis to promotees with less than 1 year and reverted to whom the said benefit has not been extended under the provisions , presumably being period of service deemed fit to be ignored. As pleaded by the petitioner this act of getting reverted on request cannot but be a unilateral action on the part of the petitioner. As alleged by the Respondent reversion after promotion on own volition is only equal to non - acceptance of promotion. The purpose and object of stagnation increment is to give benefit to a person who is not given promotion nor cannot be promoted for a long time . That is not the case of the petitioner. It could only be the most proximate and the first in the ordinal numeral in the array of the various and probable constructions that could be given to the expression to the note to Clause-4B .

Ex.W16 16-06-1990 Letter ofAppreciation .

Ex.W17 20-05-1991 Letter ofAppreciation .

Ex.W18 6-09-1993 Letter ofAppreciation.

Ex.W19 27-12-2001 Letter ofAppreciation .

Ex.W20 4-10-2005 SpecialAppreciation .

Ex.W21 29-12-2005 Certificate ofMerit .

Ex .W22 21-04-2007 Letter ofAppreciation.

On theManagement's side :

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex.M1 8-09-1983

12. The relief of stagnation increments to the petitioner at least w.e.f. 01-11-1994 also cannot be acceded to because under Clause-5 (d) the eligibility for stagnation increment is only to those employees who have not received stagnation increments despite being eligible for the same under the previous settlements . It is to be made clear that petitioner does not come within the purview of eligibility under any of the previous settlements to any extent . He does not come as an employee entitled to receive stagnation increments in terms of Bipartite Settlements dated 8-09-1983 . In any view of the matter the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to stagnation increment and therefore the denial of the same to him is legal and justified:

13. The reference is answered accordingly.

Memorandum of Settlement entered into between Management of certain Banks and their workmen.

1947 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

17-09-1984

Ex.M2

Passed on this 13th day of January, 2011 Memorandum of Settlement entered into between Management of certain Banks and their workmen.

Circle No. 448 of1983 .

19-09-1983

Ex.M3

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012/ 300/ 90- IR (B - II ) dated 5-4-1991 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

14-02-1995

Ex.M4

6thBipartite Settlement entered into between Managements of "A" Class Banks and their workmen.

नई दिल्ली , 2 फरवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of United Commercial Bank, Narsinghpur ( MP ) in terminating the services of Shri Lekh Ram Yadav, ex- peon w.e.f. 8-5-93 is justified? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

का.आ. 643.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार युनाइटेड कर्मिशियल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर./63/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/300/90- आई आर ( बी-00 ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2011

2. The case of the workman , in short is that he was employed as peon at Narsinghpur Branch of the United CommercialBank on 15-6-1987 and worked till 7-5-1988 when his service was terminated without any notice and without any retrenchment compensation . He was paid wages @ Rs.8 per day in violation of the provision of award/Bipartite Settlement . He was not given any appointment letter. It is stated that he worked continuously for more than 240 days in accordance with Section 25B of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) . The termination was a retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act and the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act was not complied. As such the termination was illegal . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with full back wages .

S.O. 643. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/63/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United Commercial Bank , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/300/90-IR (B -II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/ R/63/91

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Lekhram Yadav,

C/ o Shri P.N. Sharma ,

3. The management appeared and filed written statement in the reference. The case of the management, inter alia, is that the alleged workman was never appointed bythe management as a peon from 15-6-87 to 7-5-88 except for a period of two months from 10-4-85 to 6-6-85. There was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the alleged workman. He was carrying independent business of an electrician during the relevant period and took loan of Rs.5000 from the Bank on 9-9-87 for his electric shop . The provision of the Act is not applicable . It is stated that the management was facing acute scarcity ofwater from March, 1988 to May , 1988 and therefore the alleged workman and his family supplied water to the branch on payment of its cost . It was for specific purpose and for specific period. On expiry of the period it was non-renewal of oral agreement for supply of water. As such it was not a case of retrenchment . It is stated that he did not work for 240 days continuously with the Bank and the provision of the Act is not applicable . The workman is not entitled to any relief and therefore the reference be answered accordingly.

Plot No. 138 , Shakti Nagar,

...Workman/Union

Jabalpur

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

Versus

The Manager ,

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Lekhram Yadav, ex-peon w.e.f. 8-5-88 is justified?

...Management

United Commercial Bank, Narsinghpur 1948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] II . Whether the workman is not covered under the definition ofworkman as given in the I.D. Act . If so, its effect?

III . To what relief, if any, is the workman entitled?

कोलदाम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-2-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 117 /2010- आई आर(डीयू) ] 5. During the course of proceeding, the workman became absent and therefore the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the alleged workman on 26-2-07.

6. Issue No. II

डी.एस.एस. श्री निवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2011

S.O. 644.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central overnment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.81 /2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofNTPC Koldam and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 03-02-2011. on

[No. L-42012/ 117/2010- IR (DU)] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Accordingly to the management , on oral agreement , the alleged workman and family supplied water@ Rs.8 per day during the period of acute water supply and the oral agreement was not renewed . The management witness Shri Rajendra Singh is Manager in the Bank. He has stated that the workman alongwith his family was engaged for supply of water to meet with scarcity @ Rs.8 per day and the supply was discontinued as and when the scarcity was over. This shows that it was a fixed agreement and the agreement was subsequently not renewed . His evidence is unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . It isclear that the provision of Section 2(oo )(bb) ofthe Act is applicable and he was not a retrench employee . As such I find that Section 2( s) of the Act is not applicable in his case. Accordingly this issue is decided in affirmative on behalf of the management and against the workman .

7. Issue No. I

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL , CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri . A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 81 /2K10

Registered on 26-10-2010

Sh . Nathu Ram S/o Shri Santa Ram, Village Ropa, PO Dhawal, Tehsil Sundernagar, Mandi(HP)

...Applicant

Versus

Onthe basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workman was engaged on oral contract for supply of water. The management witness has stated in his evidence that the alleged workman was never employed as a peon at Narsinghpur Branch of the UCO Bank from 15-6-1987 to 7-5-88 . There is no other evidence in rebuttal of this evidence . There is no reason to disbelieve the witness .Moreover the burden was on the workman to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in twelve calendar months under the provision of the Act . This issue isalso decided in favour of the management .

8. Issue No. III

1. The General Manager , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project , HTPC , VPO Barmana, Bilaspur(HP)

Considering the entire evidence, I find that the alleged workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

costs. 9. In the result, the award is passed without any

2. The Managing Director, M/s . AKS Engineers & Contractors , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla- 171002 .

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2011

3. Project Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd. , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village Kayan , PO Slapper , The Sundernagar, Mandi (HP) . ...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : None for workman.

का.आ. 644. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.टी.पी.सी.

1949 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

For the Management : Sh . Vikas P. Singh , Adv. for Respondent No. 1

Court No.II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NTPC Koldam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-02-2011 .

Sh . Hem Raj Sharma, Sr. Manager (HR & IR ) for Respondent No.3

[No. L-42012/36/2010- IR (DU)] AWARD

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer Passed on 19 January, 2011

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri . A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/ 117/2010 - IR(DU) Dated 29-09-2010, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub - Section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and Sub- Section 2(A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -

Case No. I.D. 33 /2K10

Registered on 25-05-2010

Sh . Surender Kumar

S/o Shri Mukhtiar Singh Village Salasi , PO Gehrwin,

Whether the action of the management of M/s . AKS Engineers & Contractors , a contractor engaged by NTPC Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project, Bilaspur (HP) , in terminating the services of their workman Shri Nathu Ram S/o Sh . Santa Ram w.e.f. 01-08-2008 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

....Applicant

Tehsil Jhandula,

Bilaspur (HP)

Versus

Workman did not turn up despite notice sent to him on 26-10-2010 and by Registered post on 06-12-2010. Respondent no.1 and 3 of the reference put up their appearances . Respondent no . 2 remained absent despite notice sent by Registered post to him .

1. The General Manager , KolDamHydro Electric Power Project, HTPC , VPO Barmana, Bilaspur(HP)

2. The Managing Director, M/ s. AKS Engineers & Contractors , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla- 171002 .

As the workman remained absent despite notices sent by Registered post to him and notice not received back undelivered, the service is presumed on the workman, Hefailed topresent his case before the Tribunal hence; the reference is answered against him . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2011

....Respondents

3. Project Manager , Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd. , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project , Village Kayan , PO Slapper, The Sundernagar, Mandi (HP) .

Appearances

: None for workman .

For the Workman

For the Management : Sh . Vikas P. Singh , Adv. for Respondent No.1

का.आ. 645.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.टी.पी.सी. कोलदाम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-2-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Sh. Hem Raj Sharma, Sr. Manager (HR & IR) for Respondent No.3

AWARD

Passed on 20th January, 2011

[सं. एल-42012/36/2010- आई आर( डीयू) । डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2011

S.O. 645. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.33 /2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/ 36/2010/IR(DU ) Dated 12-05-2010, by exercising its powers under Section 10, Sub- Section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and Sub- Section 2(A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

540 GI /11-30 A 1950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Registered on 25-5-2010

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . AKS Engineers & Contractors , a sub contractor of M/ s . Indian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC Koldam in terminating the services of Shri Surender Kumar w.e.f. 31-07-2008 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, whatrelief the workman is entitled to ? "

Sh . Mohinder Singh S/ o Shri Pan Singh , C/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District CITU, District CommitteeMandi , 221/10 , Thanera Mohalla, Mandi (HP)

...Applicant

Versus

Workman did not turn up despite notice sent to him on 16-6-2010 , 14-7-2010 and by Registered post on 19-8-2010. As the notice sent by Registered post to him was not received undelivered hence the service is presumed on the workman . Respondent no.1 and 3 of the reference put in their appearances but the respondent no . 2did not turn up despite notice sent by registered post to him on 19-8-2010 .

1. The General Manager, Kol DamHydro Electric Power Project, HTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur(HP)

As the workman has failed in putting his case before the Tribunal , the reference is answered against him . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .

2. The Managing Director, M/ s. AKS Engineers & Contractors , KolDam Hydro Electric Power Project, Sanjay Sadan, Chhota Shimla- 171002 .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2011

3. Project Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd. , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village Kayan , PO Slapper , The. Sundernagar, Mandi (HP) .

.Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: None for workman .

For the Management : Sh . Vikas P. Singh, Adv . for Respondent No.1 का.आ. 646.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.टी.पी.सी. कोलदाम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Sh . Hem Raj Sharma, Sr. Manager (HR & IR) for Respondent no . 3 .

[सं. एल-42012/27/2010- आई आर( डीयू) ] . डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

AWARD Passed on 20 January, 2011 New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2011

Central Government vide Notification No. L -42012/ 27/2010/IR(DU) Dated 12-5-2010, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub -section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and Sub- section 2(A) ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : - S.O. 646. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofNTPC Koldam and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government 3-2-2011 . on

[No. L -42012/27 /2010- IR (DU) ]

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . AKS Engineers& Contractors , a sub contractor of M/ s . Indian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC Koldam in terminating the services of Shri Mohinder Singh w.e.f. 14-08-2008 is legal andjustified? If not , what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? " D.S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri . A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

Workman did not turn up despite notice sent to him by Registered post on 19-08-2010. As the notice sent by Registered post to him was not received undelivered, the service is presumed on the workman . Respondent no . 1 and 3 of the reference have put in their appearances but the respondent no . 2 did not turn up despite notice sent by Registered post to him on 19-8-2010 .

Case No. I.D. 34/2K10

540 GJ / 2011 308 1951

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 फरवरी , 2011

2. The Managing Director,

M/s. AKS Engineers & Contractors , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Sanjay Sadan , Chhota Shimla- 171002.

.Respondents 3. Project Manager, Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd. , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, Village Kayan, PO Slapper , The . Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).

APPEARANCES :

: Sh . M.R. Gorsi , AR.

For the Workman

का.आ. 647.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.टी.पी.सी. कोलदाम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/35/2010- आई आर( डीयू) 」 डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 3rd February, 2011

S.O. 647. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NTPC Koldam and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government 3-2-2011 . on

[No. L-42012/35/2010- IR (DU) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri . A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer Case No. I.D. 21 /2K10

Registered on 25-05-2010

Applicant Sh . Rajinder Kumar S/o Sh . Sada Ram , Village Deola Chamb, PO Harnora, Tehsil Sadar , Bilaspur(HP) .

Versus

1. The General Manager , Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, HTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur (HP)

For the Management : Sh . Vikas P. Singh , Adv. for Respondent No.1

Sh. Hem Raj Sharma, Sr. Manager (HR & IR) for Respondent no. 3

AWARD Passed on 18th January, 2011

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/ 35/2010/IR(DU) Dated 12-05-2010 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub- section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and Sub- section 2(A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . AKS Engineers & Contractors , a sub contractor of M/s . Indian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. of NTPC Koldam in terminating the services of Shri Rajinder . Kumarw.e.f. 31-07-2008 is legal andjustified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

All the parties except respondent no. 2 put in their appearance in the case . Case was ordered to proceed ex- parte against respondent no . 2 on 29-9-2010.

The workman who is being represented by his AR from the very first date failed to file claim statement despite repeated opportunities given to him . 20-8-2010, 29-09-2010, 4-11-2010, 3-12-2010 and 18-01-2011 were fixed for filing the claim statement but the AR expressed his inability in filing the claim statement as the workman did not contract him after giving authority in his favour .

Obviously, the workman is not interested in pursuing the matter and there is no use in keeping the reference pending unnecessarily. The claimant has failed in placing before the Tribunal his case with regard to the dispute under reference . Hence , the reference is decided against the workman . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer 1952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

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

clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sh . Arun Kumar S/ o Late Sh . Ambika Prasad, Brahamawala, Mandankini Vihar, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun and the Chief General Manager, Telecom , Western UP Telecom Division , Distt . Dehradun & the General Manager, Telecom Deptt. , Patel Nagar, Dehradun for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

का.आ. 648,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकोम विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम - न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/ 83/2003- आईआर(डीयू) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2011

"Whether the action of the management of CGM , BSNL , Dehra Dun in terminating the services of Sh . Arun Kumar S/o Sh . Ambi Ka Prasad , Lineman (Daily rated mazdoor) w.e.f. 5 April , 2001 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

S.O. 648. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum - Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofDepartment of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-02-2011.

[No. L-40012/ 83/2003 - IR(DU)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR -COURT, LUCKNOW

Present

Dr.Manju Nigam , PresidingOfficer

I. D. No. 78/2003

3. The case ofthe workman , Arun Kumar , in brief, is that he has been working as daily wager labourer w.e.f. 01-12-1993 and his services were terminated ' orally' in the year 1996 ; and thereafter , he was again engaged on the November, 1998. Contrary to this , the workman has further stated in para 04 of the statement of claim that he worked with the opposite party w.e.f. 01-12-1993 to 03-04-2001 and his services has been terminated , illegally, without anyprior information or notice on 04-04-2001 . The workman has submitted that he worked for more than 240 days continuously in a year; and accordingly, has alleged that his services has been terminated , in violation to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1945 , without any notice or retrenchment compensation . Hence, he has prayed that the termination of his services by the opposite party w.e.f. 04-04-2001 be declared illegal and he be reinstated with continuity in service and back wages.

Ref. No. L-40012/83/2003- IR(DU) dated: 31-07-2003 BETWEEN

Sh . Arun Kumar S/ o Late Sh. Ambika Prasad Brahamawala, Mandankini Vihar Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun

AND

1. The Chief General Manager, Telecom , Western UP Telecom Division Distt . Dehradun - 248 001

4. The management ofthe Telecom Department has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; whereby it has submitted that the workman had never been engaged w.e.f. 01-12-1993 ; rather , it has submitted that the workman has worked with the opposite party in the year 1994 for 30 days, in year 1995 for 50 days and in the year 2000 for 30 days only, accordingly there arise no question of terminating his services on 04-04-2001 or of completing 240 days in any year or of violating any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as such the case of the workman does not fall within the definition of ' retrenchment ' . Accordingly , the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him .

2. The General Manager Telecom Deptt . Patel Nagar Dehradun.

5. The workman has , field rejoinder whereby he has only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.

AWARD 19-01-2011

1. By Order No. L- 40012/ 83 /2003 - IR( DU) dated 31-07-2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

6. The parties have filed documentary proof in support of their respective cases . The workman has examined himself whereas the management examined Shri R. S. Kathait, SDE in support of their respective stands .

1953 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(viii) Photocopy of receipts/ ACG Vouchers for the year 2000 (paper No. 10/49-10/59).

The parties availed opportunity to cross - examine the each other'switnesses apart from putting oral as well as written arguments .

(ix) Photocopy of receipts / ACG Vouchers for the year 2001 (paper No. 10/60-10/62).

7. Heard, representatives of the parties and perused entire evidence on records .

8. The learned representative on behalf of the management has contended that the workman was never engaged in the department , therefore , there was no question ofcompleting 240 days ' in any calendar year and does not comes within the purview of the definition of retrenchment or that of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act . Moreover , it has disputed the genuiness of the documents filed by the workman .

10. In rebuttal , the opposite party has examined Shri R. S. Kathaut SDE as witness who has stated that the workman was never appointed by the management on any post and also the payment vouchers produced by him are totally forged as no such vouchers have ever been issued by the management . He has further stated that the casual labourers who are engaged from time to time as per need, are paid as per their attendance . The workman never worked for 240 days or one year continuously as , daily wager. In cross - examination he has stated that the so called payment vouchers , filed by the workman , are not photocopies of the genuine documents . He has further stated that for intermittent work labourers are engaged on daily wages or the work is being done through some contractor and has admitted that the workman has done for few days as detailed in para 04 of their written statement.

11. In the light of the aforesaid rival statements of both the sides I have scanned the documents produced bythe workman. Paper No. 10/2 to 10/5 are photocopies of the representations moved by the workman before different authorities of the management ; whereas paper No. 10/6 - 10/7 is photocopy of the rejoinder , filed by the workman , before ALC (C) during conciliation proceedings ; wherein he has given details of the days he worked with the management and has supported his averments with photocopies ofthe receipts /ACG Vouchers , paper No. 10/ 34 to 10/62 . The details of the work done by the workman , as claimed by him in his rejoinder and supporting receipt , with the management are as under :

Number of days worked

Duration ofwork

259

01-03-1995 to 11-11-1995

9. The workman Arun Kumar has examined himself aswitness in support of his claim that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year apart from working continuouslyfrom year 1993 to 1996 and thereafter from 1997 to 2001 and his services has been terminated from March, 2001 without any notice or compensation . He has further stated to have filed photocopies of the payment vouchers , the original of which are with the management. In cross -examination it was admitted by him that ACG- 17 vouchers , filed by him , do not bear any serial number nor stamp of any exchange or signatures of any officer. After seeking paper No. 10/62 it was admitted by him that there was no signatures of any officer on the said paper nor any date has been mentioned on the signature . It was also admitted that the photocopies were not supplied to him by the management . He has further stated that he was not engaged against any post but work of ' Baildaar ' was taken from him and he was called by Shri H. K. Gupta, SDO . He has also stated that he used to get Rs . 50 as daily wages , till the date of his termination . He also stated that he can not give the details of his working days . However, in support of his statement the workman has produced following documents :

11-01-1996 to31-01-1966

01-10-1996 to 10-10-1996

(i) Photocopy of representation of the workman addressed to CGM , Telecom, Deharadun (paper No. 10/2-10/3) .

01-11-1998 to 31-12-1998

328

01-10-1998 to 31-12-1999

259

01-01-2000 to 31-12-2000

(ii) Photocopy of representation of the workman addressed to SDE (South ), Telecom , Telephone Exchange, Deharadun . (paper No. 10/4 - 10/5).

01-01-2001 to 31-01-2001.

11-03-2001 to 04-04-2001

(iii) Photocopy ofrejoinder ofthe workman; filed before ALC (C), Deharadun . (paper No. 10/6-10/7) .

(iv) Photocopy of receipts /ACG Vouchers for the year 1995 (paper No. 10/8 - 10/33).

All the photocopies of the receipts /ACG Vouchers bear signature ofthe payee i.e. workman , Arun Kumar but most of them do not have any signature of any payee .

(v) Photocopy of receipts/ACG Vouchers for the year 1996 (paper No. 10/34-10/35).

(vi) Photocopy of receipts/ACG Vouchers for the year 1998 (paper No. 10/36-10/37).

12. The management has disputed the genuineness ofthe above documents and the management witness Shri R. S. Kathaut has alleged that the so called payment vouchers, filed by the workman, are not photocopies of thegenuine documents . There is no cross - examination on thispoint from the workman side rather it was admitted by (vii) Photocopy of receipt/ ACG Vouchers for the year 1999 (paper No. 10/38 - 10/47) .

1954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] him that these photocopies were not supplied by the management . The workman has neither produced nor has he summoned original documents . However, in compliance of directions of this Tribunal dated 03-08-2007 , the management filed proof of payment in respect of the statement of its witness vide para 04 of his affidavit . The photocopy of the documents , filed by the management, does not support averment ofthe workman that he worked for 240 days in a year.

13. Moreover, from the perusal of aforesaid documents it is not evident that the workman had worked from 01-12-1993 to 03-04-2001 , as claimed by him . Accordingly, these document are not relevant to prove this fact that the workman had actually worked as daily wager for 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date ofhis disengagement i.e. 05-04-2001.

14. Admittedly no appointment letter was issued and no post was ever advertised for the appointment . He has not produced any voucher or attendance register or any other documentary evidence to prove this fact that Rs. 50/- per day was paid to him as salary for the period mentioned in his statement .

general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner , there will be no letter of appointment or termination . There will also be no receipt or proof of payment . Thus , in most cases , the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the normal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case . The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the claimant/ workman will so suffice in the matter ofdischarge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove thathe had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non production of muster rolls per se without any plea ofsuppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management . " 15. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality oforder the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail . In the present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination order and to prove the termination order was illegal . It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned . This claim has been denied by the management ; therefore , it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that she had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his alleged termination . In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs ST. Hadimani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :

17. In the present case the workman has stated that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year , but has not produced any original documents in support of his oral evidence . The photocopy of the receipts /ACG - 17 vouchers , paper No. 10/34 to 10/62, filed by the workman are disputed by the management in as much as it does not bear any serial number , stamp or signature of the Paying Officer in most of the receipts/ vouchers . Moreover , photocopies of the documents , paper No. 10/2 to 10/7 are copies of representations are not pertaining to the fact that the workman had worked for more than 240days . Further, in the event ofthe management disputing the genuineness of the photocopies of the vouchers filed by the workman, it was incumbent upon him to summon their originals ; but failed to do so .Merely pleadings are no sübstitute for proof.

" Itwas the case ofthe claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was thenfor the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination, Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that can not be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court ortribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman . On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside . "

16. Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid pointHon'bleApex Court has observed in 2006 ( 108 ) FLR. R.M. Yellatti & Asstt . Executive Engineer as follow :

Even, for the argument sake , if the photocopies of the receipts/ACG-17 , filed by the workman , though disputed by the management as forged, are taken to be genuine , then this Tribunal has see as to whether the workman hadworked more than 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his alleged termination . Thus , taking in to account the working details given in the receipts for the period 03-04-2000 to 04-04-2001, the total working days , in respect of the workman, comes to be as under :

Duration ofworking

Paper Number

No. of days

" It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . However , applying भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

10/51

01-06-2000 to30-06-2000

10/52

01-07-2000 to 31-07-2000.

10/53

01-08-2000 to 31-08-2000

10/54

01-09-2000 to 29-09-2000

10/55

09-10-2000 to 30-10-2000

10/56

11-12-2000 to 20-12-2000

10/56

21-12-2000 to 31-12-2000

10/57

04-12-2000 to 10-12-2000

10/58

01-01-2001 to 10-01-2001

10/58

11-01-2001 to 20-01-2001

10/59

21-01-2001 to 31-01-2001

10/60

11-03-2001 to 20-03-2001

10/61

21-03-2001 to 30-03-2001

10/62

01-04-2001 to 04-04-2001

217

Total number ofdays =

1955 The award ofreinstatement with full back wages in a casewhere the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded."

In the instant case the prayer of the workman for reinstatement cannot be fulfilled in light of above legal position as he has failed to prove that he has completed 240 days working in a year preceding the date of termination; also his appointment/ engagement was done following prescribéd procedure , since the workman has failed to substantiate through some conclusive evidence that he worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination and his appointment was made following prescribed Rules for recruitment, as such he does not appears to be entitled for relief of compensation.

20.Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above the reference under adjudication is answered positively with observation that the action ofthe opposite party in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 05-04-2001 is neither illegal nor unjustified and the workman, Arun Kumar is not entitled to any relief.

21. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

22. Award as above .

Lucknow.

19-01-2011

18. Thus , it comes out that the workman had actually worked for 217 days only in preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 05-04-2001 . Accordingly, the initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work for 240 days in a year was on the workman but he has failed to discharge . the above burden.Apart from above receipt/ACG- 17 vouchers , there is no other reliable material for recording findings that the workman hadworked more than 240 days in the preceding year from the date ofhis alleged termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order of termination was passed by the management; and in the event of not completing 240 days working in the preceding year from the date of alleged termination it was not incumbent upon the management ofBSNL to comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act.

19. The workman by way of his statement of claim has demanded that his services should be reinstated with continuity in service and back wages . In Jagbir Singh v . Haryana State Agriculture Mktg . Board (2009 ) 15 SCC 327 :(2010) 1 SCC (L& S ) 545 : Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) , Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SCC ( L& S) 309 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :

"However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a along line of cases , this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic andmay be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even through the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends ofjustice.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 649.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रिर्जव बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक'अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/2000 , 11/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-02-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[संख्या एल -12012/316/2000- आईआर ( बी -1 ) , एल-12012/239/2002. आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 4th February, 2011

S.O. 649. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/2000, 11/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Resreve Bank of India and their 1956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] workman, which was received by the Central Government on3-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/316/2000- IR(B-I) ,

L-12012/239/2002- IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

India, Bangalore viz. S. Gunaseelan, one in respect ofhis termination from service w.e.f 30-12-1989 for alleged unauthorized absent from duty for a period of eight months and the second one in respect of imposing the punishment of reduction of four increments in the time scale of Clerk Grade- I w.e.f. September 1989 on the charge of abusing hissuperior in the office premises are taken up for disposal through this common award.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR-COURT, BANGALORE -560 022

Dated: 12th January, 2011

Present

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 77/2000

IParty

IIParty

Shri S. Gunaseelan, No. 3155/A, 11th Main, HAL II Stage, Bangalore-560008

The General Manager,

Reserve Bank of India,

Nrupathunga Road,

Bangalore-560002

C.R. No. 11/2005

IParty

IIParty

Shri S. Gunaseelan, No. 3155/A, 11th Main , HAL II Stage, Bangalore- 560008

The Dy. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, P.B. No. 5467, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore-560001

COMMON AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred these disputes vide order No. L- 12012/316/200 / IR( B- 1 ) dated 7th November 2000 and No. L- 12012/239/2002/IR(B - 1 ) dated 12-01-2005 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

Schedule ( CR 77/2000)

"Whether the termination of Shri S. Gunaseelan , former Clerk by the Management of Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore w.e.f. 30-12-1989 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

Schedule (CR No. 11/2005)

"Whether the Management of Reserve Bank of India isjustified in imposing the punishment of reduction of 4 increments in the time scale of Shri S. Gunaseelan , Clerk, Grade- I (Now Grade II) with effect from September 1989 ? if not, what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. These two references by the Central Government being in respect of same workman of the Reserve Bank of

3. The brief facts leading to these references may be narrated as under: - Shri S. Gunaseelan (hereinafter referred as the workman) joined the services of the Reserve Bank of India(hereinafter referred as the Second Party) on 2nd February, 1965 as a Clerk Grade - II and subsequently promoted as Clerk Grade- I and letter dated 28-03-1987 was issued to the workman calling for his explanation to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his unauthorized absence from place of duty and for his misconduct for using obnoxious language against the personnel officer . The workman submitted his reply to the said show cause notice dated 01-04-1987 denying the allegation , and as the management was not satisfied with the said reply issued charge sheet bearing Staff No. 5903/Dis.156/CS21 / 86-87 dated 12-06-1987 charging him for breach of Regulation 39 of Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations , 1948 by unauthrisedly absenting himself from the place of his duty and having committed an act of misconduct by using obnoxious language against the Personnel Officer , Shri K. R. Ananda when he questioned his absenting from the place ofduty. The second party after affording the several opportunities to the workman to give his reply to the charge sheet, lastly by letter dated 18-07-1987 intimated that his request for further extension of time cannot be acceded and then appointed Shri S. V. Raghavendran, Staff Officer, Gr.B as Enquiry Officer and Shri G Mahalingam, StaffOfficer, Gr.B as Presenting Officer and communicated the same to the workmanunder letter staff No. 1562/Dis . 156/CS- 21/87-88 dated 26-10-1987 . Thereafter pursuance to the notice issued by the Enquiry Officer, the workman appointed Shri MSG Subramanian as his Defence Representative. The Enquiry Officer after completing the enquiry submitted his finding as the charges being proved and thereafter the competent authority being satisfied the enquiry was held properly after affording sufficient opportunity to the workman to defend him through the representative ofhis choice issued show cause notice bearing staff No. 5160/Dis . 156/CS21 / 87-88 dated 20-06-1988 proposing to degrade the workman to the post of Clerk Grade- II and reduction of his pay by six stages on permanent basis with effect from the date of passing the final order and after receipt of the reply/ representation dated 07-07-1988 by the workman to reopen the enquiry and for giving him opportunity to cross- examine the bank witnesses , the competent authority passed order dated 25-08-1988 rejecting his claim for reopening and confirming the tentative penalty of 1957 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

workman to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of filing SLP No. 17269 of 1999 wherein the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal came to be confirmed. Then the workman raised the dispute before the conciliation officer on 6-04-2000 and on failure of that conciliation proceedings the central government made reference registered in CR No. 77/2000 as to " whether the termination of Shri Gunaseelan former clerk by the management of RBI w.e.f. 30-12-1989 is justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ? " . Thereafter the workman again raised the dispute before the conciliation officer alleging that the dispute raised by him earlier on 06-04-2000 had also covered the punishment imposed against him of reduction of 4 increments and on failure of that conciliation proceedings the Central Government made the second reference registered in CR No. 11/05 as to "whether the management of RBI is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction of 4 increments in the time scale of Clerk , Grade I (now grade II ) with effect from September 1989 ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled ?"

4. After the first party filing his claim statement and the second party filing counter statement in both the references separate preliminary issues were framed in both the references as to whether the DE conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper and after hearing the argument of learned advocates appearing for both the sides separate orders have been passed on 2-4-07 holding the DE conducted against the first party by the second party being fair and proper. After the first party led evidence on alleged victimization , the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides were heard on merits .

5. Infact , during the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for the first party having regard to the finding of this tribunal on preliminary issue in both the references , the departmental enquiry being fair and proper and non cross - examination of the witnesses examined for the management in the departmental enquiry very fairly did not make any venture to assail the findings of the enquiry officer on the charges and urged that since there is no dispute the first party right from joining his services in the Second Party bank involved in union activity taking lead in the strikes , it could be said that to take revenge of such participation of the first party in the union activities , he has been victimized and punished disproportionately to the charges proved against him . He further urged with reference to the charge in CR No. 11/05 in a heat of movement some altercation might have taken place between the first party and the Personnel Officer, K.R. Ananda, as such , it may be viewed leniently and punishment be reduced reasonably. In support of his argument he cited the decisions reported in 1990-1 LLJ $95 and unreported decisions in the following writ appeals degrading the workman to the post of Clerk Grade - II reducing his pay by six stages in the increment on permanent basis . Against this order of the competent authority the workman preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority considering the appeal and the entire disciplinary enquiry records while accepting the finding of the enquiry officer reduced the punishment and modified the penalty to reduction of pay by 4 stages having the effect of postponing his future increment . Aggrieved by this order ofthe Appellate Authority the workman filed Writ Petition No. 924/1990 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the meanwhile the workman was issued with another charge sheet under the staff No. 667/ 156/CS - 80/ 88-89 dated 17th , August 1988 under Regulation 47 for breach of Regulations 32 and 39 ( 1 ) of the RBI Staff Regulations for his unauthorized absence for the period of8 months from 17-12-1987 to 16-8-88 and appointed Shri S.V. Raghavendra, Officer in Gr.C as enquiry officer and later on the representation by the workman that in view of the earlier report given by him has been prejudiced on his absence from duty K. Seetharamu was appointed as enquiry officer and the said enquiry officer after completing the enquiry by his finding marked as EX.M26 held him guilty of the charge . Then the competent authority satisfying the enquiry officer provided full and fair opportunity to the workman to defend him through the representative of his choice issued show cause notice proposing to dismiss him from service by letter Staff No. 1752/Disc . 156/CS- 80/88-89 dated 31-10-88 marked as Ex. M28 and on receipt of the reply of the workman dated 25-11-1988 being not satisfied passed final order dated 30-12-1989 dismissing him from services in terms of Regulation 47 ( 1 )( e) of RBI Staff Regulations with effect from close of business on 30-12-1989 as per EX. M33 . Being aggrieved by this order of the competent authority, the workman preferred appeal dated 09-01-1990 and the appellate authority being satisfied the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the workman was given due opportunity to defend confirmed the penalty imposed by his order dated 17-05-1990 which is at Ex. M.37 and the same was served on the workman under letter staff No. 1008/Disc.156/CS/ 89-90 dated 29-05-1990 which was acknowledged by his sister on 02-06-1990 which is at Ex.M38 . After passing of this order by the appellate authority the workman filed writpetition on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 12074 of 1990. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the workman (WP No. 924/90 and 12074/90 ) through common order dated 16-10-1997 observing that there is an alternative remedy available to the workman under the Industrial Dispute Act . The workman challenged this order of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1813 of 1998 and that writ appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 04-03-1999 and then the matter was taken up by the

540GI/11-31 1958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] and writ petitions in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka:

1. WA No.4251/2000 (L-KSRTC) dated 5-11-2003

the arguments addressed , by the learned advocates appearing for both the parties my finding on point Nos . ( i )& ( ii ) are in the ' Negative ' for the following reasons :

2. WANo . 1710/2000 (L-K) dated 2-11-2000

Reasons:

3. WANo. 5403/2000(L- K) dated 5-8-2003

4. WANo. 3957/2001 (L-K) dated4-7-2002

5. WA No. 4725/2000( L) dated 10-7-2003

6. WA No. 1104/2008(L) dated 31-1-2009

7. WANo. 2238/2002( L- K) dated 13-11-2002

Though the reference in CR No. 11/2005 is subsequent to reference In CR No. 77/2000 , this being in relation to the incident prior to the alleged absenteeism covered in CR No. 77/2000 on the basis ofwhich he has been terminated , it is just and proper to consider the reference in CR No. 11/2005 in the first instance .

8. WA No. 5573/2000( L- K) dated 9-06-2003

9. WP No. 37246/1998( L) dated 17-06-1999

10. WP No. 14508/2009(LK) dated 30-06-2009

11. WP No. 22008/2005 ( LK) dated 3-08-2009

12. WP No. 17316/2005(LK) dated 08-08-2005

6. Inter alia the representative of the Second Party taking me through the evidence brought on record by the first party regarding victimization urged that alleged strike led by him was subsequent to the charge sheet thereby it cannot be imputed with a malafide intention he was charge sheeted and more over only because the first party was involved in union activities he cannot claim privileges to behave in such a fashion with his superior officer and remain absent from duty as per his whims and fancies and having regard to the attitude on the part of the first party against his superior officer and his long standing unauthorized absenteeism the disciplinary authority have imposed proportionate punishment , as such, there is no necessity ofthis tribunal to interfere either in the findings ofthe enquiry officers or the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Thus he supported the findings on the charges as well as the punishment imposed in both the references and urged to dismiss the references .

7. In view of the finding of this tribunal on the Preliminary Issue in both the references regarding fairness of the Domestic Enquiry in favour ofthe second party, the points that arises for my consideration are:

(1) Whether the findings of the enquiry officer holding the first party guilty of the charges levelled against him are perverse necessitating the interference of this tribunal .

(ii) Whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the enquiry findings in both the references are disproportionate to the charges proved against the first party.

8. On appreciation of the charges levelled against the first party with the evidence brought on record by the management, the finding of the enquiry officer and the reasons assigned by the competent authority and appellate authority in respect of punishment in the light of

9. It was the charge against the first party that on 12-03-1987 after initialling in the attendance register he was unauthorisedly absent from the place of duty in staff section till 11.20 AM and when Personnel Officer, Shri K. R. Ananda asked him as to where he were after signing in the attendance register he started questioning his very authority and told him that after signing in the attendance register he could be any where in the office and later he shouted at Shri Ananda calling him ' bugger ' and thereafter he also entered his cabin and continued to shout at him in an aggressive manner saying that ' he is not a Ticca Mazdoor ' , he need regular posting in the office he has come only recently and trying to boss over him and he is a liar and all people pretend working and he is inefficient and thereby he committed breach of Regulation 39 of RBI ( Staff) Regulation , 1948 by unauthorisedly absenting himself from the place of duty and an act of gross misconduct by using obnoxious language against the Personnel Officer, Shri K. R. Ananda by his indecorous behaviour. It is to be seen from the proceedings maintained by the enquiry officer the first party represented by the Defence Representative inspite of providing number of opportunities at his request left the evidence of the Personnel Officer , K. R. Ananda unchallenged by his cross examination . The Personnel Officer, Shri K. R. Ananda examined by the Presenting Officer before the enquiry officer on 12-02-1988 has deposed to the incident and the charges levelled against the first party in detail . The same having been left unchallenged and it has also been corroborated by the evidence of two other witnesses examined on behalf of the management whose evidence has also been left unchallenged by cross - examination absolutely there was no reason for the enquiry officer to disbelieve the charges levelled against the first party. Moreover when a show cause notice was issued to the first party before he was served with the charge sheet , in his reply he did not put forward any reason leading to any altercation between him and the Personnel Officer, Shri K. R. Ananda, in relation to supply ofwater in the office premises and he has stoutly denied the incident alleged to have occurred on that day. Ifatall the first party in his reply had put forward a plea 1959 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

office, the act ofthe first party addressing him in obnoxious words questioning his very authority the punishment imposed by the appellant authority modifying the punishment imposed by the competent authority by reducing 4 increments cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved against the first party. Therefore, as regards the charge and the punishment imposed against the first party covered in CR No.11 /05 absolutely I find no reason to interfere .

that some altercations were taken place between him and the Personnel Officer as he asked the Personnel Officer about non supply of water in the office premises , the management would have examined such plea put forward by him and collect necessary evidence before deciding to serve the charge sheet on him . Therefore , the story now put forward by him that since he asked the Personnel Officer regarding non supply of water in the office premises and he asked to him where was he after initialling in the muster roll as such exchange of words were taken place between them and he did not behave as alleged against him is afterthought and is a make believe story. When the first party was afforded with reasonable opportunity by the enquiry officer to effectively defend him in the enquiry engaging the DR his failure to challenge the evidence given by Personnel Officer , Shri K. R. Ananda and the two witnesses examined on behalf of the management to corroborate the evidence of Shri K. R. Ananda establishes the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt as such in my opinion the enquiry officer did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that the charge against the first party being proved .

11. Now, coming to the charges and punishment imposed against the first party covered in CR No. 77/2000 , it is undisputed fact and also borne out from the records that the first party who had availed two weeks leave on personal affairs from 01-12-1987 by his leave application dated 17-12-1987 requested for grant of leave for two weeks enabling him to attend the construction of his sister's house and he who was expected to report to duty on 01-01-1988 did not report to duty and the second party by letter dated 06-01-1988 (Ex.M1 ) informed him that since he has no leave to his credit to cover his period of absence he is to report for duty forthwith and thereafter by his application dated 21-01-1988 (Ex.M2 ) he requested for grant of leave without pay for four more weeks on the ground that he is still involved in the construction of the house of his sister who is a non- resident and with reference to this letter of the first party dated 21-01-1988 by letter dated 29-01-1988 (Ex.M3 ) the Manager, Shri K.R. Ananda informed him that since he did not have ordinary leave to his credit to cover the period of absence he has to report for duty forthwith failing which he will render himself for disciplinary action under RBI (Staff) Regulation , 1948 and again the management by his letter dated 28-03-1988 (Ex.M4 ) with reference to first party's letter asking for leave without pay for six months informed him that it is not possible for the bank to accede his request further advising him to report for duty on or before 08-04-1988 otherwise it would be construed that he is no longer interested in continuing in the services of the bank drawing his attention to Section 39( 1 ) of RBI (Staff) Regulations , 1948. Inspite of it he did not report for duty and ultimately after issuing show cause notice the charge sheet was issued for remaining unauthorized absent from 17-12-1987 to 16-8-1988 for a period of 8 months without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority.

12. It was argued on behalf of the first party that since he was posted as leave reserve at the relevant time, by his absence no hardship being caused for the second party, the punishment imposed is harsh and disproportionate . The first party remaining absent inspite ofbeing continuously intimated that his request for leave cannot be acceded to for the purpose of supervising construction ofhis sister's house cannot be justified. The first party was first to give preference to his job and then toundertake the job like construction of his sister's house and other family house hold work. As rightly observedby 10. In respect of the punishment imposed with reference to this incident occurred on 12-03-1987 covered in CR No.11 /2005 the competent authority taking into account the status of the first party as well as the Personnel Officer superior to the first party and the attitude on the part ofthe first party by his order dated 25-08-1988 imposed the punishment of degradation to the post of Clerk Grade- II reducing his pay by six stages on a permanent basis and when this order was challenged by way of appeal , the appellate authority though agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and the reasonings given by the competent authority taking a lenient view modified the punishment and reduced the future increments by four stages . I have carefully gone through all the decisions relied on by the learned advocate appearing for the first party but in my opinion none of these decisions could come to the aid of the first party in the present case . The first party cannot claim privileges only because he was involved in union activities right from his entering into service with the second party bank to behave in such a fashion against his superior officer, in the bank. On the other hand his involvement in the union activities right from the beginning ofhis service in the second party bank makes it obligatory on his part to behave decently so as to be a model to other workmen in the bank. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Ltd Vs. N.V. Naravade reported in 2005 ILR page 360 held that " usage of abusive and filthy language against the superior officer do not call for lesser punishment than dismissal " . In the instant case having regard to the status of the first party in the bank who according to him right from his entry in the bank involved in the union activities and the status of the Personnel Officer who was expected to maintain discipline in the 1960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

the competent authority the first party could not have prefer construction of his sister's house than his job in the bank . The attitude on the part of the first party as observed by the competent authority he had no mind to continue his job in the bank and he deserved termination from services . As already adverted to by me above , the first party because involved in union activities cannot claim privilege of remaining absent from his duties inspite of refusing his request for grant of leave and claim being victimized for such disobedience . Such attitude on the part of the first party also do not deserve any sympathy or sentiments . In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SC Chairman & MD VSP and others Vs.Gokaraju Sri Prabhakar reported in 2008 ILR 715 when despite of opportunities granted to first party to report for dutyhe failed to report for duty and consistently remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 8 months , the order of punishment imposed against him of termination from the services cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved against him . Under the circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer in the charge covered in CR No. 77/2000 being proved as well as punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for the same . In the result I arrived at the conclusion of answering points No. ( i) & ( ii ) raised for consideration in the ' negative' and pass the following award:

AWARD

References in CR Nos . 77/2000 & 11/2005 are rejected. No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 12th January , 2011 ) S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer CR No. 77/2000 Annexure

List of witnesses examined by the management before the Enquiry Officer

BW 1. P. S. Doraiswamy, Staff Officer

Documents exhibited for the Management before the EnquiryOfficer

R1 1. Letter addressed to the first party dated 6-1-1988

2. Letter from the first party dated 21-1-1988

R3 3. Letter addressed to first party dated 29-1-1988 advising him to report for duty

R4 4. Letter addressed to first party refusing his request for six months leave without pay

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

R5 5. Charge Sheet dated 17-08-1988 issued to first party

R6 6. First party'sreply dated 24-8-88 to charge sheet

R7 7. Bank's letter dated 29-8-88 informing the first party of the institution of oral enquiry against him

8. First party's letter dtd 7-9-88 informing the bank of nominating Mr. MSG Subramanian as his DR R8 9. First party's letter informing the bank of his intention to be represented by his legal counsel Mr. VS Nayak R9 10. Bank's letter to the first party informing of enquiry R10 11. Proceedings of the enquiry held on 16-9-88 R11 12. First party's letter asking for changing the enquiry officer R12

R13 13. Bank's letter dated 17-9-88 informing appointment of EO

14. Bank's letter dated 19-9-88 informing about the bank witness

R14

R15 15. First party'sletter dated 23-9-88 nominatingDR

16. Proceedings of the enquiry held on26-9-88

R16 17. Bank's letter dated 29-9-88 fixing 3-10-88 as next date of enquiry R17 18. Enquiry proceedings held on 3-10-88 R18 19. Bank's letter to first party informing him of the next date of enquiry as7-10-88

R19 20. Acknowledgement for having received letter dated 5-10-88

R20

R21 21. Bank's letter dated 11-10-88 to submit summing up of arguments

22. Acknowledgement for Bank's letter dated 11-10-88

R22 23. DR letter dated 15-10-88 R23 24. Letter addressed to DR R24

R25 25. Summing up by the DR

26. Enquiry Officer's report dated 21-10-88

R26 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26 , 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

R27 27. Findings of the Competent Authority dt.25-10-88

R28 28. Show cause notice dated.31-10-88

R29 29. Acknowledgement for letter dated 31-10-88

30. First party's letter dt . 1-1-88 R30 31. Bank's letter dated 12th Nov. 88 R31 32. First party's representation dt. 25 Nov. , 88 R32 33. Final order of the Competent Authority R33

R34 34. Office Order No. 306 dt . 1-1-90

R35 35. Acknowledgement to Office order No. 306

36. Appeal by first party R36 37. Order of the Appellate Authority R37

R38 38. Bank's letter dated 29-5-1990

R39 39. Order of the Labour Court in CGANo.1/90

Note : This tribunal has been marked documents from Rl to R 39 as Ex. Ml to M39 .

List ofwitnesses examined by the first Party/CSE before the Enquiry Officer.

Nil

List of Documents of 1st party/CSE marked in the Enquiry

Nil

S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer

CR No. 11/2005

Annexure

List of witnesses examined by the management before the Enquiry Officer

1. Shri K. R. Ananda , Personnel Officer BW1 2. Shri J. N. Shukla , Jt . Manager BW2

BW3 3. Shri M. R. Halgeri , SO

Documents exhibited for the Management before the Enquiry Officer

BEX-1 1. The office note dated 12-3-1987 prepared by BW1

BEX-2 2. The office note dated 12-3-1987 prepared by BW2

BEX 3 3. The office note dated 31-3-87

Note : In the reference on the consent of first party on 08-01-2007 the enquiry file comprising of the 540 GI /11-32 A

1961 following documents has been marked as Ex. M1 series .

1. Show cause notice staff No. 4921 / 156/86-87 dated 28-03-1987

2. Reply by Shri S. Gunaseelan , Clerk Gr.1 dated 01-04-1987

3. Charge sheet Staff No. 5903 /Dis . 156/Cs.21 /86-87 dated 12-06-1987

4. Letter seeking a month's time to reply to charge sheet dated 23-06-1987

5. Letter StaffNo. 6101 /Dis . 156/CS.21 / 86-87granting time by 15 dated 24-06-1987

6. Letter Staff No. 195/Dis . 156/CS 21 /87-88 granting further extension of time by one week dated 9-7-1987

7. Letter Staff No. 315/Dis . 156 /CS 21 /87-88 refusing further, extension of time dated 18-07-1987 8. Letter Staff No. 1562/ Dis . 156/CS.21 /87-88 informing that oral enquiry is instituted and EO and PO have been appointed dated 26-10-1987 9. Letter staff No. 1663/Dis . 156 (Enq) 87-88 informing that enquiry commences on 6th Nov. 1987 at 11 am 10. Charge sheeted Employees (CSE) letter seeking a months time and naming Shri MSG Subramanian asDR. dated 04-11-1987

11. Proceedings of enquiry held on 9-11-1987 12. DR's letter seeking postponement of enquiry dated 9-11-1987

13. Letter Staff No.1951 /Dis.156/CS.221 /87-88 in reply to CSE'sletter dated 4-11-1987

14. CSE'sletter to the EO requesting to hold the enquiry after his return from leave Dated 16-11-1987

15. Proceedings ofthe enquiry held on 17-11-1987.

16. Letter staff No. 2649/Dis . 156 (CS.21 )/87-88 in reply to CSE'sletter dated 16-12-1987.

17. DR's letter requesting holding of enquiry during the availability ofSE dated 8-1-1998 .

18. Letter staff No. 29992 / Dis . 156/CS.21/87-88 informing that last opportunity to defend is given and enquiry will be held on 12-02-2008 .

19. Letter of staff No. 3074/Dis . 156/CS21/ 87-88 warning that ifhe abstains on 12-02-1988 enquiry willbe conducted exparte dated 11-2-1988 20. Acknowledgement for the above letter dated 11-2-1988 .

1962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

21. Proceedings of enquiry held on dated 12-2-1988 .

22. Letter by DR seeking reconsideration of the decision to held enquiry peremptorily exparte dated 12-2-1988.

23. Letter Staff No. 3152/Dis/CS/ 21-87-88 informing the CSE about DR's failure dated 17-02-1988 .

24. CSE's acknowledgement to above letter dated 18-02-1988 .

25. Proceedings of the enquiry held on 22-02-1988 .

26. DR'sletter of EO stating that he was reduced to mere observer as the management side produced personnel officer as its witness in the absence of CSE and he will not be able to cross examine the witnesses in absence of CSE dated 22-02-1988 .

27. Letter Staff No. 3252/Dis . 156/CS21 / 87-88 informing that next date of enquiry is 29-02-88 and he will be given every opportunity to defend his case including cross examination of witnesses .

28. Acknowledgement to above letter dated 26-2-1988 29. Proceedings of the enquiry held on 29-2-1988 30. Letter Staff No. 3336/Dis.156/CS21 / 87-88 forwarding the copy of exparte proceedings and informing that enquiry is adjourned to 7-3-1988.

31. Acknowledgement for the above letter dated 2-3-1988 .

32. Proceedings of enquiry held on 7-3-1988 .

33. Letter Staff No. 3426/Dis . 156/CS21 / 187-88 forwarding copy of the proceedings of enquiry held on 7-3-1988 .

34. Acknowledgement for the above letter dated 9-3-1988 .

35. Letter Staff No. 3825/ Dis.156/CS21 / 87-88 informing CSE that enquiry will be held on 15-4-1988 .

36. CSE's acknowledgment for the above letter dated 5-4-1988 .

37. Proceedings of enquiry held on 15-04-1988 .

38. Summing of the Prosecution by PO dated 15-4-1998.

39. Letter Staff No. 4083 /Dis . 156/CS 21 / 87-88 forwarding a copy of each of the enquiry proceedings and PO's summing up of prosecution dated 15-4-1988 .

40. Acknowledgement for the above letter dated 18-04-1988.

41. DR's letter to EO urging him not to come to any conclusion on the basis of exparte proceedings dated 25-04-1988 .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 42. Letter Staff No. 4189/Dis . 156/CS21 /87-88 informing the CSE that next sitting of enquiry dated 26-4- 1988.

43. Acknowledgement for the above letter dated 26-4-1988 .

44. Proceedings of the enquiry held on 28-4-1988 .

45. PO'srejoinder to the submission made by DR dated 28-04-1988 .

46. Letter Staff No. 4246/Dis . 156/CS 21 / 87-88 forwarding the proceedings of enquiry and informing that the enquiry has concluded dated 28-04-1988.

47. Regd. AD card acknowledged by CSE on 2-5-1988 .

48. EO's findings on conclusion of the enquiry dated 16-5-1988 .

49. Findings of the competent authority in the disciplinary proceedings dated 18-6-1988 .

50. Letter Staff No. 5160/Dis . 156 /CS 21 /87-88 dt. 20-6-1988.

51. CSE'sletter seeking extention of time by 10 days formaking representation dated 23-6-1988 .

52. Letter Staff No. 5308/Dis . 156/CS 21 / 87-88 granting time upto 8-7-1988 for submission ofrepresentation dated 25-06-1988 .

53. DR's letter to EO requesting to provide enquiry findings dated 27-6-1988 .

54. EO'sreply StaffNo. 5357/Dis . 156/CS21 / 87-88 dated 29-6-1988 .

55. CSE'srepresentation to reopen the enquiry proceedings dated 7-7-1988.

56. Competent Authority's final order dated 27-7-1988 57. Office Order No. 112 imposing punishment of degradation toCl . Gr. - II and reduction of pay by 6 stages dated 25-08-1988 .

58. CSE'sacknowledgement of the above letter .

59. AppellateAuthority's order dated 29-09-1989.

60. Office Order No. 281 reducing the punishment to reduction ofpay by 4 stages dated 11-12-1989.

List ofwitnesses examined by the first party/CSE before theEnquiry Officer. Nil

ListofDocuments of 1st party/ CSE marked in the Enquiry Nil नई दिल्ली , 4 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 650.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ

540 G / 2011 328 1963 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

मैसूर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-2-2011 का प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[संख्या-एल-12011/40/2000- आईआर( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 4th February, 2011

and evidence given by them , my Learned Predecessor by order dated 30-12-2002 had allowed the reference directing the Second Party to pay Hill and Fuel Allowance to the workman for the period for which he worked at Kanathur at 6 per cent ofhis pay or maximum of Rs . 100 which ever is less . When the said order/ award was challenged by the Second Party before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 27858 of 2003 ( L- Res) , the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 2-2-2007 set aside the said order and remitted back to this tribunal for fresh consideration observing that the documents produced by the bank/ second party have been completely ignored.

S.O. 650.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Mysore and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-02-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/40/2000- IR(B - I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

3. The brief facts leading to this reference are that one K. S. Siddannaiah who was working as Head Cashier at the Kanathur Branch of the second party bank admittedly located at an altitude of 954 meters above Mean Sea Level (MSL ) moved the second party for payment of hill and fuel allowance and as it was not entertained he approached the State Bank of Mysore Employees Association which raised the dispute on behalf of the said workman and as it failed the Central Govt . referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR-COURT, BANGALORE-560 022

Dated: 12th January, 2011

PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 9/2001

IIParty

IParty

The General Secretary,

State Bank of Mysore Employees

The Managing Director, State Bank of Mysore , HeadOffice , K.G. Road, Bangalore- 560009

Association (R), 641 , 22ndMain Road, 4th ' T' Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore- 560 041

AWARD

1.The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) andsub - section 2AofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12011/40/ 2000- IR(B - I ) dated 30-01-2001 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

4. It is the case ofthe first party that for determining the eligibility for hill and fuel allowance the hill region was categorized into three regions namely, hilly region situated at a height of 3000 meters and above MSL, places situated atthe height of above 1500 meters but below 3000 meters above MSL and places situated at a height of over 1000 meters but less than 1500 meters above MSL and in terms ofSection 15(b) ofthe Bipartite Settlement , for claim ofhill and fuel allowances , the work place should be situated at a height of not less than 750 meters and should be surrounded and accessible only through hills with a height ofmore than 1000 meters but less than 1500 meters above MSL and as Kanathur Branch was accessible only through hill area with a height of more than 1000 meters but less than 1500 meters above MSL , the workmen working at Kanathur Branch are entitle for hill and fuel allowance at the rate of 6 per cent of their pay or maximum of Rs.100 which ever is less . It is the contention of the second party that though Kanathur situated at a height of not less than 750 meters but is not surrounded and accessible only through hills with a height of more than 1000 meters but less than 1500 meters above MSL as such the workmen working in that branch are not entitle for the benefit of Section 15 (b) ofthe Bipartite Settlement .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Claim of the State Bank of Mysore Employees Association for the payment of hill and fuel allowance to the workmen employed at the Kanathur Branch of M/s . State Bank of Mysore is justified? Ifyes , what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

5.On these rival contentions of the first party and the second party before remand by the Hon'ble High Court ofKarnataka both sides without leading any oral evidence the first party had got marked xerox copy of certificate issued by Tahsildar Sakleshpur Taluk dated 18-12-1993 wherein he has certified that Ballupet Village ofSakleshpur Taluk as per the letter of Department of Mine and Geology dated 31-08-1991 being at a height of 1030 meters above MSL and to reach Kanathur village one has to pass through 2. After receiving the Claim Statement from the first party and the Counter Statement from the Second Party 1964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7 , 1932

Ballupet Archally and Chikuodu villages from Sakleshpur, Certificate issued by Tahsildar dated 14-12-1993 certifying Bikkodu village of Belur Taluk being situated as per the report of surveyor of Govt . of India at a height of 1020 meters above MSL and only through this village all vehicles has to go to Kanathur village and certificate dt.4-08-90 issued by officer Surveyor for Director Southern Circle regarding height ofBallupet, Bikkodu , Kundur Betta, Rajenahalli , Biligarhalli being 1030 , 1020,1180,1002 & 1005 meters above MSL respectively said to be taken from topographical map as Ex . W1 , W2 & W3 respectively. Inter alia the Second Party had got marked the certificate issued by the Superintending Surveyor for Director, Southern Circle seeking Mean Sea Level height of Kanathur village falling in Alur Taluk being 950 meters approximately, copy of letter of Regional Manager State Bank of Mysore dated 5-12-1996 addressed to Assistant General Manager (Personnel) Head Office , Kanathur being reachable though Hassan/ Alur/ Sakleshpur , the height of these places from Mean Sea Level being 940,970 and 915 respectively in connection with payment of hill and fuel allowance to the staff of Kanathur branch , the xerox copy of the letter by Assistant Personnel Advisor, Indian Banks ' Association addressed to the Assistant General Manager (P) , State Bank of Mysore dated 13th July, 1998 stating that the employees of State Bank of Mysore working at Kanathrur branch may not be eligible for hill and fuel allowance in view of specific condition contained in clause 15 ( c) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-1989 , the height of the place through which Kanathur accessed being less than 1000 meters , xerox copy of the letter issued by the Officer Surveyor for Director, Southern Circle to the ChiefManager , Industrial Relations , State Bank of Mysore dated 27-07- 1999 furnishing the information ofheight of the following villages above MSL

(1) Kanatur , 954 Mtrs

(2) Nakalagod, 957 Mtrs

(3) Kodgihalli , 938 Mtrs

(4) Imatipur , 95 5 Mtrs

(5) Virupapur, 954 Mtrs

(6) Siddapur , 960 Mtrs

(7) Alur , 970 Mtrs

(8) Bikkodu , 1020 Mtrs

(9) Sakeshpur, 897 to 915 Mtrs

(10) Belur, 968 Mtrs ,

and ; Copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-04-1989 between the management of ' A' Class bank and their workmen at Ex.M1 to M5 respectively.

6. After remand by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the Joint Secretary of State Bank of Mysore Employees Association/ first party while filing his affidavit on 13-08-2010 got marked the certificate issued by the State Bank ofMysore , Alur Branch dated 11-04-2007 being

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] identified as the branch surrounded by hills and staff working in the branch are eligible to draw hill and fuel allowance; certificate by Officer /Manager , Canara Bank , Magge branch being identified as the branch surrounded by hills and staffworking in the branch are eligible to draw hill and fuel allowance and a certificate issued by the Assistant General Manager , State Bank of Mysore Region(II) , Hassan to the effect that hill and fuel allowance being paid to the staff members working in the Alur , Belur, Shakleshpur and Shravanbelagola branch of its bank as Ex . W4 to W6 respectively.

7. With the above evidence and documentary evidence brought on record , fresh arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides wereheard.

8. Since there is no dispute that Kanathur branch is situated at a height of 954 Meters i.e. at a height no less than 750 mtrs , the dispute arise on the point is ' whether Kanathur is accessible only through areas which are above 1000 mtrs MSL' .

9. On appreciation of the pleadings oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties referred by me above in the light of the arguments addressed by their learned advocate answer on the point of dispute is in the negative for the following reasons : It is pertinent to note at the outset either the first party or the second party. have examined any of the authors or officers issuing the certificate relied upon by them and they only got exhibited them without any objection by either side . Though in the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Sakleshpur dated 18-12-1983/Ex . W1 it has been stated to reach Kanathur village from Sakeshpur the vehicle has to pass through Ballupet, Archalli and Chikuodu villages it is not certified that it is the only way to reach Kanathur and there , being no alternative route . Therefore , this certificate is of no assistance to the first party to establish that there is no alternative route to Kanathur other than one passing through Ballupet , Archalli and Bikkodu from Sakleshpur . The second document indicates that Bikkodu village of Belur Taluk is situated at a height of 1020 meters above MSL as per the report of Surveyor of Govt . of India with a clarification that only thorough this village one has to reach Kanathur village . The 3rd document is in respect of height of( i) Ballupet , Sakleshpur Taluk , 1030, ( ii ) Bikkodu , BelurTaluk, 1020 meters , ( iii) Kundur Betta, Alur Taluk, 1180 meters ( iv) Rajenahalli , Doddokanagal post, 1002 meters and ( v) Billigarhalli , Alur Taluk , 1005 meters above MSL and the other documents are in relation to the benefit under section 15( b) being provided to the staff working in Alur, Belur, Sakleshpur branches of the State Bank of Mysore but they do not suggest or indicate anything as to the route through which Kanathur is exclusively accessible . Since no material is place through which place the branches covered under Ex . W4 , W5 & W6 are accessible only because the staff working in those भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/ फाल्गुन 7 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

branches are provided with benefit of Section 15 (b ) ofthe Bipartite Settlement it cannot be said that the staffworking in Kanathur branch are also entitle for the said benefit. Inter alia in the document relied on by the management produced at Ex.M3 which is the letter of the Assistant Personnel Adviser, Indian Banks ' Association addressed to the Assistant General Manager (P) , State Bank of Mysore dated 13-07-1998 wherein , he has categorically stated that the payment of hill and fuel allowance would be governed by the provisions of Bipartite Settlements for award staff employees only and employees of their/ SBM bank working at Kanathur branch may not be eligible for hill and fuel allowance in view of Section 15 (c) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-1989 in view of the fact that the height of the places through which it is accessed is less than 1000 meters . Under these circumstances when a responsible officer of Indian Banks ' Association has clarified the Kanathur being accessible through places less than 1000 meters MSL and the award staff working there are not entitle for the hill and fuel allowance , the claim made by the first party is without any merit . In the result on appreciation of all the documents produced by both the sides , I am of the considered opinion that the first party failed to establish that Kanathur is accessible only through places situated at an altitude of not less than 1000 meters above MSL. Under the circumstances the reference is liable to be rejected. In the result , I am of the opinion that the claim of the first party association for the payment of hill and fuel allowance to the workmen employed at the Kanathur branch of the second party is notjustified and accordingly I pass the following award:

AWARD

The claim put forward by the State Bank ofMysore Employees Association for the payment of hill and fuel allowance to the workmen employed at the Kanathur branches of the second party bank is not justified and they are not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 22-1-2011 )

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 651.- 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 , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 07/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-2-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12011 /56/2002- आईआर (बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th February, 2011

S.O. 651. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central

1965

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-2-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 /56/2002-IR(B- I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR -COURT, BANGALORE - 560 022

Dated: 4th January, 2011

Present : Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer C.R. No. 07/2003

IIParty IParty

The ChiefGeneral Manager , State Bank of India, Personnel & HRD Department, LocalHead Office, No.65 , St. Marks Road, Bangalore- 560001

The General Secretary, Banks Staff Union (K) , P. B. No. 6102, State Bank of India, LocalHeadOffice, No. 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560001

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising 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) has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12011 /56/2002- IR(B- 1 ) dated 10th February, 2003 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of State Bank of India is justified in denying regular employment to Shri K.S. Suresh Babu and Shri R.S. Nagendra Babu as Pharmacist though they have been working in the Bank's Dispensaries for the last 17& 16 years respectively ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date ? "

2.After the receipt of the Claim Statement from the first party and the counter statement from the second party and recording the evidence of the second party and partly of the first party when the matter was at the stage of further evidence of the first party, on 4-01-2011 the first party counsel under the signature of himself and the workmen/ first party filed a memo to the effect that the first party workmen involved in this case going to enter into compromise with the second party management and this reference may be rejected as not pressed . In view of this memo filed by the first party the reference does not survive. Hence I pass the following award:

1966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 26, 2011 /PHALGUNA 7, 1932

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

अनुबंध

कामगार प्रतिनिधियों की सूची The reference is rejected as per the memo of the first partydated 04-01-2011 .

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on04-01.2011 )---

4. मोहम्मद हासिम और अन्य, पुत्र अब्दुल करीम , एफसीआई, फुड स्टोरेज डिपो , इमलिया , पोस्ट- सहकारी नगर , जिला- बुलंदशहर ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

आदेश

5. श्री राम शोभित और अन्य, सीडब्ल्यूसी डिपो , बामण हेरी , मुज्जफर नगर , पोस्ट- रामपुर , जिला- मुज्जफरपुर । नई दिल्ली , 4 फरवरी , 2011

6. श्री दिनेश कुमार और अन्य , पुत्र श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , कारसी , पोस्ट-कारसी, जिला-अलीगढ़ , ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

का.आ. 652.-जबकि केन्द्र सरकार का यह विचार है कि भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधन एवं उनके कर्मकारों के बीच एक औद्योगिक विवाद विद्यमान है;

7. श्री किशन लाल सरदार और अन्य, पुत्र स्व. श्री हुलासीराम , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , सीबी गंज बरेली , पोस्ट-श्यामगंज , जिला- बरेली ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) और जबकि इस औद्योगिक विवाद में राष्ट्रीय महत्व का प्रश्न शामिल है और इस प्रकृति का भी है कि भारतीय खाद्य निगम के एक से अधिक राज्य में स्थित प्रतिष्ठानों के इससे सम्बद्ध अथवा प्रभावित होने की संभावना है;

8. श्री मुखलाल पांडे और अन्य, पुत्र श्री बिकु पांडे, भारतीय खाद्य निगम, खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , कोशीकलां , पोस्ट- कोशीकलां, जिला-मथुरा , ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

9. श्री फुलचंद यादव और अन्य, पुत्र श्री खुनझुन यादव , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , फतेहपुर , पोस्ट-डोकली, जिला-फतेहपुर ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

10. श्री चौधरी सरकार और अन्य , भारतीय खाद्य निगम, खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , रायबरेली , पोस्ट- मलिक मउ , जिला-रायबरेली (उत्तर प्रदेश )

11. श्री इब्राहीम और अन्य, पुत्र स्व. श्री इस्माइल , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , धमुरा , पोस्ट- धमुरा , जिला-रामपुर (उत्तर प्रदेश )

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 7 - ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रम मंत्रालय के दिनांक 8-7-2003 के आदेश सं. एल-22012/28 /2002- आई आर ( सी- II ) द्वारा एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण स्थापित किया था जिसका मुख्यालय मुम्बई में रखा गया था और न्यायमूर्ति श्री एस.सी. पाण्डेय को इसका पीठासीन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया था तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्याय निर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को सौंपा गया था ।

और जबकिन्यायमूर्ति श्री एस.सी. पाण्डेय ने दिनांक 8-9-2004 को उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का कार्यभार छोड़ दिया था

12. श्री नागेन्द्र ठाकुर और अन्य, पुत्र स्व. श्री राम चरितर ठाकुर , भारतीय खाद्य निगम में कार्यरत , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , गोसाई गांव, पोस्ट-गोसाई गांव , जिला- कोकराझार, असम ( पुर्वोत्तर क्षेत्र )

13. श्री अब्दुल हाल और अन्य, पुत्र स्व. श्री अलीबख्स , सीडब्ल्यूसी बाजपुर रोड पर तैनात, भारतीय खाद्य निगम , पुरानी दिरगा, अनाज मंडी, कासीपुर , जिला- उधम सिंह नगर , उत्तरांचल । और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने दिनांक 10-11-2005 के आदेश द्वारा राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण का पुनर्गठन किया था और न्यायमूर्ति श्री घनश्याम दास को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया था ।

14. मोहम्मद हनीफ और अन्य, पुत्र स्व. श्री मंगता , सीडब्ल्यूसी देहरादून डिपो , पोस्ट- माजरा , जिला देहरादून, उत्तरांचल । और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री घनश्याम दास ने उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का कार्यभार दिनांक 06-02-2006 को छोड़ दिया था ।

15. श्री निरंजन पासवान और अन्य, पुत्र श्री सिया पासवान , भारतरीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , इटारसी , जुझारपुर रोड, पोस्ट- इटारसी , जिला- होशंगाबाद ( मध्य प्रदेश )

16. श्री बिसमिलाह अंसारी और अन्य पुत्र श्री सनुल्ला अंसारी , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , घनौर , तहसील- राजपुरा , जिला- पटियाला ( पंजाब ) ।

17. श्री सुरेन्द्र कुमार और अन्य , डीपीएस वर्कर घेवरा और शक्ति नगर में कार्यरत , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडार डिपो , जिला प्रबंधक दिल्ली क्षेत्र के अधीन , शक्ति नगर , दिल्ली-110007

अतः , अब, एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण की स्थापना की जाती है जिसका मुख्यालय मुम्बई में होगा और जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ होंगे तथा उपर्युक्त विवाद को न्याय- निर्णयन के लिए उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को इस निर्देश के साथ संदर्भित किया जाता है कि न्यायमूर्ति श्री गौरी शंकर सर्राफ इस मामले में उस स्तर से आगे कार्यवाही करेंगे जहां पर न्यायमूर्ति श्री घनश्याम दास ने इसे छोड़ा था तथा तद्‌नुसार इस मामले को निपटाएंगे ।

[सं. एल-22012/28/2002- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

डी.एस.एस.एस.राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

18. श्री आनंदी पासवन और अन्य , पुत्र श्री सुबे पासवान , भारतीय खाद्य निगम , खाद्य भंडारण डिपो , परतपुर मेरठ , पोस्ट- परतपुर , जिला-मेरठ ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) 1967 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 26, 2011/फाल्गुन 7, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. Sh . Ram Shobhit & others , CWC Depot Bamanheri , Muzafer Nagar, Post Rampur, Distt. Muzaferpur.

19. श्री काश्मीर सिंह और अन्य , पुत्र श्री भान सिंह , एआरडीसी पट्टी गोदाम में कार्यरत , अमृतसर ( पंजाब ) गांव-असल , पट्टी तहसील के पास , पोस्ट- तकारपुरा , जिला-अमृतसर , (पंजाब) ।

ORDER

6. Sh . Dinesh Kumar & others , S/ o Sh . Prahlad Singh , Food Corporation of India, Food Storage Depot, Quarsi , P.O .: Quarsi , Distt . Quarsi , Distt . Aligarh (UP).

New Delhi , the 4th February, 2011

7. Sh . Kishan Lal Sardar & others , S/o Late Hulashi Ram, FCI , Food Storage Depot, C.B. Ganj , Bareilly, PostShyam Ganj , Distt . Bareilly, U.P.

S.O. 652. Whereas the Central Govt . is of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the management of FCI and their workmen:

8. Sh.Mukh Lal Pandey & others , Slo Sri Bikau Pandey, FCI, Food Storage Depot, Kosi Kalan , Post Kosi Kalan , Distt . Mathura, U.P.

And Whereas the industrial dispute involves question ofnational importance and also is of such nature that establishments of Food Corporation of India located in more than one State are likely to be interested in or affected:

9. Sh. Fulchand Yadav & others , S/o Sri Khunjhun Yadav, FCI , Food Storage Depot, Fatehpur, Post Dhokeli , Distt . Fatehpur, U.P.

10. Sh . Chaudhary Sarkar & others , Food Corporation ofIndia, Food Storage Depot, Raibareilly, PO Malick Mou, Distt . Raibareilly (UP)

11. Sh . Ibrahim & others , S /o Late Ismail , FCI , FSD , Dhamoura, Post Office, Dhamoura , Distt . Rampur (U.P. )

And Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the ID Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No.L - 22012 /28 /2002 - IR( C - II ) dated 8-7-2003 with headquarters at Mumbai and appointed Justice Shri S.C. Pandey as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1A) ofSection 10 ofthe said Act, referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

12. Sh. Nagendra Thakur & others , S/o Late Sri Ram Charitar Thakur, Working at FCI , FSD, Gosaigaon . P.O. Gosaigaon, Distt. Kokrajhar, Assam (NEF Region)

AndWhereas Justice Shri S.C. Pandey relinquished charge of the above National Industrial Tribunal on 8-9-2004.

13. Sh. Abdul Haque & others , S/o Late Ali Baksh , working at CWC Bajpur Road , FCI , Purani Dirga Anaj Mandi , Kashipur Distt . Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal .

And Whereas Central Government vide order dated 10-11-2005 reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass as its Presiding Officer.

14. Mohd. Hanif & others , S/o Late Mangta, CWC Dehradun Depot, Post Majra, Distt . Dehradun Uttaranchal .

And Whereas Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on 06-02-2006.

15. Sh. Niranjan Paswan & others , S/o Shri Siya Paswan, FCI , FSD , Itarsi , Jhujharpur Road , PO: Itarsi , Distt. Hoshangabad (MP).

16. Sh. Bismillah Ansari & others , S/o Sanullah Ansari , Food Corporation of India, Food Storage Depot, Ghannour, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala (Punjab).

Now, Therefore , a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with Headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf, Presiding Officer of CGIT No.1 , Mumbai as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the above said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri Gauri Shanker Sarraf shall proceed in the matter from the stage atwhich it was left by Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass and dispose of the same accordingly.

17. Sh . Surender Kumar & others , working at DPS Worker Ghevra & Shakti Nagar , FSD, Delhi Region underDistrict Manager, Food Corporation of India, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.

[No.L-22012/28 /2002- IR(C- II ) ]

D.S.S.S. RAO, Desk Officer

18. Sh . Anandi Paswan & others , S/o Subey Paswan , FCI, Food Storage Depot, Paratpur Meerut, Post Paratpur, Distt . Meerut (UP) .

ANNEXURE

List ofWorkmen Representatives:

19. Sh. Kashmir Singh & others , S/ o Sh . Bhan Singh, working at Patti Godown ARDC , Amritsar (Punjab ) , Village Asal, Near Patti Tehsil Patti , Post Office Takarpura, Distt .Amritsar (Punjab ).

4. Mohd. Hashim & others , S/o Abdul Karim , FCI , Food Storage Depot , Imalia , Post Sahkari Nagar, Distt . Bulandshahar(UP) .

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .