This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04 /0007 /2003-05 भारत का राजपत्र सत्यमेव जयते The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 14]

No. 14 ]

नई दिल्ली, मार्च 27-अप्रैल 2 , 2011 , शनिवार/चैत्र 6 चैत्र 12, 1933 NEW DELHI , MARCH 27 - APRIL 2 , 2011 , SATURDAY / CHAITRA 6 CHAITRA 12 , 1933 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 संविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence )

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 24 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 857.-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 हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य , शिमला में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के. अ.ब्यूरो ) द्वारा अन्वेषण किए जा रहे मामलों में परीक्षण न्यायालयों में और विधि द्वारा स्थापित अपीलीय न्यायालयों में अथवा अभियोजन , अपील , पुनरीक्षण या मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य प्रक्रियाओं का संचालन करने के लिए श्री धर्म पाल चौहान , अधिवक्ता को केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 225 /4/2010 - ए वी डी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training ) New Delhi , the 24th March , 2011

S.O. 857.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

(2573 )

1023 GI / 2011

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoint Shri Dharam Pal Chauhan , Advocates of Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution ofcases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla as entrusted to him by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals / revisions or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law.

[No. 225 /4/ 2010-AVD - II ] V. M. RATHNAM , Dy. Secy. नई दिल्ली , 28 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 858.- केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए महाराष्ट्र राज्य के नागपुर में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित किए मामले जिन्हें केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपा गया है, परीक्षण न्यायालयों में तथा अपील/ पुनरीक्षण या इन मामलों के पुनरीक्षण या विधि द्वारा स्थापित अपीलीय न्यायालयों के मामलों में उद्भूत अन्य प्रक्रियाओं का 2571

THE GAMESTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1 1933

संचालन करने के लिए निम्नो एडवोकेटों को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : -

1 . सुश्री ज्योति छोटेलाल वजानी

2. श्री विजय लक्ष्मणराव कोल्हे

3. श्री जयन्त वाई. घुरडे

[ फा. सं. 225/43/2009- एवीडी -11 ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 28th March , 2011

S.O. 858. In acercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the fo'lowing Advocates , as Special Public Prosecutor for condus ting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police stablishment ( CBI) in the State ot iMaharashtra at Nagour entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/ revisions or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appeilate courts established by law : - 1 Ms. Jyoti Chottajal Vajani

Shri Vijay Lasmarao Kolhe

3 Shri Jayant Y Ghurde

[ F. No. 225 / 43 / 2009 - AVD - II ] V. M. RATHNAM , Dy . Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 859. बोंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1945 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का पयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार , राजनैतिक ( ए ) विभाग , दिसपुर की दिनांक 21 दिसंबर 2010 की अधिसूचना सं. पीएलए AS1/2010/224 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से एनसी हिल्स ( अब दीमा कसाओ जिला ) में नेरगा के अंतर्गत सी.आई.डी. पुलिस स्टेशन में वर्ष 2006-2007 के दौरान अधिक व्यय के संबंध में पंजीकृत भारतीय दंड मंन्द्रिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120 ( बी ) , 468 , 471, 420 तथा 409 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण , 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49 ) की धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( सी ) और ( डी ) के साथ पटित धारा 13 ( 2 ) के अंतर्गत केस सं. 72/2010 के संबंध में तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरण तथा षडयंत्र क संबंध में या इसी संत्र्यवहार के क्रम में या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्यअपराध/अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार एतद्वारा सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

[सं. 228 /86/2010 - एवीडी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव

(PART II SH3000 New Delhi , the 29th March , 2011

S.O. 859. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of me Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No.25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Assam , Political ( A ) Department . Dispur vide Notification No. PLA . 681/2010/224 dated 21st December , 2010 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of Case No. 72/2010 under Sections 120 -B, 468 , 471 , 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and Sections 13 ( 2 ) read with 1301HC ) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 ( Act No. 49 of 1988 ) registered at Police Station CID relating to Excess expenditure during 2006-07 , under NREGA in N C Hills ( now Dima Hasao District ) , Assam 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 / 86 / 2010 -AVD- ] V. M. RATHNAM . Dy. Secy .

कार्यालय , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर , 23 मार्च , 2011 [ सं. 28 / 2010-11 ]

का.आ. 860. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सीए क साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड (23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के दद्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एत‌द्वाग निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-11 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " रवि बाल निकेतन सोसायटी , जयपुर ( स्थाई खाता संख्या AAATR7448D ) " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के उप - खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) क प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांकः मुआआआआआ/( मु ) /जय/10 ( 23 सी ) ( vi ) / 10-11 /7053 ] मुकेश भान्ती, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Jaipur, the 23rd March , 2011 [ No. 28/ 2010-111

S.O. 860. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - clause (vi ) of clause (23 C ) of Section 10 of the Income- taxAct , 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax , [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Jaipur hereby approves " Ravi Bal Niketan Society, Jaipur ( PAN - AAATR7448D ) " for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2010-11 & onwards .

Provided that the society confirms to and complies with the provisions of sub - clause ( vi ) of clause ( 23 C ) of Section 10 of the Income - tax Act , 196 ! read with rule 2CA of the Income- tax Rules , 1962.

[ No. CCIT / JPR/ Addl.CIT ( Hqrs . ) / 10 ( 23C ) ( vi ) / 2010-11 / 7053 ] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

वित्त मंत्रालय ( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 861.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर , एतद्वारा , घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उप- खण्ड ( i ) के उपबंध देना बैंक पर लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध देना बैंक के अध्सक्ष एवं प्रबंधक निदेशक श्री डी. एल . रावल के कृषि वित्त निगम लि. के निदेशक के रूप में नामित होने से है ।

[फा. सं. 20/7/2007- बीओ -1 ] एस. गोपाल कृष्ण , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 25th March , 2011

S.O. 861. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949 ) , the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India , hereby declare that the provisions of sub - clause ( i ) of clause ( c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Dena

2575

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

Bank in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri D.L. Rawal , Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank as a Director of Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited . [F. No. 20 / 7 /2007 - BO . I S. GOPAL KRISHAN , Under Secy.

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय (एआई अनुभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 15 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 862 , सार्वजनिक लोक उद्यम विभाग के कार्यालय ज्ञापन संख्या 9 ( 22 ) /2005-जी.एम. दिनांक 13 अप्रैल , 2010 में निहित अनुदेशों की शर्तों तथा नेशनल एविएशन कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड ( अब एयर इंडिया लिमिटेड ) के संगम अनुच्छेद के खंड 98 के तहत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , राष्ट्रीय दिनांक 9 मार्च , 2011 से एअर इंडिया लिमिटेड के निदेशक मण्डल से श्री आनंद जी. महिन्द्रा का त्याग पत्र स्वीकार करते हैं ।

[सं- एवी-18013/07/2007 - एआई ] एस. के. छिकारा , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION (Al Section) New Delhi , the 15th March , 2011

S.O. 862. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 98 of the Articles of Association of the National Aviation Company of India Limited ( now Air India Limited) and in terms of instructions contained in Department of Public Enterprises Office Memorandum No.9 ( 22 )/2005 -GM dated the 13th April , 2010 , the President is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri Anand . G. Mahindra from the Board of Directors of Air India Limited with effect from 9th March , 2011 .

[No. AV. 18013 /07 /2007 - A1 ] S.K. CHHIKARA , Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्य तथा परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्य तथा परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 8 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 863. केंद्र सरकार , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 को उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके , अर्हता नामावली में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, नामतः:-

उक्त अनुसूची में-

" रांची विश्वविद्यालय " के सामने ' मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] , के अन्तर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टिऔर उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ जो कि आगे कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित शामिल किया जायेगा , नामतः :---

(2) डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( संवेदनाहरण )

(3) एम. डी. ( संवेदनाहरण ) ( राजेन्द्र आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , राँची ( झारखण्ड ) में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में राँची विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा वर्ष 1988 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यता प्राप्त होगी ) । 2576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART 11-SLC. 3 ( i ) ] सभी के लिए टिप्पणी 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अवधि 5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण करना होगा ।

2. मान्यता को उप- खण्ड 4 की आवश्यकता के अनुसार समय पर नवीकरण में विफल होने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे ।

[सं. यू. 12012,14/2011 -एमई पी. 11 ) } अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare ) New Delhi , the 8th March , 2011

In the said Schedule

S. O. 863. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Uracil Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby, makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely ( a) against " Ranchi University " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ] , after the last entry and enrty relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted namely:-

(3)

(2) "Doctor of Medicine ( Anaesthesia) "

MD ( Anaesthesia) ,

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Ranchi University in respect of students being trained at Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences , Ranchi (Jharkhand) on or after 1988 .

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

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

[No.U.12012/14/2011 - ME ( P . II ) ]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 864.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके , संबद्ध विश्वविद्यालयों के नाम में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , नामतः :-

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

(3)

(2)

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

एमबीबीएस

( श्री मानाकुला विनयगर मेडिकल कालेज एवं अस्पताल , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा दिसम्बर , 2010 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त मानी जाएगी ) ।

[सं. यू. 12012/ 83 /2004 - एमई. (पी . 11 ) ]

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th March , 2011

S. O. 864. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby, makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely :---

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2577

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

In the said First Schedule against " Pondicherry University, Pondicherry " under the heading ' Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ in column (2 ) ] and under the heading " Abbreviation for Registration " [ in column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely :---

(2)

(3)

M.B.B.S.

"Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University, Pondicherry on or after December , 2010 in respect of students trained at Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College & Hospital , Pondicherry) .

[No.U.12012/ 83 / 2004 - ME (P. II ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 865.-केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड , नई दिल्ली तथा एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड, फरीदाबाद के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती हैं: - 1. एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड कोलडैम हाइड्रो पावर परियोजना पोस्ट- बरमाणा , जिला बिलासपुर ( हि.प्र. ) पिन-174013

2. एनएचडीसी लिमिटेड , ओंकारेश्वर पॉवर स्टेशन सिद्धवरकूट , जिला - खंडवा

3. एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , क्षेत्र- III ब्लॉक-डी.पी. , प्लाट नं. 3 , सैक्टर- V , साल्ट लेक सिटी कोलकाता -700091

[सं. 11017/4/2010 - हिंदी ] अशोक लवासा , अपर सचिव

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi , the 18th March , 2011

S.O. 865.- In pursuance of Sub Rule (4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( use for official purposes of the union ) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices , under the administrative control of NT PC Limited , New Delhi and NHPC Limited , Faridabad , the staff whereof have acquired 80 % working knowledge of Hindi :-

1. NTPC Limited Koldam Hydro Power Project P.O. Barmana , Distt. Bilaspur( H.P. ) Pin- 174013

2. NHDC Limited Omkareshwar Power Station Siddhwarkut , Distt . Khandwa

3. NHPC Limited Regional Office , Region - III Block - D.P. Plot No.3 , Sector -V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700091

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

2578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[ PART II - SEC 300 ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 866.- दिनांक 17-8-2006 को अधिसूचित मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक तथा वैद्युत निरीक्षक की योग्यता , शक्ति एवं कार्य नियम, 2006 के साथ पठित विद्युत अधिनियम , 2003 ( 2003 का 36 ) की धारा 162 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कंन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उपरोक्त नियम में उल्लिखित योग्यता एवं शर्त के अधीन वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में केन्द्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण नई दिल्ली कं निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों की नियुक्ति करती है ।

नाम/श्री

क्र.सं.

पदनाम

योग्यता 1.

उप निदेशक उपेन्द्र कुमार

बी.ई. ( इलैक्ट्रिकल )

राम चंद्र

उप निदेशक के पद पर नियुक्त

वैद्युत निरीक्षक

बी.ई. ( इलैक्ट्रिकल)

अधीक्षण अभियंता एस. जी. टेन्पे *

वैद्युत निरीक्षक

बी.ई. ( इलैक्ट्रिकल )

वैद्युत निरीक्षक

* श्री एस जी टेन्पे को श्री एस. डी. टकसांडे , निदेशक के स्थान पर वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त किया जा रहा है ।

उपर्युक्त अधिकारी केन्द्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण ( सुरक्षा एवं विद्युत आपूर्ति से संबंधित उपाय ) विनियम, 2010 में प्रदत्त प्रक्रिया के अनुसार केन्द्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण के अधिकार क्षेत्र के भीतर चल रहे विद्युत कार्यों , विद्युत संस्थानों तथा विद्युत रोलिंग स्टॉक के संबंध में शक्तियों का प्रयाग नथा कार्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे ।

वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त व्यक्ति को ऐसा प्रशिक्षण प्रदान किया जाएगा जिसे केन्द्र सरकार इस उद्देश्य हेतु आवश्यक समझे और यह प्रशिक्षण सरकार की संतुष्टि के अनुसार पूरा किया जाएगा । [फा. सं. 42/3 /2010- आर एंड आर अशोक लवासा , अपर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2011

S.O. 866. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 162 of Electricity Act , 2003 ( 36 of 2003 ) read with Qualification , power and function of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules , 2006 notified on 17-8-2006 , the Central Government hereby appoints following Officers of Central Electricity Authority , New Delhi as Electrical Inspector Subject to the qualification and Condition mentioned in above Rule .

S/No Name/ Shri

Qualification

Designation 1.

Upendra Kumar

B.E. (Elect)

Deputy Director 2.

Ram Chandra

B.E. (Elect)

Deputy Director 3 .

B.E. ( Elect)

S.G.Tenpe *

Sup . Engineer Appointed As

Electrical Inspector

* Shri S.G. Tenpe is being appointed as Electrical Inspector in place of Shri S.D. Taksande , Director .

The above mentioned official shall exercise the powers and perform function in respect of electrical works , electrical institutions and electrical rolling stock in operation within the jurisdiction of Central Electricity Authority, as per the procedure provided in Central Electricity Authority ( Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply ) Regulations , 2010 . The person appointed as Electrical Inspector shall undergo such training as the Central Government may consider it necessary for the purpose and such training shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Government .

[F.No. 42/3/2010 - R & R ] ASHOK LAVASA , Addl . Secy:

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 867.- दिनांक 17-8-2006 को अधिसूचित मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक तथा वैद्युत निरीक्षक की योग्यता , शक्ति एवं कार्य नियम , 2006 के साथ पठित विद्युत अधिनियम , 2003 ( 2003 का 36 ) की धारा 162 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कंन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उपर्युक्त नियम में उल्लिखित योग्यता एवं शर्त के अधीन वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में खान सुरक्षा महानिदेशालय, धनबाद क वैद्युत संवर्ग के निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों की नियुक्ति करती है । क्र. सं. अधिकारी का नाम/ श्री

डीजीएसएस में पदनाम (1)

(2)

(3) 1 . धर्मेंद्र कुमार

के पद पर नियुक्ति

(4)

उप महानिदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत )

2. बी. के. पाणिग्रही

निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक

वैद्युत निरीक्षक [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

(1)

(2)

(3) 3.

बी. के. लामा

निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 4.

के. एम घोष

निदेशक, खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 5.

एम. के. दास

निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 6 .

मुकेश श्रीवास्तव

निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 7.

निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) यू. एन. पांडेय

एस. के. ठाकुर

निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 9.

जी. एल. कांटा राव

निदेशक, खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 10. बी. एस. निम

निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 11. राधे श्याम

उप निदेशक, खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 12. के.एस. यादव

उप निदेशक, खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 13. एम. के. मालवीय

उप निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) 14. मधुकर सहाय

उप निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) अजय सिंह

15.

उप निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत ) टी. श्रीनिवास

16.

उप निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत )

2579 (4)

वैद्युत निरीक्षक

उपर्युक्त अधिकारी केन्द्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण ( सुरक्षा एवं विद्युत आपूर्ति से संबंधित उपाय ) विनियम , 2010 में दी गई प्रक्रिया के अनुसार खान सुरक्षा महानिदेशालय , धनबाद के भीतर चल रहे विद्युत कार्यों , विद्युत संस्थानों तथा विद्युत रोलिंग स्टॉक के संबंध में शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा कार्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे ।

विद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त व्यक्ति को ऐसा प्रशिक्षण प्रदान किया जाएगा जिसे केन्द्र सरकार इस उद्देश्य हेतु अवश्यक समझे और यह प्रशिक्षण सरकार की संतुष्टि के अनुसार पूरा किया जाएगा । [फा. सं. 42/3/2010- आर एंड आर ] अशोक लवासा , अपर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2011

S.O. 867. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 162 of the Electricity Act , 2003 ( 36 of 2003 ) read with Qualification, power and function of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules , 2006 notified on 17-8-2006 , the Central Government hereby appoints following Officers of Electrical Cadre of Directorate General ofMines Safety, Dhanbad as Electrical Inspector Subject to the qualification and Condition mentioned in above Rule .

S/N .

Designation in DGMS Name of the Officer/ Shri

1 .

Dharmendra Kumar

To be appointed as

Dy. Director General of Mines Safety ( Elect . )

B.K.Panigrahi

Chief Electrical Inspector

Director of Mines Safety ( Elect . )

-do- 3.

B.K.Lama

-do- 4.

K.M.Ghosh

M.K.Das

-do- 6.

Mukesh Srivastava

-do-

-do- 7.

U.N.Pandey

-do- 8.

S.K.Thakur

-do- 9.

G.L.Kanta Rao

-do- 10.

B.S.Nim

11.

Electrical Inspector

-do-

Dy. Director of Mines Safety ( Elect .)

Radhey Shyam

-do- 12

K.S.Yadav

-do- 13. M.K.Malviya

-do- 14. Madhukar Sahay

-do- 15. Aiay Singh

-do- 16 .

T. Srinivas

-do-

2580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] The person appointed as Electrical Inspector shall undergo such training as the Central Government may consider it necessary for the purpose and such training shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Government .

[F. No. 42/3/2010 - R & R ]

ASHOK LAVASA , Addl . Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 868.- दिनांक 17-8-2006 को अधिसूचित मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक तथा वैद्युत निरीक्षक की योग्यता , शक्ति एवं कार्य नियम, 2006 के साथ पठित विद्युत अधिनियम , 2003 ( 2003 का 36 ) की धारा 162 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उपरोक्त नियम में उल्लिखित योग्यता एवं शर्त के अधीन वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में केन्द्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण नई दिल्ली के निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों की नियुक्ति करती है ।

क्र.सं. अधिकारी का नाम

पदनाम

उप सीईई श्री एम.ए.वी. रामानुजन

निदेशक ( आरएसई) श्री डी.डी. पाहुजा

योग्यता

के पद पर नियुक्त

बी.ई. /एमई

वैद्युत निरीक्षक

इलैक्ट्रिकल इंजीनियरिंग मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक

उपर्युक्त अधिकारी केन्द्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण ( सुरक्षा एवं विद्युत आपूर्ति से संबंधित उपाय ) विनियम , 2010 में दी गई प्रक्रिया के अनुसार बंगलौर मेट्रो रेल कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के भीतर चल रहे विद्युत कार्यों, विद्युत संस्थानों तथा विद्युत रोलिंग स्टॉक के संबंध में शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे तथा कार्य का निर्वहन करेंगे ।

[फा. सं. 42/3/2010 - आर एंड अर ]

अशोक लवासा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2011

S.O. 868. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 162 of the Electricity Act , 2003 (36 of 2003 ) read with Qualification , power and function of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules 2006 notified on 17-8-2006 , the Central Government hereby appoints following Officers of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. , Karnataka as Electrical Inspector subject to the qualification and condition mentioned in above Rule.

S. No. Name of Officers

Qualification

Designation 1. Sh. M.A.V. Ramanujan Dy. CEE 2.

Sh. D.D.Pahuja

Director(RSE)

Appointed As

BE/ME

Electrical Inspector Electrical Engineering ChiefElectrical Inspector The above mentioned official shall exercise the powers and perform function in respect of electrical works , electrical institutions and electrical rolling stock in operation within the area of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. , as per the procedure provided in Central Electricity Authority ( Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply ) Regulations , 2010 .

The person appointed as Electrical Inspector shall undergo such training as the Central Government may consider it necessary for the purpose and such training shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Government .

[ F.No. 42/3 / 2010 - R & R ] ASHOK LAVASA , Addl . Secy .

रसायन और उर्वरक मंत्रालय

(उर्वरक विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 869. सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अधिकृत निवासी का निष्कासन ) अधिनियम , 1971 के खंड 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार नीचे दी गई तालिका के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी की नियुक्ति करती है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए संपदा अधिकारी के लिए सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी अथवा समकक्ष स्तर के अधिकारी हैं जो उक्त तालिका के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में निर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसर के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा उसके अंतर्गत संपदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और संपदा अधिकारी पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे ।

अधिकारी का पदनाम

मुख्य प्रशासनिक अधिकारी , ब्रह्मपुत्र वैली फर्टिलाइजर्स कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , नामरूप

तालिका

सार्वजनिक परिसर की श्रेणियां

ब्रह्मपुत्र वैली फर्टिलाइजर कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड तत्कालीन हिन्दुस्तान फर्टिलाइजर कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड से संबंधित अथवा इसकी बस्ती से संबंधित अथवा इसके द्वारा पट्टे पर लिए गए परिसर।

[फा. सं . 88/ 1 /2006-मा. सं. -1 ]

पी. बी. साहू, अवर सचिव ( मा. सं. - 1 ) 2581

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] .

MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS

(Department of Fertilizers)

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

S.O. 869. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act , 1971 the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) of table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of Government to be the Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred , and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table .

TABLE

Categories of the public premises

Designation of the Officer

(2)

(1)

Senior Administrative Officer, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizers Corporation Limited, Namrup

Premises belonging to , or taken on lease , by or on behalf of the Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited Erstwhile Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited and its township.

[ F.No. 88 / 1 /2006- HR - 1 ] P.B. SAHU , Under Secy. (HR- I )

सूक्ष्म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 870.-केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) केअनुसरण में सूक्ष्म , लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय के नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एतत्द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:

1. शाखा कार्यालय , पानीपत , राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग निगम लिमिटेड, शॉप कम ऑफिस , 11-12 , गौशाला मंडी , मैसर्स डेली पेंट्स के ऊपर, जीटी रोड , पानीपत ( हरियाणा ) ।

2. शाखा कार्यालय , मेरठ , राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग निगम लिमिटेड , एडीआई कार्यालय परिसर निकट डीआईसी , सूरजकुण्ड रोड , मेरठ-250002 (उत्तर प्रदेश ) ।

3. शाखा कार्यालय, गुडगांव , राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग निगम लिमिटेड, सं. 9 , दूसरा तल आपका सिटी प्लाजा, सिविल लाइन्स , होटल पार्क इन के नजदीक गुड़गांव ( हरियाणा ) ।

4. शाखा कार्यालय , अहमदाबाद, राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग निगम लिमिटेड, 202 , 203 समरूद्ध बिल्डिंग गुजरात हाई कोर्ट के सामने , अहमदाबाद -380014 ( गुजरात ) ।

5. शाखा कार्यालय , नासिक , राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग निगम लिमिटेड, एनएसआई सी परिसर , द्वितीय तल , ए-9 , पदमश्री बाबूभाई राठी चौक त्रिम्बक रोड , एमआईडीसी सतपुर , नासिक-422007 ( महाराष्ट्र ) ।

6. शाखा कार्यालय , वजीरपुर , राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग निगम लिमिटेड, 706 , सातवां तल , पर्ल्स बैस्ट हाइट -1 , नेताजी सुभाष प्लेस , वजीरपुर डिपो के सामने , नई दिल्ली -110034 1

7. शाखा कार्यालय , बहादुरगढ़ , राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग निगम लिमिटेड, शॉप नं. 1 , प्रथम तल , दिल्ली रोहतक रोड, फ्रन्टियर बिस्किट फैक्ट्री के सामने , एमआईई , बहादुरगढ़ ( हरियाणा ) ।

[सं. ई-12016/01/2005 -हिन्दी ] अमरेन्द्र सिन्हा, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF MICRO , SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES New Delhi , the 29th March , 2011

S.O. 870.- In pursuance of sub - rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices , under the control of the Ministry of Micro , Small and Medium Enterprises , whose more than 80% staff has acquired working knowledge in Hindi :

1023 GI/11-2 2582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1. Branch Office , Panipat , National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Shop cum Office , 11-12 , Goshala Mandi , above M/ s . Daily Paints ,GT Road , Panipat ( Haryana) .

2. Branch Office , Meerut , National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , ADI Office Campus , Near DIC , Surajkund Road , Meerut- 250002 ( Uttar Pradesh) .

3. Branch Office , Gurgaon, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , No.9 , Second Floor Aap Ka City Plaza , Civil Lines , Near Hotel Park Inn , Gurgaon (Haryana) .

4. Branch Office , Ahmedabad , National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , 202 , 203 Samruddh Building , Opp . Gujarat High Court , Ahmedabad - 380014 ( Gujarat) .

5. Branch Office , Nashik , National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , NSIC Campus , Second Floor , A - 9 , Padamshree Babu Rathi Chowk, Trimbak Road , MIDC Satpur, Nashik - 422007 ( Maharastra) .

6. Branch Office , Wazirpur , National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , 706 , 7th Floor, Pearls Best Heights - 1 . Netaji Subash Place , Opp . Wazirpur Depot . , New Delhi - 110034 .

7. Branch Office , Bahadurgarh, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. , Shop No.1 ,. First Floor , Delhi Rohtak Road , Opp . Frontier Biscuit Factory , MII , Bahadurgarh ( Haryana) .

[No. E - 12016/ 1 / 2005 - Hindi ]

AMARENDRA SINHA , Jt . Secy .

वस्त्र मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 871.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , संघ के ( शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए ) राजभाषा नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम 4 के अनुसरण में , वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है : -

1. बनुकर सेवा केंद्र , विकास आयुक्त ( हथकरघा ) कार्यालय , इंदौर , मध्य प्रदेश ।

2. अनुसंधान विस्तार केंद्र , केतअवप्रसं , केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड बुदेलखण्ड विश्वविद्यालय परिसर , झांसी-284128 , ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) 3. उप रेशमकीट प्रजनन केंद्र , केरेअवप्रसं. केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, पो.बा. सं. 21 , कार्नवाल रोड, सिम्स पार्क के निकट , कूनूर -643101 (तमिलनाडु) ।

4. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , वस्त्र समिति , राज चेंबर्स , 978 , थडगम रोड , कोयंबतूर -641002 ।

5. दि हैण्डीक्राफ्ट्स एण्ड हैण्डलूम्स एक्सपोर्ट्स कार्पोरेशन आफ इण्डिया लिमिटेड , नं. 31/32 , इण्डस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , गिण्डी , चेन्नई -600032 ।

[सं. ई -11016/1-2011-हिन्दी]

शमशेर कौर , मुख्य लेखा नियंत्रक

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi , the 25th March , 2011

S.O. 871. In pursuance of sub - rule ( 4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use of official purposes of Union ) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Textiles , whereof 80 per cent staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :---

1. Weavers Service Centre , Office of DC ( Handloom ) , Indore , Madhya Pradesh .

2. Research Extension Centre , CTR & TI , Central Silk Board , Campus of Bundelkhand University , Jhansi - 28-4128 (Uttar Pradesh ) .

3. Satellite Silkworm Breeding Station , CSR & TI , Central Silk Board , P.B.No.21 , Cornwall Road , Near Sim's Park . Coonoor - 643101 (Tamilnadu) .

4. Regional Office , Textiles Committee , Raj Chambers , 978 , Thadgam Road, Coimbatore .

5. The Handicrafts & Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. , No. 31/32 , Industrial Estate , Gindi , Chennai- 600032.

[No. E - 11016 / 1 /2011 - Hindi ]

SHAMSHER KAUR, Chief Controller of Accounts 2583 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2. 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली . 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 872 .--- 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 एपल मोटर मैन्युफैक्चरिंग कं. , नं. 15, शिवप्रकाशम स्ट्रीट , माउंट रोड , नरसिंगपुरम , चेन्नै -600002 द्वारा विनिर्मित " ए - स्टार " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित " टैक्सी/ आटो मीटर " ( फ्लंग टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एपल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/10 / 437 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रपाण- पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल " टैक्सी/ आटो मीटर " ( फ्लेग टाइप ) मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्री द्वारा देय भाड़े को यात्रा के दौरान किसी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा , तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम पर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है जो प्राधिकृत शुल्क के अनुसार अनुपूरक भाड़े से स्वतंत्र है । मीटर की रीडिंग प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) द्वारा दर्शायी जाती है । टैक्सी मीटर का' के' फेक्टर 100 प्लसेस प्रति किलोमीटर पर चलता है । इंडीकेटर में 5 अंको ( 3 तीन अंक रुपए के लिए और 2 अंक पैसे के लिए ) तक अधिकतम किराया सूचन , 4 अंकों (4 अंकों में एक दशमलव प्वाइंट शामिल ) में अधिकतम दूरी सूचन और 4 अंकों में अधिकतम समय सूचन दर्शाता है ।

आकृति ।

FOR

आकृति 2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का सीलिंग डायग्राम

सील और स्टाम्प क गत्यापन के लिए दिए गए दो स्क्रू होल्ज वाले में से लीडिड वायर निकाल मीटर की रियर बाटम साइड में सीलिंग की जाती है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना मीटर को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 271 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

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

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

New Delhi , the 31st January , 2011

S.O. 872. 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 Taxi/ Auto Meter " ( Flag Type ) with digital indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) of " A - STAR " series and with brand name " APPLE " manaufactured by M/ s . Apple Meter Mfg . Co. , No. 15 , Sivaprakasam Street , Mount Road , Narasingapuram , Chennai - 600002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/10/437;

The said model of " Taxi / Auto Meter " ( Flag Type ) is a measuring instrument which totalizes continuously and indicates the fare at any moment of journey the charges payable by the passenger of a public vehicle as function of the distance traveled and below a certain speed , the fare is calculated as function of the time taken . This being independent of supplementary charges according to the authorized tariffs . The reading of the meter is indicated by the Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) . The ' k ' factor of the Taxi Meter is 1400 pulses per kilometer . The indicator have 5 digits ( 3 digits for rupees and two digits for paise ) for maximum fare indication , 4 digits ( 4 digits including one decimal point ) for maximum distance indication and 4 digits for maximum time indication .

Figure- 1

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

Sealing is done on the rear bottom side of the meter , two screws with holes are provided through which the leaded wire will be passed to receive the verification seal and stamp. The meter cannot be opened without tampering the seal . A schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

[ F. No. WM - 21 / (271 )/ 2010 |

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2585 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 873.-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 एपल मीटर मैन्युफैक्चरिंग कं. , नं. 15 , शिवप्रकाशम स्ट्रीट , माउंट रोड, नरसिंगपुरम, चेन्नै-600002 द्वारा विनिर्मित " बी - स्टार " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित " टैक्सी/ आटो मीटर " ( रियर पुश बटन टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एपल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 10/438 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक " टैक्सी/ आटो मीटर " ( रियर पुश बटन टाइप ) मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्री द्वारा देय भाड़े को यात्रा के दौरान किसी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा , तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम पर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है जो प्राधिकृत शुल्क के अनुसार अनुपूरक भाड़े से स्वतंत्र है । मीटर रीडिंग प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) द्वारा दर्शायी जाती है । टैक्सी मीटर का ' के ' फेक्टर 1400 प्लसेस प्रति किलोमीटर पर चलता है । इंडीकेटर में 5 अंको ( 3 तीन अंक रुपए के लिए और 2 अंक पैसे के लिए ) तक अधिकतम किराया सूचन , 4 अंकों ( 4 अंकों में एक दशमलव प्वाइंट शामिल ) में अधिकतम दूरी सूचन और 4 अंकों में अधिकतम समय सूचन दर्शाता है ।

आकृति ।

आकृति -2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का सीलिंग डायग्राम

सील और स्टाम्प के सत्यापन के लिए दिए गए दो स्क्रू होल्ज वाले में से लीडिड वायर निकाल मीटर की रियर बाटम साइड में सीलिंग की जाती है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना मीटर को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 271 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART 11- SH.3 ( ⅱ ) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 873 .-- 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 Taxi / Auto Meter " ( Rear Push Button Type ) with digital indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) of B - STAR " series and with brand name " APPLE " manufactured by M / s . Apple Meter Mfg . Co.. No. 15 , Sivaprakasam Street . Mount Road , Narasingapurm . Chennai- 600002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 10 / 438 ;

The said model of " Taxi/ Auto Meter ( Rear Push Button Type ) is a measuring instrument which totalizes continuously and indicates the fare at any moment of journey the charges payable by the passenger of a public vehicle as function of the distance traveled and below a certain speed , the fare is calculated as function of the time taken. This being independent of supplementary charges according to the authorized tariffs . The reading of the meter is indicated by the Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) . The ' k ' factor of the Taxi Meter is 1400 pulses per kilometer . The indicator have 5 digits (3 digits for rupees and two digits for paise ) for maximum fare indication , 4 digits ( 4 digits including one decimal point ) for maximuni distance indication and 4 digits for maximum time indication .

Figure- 1

Figure - 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the rear bottom side of the meter , two screws with holes are provided through which the leaded wire will be passed to receive the verification seal and stamp . The meter a cannot be opened without tampering the seal . A schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

[ F. No. WM - 21 / ( 271 ) / 2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 2587 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 874.-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 एपल मीटर मैन्युफैक्चरिंग कं. , नं. 15 , शिवप्रकाशम स्ट्रीट , माउंट रोड , नरसिंगपुरम , चेन्नै -600002 द्वारा विनिर्मित " सी - स्टार " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित " टैक्सी/ आटो मीटर " के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एपल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/ 439 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल " टैक्सी/ आटो मीटर " मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्री द्वारा देय भाड़े को यात्रा के दौरान किसी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा , तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम पर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है जो प्राधिकृत शुल्क के अनुसार अनुपूरक भाड़े से स्वतंत्र है । मीटर की रीडिंग प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) द्वारा दर्शायी जाती है । टैक्सी मीटर का' के ' फेक्टर 640 प्लसेस प्रति किलोमीटर पर चलता है । इंडीकेटर में 5 अंकों [ 3 ( तीन ) अंक रुपए के लिए और 2 अंक पैसे के लिए ] तक अधिकतम किराया सूचन , 4 अंकों ( 4 अंकों में एक दशमलव प्वाइंट शामिल ) में अधिकतम दूरी सूचन और 4 अंकों में अधि कतम समय सूचन दर्शाता है ।

ARE

Ps .

DIST Mod

WAIT CLOCK

आकृति -2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का सीलिंग डायग्राम

सील और स्टाम्प के सत्यापन के लिए दिए गए दो स्क्रू होल्ज वाले में से लीडिड वायर निकाल मीटर की रियर बाटम साइड में सीलिंग की जाती है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना मीटर को खोला नहीं जा सकता । माडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 271 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART 11 Sic. Sui)

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 874. 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 ot 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 Taxi Auto Meter" with digital indication (hereinafter referred to as the said model) of " C - STAR " series and with brand name " APPLE " manaufactured by M's . Apple Meter Mfg . Co. , No. 15. Sivaprakasam Street , Mount Road. Narasingapurm . Chennai - 600002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/439 ;

The said model of" Taxi/Auto Meter" is a measuring instrument which totalizes continuously and indicates the fare at any moment ofjourney the charges payable by the passenger of a public vehicle as function of the distance travelled and below a certain speed , the fare is calculated as function of the time taken . This being independent of supplementary charges according to the authorized tariffs . The reading of the meter is indicated by the Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) , The 'k factor of the Taxi Meter is 640 pulses per kilometer . The indicator have 5 digits (3 digits for rupees and two digits for paise) for maximum fare indication . 4 digits ( 4 digits including one decimal point ) for maximum distance indication and 4 digits for maximum time indication .

Figure- 1

DIST K

WANI CLOCK

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model.

Sealing is done on the rear bottom side of the meter , two screws with holes are provided through which the leaded wire will be passed to receive the verification seal and stamp . The meter cannot be opened without tampering the seal . A schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

| F. No. WM - 21-( 271 ) 2010 )

B. N. DIXIT. Director ofLegal Metrology 2589

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 875.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इम्पीरियल स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज , रिवर बैंक के पास , सावरकुण्डला, जिला अमरेली -364515 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता -11 ) वाले " आईएमजे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इम्पीरियल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10 / 394 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 व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

1250

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की गई है । डिस्पले 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे । मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 100,000 तक के 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 या 5x10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 244 ) /2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1023 GI /11-3 2590

[ PART 11 SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 875. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) of series " IMJ " and with brand name " IMPERIAL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Imperial Scale Industries , Nr . River Bank, Savarkundla, Dist . Amreli , Pin- 364515 ( Guj . ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10/394;

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 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz. alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50mg and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 5000 to 100.000 fore value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1x 10 % , 2x 10k or 5x10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle . design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM- 21 / ( 244 )/2010 )

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2591 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 876.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इम्पीरियल स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज , रिवर बैंक के पास , सावरकुण्डला , जिला अमरेली -364515 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता- III ) वाले " आईएमटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इम्पीरियल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 10 / 395 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 व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार यत 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 1 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5.ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 के या 5x10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 244 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2592

[PART 11 SEC. 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 876.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority . is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions :

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top Type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - 111 ) of series " IMT " and with brand name " IMPERIAL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . Imperial Scale Industries , Nr River Bak , Savarkundla , Dist . Amreli , Pin - 364515 , ( Guj .) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10 / 395 :

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

Figure 1

Figure2- Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model .

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the diplay . 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 pro vided in A D card mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Wection 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 ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of Img . to 2g . 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 1x 10k , 2x 10 or 5x10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 244 ) 20101

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2593 | भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 877.-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 इम्पीरियल स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज , रिवर बैंक के पास , सावरकुण्डला , जिला अमरेली-364515 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता- III ) वाले " आईएमटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इम्पीरियल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 10 / 396 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 2.30 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 सीलिंग की गई है । डिस्पले की बेस प्लेट और टाप कवर के छेद से सील को जोड़ा गया है , तब सील वायर इन दोनों छेदों में से निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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 उपधारा ( 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 % , 2x10 और 5x10 % , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 244 ) /2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 CHAITRA 12. 1933

[PART II SIC. Sul

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 877. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority . is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Plateform type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) of series " IMP " and with brand name " IMPERIAL " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s Imperial Scale Industries Nr . River Bak, Savarkundla, Dist . Amreli , Pin - 364515 , ( Guj .) and which is assigned the approval mark IND - 09:10 396 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform Typer 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 or 50 Hertz aternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

IMPERIAL

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the displayby passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connectedby 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 ofthe power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity 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 1x 10 , 2x 10 or 5x10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM- 21 /(244)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2595 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 878.-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 पटेल डिजिटल स्केल , बी -62 , इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स एस्टेट , जी आई डी सी , सेक्टर -25 गांधीनगर , पिन -382025 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता- III ) वाले " एसआईटी ।। " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सीमेन्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन- डी/ 09/ 10/304 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 ।

HEMANT

आकृति 2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

स्केल की ब्राडी के होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

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 कंन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 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 होगें जो । मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा . तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक 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 ( 191 )/2010 ] बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PARI II SIA. 3 )

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 878. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority. is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) of series " SIT - 11 " and with brand name " SIEMANS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufacturedby M/ s . Patel Digital Scale, B - 02 . Electronics Estate ,G.I.D.C. Sector -25 , Gandhinagar, Pin -382025 ( Guj .) and which is assigned the approval mark IND 09 10 304:

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 5g. It has a tare dev ice with 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

SIEMANG

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 .

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

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of Img . to 2g . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e'value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of Ix 10k , 2x 10k or 5x10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM -21 / ( 191 )/ 20101

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2597 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011/चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 879.-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 को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स पटेल डिजिटल स्केल , बी-62 , इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स एस्टेट , जी आई डी सी , सेक्टर -25 गांधीनगर , पिन -382025 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता- III ) वाले " एसआईपी 7 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सीमेन्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /10/305 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 ।

आकृति-2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

स्केल की बाडी के होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 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 होगें 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 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 ( 191 )/2010 |

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1023 GI/11-4 2598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) |

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 879.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) of series " SIP - 7 " and with brand name " SIEMANS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Patel Digital Scale , B - 62, Electronics Estate, G.I.D.C. Sector - 25 , Gandhinagar , Pin - 382025 ( Guj . ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10 / 305;

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 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( I.ED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz aternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

Figure- 2Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

Sealing isdone 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 .

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . and up to 5000kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x 10k , 2x 10 or 5x 10 , 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/ ( 191 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 2599 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12, 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 880.-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 सेनटायर टेक्नोलोजिज, सी 7/बी-2 सरदार इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, रोड नं. 2 , अजवा रोड, वडोदरा-390019 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-111 ) वाले " एसटीसी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जेकेडी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /10/48 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.या. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन भापमान 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 ओल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति - 2 मॉडल के इंडिकेटर का सीलिंग प्रावधान

डिस्पले की बाड़ी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले के दायीं ओर बायीं ओर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय ल'कार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 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 विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होगें जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक " ई " मन के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक अधिक और 30 टन तक की अधिकतन क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10*, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 46) /2010] बी.एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011/ CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii)

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 880. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Crane type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " S IC " and with brand name " JKD " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . Sentire Techologies , C - 7 /B - 2, Sardar Industrial Estate, Road No.2 , Ajwa Road , Vadodra- 390019 ( Guj . ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10 /48 ;

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

Figure- 1

Figure- 2 Sealing arrangement

Sealing is done on the right ride /left side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display . The seal is connected by seal wire passing through these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of seating 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 .

TheCentral 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 range from 50 kg . and up to 30 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x 10k , 2x 10kor 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 / ( 46)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2601 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 881.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 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) (1)

(3)

(2)

30 नवम्बर , 2010

संशोधन संख्या 1 , नवम्बर 2010

1. आई एस 10803 : 1984 दस्ती मेटल आर्म वेल्डिंग के लिए आवरित इलैक्ट्रोडों की वेल्ड मेटल के रसायनिक विश्लेषण के लिए वेल्ड पैड के नमूने लेने एवं तैयारी की पद्धति

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 : एमटीडी 11 / टी -113 ] पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी ) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS )

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 881.- 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 Amendment , Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. & Year of the

amendment

IS No. & Title of the amendment ( s)

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

30 November , 2010

Amendment No. 1 , November , 2010

1. IS 10803 : 1984 Method of sampling and preparation of weld pad for chemical analysis of weld metal from covered electrodes for manual metal arewelding

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

[Ref : MTD 11 /T- 113 ]

P. GHOSH , Scientist ' F ' & Head (Met Engg )

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 882. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 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 2602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

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

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

1-4-2011

संशोधन संख्या । , दिसम्बर 2009

1. आई एस 6901 : 2009/आई एस ओ 2503 : 1998 गैस वेल्डिंग उपस्कर-वेल्डिंग , कटिंग और संबद्ध प्रक्रियाओं के लिए प्रयुक्त 300 बार तक के गैस सिलिंडरों के लिए दाब रेगुलेटर ( तीसरा 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, कोयम्बटर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[नंदर्भ एमटीडी 11 टी 23 :

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

New Delhi , the 10th March, 2011

S.O. 882. 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 Amendment, Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. & Year of the

amendment

JS No. & Title of the amendment (s )

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1-4-2011

Amendment No. 1 ,

December, 2009

1. IS 6901 : 2009/ISO 2503 : 1998 Gas welding equipment - Pressure regula- tors for gas cylinders used in welding , cutting and allied processes up to 300 bar(third revision)

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

[Ref: MTD 11 /T-73 ]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Met Engg.)

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 883.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ( 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 :-

2603

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

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)

31दिसम्बर , 2010

संशोधन सं. 1 , दिसम्बर , 2010

1 . आई एस 11802 : 1986 मृदु एवं अल्प मिश्र धातु इस्पातों की वैल्डिंग में आवटित इलैक्ट्राडों में जमा हुई वेल्ड मैटल के डिफ्यूजिबल हाईड्रोजन अंश ज्ञात करने की पद्धतियां

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 , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 11 / टी -122 ]

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

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 883. 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 Amendment , Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. & Year of the

amendment

IS No. & Title of the amendment ( s )

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

(2)

( 1)

31 December , 2010

Amendment No. 1 .

December , 2010

1. IS 11802 1986 Methods for determina- tion of diffusible hydrogen content of deposited weld metal from covered electrodes in welding mild and low alloy steels

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

[Ref: MTD 11 /T - 122 ]

P. GHOSH , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Met Engg . )

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 884.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

2604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART II SEC. 3 ( it) ]

अनुसूची

स्थापित्त तिथि क्रम सं

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

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 1 .

31-12-2010

संशोधन सं. 2 , दिसम्बर , 2010

आई एस 13851 : 1993 प्रयोग से पहले आवटित इलैक्ट्राडों के भंडारण एवं पुनः शुष्कन

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 , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 11/ टी -106 ] पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 884.- 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 Amendment , Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. & Year of the

amendment

IS No. & Title ofthe amendment( s)

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4) (1)

(2)

(3)

31-12-2010

Amendment No. 2,

December, 2010

1. IS 13851 : 1993 Storage and redrying ofcovered electrodes before use Recommendations

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

[Ref: MTD 11 /1-106]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' F ' & Head (Met Engg .)

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 885.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

2605 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011/चैत्र 12 , 1933

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

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

1-4-2011

आई एस 6901 : 1988

आई एस 6901 : 2009/आई एस ओ 2503 : 1998 गैस वेल्डिग उपस्कर- वेल्डिग , कटिंग और संबद्ध प्रक्रियाओं के लिए प्रयुक्त 300 बार तक के गैस सिलिंडरों के लिए दाब रेगुलेटर (तीसरा 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, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 11/ टी -73 ] पी. घोष, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी )

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 885. In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :---

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. No. and Year of the

No. and Year of Indian

Date of Established Indian Standards Established

Standards , if any , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

IS6901 : 1988

1stApril , 2011 1. IS 6901 : 2009/ISO 2503 : 1998 Gas welding equipment - Pressure regula- tors for gas cylinders used in welding , cutting and allied processes upto 300 bar(third revision)

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: MTD 11 /T- 73 ]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' F ' & Head (Met Engg.)

नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 886.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 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:---

1023 GI /11-5 14. AZFITE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12. 1933

[PARI !! Stil

अनुसूची

क्रय संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

औरवर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू हान कीतिथि (1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1

31 मार्च , 2011

संशोधन संख्या । , मार्च 201।

आई एस 14343 1996 जलोद मृदा में घोल अभिपूरण सामग्री का चुनाव मार्गदर्शी सिद्धांत

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

[ संदर्भ : डब्लूआर डी 08/टी 91

जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( जल संसाधन विभाग ।

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2011

S.O. 886. In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. No , Title and year of the Indian Standards

No. and Year of the

amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

31-3-2011

Amendment No. 1 .

March 2011

IS 14343: 1996 Choice of grouting materials for alluvial grouting - Guidelines

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

[Ref: WRD 08 1.9 ]

J. C. ARORA , Sc .- ' F ' & Head ( Water Resources Deptt ,

नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 887.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक व्युगे एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे 2 अगस्त, 2010 से रद्द कर दिये गये [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या सं.

वर्ष और शीर्षक

( 1 )

(2)

1 . आई एस 5188 : 1985 शीत पौलीमेराइड तेल विस्तारित रॉ स्टाईरीन बूटाउडीन रबड़ विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

2607

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 , चैत्र 12 , 1933

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का. आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

(3)

(4)

पेट्रोलियम कोयला एवं संबद्ध उत्पाद विभाग परिषद् ( पीसीडीसी ) की पिछली बैठक जो कि 2 अगस्त 2010 को हुई थी में इस मानक को वापस लेने का फैसला लिया गया था ।

[संदर्भ : पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट ) ] डॉ ( श्रीमति ) विजय मलिक, वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( पीसीडी )

New Delhi , the 22nd March , 2011

S.O. 887.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , it is . hereby notified that the Indian Standards , Particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn w.e.f. 2 August , 2010 .

Sl.No. No. & Year of the Indian Standards Cancelled

( 1)

(2)

1 . IS 5188 1985 Specification for cold polymerized oil extended raw styrenebutadiene rubber (first revision)

SCHEDULE

Remarks

S. O. No. & Date published in the Gazette of India Part - II , Section - 3 , Sub - section ( ii)

( 4)

(3)

Petroleum , Coal and Related Products Division Council ( PCDC) at its last meeting held on 2 August 2010 had decided to Withdraw IS 5188 : 1985 as the product has become obsolete .

[ Ref: PCD/ G - 7 Gazette ] Dr. (Mrs. ) VIJAY MALIK , Scientist F ' & Head ( PCD )

नई दिल्ली , 23 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 888.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है: - क्रम सं.

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(2)

( 1)

1 . आई एस/ आई एस ओ 15197 2003 इन विट्रो नैदानिक परीक्षण-पद्वतियाँ डायबिटीज अनुसूची

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

(4)

(3)

फरवरी 2010 2608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

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

(1)

(3)

मेलिटस के प्रबंधन में अपने आप परीक्षण करने के लिए रक्त में ग्लूकोज की मॉनीटरिंग हेतु अपेक्षाएं

अगस्त 2010 2. आई एस/आई एस ओ 15189 2007 चिकित्सा प्रयोगशालाएं- गुणता और विश्वसनीयता के लिए विशेष आवश्यकताएं ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस 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 : एम एच डी / जो 3.5 ] राकेश कुमार , प्रमुख ( एम एच डी)

New Delhi , the 23rd March , 2011

S.O. 888.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued .

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date of establishment No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards

No. and Year of Indian standards , if any, super- seded by the new Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

20May2010 1. IS/ISO 15197 : 2003 In vitro diagnostic test systems - Requirements for blood- glucose monitoring systems for self- testing in managing diabetes mellitus .

August 2010 2. Medical laboratories - particular require- ments for quality an competgence

Copy ofthis 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 : MHD/ G - 3.5 ]

RAKESH KUMAR , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( MHD)

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 889.-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 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1812 तारीख 14 जुलाई , 2010 द्वारा जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग- II खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 24 जुलाई , 2010 को प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 92.67 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 228.99 एकड़ (लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

2609 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की उक्त भूमि कोयला अभिप्राप्त है ;

अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) , अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 92.67 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 228.99 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की भूमि का और उक्त भूमि के सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन करने की अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

टिप्पण - 1 इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल / आरजेएमएल / एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/ 57 , तारीख 7 अक्तूबर , 2010 को उपायुक्त, जिला गोड्‌डा ( झारखण्ड ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700 001 के कार्यालय में या निदेशक तकनीकी ( प्रचालन ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सांकटोरिया , डाकघर - दिसेरगढ़ , जिला- बर्द्धवान ( पश्चिम बंगाल ) पिन कोड-713 333 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

टिप्पण 2 उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध हैं : - अर्जन की बाबत आपतियाँ :

" 8 ( 1 ) ऐसी भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना जारी की गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिसूचना के जारी किए जाने के तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आक्षेप कर सकेगा ।

स्पष्टीकरण: -

1. कोई व्यक्ति द्वारा किया गया यह कथन कि वह किसी भूमि में कोयले उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसा प्रचालन केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति द्वारा नहीं किया जाना चाहिए , इस धारा के अंतर्गत यह आक्षेप नहीं माना जाएगा ।

2. उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति सक्षम अधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जायेगी और सक्षम अधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्त्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने , विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जांच यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि का या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़े या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

3. इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं । " टिप्पण 3.- केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700 001 को उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2520 तारीख 11-06-1983 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया है ।

अनुसूची

ललमटिया कोल माईनिंग ब्लाक ( चरण- VIII )

जिला-गोड्डा ( झारखण्ड )

[रेखांक सं. ईसीएल/आरजेएमएल /एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/ 57 , तारीख 7 अक्तूबर , 2010 ]

टिप्पणियां

ग्राम संख्या

जिला का नाम

क्रम सं.

मौजा/ग्राम का नाम

थाना का नाम

हेक्टर में क्षेत्र ( लगभग )

एकड़ में क्षेत्र ( लगभग )

85.17

210.46

ललमटिया 45 46

18.53

7.50

1. 2.

ललमटिया

भाग पूर्ण

गोड्डा गोड्डा

लोहण्डिया लोहण्डिया बाजार

228.99

92.67

कुल क्षेत्र 2610

[PART II SEC. 3 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

अधिग्रहीत किए गए प्लॉट संख्या: -

1. मौजा लोहण्डिया संख्या 45 :

/838,28.29 1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13 , 13/843 , 14, 15 , 16 , 17, 18 , 19, 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 23/837, 24 , 25, 26 , 27, 27 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 34, 34/839 , 35, 36, 37 , 38 , 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45 , 46, 47, 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52, 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57, 58 , 59 , 60 , 61.62.63 , 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 , 69, 70 , 71 72, 73 , 74, 75 , 76, 77 , 78, 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84 , 85 , 86, 87 , 88 , 89 , 90, 91 , 92 , 93 , 94, 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102, 103 , 104 , 105 , 106, 107, 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112, 113, 114, 115 , 116, 117 , 118 , 119 , 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124, 125, 126 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133 , 134, 135 , 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145 , 146, 147 , 148 , 149 , 150, 151 , 152, 153 154, 155, 156, 157 , 158 , 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163 , 164 , 165 , 166, 167, 168 , 169, 170 , 171 , 172, 173 , 174, 175.176.177.178.179,180.181. 181/844,182,183,184, 185 , 186, 187, 188, 189 , 190, 191 , 192, 193 , 194, 195 , 196, 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 101 , 202, 203 , 204 , 205, 206 . 207, 208 , 209, 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215, 216, 217, 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224, 225 , 226, 227 , 228 , 229, 230, 231 , 233, 235. 246 , 247, 249 , 250 , 251 , 252, 253 , 254, 255 , 256, 257, 258 , 259, 260 , 261 , 262, 263 , 264, 265 , 266 , 267, 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 , 272, 273, 274,275,275/840,276 , 277 , 278, 279, 280 , 281 , 282, 283 , 284 , 285 , 286, 287, 288 , 289 , 290 , 291 , 292 , 293 , 294 , 295 , 296 , 297 , 298. 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303 , 304, 305 , 306 , 307, 308 , 309, 310 , 311 , 312, 313 , 314, 315 , 316, 317 , 318 , 319 , 320, 321 , 322 , 323,324,325, 326, 327 , 328, 329 , 330 , 331 , 332 , 339, 340 , 341 , 345 , 346, 347, 348 , 411 , 416, 417, 418 , 419 , 420, 421 , 422, 423 , 424, 425 , 426,427. 428, 429, 430, 431 , 432, 433 , 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439 , 440, 441 , 442 , 462, 463 , 464, 465 , 466 , 469, 470.471,472,473,474,475 476.477,478, 479 , 480 , 481 , 482, 483 , 484, 485 , 486 , 487, 488 , 489 , 490, 491,492,493,494,495,496, 197, 498 , 499, 500 , 501 502 , 503 , 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511 , 512 , 513 , 514 , 515, 516 , 517, 518 , 519 , 520 , 521.522,523,524,525,526, 527 , 528 , 529,530,531,532, 533 ,3,534 , 535 , 536 , 537, 538 , 539 , 540 , 541 , 542 , 543 , 544, 545 , 546, 547,548,549 , 50 , 551,552,553,554,555. 556,557,558,559 , 560 , 561 , 562 , 563 , 564 , 565 , 566, 567 , 568 , 569 , 570 , 571,572,573,574,575,576 , 577 , 578,579,580,581.582 583.584,585,586 , 587,588,589,590 , 591,592,593,594,595,596,597,598,599,600,601,602,603,504,605,606,607,608.609 , 610,611,612,613,614 , 615,616,617,618 , 619 , 620 , 621 , 622 , 623 , 624 , 625, 626 , 627, 628 , 629, 630 , 631,632,633,634,635,636 . 637,638,639 , 640 , 641 , 642 , 643 , 644, 645, 646 , 647 , 648 , 649 , 650, 651 , 652 , 653 , 654,666 , 667 भाग, 668 भाग, 669 भाग, 670.671 . 672,673,674,675 , 576, 677,678,679 , 680 , 685 , 686 , 687 , 688 , 689 , 690 , 691 , 692, 693 , 694, 695 , 696 , 697,698,699 , 700 , 701.702. 703.704, 705, 706 , 707 , 708 , 709 , 710, 711 , 712, 713 , 714,716,717,718,719 , 720, 721 , 722,723,724,725,726,727,728,729,730, 731,752 , 753 भाग , 799 भाग ।

2. मौजा लोहण्डिया बाजार संख्या 46 :

1 , 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 7, 8 , 9 , 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 , 19 , 20, 21 , 22 , 23 , 24, 25 , 26 , 27, 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32, 33 , 34, 35, 36,37, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54, 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64, 65 , 66, 67,68,69,70,71.72.73. 74, 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85 , 86 , 87, 88 , 89 , 90, 91 , 92 , 93 , 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 , 99 , 100 , 101, 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 : 106, 107, 108 , 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127, 128 , 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 , 134, 135 , 136, 137, 138 , 139 , 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154, 155, 156 , 157, 158 , 159, 100 , 161 , 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 , 169 , 170, 171 , 172, 173 , 174 , 175, 176 , 177, 178 , 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183 , 184 , 185 , 186, 187. 188, 189, 190, 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196, 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204, 205 , 206 , 207, 208 , 209 , 210, 211 , 212.213.211. 215, 216, 217 , 218 , 219 , 220, 221 , 222 , 223 , 224, 225, 226 , 227 , 228 , 229, 230 , 231 , 232, 233 , 234 , 235, 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240, 241 , 242, 243 , 17/244, 17/245 , 141/246 , 18/247 , 72/248 , 118/249 , 69/250 , 69/251 , 149/252 , 150/253 , 151/2541 सीमा वर्णन के क्षेत्र का ब्यौरा :

सीमा विवरण ( ए 1 से ए 7 ) :

ए 1 - ए 2 यह रेखा मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 , डकैता मौजा सं. 44 एवं लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 235 एवं 236 के सांझा बिन्दु ए । से शुरू होकर पूर्वी अधिसूचित रेखा भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में अधिसूचित सं. का.आ. 784 दिनांक 8-3-1995 रेखा बराबर गुजरते हैं अर्थात् लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 236 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 234, 232 के पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी सीमा तथा 245 , 333 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 248 के पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 321 , 332, 330, 329 , 328. 327 . 339 के पश्चिमी सीमा एवं प्लॉट सं. 342 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 344 , 352 , 351 , 350 , 349 और 392 के पूर्वी सीमा होकर लोहण्डिया सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 348 , 392 एवं 397 ( सड़क ) के संगम बिन्दु ए 2 पर मिलता है जो कि पूर्व में दो अधिसूचित रेखाएं भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में अधिसूचित सं. का.आ. 784 दिनांक 8-3-1995 एवं का.आ. 1285 दिनांक 30-5-2001 के संगमबिन्दु हैं । 2611 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

ए2- ए३ यह रेखा पूर्व वर्णित बिन्दु ए2 से शुरू होकर अधिसूचित रेखा भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में अधिसूचित संख्या का.आ. 1285 तारीख 30-5-2001 के बराबर गुजरते हैं , अर्थात् यह रेखा मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 415 , 413 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 412 के पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 410 , 409 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 408 के पश्चिमी सीमा एवं उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 407 , 443 , 460 , 461 , 467 , 468 , 454 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 800 के पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं . 801 , 811 के उत्तरी सीमा होकर प्लॉट सं. 788 ( सड़क ) को पार करते हुए प्लॉट सं. 655 के उत्तरी सीमा बराबर जाता है एवं प्लॉट सं. 669 , 668 , 667 को अतिक्रम करता है । पुनः यह रेखा प्लॉट सं. 665 , 663 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 681 , 682 , 683 के पश्चिमी सीमा बराबर गुजरते हुए मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 684 , 685 , 686 एवं 687 के सांझा बिन्दु पर स्थित ए 3 पर मिलती है ।

ए3 - ए4 यह रेखा वर्णित बिन्दु एउ से शुरू होकर पूर्व अधिसूचित रेखा भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में अधिसूचित संख्या का.आ. 1285 तारीख 30-5-2001 के बराबर जाता है अर्थात् मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 684 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 758 के पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 754 , 755 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 751 ( भाग ) के पश्चिमी सीमा बराबर जाकर प्लॉट सं. 751 को अतिक्रमण करते हुए लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 747 , 746 के उत्तरी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 732 के उत्तरी एवं पश्चिमी सीमा तथा प्लॉट सं. 733 ( भाग ) के पश्चिमी सीमा एवं 715 के पश्चिमी सीमा एवं उत्तरी सीमा बराबर गुजरते हुए , लोहण्डिया मौजा नं. 45 एवं बसडीहा मौजा सं. 47 के सांझा सीमा बराबर जाता है यानि की पूर्व अधिसूचित रेखा भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में अधिसूचित संख्या का. आ. 1285 तारीख 30-5-2001 के बराबर जाकर मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 एवं बंसडीहा मौजा सं. 47 के सांझा सीमा पर बिन्दु ए4 पर मिलती है ।

ए4 - एऽ यह रेखा लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 एवं बंसडीहा मौजा सं. 47 के सांझा सीमा पर बिन्दु ए4 से शुरू होकर लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 एवं बंसडीहा मौजा सं. 47 के सांझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए , लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 , बंसडीहा मौजा सं. 47 एवं हररखा मौजा सं. 50 के त्रिसंधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु एऽ पर मिलती है ।

ए5 - ए 6 यह रेखा लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 , बंसडीहा मौजा सं. 47 एवं हररखा मौजा सं. 50 के त्रिसंधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए 5 से शुरू होकर मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 एवं हररखा मौजा सं. 50 के सांझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 , हररखा मौजा सं . 50 एवं रानीडीह मौजा सं. 53 के त्रिसंधि स्तभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए6 पर मिलती है ।

ए6 - ए7 यह रेखा लोहण्डिया भौजा सं. 45 , हररखा मौजा सं. 50 एवं रानीडीह मौजा सं. 53 के त्रिसंधि स्तंभ पर बिन्दु ए6 से शुरू होकर लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 एवं एवं रानीडीह मौजा सं. 53 के सांझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 , रानीडीह मौजा सं. 53 एवं डकैता मौजा सं. 44 के त्रिसंधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए7 पर मिलती है ।

ए7 - ए । यह रेखा मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 , रानीडीह मौजा सं. 53 एवं डकैता मौजा सं. 44 के त्रिसंधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए 7 से शुरू होकर लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 एवं डकैता मौजा सं. 44 के सांझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 के प्लॉट सं. 218 ( सड़क ) को पार करता है एवं पुनः प्लॉट सं. 223 , 224 के उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरते हुए लोहण्डिया मौजा सं. 45 एवं डकैता मौजा सं. 44 के सांझा सीमा बराबर जाता है एवं अंतिम में मौजा लोहण्डिया सं. 45 एवं डकैता सं. 44 एवं लोहण्डिया मौजा के प्लॉट सं. 235 एवं 236 के संगम बिन्दु पर स्थित बिन्दु ए । पर मिलता है , जो की पूर्वी अधिसूचित रेखा भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में अधिसूचित सं. का.आ. 784 तारीख 8-3-1995 पर भी स्थित है ।

नोट - मौजा लोहण्डिया बाजार संख्या 46 पूर्णरूपेण मौजा लोहण्डिया संख्या 45 के अन्तर्गत है ।

[फा. सं. 43015 /3/2010- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू- I ]

एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 30th March , 2011

S.O. 889.- Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1812 dated the 14th July , 2010 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) 2612

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

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 24th July, 2010, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 92.67 hectares ( approximately) or 228.99 acres ( approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexedto thatnotification;

And whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that Coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in the Schedule appended to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 92.67 hectares ( approximately ) or 228.99 acres ( approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands described in the schedule appended hereto.

Note 1. The plan bearing number ECL / RJML/ MOUZA/ NOTI /57 , dated the 7th October, 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner , District- Godda ( Jharkhand ) , or in the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata 700 001 or in the office of the Director Technical (Operation), Eastern Coalfields Limited , Sanctoria , Post Office- Dishergarh , District- Burdwan ( West Bengal ) , Pin Code- 713 333 .

Note 2. Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provided as follows :-

Objection to acquisition :

"8 ( 1 ) Any persons interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued, may, withinthirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any rights in or over such lands .

Explanation: -

1. It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desiresto undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person .

2. Every objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any , as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land , or make different reports in respect of different parcels or such lands or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government , containing his recommendations on the objections , together with the record of the proceedings held by him , the decision of that Government .

3. For the purposes of this section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . "

Note 3. The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkatta - 700001 has been appointed by the Central Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 2520 dated 11th June , 1983 .

SCHEDULE

Lalmatia Coal Mining Block ( phase VIII) District - Godda (Jharkhand)

(Planbearing number: ECL/RJML/ MOUZA/NOTI/ 57 , dated the 7th October, 2010 )

Remarks Sl . No.

Name of Thana

Village Number

Name of District

Name of Mouza/ Village

Area in acres (approximately)

Area in hectares (approximately)

(1) (2)

(7)

(8) (3)

(6)

(4)

(5)

Part 1. Lohandia

210.46

85.17

Lalmatia

Godda 2513 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12 , 1933

(2)

(3) (3)

(4)

(6)

(7)

(1)

(5)

Full 2. 46

Lohandia

Godda

7.50

18.53

Lalmatia

Bazar

228.99

92.67

Total area:

Plot numbers to be acquired in :-

1. Mouza Lohandia number 45 :

, 29, 1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 11 , 12 , 13, 13/843 , 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23 , 23/837 , 24, 25 , 26 , 27 , 27/838, 28

126, 30, 31 , 32 , 33 , 34, 34/839, 35 , 36, 37 , 38 , 39, 40 , 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 , 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55, 56, 57 , 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 , 69, 70, 71 72, 73 , 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85 , 86, 87, 88, 89 , 90, 91 , 92, 93 , 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,99, 100, 101 , 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128 , 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133 , 134, 135, 136, 137 , 138 , 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145 , 146, 147 , 148, 149 , 150 , 151 , 152, 153 , 154 , 155 , 156, 157, 158 , 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171 , 172, 173 , 174, 175 , 176, 177, 178 , 179,180,181 , 181/ 844,182,183,184,185 , 186, 187, 188 , 189, 190, 191 , 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 , 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 , 202, 203 , 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 , 212 , 213 , 214, 215 , 216, 217, 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222, 223, 224, 225 , 226, 227, 228, 229 , 230, 231 , 233, 235, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251 , 252 , 253 , 254, 255 , 256, 257 , 258 , 259, 260, 261 , 262, 263 , 264, 265 , 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271 , 272, 273, 274,275,275/840,276,277,278,279 , 280, 281 , 282, 283, 284, 285 , 286, 287, 288 , 289, 290 , 291 , 292, 293 , 294 , 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303 , 304, 305 , 306, 307, 308 , 309, 310 , 311 , 312, 313 , 314 , 315 , 316, 317 , 318,319, 320, 321 , 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327 , 328 , 329, 330, 331 , 332, 339, 340, 341 , 345 , 346, 347, 348, 411 , 416, 417, 418 , 419, 420, 421 , 422 , 423, 424, 425, 426,427, 428,429, 430, 431 , 432, 433 , 434, 435, 436, 437, 438 , 439, 440, 441 , 442, 462 , 463, 464, 465, 466, 469, 470, 471 , 472, 473, 474,475, 476,477,478 , 479, 480, 481 , 482, 483 , 484, 485 , 486, 487, 488, 489 , 490, 491 , 492, 493 , 494, 495, 496, 497, 498 , 499, 500 , 501 , 502, 503 , 504, 505 , 506, 507, 508 , 509, 510, 511 , 512, 513 , 514, 515 , 516, 517 , 518 ,1, 511 , 512 , 513, 514, 515 , 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521 , 522 , 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531 , 532, 533, 534, 535 , 536, 537, 538 , 539, 540, 541 , 542, 543 , 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551 , 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561 , 562, 563 , 564, 565 , 566 , 567, 568, 569, 570 , 571 , 572, 573,574,575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581 , 582, 583, 584, 585 , 586, 587, 588 , 589, 590, 591 , 592, 593 , 594, 595 , 596, 597, 598 , 599 , 600, 601 , 602, 603 , 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610,611,612,613,614,615,616,617,618 , 619, 620, 621 , 622, 623, 624, 625 , 626, 627, 628 , 629, 630, 631 , 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637,638,639, 640, 641 , 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651,652,653 , 654, 666, 667 Part, 668 Part, 669 Part, 670 , 671 , 672,673,674,675,676, 677,678,679, 680, 685 , 686, 687, 688 , 689, 690, 691 , 692, 693 , 694 , 695, 696, 697,698, 699, 700, 701 , 702 , 703, 704, 705 , 706, 707, 708 , 709 , 710 , 711 , 712, 713 , 714,716,717,718,719, 720, 721 , 722 , 723 , 724,725,726,727,728, 729, 730, 731,752, 753 Part, 799 Part .

2. Mouza Lohandia Bazar number 46 :

1 , 2, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 , 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23 , 24, 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30, 31 , 32, 33, 34, 35 , 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43, 44 , 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55 , 56, 57 , 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63 , 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 , 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 74, 75 , 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85 , 86, 87, 88 , 89, 90, 91 , 92 , 93 , 94, 95 , 96 , 97, 98 , 99 , 100, 101 , 102, 103 , 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124 , 125, 126, 127, 128 , 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133, 134, 135 , 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145, 146, 147 , 148, 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153, 154 , 155 , 156, 157 , 158 , 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 , 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 , 169, 170, 171 , 172, 173 , 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183 , 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191 , 192, 193 , 194, 195 , 196, 197, 198 , 199, 200, 201 , 202, 203 , 204, 205, 206, 207, 208 , 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213 , 214, 215, 216 , 217, 218 , 219, 220 , 221 , 222, 223, 224, 225 , 226, 227 , 228 , 229 , 230, 231 , 232, 233 , 234, 235, 236, 237, 238 , 239, 240, 241 , 242, 243 , 17/244, 17/245, 141/246, 18/247, 72/248 , 118/249 , 69/250, 69/251 , 149/252, 150/253, 151/254.

Boundary Description of the area:

Boundary Description (A1 to A7) :

A1 -A2 The line starts from the Point Al situated at the common point on the common boundary of Mouza Dakaita number 44 and Mouza Lohandia number 45 and Plot numbers 235 and 236 of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and runs along the earlier notification line notified vide S.O. 784 dated 08-03-1995 in the Gazette of Govt. of India i.e. along Northern boundary of Plot number , 236 and Western and Northern boundaries of Plot numbers 234, 232 and Northern boundary of Plot numbers , 245 , 333 and Western and Northern boundaries of Plot number 1023 Gl/11-6 2614

[PART II -SFC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRII . 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

248 and Western boundary of Plot numbers 321 , 332 , 330 , 329 , 328 , 327 , 339 and Northern boundary of Plot number 342 and Eastern boundary of Plot numbers 344 , 352, 351 , 350 , 349 and 392 of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and meets on the Point A2 situated at the junction of Plot numbers 348 , 392 and 397 ( Road ) of the Mouza Lohandia number 45 , which is also the common point of the earlier two notification line notified vide S O. 784 dated the 08-03-1995 and S.O. 1285 dated the 30-05-2001 in the Gazette of Government of India .

A2 -A3 The line starts from the point A2 described above and runs along the earlier notification line notified vide S.O. 1285 dated the 30-05-2001 in the Gazette of Govt . of India i.e. along Northern boundary of Plot numbers 5. 413 Western & Northern boundaries of Plot number 412 and Northern boundary of Plot numbers 410 , 409, Western & Northern boundaries of Plot number 408 , Northern boundary of Plot numbers 407 , 443 , 460 , 461 , 467 , 468 , 454 and Western and Northern boundaries of Plot number 800 , Northern boundary of Plot numbers 801 , 811 and crosses over Plot number 788 ( Road ) and again runs along the Northern boundary of Plot number 655 and crosses over Plot numbers 669 , 668 , 667 and runs along Northern boundary of Plot numbers 665 , 663 and Western boundaries of Plot numbers 681 , 682 , 683 of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and meets on the Point A3 situated at the junction of Plot numbers 684 , 685 , 686 and 687 of Mouza Lohandia number 45

43-14 The line starts from the point A3 described above and runs along the earlier Notification line , notified vide S O. 1285 dated the 30-05-2001 in the Gazette of Govt . of India i.e. along northern boundaries of the Plot number 684 , Western and Northern boundaries of Plot number 758 , Northern boundaries 754 , 755 and Western boundary of 751 ( Part ) of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and crosses over the Plot number 751 and runs along the Northern boundary of Plot numbers 747 , 746 and again runs along the Western and Northern boundaries of Plot number 732 , Western boundary of Plot number 733 ( Part ) , Western and Northern boundaries of Plot gumber 715 of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and again runs along the Common boundary of Mouza Lohandia number 45 ani Mouza Bansdiha number 47 as well as earlier Notification line vide notification number S.O. 1285 dated the 30-05-2001 and the line meets on the point A4 situated on the common boundary of Mouza Lohandra number 45 and Bansdiha number 47 .

A4-AS The line starts from the Point A4 situated on the Common boundary of the Mouza Lohandia number 45 and Mouza Bansdiha number 47 and runs along the Common boundary of the Mouza Lohandia number 45 and Mouza Bansdiha number 47 and meets on the Point A5 situated on the tri -junction pillar of the Mouza I.ohandia number 45 Bansdiha number 47 and Harrakha number 50 .

A5 -A6 The line starts from the point A5 situated at the tri -junction pillar of the Mouza Lohandia number 45. Bansdiha number 47 and Harrakha number 50 and runs along the Common boundary of the Mouza - Lohandia number 45 and Harrakha number 50 and meets on the Point A6 situated on the tri -junction pillar of the Mouza Lohandia number 45 , Harrakha number 50 and Ranidih number 53 .

A6 -A7 The line starts from the Point A6 situated on the tri -junction Pillar of the Mouza Lohandia number 45 , Harrakha number 50 and Ranidih number 53 and runs along the common boundary of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and Ranidih number 53 and meets on the point A7 situated on the tri -junction pillar of the Mouza Lohandia number 45, Ranidih number 53 and Dakaita number 44 .

A7 -A1 The line starts from the Point A7 situated on the tri -junction pillar of the Mouza - Lohandia number 45 , Ranidih number 53 and Dakaita number 44 and runs along the common boundary of the Mouza Lohandia number 45 and Dakaita number 44 and crosses over the Plot number 218 ( Road ) of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and runs along the northern boundaries of the Plot numbers 223 , 224 and again runs along the common boundary of the Mouza Lohandia number 45 and Dakaita number 44 and eventually meets on Point Al situated and the common point on common boundary of Mouza Lohandia number 45 , Dakaita number 44 and Plot numbers 235 and 236 of Mouza Lohandia number 45 and the Point is also situated on the earlier notification line vide notification number 784 dated the 08-03-1995 in the Gazette of India .

NOTE: - Mouza Lohandia Bazaar number 46 is fully within the Mouza Lohandia number 45 .

[F. No 43015 / 3 / 2010 - PRIW- 1 ) S. C. BHATIA , Director 2615 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011/चैत्र 12, 1933

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 1 अप्रैल , 2011

का . आ . ४१० भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में निम्तन्नी के पाम विजयवाडा-नैल्लोर - चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक पाकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स ग्लिोजिमटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई- वंगलौर मंगलौर पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधाग ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की पतियां माधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जानी हैं, इक्कीम दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. मल्लीनाथ , मक्षम पाधिकारी. ग्लिोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , नं 14/1/79 , क्यांडल गारडन , ट्रेड सेंटर के पीचे , वंटग हाम्टेल गेड , मंगलौर - 575003 , कर्नाटक राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुक: मुडिगेरे

जिला: चिकमगलोर

राज्य : कनाटक गाँव कानाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

आर- ओ- यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 1

1 ) हिरेशिगरा

00 08

34/2

34/1

15/2

00 49

33 2616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

146

2 होसहल्ली

149

148

151

150

[Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

81 00

50 00

92 00

70 00

152/2

152/1

153

154

सर्वे नं 663 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में हेमावति नदी

3 ) गोणिबीडु अग्रहारा

663

673

672

671

666

667

665

657

656

655

643

644

651

645

689

4 ) हेग्गरावल्ली

44/3

44/1

40/2

40/1

37 00

19 00

10 00 09

82 00 23

87 00 19

48 00

46 00 19

75 00

17 00

25 00 07

43 00

00 28

73 00 02

17 00 99

19 01

45 00 39

34 00

62 00 06

61 00 09

36 00

83 00

49 00

60 00 05

46 00

02 00

26/2

00 08

26/3

38 00

51 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

13/1

4) हेग्गरा वल्ली (निरंतर)

14/1

2617 3

18 00

75 00

00 08

सर्वे नं 14 और गावँ मीमा के वीच में नाला

सर्वे नं 253 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में हेमावति नादी

5 ) उदाशी

253/1

253/3

253/2

255

261/2

254

265/2

265/4

262

265/3

268

6 ) किरागुन्दा

49 00

75 00

45 00

77 00

10 00

79 00

43 00

57 00 02

54 00

0002

24 00

73 00

51 00

14 00

91 00

सर्वे नं 7 और 162 के वीच में रोड़

162

160

7) बेट्टदामने

38/2

38/3

41/1

54 00

00 2618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

41/2

7 ) बेट्टदामने (निरंतर)

69/3

69/2

69/1

71/3

72/3

72/2

71/1

72/1

71/2

79/5

79/4

79/1

8 ) वुग्गिहल्ली

सर्वे नं 28 और 206 के बीच में नाला

206

207

208

210

सर्वे नं 210 और 167 के वीच में नाला

167

169

166

165

268

164

159

146

9 ) अंगडी

144

145

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

41 00

03 00

82 00

92 00 23

46 00 00

28 00

37 00

42 00

19 00

25 00

10 00 00

50 00 50

62 00

12 00

16 00 28

72 00

51 00

46 00 42

65 00

34 00

76 00

86 00

99 00

11 00

39 00

20 00 08

00 09

88 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

147

9) अंगडी (निरंतर)

148

47/1

204

45/2

25/2

18/1

10) हन्तुरू

19/3

28/2

28/1

38/2

40/1

40/2

156/1

153

156/2

154

155

149/1

160

148

2619

03 00

38 00

90 00

10 00 40

03 00 04

80 00

90 00

47 00

02 00

11 00

13 00

40 00

25 00

52 00

92 00

12 00

76 00

44 00

50 00

76 00 09

70 02

30 00

89 00

99 00

97 00

सर्वे नं 148,149,147 और 145 के बीच में रोड़

147/1

145/2

146/2

146/1

146/3

143/2

143/1

142

169/पि 00

45 00

51 00

52 00

31 00 00

99 00

57 00

10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

2620

2 1

169/3 १०) इन्तरू (निख्तर)

141

169/1

169/11

140

178

11 ) कणचुरू

174

175

144

142

141/6

141/4

134/3

133/6

133/5

133/1

133/2

132/1

132/2

131

130/2

130/1

128/10

128/8

128/6

127

126/10

126/9

126/1

124/8

124/4

124/10

124/9

124/2

120/8

120/3

120/1

119

118

115/2

115/3

115/1 मी [Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 3

21 00

50 00

94 00

28 00

22 00

39 00

16 00

27 00

23 00

70 00

10 00 00

31 00

50 00 09

25 00

19 00

68 00

40 00

75 00

33 00

98 00

29 00

26 00

76 00

70 00

26 00

00 00

27 00

88 00 00

52 00

सर्वे नं 115 और 104 के बीच में नाला

104/1 वी

104/ 2वी

104/ 2ए

104/4

67 00

32 00

60 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 1

104/3 11) कणचुरू (निरंतर)

233

12) हलेकेरे

266

2621 3

5 00

11 00

68 00

सर्वे नं 233 और 227 के वीच में रोड़

227

236/1

236/2

239

228

175/1

175/2

174और 173

171

170

167

166

178

164

160 और 161

162

184

158

157

154

148

144

149

145

147

146

133

138

112

113

62 00

01 00

59 00

86 00

47 00

79 00

41 00

27 00

10 00

49 00

91 00

02 00

27 00

71 00 00

10 00

32 00

44 00 00

25 00

29 00 08

26 00

27 00 12

46 01

10 00

23 00

38 49

सर्वे नं 113 और 119 के बीच में हेमावतिा नांदी

119और 120

121

123

79 00

78 00

00 06

सर्वे नं 123 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

13 ) बैदुवल्ली कॉफी एस्टेट

14) बैदवल्ली

1023 GI /11-7

61 00 01

34 2622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

14) बैदवल्ली (निरंतर)

41/2

41/1

33/2

33/1

16/5

16/4

16/3

16/2

43/5

43/2

43/3

43/1

10/1

10/8

10/2

10/7

10/3

10/5

10/4

7/6

7/2

7/3

7/1

सर्वे नं 5,65 और 66 के बीच में नाला

67/2

67/1

69/1

69/3

69/2

Sec. 3 ( ii ) )

[ Part II

5 00

03 00

85 00

88 00 02

19 00

45 00

89 00

19 00

03 00

72 00

11 00

14 00

88 00

36 00

70 00

31 00

77 00

50 00

11 00

35 00

65 00

00 00

33 00

40 00

47 00

67 00

79 00

38 00

34 00

65 00

66 00

98 00

92 00

00 00

42 00

02 02

70 00

17 00

63 00

79 00

14 00

27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 1

69/4

14 ) बैदवल्ली (निरंतर )

69/6

69/5

69/8

69/9

69/7

69/10

2623

71 00

66 00

20 00

51 00

15 00

97 00

14 00

सर्वे नं 71 और 153 के बीच में नाला

153.

154/1

154/2

155

156

157

158

141

142

138

15 ) मुद्दरहल्ली

52 00

30 00

78 00

09 02

63 00

88 01

18 00

15 00

02 00

सर्वे नं 21 और 16 के बीच में नाला

214

16) गुत्ती

213

215

210/2

210/1

209

सर्वे नं 206 में नाला

167

166/1

166/2

166/4

166/5

164/2 00

60 00

63 00

58 00

59 00

95 00

87 00

54 00

78 00 02

10 00

74 00

07 2624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 1

164/1 16) गुत्ती (निरंतर)

163/2

163/1

162/2

162/1

[Part II Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

5 00

41 00

10 00

40 00

72 00

सर्वे नं 162 और 117 के बीच में नाला

117

116

93 00

83 00

सर्वे नं 116 और 115/2 के वीच में नाला

115/2

111

115/3

112

114/1

294

232

118

17) कोगिले

126

122

20 00

38 00 08

21 00

91 00 06

54 02 01

62 01

41 03

86 02 25

00 00

43 01

79 राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला: दक्षिण कन्नड़

तालुक: वन्टवाल

1 ) पिलातबेट्टु

107

सर्वे नं 107 में रास्ता

148

147

2) अज्जीबेदु

100

129

134

144

149

74 00

22 01

35 00

05 00

61 00

96 00

85 00

92 00 46

21 00

48 00

32 00

74 00

71 00 02

83 00 80

84 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011/चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

2 ) अज्जीबेट्दु (निरंतर)

55/3

3 ) चेन्नईतोडि

सर्वे नं 55/3 में रास्ता

4 ) येलियनडुगोडु

135

110

121

123

139

5 ) कुक्किपाडि

96/19

170

102

153

6) रायि

102

101

103

100

122

132

2625 3

5 00

97 01

98 00

61 00

82 00

75 00

69 00

25 00

44 00

98 00

25 00

60 00

05 00

86 00

52 00

23 00

51 00

49 03

07 00

10 00

44 00

10 00

23 00 46

63 00

27 00 02

12 00

65 00

79 00

31 00 28

01 00

54 2626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12. 1933

110

6) रायि (निरंतर)

111

159

114

112

137

106

7: कर्पे

४ ) अरला

109

147

182

180

9 ) बडगबेल्लूर

[ Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) 3

5 00

91 00 44

72 00

16 00

03 00

91 00

79 00

76 00

11 00

58 00

56 00 06

16 00 28

42 00

40 00

08 00

86 00

51 00

51 00 09

41 00

97 00

24 00

97 00

59 00

60 00

38 00

06 00

13 00

63 00

30 01

12 00

42 00

98 00

23 00

37 00

72 01

04 00

23 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

9 ) बडगबेल्लूर (निरंतर)

162

163

216

212

126

149

118

10 ) करियंगला

2627

5 00

23 00

18 00

63 00

48 00

54 00

92 00

76 00

58 00

07 00

90 00

58 00

63 00

79 00

96 00

11 00

90 00

76 00

75 00

69 00

62 00

10 00

38 00

राज्य : कर्नाटक

जिला: दक्षिण कन्नड़

तालुक मंगलौर

1 ) तेन्कउलिपाडि

37 00

96 01

49 00

00 49

37 02

40 00

67 00

24 2628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2) अडडूरू

3 ) मूलुर

48ए

46ए

45ए

58ए

40 ए

139

40वी

4) कंदावरा

5 ) अय्दापाडि

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

5 00

64 01

12 00

53 00

58 00

48 01

58 00

04 00

10 00

95 00

13 00

17 00

46 00

36 00

10 00

54 00

92 00

02 00

20 00

31 00

40 00

29 00

67 00

70 00

06 00

45 00

24 00

70 00

91 00

56 00

75 00

26 00 40

44 00

63 00

48 00

64 00

15 00

52 00

30 00

99 00

11 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 1

5) अय्दापाडि (निरंतर)

6) मलउर

127

135

7 ) केंजार

136

137

138

145

144

143

142

1023 GI / 11-8

2629

3 3

43 00

18 00

86 01 06

28 00

01 00

00 42

83 00

30 00

84 00

56 00

30 42

06 00 84

63 00

98 01

28 00 00

39 00

03 00

00 08

38 00

90 00

10 00

75 00 41

54 00

23 00

55 00 46

99 01 2630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

7) केंजार (निरंतर)

102

104

8 ) तोकूरू

139

[ Part 11 - Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

5 3

98 00

42 00

15 00

85 00

04 00

15 00

87 00

74 00

88 गज्य 3 कर्नाटक

जिला: दक्षिण कन्नड़

तालुक: वेल्लंगडि

1 ) नेरिया

सर्वे नं 145 में नाला

145

22/133

19/125

01 00

26 01

07 00

सर्वे नं 4 और 5 के बीच में नाला

201

158

2) तोटत्ताडि

157

170

3 ) चिबिद्रे

4 ) कल्मंजा

219

121

100

30 00

29 02

34 00

14 02

14 00

00 03

14 00

29 00

68 00

62 00

53 00

96 00

72 00

05 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

101

4) कल्पंजा (निरंतर )

105

103

108

109

5 ) धर्मस्थला

262

6) उजिरे

261

259

258

454

265

548

547

545

544

276

278

373

372

362

393

394

396

398

399

7 ) कोय्युरू

227

2631 3

81 01

97 00

70 00

08 00

57 00

82 00

14 00

17 00

55 00

53 00

83 00

36 00

38 00

18 01

23 01

60 00

75 00

32 00

23 00

04 00

53 00

36 00

56 02

23 00

33 01

27 2632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

7) कोय्युरू (निरंतर)

8 ) बेल्तंगडि

152

127

224

248

134

220

198

230

120

114

221

227

103

१ ) वोडिलनाल

107

111

191

135

199

109

146

161

121

137

213

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

5 01

29 00

92 00

27 01

78 02

37 00 04

72 00

80 00

42 00

88 00

33 00

78 01

31 00

73 00

44 00

48 00 09

55 00

07 00

21 00 06

34 00 64

21 00

54 00

10 00

16 00

40 01

25 00

03 00

60 00

32 00

83 00 45

35 01

83 00

56 00

73 00

02 00

06 00 75

47 00

18 00

65 00

15 00

53 00

65 00

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र12 , 1933

110

9 ) वोडिलनाल (निरंतर )

119

103

10) कुवेद्ध

136

2633 3

5 00

23 00

00 26

07 00

66 00

सर्वे नं 136 और 139 के वीच में रोड़

139

137

138

200

199

196

153

198

199

11) पदन्गडि

209

207

208

211

206

195

194

196

197

222

177

166

161

165

160

12) सोणन्दूर

147

13) गर्डाडि

145

146

00 49

26 00

10 00

41 01

59 00

52 00

03 00

50 00

26 00

89 00

06 00

61 00

10 00

15 00

10 00

62 00

43 00

60 00

83 00

49 00

34 00

58 00

22 00

52 00

54 00 14

84 00 34

72 00

29 00

61 00

03 00

60 00

39 01

54 2634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 1

194

13) गाडि (निरंतर)

197

198

208

205

14 ) कुक्केडि

130

15 ) बजरे

151

152

143

120

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

55 00

62 00 29

42 02

42 01

28 00

22 88

97 00

29 00

00 40

00 07

00 46

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/ 1/2011 - जी.पी.

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचित्र

New Delhi , the 1stApril , 2011

S.O. 890

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

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933,

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2635 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 K.Mallinath , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , No. 14/1/79 , CANDLE GARDEN , BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD , MANGALORE -575003 , Karnataka State.

Schedule

State: Karnataka

District : Chikmagalore

Taluk: Mudigere

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

1) Hireshigara

34/2

34/1

15/2

146

2) Hosahalli

149

148

151

150

152/2

152/1

153

154

Area to be acquired for RoU Hec

Are

C-Are

10 00

22 00

88 00

60 00

73 00

92 00

20 00

96 00

07 00

Hemavati River between Sy . No. 663 & V.B 00

3 ) Gonibeedu Agrahara

663

673

672

671

666

667

665

657

656

655

643

644

10 00

18 00

92 00

48 00

46 OG

75 00

02 00

43 2636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011/ CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 3) Gonibeedu Agrahara ( Contd)

651

645

689

4) Heggaravalli

44/3

44/1

40/2

40/1

26/2

26/3

13/1

14/1

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

Nala between Sy.No 14 & V.B

5) Udashi

Hemavati River between Sy.No.253 & V.B

253/1

253/3

253/2

255

261/2

254

265/2

265/4

262

265/3

268

98 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

5) Udashi ( Contd)

6) Kiragunda

2637 4

5 3

26 00

Road Between Sy.No. 7 & 162

162

160

7) Bettadamane

38/2

38/3

41:1

41:2

69:3

69.2

691

71-3

72: 3

722

711

72'1

71'2 1023 GI /11-9

54 00

07 00

82 00

98 00

28 00

92 00

00 THE GAVETIE OF INDIA APRH 2 2010 CHAIRA12.1933

268

isettadariane Conide

794

791

69 S) Uggihallh

See. Sit .

Part Il

1 t

!!!

000

ני

(00 )

()()

( 10 )

(0 )

(00

Nala between Sy . No 28 & 206

206

207

208

210

(01)

(01

Nala between Sy.No 210 & 167

167

169

991

165

268

164

159

146 Angadi

144

145

147

143

471

204

45: 2

12 (00

(00)

107

२५

(00 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

25/2 9) Angadi ( Contd )

18/1

10) Hanthuru

19/3

28/2

28/1

38/2

40/1

40/2

156/1

153

156/2

154

155

149/1

160

148

2639

Road between Sy.No. 148 , 149 , 147 & 145

147/1

145: 2

146/2

146/1

146/3

143/2

143/1

142

169/ P

169/3

141

169/1

169/11

140

10 00

50 00

28 00

13 2640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 11) Kanachuru

178

174

175

144

142

141/6

141/4

134/3

133/6

133/5

133/1

133/2

132/1

132/2

131

130/2

130/1

128/10

128/8

128/6

127

126/10

126/9

126/1

124/8

124/4

124/10

124/9

124/2

120/8

120/3

120/1

119

118

115/2

115/3

115/10

Nala between Sy.No.115 & 104

104/ 1B

104/2B

104/ 2A

104/4

[Part II Sec. 3 ( і )

5 3

רי 00

39 00

86 00

05 00

(04

25 00

00 00

10 00

31 00

64 00

(09

19 00

08 00

N 00

30 00

40 00

(09

(00

46 00

(00

0 00

05 00

86 00

76 () ()

75 00

00 00

NS 00

()()

い

(00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 11 ) Kanachuru ( Contd )

104/3 12 )

233

Halekere

266

2641 3

5 00

20 00

68 00

Road between Sy.No. 233 & 227

227

236/1

236/2

239

228

175/1

175/2

174 & 173

171

170

167

166

178

164

160 & 161

162

184

158

157

154

148

144

149

145

147

146

133

138

112

113

14 00

62 00

59 00

86 00

47 00

39 00

10 00

Hemavati River between Sy.No. 113 & 199

119 & 120

121

123

Nala between Sy.No. 123 & V.B

13 ) Byduvalli Coffee Estate

14) Bydavalli

34 2642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12. 1933

2 1

Bydavalli ( Contd)

14)

41/2

41/1

33/2

33/1

16/5

16/4

16/3

16/2

43/5

43/2

43/3

43/1

10/1

10:8

10/2

10/7

10/3

105

10/4

7:6

7:2

7/3

7.1

[ Part II Sec . Stun

5 3

03 00

88 00

19 00

45 00

103

72 00

1.4

אא 00

36 00

(0)

35 00

(01

40 00

79 00

(09

(0 )

(0)

98 00

12 00

35 00

Nala Between Sy.No. 5 , 65 & 66

672

671

69.1

69/3

69:2

710 00

17 00

63 100

70 00

17 00

05 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

69:4 14) Bydavalli ( Contd )

69/6

69/5

69/8

69/9

69/7

69/10

2643

5 3

88 00

14 00

87 00

Nala Between Sy. No.71 & 153

153

154/1

154/2

155

156

157

158

141

142

138

15) Muddarahalli

52 00

19 00

27 00

07 00

74 02

63 00

88 01

18 00

62 00

02 00

83 00

Nala between Sy.No. 21 & 16

214 16) Gutti

213

215

210/2

210/1

209

68 00

63 00

58 00

12 00

Nala in the Sy No. 206

167

166/1

166/2

166/4

166/5

164/2

54 00

84 00

78 00

80 00

74 00

07 2044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 1

164/1 16) Gutti ( Contd )

163/2

163/1

162/2

162/1

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

5 00

Nala between Sy.No 162 & 117

117

116

Nala between Sy . No 116 & 115/2

115/2

111

115/3

112

114/1

294

232

118

17) Kogile

126

122

District : Dakshin Kannada

Taluk : Bantwala

1) Pilathabettu

107

State : Karnataka

Cart Track in the Sy . No. 107

148

147

2) Ajjibettu

100

129

134

144

149

84 भारत का राजपत्र अप्रल 2011/44

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2) Ajjibettu ( Contd )

55/3 3) Chennaithodi

Cart Track in the Sy. No. 55/3

4) Yeliyanadugodu

135

110

121

123

139

5) Kukkipadi

96:19

170

102

153 6) Rayee

102

101

103

100

122

132 1023 GI/11-10

14 , 1/20

00 ORINDA APRIL , CIECHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 (6) Raced outd

110

159

114

112

137

100

Mals

109

147

?אן

OST

Badaga Bellut

Part 11 Sec . 30 ) 3

5 00

72 00

16 00

35 00

03 00

7()

94 00

)(0

(1)

000

112

150

(19

(00

().

100

(1)

とり

()()

りこ

1.1

10 2617

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2. 2011 /चैत्र 12. 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

(9) Badaga Bellur ( Contd )

162

163

216

212

126

149

118

10 ) Kariyangala

יי

District : Dakshin Kannada

Taluk : Mangalore

1 ) Tankaulipady

:10

010

(0)

7(0

" 6

>:-

(11)

State : Karnataka

40 00

(04

00 2648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 2 ) Adduru

3) Mulur

48A

46A

45A

58A

40A

139

40B

4) Kandavara

5) Adyapady

[ Part II Sec . 36 ) 3

64 01

12 00

04 00

10 00

15 00

46 00

36 00

54 00

92 00

02 00

20 00

31 00

40 00

67 00

70 00

06 00

45 00

24 00

70 00

75 00

15 00

11 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

5) Adyapady ( Contd)

6) Malavoor

127

135

7) Kenjar

136

137

138

145

144

143

142

2649 4

99 2650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12. 1933

2 1

7) Kenjar (Contd )

102

104

8) Tokuru

139

District: Dakshin Kannada

Taluk: Beltangadi

11 Neriya

[Part II Sec . 3 ( in) |

5 3

15 00

85 00

15 00

16 00

74 00

State : Karnataka

32 00

Nala in the Sy.No 145

145

22/133

19/125

(0)

18 01

(07

80 00

Nala between Sy.No. 4 & 5

201

158

2) Thotatthadi

157

170

3) Chibidre

4) Kalmanja

219

121

100

29 01

34 02

60 00

14 02

98 00

14 00

117

29 00

16 00

58 00

96 00

72 00

00 [ भाग !! - खण्ड ( i ) |

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12. 1933

2 4) Kalman

101

105

103

108

109

5 ) Pharmasthala

262

6 ) Ujire

261

259

258

454

265

548

5-47

545

5-44

276

278

373

372

362

393

394

396

398

399

7) Koyyuru

227

2651 3

81 00

26 01

97 00

70 00

13 00

82 00

13 00

17 00

55 01

37 00

36 00

32 00

23 92

36 00

6-4

36 2652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 1

7) Koyyuru ( Contd)

8) Beltangadi

152

127

224

248

134

220

198

230

120

114

221

227

103

9) Odilnal

107

111

191

135

199

109

146

161

121

137

213

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

5 3

78 01

37 02

80 00

42 00

31 01

73 00

55 00

07 00

21 00

34 00

10 00

40 00

03 00

83 (00

35 00

8.3 01

73 00

(02

(00

() ]

(00)

53 00

(01 00 SON

206

194 196 177 166 160 13

147 145 146 191 12

20 00

80 00

100

(1)

३।

5-4 00

(1)

10 2654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[ Part if Sec . Stji ) |

14) Kukkedi

614

130

15) Bajare

151

152

143

120

[ F No. L - 14014/1/2011 -G.P ] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल , 2011

का. आ. 891 भाग्न सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होना है कि मैमर्म ग्लिाएन्भ इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र पदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल में देश के विभिन्न हिग्मों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैम के परिवहन के लिए, ममर्ग ग्लिॉजिस्टिक्म इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्राग काकीनाडा वायुदेवपुर हावडा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए :

और. भाग्न सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक पनीत होता है कि, उस भूमि में. जिगर्क भीनर उक्न पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने का प्रग्नाव है और जो इम अधिसूचना में उपाक्द्र अनुसूची में वर्णित है. उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए :

अनाः.. अव. भारत सरकार, पेट्रोलियम औरखनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयाग के अधिकार का बर्तन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धाग 3 की उपधाग ( 1 ) दाग प्रदन्न सक्तियों का पयोग करते हुए उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जाउन अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमिहिन (1) के अधीन जाग की गई अधिसूचना की पतिया साधारण जनना की उनकी दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विलाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अनवर हिपाठा पाधिकारी, ग्लिॉजिस्टिक्स इंन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड. प्रथम मौजल, फोर्जुन शवर पुर आडिशा गज्य का लिखित रुप में ऑक्षेप भेज सकेंगा । 751023.

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2655

अनुसूची

जिला कटक

मडल/ नेहमिल/ तालुक गुरुदीजहटिया

गाँव का नाम

गज्य : ओडिशा

सर्वे सं०/ सब डिविजन सं

2 1 ) गोबरा

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर

00 05

गाँव मींमा और मर्वे में 3370 के बीच में

गाँव मींमा और सर्वे में 3371 के बीच में

3370

3371

3372

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक धर्मशाला

54 00

76 00

54 गज्य:आओडिशा

जिला:जाजपुर

259

1 ) संपारु

1488

2 ) कुजिबारा

1487

1486

1484

1483

1482

1481

1480

1474

1468

1+29

1467

1466

1464

1465

1447

1446

1445

1406

1405

1404

1543

361

487

485

486

480

481

17 00

49 00

43 00 00

27 00

19 00 00

10 00

42 00

51 00

58 00

11 00

10 00

43 00

25 00 06

31 00

85 00

42 00

28 00

78 00

68 00

42 00

51 00

32 00

01 00

27 00 02

87 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2 , 2011

482

कुजिवारा (निरंतर)

479

478

477

476

475

474

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

503

539

540

416

450

417

442

443

441

440

433

434

435

436

437

429

430

431

432

398

397

399

400

237

287

277

278

00 30 05 100

10 010

93 00

100

04 00 00 00 05 00 00 00

02 09

00 02 00 02 00 05

12 00

01 OC 06 00

01 00 00 00

01 00

04 00

00 00

00 02 00

05 00

03 00

00 00

02 00

00 00 17 00

13 00

07 00

01 00 00 00

03 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 चैत्र 12 , 1933

| भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( 1 ) ]

279

2) कुनिबारा (निरंतर)

280

281

2607 ""

25 00

02 00

14 00

सर्वे में 281 और गाँव मीमा के बीच में

जिला भदक मंडल/ नहमिल/ नालुक भरक देहान

2914

1: हासीनपुर

2524

2523

2444

2443

2440

2442

2441

2458

2457

3015

2468

2469

2470

2499

2494

2498

2495

2496

2489

2488

2546

2487

2549

2550

2552

2548

2561

2560

2562

2567

2566

2563

2565

2564

2587

2599

2600

राज्य आडिला

85 00

94 00

10 00

97 00

00 02

06 00

55 00

84 00.

15 00

74 00

00 00

70 00

40 00

55 00 09

37 00 08

10 00

44 00

72 00

43 00

19 00

77 00

46 00 09

00 2658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2767

1 ) हासीनपुर (निरंतर)

2768

2059

2058

2057

2056

2030

2032

2033

2039

2040

2031

2011

3014

2017

1960

1961

1962

1950

1963

1911

1914

1913

1915

1919

1920

1918

1916

1922

1917

1925

1888

1924

1881

1880

1854

1855

1851

1856

1859

1857

1862

[Part II- Sec. 3 ( 3

5 00

75 00

64 00

75 00

19 00 02

81 00

09 00 03

40 00 02

44 00 19

36 00 00

78 00

90 00

10 00

69 00

10 00 19

39 00

30 00

66 00

95 00 20

34 00

21 00

10 00

93 00 02

80 00

27 00

07 00 02

71 00

99 00

02 00

32 00

50 00

08 00

19 00

90 00 02

75 00

95 00

24 00

83 00 00

31 00 09

07 00 02

81 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

1863

1 ) हासीनपुर (निरंतर )

1864

2659

13 राज्य:आडिशा

जिला:वालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक: निलगिरी

1594

1 ) बालिगाहिरी

1597

1602

1599

1600

1610

753

1609

1611

751

2065

1614

750

738

739

740

741

735

742

733

726

728

727

640

630

641

638

642

659

656

655

643

32 00

90 00

26 00

00 02

28 00

10 00

82 00

87 00 09

04 00

36 00

83 00

60 00

69 00

34 00

71 00

00 03

66 00

82 00

34 00

31 00

26 00

सर्वे में 643 और 644 के बीच में

644

645

652

647

646

627

626

56 00

28 00

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2. 2011 /CHATTRA 2 .

628

कलिगाहिरी (निरंतर)

530

536

624

540

541

538

539

535

2011

487

488

486

491

490

2054

482

485

484

335

336

337

338

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

203

202

201

200

199

198

236

237

238

239

240

243

01.

00 06

00 02

7 00

67 00 02

6 00

00 00

00 08

00 03

92 00

55 00

30 00

46 00

52 भारत का राजपत्र अप्रल 2 , 20117चत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

242

2) बालिगोही (निरंतर)

261

262

263

264

260

265

469

266

144

145

267

468

277

274

173

129

133

489

130

131

487

127

126

115

486

118

119

120

121

117

3164

3 ) सिमुलिया

3038

3039

1944

1945

1946

3040

3041

2962

1947

1948

1023 GI /11-12

37 00

61 00

09 00

08 00

18 00 05

41 00 09

54 00

10 00

14 00 08

78 00 00

03 00

46 00 06

00 00

46 00

60 00

91 00

10 00 00

63 00

10 00

04 00

28 00

75 00

96 00

66 00

17 00 00

59 00

53 00 04

43 00

29 00

47 00

13 OU INDIA APRIL 201 CHAITRA 12, 1933

2 निर्णलया (लियर।

1957

1961

2963

1960

1959

1972

2966

2965

2967

2982

2981

1968

2969

2979

2980

2978

2974

2968

2970

2971

2964

3125

2895

2894

2895

2897

2898

2899

2900

2901

2903

2902

2849

2850

2851

2852

2848

2841

2840

2839

3106

2842

Part Se 00

35 00

53 00

63 00

16 00

98 00

10 00

27 00

90 00

05 00

02 00

4() 00

86 00 08

10 00

32 00

48 00

06 00

90 00 09

30 00

10 00

39 00

10 00 06

18 00

37 00 02

69 00

36 00

35 00

50 00 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चंत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2834 31 सिमुलिया (निरंतर )

2419

2401

2400

2402

2418

2417

2416

2426

2427

2428

2430

2429

2510

2509

2486

2485

2487

2488

2490

2489

2482

2477

2474

2475

2473

2472

1453 1: काहालिया

1454

1455

1452

1456

1450

1476

1475

1485

1486

1487

1488

1384

1383

1390

30 00

99 00

134

11 00

60 00

56 00

00 2664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[Part B Sec. st )] 3

1391

4) काहालिया (निरंतर)

1392

1393

1382

1501

1381

1380

1378

1379

1524

1377

1531

1530

92 00

99 00

00 09

50 00 05

55 00

93 00 23

20 00 00

10 00 06

55 00

1528

1533

1618

1617

1620

1591

1586

1590

1626

1584

1585

1580

1583

1579

1578

1577

1573

1564

00 00

50 00

64 00

95 00

63 00

35 00 01

15 00

39 00

06 00 00

26 00

81 00

77 00

08 00 02

31 00

84 00

94 00

10 00

जिला:वालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक सिंगला

1184

1) देभोग

304

268

309

316

303

285

302

288

301

300

राज्य: ओडिशा

00 12

06 00

08 00

83 00

26 00

35 00

49 00

13 00

67 00

10 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

297

1 ) देभोग (निरंतर)

418

419

417

420

423

424

421

422

429

828

833

832

834

836

837

831

839

1212

1204

830

844

845

846

848

847

849

850

851

823

1210

790

885

936

937

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

2663 4

18 02

00 04

21 00 00

04 00

52 01

70 00

52 00

54 07

73 00 00

84 01

39 00

03 00

19 00

72 00 00

20 00

47 02

58 00

10 00

55 00

95 00

96 05

99 00 06

17 02

12 00

33 00

42 02

12 06

62 13

03 00

11 00

86 00

63 02

10 00

88 00

06 01

40 09

07 04

13 00

77 00

41 01

13 00

00 2666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12. 1933

2 1

954.

1 ) देभोग (निरंतर)

953

962

960

956

958

957

1090

970

Part II See. Sii) ] 3

93 00

23 00

09 00

28 00

26 00

10 00

73 00 01

55 00

1089

1078

1009

1077

1074

1202

1073

1072

1068

1178

17 00

29 00

57 00 12

54 00

86 00

27 00

55 राज्य ओडिशा

जिला ग्वालेश्वर

मंडल/ नेहमिल/ नालुक रुपमा

398

1 ) ओडिआ-शासन

397

396

411

416

402

412

410

409

407

413

406

348

347

346

352

340

339

312

338

322

323

324

11 00

74 00

69 00

09 00 02

26 00 16

96 00

34 00 00

28 00

99 00

01 00 01

61 00

67 00

36 00

99 00

67 00

89 00

00 [ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 1

325

1 ) ओडिआ-शासन (निरंतर)

337

334

326

327

333

332

329

331

160

161

162

163

164

158

169

170

167

171

172

173

174

175

105

100

184

185

186

2667 3

75 21

45 02

73 00

90 00

28 00

60 00

28 00

05 00

95 00

21 07

33 02

98 06

05 02

28 08

00 12

00 02

29 00

56 2668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

1 ) ओडिआ-शासन (निरंतर )

910

[Part II. Sec . 3 ( it)] 3

10 00

39 00

18 00

70 00 02

57 00

10 00

77 00

20 00 00

10 00

जिला वालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक :बस्ता

1 ) गुंडुरिसाही

9/26

7/14

6/12

17/27

5/11

3/9

4/10

32/44

गज्य आडिशा

80 00

61 00

98 00

89 00

10 00

61 00

36 00

94 00

01 00 08

82 00

76 00

63 00

33 00

41 00

32 गज्य: ओडिशा

जिला:वालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक:जालेश्वर

364

1) बर्तना

363

361

360

353

359

357

354

356

355

351

339

350

341

342

273

272

02 00

98 00

02 00

40 00

29 00

81 00

02 00

27 00

19 00

46 00

24 00

81 00

70 00

90 00

42 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 चैत्र ।2 , 1933

274

1 ) बर्तना (निरंतर)

275

276

277

269

254

253

252

250

249

248

236

235

111

233

232

231

223

224

225

229

218

226

227

217

215

214

211

213

141

201

200

199

179

198

180

182

2 ) अकबरपुर

11-13

2669 3

75 00 02

31 00 00

96 00

05 00

63 06

54 00 00

10 00

49 00

85 00

17 00

65 09

43 00 00

35 00

00 00

28 00 09

00 00

87 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

2670

2) अकबरपुर (निरंतर)

353

355

3) खारिदा

156

157

[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

90 01

59 00 64

47 00

29 05

44 10

57 00

52 00

31 00 09

65 05

13 00

42 12

10. 00

30 12

49 09

12 00 00

00 09 93 00 04 43 00 01 01

65 00

03 00 08

12 00 00

62 00

01 00

30 00

48 00 08

00 भाय II- एक 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 3 ) खारिदा (निरंतर)

175

174

158

173

172

171

170

272

270

271

287

286

285

283

284

307

376

4 ) पाखरा

363

115

120

149

124

137

138

136

135

2671 3

70 00

05 00

71 02

90 00

94 00 00

62 00

55 00

40 00

10 00

38 00

08 00 00

16 23

67 00

34 00

14 00

10 00

60 00

57 00

33 00

28 01

24 00

31 00

63 00

57 00

51 00

73 00

51 00

46 01

72 00

47 00

16 05

37 00

84 00

12 03

84 00

65 01

94 00

59 00 00

13 00

38 2672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

2 1

134

4) पाखरा (निरंतर)

132

131

229

230

231

232

233

237

[Part 11 Sec . 3 ( ii) | 3

54 11

28 00

13 00

80 05

80 00

34 00

18 00

40 00

458/2910

5) नांपो

2911

53 10

460/2914

461/2915

462/2916

466/2920

10 00

463/2917

464/2918 02

97 00

465/2919

479/2939

09 00

480/2940

2913

347/2783

346/2782

344/2780

345/2781

341/2777 00 02

92 00

18 05

85 00

58 00

96 00

34 00

343/2779

342/2778

24 00

1020/4073

503/2968

504/2969

35 06

505/2970

85 00 05

506/2971

510/2975

49 32

511/2976

3115

96 00 01

21 15

567/3069

92 26

555/3057

72 04

566/3068

556/3058

557/3059

558/3060

67 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

559/3061 5) नांपो (निरंतर)

551/3053

550/3052

3336

794/3318

808/3332

807/3331

806/3330

805/3329

813/3338

814/3339

815/3340

816/3341

804/3328

803/3327

817/3342

801/3325

821/3448

3454

842/3471

841/3470

3469

840/3468

845/3474

848/3477

847/3476

850/3479

849/3478

862/3491

3492

3498

861/3490

863/3499

3497

864/3500

870/3506

869/3505

873/3509

874/3607

3606

3572

3573

2673 4

87 18

33 00

29 05

82 00

43 09

99 10

10 00

25 00

98 04

60 00

81 16

63 00

74 17

36 00

34 00

10 00

67 13

90 00

53 00

50 03

01 11

01 01

69 00

10 00

20 29

19 02

16 00

65 01

98 08

10 00

51 23

88 04

30 14

36 00

97 00

95 00

46 09

06 2674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

3576

5 ) नांपो (निरंतर)

3574

3575

3604

3582

3603

3602

3583

3601

3584

3585

3598

1841

1840

3586

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

12 07

10 00

55 03

60 02

24 11

26 00

30 00

90 00

51 06

33 00

22 09

10 00

41 00

96 01

45 00

1839

1838

1860

1837

1836

95 00 02

92 02

19 00

68 00

1812

1834

1813

1832

1831

1817

1816

1804

1818

1819

1820

1803

1802

1801

1800

1776

1775

1774

1584

1583

1582

1578

72 00

00 02

94 05

29 00

10 00

22 00

73 00

00 03

40 01

93 00

90 00

20 00

53 00

05 01

06 00

90 00 02

51 00

38 00 02

12 00

37 00

48 00

53 00

86 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

220/1577 5 ) नांपो (निरंतर )

219/1576

218/1575

224/1604

225/1605

226/1606

227/1607

1571

211/1559

209/1506

208/1505

1509

1510

205/1502

1498

1500

1499

1497

1495

1496

1486

1478

1479

1485

1484

1483

1480

1459

1460

1450

1449

1448

1447

1446

1237

सरका

2675

05 00

38 00

38 00 20

77 00 04

86 00 01

36 00

30 00

66 00

99 00

26 00

33 00

25 00

10 00

88 00

34 00

10 00

80 00

21 00

28 00

00 00

गाँव मोंमा और पर्वे में 282 के बीच में

282

281

33 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

2676

6) सरकातिया (निरंतर)

280

361

106

104

108

107

103

101

118

362

236

7) जगडाभा

229

247

228

225

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

37 00 01

10 00

95 00

52 00

26 05

84 10

77 00

95 00

13 00

05 00

67 00

10 00

55 00

27 02

17 00

73 04

88 02

03 00

32 00 06

29 00

98 00

12 00

64 00

31 02

94 00

39 00

30 00

04 00

12 00

24 00

35 00

88 00

05 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12 , 1933

227

7) जगडाभा (निरंतर)

226

248

221

220

215

219

218

217

8) संपतिया

152

157

109

158

156

155

187

154

184

182

185

G/11-14

2677 3

99 00

69 00 00

17 00

23 00

09 00 00

12 00

92 00 01

95 00 06

16 00

22 00 02

46 00 16

01 00

49 00

85 00 05

00 08

00 06

00 00

00 03

00 00

00 09

00 00

02 2678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

174

8 ) संपतिया (निरंतर)

176

181

178

177

179

180

202

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

08 00

20 00

05 00

20 00

38 00

58 गज्य:ओडिशा

जिला:वालेश्वर

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:रेमुणा

1) अलदा

152

157

109

158

156

155

187

154

184

182

185

174

22 00

01 00

49 00

38 00

60 00

00 00

01 00

29 00

41 00 06

96 00

28 00

46 00 08

87 00

00 05

84 00

12 00

97 00

70 00

20 00

35 00

08 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

176

1) अलदा (निरंतर)

181

178

177

179

180

202

जिला:वालेश्वर मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक:भोगगय

276

1 ) अमिधानगाडिया

277

291

284

283

282

374

285

1054

2) नहारा

199

193

194

198

181

179

180

177

174

208

173

172

170

171

160

161

162

158

157

156

155

154

101

2041

102

104

2679 3

48 00

52 00 08

20 00

05 00

20 00

38 00

58 राज्य: ओडिशा

00 02

00 06

00 10

15 2680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 1

103

2) नहारा (निरंतर)

114

116

115

1601

1602

1603

1619

1617

1618

2044

574

3 ) कुरूंटिया

466

467

468

469

471

470

472

473

474

475

482

487

483

484

485

549

546

624

548

625

542

541

539

538

629

537

536

630

534

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

86 00

43 00 00

31 00

69 00

10 16

70 00

10 00

83 00

13 04

00 00

10 00

84 00

99 00

01 23

71 01

38 00 06

54 00

67 01

87 00

10 00

43 00 08

57 00 00

14 07

83 00

47 06

38 03

87 00

13 00

29 00

32 14

00 09

50 00 02

75 00

78 00

88 00 00

99 00 02

93 00

98 01

29 00

12 00

55 04 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

653

3 ) कुरुंटिया (निरंतर )

663

662

661

664

659

674

669

673

675

672

670

671

4 ) बालिम

1518

1517

1515

1516

1513

1534

1502

1501

1535

1500

1539

1540

1541

1544

1545

1566

1565

1546

616

615

2681 3

5 00

96 00

99 00

24 00

43 00

01 00

95 00

91 00

19 00

71 00

20 00

71 00

04 00

38 00

15 00

99 00

00 04

00 00

25 2682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

614

4) बालिम (निरंतर)

557

2268

559

558

552

550

551

1226

1708

1707

1709

1710

1714

7117

1713

1718

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

14 00

49 00

26 01

16 00

89 00

07 08

61 00 09

04 00 12

29 00

00 32

85 01

07 00

45 00 00

78 00 22

97 02

04 00

59 09

44 02

1751

1750

1749

72 00

48 00

24 04

1745

1725

1728

1731

2126

1733

2125

06 10

78 22

46 00

00 00

10 00

57 00 00

1734

2124

2014

2015

2013

2012

2011

2010

2022

2009

2008

2023

2026

2028

03 06

58 00

59 00 00

57 00

64 00 00

10 00

31 00

20 00

46 00

15 00

2029

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2030 4) बालिम (निरंतर)

मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक:वैसिंगा

2683 3

81 गज्य: ओडिशा

जिला:मयुरभंज

119

1 ) शिकारखुंटा

41/82

28/36

41/81

27/35

30/38

31/39

22/29

20/26

6/7

7/8

19/21 00

10 00

94 00

10 00

74 00

41 00

40 00 05

82 00

48 00

29 00

45 00

62 00

[फा सं. एल.-14014/1/2011- जी.पी. ] के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st April , 2011

S.O. 891 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 1501962 ) , 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 .

2684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

Schedule

District: Cuttack Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk : Gurudijhatia

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division

2 1) Gobra

Inbet VB & suy no . 3370

Nala bet VB & suy no.3371

3370

3371

3372 Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk : Dharmasala

District : Jajapur

259

1) Samparu

1488 2) Kujibara

1487

1486

1484

1483

1482

1481

1480

1474

1468

1429

1467

1466

1464

1465

1447

1446

1445

1406

1405

1404

1543

361

487

485

486

480

481

[Part II Sec. 3 ( fi ) State: Orissa

Area to be acquiredfor ROU Are

Hec

C-Are 3

5:4

State: Orissa

87 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अप्रेल 2 , 2011/चैत्र 12, 1933

2 2) Kujibara ( Contd )

482

479

478

477

476

475

474

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

503

539

540

416

450

417

442

443

441

440

433

434

435

436

437

429

430

431

432

398

397

399

400

237

287

277

278

11-15

268.5 3

(11)

35 2686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

279 2) Kujibara ( Contd)

280

281

Nala bet suy Hơ : 281 & VB

District : Bhadrak Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Bhadrak Rural

2914 1) Hasinpur

2524

2523

2444

2443

2440

2442

2441

2458

2457

3015

2468

2469

2470

2499

2494

2498

2495

2496

2489

2488

2546

2487

2549

2550

2552

2548

2561

2560

2562

2567

2566

2563

2565

2564

2587

2599

2600

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

State: Orissa

00 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपुत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 1 ) Hasimpur ( Contd )

2767

2768

2059

2058

2057

2056

2030

2032

2033

2039

2040

2031

2011

3014

2017

1960

1961

1962

1950

1963

1911

1914

1913

1915

1919

1920

1918

1916

1922

1917

1925

1888

1924

1881

1880

1854

1855

1851

1856

1859

1857

1862

2687 4

81 2688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

1863 1) Hasinpur ( Contd)

1864

District : Baleshwar Mandal/Tehsil / Taluk : Nilagiri

1594 1) Baligahiri

1597

1602

1599

1600

1610

753

1609

1611

751

2065

1614

750

738

739

740

741

735

742

733

726

728

727

640

630

641

638

642

659

656

655

643

In bet suy no . 643 & 644

644

645

652

647

646

627

626

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

State: Orissa

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

628

1 ) Baligahiri ( Contd )

530

536

624

540

541

538

539

535

2011

487

488

486

491

490

2054

482

485

484

335

336

337

338

207

2) Baligohi

208

209

210

211

212

213

203

202

201

200

199

198

236

237

238

239

240

243

2689 4

52 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2690

242

2) Balıgohi( Contd)

261

262

263

264

260

265

469

266

144

145

267

468

277

274

173

129

133

489

130

131

487

127

126

115

486

118

119

120

121

117

3164 3) Simulia

3038

3039

1944

1945

1946

3040

3041

2962

1947

1948

[ Part II Sec. Su

5.1

(00

1.1

(00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 3 ) Simulia ( Contd)

1957

1961

2963

1960

1959

1972

2966

2965

2967

2982

2981

1968

2969

2979

2980

2978

2974

2968

2970

2971

2964

3125

2895

2894

2896

2897

2898

2899

2900

2901

2903

2902

2849

2850

2851

2852

2848

2841

2840

2839

3106

2842

2691 3

50 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

2692

2 1

2834 3: Susana ( Contd)

2419

2401

2400

2402

2418

2417

2416

2426

2427

2428

2430

2429

2510

2509

2486

2485

2487

2488

2490

2489

2482

2477

2474

2475

2473

2472

1453 4) Kahalia

1454

1455

1452

1456

1450

1476

1475

1485

1486

1487

1488

1384

1383

1390

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

00 भारत का राजन जत्रए। 4 , 2011/44 14 , 1733

[ শাণ 11-৬০৬১ ) ]

2 4) Kahalia ( Contd)

1391

1392

1393

1382

1501

1381

1380

1378

1379

1524

1377

1531

1530

1528

1533

1618

1617

1620

1591

1586

1590

1626

1584

1585

1580

1583

1579

1578

1577

1573

1564

District: Baleshwar Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Singla

1184

1) Debhog

304

268

309

316

303

285

302

288

301

300

023 0/11-16

5 00

92 90

99 00

33 00

50 00

46 00

20 00

10 00

32 00

50 00

95 00

63 00

35 00

15 00

06 00

26 00

77 00

08 00

84 00

94 00

86 00

State: Orissa

06 00

26 00

35 ( )

36 00

67 00

10 00

10 2694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

297

1) Debhog ( Contd)

418

419

417

420

423

424

421

422

429

828

833

832

834

836

837

831

839

1212

1204

830

844

845

846

848

847

849

850

851

823

1210

790

885

936

937

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

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

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 1

954

1 ) Debhog ( Contd)

953

962

960

956

958

957

1090

970

1089

1078

1009

1077

1074

1202

1073

1072

1068

1178

2695 4

State : Orissa

District : Baleshwar

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Rupsa

398

1) Oriasasan

397

396

411

416

402

412

410

409

407

413

406

348

347

346

352

340

339

312

338

322

323

324 00

00 2696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

2 1

325

1) Oriasasan ( Contd)

337

334

326

327

333

332

329

331

160

161

162

163

164

158

169

170

167

171

172

173

174

175

105

100

184

185

186

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

11 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1 ) Oriasasan ( Contd)

910

District : Baleshwar Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk : Basta

1 ) Gundurisahi

9/26

7/14

6/12

17/27

5/11

3/9

4/10

32/44

2697 4

State : Orissa

State: Orissa

District : Baleshwar

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Jaleswar

364

1) Bartana

363

361

360

353

359

357

354

356

355

351

339

350

341

342

273

272

42 2698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

2 1

274

1) Bartana ( Contd)

275

276

277

269

254

253

252

250

249

248

236

235

111

233

232

231

223

224

225

229

218

226

227

217

215

214

211

213

141

201

200

199

179

198

180

182

2) Akbarpur

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

87 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 2) Akbarpur ( Contd)

353

355

3 ) Kharida

156

157

2699 4

()()

010

(0)

65 2700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAIRA 12, 1953

2 1

175

3) Kharida (Contd)

174

158

173

172

171

170

272

270

271

287

286

285

283

284

307

376 4) Pakhara

363

115

120

149

124

137

138

136

135

[Part 11-- Sec . (1)] 4

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12, 1933

54 4) Pakhara (Contd)

134

132

131

229

230

231

232

233

237

458/2910

01 5) Nampo

2911

460/2914

461/2915

462/2916

466/2920

463/2917

464/2918

465/2919

479/2939

480/2940

2913

347/2783

346/2782

344/2780

345/2781

341/2777

343/2779

342/2778

1020/4073

503/2968

504/2969

505/2970

506/2971

510/2975

511/2976

3115

567/3069

555/3057

566/3068

556/3058

557/3059

558/3060

1023 GI/ 11-17 2702

THL GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 /CHAITRA 12. 1933

2 5) Nampo ( Contd)

559/3061

551/3053

550/3052

3336

794/3318

808/3332

807/3331

806/3330

805/3329

813/3338

814/3339

815/3340

816/3341

804/3328

803/3327

817/3342

801/3325

821/3448

3454

842/3471

841/3470

3469

840/3468

845/3474

848/3477

847/3476

850/3479

849/3478

862/3491

3492

3498

861/3490

863/3499

3497

864/3500

870/3506

869/3505

873/3509

874/3607

3606

3572

3573

[Part II Sec . 30 ) 4

(00

5()

06 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

3576

5) Nampo ( Contd)

3574

3575

3604

3582

3603

3602

3583

3601

3584

3585

3598

1841

1840

3586

1839

1838

1860

1837

1836

1812

1834

1813

1832

1831

1817

1816

1804

1818

1819

1820

1803

1802

1801

1800

1776

1775

1774

1584

1583

1582

1578

2703 4

10 [Part 1!

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 1

220/1577 Nampo ( Contd )

219/1576

218/1575

224/1604

225/1605

2261606

227/1607

1571

211/1559

209/1506

208/1505

1509

1510

205/1502

1498

1500

1499

1497

1495

1496

1486

1478

1479

1485

1484

1483

1480

1459

1460

1450

1449

1448

1447

1446

1237 6) Sarkatia

Nala bet VB & suy no . 282

282

281

101

16 00

0-4

80 00

21 00

19 00

10 00

90 00

10 00

93 00

03 00

16 00

26 00

32 00

16 00

57 00

23 00

33 00 [ भाग II - खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

2 6) Sarkatia ( Contd)

280

361

106

104

108

107

103

101

118

362

236

7) Jagadabha

229

247

228

225

2705 3

88 2706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

227

7) Jagadabha ( Contd)

226

248

221

220

215

219

218

217

8 ) Sampatia

152

157

109

158

156

155

187

154

184

182

185

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

00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

174

8 ) Sampatia ( Contd )

176

181

178

177

179

180

202

District : Baleshwar Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Remuna

1) Alda

152

157

109

158

156

155

187

154

184

182

185

174

2707

State: Orissa

08 2708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2 1

Alda ( Contd)

176

181

178

177

179

180

202

District : Baleshwar Manda! /Tehsil / Taluk : Bhograi

276

1 ) Amidhangadia

277

291

284

283

282

374

285

1054 2 ) Nahara

199

193

194

198

181

179

180

177

174

208

173

172

170

171

160

161

162

158

157

156

155

154

101

2041

102

104

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

State : Orissa

(12

13 2709

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चैत्र 12, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

103

2) Nahara ( Contd )

114

116

115

1601

1602

1603

1619

1617

1618

2044

574

3) Kuruntia

466

467

468

469

471

470

472

473

474

475

482

487

483

484

485

549

546

624

548

625

542

541

539

538

629

537

536

630

534

1023 GI/ 11-18

00 2710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011. CHAITRA 12 , 1933

653

3) Kuruntia ( Contd)

663

662

661

664

659

674

669

673

675

672

670

671

1518 4) Balim

1517

1515

1516

1513

1534

1502

1501

1535

1500

1539

1540

1541

1544

1545

1566

1565

1546

616

615

614

557

2268

559

558

552

550

551

1226

1708

Part II Sec

43 00

())

こ

19 00

71 00

38 00

15 00

6-4

10 00

05 00

(01

7.1 00

11 00

100

107

10 00

94 00

20 00

10 00

79 00

71 00

25 00

14 00

16 00

07 00

(09

01 00

20 00

85 00 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

1707 4) Balim ( Contd )

1709

1710

1714

7117

1713

1718

1751

1750

1749

1745

1725

1728

1731

2126

1733

2125

1734

2124

2014

2015

2013

2012

2011

2010

2022

2009

2008

2023

2026

2028

2029

2030

District: Mayurbhanj Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Baisinga

119

1) Shikarkhunta

41/82

28/36

41/81

27/35

30/38

31/39

22/29

20/26

6/7

7/8

19/21

2711 3

10.

State: Orissa

[ F. No. L -14014/1/2011-G.P. ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

2712

THE GALETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 6 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 892.-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 धांच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-12-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/573/2001- आईआर ( सी 1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 892. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 39/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 6-12- 2010.

[No. L 20012/573/2001 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1) ( d) ( 2A ) of 1. D.Act Reference No. 39 of 2002

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Ena Colliery, Kustore Area of M / s . B.C.C.Ltd.

And

Theirworkmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers : Shri U. N. Lal , Advocate

For the Workman : Shri N. G. Arun ,

Organising Secretary,

R. C. M. S. , Dhanbad .

State : Jharkhand .

Industry : Coal .

dated the 22nd Nov. 2010

PARI

AWARD

By Order Ne 1 20012 573 2010-

1-3-2002 the Central Government in the firs Labour has . in exercise et the postcode

(d) of sub - section ( 1 ) ana subco ( AN 10 of the industrial Dispater 19.

following dispute for adjudicon to this !

SCHEDULE

"क्यामैसर्स भा.को. को. लि. के कुस्तोर क्षेत्र व

एना फायर प्रोजक्ट में कार्यरत कर्मचाले श्री जहीर उन क्लर्क ग्रेड -1 , कार्यरत एकाउन्टेंट को दिनांक के पद पर नियमित नहीं करना तथा एकाउन्टेंट के पद का देना न्यायिक एवं विधिक दृष्टि से उचित सही एवं तक पूण : नहींतो कर्मकार किन लाभों को पाने का हकदार है तथा किम से ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman is that la was at first appointed in 1983 as a Category -I WARSI Subsequently he was regularised as Accounts Clert sa Grade- II w.e.f. 25-8-89 vide Office Order dated 14 16-9-89 ofHeadquarters , Koyla Bhawan . Due to his efficienes her was promoted to Clerical Grade - 1 vide Office order dated 27-10-1993 by the Dy. C. P. M. Kustore Area Tha management Due to medical unfitness of H. 1 .. Burnwai , the concerned waorkman has been authorised to take up his duty and jobs . Since 1-2-94 the concerned workman has been regularly and continuously performing the job ofAccountant without complain and has put in more than 240 days attendance in a year. in the job of Accountant . During the course of his employment as Accountant he has been performing the jobs performed by Sri Burnwal like checking of all payment vouchers , credit vouchers ansd other related documents , Cash Book , Imprest Cash Book Sigining of Cash Book, physical verification of Cash , pav vouchers of Bank for onward transmission to Area . Advance ledger , Cost sheet and checking of all miscellaneous bills and pay orders . As such , the concerned workman has been performing the job of Accountant for the last nine years and still continuing The certified standing order of the company defines a permanent employee as one who performs a permanent nature of job for a period of six months or more .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass an award directing the management to regularise the concerned workman in the postofAccountant with proper grade from 1-2-1994.

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman was appointed on 14-5-83 Survey Apprentice . Subsequently vide office order dated 23-7-88 he was placed as Accounts ( Trainee ) w.e.f. 23-7-88 After one year he was regularised as Accounts Clerk inca II w.e.f. 25-8-89 vide office order dated 1-4 18-9-89 . As per recommendation of the D. P. C. he was promoted to the post of clerk Gr. I ( Finance ) vide office order dated [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

27-10-1993 . The concerned workman has been working as per his designation as Clerk Gr. I in Finance Cadre . The demand of the union / workman for regularisation as Accountant w.e.f. 1-2-94 just after three months of his promotion in Clerical Grade - I is not fair , proper and justified.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to answer the reference in favour of the management by holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to get promotion / regularisation by by - passing the stage and other seniors who are eligible in the company.

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

5. The concerned workman examined himself as WW - 1 ( Zahiruddin ) and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W-27.

The management has produced MW - 1 ( Saroj Kumar Pandey) and proved documents , Ext . M - 1 , M - 2 and ' X ' for identification .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the workman is that he is working as Accountant w.e.f. 1-2-1994 but he has not been regularised in that post. He is getting the salary of Accounts Clerk Grade - l so the management directed to regularise him for the post of Accountant w.e.f. 1-2-1994 . He is working at Kusunda Area of Ena Colliery . In this respect it is argued by the management that the post of Accountant is promotional post. The Accounts Clerk Grade - I cannot be regularised to the post of Accountant. It has also been argued by the management that the post of Accountant is filled through D.P. C. at Headquarters and seniority list is also maintained at Headquarters and as per seniority-cum- merit the D.P.C. selects and promotes through Headquarters to the post of Accountant .

Another argument advanced on behalf of the workman that letters had been written to him for regularisation to the post of Accountant , but that has not been done by the management . In this respect the evidence of the concerned workman is very much material .

The concerned workman ( WW- 1 ) has stated in cross- examination that I was appointed in the year 1983 as Survey Apprentice and he applied for Accounts ( Trainee ) in the year 1988 and was appointed as Accounts ( Trainee ) on 23-8-88 and had been regularised as Accounts Clerk Gr . II on 25-8-89 . He was promoted to the post of Clerk Gr.I Finance Department on 27-10-93 through D.P.C. then he was promoted to Special Grade Clerk in Finance Department on 9-9-2002 through D. P.C. and since then he is working as such and he is getting the salary of special Grade Clerk . He has also stated that I was never superseded by my junior . ' After Special Grade Clerk the promotion is made to the

2713

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

post of Accountant in Technical & Supervisory Gr . A' by D.P.C.promotion to the post Accountant is made by; Headquarters . I working in Area . It is not necessary four years experience for promotion for Accountant . Promotion is made on the basis of merit - cum- seniority . Seniority of SpecialGrade Clerk is maintained at Headquarters . I cannot say my seniority at Headquarters . Through D.P.C. Special Grade Clerk is promoted to Accountant . Seeing the statement of the concerned workman it shows that the post for which he is claiming is filled upby Headquaters through D.P.C. He is working at area oflice and also he has got no knowledge that where his seniority stands in Special Grade - I at Headqurters . So , when the post of Accountant is promotional post and promotion is made by D.P.C. through Headquarters , then he can not be regularised on promotional post .

As per Ext . M - 1 it is Cadre scheme for Ministerial Staff -Accounts Personnel which shows that for Clerical Spl . Grade who are matriculation can be promoted through D.P.C. as Accountant and there is a minimum of 25 % of vacantposts will be filled up by direct recruitment of those passed in Intermediate examination of ICWA / CA . As per Ext. M - 2 - Promotional Channel -( i ) selection shall be made on the basis of merit -cum- seniority for the post upto Clerical Grade - 1 and for Clerical Grade Special . But as per clause ( ii ) the promotional zone for filling the post upto Clerical Grade Special will be Area or Company as per prevailing practice in the respective company , but for Technical Grade ' A' will be the Company only .

The management's witness ( MW - 1 ) has clearly stated that the concerned workman has been promoted to the post of Clerk Grade - 1 which he accepted and getting wages of Clerical Grade - I . The post Accountant is promotional post which is filled up by D.P.C. through Headquarters . It shows in the circumstances that the concerned workman cannot be regularised in promotional post which is filled up by D.P.C. through Headquarters . He is working at Area office and he has got no knowledge about his seniority at Headquarters . By order of the area management to discharge the work Accountant he cannot be regularised to the post of Accountant .

7. The concerned workman referred Awards Digest Vol-XXVII - 9-10 September-October 2001 page 260 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that regularisation of service- Writ petitioners working as helpers and skilled workers is different department of the company for long period of 3 to 10 years continuously Their engagement was treated as casual labour on daily wage basis The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the company to evolve a scheme of absorbing the petitioners- Keeping in mind the mandate of the Constitution under Articles 38 ( 1 ) , 39 ( c ) and 43 the Supreme Court did not interfere the directions issued by the High Court.

2714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

Another law referred by the concerned workman is Awards Digest Vol . XXVII - 1-2 January - February , 2001 page 43 in which Hon'ble Allahabad High Court laid down "Constitution of India, Art . 14 - Regularisation of services of daily rated employee : Held keeping an emmploye on daily wages for continuously 18 years was violative of Article 1-4. The Management was directed to regularise the services of such daily rate employee . "

Another law referred by the workman is Awards Digest Vol - XXVII - 1-2 : 15 page 47 in which Hon'ble Allahabad High Court also held Casual Labour : Regularisation could not be denied after 20 years on the grounds that the casual labour was not able to read and write simple sentences .

The workinan also referred Awards Digest Vol - XXX- 3-4 page 110 in which Hon'ble M.P. High Court laid down held that the party in possesion of the document should produce the same even though the burden of proof may not be on that party. Non - production of record may leadto adverse inference . High Court quashed the finding of the I abour Court that workman worked for 175 days because that was not based on the muster roll , the production of which was with held by the management .

The concerned workman also referred Awards Digest Vol-XXV1-11-12 November - December , 2000 page 346 in which Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court laid down The Industrials Disputes Act , 1947 , Sec . 10- The Limitation Act . 1963, Sec . 137 - Schedule to the provision of Section 137 of the Limitation Actdo not apply to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and relief cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay .

8. In the present case it shows that the concerned workman demanded regularisation on the promotional postwhich is filled by D.P.C. through Headquarters where the Headquarter maintains seniority list of the total areas where persons are working as Account Clerk Grade - 1 . So thedemand by the concerned for regularisation in the post of Accountant does not seem to be justified .

9. Accordingly, I render the following award - The action of the management in not regularising the concerned workman to the post of Accountant w.e.f. 1-2-1994 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 893-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू मी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

[PART II SEC. Sin) अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 183/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-11 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/578/ 1996- आईआर ( सी-11 : डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारो New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 893 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 183 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - curs Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure (8 ) the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L - 22012:5781996 - IR ( C -thị D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT / NGP/ 183 /2002 Date: 21-2-2011 Petitioner / Party No. 1

TheSecretary. Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , (INTUC) , Plot No. 604. Giripeth Post Office, Nagpur- 440010

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2

The Sub Area Manager . Saoner, Sub Area of WCL . At& PO , Saoner. Distt . Nagpur .

AWARD

(Dated : 21 February, 2011 )

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) ol sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 ot Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act" in short ) , vide order No. L- 22012/ 578/ 96 - IR ( C - II ) dated 15-12-1998 , had referred the industrial dispute between of the employers , in relation to the management of WOL. and their workman , Shri Gyaneshwar Choudhary to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur with the following schedule : --

" Whether the action of the managemant of Saoner Sub- Area of WCL , PO . Saoner, Distt . Nagpur in dismissing the services of Shri Gyaneshwar 2715 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Choudhary, Security Guard w.e.f. 16/ 18-9-95 is valid , proper and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

It is necessary to mention here that , subsequently , as per the prayer of the union of the workman , the reference had been transferred to the CGIT , Mumbai by order dated 20-5-1999 . However , after establishment of the CGIT, Nagpur by the Central Government , by order No. L - 22012/ 578 / 96 - IR ( C - II ) dated 1-2-2002 , the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal according to law .

2. After receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly the workman , Shri Gyaneshwar Choudhary ( " the workman " in short ) through the union , " Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC ) ( " the union " in short ) filed his statement of claim , whereas , the management of WCLL ( " WCL " in short) filed their written statement .

Labour Court / 1st Labour Court of Nagpur , to decide the application and interpretation of standing orders , under Section 13 - A of IE ( SO ) Act , 1948 , impleading the Inquiry Officer as one of the respondents and though , the Labour Court issued notice to the Sub- Area Manager , Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer directing them to file their reply, they did not file any reply , so the 1st Labour Court passed ex - parte orders holding the departmental enquiry to be unfair and the union had raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C ) , Nagpur regarding the unfair means adopted in the disciplinary proceeding and in view of the pendency of the matter before the 1st Labour Court and ALC , he requested not to proceed ahead with the action of imposing punishment against him , basing on the invalid charge sheet , enquiry and inquiry report , but, in spite of such protest and intimation . the Sub- Area Manager vide his letter dated 16-9-2005 , dismissed him from service , with immediate effect and the conciliation proceedings before the ALC ( C ) , Nagpur also ended in failure and such failure report was submitted to the Central Government by the ALC ( C ) , Nagpur.

It isfurther pleaded by the workman that the charge sheet filed against him was invalid and bad in law on the ground that though he was put under suspension by office order 19 / 20-4-1995 , the charge sheet was submitted on 18-5-1995 , after a period of one month , which was in violation of the provision of the standing order No.28.2 . which provides submission of charge sheet within three days of suspension of the workman from duty and on 11-7-1995 , he also made representation stating the charge sheet to be time barred . The further case of the workman is that while issuing the charge sheet , the copy of the complaint received against him was not supplied to him and thus he was denied the reasonable opportunity to defend himself and he was appointed by the Chief Security Officer of WCL in 1985 and as such , the Chief Security Officer was his Disciplinary Authority to issue any charge sheet against him and in the charge sheet there was no mention about taking of approval of the Chief Security Officer for submission of the charge sheet and therefore the charge sheet issued on 18-5-1995 by the Sub - Area Manager was without any authority or jurisdiction and the departmental enquiry held by the Inquiry Officer during the pendency of his application challenging the submission of the charge sheet before the Ist Labour Court was bad in law and the order the dismissal was also invalid as no permission was sought by the management from the Labour Court and so also , as no prior approval of the Chief Security Officer was taken as required under Order 2.3 of the Standing Order and while dismissing him from service , his past unblemished and clean service record was not taken into consideration , as mandatorily required under certified Standing Orders No.28.7 and therefore , the orders of dismissal is bad in law and subsequent to his dismissal , he has not been gainfully employed anywhere The case of the workman as per his statement of claim is that he was interviewed and selected as Security Guard by the Chief Security Officer of WCL in the year 1985 and was posted to Saoner sub area and while he was working as such , by office order No. WCL / SAM / SNR/ 00 / 95 / 195 dated 19 /20-4-95 , the Sub- Area Manager , Saoner Sub Area of WCL placed him under suspension onthe ground of his involvement in coal theft , as per the report of the Security Inspector , Saoner Sub- Area and transport contractor , Shri Himmatlal Agrawal , with a direction to report to the Security Officer every working day at 10.00 AM and not to leave the station , without the permision of the Security Inspector and he was issued with a charge sheet on 18-5-1995 , being charged under the certified standing orders No. 26.1 , 26.13 , 26.16 and 26.22 and he submitted his reply to the said charge sheet on 27-5-1995 , denying the charges leveled against him . but , departmental enquiry was constituted by the Sub- Area Manager , Saoner Sub - Area by letter dated 14-6-1995 and one Shri S. C. Gupta , Manager , WCL , Saoner Mine No.2 was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and one Shri P.D.Kawle was appointed as the management representative and by letter No. WCL/ SOM / SNR / ENG/ 95 / 2408 dated 13-9-1995 , he was supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer together with proceedings of the enquiry , but was not issued with any second show cause notice , while supplying the enquiry report including the quantum of punishment proposed to be imposed on him as required under the certified standing order and vide his letter dated 13-9-1995 , he intimated the Sub - Area Manager about the receipt of the copy of the enquiry report and proceedings without enclosures and about his challenging the validity of the charge sheet under Standing Order No.28.2 of the certified Standing Orders of WCL and about his filing on application on 10 / 11-7-1995 in the Central Government 2716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PARI 11 SEC.Sun !

and the Sub - Area Manager appeared in the enquiry as a witness and also passed the order of dismissal and as such , the action of the Sub - Area Manager was biased and bad in law and management had charge sheeted and placed under suspension Shri D. Y. Kale , Dy . Chief Security Officer , in the same incident of theft of coal and though the management held departmental enquiry against him , waited till his date of retirement , without imposing any punishment and after the retirement of Shri Kale , imposed minor penalty of forfeiture of Rs.25,000 from his gratuity and thus management adopted discriminatory attitude against him and though other employees were also charge sheeted in the case and were suspended alongwith him , subsequently they were allowed to resume duty, but he was continuously placed under suspension till his dismissal from service , which also indicates the discriminatory attitude of the managernent. towards him . The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the order of dismissal dated 16-9-1995 and to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

Officer and the workman was given every opportunity to defend the case and the workman was duly served with copies of the proceedings and all the documents and the workman was only interested in protracting the matter . which is evident from his letter dated 24-7-95 , whereby, he had prayed for staying the enquiry proceedings . which was not done in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2005 ( 5 ) SCC - 457 and there was no stay order from the Labour Court and the principles of natural justice had been duly complied by the Inquiry Officer and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on evidence on record and the 2nd show cause notice was issued after the supply of the enquiry report and the Inquiry Officer acted fairly, while conducting the enquiry and whereby, he held that charges under 26.16 were not proved and the remaining charges proved are sufficient to dismiss the workman and standing order No.28.2 is directive and not mandatory , so as to avoid inordinate delay in filing charge sheet and the Sub - Arca Manager is the head of the Mine and he is the Appointing Authenty and as such , the allegations that charge sheet is without any authority is nothing but wild imagination and Stri Nawab Ansari was discharged by the Hon'ble High Court in criminal Application No.970 / 1996 , as per the orde dated 24-3-99 as there was no allegation against him , but the Hon'ble High Court found substance in the allegations against the workman and refused to discharge him and as such , the workman cannot seek parity with Shri Nawab Ansari and there was no discriminatory attitude against the workman and as such , the workman isnot entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that as this is a case of dismissal from service after holding of a domestic enquiry, the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken for consideration as a preliminary issue and vide order dated 11-7-2007 , it has been held that the enquiry was proper and legal and by following the principles of natural justice.

5. At the time of argument , the following points were raised on behalf of the workman by the union representative:

( a) There was delay and latches in issuing the charge sheet to the workman .

(b) The enquiry was defective and there was denial of principles of natural justice to the workman by the Inquiry Officer .

( c) The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perversed.

3. The WCL file its written statement pleading inter- alia that though the workman , as a Security Guard was required to legally , morally and officially to protect the property of the organization , he committed the act of misconduct , breach of trust and cheating in connection with to the day - to- day affairs entrusted to him , resulting in issuance of a charge sheet on 18-5-1995 ( wrongly mentioned as 18-5-2000 in the written statement) on various grounds involving moral turpitude and the misconduct committed by the workman was highly prejudicial to the interest of the WCL and its smooth working and after the charges have been duly proved , the workman was dismissed from the service , vide order dated 16-9-1995 after following the due procedure , as laid down and the workman had admitted his guilt before his superior officers ' and a statement to that effect was recorded on 15-4-1995 by the management , whereby, he conceded to have acted dishonestly, but , after the receipt of the charge sheet and in due consultation with the union , the workman changed his statement stating that the previous statement given by him was due to mental pressure , which is nothing but motivated false hood and after thought and in view of the specific admission of guilt , the claim is liable to be dismissed on the said sole ground and 12-4-1995 , the workman indulged himself in the misconduct , as he permitted the truck bearing No.MH - 31 M - 3451 , without unloading coal , to leave the premises , in the capacity of a security guard , in collusion with one Mr. Hemanta Rusiya , Clerk , who was also charge sheeted and the workman also tampered with records by making false entries there in and he was charge sheeted on 18-5-95 and the workman submitted his reply on 27-5- 95, which was not found satisfactory and as such , Shri S. C. Gupta , Mine Manager was appointed as the Inquiry

(d) While imposing the punishment of dismissai from service , the past clean service record of the workman was not taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(e) Discriminatory attitude was shown by the management while punishing the workman by way of dismissal from service , whereas a minor punishmen t of forfeiture of an amount of Rs.25,000 from the gratuity was imposed against Shri D.Y.Kale , the ex - Deputy Chief Security Officer after his retirement , even though he was found guilty of the same charge, while he was still in service .

( f) Reasonable likelihood of bias on the part of the Disciplinary Authority , and

( g) The workman was acquitted in the criminal case instituted against him and as the departmental enquiry was based on identical and similar facts and evidence, the order of dismissal passed against the workman is liable to be set aside .

(6) Before delving into the merit of the contentions raised on behalf of the workman , I think it proper to mention here that while passing orders on the validity of the departmental enquiry, the points raised regarding the delay in submission of the charge sheet against the workman , the enquiry was defective and there was denial of principles of natural justice to the workman by the Inquiry Officer , enquiry was completed during the pendency of the case filed by the workman challenging the submission of the charge sheet before the Labour Court , charge sheet was not issued by the proper authority but issued by the Sub -Area Manager , and that the Sub Area Manager, who issued the charges sheet and passed the order of dismissal appeared as a witnesses in the departmental proceeding and there by there was biased attitude towards the workman were considered and answered against the workman . Therefore , the first two points raised on behalf of the workman regarding delay in submission of the charge sheet and enquiry was defective need no consideration again .

7. So far the third contention regarding perversity ofthe findings of the Inquiry Officer is concerned, it was submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not speak in his enquiry report about the time barred charge sheet and the Inquiry Officer did not mention any reason for not summoning the complainant , contractor Shri Himmatlal Agrawal to give evidence in the enquiry, therefore the findings are perversed and deserve to be rejected .

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12, 1933

motivated falsehood and after thought and of the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be perversea the Inquiry Officer has not mentioned anything about late submission of the charge sheet, as because , such findings are based on the evidence on record and Shri Agrawal was not examined as a witnesses as he is a stranger and management was able to prove the charges by examinator of materials witnesses and production of the required documents and management did not think it necessa y examine Shri Agrawal as a witness .

It isnecessary to mention here that while conside the validity of the departmental enquiry, the submiss . regarding the delayed issue of the charge sheet w considered by this Tribunal and it was found that though the charge sheet was issued after about a month from the date of the order of suspension , the same cannot be taken as a ground for vitiating the enquiry and the provisions of the standing order referred to are only directive and cannot be treated as mandatory and before starting of the enquiry. there was correspondence and representation on behalf of the petitioner and the management had explained and informed him the reasons for the delay and even a report waslodged in the police station and in such circumstances , issuing of charge sheet after one month cannot be treated as unnecessary delay and the delay was not with any ulterior motive . In view of such findings , it cannot be said that as the Inquiry Officer did not mention anything in his enquiry report about the delay in submission of charge sheet, the findings should be treated as perverse .

So far the non -examination of Shri Himmatlal Agrawal is concerned , on perusal of the document of the departmental enquiry, it is found that the copy of the F.I.R. submitted by Shri Agrawal has been marked as management document No.3 . It is clear from the copy of the F.I.R. that Shri Agrawal was not an eye witnesses to the occurrence and he come to know about the incident being informed by his supervisor . The supervisor of Shri Agrawal has been examined as a witness . So due to non- examination of Shri Agrawal , the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be held to be perverse . Hence , I find no force in the contention raised by the union representative onbehalf of the workman .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

the punishment cannot be said to be illegal . On perusal of the workman was not taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of imposing the punishment , imposition of the punishment is illegal and unfair. In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that awarding of punishment is the discretion of the Appointing Authority and the allegations are very serious and the workman was holding position of trust and commission of theft , fraud and dishonesty in forfeiture of that trust and continuance of the workman in service was detrimental to the discipline and security of the business of the employers and in view of the proved serious misconducts , there was no question of consideration of the past record and it was the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases and as such, ever if nothing has been mentioned in the order of dismissal passed against the workman , by the Disciplinary Authority regarding consideration of the past record of the workman , the order of imposition of of the materials on record and taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties , I find force in the submission made by the learned advocate for the management and hold that in view of the proved serious misconducts against the workman , cannot be said that as the past service record of the workman was not considered at the time of imposition of the punishment bythe disciplinary proceeding , the punishment is illegal .

9. The next question raised is regarding showing of ofcoal and after holding of departmental enquiry , he was found guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer and the discriminating attitude by the management towards the workman in imposing the punishment . According to the submission made by the union representative for the workman , Mr. Sharma , the Party No.1 falls within the meaning of ' state ' in accordance to Article - 12 of the Constitution and as such , its action should not be discriminatory but in this case , the action taken against the present workman is discriminatory as charge sheet had also been submitted against Shri D.Y.Kale , Deputy Chief Security Officer for commission of the alleged theft enquiry was concluded against him in 1996 and Shri Kale retired on superannuation on 31-10-97 , but no punishment was imposed upon Shri Kale during his service but after his retirement , a punishment of forfeiture of Rs.25,000 as penalty to be recovered from his gratuity was imposed, which can be considered to be a very minor penalty in comparison to the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the workman for commission of alleged identical offence of theft of coal and as such , the punishment can be held to be discriminatory, excessive, harsh and illegal and unjustified .

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

On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, Shri Kale was retired from service on superannuation and as such, the punishment offorfeiture of Rs.25,000 out of the gratuity of Shri Kale was inposed against him and there is no force in the contention that the departmental enquiry was concluded in 1996 and no punishment was imposed , while Shri Kale was in service . The workman has filed the documents in regard to the departmental enquiry of Shri Kale . On perusal ofthe said documents , it is found that the enquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry conducted against Shri Kale on 10-11-97 , which was after the retirement of Shri Kale on superannuation . as according to the workman , Shri Kale retired on 31-10-97. Hence, I do not find force in the contention raised by the union representative that there was discrimination against the workman .

10. Placing reliance on the decision reported in (Mrs. Kiran Agrawal Vs Chief Secretary to the Govt ) , 2008 LABIC - 1854 ( Himachal Pradesh ) it was submitted by the union representative on behalf of the workman that in this case , the Sub-Area Manager, WCL , Saoner Sub-Area . Mr. R.M.Moghe , who was the Disciplinary Authority conducted the preliminary enquiry, issued the charge sheet and suspension order of the workman and also appeared as a witness in the departmental enquiry and also passed the order of dismissal from service against the workman by accepting the enquiry report and as such , it can be held that there was likelihood of bias and as such , the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated. However , with respect . I am of the view that the decision mentioned above has no application to the present case in hand , as the facts and circumstances of the case referred in the decision are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand . Moreover , while deciding the validity of the enquiry, it was ordered that , " there is nothing wrong in the Sub Area Manager appearing as a witness in the enquiry proceedings and he was fair enough to offer himself for cross - examination and he was not a direct witness and he had explained as to how he learnt about the incident from the Police and asked his officers to be careful as Police investigation was in progress " . On perusal ofthe materials on record , it is found that there is nothing on record to show any biasness towards the workman by the Sub- Area Manager.

2719

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 894-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी.एल. एवं 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 227/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012 / 555/ 1999- आईआर ( सी-- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 894- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 227 / 2000 ) of the Centrall GovernmeGovernment Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011.

[No. L22012 / 555 / 1999 - IR ( C - II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 22-2-2011 Case No. CGIT /NGP / 227 / 2002

Party No. 1

been passed against the workman . The workman has filed the copy of the judgement of the case bearing RCC No. 362/95 , from which it is found that the workman was acquitted in the said case on 20-2-2003 . The workman faced his trial in the said criminal case u/ s 406/34 I.P.C. However , in the departmental proceeding , the workman faced the enquiry of commission of theft , fraud and dishonesty. The witnesses examined in the departmental proceeding and in the criminal proceeding were not the same . Moreover, the imposition of the punishment against the workman was on 16-9-95 , which was much prior to the judgement of the criminal proceeding . It is well settled that there is nothing wrong in parallel proceedings being taken one by disciplinary proceeding and the other in the criminal court and the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action and the power of taking such action is vested in the Disciplinary Authority and criminal case and departmental proceeding operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas . In departmental proceedings , factors operating in the mind of disciplinary authority may be many , such as enforcement of discipline , or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff and the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case and while in departmental proceedings , the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities , in a criminal case , the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt . In this case , the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the materials on record of the departmental enquiry and the order of punishment passed in the departmental proceeding was much earlier to the judgement of the criminal proceeding . Hence acquittal of the workman in the criminal case does not have any bearing in the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the punishment imposed against the workman .

The General Manager , Western Coalfields Ltd. , Nagpur Area ,, Jaripatka , Nagpur

Versus

Party No. 2

12. So far the quantum of punishment is concerned, it is well settled that punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court/ Tribunal is not subject to judicial review. On perusal of the materials on record and the act of misconducts committed by the workman , it is found that the punishment of dismissal from service is not at all disproportionate and as such , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Saoner Sub Area of WCL in dismissing the services of Shri Gyaneswar Choudhury , Security Guard , w.e.f. 16/ 18-9-1995 is fair , proper and justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer The Jt . General Secretary, Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , ( INTUC) , Plot No. 604, Behind Giripeth PostOffice , Opp . RTO , Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated : 22nd February , 2011 )

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , for adjudication of the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the General Manager, WCL and their workman , Shri Hemant Kumar Rushiya ( " the workmen " in short ) as per letter 1720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART II SHC Sumi =

not explain the proced of the enquiry and the Ingers NO1-22012/555 /99 - IR ( CM - II) dated 27-7-2000 , with the following schedule :-

Officer held defective enquiry adopting partial attitude in favour of the management with a motive and abjects bring home the charges by boul or crouk agaast the workman , even though the charges level workmanwere unfair , baseless and time bar "Whether the action of the managemant of Western Coalfields Ltd. , Saoner Sub Area , Saoner , Distt. Nagpur (Rep . by Sub Area Manager) in dismissing the services of Sh . Hemant Kumar Rushiya , Ext- Clerk ,Gr . II w.e.f. 16-1-96 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled andfrom what date ? "

2. Being noticed , on behalf of the workman Shri Hemant Kumar Rushiya ( " the workman " in short) his union, " Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) " filed the statement of claim , whereas , the management of WCL filed their written statement .

The further case of the workman is to thes the complaint dated 19-4-1995 made by Himmatuan Agemal Contractor to the General Manager, WOL , Jaripatka, pur and the F.I.R. dated 13-4-1995 , submitted by Suri Benatial Agrawal before the Police were placed before the faqatry Officer asdocuments No. D- 5 and D- 6 by the manag.witha, the complainant , Shri Himmatlal Agrawal was not examind as a witness , as a result of which , the workman did not get the opportunity to cross - examine him and the documents D-5 and D - 6 were also not proved through the said weness , so the enquiry was defective and findings of the Inquiry Officer there upon are also perverse and unfair and officers on higher rung than the Inquiry Officer were examined in the enquiry and to please them , the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry unfairly and the evidence of the witnesses of the management was inconsistent and there was no legal evidence to hold the charges to have been proved against the workman and though Shri D.Y. Kale, Dy. Chief Security Officer and one Shri Nawab Ansari , Ex Security Guard were also chargesheeted by the management on similar and identical charges and were found guilty in the department enquiries held against them . no penal action was taken against them , but the departmental enquiry against the workman was held in a haste and order of dismissal from service was passed against him and thus he was discriminated and the same is sufficient to quash and set aside the order of dismissal passed on 16-1-1996 and the charge sheet was not served on the workman within three days as required by the certified standing order No. 28.2 and as such , the charge sheetis defective , illegal , void, ultra - virus and time barred , hence the enquiry basing on such charge sheet the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the punishment imposed are also illegal and liable to be set aside . The workman has prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him , his reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages and other consequential benefits .

3. The management of W.C.L. ( " Party No.1 in short) filed its written statement admitting the contents of paragraphs 1 to 14 of the statement of claim except denying the everments that the workman was promoted as Clerk Grade - II as he was loyal , able and efficient . It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the Inquiry Officer supplied copies of five relevant document to the workman , which According to the statement of claim , the workman was in employment of WCL and was a permanent workman and he was initially appointed on 29-2-88 and by virtue of his loyal , able and efficient services , he was selected and promoted as Clerk Grade - II and he was placed under suspension by Sub Area Manager , Saoner Sub Area , by theOffice Order dated 19/20-4-95 and he was served with a charge sheet dated 18-5-95 , under clause Nos . 26.1 , 26.12, 26.16 and 26.22 of the certified standing orders and the workman by his representation dated 22-5-95 requested for supply of copies of the complaint said to have been given against him as mentioned in paragraph No.1 ofthe charge sheet and by order dated 25 /26-5-1995 of the Sub- Area Manager , a copy of the statement of the workman dated 15-4-95 , given before the management was given to him and on 27-5-1995 , he submitted his reply to the charge sheet, but the management vide order dated 16-9-1995 , initiated a departmental proceeding and appointed Shri R. K. Sharma, Superintendent of Mine , Saoner Mine 1 as the Inquiry Officer and vide letter dated 30-9-1995 , the workman requested to the Inquiry Officer to allow him to engage Advocate , Shri V. D. Metkar to defend him , but his request was rejected by the Inquiry Officer and on 30-9-1995 , the workman requested to supply him the 14 documents connected with the enquiry, but by letter dated 30-5-1995/4-10-1995 , the Inquiry Officer supplied copies of only five documents and the departmental enquiry was conducted on various dates but the Inquiry Officer did not give the workman fair and reasonable opportunity and refused to stay the departmental enquiry till disposal of thecriminal case filed against him by the Police authorities ofSaoner Police Station and the on 5-10-1995 , the day of the first sitting of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer rejected the request of the workman for supply of the copies of the rest documents as asked by him on 30-5-1995 and thus , the Inquiry Officer denied to afford fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman and the Inquiry Officer did 2721

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

11-1-2007 , the enquiry was held to be proper and legal . It is also necessary to mention that a petition was filed on behalf of the workman on 14-2-2007 for review and recall the order dated 11-1-2007 , but the said petition was rejected on 8-4-2009.

5: At the time of argument , the following points were raised on behalf of the workman by the union representative:

( a) There was delay and latches in issuing the charge sheet to the workman .

(b) The enquiry was defective and there was denial of principles of natural justice to the workman by the Inquiry Officer .

(d) While imposing the punishment of dismissal from service , the past clean service record of the workman was not taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.

( e ) Discriminatory attitude was shown by the management while punishing the workman by way of dismissal from service , whereas a minor punishment of forfeiture of an amount of Rs. 25,000 from the gratuity was imposed against Shri D. Y. Kale , the Ex - Deputy Chief Security Officer after his retirement , even though he was found guilty of the same charge , while he was still in service.

(f) Reasonable likelihood of bias on the part of the Disciplinary Authority , and

(g ) The workman was acquitted in the criminal case instituted against him and as the departmental enquiry was based on identical and similar facts and evidence , the order of dismissal passed against the workman is liable to be set aside .

he was entitled to get and necessary for the departmental enquiry and the workman did not make any protest or insist for supply of the copies of the remaining documents during the enquiry by stating their relevancy for the purpose of his defence and in the statement of claim also , the workman has not pointed out that the said documents were relevant or any prejudice was caused to him because of non - supply of the copies of the said documents and the Inquiry Officer gave fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman and the Inquiry Officer was justified in proceeding with the departmental enquiry as the same was totally independent of the criminal case filed by the Police and though Shri Himmaltal Agrawal was not examined as a witness , the management examined other witnesses to prove the guilt of the workman and the enquiry report shows that the Inquiry Officer did not base his findings on the documents D - 5 and D - 6 and even though , those two documents were produced in the enquiry , they had not been relied upon for proving the guilt of the workman and as such , there was no necessity for the management to examine Shri Himmatlal Agrawal as a witness and though the witnesses , Shri R. M. Moghe and Shri K. K. Bakshi were of higher grade than the Inquiry Officer, their examination does not make the enquiry unfair or defective and the findings arrived at cannot be termed as perverse , merely because , the two witnesses were superior in rank to the Inquiry Officer and the workman has failed to demonstrate that the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and the Inquiry Officer has reached the findings on the basis of the entire evidence on record and the enquiry cannot be termed as unfair or illegal merely because Shri R. M. Moghe , who had issued the chargesheet and also signed the dismissal order appeared as a witness in the enquiry and the charges levelled against the workman are not vague , unspecific , illegal or invalid and Shri D.Y. Kale and Shri Nawab Ansari were also chargesheeted on the basis of the nature of their involvement and Shri Kale was not governed by the standing orders and during the pendency of the enquiry, he got superannuated and he was found guilty and the competent authority imposed the punishment of forfeiture of a part of the gratuity payable to him , as he had already retired and the departmental enquiry was not held against the workman in haste and no discriminatory attitude was adopted against him and the charge was not time barred and the workman misread and misinterpreted the standing order No. 28.2 and the chargesheet was perfectly legal and valid and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

6. Before delving into the merit of the contentions raised on behalf of the workman , I think it proper to mention here that while passing orders on the validity of the departmental enquiry , the points raised regarding the delay in submission of the charge sheet against the workman , the enquiry was defective and there was denial of principles of natural justice to the workman by the Inquiry Officer , enquiry was completed during the pendency of the case filed by the workman challenging the submission of the charge sheet before the Labour Court , charge sheet was not issued by the proper authority but issued by the Sub - Area Manager, and that the Sub Area Manager , who issued the charge sheet and passed the order of dismissal appeared as a witnesses in the 4. It is necessary to mention that as it is a case of dismissal from service , the fairness of the departmental enquiry held against the workman was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and vide orders dated 2722

[PART IIS THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

delay in submission of charge- sheet , the findings should be treated as perverse .

departmental proceeding and thereby there was biased attitude towards the workman were considered and answered against the workman. Therefore , the first two points raised on behalf of the workman regarding delay in submission of the chargesheet and enquiry was defective need no consideration again.

7. So far the third contention regarding perversity ofthe findings of the Inquiry Officer is concerned , it was submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not speak in his enquiry report about the time barred chargesheet and the Inquiry Officer did not mention any reason for not summoning the complainant, contractor Shri Himmatlal Agrawal to give evidence in the enquiry, therefore the findings are perversed and deserve to be rejected .

So far the non -examination of Shri Himmatlal Agrawal is concerned , on perusal of the document of the departmental enquiry, it is found that the copy of the F.I.R. submitted by Shri Agrawal has been marked as management document No.3 . It is clear from the copy of the F.I.R. that Shri Agrawal was not an eye witnesses to the occurrence and he come to know about the incident being informed by his supervisor. The supervisor of Shri Agrawal has been examined as a witness . So due to non-examination of Shri Agrawal, the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be held to be perverse . Hence . I find no force in the contention raised by the union representative on behalf of the workman .

In reply, it was submitted by the management that the workman had admitted his guilt before his superior officers and a statement to that effect was recorded on 15-4-1995 by the management, where he admitted to have acted dishonestly, but , after receipt of the chargesheet and due consultation with the union , he changed his statement stating that while giving the carlier statement he was under mental pressure , which is nothing but motivated falsehood and after thought and the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be perversed , as the Inquiry Officer has not mentioned anything about late submission of the chargesheet , as because , such findings are based on the evidence on record and Shri Agrawal was not examined as a witnesses as he is a stranger and management was able to prove the charges by examination of materials witnesses and production of the required documents and management did not think it necessary to examine Shri Agrawal as a witness .

8. The next contention raised was regarding non- consideration of the past clean record of the workman, while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service . Itwas submitted by the union representative on behalf of the workman that clause 28.6 ( the correct clause is 28.7) of the certified standing orders provides that. " In awarding the punishment gravity of the misconduct, previous record of the workman and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist shall be taken into account and in this case as the past clean and unblemished record of the workman was not taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of imposing the punishment , imposition of the punishment is illegal and unfair. In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that awarding of punishment is the discretion of the AppointingAuthority and the allegations are very serious and the workman was holding position of trust and commission of theft , fraud and dishonesty in forfeiture of that trust and continuance of the workman in service was detrimental to the discipline and security of the business of the employers and in view of the proved serious misconducts , there was no question of consideration of the past record and it was the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases and as such , ever if nothing has been mentioned in the order of dismissal passed against the workman , by the Disciplinary Authority regarding consideration of the past record of the workman , the order of imposition of the punishment cannot be said to be illegal . On perusal of the materials on record and taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties . I find force in the submission made by the learned advocate for the management and hold that in view of the proved serious misconducts against the workman , cannot be said that as the past service record of the workman was not considered It is necessary to mention here that while considering the validity of the departmental enquiry, the submission regarding the delayed issue of the charge- sheet was considered by this Tribunal and it was found that though the charge sheet was issued after about a month from the date of the order of suspension , the same cannot be taken as a ground for vitiating the enquiry and the provisions of the standing order referred to are only directive and cannot be treated as mandatory and before starting of the enquiry, there was correspondence and representation on behalf of the petitioner and the management had explained and informed him the reasons for the delay and even a report was lodged in the police station and in such circumstances , issuing of charge- sheet after one month cannot be treated as unnecessary delay and the delay was not with any ulterior motive. In view of such findings , it cannot be said that as the Inquiry Officer did not mention anything in his enquiry report about the 2723

अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

at the time of imposition of the punishment by the disciplinary proceeding , the punishment is illegal .

sheet and suspension order of the workman and also appeared as a witness in the departmental enquiry and also passed the order of dismissal from service against the workman by accepting the enquiry report and as such , it can be held that there was likelihood of bias and as such , the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated . However , with respect , I am of the view that the decision mentioned above has no application to the present case in hand , as the facts and circumstances of the case referred in the decision are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand . Moreover , while deciding the validity of the enquiry, it was ordered that , " there is nothing wrong in the Sub - Area Manager appearing as a witness in the enquiry proceedings and he was fair enough to offer himself for cross - examination and he was not a direct witness and he had explained as to how he learnt about the incident from the Police and asked his officers to be careful as Police investigation was in progress . " On perusal of the materials on record , it is found that there is nothing on record to show any biasness towards the workman by the Sub - Area Manager .

9. The next question raised is regarding showing of discriminating attitude by the management towards the workman in imposing the punishment . According to the submission made by the union representative for the workman , Mr. Sharma , the Party No.1 falls within the meaning of ' state' in accordance to Article - 12 of the Constitution and as such , its action should not be discriminatory but in this case , the action taken against the present workman is discriminatory as charge- sheet had also been submitted against Shri D. Y. Kale , Deputy Chief Security Officer for commission of the alleged theft of coal and after holding of departmental enquiry , he was found guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer and the enquiry was concluded against him in 1996 and Shri Kale retired on superannuation on 31-10-97 , but no punishment was imposed upon Shri Kale during his service but after his retirement , a punishment of forfeiture of Rs.25,000 as penalty to be recovered from his gratuity was imposed , which can be considered to be a very minor penalty in comparison to the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the workman for commission of alleged identical offence of theft of coal and as such , the punishment can be held to be discriminatory , excessive , harsh and illegal and unjustified .

On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that during the pendency of the departmental enquiry , Shri Kale was retired from service on superannuation and as such , the punishment of forfeiture of Rs . 25,000 out of the gratuity of Shri Kale was imposed against him and there is no force in the contention thatthe departmental enquiry was concluded in 1996 and no punishment was imposed , while Shri Kale was in service . The workman has filed the documents in regard to the departmental enquiry of Shri Kale . On perusal of the said documents , it is found that the enquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry conducted against Shri Kale 10-11-97 , which was after the retirement of Shri Kale on superannuation , as according to the workman , Shri Kale retired on 31-10-97 . Hence , I do not find force in the contention raised by the union representative that there was discrimination against the workman. on

11. The last point raised on behalf of the workman was that a criminal case had been instituted against the workman by the Police in connection with the alleged incident of theft and after completion of full trial , the workman had been acquitted from the charges and as such , the punishment of dismissal from service should not have been passed against the workman . The workman has filed the copy of the judgement of the case bearing RCC No. 362/95 , from which it is found that the workman was acquitted in the said case on 20-2-2003 . The workman faced his trial in the said criminal case u/ s 406/34 I.P.C. However , in the departmental proceeding , the workman faced the enquiry of commission of theft , fraud and dishonesty . The witnesses examined in the departmental proceeding and in the criminal proceeding were not the same. Moreover, the imposition of the punishment against the workman was on 16-9-95 , which was much prior to the judgement of the criminal proceeding. It is well settled that there is nothing wrong in parallel proceedings being taken one by disciplinary proceeding and the other in the criminal court and the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action and the power of taking such action is vested in the Disciplinary Authority and criminal case and departmental proceeding operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas . In departmental proceedings , factors operating in the mind of disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline , or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff and the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case and while in departmental proceedings , the 2724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities , in a criminal case , the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt . In this case , the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the materials on record of the departmental enquiry and the order of punishment passed in the departmental proceeding was much earlier to the judgement of the criminal proceeding. Hence acquittal of the workman in the criminal case does not have any bearing in the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the punishment imposed against the workman .

12. So far the quantum of punishment is concerned , it is well settled that punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court/ Tribunal is not subject tojudicial review. On perusal of the materials on record and the act of misconducts committed by the workman , it is found that the punishment of dismissal from service is not at all disproportionate and as such , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Saoner Sub Area of WCL in dismissing the services of Shri Gyaneswar Choudhury, Security Guard, w.e.f. 16/ 18-9-1995 is fair, proper and justified and the workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 895.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट( संदर्भ संख्या 191/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/235/1998- आईआर( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 895. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No 191/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/235/ 1998 - IR (C- II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

[PART II- SI- C. 3 (j

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 191 /99

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan SHri M.L. Jain ,

Executive Committee Member ,

Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ,

Near Panchayati Mandir ,

Workman Shahdol (MP)

Versus

GeneralManager,

....Management Sohagpur Area of SECL , PO Dhanpuri , Distt. Shahdol (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012 /235 / 98 - IR ( Coal) dated 4-5-1999 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action ofthe management of Dhanpuri Amlai OCM of SECL in reverting Shri N. K. Soni from the post of Asstt . Foreman to Welder Cat . VI as a punishment is legal and justified ? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? "

2. The case of the Workman / Union in short is that theworkman Shri N.K.Soni was deployed as Welder Cat- VI inT& S Group " C" at Dhanpuri on 9 / 19-11-93 . A fatal accident took place on 4-5-94 in the IInd shift in Dhanpuri OCM wherein one Ramayan Prasad died on the spot who was feder operator while he was trying to break a piece of coal in the crush roll. He was chargesheeted without his responsibility with an allegation that he was acting as a Chargeman . He denied the charges but the departmental proceeding was initiated . The charges were vague and not specific and were of general nature . After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held him guilty of the charges . Subsequently he was punished by the Disciplinary Authority and demoted to the post of Welder Categoroy VI vide order dated 17 / 19-7-95 . It was alleged that he was working as Assistant Formen when the accident took place which was totally false because he was promoted to the postofAssistant Foreman on 5-5-94 whereas the accident took place a day earlier to his promotion . The list of witnesses and the relevant documents were not supplied to him . The workman was not incharge of the crush roller भारत का राजपत्र [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

where the alleged occurrence took place . It is alleged that the management has made the workman as scape goat and the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not based on any evidence . On these grounds , the punishment order be set aside and the workman be reinstated on the promoted post.

3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement in the case . The case of the management , interalia, is that the workman was upgraded from Welder Cat - VI to Technical & Supervisory Grade " C" by Office order dated 19-11-1993 , Admittedly fatal accident took place in Dhanpuri OCM on 4-5-94 in which Ramayan Prasad died in the Crush Roll, of which the workman was supervising and was incharge of the shift . He was working as Asstt . Foreman in Technical & SupervisorGr- " C " . He was chargesheeted for the negligence causing death of a workman under the provision of Certified Standing Orders . His reply was found not satisfactory and therefore a departmental proceeding was initiated . Shri N.S.Sabbaral , SOM was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri J.K.Shrivastava was appointed as Management Representative . The workman participated alongwith co - worker in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer had properly concluded the enquiry after providing reasonable opportunity to the workman to defend himself. It isstated that the workman was upgraded in T & S Grade "C" as Asstt . Foreman but by mistake , the same was not indicated in the office order No. 1084 dated 13-7-1994. Subsequently corrigendum No. 1101 dated 17-7-1994 was issued. The Enquiry Officer properly conducted the enquiry proceeding. After the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges and submitted enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer leniently awarded the punishment of demotion to the Welder Cat VI . However it is submitted that if the departmental proceeding is vitiated, the management be given opportunity to prove misconduet in the Tribunal . On these grounds , it is submitted that the action of the management is justified and proper.

4. On the pleadings of the parties , the followiftg issues are framed for adjudication-

1. Whether the departmental proceeding conducted by the management against the workman is lega ! and proper?

II . Whether the management is entitled to prove the misconduct against the workman in Court?

III. Whether the punishment awarded to the workman is just and proper?

IV. To what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. The workman/Union after filing statement ofclaim and rejoinder did not appear to contest the reference and 1023 GI/11-20

अप्रैल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12, 1933

had not adduced any evidence . As such the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the workman/ Union on 12-12-2007 .

6. Issue No. I

Since the reference is proceeded exparte against the workman and therefore this issue is finally taken up fer adjudication . According to the workman , the charges were vague and were of general nature . It is stated that the inst ofwitnesses and the relevant documents were not supplied and the enquiry report was not given . The workman was not incharge ofthe crusher roller and therefore the findings of the Enquiry Officer was perverse . On the other hand , the management submits that he was chargesheeted for his negligence causing death of Ramayan Prasad. He was ShiftIncharge and the liability was of the workman . It is stated that workman appeared in the proceeding alongwith co-worker and did not complain that the charges were vague . Rather it shows that he had fully understood the charges . The papers of enquiry proceeding shows that the Management Representative was examined as a witness . The delinquent workman had also adduced his evidence and the evidences of Mahesh Prasad and Tejnarayan were used in the proceeding by the workman as defence evidence . This shows that the opportunities were given to the workman to defend himself and there is no violation of natural justice . Moreover there is nothing on the record in rebuttal to disbelieve the departmental enquiry papers . Thus it is held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is legal and proper . This issue is decided in favour of the management .

7. Issue No. II

No fresh evidence is adduced by the management . There is nothing against the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry. I find that under the circumstances , there is no need to adduce evidence by the management in Court to prove misconduct . Accordingly this issue is decided.

8. Issue No. III & IV

I find that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse and there is no fresh evidence . It is not proper to interfere in the order of punishment of the management . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered .

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

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer 2726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 896.- 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 / श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 110/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 243/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 896. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 110/03 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L - 22012/ 243 / 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

No. CGIT / LC/R/ 110/03

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Buddhulal ,

PO Saakedebi ,

[PARI ii Stat ...

subsequently became absent . As such the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against him on 27-7-200 3. The case of the management in short is that the workman Shri Budhulal was appointed as loader n 26-12-1978 and posted at Satpura Mine - 2 but he was habinaal absentee . The warning was issued against him on several occasions . Even then he did not imporve his conduct . Fie again became absent on 16-12-99 unauthorisedly without any permission . He was , therefore served with a chargesheet dated 17-7-2000 for his unauthorized absence . His reply was found unsatisfactory and theretome the departmental proceeding was initiated and Shri Pandey, Personnel Manager was appointed as Enqury Officer . Shri S. P. Singh , Dy. Chief Survey Officer was appointed Management Representative . The workman appeared in the proceeding and admitted the charges unconditionally levelled against him . However the Enquiry Officer decided to proceed with the enquiry The Management Representative adduced oral and documentary evidence . The workman was also given an opportunity to lead evidence . The statement of the workman was recorded . The Enquiry Officer after concluding the proceeding submited the enquiry report holding him guilty of the charges . The Disciplinars Authority after granting opportunity to both the partes and after considering the materials on record passed the order of termination on 16 / 14-9-2000 . It is stated that it the departmental proceeding is liable to be vitiated , then the management be permitted to prove misconduct before the Tribunal .

4. The following issues are framed for adjudication I. Whether the departmental proceeding conducted against the workman is legal and proper "

.... Workman / Union

S/ o Beni , Distt . Betul ( MP)

Versus

The General Manager ,

Western Coalfields Ltd.

PO Pathakhera ,

Distt . Betul (MP)

II . Whether the management is entitled to leave evidence to prove misconduct ?

III . Whether the punishment awarded to the workman is just and proper ?

IV. To what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. Issue No. I

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of February , 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012 / 243 / 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 9-6-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : ----

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Western Coalfields Ltd. , Pathakhera, in terminating the services of Shri Buddulal S / o Shri Beni w.e.f. 16-9-2000 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. The workman appeared through lawyer on 15-2-2005 but did not file statement of claim and Since the reference is proceeded exparte as such this issue is also taken finally alongwith other issues the management witness Shri K. B. Singh is Personnel Manager in WCL , Pathakhera Area. He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the workman was habitual absentee and several warning were given to him . He again remained absent unauthorisedly from 16.1.99 and departmental proceeding was initiated against him The workman unconditionally admitted the charges However the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry The workman participated in the enquiry and refused to take the assistance of co- worker . The Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the workman to detend himself. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry found the charges भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

as proved and submitted his enquiry report . The Disciplinary authority after considering the materials on record and also giving opportunity to be heard passed the order of termination on 16/ 14-9-2000 . I find that the principle of natural justice was followed . Accordingly the departmental enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is held legal and proper . This issue is decided in favour of the management .

6 Issues No. 2 & 3

Considering the discussion made above and the evidence on the record , I find that the management had proved the charges against the workman . It is also established that the workman was on attendance in the year 1997-62 days , in the year 1998-16 days and in the year 1999-18 days only and he was habitual absentee and did not improve his conduct inspite of repeated warning . I find that there is no reason to interfere in the punishment awarded to the workman . Thus both issues are decided in favour of the management .

7. Issue No. IV

In view of the evidence on record , it is evident that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

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

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 897.-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 / श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 138/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012 / 254/ 2001 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 897 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 138/ 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L - 22012/254 / 2001 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

2727

'भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/ NGP / 138 /2002

Date : 21-02-2011 Party No.1

The Chief General Manager , Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. , Post& Dist . Chandrapur , Chandrapur

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Vishwakarma Sambu , VicePresident , B.K.K.M.S. ( BMS ) , Vishwakarma Sadan , Mahakali Colliery, Chandrapur , PO & Dist . Chandrapur , Chandrapur

AWARD (Dated: 21st February , 2011 )

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short ) for adjudication of the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. ( " the Party No.1 " in short) and their workman , Shri Abdul Wahab ( " the workman " in short ) , as per letter No. L - 22012 / 254 / 2001 - IR (CM - II ) dated 19-7-2002 , with the following schedule : ---

"Whether the action of the management of Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. in changing the designation of Shri Abdul Wahab , Turner Helper Cat- II vide Office Orders No. WCL/ WV /DRC / SOM / 670 dated 4-8-85 ; No. WCL / CHA/ SAM / RSA/ PER / 4521 dated 31-1-92 and 22.9.98 is proper , legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. Being noticed , the union , " Bharatiya Koyala Khadan Sangh " filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , whereas , Party No.1 filed its written statement .

In the statement of claim , it is pleaded that the workman after passing 1.T.I examination in the trade of Turner, came to be appointed as an apprentice for one year and vide order dated 10-8-83 , he was designated as General Mazdoor Cat . - 1 , w.e.f. 2-5-1982 and with effect from 1-9-1983 the workman was placed in the category of Turner - helper category - II , even though , he should have been placed in the said category , when he was appointed in the said trade w.e.f. 1-5-82 and on 1-9-83 , the workman PARTM 2728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1932

into the loss of his seniority and the circumstances of the case of the von documents filed us . ccord , it can be found workman was subjected to intai homie Party No.f with mala file intreon and re indulged in unfair labour practice . Pravers leve for a dection to the Party to sentorily ine or Turners a the establishm correct categorization of the workman at the ap place in the said seniority lis : and to deci of the Party No.1 in shifting workman Machinist as unfair labour pramice and tod fart dated 22-9-98 denying the semonty to d illegal , improper and unjustifica and to reci No.1 to give all consequential benefits to de after placing him in his proper place of servants. ofTurner including future promotion .

3. The Party No.1 in its written statement

inter - alia that the workman was taken as an appr

Turner trade w.e.f. 12-1-1981 by the then manage

Wardha Area of WCL and he along with sup

similarly appointed employees were placed at the

workshop for training and subsequently he was tutustund to Chanda Rayatwari Sub Area and then to th Sub - Area workshop of E &M Deptt . and its ch apprentices , after completion of one year training be absorbed on regular posts of General Mazda and then to be placed as Helper Cat . - 11 , after whibuy could be considered for promotion to the higher peis depending upon vacancies and requirement and with a the workman was taken as trainee like some others the of Turners and Machinists were not strictly demarattal . in other words , such persons , who were peits g identical or similar nature ofjobs were considered together for higher promotion as Machinist/ Turner and arbets and Machinists were jointly considered for higher pos ofMachinists , as their jobs were a like , if not the san and there was also a practice of deploying the prawns belonging to Turner trade to work as Machimstsc . Hot workman after completion of his apprenticeship was appointed on the regular post of General Mazdo on 9-5-82 and thereafter , vide office order dated 14 : Bi the workman and seven others , who had successity completed their probation period were pronsted pe postofhelper, Cat . - II and as there was no strict bifa ... un of the trades of Turners and Machinists and no COLEKI cadre - scheme for Turners and Machinists were framed all the eight persons were designated as Helper Cat and till 14-8-83 , the workman was at the area workshop Ballarpur and then , he was transferred to Darapa: Rayatwari Sub- Area and was allowed to join then on 1-9-83 as Helper , Cat . - II and not as Turner fielper at if and after his joining at Durgapur Rayatwan Sub Arer nis service were utilized in the Machine section as Letper and in the year 1985 , a few post of Machinist Cat , tell vacant in the E & M Deptt . and the case of the com and some other employees , who were working

Helper in Cat- II were considered by the DPC for promotion was transferred to Chandrapur ( DRC ) and on his transfer, he was designated as Machinist , as a result of which , his section came to be changed , whereby , he lost his seniority and even though the workman was placed as Machinist , he was performing the duties of a Turner and the workman raised objections to the same , but the Party No.1 always gave eye wash and the difficulties relating to his future and career were never considered by the Party No. ! and as the workman was pulled out from the trade of Turner , juniors of the workman superseded him and one Mr. Ambekar was promoted from category - IV to category -V, overlooking the workman and one Mr. Ballewar was also promoted from category - II to category - IV and both those promotions took place in January , 1992 and in the seniority list of 1-12-97 , Mr. Ballewar was shown as category - V with effect from 30-1-92 and such fact came to the notice of the workman , when the seniority list of 1-12-97 came to be published and the said Mr. Ballewar was further offered category - VI and subsequently grade ' C ' with effect from 1-1-2000 and in September , 1998 , the workman was shifted from Machinist- V to Turner - V and in the Manpower Budget of 1998 , two posts of Turner had been shown as vacant and as such , the workman was expecting that the establishment would offer him the promotion in the trade ofTurner right from 1983 onwards but throwing him out from the channel , he was given promotion only in 1998 , even though he should have been given promotion from the year 1992 , when his juniors came to be promoted and the protest and request of the workman to consider his grievances were never looked into by the management and by order dated 10-8-97 , the workman , who was shown to be workman in Machinist category - V, carne to be transferred to the workshop at Chandrapur in the same category, designation and pay scale and while issuing the said order , reference had been given to the order dated 22-1-96 and the said transfer was also shown to be alongwith the post and due to such action of the management , the promotional channels were shut for the workman and in the order dated 30-1-92 , the workman was shown at serial No. 44 in the category of Machinist , whereas Shri S. L. Ambekar was shown as Turner - helper category - II and directly promoted to Turner Grade - V and Mr. Ballewar , who was at serial No.48 , jumped from Turner- helper Grade - II to Machinist Grade - IV and though those two employees were juniors to the workman , much favour was shown to them by giving hopping promotions and under order dated 22-9-98 , the workman came to be converted from Machinist Grade - V to Turner Grade - V and it was mentioned in the said order that his seniority shall be considered from the date of order and he will not be granted his seniority of the post and such conduct of the Party No.1 to deal with the service conditions without there being any option or agreement with the union was patently illegal and improper and was nothing but then to favour the persons of the choice of the management and whenever the workman was designated as Machinist , the duties of Turner had been extracted from him and the change in this categorisation and designation had resulted [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

for the said sanctioned posts of Machinist , Cat . - IV and recommended for promotion and accordingly the workman and three other employees , who were of turner trade were premoted to the post of Machinists and at that particular time, there was no sanctioned post of Turner , Cat . - V, which was the lowest post in Turner trade and as such , no one was considered for the post of Turner Cat . - V and as the workman and other promoted employees found it beneficial to act in a higher post in the Machinist trade , they willing accepted the promotion and such practice was in vogue till then, because the cadre scheme of JBCCI though framed had not been put into practice and the workman in terms of the sand promotion confirmed to work as machinist and draw wages and he did not raise any objection against ch act of the management and the workman , who had ten working as Machinist was again considered for Forsetion by the DPC and was promoted to the post of Machinist , Cat . - V, vide office order No.4521 dated 30-1-92 slongwith similar other employees and the workman accepted the said promotion and continued to work as such till the year 1997 , but did not raise any objection to such promotions and remained silent from 1985 to 1997 and drew the wage benefit of a machinist and accepted the maciunist cadre without any force or compulsion for the same and as such , he is estopped from making grievance for the same and the management favourably considered his representation , when he filed the same on 225 97 for changing of his designation as a Turner and redesignated him as Turner w.e.f. 10-9-98 vide office order dated 22-9-98 , with the condition to count his seniority as a l'urner from the said date as giving him seniority in Turner cadre after such a long gap would have upset the cadre of the Turners leading to a spate of industrial dispute and administrative complications .

It isalso pleaded by the Party No. I that the juniors of the workman did not supersede him and when the workman was promotedto Cat.IV by order dated 4-8-1985 , Shri Ambekar remained in Cat . - II and Shri Ambekar was promoted from Turner helper Cat.II to the post of Turner helper Cat . V, vide office order dated 30-1-92 , by which order also , the workman was promoted as Machinist Cat . V from Cat.IV and by the same order dated 30-1-92 , Shri Ballewar was promoted from the post of Turner helper to Machinist Cat.IV and as such , there is no question of supersession of the workman by his juniors and vide office order dated 24-8-2001 , the workman was given upgradation as Turner Cat . VI w.e.f. 1-1-2002 by taking into consideration of his stagnation in Cat . - V for eight years , which also included the period of service rendered by him as Machinist Cat . - V from 1992 and as there was no loss of seniority and no unjustice was caused to the workman , he is not entitled to any relief.

4. In support of his claim , the workman examined himself and one Shri Damodhar as a witness , besides relying on documentary evidence . One Shri Amarendra Kumar Jha , the Superintending Engineer ( E & M ) of Area workshop , Chandrapur was examined as a witness on

2729

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

behalf of the management . The workman and his witness have reiterated the stands taken by the workman in his statement of claim , whereas the management witness has also reiterated the stands taken by the management in the written statement .

5. On perusal of the statement of claim and the written statement , it is found that there is no dispute between the parties that the workman joined with the Party No. 1 as an apprentice on 12-4-1981and thereafter he was appointed as a General Mazdoor Cat. - I. Though according to the claim of the workman , he was promoted as Turner helper- fi from 1-9-83 , from the document filed by the workman himself, it is found that vide office order No.855 dated 1983 , he was promoted as only Helper Cat . - 1l , as claimed by the management . It is not disputed that as per orders dated 31-7-85 . ihe workman was promoted as Machinist Cat. - IV and continued to work as such . There i also no dispute that vide order dated 31-1-92 , the workinar. was promoted as Machinist Cat . - V and continued to wor !. as such till 1997 and on 22-5-97 , he gave an application for change ofhis designation from Machinist to Turner, which was allowed by the Party No.1 w.e.f. 10-9-98 .

6. At the time of argument , it was submitted on behalf of the workman that the practice of deploying the persons belonging to Turner trade to work as Machinisı is highly illegal and bad in the eyes of law and on that count alone interference in the matter is necessary and as the workman has passed ITI Diploma course as a Turmer and worked as such as an apprentice , he should have been appointed as Turner helper Cat . - II , but was appointed as Mazdoor Cat . - 1 , which was illegal and the document dated 29-6-98 filed on record clearly shows that he was working as a Turner and the said document is a document issued by an Officer of the Party No.1 and as such , the Party No.1 cannot deny the same and therefore there is no force in the contentions raised by the Party No.1 that the workman remained silent till 1997 and did not raise any objection for the same . It is also submitted that due to change of designation from Turner to Machinist the workman was superseded by his juniors and such fact came to his knowledge in 1997 from the seniority list and due to the action of the Party No. 1 , the workman sustained financial loss .

7. On the other hand , it was submitted on behalf of the Party No. 1 that the workman though has I.T.I. Diploma certificate in Turner trade , after the apprenticeship , he was placed as a General Mazdoor Cat.- I and then as Helper Grade - il and at that time , there was no specific bifurcation in between Turner trade and Machinist trade and as such . the workman was promoted as Machinist Cat.- IV from Helper Cat.- II and not only the workman , other workers working as Turners were posted as Machinists , which supports the claim of the Party No. 1 and the workman was trained as a worker in the Machine Shop and later on also worked as Machinist without any objection and though there was no written consent of the workman , from his conduct, implied consent can be inferred and the workman 2750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

was not superseded , rather his service as Machinist was iaken into consideration while promoting the workman as Turner Cat . - VI from Turner Cat . - V and the document filed by the workman cannot be taken into consideration as the same was not issued officially and there is nothing on record as to under what circumstances the same was issued .

8. On perusal of the materials on record including the statement of claim , written statement , documents filed by the parties and the oral evidence , it is found that the work man though has mentioned that after passing I.T.I. Diploma course as a Turner , he worked as apprentice there is no pleading and evidence that he worked as apprentice in Turner trade . It is also found from record that the workman was first appointed as a General Mazdoor Cat -1 and then was promote as helper Cat . - II and not as Turner cat . - II as per the documents , Exts . W- 5 and W-6 , which have been filed by the workman himself. In his cross- xamination also , the workman has admitted that the orders passed as per Exts . W - 5 and W -6 are proper and correct and he has no dispute about the same Ext . W- 6 clearly shows that the workman and seven other workers were working in Machine section during the probation period 45 General Mazdoor Cat . - I and after completion of the probation period , they were promoted as Helper Cat.-II. It is found from the office order dated 31-7-1985 that the workman was promoted as Machinist Cat . - IVfrom Helper Cat.-II. It is also found from the same order that three other workers who were above the workman in the list and were working as Turner Helper Cat . - II were promoted as Machinist Cat.-IV. Office order dated 30-1-92 , under which , the workman was promoted as Machinist Cat . - V from Machinest Cat . - IV, shows that under the same order , Baba Laxman Ambekar , who was working as Turner Helper - II was promoted to Turner - V and Sanjay Pandurang Ballewar who was working as Turner Helper Cat . - II was promoted to Machinist Cat.-IV. The said documents clearly support the stands taken by the Party No.1 that there was no bifurcation of Turner trade and Machinist trade and workers from Turner trade were being posted as Machinists and vice versa and that Shri Ambekar and Shri Baliewar did not supersede him.

9. The workman has no where pleaded as to what were the pay scales of the categories of Turner trade and Machinist trade and that the scales of the categories of Turner trade were more than the scales of Machinist trade and as such he sustained financial loss for not posted and promoted as a Turner . The workman though has pleaded that he was superseded by his juniors , Shri B. L. Ambekar and Shri S. P. Ballewar , no document has been filed by him in support of the same . He has not filed the seniority list of 1997 , to show that his juniors were listed above him . He has also not filed any document to show that Shri S. P. Ballewar was promoted to category to VI and then to grade ' C ' with effect from 1-1-2000 .

10. So far the document dated 29-9-98 is concerned , on perusal of the same , it is found that the same is an application made by the workman to the Mines Manager,

PART II SEC . sth Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery . Chandrapur for issuance of a certificate of his working as a Turner dated 26-9-98 and there is an endorsement of the Superintenden Engineer ( E & M ) , Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery that " i was engaged in Turner's job , when he was at DRC M and his performance was satisfactory in turners jobs " ! " is necessary to mention here that the workman produs.d the said document after adducing of evidence by the partis , with a petition for permission to file the same and t Tribunal disallowed the petition . So , the workman approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur in writ petition No. 2387 2006 and the Hon'ble Court allowed the writ and directed to take the document on record . The Hon'ble Court also directed the workman to enter witness box to proveth same so that the respondent will get opportunity t cross - examine him . It is not known as to how the origntal application submitted by the workman was retained by hian when the same was to be given to the Mines Manage However , the said document is also not of muci importance , in view of the undisputed documents et record and the discussions made above .

11. It is also found from record that the workman did not object his promotion as Machinist - IV and V and worked as such till 22-5-97 , when for the first time , he requested the Party No.1 for redesignation . In his said application also , the workman has not mentioned anything about his giving any application for posting him in Turner grade at any point of time . From the record , it is found that the workman accepted his promotion in Machinist trade and enjoyed the benefits without any protest . liven though the workman did not give any written consent for his posting and promotion in Machinist grade , from the conduct of thef workman , it can be held that there was tacit consent of the workman in such posting and promotion . It is also found that on the application of the workman , Party No.1 redesignated the workman as Turner Cat . - V from Machinist Cat . - V and as such , the same cannot be said to be any demotion . It is also found from record that due to stagnation in Cat . - V for 8 years , whit upgrading the workman as Turner Cat . - VI w.e.f. 1-1-2002. the Party No.1 took the service of the workman as Machinist Cat . - V from 1992 , even though he was redesignated as Turner Cat . - V only in 1998. Hence , it is found that the action of the Party No.1 was not illegai . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Durgapu Rayatwari Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. in changing the designation of Shri Abdul Wahab , vide order dated 4-5-85 , 31-1-92 and 22-9-98 is proper and justified. The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Offici नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 898. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 194 ) का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. भी.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

एल. 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 5/02 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -22012 /55 / 2001 - आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 898.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 5/02 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Mohan Colliery of WCL and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L - 22012/ 55 / 2001 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT /LC /R/ 5 / 02

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

2731

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

leave . He was warned for several times but he did not improve his attendance . It is stated that he again became absent from 9-9-99 to 16-2-99 without prior permission .He was served with charge sheet on 16-12-99 under the provision of Standing Orders . He gave explanation which was found unsatisfactory . The management then initiated departmental proceeding against him and the Enquiry Officer Shri J. B. Babe , Sr. Under Manager was appointed and Shri P. M. Lokhanda , Sr. Under Manager was appointed as Management Representative . The workman participated in the proceeding and he was asisted by co- worker Shri Krishnaraj Singh . The Management Representative produced documents and examined witness . The witness was cross - examined by the co - worker. Thereafter the workman was examined . The workman declined to adduce further defence in the proceeding . The proceeding was thereafter closed and after considering all the evidence on record , the Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved and submitted enquiry report . The Disciplinary Authority issued copy of enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report to the workman to prove his innocence . Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire materials on record as well as past record convinced that the charges had been proved and the principle of natural justice was followed , he passed the order of termination of the workman w.e.f. 27-9-2000 . It is stated that the past record also shows that in the year 1996-98 days , 1997-62 days , 1998-77 days and in 1999 ---72 days he was on attendance . On the above ground , it is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The following issues are for adjudication-

...Workman / Union

The General Secretary , R.K.K.M.S. ( INTUC) , PO . Chandametta , Chhindwara ( Μ.Ρ. )

Versus

The General Manager,

I. Whether the departmental proceeding conducted by the management against the workman is legal and proper ?

II . Whether the management is entitled to prove the misconduct in Court ?

...Management

WCL , Pench Area , PO . Parasia , Distt . Chhindwara ( M.P. )

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of February , 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012 / 55 / 2001 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 20-12-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the S.O.M / Manager , Rawanwara Khas Colliery of WCL, Pench Area , Distt. Chhindwara in terminating the services of Shri Bishnoo S / o Ramlal , Tyndle T.N. 613 of Rawanwara Khas Colliery of WCL w.e.f. 27-9-2000 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ? " 2. The Union/ workman did not appear inspite of proper notice . As such the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the Union / workman on 5-8-2005 .

3. The case of the management in short is that the workman was habitual absentee without any permission or III. Whether the punishment awarded to the workman isjust and proper ?

IV. To what relief, the workman is entitled ?

5. Issue No. I

Since the Union/ workman is absent , as such this issue is also taken up along with other issues . The management has filed photocopies of the entire departmental proceeding . The management has examined Shri G. K. Shrivastava in the reference . He is Personnel Manager in WCL , Rawanwara Khas Coliery of Pench Area . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the workman was habitual absentee from duty without any permission . He was chargesheeted and departmental proceeding was initiated against him . The workman participated in the proceeding alongwith co- worker Shri Krishnaraj Singh . His evidence shows that he has proved the papers of departmental proceeding and full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself.

2732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

The Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved and submitted enquiry report . The Disciplinary Authority after serving the enquiry report and the copy of the proceeding gave opportunity to the workman to defend himself. His evidence further shows that the Disciplinary Authority also agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of termination w.e.f. 27-9-2000 . I find that the principle of natural justice is followed and as such it is held that departmental proceeding conducted against the woraman is legal and vaild.

6. Issue No. 2 & 3

On the basis of the discussion made above and the evidence adduced in the reference , it is clear that there is no need to the management to prove misconduct in court . I further find that the workman was habitual absentee and he was not improving his attendance for several years inspite of warning. Thus I find that there is no need to interfere in the order of punishment . These issues are decided in favour of the management .

1. Issue No. IV

Considering the discussion made above , I find that theworkman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly , answered .

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

9. 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 , 4 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 899. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल एवं 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 148/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/ 259/2002- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस . एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 899.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 148/03 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L - 22012 /259 / 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

[PART II SEC. Як

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT /LC/ R/ 148/03

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Devraj ,

Workm Area Secretary, Samyuktha Koyla Mazdoor, Sangh (UTUC) , Qtr . No. M/ 598 , Dipka Colony, Po Gevra Project , Distt. Korba , Korba ( Chattisgarh )

Versus

The Chairman - cuin- Managing Director,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited .

Seepat Road , Bilaspur,

Managem Bilaspur ( Chattisgarh )

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of February , 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vid its Notification No. L - 22012 / 259 / 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dates 8-8-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudicaton by this tribunal :-

" Whether the demand of the Union viz Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh ( AITUC ) that the HEMM Operators should be given one year training and er the completion of training , should be regularized promoted to Grade - II/ Group - C in the units of SECI . is legal and justified ? If so , to what relief the workmar are entitled ? "

2. The case of the Union in short is that a circula vide letter No. WCL/ IR/ CIR / OP / 6301-4325 dated 6-11-79 was issued by Shri J. Saran which was further reviewed by Shri Prasad vide letter No. WCL / IR / CIR/ GP 6301-6470 whereby the Dumper Operator will have to go for a training period of one year , thereafter on completion of training he will be promotedto the post of Grade- !! Group -C . The dispute arises when the management of SECE amended instead of one year training , deputed for two years training in Dumper of capacity of 50 ton and abov and on completion of the training placed them in Grade -13 It is submitted that the circular issued by Shri Saran was unanimously accepted by the Unions / workers and the samme be followed among the workers of SECL, with all monetary benefits .

3. The management appeared and filed Writien statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , interalia, is that the Union is claiming the alleged circular dated 6-11-79 which is not applicable in case of the workers of SECL . It is stated that the matter had [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

2733

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

7. Issue No. 2

been examined by an Expert Commttee constituted by the management who had submitted his report . Thereafter the circular dated 28-1-2002 was issued whereby the norms had been decided for placing of HEMM Operators Grade- II in Group C. Since the matter stand settled as such there cannot be Industrial Dispute . It is stated that there is no justification giving Group C Grade - II by HEMM Operators by giving training of one year. The Union is said to have themselves admitted that policy governed by job description and nomenclature framed by the Standardization Committee empowered by the Coal India Ltd. It is submitted that the demand of the Union is not justified and the Union is not entitled to any relief.

4. The Union subsequently did not appear in the reference and therefore the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the Union on 21-2-2007 .

5. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues are for adjudication-

1. Whether the demand of the union that the HEMM operators should be given one year training and on the completion of training they should be regularized / promoted to Grade - II/ Group -C in the SECL isjustified ?

II . To what relief, the workman are entitled ?

6. Issue No. I

To prove the case , the management has examined one witness . Management witness Shri K. A Sundar is Personnel Manager in SECL , Gevra Project . He has stated that the Union is claiming on the basis of circular dated 6-11-79 which was issued by WCL and the said circular is not applicable in the unit of SECL . IHe has stated that SECL was formed in 1986 and is an independent company. He has further stated that the matter was examined by the Expert Committee constitutedby the management . The Expert Committee report is filed which is Exhibit M/2 . The report shows that the Committee reviewed the existing system in the context of present scenario keeping in view ofjob description and circular No.SECL/ BSP/ PER/ IR/ 96 / 20 dated 5-1-96 and recommended that the placement of Dumper Operator ( trainee) of Grade - II Group-C should complete training period of Dumper Operator for two years with other pre - requisite . This witness has further stated that on the basis of recommendation , circular dated 28-1-2002 was issued for placing of HEMM Operator Grade Il in group C. The said circular is filed which is Exhibit M/3 . The evidence of the management is unrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the management . Considering the discussion made above , I find that there is no justification of the demand of the Union to implement the circular of other independent Unit . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against Union.

1023 G1 /11-21

On the basis of discussion made above I find that the workman of the said Union is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

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

9. 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 , 4 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 900.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण- पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-41012/164/95- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 900.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 99/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S. E. Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L-41012/164/95 - IR (B -I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/99/97

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri R. K. Pandey,

Ex . Diesel Driver, Loco Shed ,

...Workman S.E. Railway, Qtr. No. 662/4 , New Loco Colony, South East Railway, Bilaspur

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager , S.E. Railway,

Post& Distt , Bilaspur,

Bilaspur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of February, 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 41012/ 164/ 95 - IR ( B - I ) dated [PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) | 2734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

12-3-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : -

was treated that he opted in revised scale from 1-1-73 . It is stated that the workman was not entitled for package allowance as his address was within 20 K.M. On the above grounds , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

" Whether the demand vide application dated 30-1-95 of Shri R. K. Pandey Ex - Driver of Loco Shed , S.E. Railway, Bilaspur is legal and justified ? If so, to whatrelief the workman is entitled ? "

4. On the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for adjudication---

I. Whether the demand of Shri R. K. Pandey , x- Driver of Locoshed , SE Railway , Bilaspur is legal and justified ?

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled ?

5. The workman after filing his statement of claim in the reference absented . As such the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the workman on 20-2-2008 .

6. Issue No. 1

2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman was appointed on 14-6-1956 and was continuing in the employment of the management . Wher he was working on the substantive post of Goods Train Railway Driver , he was declared medically unfit for the said post on 22-11-90 vide Medical Authority's letter No. 2890 dated 22-11-90 . He sought his retirement from service under the provision of Railway rules . It is stated that the management had not accepted his application for retirement within three months from 21-12-1990 as has been provided under rules and the payment of retirement dues was abnormally delayed till 30-9-92 . It is stated that just before medical decategorisation of the workman a sum of Rs . 6000 was recovered from his salary on the name of excess payment . He had earlier represented for fixation of pay which was not done and had effected recurring monetary loss . The workman was entitled for payment of package allowance on his retirement . The workman was also entitled his pension from December 1990 whereas the pension had been paid from December 1991 and was kept him most unlawfully on no salary or subsistence allowance and on arbitrarily manner forced payment of leave salary of all these day till December , 1991 , i.e. the month of settlement of pension . It is stated that the workman was extra pecuniary support for abnormal delay in final settlement of his retiral benefit . It is submitted that the management be directed to pay the pension from December , 1990 with other dues and an interest @ 18% thereof .

To prove the case , the management has examined Shri R. Shankaran who was Asstt . Personnel Officer in South East Central Railway, Bilaspur . He has supported the case ofthe management . His evidence shows that the workman applied by filing application dated 16-4-91 for voluntary retirement on the medical ground but the acceptance of voluntary retirement by the management was not automatic rather it was dependent after following rules and regulations as well as verifying several factors such as clearance from Vigilance and D & A cases . He has stated that it takes time in the process and therefore there was no willful delay of the payment of thef workman. He has further stated that Rs . 6000 was excess paid of 106 days as there was no leave and the same was deducted from his gratuity. He has stated that he had not opted for fixation of pay in terms of Est . Sr.No.312 / 78 and therefore it was deemedto have opted for revised scale . He has stated that his residential address was less than 20KM and therefore he was not entitled for package allowance . His evidence is unrebutted . There is no other evidence on the record to contradict his evidence . Since there is no evidence of the workman , the evidence of the management cannot be disbelieved . Thus it is clear that the demand of the workman is not justified as the management had rightly passed order of voluntary retirement after following the rules and regulations . This issue is decided in favour of the management .

7. Issue No. II

On the basis of discussion made above I find that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

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

9. 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 3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the reference . The case of the management , inter alia is that it is admitted that the workman sought his retirement from service under the provision of rules . However voluntary retirement on medical gounds can only be accepted after verifying several factors . It is not automatic . It is stated that the application for voluntary retirement on medical gound was filed by the workman on 16-4-91 . He had a vigilance case and the clearance from the vigilance department was received on 3-10-91 . Thereafter the application of the workman for voluntary retirement was accepted on 8-10-91 . Thereafter his PF and CGEGIS amount had been passed on 15-12-91 as well as pension and commutation of pension were passed on 30-1-92 . As such there was no delay in settlement of retiral dues . It is stated that in the year 1991 , the workman was sick for 106 days from 23-5-91 to 5-9-91 and due to oversight his salary was drawn . He had no leave in his credit as such the amcunt of Rs.6000 was detected from his gratuity . It is stated that the workman had not opted by filing any application for fixation ofpay in terms of Est . Sr. No.312/78 and therefore it [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 901.-औद्यागिक 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 धनबाद, न. - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/1999 व 37/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/ 385/1999- आईआर ( सी -1 ) , एल -20012/ 386/1998- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March, 2011

S.O. 901. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 44/1999 & 37/1999 ) 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 . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011.

[No. L20012/ 385 / 1999 - IR ( C - I ) , 1. -20012/ 386/1998 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference Urs . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A ) of 1. D.Act 1947

Reference No. 44 of 1999 Reference No. 3 of 1999

Parties Employers in relation to the management of MudidihColliery of M / s . BCCL

And

Their workmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate For the Employers

For the Workma : Shit . R.R. Ram , Vice President , Bobnjan Mazdoor Union State . Jharkhand

2735

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

" Whether the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M / s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Gorelal Satnami , M / Loader from the services of the company w.e.f. 5-11-91 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

2. Reference No. 37 of 1999- By Order No. L-20012/386/ 98- IR ( C - I ) dated 11-3-99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - sec . ( 1 ) and sub- sec . ( 2.4 ) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Sarju Ram , Attendance Clerk from the services of the company w.e.f. 5-11-91 is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ""

3. Both the reference cases are the same regarding same incident . Both the workman involved in assault of Sri R.P. Singh , Asstt . Colliery Manager of Mudidih Colliery . The management issued chargessheet to both of them and thereafter hold enquiry against them jointly. On the request of both the parties both the reference cases were heard together.

The enquiry has been found to be fair and preper vide order dated 5-2-2010 .

4. The fact of the case is that on 8-2-97 at about 9 a.m Sarju Ram, Attendance Clerk , No. 3 Pit Mudidih Colliery and Gorelal Satnanii , miner / loader , 3 Pit Mudidih Colliery went to Jogta Pit alongwith 4/5 other persons to discuss about some problems with Sri R.P. Singh , Senior Under Manager of Jogta and during the discussion both S / Shri Sarju Ram and Gorelal Satnami alongwith other persons present with them assaulted Sri R.P. Singh and also threatened with dire consequences .

The management filed enquiry proceedings which were marked Exts . M - 1 to M - 11 .

5. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman in Reference No. 37 of 1999 regarding dismissal of Attendance Clerk , Sarju Ram . It has been argued that the concerned workman was acquitted by Criminal Court . On the same charges the management lodged P.S. Case against the concerned workman .

Industry : Coal

Dated 17-2-2011

AWARD

By Order No. 1. Reference No. 44 of 1999 L- 20012/ 385 / 98 - IR ( C - I ) dated 11-3-99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of Inthis respect the concerned workman filed order of Criminal Court T.R. No. 35/09 , G.R.Case No. 294/97 passed by judicial Magistrate , Ist Class , Dhandbad , dated 5-3-09 in which the concerned workman with other co - worker , Asgar Mia were acquitted. It shows that on same incident the concerned workman has been dismissed from service , but he has been acquitted .

2736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

6.Management's representative argued that the act of violance and mis - behaviour of the concerned workman with Sri R.P.Singh , he has been dismissed from company's service and no lenient view can be taken . The dismissal order of the concerned workman is Ext . M - 11 , in which it hasbeen mentioned that a copy of enquiry report has been given to him on 1-10-97 . But that has not been proved by postal receipt. The reply of the concerned workman dated 8-10-1997 shows that by this letter he has demanded enquiry report in Hindi because the enquiry report was in English. So he was unable to give reply. Therefore, he has demanded enquiry report in Hindi , so that he can give reply. So , no reasonable opportunity was given to the concerned workman for his reply before passing dismissal order. As per law laid down in Current Labour Report ( SC) 1991 page 61 that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommandations, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be written the rules of natural justice .

7. Regarding allegation against other concerned workman in Reference No. 44 of 1999 , Gorelal Satnami no evidence has been produced that he was acquitted , rather acquittal of Sarju Ram's order shows that Gorelal Satnami's case has been seperated from Sarju Ram by Judicial Magistrate , which is still pending .

8. The managementment referred 2005 Supreme Court Cases ( L& S) 412 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down-

Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 - S . 11 - A- Discretion hader - Scope of and when to be exercised - Held , Tribunal/ Labour Court has jurisdiction to interfere with punishment awarded in domestic Inquiry only for good and vaild reasons If Tribunal done interfere with the punishment it should bear in mind principle of proportionally between gravity of offience and stringency ofpunishment - Appellant workenan along with others , forming unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons going to office of General Manager, assaulting him and his colleagues and causing then injuries- Punishment of dismissal if proportionate Held, act of violence is considered as an act of grave inisconduct calling for stringent punishment - Assault , while discharging their duties , by workman on senior officiale of management is such that officials managing the affairs will he demoralised - Fact that victims of assault did not die is not a mitigating circumstances to reduce sentence of dismissal -Courts below by condoning the act of physical violence have undermined the discipline of the organisation , "hence it can never he said that Tribunal could have exercised its authority under S. 11 - A" -Substitution of order ofdismissal in such a case by courts below and withholding of one increment permanently as punishment is wholly disproportionate to gravity of misconduct and is insupportable punishment of dismissal confermed - Alleged motive for mob attack on management , being death

[PART II -SEC 30m ) oftwo workmen due to bursting of a water tank, not ev adverted to or considered- punishment - Proportionalit Misconduct Insubordination Acts subversive of discipline Physical violenve against management Punishment for. "

Management also referred ( 2008 ) 1 Supreme Cases ( L& S ) 890 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that where two views are possible on evidence.Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interfering with the findines arrived at in domestic enquriy.

Another law referred by the management is S.C.C. (L & S) 133 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Couma down that a teacher , abusing and assaulting the Princip though on grave provocation from the Principal fierd even on grave provocation a teacher is not expected t abuse the head of the institution in filthy language assault him with chappal .

In the present case abusing and assaulting has ti been proved by the management in the Criminal Trial No 35/09 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class , Dhanbad 9. Considering the facts and circumstances , it shows thatin Reference No. 37 of 1999 Sarju Ram is entitled t reinstatement with 50 % back wages from the date of her. dismissal . Regarding Reference No. 44 of 1999 Gorela : Satnami is not entitled to any relief.

10. In the result. I render a common award in both reference cases .

In Reference No. 37 of 1999 , the action of management of Mudidih Colliery of M/ s . BCCI dismissing Sri Sarju Ram , Attending Clerk from the services ofthe company w.e.f. 5-11-97 is not justified . The concern workman is entitled to be reinstated in services with 50 . back wages from the date of his dismissal with other consequential benefits . The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award .

In Reference No. 44 of 1999 , the action of the management ofM/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Gorelal Satnami is Loader from the services ofthe company w.e.f. 5-11-91 is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to ans relief.

This is my award .

H.M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 902.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स टी आह एस सी ओ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद न. - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

106/1990 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/232/1989- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 902.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 106/ 1990 ) of the Central Governinent 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 . TISCO and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-03-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/232 / 1989 - 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. 106 of 1990

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Jamadoba 6 & 7 Pits Colliery of M / s . TISCO Ltd. And

Their workmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer Appearances :

Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate For the Management :

None

For the Workman :

State : Jharkhand

2737

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

7 Pits Jamadoba Colliery of TISCO Ltd. They were found suitable and capable for performance of the job of Sand Stowing Operation although most of them barring a few workman are in Category - 1 . The job performance of Sand Stowing Operation has been categorised in Cat . IV as laid down in the NCWA - I to IV. The concerned workman fully perfomed the job of Cat . IV for a period of long duration and have been paid difference of wages of Category - IV. The management ought to have been regularised them as Cat . IV workman long before but avoided to do justice to them . Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before A.L. C. ( C ) , Dhanbad , which ended in failure and hence the present dispute had been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Industry: Coal

Dated 22-2-2011

AWARD

By Order No. 1. 20012 / 232 / 89 - IR ( Coal - 1 ) dated 2-5-90 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- sec . ( 1 ) and sub- sec . ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Jamadoba 6 & 7 Pits Colliery , M / s . Tisco Ltd. P.O. Bhaga , Dist . Dhanbad in not regularising Shri Khajan Singh , Shri Hira Singh , Shri Tirlok Singh , Shri Gyan Singh , Shri Hrahmdeo Turi , Shri Sarju Turi , Md . Abbas , Shri Jailal Turi and Shri Mumtaz. in Cat . IV is justified ? If no , to whatrelief the workman are entitled ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman is that they have been working in permanent post for a long time in 5 & 3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman were initially appointed as General Mazdoors and in course of time were shifted to stowing and other department . They were deputed to work as stowing Mazdoors , stowing Fitter Helpers , Stowing pipe stries etc. as and when required in the mine. During the period they worked on higher category jobs , they were paid the difference of wages for performing high - category jobs . They are demanding for their regularisation in Cat . IV on their assertions that they had actually performed Category- IV jobs and are fit to be regularised in Cat . IV . It has been submitted that the management has permanent strength of workman on each department including stowing department in defferent categories or groups , and the question of regularisation of permanent workman of holding the post of general mazdoor, on a highter post , depends on the availability of permanent vacancy on the high posi . All the concerned workn.an were holding the permanent posts of general mazdoors in Category - I and they could not be regularised as stowing mistries or stowing tyndals in Category - IV in absence of permanent vacancies of such posts and without first being promoted to the permanent posts of stowing mazdoors in Cat . !!! or fitter helpers in Category - II . As they had worked on some occasions as Stowing Tyndals or Stowing Mistries , they were paid difference of wages between Category - IV and Category - I but on that ground they can not demand for outright promotion to Category - IV in the form of regularisation .

Under such circumstances , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass the award holding that the action of the management is legal and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

5. The conncerned workman has produced WW - 1 , Khajan Singh .

The management has produced MW- 1 , Asim Kumar Basu and proved decuments as Exts . M - 1 to M - 4 .

2738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

6.Main demand from the workman side is that they areworking in Jamadoba 6 & 7 Pits Colliery of M/ s . Tisco since 1983. They were appointed as General Mazdoor in Cat. I and subsequently were sent for stowing work . They worked asHeavy Tyndal in Cat . IV. But they have not been given Category - IV and regularised though they have completed more than 190 days in each calendar year. It has also been mentioned that they can get higher category if they have worked for more than 190 days in that post .

In cross - examination WW- 1 , Khajan Singh , stated that I can not say the exact rule under which a workınan working for more than 190 days in higher job he would be regularised there . I cannot say standing Order of the Tisco . I cannot say details of category given to fitters and stowing mazdoors as per NCWA .

Management's witness , MW- 1 , Asim Kumar Basu , has clearly stated that the Heavy Tyndals report to Colliery Engineer whereas stowing pipe fitters and mazdoors report to him.

The concerned workman worked as pipe stowing mazdoor and they were paid the difference of wages. Sometimes they also worked as helper to the fitter in the stowing pipe section for which also they have been paid difference in wages . This shows that the concerned workman have not filed any document which may show that they have worked in higher category for which benefit has to be givenby the management. Exts . M- 1 to M - 4 filed by the management show that they have not performed higher category ofjob for which they can be regularised .

7. Considering the above facts and circumtances , I come to the conclusion that the action of the management of lamadoba 6 & 7 Pits Colliery of M / s . Tisco Ltd. in not regularising the concerned workman in Category - IV is justified and they are not entitled to any relief.

This is my Award .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 903.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स लीववैल रविऐशन सर्विस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई न. - 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 02/09/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -11012/67/2003- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 903.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02 /09/

[PART 11 SPC. 30 ) 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Livewel Aviation Services , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No.1-11012/67/2003 -IR D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO 2 , MUMBAI

Present

Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ, PresidingOfficer Reference No. CGFT- 2/9 of 2004 Employers in relation to the Management of (1) M/ s . Livewel Aviation Services

9, Narayan Udyog Bhavan, Lalbaug Industrial Estate , Dr. Ambedkar Road , Lalbaug.. Mumbai--400012 .

(2) Indian Airlines Ltd. , (Now : NACH )

The Regional Director Indian Airlines Ltd. (NACIL) NTB, Vile Parle Mumbai 100 099.

AND

Their Workmen

Mr. Bhagwan Anna Kamble , Devaji Gardhawi . Budda Colony, Kuria (W) , Mumbai -400 070 .

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers No.1 : Shri A.P. Purav, Advo , ate Mr. R.S. Pai , Advocate For the Employer No. 2 :

For the Workman

: In person.

Mumbai , dated the 4th February, 201

AWARD

1. The Government of India . Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L- 11012 / 67/2003 - IR ( C -1 ) dated 10-02-2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:---

"Whether the demand of Shri Bhagwan Anna Kamble for reinstatement in service as cleaner by the : management of M/ s . Livewel Aviation Services with [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

full back wages , continuity of service and consequential benefits is legal and justified ? If so , to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ? "

2. Both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice the Second Party appeared through his Representative and filed its statement of claim at Ex . 11 . According to the workman he joined the First Party management as an Operator since 1998. His service was clean and urblemished . He was working continuously. The Livewel Aviation Services is a contractor and Air India is the principal employer of the workman . His work is of perennial nature and his contractor and principal employer have coinmitted unfair labour practice by not employing regular employees . The First Party management is not following the procedure of sanctioning leave to the workers . The management refused to entertain the leave applications such as casual leave , medical leave or other leave . Therefore , this worker has made complaint against the Company . The Second Party has taken leave for the year 2001 to 2002. His leave applications were not accepted by the First Party. On the other hand he received show cause notice and charge sheet . They removed him from services illegally. Therefore, Second Party made application to the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . As conciliation failed Labour Commissioner made a report to the Ministry for Reference . The workman thus prays that he be reinstated in the service with full back wages with effect from 29-4-2003.

3. The First Party No. 2 NACIL resisted the claim vide its W.S. at Ex . 13. According to them the workman is not their employee . He was employee of Livewel Aviation Services ; therefore this reference is not tenable . There is no relationship of employer -employee between the First Party No. 2 NACIL and the workman .All the allegations in the application are false as workman is not an employee of First Party No. 2 NACIL , thus the question of granting any leave to him does not arise . Therefore they pray that the Reference be dismissed .

4. The Livewel Aviation Services , First Party No.1 resisted the claim vide their W.S. at Ex . 14. According to them, the workman was their worker and the Reference is not tenable . His services were terminated after domestic enquiry. They denied all the allegations made in the statement of claim and pray that as the Reference is not tenable and the same be dismissed .

5. My Ld . Predecessor has framed Issues at Ex . 17. The matter was posted for recording evidence . The parties have settled the matter amicably . The workman has filed purshis to that effect at Ex . 21. In short , as the matter is settled, Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want prosecution .

Date : 04-02-2011

Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer

2739

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 4 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 904.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स लीववैल अविएसन सर्विस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई नं. - 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या (02/08/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/66 /2003- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 904. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02 / 08 / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Livewel Aviation Services , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/ 66 /2003 - IR ( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2 , MUMBAI

Present

Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT - 2 / 8 of 2004

Employers in Relation to the Management of:

(1 ) M / s . Livewel Aviation Services

9, Narayan Udyog Bhavan , Lalbaug Industrial Estate , Dr. Ambedkar Road , Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012

(2) Indian Airlines LTD . , (Now: NACIL)

The Regional Director Indian Airlines Ltd. (NACIL) NTB , Vile Parle , Mumbai -400 099 .

AND

Their Workman

Mr. Rakesh Shankar Pawar , Pujari Chawal , Jaishankar Chowk, Pipeline , Kurla , Mumbai -400 070 2740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer No. 1 : Ms. A. P. Purav, Advocate For the Employer No. 2: Mr. R. S. Pai , Advocate For the Workmen : In person

Mumbai , dated the 4th February, 2011

AWARD

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L - 11012 / 66 /2003 - IR (C - I ) dated 10-02-04 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A ) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

"Whether the demand of Shri Rakesh Shankar Pawar , for reinstatement in service as cleaner by the management of M/ s . Livewel Aviation Services with full back wages , continuity of service and consequential benefits is legal and justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ? "

2. Both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice the Second Party appeared through his Representative and filed its statement of claim at Ex . 11 . According to the workman he joined the First Party management as a Helper since 1998. His service was clean and unblemished . He was working continuously . The ILivewel Aviation Services is a contractor and Air India is the principal employer of the workman . His work is of perennial nature and his contractor and principal employer have committed unfair labour practice by not employing regular employees . The First Party management is not following the procedure of sanctioning leave to the workers . The management refused to entertain the leave applications such as casual leave , medical leave or other leave . Therefore , this worker has made complaint against the Company . The Second Party has taken leave for the year 2001 to 2002. His leave applications were not accepted by the First Party. On the other hand he received show cause notice and charge sheet. They removed him from services illegally . Therefore, Second Party made application to the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) . As conciliation failed Labour Commissioner made a report to the Ministry for Reference . The workman thus prays that he be reinstated in the service with full back wages with effect from 30-4-2003 .

3. The First Party No. 2 NACIL resisted the claim vide its W.S. at Ex . 13. According to them the workman is not their employee . He was employee of Livewel Aviation Services; therefore , this reference is not tenable . There is no relationship of employer - employee between the First Party NACIL and the workman . All the allegations in the application are false as workman is not an employee of the First Party NACII . , thus the question of granting any leave

[PART 11 SEC . 30 to him does not arise . Therefore they pray that the Reference be dismissed.

4. The Livewel Aviation Services , First Party No resisted the claim vide their W.S. at Ex. 14. According ta them the workman was their worker and the Reference is not tenable . His services were terminated after domestic enquiry . They denied all the allegations made in the claim and pray that as the Reference is not tenable same br dismissed .

5. My Ld . Predecessor has framed Issues at Ex . 18 The matter was posted for recording evidence . The parties have settled the matter amicably. The workman has filed purshis to that effect at Ex . 26. In short , as the matter is settled , thus Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution .

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution . Date : 4-02-2011

Κ . Β . ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 905.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन.एल.सी. एल. 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 18/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-03-2011 को प्रशान हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/ 7/2010 - आई आर ( सी एम- II डी. एस . एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th March , 2011

S.O. 905. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 18/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of C.T.O. , Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. , Neyveli Lignite Corporation., C.TO. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7-3-2011 .

[No. L - 22012 / 7 /2010 - IR ( CM - 11 ) ; D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT . CHENNAI

Thursday, the 24th February , 2011 Present : A.N. JANARDANAN Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 18/2010 [ भागII-- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(Inthe matter ofthe 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 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and their Workman)

BETWEEN

: 1stParty/Petitioner Sri Francis Priyara

Vs.

: 2nd Party/ Respondent The General Manager

(Corporate Environment Cell )

C.T.O. Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Ltd. Neyveli-607801

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Sri V. Ajoy Khose, Advocate

For the 2nd Party/Management : M/ s . N.A.K. Sarma, N. Nithianandam , Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 22012 / 7 /2010 - IR (CM - II ) dated 29-04-2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Neyveli in denying the salary and other benefits to Sri . M. Francis Priyara during the period of suspension i.e. 23-03-2001 to 03-06-2001 is legal and justified ? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 18/2010 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Counsel advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement as the case may be .

3. The averments in the Claim Statement briefly read asfollows:

First Party No. 1 working as Operator Grade - IAby way of successive promotions accrued to him had always beenmeted out indifferent treatment by the Shift- in-Charge denying lawful attendance , incentive , OT wages etc. On 18-03-2001 he could not take the van due to pain on chest , etc. and therefore he was sent to General Hospital . On 23-02-2001 he was kept as spare with no work allotted. On 18-03-2001 as memo was issued to him alleging disobedience of susperious and use of un - parliamentary words . He was also suspended . He was charge sheeted on 27-03-2001 with further allegations that petitioner refusing to operate pick - up carriers affected normal work in Mini Auto/Mine - I one and also that he abused superiors with 1023 GI/11-22

271

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011/चैत्र12. 1933

filthy language . On 02-06-200 ) suspension was revoked. Setting Management ex -parte by enquiry report dated 29-09-2001 petitioner was found not guilty. But he has not been paid allowances for the period of suspension or quarterly incentive , in spite of series ofrequests . A denovo enquiry was ordered without notice to the petitioner. Copy of the order of enquiry report have not been given te him in spite of request . He was informed about the inabilityto furnish a copy of the order and was advised to approach the Disciplinary Authority for copy. Denovo enquiry is without any provision support . On 26-08-2003 only cor of complaint was given . No final order was passed ag and therefore petitioner raised an ID before Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) who sent a failure report as per which the reference is made . Non - payment of wages, other allowances and incentive during the suspension between23-03-2001 to 03-06-2001 is illegal , unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article - 14 of the Constutution. With his exoneration from the charges by the finding of the Enquiry Officer he is deemed to have continued in service during the suspension period . Ordering a denovo enquiry is illegal and without jurisdiction. Management connot refuse ex - parte enquiry report in favour of the workman . Management should have given notice and sought for his explanation . Unless he is found guilty proved by a punishment imposed he shall be paid his wages and allowances as if on duty, Suspension beyond 14 days impermissible under the Standing Orders is illegal . Management failed to complete enquiry and pass final orders and is at fault . Hence the claim .

4. The Counter Statement contentions briefly read asfollows :

ID is frivolous and vexatious , raised in 2009 withan antiquity of 10 years as a dead claim . It is barred by latches and delay. There is suppression of material facts . Party No. I was in charge of very sensitive post for transporting employees to the mines and bringing them back. He had been in the habit of indulging in misconducts of insubordination abusing superiors , not carrying out works , manifesting militant and intimidating behaviour , etc. He repeated his misconducts on 18-03-2001 and 22-03-2001 as before Enquiry Officer by his 29-09-2001 report without providing reasonable opportunity to the Management to adduce evidence absolved the Party No. 1 of the charge on technical ground , contrary to the materials and party's admission . The finding was not concurred with by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence denovo enquiry was ordered and conducted which is just and reasonable and is within the realm ofpower. Party No. 1 participated in the enquiry but did not cooperate with Enquiry Officer disabling completion ofthe enquiry. He was making untenable request for copies of complaints which was furnished on 26-08- 2003. He never denied or accepted the charge preventing to proceed with the enquiry to its finality . Party No. I was rude in his behaviour . Interim Enquiry Report dated 27.12

THE CAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

PART li- Sic .Sun

From theManagement side :

Ex. No.

Description

Date Nil नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 906. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (194 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. मी. आड. 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 08/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-03-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 191 '2003- आई आर ( सी एम ॥ डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th March, 2011 21-02-2004 was submitted . Enquiry did not attam finality due to conduct of Party No. 1. In a previous enquiry for proved charges he had been removed from service on 31-10-2004 which were held proved in ID 82/2006 of this Tribunal . However, Tribunal modified the award dated 5-08-2009 reducing punishment which is challenged in Writ Petition No. 22848/2009 in the High Court . Charges against Party No. Ido not stand absolved . Suspension period from 24-03-2001 to 3-06-2001 is not regularized . The claim is untenable . Disciplinary proceedings are still pending as per ChargeMemo dated 27-03-2001 . It is denied that Enquiry Officer expressed inability to proceed with the enquiry for a reason that he was not able to convince Party No. I as to how the order of denovo enquiry was legal . There is no merit in the dispute and it is to be dismissed . The present enquiry has not reached conclusion since Party No. I got terminated under another Charge Momo issued in the year 2000.

5. Points for consideration are :

( i ) Whether denial of salary and other benefits to Party No. I during the period of suspension from 23-03- 2001 to 3-06-2001 is legal and justified?

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

S.O. 906. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 08 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kalkata 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 7-03-2011 .

Points ( i ) &( ii )

[No. 1.-22012 191 2003 - IR ( CM- 10 D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO . Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 08 of 2004 6. When the matter stood for enquiry the petitioner was no resent nor represented . Respondent was represented . The petitioner is therefore called absent and set ex -parte. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondent who submitted the claim to have been stale and is bad due to iatches and delay. It is brought home that the dispute on hand is one raised in 2009 after he was actually removed from service for a proven misconduct in another Charge Memodated 3-10-2000 .

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India AND Their workmen 7. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the claim the Petitioner / Party No. I who is set ex - parte cannot be found entitled to any claim . Therefore the action of the Management is only to be held as legal and justified . So found . The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Present : Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar 8. The reference is answered accordingly.

PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCES :

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th February, 2011 )

Onbehalf of the : Management

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Exmined :

: None

For the ist Party/ Petitioner

Mr. A. Bagchi, L.d. Advocate Onbehalf ofthe : Workmen Mr. M.S Dutta , L.d. Advocate Industry. Food

None

: For the 2nd Party/Management

State: West Bengal Dated: 22nd February, 2011

Documents Marked :-

AWARD

From the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

By OrderNo. L- 22012/ 191 / 2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 10- 03-2004 the Government of India . Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) and ( 2A) of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2743

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Kolkata in removing three casual workmen S / Sh . Sukumar Chal . Gopal Begi and Sankar Paswar working since 1991 at FCIFSD Nandibagan under District Manager , FCI , Howrah by an oral order w.e.f. 5-12-2002 is legal and justified ? If not . to what relief they are entitled ? "

was not subjected to such engagement of labour / worker for not more than seven days . In the same circular. continuing with such casual workers continuously for indefinite period without their regularization was viewed seriously and further it was decided that no person should be appointed on casual daily - rated part - time basis in the office of the Corporation any more . In the circular dated May 6 , 1987 engagement of casual or daily - rated or part- time employee was stopped to be appointed and a proposal was placed before the Board of Directors in its 176th meeting held on 24th February , 1987 to relax the bar on recruitment for filling up entry level category of Group - 111 and IV posts for considering casual and daily rated employees who had completed other requirements for the post . Thereupon another circular dated January 19 . 1991 was circulated by the Head Quarter of FCI barrring appointment of any person on casual /daily - rated or part- time basis in the office of the Corporation and infringement of such order was stated to attract disciplinary action against the defaulter . In view of the above stated circulars , as the present three workmen were engaged after the cut- off date of 2nd May , 1986 , the benefit of regularization could not be extended to them through the workmen concerned are to lead evidence to show that they had worked for 240 days or more in the year preceding their termination which the management Corporation denied. Appointment of any person in the permanent post in the nature of work of these workmen being casual labourers , does not arise since they used to work casually , as and when their service was needed and available . The management Corporation has categorically denied that the concerned workmen worked for FCI continuously for 14 years.

4. A rejoinder on behalf of the workmen has been filed without adding anything new but with denial of the case made out by the management of FCI para - wise .

2. In its statement of claim the workmen union has mated that three workers , namely , S / Sh . Sukumar Chal , Gopal Begi and Sankar Paswar were engaged as whole- time workers at FCI Food Storage Depot ( FSD ) , Nangibagan under the District Manager, FCI , Howrah on respective dates as in July, 1986 , 2-05-1989 and 23-04-1991 and those workers had been working in the Corporation till the date of their termination with effect from 5-10-2002 . Though these workmen were loosely called casual labourers , in fact they were doing the work of permanent nature continuously supposed to be done by Class -IV staff of the FCT and they were being paid by the management of FCI itself. Their termination was done with effect from 5-0-2002 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 though these workmen were working under the FCI continuously, for 14 years till before their termination . It is further stated that the termination of services of the concerned workmen amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2000 ) of the said Act and so the action of the management of FCI became invalid , inoperative and void since the FCI failedto comply with the condition precedent of retrenchment by way of payment of compensation , service of notice etc Under the various circulars and precedents of FCI , the concerned workmen were entitled to be absorbed in the permanent roll of FCI , but the management of FCI had a mala fide motive to exploit them calling them as casual workmen and thereby deprived them of their legitimate grade and scales of pay of Class - IV employees of FCI and also had an ulterior motive to avoid their regularization and caused their illegal removal from the service . It is also claimed that the action of the management Corporation amounted to unfair labour practice in contemplation of Clause 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act . It is further stated that after their illegal retrenchment the workers made several representation to the management for their reinstatement , but without any result. Subsequently, the union raised the dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Kolkata and as the conciliation proceeding failed , this reference was made .

5. Admittedly the workmen concerned were daily- rated workers unde the management Corporation since different dates as mentioned earlier and there is no denial from the side of the management Corporation that their engagement was discontinued . Fact remains that the workmen concerred were never issued with any appointment/ engagement letter nor they were discontinued or terr nated with any formal letter . In short , both the actions were done orally. It is also admitted from the side of the management Corporation that no pay, notice or compensation was issued to such retrench workmen at the time of their disengagement or termination . Naturally, it has been pleaded on behalf of the workmen by Mr. M.S. Dutta , the Ld . Advocate that the termination becomes a nullity.

3. In its written statement , management of Food Corporation of India stated that stipulation for engagement of casual worker in any office of the Corporation was banned by circular No. 28/86 dated May 2 , 1986 having reference to earlier circular No. 33/80 , though this embargo

6. It is a fact that even though there is no specific mention in the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 that termination of a workman working for a year under an employer , without complying with the 44

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

preceding act of making payment of pay and compensation together with the notice shall entitle the workman to be reinstated in service for non - compliance of the statutory provision , but from the language of the provision of Section 25F of the Act shows that comliance so directed at the time of termination of the workman is a mandatory one and automatic induction becomes nevitable that the workmen is to be deemed not to have been terminated and his status should be the same as it was just before such disengagement or termination .

7. Now, it is to be considered, whether in the present case , the workmen will be entitled to automatic reinstatement with back wages and there emerges a confrontation in between the employer and the emplyees as it is pleaded from the side of the management Corporation that the reinstatement should not be ordered as a straight-jacket formula . It is further submitted that before consideration of such consequence many factors are to be assailed through .

8.Mr. Bagchi , the Ld . Advocate for the management Corporation submitted that the engagement of the workmen concerned on different dates were made by the differernt units/ offices of the Corporation , in defiance to the Corporation'sdirection against engagement of any daily- rated casual labourers /workers after the cut - off date 02-05-1986 when an office circular was issued to all the offices of the Corporation calling their attention not to appoint any casual labourers /workers and referred to contents ofExt. M - 8 which is Circular No. 28 of 1986 dated 2nd May, 1986 which referred to an earlier Office Circular No. 33 of 1980 dated 26 March , 1980 bearing file No. 34/ 80- EP wherein it is stipulated that no casual labour and worker may be appointed in the office of the Corporation for more than 7 days . Mr. Bagchi referred to several other exhibited documents being exhibits M- 2 , M - 9 , M - 10 etc. It is submitted by him that the engagement of the present workmen so made after 02-05-1986 , was against a scheme or against any sanctioned post having no benefit of permanent nature or character of a post and submitted that the authorities of the Corporation engaging these workmen as casual workers flouting the said office circular, makes the engagement totally as illegal .

9. In this context , it is to be seen whether the engagement of the present workmen after the cut- off date 2-05-1986 was illegally done by defying with the management Corporation's dictate in that respect in the consecutive circulars barring appointment of casual workers . Admittedly, the workmen concerned were appointed on different dates after the said cut- offdate of 02-05-1986 . The office circulars do not create any statutory force in respect of the direction given in those office circulars since these are some executive orders and thus non - observance and disobeying the said directions in those circulars in the act of engagement of casual workers becomes an irregular act and not an illegal act . So , it cannot

[PAL 1 S be said that the workmen concerned cannot akenthe , s ofnon - compliance on the provisions of Section 1 the time of their dssagagement es the bed Corporation as their engagement was

officers of the managerment Celtoration

10. In this respect Mr MS Da

the workmen concert samla

casual /daily - rated worker was tot

employer, their termination beconies de

respect several decisions have been cic

1984-1 - LLJ.233 ( SC ) , 1985 LABS

compliance of pre - condition at the time of...... Dutta relied upon 1976-1-11.J 478 SCOF LLJ , 70( SC ) . In all those decisions it was ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court that non - compliance of 25F of the Act in case of termination of service av daily - rated worker makes the termination rice.. reinstatement with back wages were directed sa decisions . In all those decisions it was coinmond.... the Hon'ble Apex Court as to whether the the concerned completed 240 days work or not. In the pre case , perhaps , no controversy has been raised fron . side of the management Corporation since the worters concerned had worked for a considerable period thrown years till before their disengagement termination toda a fact that Section 25F of the Act has given the only..in a for claiming compliance of pay, notice and compensator in case of retrenchment of their working for a period one year and that period has been specifically ex - plat inprovisions of Section 25B of the Act where prescript of 240 days work in a year has been specially earmarked for claiming such benefit by such workman.

11. Mr. Dutta also relied upon some other decis reported in 2010-1 - LL.J 841 ( SC ) , 2010 LAB , L.C. 1723 ( SC ) 2010- II - LLJ , 277 ( SC) , 2010 - III - LLJ , I ( SC) and relying uporn these decisions it is submitted by him that termination without compliance of the provisions of Section 24 the Act cannot be sustained .

12. Mr. Bagchi , I.d. Advocate for the managemen Corporation submitted that the view of the Hon'ble Apes Court has changed in recent times in respect of giving relief to the retrenched workers and automedie reinstatement has been discouraged in cases where the pre-condition of termination as per provisions of Section 25F of the Act has not been complied with . In this respes t he relied upon a decision reported in (2009 ) 15 S.C.C $ 27 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that " 14. It would be , thus , seen that by a catena of decisions in recent times this Court clearly laid down that an order of retrenchiment passed in violation of Section 25 - F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not , however , be automatically passed . The award of reinstatemen! with full back wages in a case where the workman hascompleted 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination , particularly, daily wager [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded . This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee . " 13. In that decision the Hon'ble Court relied upon another decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2008 ) 1 S.C.C. 575 ( Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchavat, Gajraula) . In the said decision this aspect of dealing with the terminated daily - rated workers without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act has been stated . Reliance by the management Corporation in a case reported in ( 2007 ) 9 S.C.C. 748 ( Madhya Pradesh Administration v . Tribhuban ) can be mentioned here and De Hon'ble Court has opined.

The nature of appointment , whether there existed any sanctioned post or whether the officer concerned had any authority to make appointment are relevant factors "

In the said decision the Hon'ble Court held that "Whereas at one point of time reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages used to be automatically granted , but keeping in view several other factors and in particular , the doctrine of public employment and involvement of the public money, a charge in the said trend in now found in the recent decisons of the Supreme Court . The Superme Court in a large number of decisions in the matter of grant of relief of the kind , distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee . It may be that the definition of ' workman ' as contained in Section 1 ( s ) of the Act is wide and takes within its embrace all categories of workman specified therein, but the same would not mean that even for the purpose of grant of relief in an industrial dispute referred for adjudicaiton , application for constitutional scheme of equlity adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in light of the Constitutional Bench decision in Umadevi ( 3 ) cases [(2006 ) 4.S.C.C. 1 ] and other relevant factors pointed out by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions shall not be taken into consideration . "

In the same decision the Hon'ble Court observed " The interest of justice would be sub - served if the appellant herein be directed to be paid a sum of Rs . 75000 by way compensation to the respondent " .

14. The view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision , can have a reflection in another decision- reported in (2010 ) 9 S.C.C. 126 ( Incharge Officer v . Sankar Shetty) and therein the Hon'ble Apex Court held

2745

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

are kept in mind it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent . The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and is continued for about 7 years Intermittently upto 06-09-1985 , i.e. about 25 years back . In a case as the present one , it appears that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice ."

15. Assailing through the different paragraphs in the present Award in consideration of the submission of the learned Advocates of the respective parties , it is tound that the workmen in the present reference were engaged under a irregular process defying the office circular of the management Corporation and they were engaged noi against any sactioned post nor they were engaged throuth any recruitment process of the management Corporation However , in view of the discussions made above as wel ! as on going through the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court indifferent decisions , I am of the view that even if the engagement of the workmen in the present reference was irregular though not illegal , their engagement and subsequent termination after a considerable period of engagement uninterruptedly has been effected and their termination by way of disengagement or retrenchment whatever it may be by the management Corporation , was not done in compliance with the provisions made in Section 25- F of the Act . However , considering the trend of the relief to be given to such retrenched workers in different decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court , I am of the view that automatic reinstatement of the present workmen should not be ordered even though the present workmen having been retrenched without compliance with the mandatory proivisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . Rather , a compensation should be a just relief in the present context and it may sub - serve with the relief of compensation .

16. Unfortunately , no material is forthcoming before this Tribunal as to the rate of daily wages the present workmen were receiving till before their retrenchment for assessment of compensation . However, a lumpsum amount may be considered for fixing the compensation for each of the worker in the present reference and such payment of compensation , in my view, will meet the ends of justice in the present context . However , the management Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs . 50000 ( Rupees fifty thousand only ) each of the concerned workmen as compensation within six months from the date of publication of the Award , failing which the said amount compensation shall attract interest @ 9% per annum for the period of such non - compliance , after the said period of 6 months .

17. Accordingly, an Award is passed .

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Dated , Kolkata , 22nd February, 2011

" The course of decison of the Supreme Court in recent years has been uniform on this question and if the principle stated in Jagbir Singh case , (2009) 15 S.C. C. 327 and the decision of the Supreme Court referred to there in 2746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 907.-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 / श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/303/2007- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th March, 2011

S.O. 907. In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 16/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 1. abour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the management of Dhoptala Sub Area of Balarpur Area , WCL and their workman , received by the Central Government on 07-03-2011 .

[No. 1.-22012/303 /2007 - IR (CM - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVAS RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/ 16/2008

Date: 23-03-2011 PartyNo. 1 : The Sub Area Manager, Dhobtala Mines , Western Coalfields Limited , PO: Shasti , Tal . Rajura, Distt . Chandrapur.

Versus

: PartyNo.2 Shri Shyamlal Gorelal Vishwakarma, R/o SKMS , C / o Sainik Nala Narsaiya , Opp . WCL Guest House , Rajura Shasti Road, Post: Shasti , Tal . Rajura , Distt . Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 23rd February, 2011 )

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofIndustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the Dhobtala Sub Area , WCL and their workman , Shri Shyamlal or adjudication as per letter D.L. - 22012 / 303 / 2007 - IR( CM - II ) dated 15-5-2008 , with the following schedule:-

[PART II SEC. 3tirj "Whether the action of the management of WCt denying the promotion to Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma, Electrician ignoring his seniority and promoting his juniors to his higher scale is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "

2.Onreceipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in accordance with which , Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma , the workman (" the workman " in short) filed his statement vi claim and the management of Dhobtala , Sub Area , WC (Party No.1 in short) filed their written statement .

3.The case of the workman is that he was appointed asElectrician Helper in category - II on 19-7-1992 and he was promoted as Electrician Cat. IV, due te his performance , sincerity and also seniority , but the management committed illegality and ignored his seniouty and did not promote him to the post of Electrician Cat V and illegaily promoted his juniors to the higher scale. depriving him the promotion . He has prayed for a direction to the management to give him promotion as Electrician Cat. - V w.e.f. 14-10-2006 and to pay all consequential benefits to the said post .

4. The management resisted the claim of the workman by filing the written statement and pleading inter - alia that the DPC constituted for inter cadre promotion found the workman not to be suitable for promotion as Electrician Cat. -V and as such , he was not given the promotion and promotion to the post of Electrician Cat.V was given as per the norms , based on seniority - cum - merit and not only on seniority and no illegality was committed by it in not giving promotion to the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled for any relief.

5. During the pendency of the reference , the workman, the Secretary ofAITUC , Ballarpur Area , the Sub Area Manager, DSA and the Sr. Manager ( Per ), DSA filed a settlement in Form No.H as per Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 stating that there is an amicable settlement between the parties and according to the said settlement the workman would be given notional promotion w.e.f. 31-3-2009 and actual financial benefit would be admissible with effect from the date of actual assuming charge of higher post by the workman . The settlement has been signed by the workman, the union representative , the management representatives and two other witnesses . In view of such settlement between the parties , the reference is answered as per the terms and conditions of the settlement . The award be treated as a compromise award. The settlement submitted in Form No.H be made a part of the award .

Send a copy ofthe award alongwith-the copy of the settlement in Form No.H to the Central Government for notification .

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

FORM 'H'

(SeeRule 58)

PARTIES

Union Representatives Management Representatives

1. Shri K. C. Sahu Sub Area Manager , DSA

1 . Shri Ravi Wadhai , Secretary , AITUC , BallarpurArea.

2. Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma , Workman 2. Shri R.D. Sharma , C. Mgr . (Per) , DSA

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

The Desk Officer , Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India referred the Subject case to the Presiding Officer , CGIT, Nagpur. The Case No. is CGIT/NGP/ 16 / 2008 .

The details of the case is as under : --

1 . That as per the Manpower Budget 2006-07 a DPC was constituted for promotion of the eligible employees as per the sanctioned Vacancies .

2 That in M.P. Budget 2006-07 there were two sanctioned vacancies in the post of Electrician Cat . V and there were also two eligible candidates who appeared before DPC for interview/ Trade Test, including Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma . However , only One candidate was promoted.

3. The DPC did not recommend the name of Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma for promotion from the post of Electrician Cat. IV to Electrician Cat . V for the roason that his performance (CR ) during the year 2005-06 has been rated as " Average " . Since as per the Normsformulated by DPC the employees whose performance with " Average " Rating will not be treated eligible for promotion . Thus he was not eligible for promotion in the MP Budget 6-7 , 7-8 and 8-9 respectively .

4. During the interview / Trade Test before DPC in the M.P. Budget 08-09 , though there was vacancy the candidate Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma did not appear before DPC.

5. Subsequently , the Union has approached the Management with an intention for out of Court settlement on some issues . This is one of these issues wherein the Management has also agreed to examine these cases favourably as per the earliest rules .

6. Presently the Union has agreed to accept notional promotion of Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma against the sanctioned vacancy in the 2008-09 Manpower Budget instead of Promotion within the 2006-07 MP Budget without demanding for Financial Benefit .

7. There was one sanctioned unfilled vacancy in the MP Budget 2008-09 and Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma was one of the contenders . Though he did not appear before DPC .

2747

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

8. It is therefore proposed to giving Notonal Promotion to Shyamlal Vishwakarma subject to the Form- ' H ' Settlement which will be subsequently filed in CGIT.

(a) That the approval for such settlement had been obtainedby competent Authority vide letter no. WCL / IR/ Legal/C.F. / 517 Date 15-12-2010 issued by Sr. Manager (Per) / SE / Legal

TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ARE AS UNDER 1. It is mutually agreed that since Shyamlal Vishwakarma , Workman has found entitled by the Departmental Promotion Committee for Promotion of Electrician Cat . V against the sanction vacancy in the manpower Budget 2008-09 and he has been recommended for Promotion . It is mutually agreed that Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma would be given Notional Promotion w.e.f. 31-03-2009 and actual financial benefit will be admissible with effect from the date of actual assuming charge of higher post .

2. It ismutually agreed that the Employee or the Union will not Claim for Payment of Financial Benefit for which the dispute has been raised bofore the Hon . Tribunal .

3. It is mutually agreed that this is full and final settlement of the above dispute and Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma , Workman will not raise any dispute whatsoever before by Statutory Form/ Court of Law / Govt . machinery/non- Statutory Forum in this matter either by himself or through any Trade Union .

4. ThisAgreement will be binding upon the Workman or Trade Union and the management and treated as full and final .

5. It is mutually agreed that . Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma or , Trade Union will not treat this case as Precedence in any case in future.

6. It isalso agreed that Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma and the Union and the Management will jointly file this settlement before the CGIT, Nagpur with a request to Pass a Consent Award in terms of settlement .

7. It isalso agreed that Promotion order would be issued on filing of Pursis at CGIT, Nagpur, and it will be sent to Gouri Sub Area for compliance .

Union Representatives Management Representatives

(Ravi Wadhai) Sub Area Manager , DSA

(R.D. Sharma)

Chief Manager ( Per ) , DSA

Witness :

(Shyamlal Vishwakarma ) 1. (P. N. Narawar ) O.S. , DSA

2. (V. G. ) Tunghari ) Clerk , DSA 2748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 908.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैजगाँव डॉक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/40 ऑफ 2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42011 /21 /2008- आई आर(डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th March , 2011

S.O. 908. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/40 of 2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. II , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mazgaon Dock Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7-3-2011 .

[No. L-42011 /21 /2008 -IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2/40 of 2008 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MAZGAON DOCK LIMITED

The General Manager

Mazgaon Dock Ltd. Dockyard Road Mazgaon Mumbai - 400 010 .

AND THEIR WORKMEN .

The President Association of Engineering Workers 252, Janata Colony Ramnarayan Narker Marg Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai 400 077 .

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. S.V. Alva Advocate .

FOR THE WORKMEN

: No appearance .

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( 1 ) ] Mumbai , dated the 11th January 2011. AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L- 42011 /21 /2008-1R ( DU ) . dated 19-6-2008 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 ofMazgaon Dock Ltd in terminating the services of their workman Shri Mangesh Janardan Bhande and Shri Jaganath Vishwanath Adangale w.e.f 31-3-2007 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief these workmen are entitled to ? "

2. Both the parties were served with notices In response to notice the second party union has filed its statement of claim at Ex -6 . According to them , the workn Shri Mangesh Janardhan Bhande and Shri Jagannat . Vishwanath Adangale were the fixed term workmen of the first party management . According to them , after completion of two year period of service , first party company in mass terminated the services of fixed term workmen under the guise of retrenchment . The said action oftermination is totally illegal , improper and unjustified They have started recruiting their sons and relatives on fixed term contract basis . Recruitment on fixed term contract basis is not shown in the certified standing orders . First party has not given notice of change.

3. It is a long practice followed by first party company to engage workmen on temporary basis for a period of 90 days giving one day's break in their service and again they were recruited. In the past such workmen were made permanent as per the seniority and when vacancy arose in permanent post. Instead of following the said procedure , the first party company without following proper procedure introduced fixed term contract workmen which is illegal , improper and totally unjustified. The above two workers were terminated when they demanded benefits of permanent worker . The union also wrote letters dt . 2-7-2007 and 16-8-2007 and also approached ALCC requesting him to take up the dispute for conciliation . As the conciliation failed , the ALC sent the matter to the Secretary, Government of India , Ministry ofLabour Employment, New Delhi . They forwarded the reference to this Tribunal . The union therefore , prays that the first party be directed to reinstate both the workers with full back wages . Their termination be declared illegal . null and void and also prays for direction to pay full back wages and consequential benefits to all the fixed term workmen along with their forthwith reinstatement.

4. The first party company resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex -7 . According to them .

भारत का राजपत्र :

-खड़ 3h ) ]

2740

अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12. 1933

affidavit of MW - I ( Ex- 11 ) . In the circumstances ... old that the first party has proved that the workers were appointed for a particular time therefore they cannot seck any relief. Accordingly I decide this issue no . 1 in the affirmave . In the light of the averments in the affidavit Ex . 11 and as there is no evidence in support of allegations of second party, I hold that the action of first party is just and proper . Accordingly I decide the issue no 2 also in the affirmative . 7. In the light of this discussion , I come to the conclusion that the second party workers are not entitied for reinstatement and benefits of permanency as has been claimed. Accordingly I decide this issue no.3 . the negative . Thus I proceed to pass the following arda:

ORDER

The reference stands dismissed .

Date: 11-1-2011

ference is ndsconceived and not tenable . The persons nine reference were recruited for fixed term employment w.daer services automatically came to an end by efflux cfame, therefore , squarely covered by Section 2 ( oo ) (bb ) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They further contended hat looking into the nature of work , the company has to esort to recruitment of persons on contract basis for fixed term employment . Above mentioned 200 persons were ecruited on fixed contractual agreement with confirmation to Government of India with rules and regulation regarding ecruitment . The two workmen under reference were ecruited for fixed term employment for a specific project : specific work . The appointment was not against rmanent post but on contract only for the specific period. Therefore, after expiry of period , their services were erminated automatically . They cannot claim permanency ir reinstatement . They have denied all the allegations in respect ofthe recruitment and contended that the workmen are not entitled for reinstatement . They are also not entitled for the back wages as has been prayed for. Therefore , they pray that the claim be dismissed with cost .

5. In the light of rival pleadings , my learned Pradecessor has framed issues at Ex - 9 . I record my findings meroon for the reasons to follow:

Issues

Findings

Yes (1) Dous fier party prove that since second party was appointed for particular time, he cannot seek any relief?

Yes Gi ) Is action of first party just and proper ?

No ( ii) is second party entitled for reinstatement with relief as sought ?

Dismissed (iv) What order?

REASONS

issues nos . 1 to 5

6. In the case at hand , after franing the issues , the matter was kept for document and list of witnesses . The second party union neither filed their documents nor has given the list of witnesses , on the other hand it remained absent continuously throughout for number of dates , therefore the first party was allowed to file its affidavit . Accordingly witness Ashok Kini has filed his affidavit at Ex -11 . He stated in his affidavit that both the workers as weil as other workers were appointed on contract basis for a specific period and after expiry of the period their services were automatically terminated . According to him , the nature of work of the dockyard is such that they can appoint labourer on fixed term contract basis . These averments in the affidavit of witness of first party company are not challenged by cross examining him as second party Union and their representative were constantly absent . On the other hand the defence and claim put forth in the written statement is well supported and proved by the

K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 909.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12011/20/2010- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th March , 2011

S.O. 909. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 39/ 2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - I , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7-3-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 /20 / 2010 - IR (B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 39/2010

The Chief Secretary,

Workman Reserve Bank D Class Employees Union , C/ o Reserve Bank of India , Sansad Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

2750

THE ANETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

Versus

The Assistant General Manager ,

Reserve Bank of India,

Department ofAdministration & Personnel ,

6, Sansad Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

...Management

AWARD

Anex - serviceman applied for a post of Darban with Reserve Bank of India hereinafter referred to as the bank) at its Bhopal office on 16-4-98 . He was selected and appointed to that post. He joined his services as Darban on 12-5-99 . On 12th of October , 2000 he was promoted to the post of Security Guard . Vide an application dated 17-7- 2004, which was followed by reminders dated 11-2-2005 and 13-6-2005 , he requested for his compassionate transfer to New Delhi office ofthe bank. His request of transfer was considered and letter dated 9-9-2005 was written , detailing therein that his transfer would be made on the post of Darban on permanent basis , may be posted to any departinent of the bank and on transfer his salary would be fixed in the manner as if he was appointed in the bank as Darban and drawing salary in the same cadre without any promotion . He accepted terms and conditions , referred above, vide his letter dated 19th of September, 2005. On acceptance of terms and conditions he was transferred as Darban to New Delhi office of the bank .

2. On his transfer to New Delhi office , he reported for duty on 3rd of October, 2005. Vide order dated 6th of October, 2005 , he was placed below the junior most temporary Darban in New Delhi office of the bank . Vide order dated 22-2-2006 his salary was re - fixed . He made representation for protection of his salary drawn by him as Security Guard, vide application dated 20-3-2006 . His request was not acceded to and vide letter dated 26-5-2006 he was , accordingly, advised by the bank . He approached Reserve Bank " D " Class Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union ) , which Union made representation to the bank vide its letter dated 28-5-2007 . The bank , made facts clear before the Union , vide its communication dated 23-7-2007 . Another representation was made by the Union on 10th of June , 2008 , which representation was replied by thebank vide its letter dated 29-10-2008 . The Union raised the disptue before the Conciliation Officer. Since the bank insisted on its stand , conciliation proceedings failed . The Conciliation Officer submitted its failure report to the appropriate Government under sub section (4 ) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Onconsideration of the failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under clause (d ) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 10 ofthe Act, vide order No.L - 12011 / 20/2010 - IR ( BI ) New Delhi dated 12-8-2010 , with following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India in changing the designation and

[PART II SS reducing the wages of the workman Shri Rajbir Singi Darban on his request for transfer from Bhopal te New Delhi Office of Reserve Bank of India , is legni and justified? If not , what relief the workmar entitled to ? "

3. Claim statement was filed by the Union pleading therein that Rajbir Singh was initially appointed by the bank as Darban at its Bhopal office on 12-5-99 . He was promoted to the post of Security Guard on 12-10-2000 . H was forced by family circumstances to make a request for histransfer from Bhopal office to New Delhi office ofthe bank. He came to know that there was a vacancy of Security Guard at New Delhi office . The bank agreed for his transter interms of authority vested in it under the Reserve Bank, af India Staff Regulations , 1948 ( hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ) . However , the bank settled terms an conditions of his transfer, which were violative of the Regulations . Since he was facing hardships , hence forced to sign on dotted lines . By way of transfer , he was demoted . reduced in pay and earned increments were withdrawn from him . His seniority was also changed. Such punishments were awarded to him without alleging any misconduct. I service conditions were changed without consulting the Union and following recourse available in Section 9 -A of theAct. Regulations were moulded by the bank in violatior ofthe provisions of the Act , which resulted in exploitation of Shri Rajbir Singh . The bank being a State within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the Constitution, cannot act in any arbitrary manner. Action of the bank is unjust . Various representations made by the Union were declined . A claim has been made that demotion of Rajbir Singh from the post ofSecurity Guard may be held to be violative of the provisions of the Regulations and bank may be directed to restore his pay to the scale in which he was drawing before his transfer to New Delhi office , besides restoration of his seniority as on the date of confirmation to the post of SecurityGuard.

4. The bank demurred the claim pleading thai generally employees of workman category are not transferred from one Centre to another , since they are appointed on non transferable jobs . However , a settlement was arrived at between the bank and All India Reserve Bank Workers Federation ( hereinafter referred to as the Federation) and in terms of clause 3 (2 ) of the said settlement . the bank , at its discretion , may identify number of employees , category and designation- wise , to be r deployed /transferred from one department to anothe department/sections at the same centre or on voluntas basis to other centre to meet its requirements arising o account of change in work , work process and to meet needs of handling new items of work , operational efficiency . productivity and customer service . Voluntary transfers ar considered by the bank on merits from case to case bast The bank pleads that the Regulations are non statutory is nature and can be amended by the Governor in exerciseof 2751

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

his executive powers . In the settlement referred above , no provisions were made for voluntary transfers , which situations are dealt with in accordance with the administrative directions issued .

8. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Harish Sharma , authorised representative , raised submissions on behalf of the claimant Union . Shri R. Mehndiratta , assisted by Ms. Kumkum Bargurjar , authorised representatives advanced arguments on behalf of the bank . Written arguments were also filed by the parties . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

5. Recruitment of Rajbir Singh as Darban at Bhopal office of the bank is not a matter of dispute . It is also not beyond doubt that he joined as Darban on 12-5-99 and was promoted to the post of Security Guard on 12-10-2000. Application dated 12-7-2004 and reminders , dated 11-2-2005 and 13-6-2005 , made by Shri Rajbir Singh for his transfer to New Delhi office of the bank on compassionate grounds , are also not disputed . The bank projects that his case was considered and terms and conditions of transfer were offered vide letter dated 9-9-2005 detailing therein that his transfer would be made on the post of Darban on permanent basis , he would be posted to any department and on transfer his salary would be fixed in such a way as if he has been appointed as Darban and drawing salary in the same cadre without promotion . He was to be placed below the junior most temporary Darban posted in New Deihi office of the bank . He accepted terms and conditions , vide his letter dated 19-2-2005 . Bank pleads that he was relieved from Bhopal office on 1-10-2005 and joined Delhi office on 3-10-2005 . On 6-10-2005 an order placing him below the junior most temporary Darban at New Delhi office was issued. His pay was refixed on 22-2-2006 , against which he made a representation for protection of his pay on 20-3-2006 . His request of protection of his pay was declined , vide communication dated 26-5-2006. Representations made by the Union were considered and replied suitably , pleads the bank .

6. The bank claims that transfer of Rajbir Singh on the post of Darban does not amount to award of penalty to him. It has been asserted that an employee , who commits breach of Regulations , or displays negligence in efficiency, indolence or does anything detrimental to the interest of the bank or in conflict with instructions issued by the bank or anything detrimental to its interest or commits breach of indiscipline , is liable to be dealt with and punished under the Regulations . No such misconduct was committed by Rajbir Singh , hence there was no case of award of punishment to him . It has been projected that assertions of Rajbir Singh that he was demoted , his pay was reduced and earned increments were taken away, are unfounded. His claim that he was forced to sign on dotted lines uncalled for . He accepted terms and conditions of his transfer voluntarily and in pursuance of those terms and conditions he was transferred to the post of Darban , in his base cadre . Claim put forward by the Union has no substance , hence itmay be rejected.

9. When facts unfolded by Shri Rajbir Singh , Gurcharan Singh and Hari Sharma are appreciated , it came to light that on certain circumstances there is an agreement between the parties. Admitted facts , as emerged out of events unfolded by the witnesses , are that on 16-4-98 claimant applied for a post of Darban at its Bhopal Office , copy of which application is Ex.MW1 / 1 . He indicated in thatapplication that he passed Army First Class Certificate of Education , which is equivalent to Matriculation , copy ofwhich certificate is Ex.MW1 /2 . Certificate EX.MW1 / 3 has also been proved , on the strength of which it has been certified that the claimant is educationally qualified for reserved vacancies in group " C " and " D " where prescribed minimum qualification is matriculation . He was recruited in the bank and joined his services as Darban at Bhopal office on 12-5-99 . He was promoted to the post of Security Guard w.e.f. 12-10-2000 , in pursuance of settlement dated 12-10-2000 entered into between the bank and the Federation , copy of which settlement is Ex.MW1 / 11 . He was confirmed to the post of Security Guard w.e.f. 1-11-2001 vide order dated 2-5-2003 , copy of which order is Ex- WW1 / 1 . On 17th of July , 2004 , he made a request to the bank for his transfer to New Delhi office , to enable him to look after his ailing father , who was residing near Delhi as well as to meet social obligations . His application was followed by reminders dated 11-2-2005 and 13-6-2005 . The bank considered his request for transfer and offered certain terms and conditions , contained in letter dated 9-9-2005 , copy of which is Ex - WW1 / 8 . It was made clear to the claimant that he will be transferred as Darban on permanent basis and on his transfer his salary would be fixed in such a way as if he was appointed in the bank as Darban and drawing salary in the same cadre without any promotion . The claimant accepted terms and conditions contained in letter Ex- WW1 /8 , vide his communication dated 14-9-2005 , copy of which is Ex . WW1 / M1 . He made a request to the bank for getting himself relieved from his duties on 1-10-05 to enable him to join his duties at Delhi Office on 3-10-2005 . Transfer order dated 19-9-2005 was issued , relieving the claimant from Bhopal Office on 1-10-2005 with a direction to report to the Regional Director of the bank at New Delhi after availing minimum journey time , copy of which order is Ex.MW1 / 6 . He joined his duties at Delhi office on 3-10-2005.

10. On6-10-2005 an office order was issued , whereby the claimant was posted as Darban w.e.f. 3-10-2005 in 7. Rajbir Singh has examined himself and Shri Gurcharan Singh , the Chief Secretary of the Union , in support of the claim . Shri Hari Shankar Verma , A.G.M. entered the witness box on behalf of the bank . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRAL

Such act of 4 the bank en freeru

Protocol and Security Ceil , New Delhi , copy of which order Ex-MW1 / 12 . On 22-2-2006 his pay was re - fixed in the pay scate of Darban , in terms of office order dated 6-10-05 , copy ofwhich order is Ex. MW1 / 13 . He made a number of representations directly as well as through the Union requesting for his pay protection . His request as well as representation made by the Union were rejected. It led the Union to raise an industrial dispute , which was reserved for diudication, as detailed above .

13. As se formalated spe grade " C" and Ex. MMT T:, as a UT one Centre to other circumstances , flanstinsa grounds . and (2) mea compassionate gronds policy unfolds that sure a effected with complete laur against an availalie vacan any extra experditare, fr . he compassionate ground , have e three main categories , desce

1. Request based on beg spouse's transfer

2. Request for transter used employee's ow Cheskk and

3. Request based on the grou domestic hardshup.

11. As unfolded by Shri Hari Sharına guidelines are issued by the bank, in respect of request transfer of its employees , copy of which guidelines is Ex.MW1 / 4. Shri Mehndiratta argued that no settlement was arrived at between the bank and the Federation in respect of request transfer of group " D " employees from one office of the bank to another office , since such employees are recruited to non transferable jobs . However , he concedes that a settlement was arrived at between the Federation and the bank , on the strength of which the bank may, at its discretion , dentify number of employees , category and designation- wise , to be re - deployed / transferred from one department to another section at the same centre or on voluntary basis to other centre to meet its requirements , arising on account of changes in work and work process and to meet needs of handling new items of work , operational efficiency , productivity, and customer services . Therefore , out of facts presented by Shri Mehndiratta, it is evident that settlement was entered into between the Federation and the bank , on the strength of which settlement a discretion was given to the bank to redeploy / transfer its employees from one department to another at the same centre or on voluntary basis to the other Centres .

14. As detarted in the power top s on domestic grounds are not dat caged to is of genuine and pressing hardshus Phar against reserved vacancies handicapped and ex - servicemen are cre category, whose equest for tren Ss on dorem grounds are to be considered Poney pros ... an employee , other than ex - serviceman whe two years service and eamed satisfactory pott reports and leave records may he sympathetically. " As regards carvikemas that during their tenure in Armed Forces thess non officer category . They are rotated from team to non family centres . Even at family centres 1 quarter facility is meager. Thus during their tur they mostly stay away from their families . Bearm the hardships suffered by them during mittare policy speaks of giving some weightage to ther It was decided that requests of such employees least five years service in the bank and with s leave and performance records may co sympathetically, subject to adminstrative corse 12. Word " voluntary " would denote that a person dees an act of his own volition and knows nature of his act and does not act in performance of a legal duty , nor due to coercion or fraud or misrepresentation or mistake. The word in its primary sense means " from one's own freewill or without compulsion " , in its secondary sense it implies " without any legal obligation " or " not prompted by fear or inducements " , depending upon the context in which it is used . It may mean " without compulsion " and would imply that the person doing an act has the power to refuse it . Word " voluntary " is constantly used in two different senses , as antithesis of something done under compulsion , but it would also be used commonly among lawyers - not uncommoniy among other people as denoting the obtaining or giving of something without anything being obtained in return . Considering the meaning of word " voluntary" , as used in the settlement , referred above , it emerges that the bank can redeploy / transfer its employees from one Centre to another if an employee volunteers himself for such re- deployment / transfer . Though redeployment/ transfer on voluntary basis as provided in the settlement may have different concepts in view, yet an employee has to volunteer for such redeployment / transfer from one Centre to another .

15. Factual matrix of the controvers ng t the claimant is an ex - serviceman , ale joined lis of the bank as a Darban . He oudite service and his service as well as leave fo to be satisfactory . He made a request fet compassionate grounds . since he was face hardships . His father , more than 20 years old. near Delhi and not keeping good health. The भारत का एलएन अगेन ?,

vashaiy more eland.nour expenses on joanticy 42 quest for taoafer on compassionate ground .

ancicered by the benk . Finding substance grant it under formes and 小小花 duard bee

Fanath Bansferred as Daroan on permancat

pisited to any deprimere

swim was infrin

apposted the bes when pursed soles the jmier most mopheary traman pestra in New Dell Office of aerops of his commey Fon Ara tha pornose of allotment of residential zalodation hts service ai New Delni Office be counted . ile was not to avail any pony dwe, na shable for minimum lourney time future his application for transfer to any other teway to be comidered , nor the back to sceciner his raquest for amendment incesaud condicions .

chmod by the bank , policy Ex.MW14 was Ar tops of administrative instructions, where meis pervers enacteo by sub- section ( 2 ) of section Andere Lank of india Act , 1934 ( in short the Bank ShMelodiratta arguod ' hat the Regulations were cot Then by the bank white exercising power under sub- section of the Bank Act. He agitetes that Regularons are non statutory and can be modiled четга руле back by issuance of administrative chloons , Contra to i Shri Sharma agitates that by ence of administrative instructions the bank canno afterthe provisions contained in the Regulations . Whether Resulations are statutory Such a preposition arose before the Apex Court in VI. Khanzode 1982 SCR . (3 ) 4111, wherein it was ruled that the Regulations were not framed wthe bank under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 58 of the Bank Ad Hence these are non - statutory in character . The Court Aeni on to conclude that the bank has power to issue tomuustava instructions or circulars regulating anchors on smejo of its staff in exercise of powers cuformed be sa b - section (2 ) of section 7 of the Bank Act . or zaounced therein that the bank was competent to Depan Repuhiions by issuance of administrative dam . No lack of statutory power was found te be gersted in the process . Thus the law laid by the Apex

275 12, 19.3

Court makes it clear that the bank has power to issue circulas Claini made by Shri Mehndiratta that poires CX MWI was formed by the bank under sub - section ( 2 ) of section 7 of the Bank Act is found to be based ou preposimon of naw laid by the Apex Court in above precedens

med to 7. Now and be taken into accone da Rev betin polies Us. Atv14 violates right of eptalty ימיפיט by the Constitution to ansact De Tribi h to teks mue BuComet balot as per this settlemen: Darbars iviceinan category , vere to be plove szereCerita ale as Security Guard to the date of th rice sake of convenience rakyat prostor the said ett " nent are extracted this

"Thee Listing Darbans who are recited frondee. ervusmen category will be placed in the Gremp scale of the Security Guards , as from the date of this seth crent , if they are not already promoted as Security Guards . They will continue to perform in same duties as Darbans until such time they are snsorbed on regular basis as Security Guards 1 Settlement Ex MW1/ 11 makes it clear that all wxisting Darbans , recruited from ex - serviceiman category. wert w be placed in Group II scale as Security Guards . fon die date of the said settlement , if they are not alread promitted as Security Guard . Thus it is evident that on 12-10-2000 all Darbans , recruited from ex - servicemen category, vere placed in group 11 scale as Security Guards . no matter where they were recruited and posted. They were to perfon duties of Darban until absorbed on regular basis as Security Guard . Thus it is evident that by putting its hand to the settlement Ex . MW1 / 11 , the bank put itself uncer an obligation to place all Darbans , recruited from ex- servicemen category, in Group II scale as Security Guard . It is to be assumed that this settlement was followed by the bank in its letter and spilt . Therefore , all Darbans , recruited from cx- servicenen category were placed in Group 11 scale as Security Guards w.e.f. 12th of October , 2000 , no matter they were posted at Bhopal Office or any other office of the bank.

19. When claimant was transferred on compassionate grounds to New Delhi Office of the bank , can it be said that his status as Darban , recruited from ex - servicemen category, stood changed . Answer lies in negative . Whether it is available to the bank to contend that by acceptance of terms and conditions contained in Ex . WW1/ 8 , the claimant could put an end to operation of the said settlement ? The said settlement was arrived at between the parties otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings and shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties and if no such period is agreed upon for a period of six months from the day on which the memorandum of 204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

settlement is signed by the parties and shall continue to be binding, after the expiry of the period aforesaid until the expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party to the settlement , enacts sub- section (2 ) of Section 19 of the Act . A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognized majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment and even to those who belong to the mormy union which had objected to the same . The object obviously isto be upheld the sanctity of settlement reached art the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement . A settlement reached with the help of Conciliation Officer has an underlying assutoption that it must be fair and reasonable and can, herefore , safely be made binding not only ofthe workmen helonging to the union signing the settlement but also on others . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex court in Barauni Refineries Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad [ 1991 ( 1) 1.1 1.461.

20. A settlement shall be binding upon the parties for such period as is agreed upon or for a period of six months from the day on which the memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties and shall continue to be binding on the parties after expiry of the period referred above , untri expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party to the settlement , as detailed above . Thus there are three stages with different legal effects on the life of a settlement . There is a specific period contractually or statutorily fixed as the period of operation . After expiry of statutorily fixed period , settlement does not cease to be effective . But it continues to be binding on parties until notice has been given by one of the parties of its intention to terminate it and two months have not elapsed from the date of such notice . This is the second stage . The last stage is arrived at when period of notice , under sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 19 of the Act, expires. After this the settlement ceases to be binding under the Act . However , termination of the settlement will not have effect ofextinguishing the rights following therefrom.

21. It is not the case of the bank that a notice was served on the Federation to terminate the settlement referred above . Therefore , the settlement Ex.MW1 / 11 was in operation on the date when the claimant accepted terms and conditions contained in Ex.WW1 / 8 . When he was transferred to New Delhi office , the said settlement was very much in operation . Darbans , who were appointed from ex - servicemen category, were getting their salaries in grade II applicable to Security Guards . The claimant was also recruited as Darbans from ex -servicemen category . On his transfer to New Delhi office , his status as Darban , recruited from ex - servicemen category, was not at all

[PART II SH changed. In such a situation he was placed in the car .. category in which Darban , recruited from ex - serviceact category were placed.

22. Equality before law and equal protection et are fundamental rights of every person , ordains Arte of the Constitution . The guiding principles laid in Arte 14 are that persons , who are similarly situated , shal . treated alike both in privileges conferred and Har imposed , which means that amongst equals the lawall be equal and should be equally administered and that s should be treated a like . Article 16 of the Constit guarantees equality of opportunities for all cinzer nmatters relating to employment or appointment to any a under the State . What is guaranteed is the equalit opportunity. Like all other employers , Governnient entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large dubn or candidates offering themselves for employment. Esthe icction process must not be arbitrary. The guaran given by clause ( a ) of Article 16 of the Constitution cover (a) initial appointments (b) promotions ( c ) terminat ... ofemployment , (d) and matters relating to salary , periods . increments , leaves , gratuity , pension , age superannuation etc. Matters relating to employmen appointments include all matters in relations to emplosm.. both prior and subsequent to the employment which incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.

23. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Articl forbids class legislation , but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable grond of discretion . Classification is the recognition of the relations , and in making it the Government must allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment . a way, the consequences of such classification wowied undoubtedly be to differentiate persons belonging thatclass from others . The classification must be founded on an intelligible different which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left t of the group and the differentia must have a ratiomi relation to the object sought to be achieved . Classificaton may be made according to the nature of persons , nature of business , and may be based with reference to time 24. Concept of equality guaranteed by Artsu of the constitution is something more than forcal equality and enables the under privileged groups te has a fair share by having more than equal chance del enables the state to give favoured treatment to dose groups by achieving real equality with reference to socht ! needs . ' Protection discrimination' enabled the state adopt new strategy to bring under privileged at par winn the rest of the society, by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them. Therefore a cla may be allowed to have preferential treatment in der matter relating to employment or appointment . fre cannot be rule of equality between members of separ de [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

and independent group of persons . Persons can be classified in different groups , based on in terms of nature of persons , nature of business and with reference to time.

25. Whether it is available to the bank to contend that on his compassionate transfer to New Delhi office , the claimant stood transferred to a different category than the Darbans recruited from ex - servicemen category. Admittedly claimant was recruited at Bhopal office of the bank and transferred to New Delhi office on compassionate grounds . But settlement Ex . MW1 / 11 does not make any difference in a Darban recruited from ex - servicemen category and working at the place of his initial recruitment than one who is transferred to another office on compassionate ground. Consequently , it is emerging over the record that on his transfer to New Delhi office on compassionate grounds , the claimant had not acquired a different status than a Darban recruited from ex - servicemen category. In respect of applicability of settlement Ex . MW1 / 11 it is crystal clear that the claimant is placed in the same bracket in which Darbans recruited from ex - servicemen category are placed . By treating him in a different category, the bank had denied fundamental rights of equality , available to the claimant . Therefore, the action of the bank cannot be held to be legał and justified on that proposition .

26. There is other facet of the coin . As detailed above , the bank claims that the guidelines contained in Ex . MW1 / 4 have been issued by the bank under its powers contained in sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 7 of the Bank Act . Admittedly guidelines so issued are administrative in nature . Guidelines contained in Ex.MW1 / 4 ordains that an employee shall be transferred to another office in his base cadre , irrespective of the fact that he has been promoted to a higher pedestal . Thus it is evident that policy puts a constraint on an employee , in respect of his livelihood . In Olga Tellis (AIR 1986 SC 180 ) the Apex Court ruled that the word " life " in Article 21 includes the right to " livelihood " also . The Court ruled as follows :

" It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as , for example , by the imposition and execution of death sentences , except according to procedure established by law , that is but one aspect of the right to life . An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life , the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood . In view of the fact that Article 39 ( a) and 41 require the State to secure to the citizen an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pendentary to exclude the

2755

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

right to livelihood from the content of the right to life. "

27. But in Sodan Singh ( AIR 1989 SC 1988 ) Supreme Court has held that right to carry on any trade or business is not included in the concept of life and personal liberty . The Court distinguished the ruling in Olga Tellis case and held that it was not applicable to that case . A landmark judgement in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union ( AIR 1992 SC 789 ) lays down that daily wages workmen employed under the Jawaharlal Roozgar Yojna has no right of automatic regularization even though they have put in work for 240 or more days . In a significant judgement in D.K. Yadav ( 1993 ( 3 ) SCC 258 ) , the Apex Court has held the right to life , as enshrined under Article 21 , includes the right to livelihood and therefore termination of service of a worker without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing is unjust , arbitrary and illegal . The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 and so it must be right , just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive . In short . it must be in conformity of the rules of natural justice . Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content ofdignity of person would be reduced to animal existence .

28. The Apex Court in A.K. Gopalan ( AIR 1950 S.C. 27) put a narrow construction and ruled that reasonableness of law depriving personal liberty cannot be tested on the touch stone of Article 19. According to view expressed in the said precedent , if the statute enacted is valid within the ambit of Articles 21 and 22 , the courts would be powerless to question propriety of the legislation on the count that it seeks to " unduly " restrict personal liberty. But in R.C.Kooper ( AIR 1970 S.C. 564 ) the Apex Court considered co - relation of Article 19 ( 1 ) ( f) to Article 31 ( 2 ) and held that one thread runs through the fundamental rights as they seek to protect the right of an individual or grouproup of the individual against infringement of those rights within the specific limits . Wavelength set for comprehending scope and ambit of fundamental rights was given its zenith in Maneka Gandhi ( AIR 1978 S.C. 597 ) , wherein it was ruled that " personal liberty " in Article 21 " is of widest amplitude and it covers variety of rights which go to constitute personal liberty of a man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19. " The court laid down that Article 21 is controlled by Article 19 and does not exclude Article 19 even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of his personal liberty and there is , consequently no infringement of the fundamental rights , conferred by Article 21 , such law in so far as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that Article . Any law prescribing THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2, 2011 / CHA

Apex Co

whether set cufina

by auction is stammendra

jadicizi Fa

apply we Marin

discretion the

substantive

when there

makes

the decision

so dispat at though ther

does not mer at the co

confirming of act

he procedure for depriviation of personal sy h answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be " right and just anti tai and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive , would be no procedure at all and the requirement of cirle 21 would not be satisfied. Thus pro development oflaw tells that substantive fairuan was rouget into concept of personal liberty in R.C Kooper casewhile procedural fairness has stepped in by Maks Gandhi case , which became sping board for a sufied pplication of Article 21. One can say that Article 21 hus os. become the soul of the Constitution.

qucrion was t

(AIR 1970 SC

board was also

24. Thus Article 21 requires tor following Jitions to be fulfilled before a person is deprived of ilite o liberty :

contrary to d

There must be a valid law.

ruled as uncle

(2 ) The law must provide a procedure .

31. Leang ft

power and

The procedure must be just , fair and casundum

being grada .

power is almsted

6) The jaw must satisfy the requirement of Articies . I and 19, that is, it must be reasonable.

power one

conferred , die mach

the framewo

consequcn

and the manager in which

exercised . hada Cars

over the entire set of casio nay a

the State

controtled by the role of law, ina Avila . Ma .

it is inevitable in at one passador of

bodies is mera af d

of law wolid lose is visatie aan

the State are chargedh cuts of

their function, in fatt ang at P

ofacting judically it, essence noding out

to actjustly a my and no

The procedures which are

exercise of a power as ali

facilitate if not are a par

years the cortel

undergoing & ted that w

an administran

considered as

32.

courts that uses the supасте години

by the law u

there was no veon for e .

natural justice . The validity or en lang

questioned . If the purpose of the

is to prevent miscarriage of jitbutte se hits

those rules sao be made ruj pie able at cabine

enquiries. Ofter times it с наем cre the hom

demarcates admistrative enquire to man 30. At the cost of repetition it is said that the guidelines /policy impinge upon right to livelihood of the claimant. Right to livelihood is a fundamental right , as aid by the Apex Court in the precedents referred above . The bank is an instrumentality of the State, within the caning of Article 12 of the Constitution Question for Consideration comes as to whether policy Fx. MWI / 4 answers standards of substantive and procedural fairness, 1s laid in the precedents referred above . Before embarking upon the above proposition, the Tribunal cannot be blivious of the issue as to whether act of issuance of the policy is a quasi -judicial or admittistrative function . Whenever any body of persons having legal authority determiltte questions affecting rights of subjects, and having duty to act judiciously act in excess of their legal authority they are subject to controlling jurisdiction of the courts . Distinction between quasi -judicial and administrative functions was considered by the Apex Court for the first time in Khushal Das ( AIR 1950 5.С. wherein it was ruled that whenever there is etermination of the fact which affects right of the . opties, the decision cannot be termed as quasi -judicial all circumstances . The court held that because an ecutive authority has to determine certain objective laete as a preliminary step to the discharge of an ecutive function , it does not follow that it must determine those facts judiciously. In such cases the letermination of an objective fact on exercise of the power based thereon are alike matters of an administrative character It was further observed that when the law inder which the authorities make a decision itself qures a judicial approach the decision will be quasi -judicial , in Shankar Lal ( AIR 1965 S.C. 507 ) the enquiries . Enquiries which were sider t [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

at one time are now being considered as quasi -judicial in character . Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi -judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries . An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi- judicial enquiry....... "

33. Even when an administrative body is given power to decide something in its discretion the courts would assess it on standards of fair procedure . If the principles of natural justice are not to be observed in deciding the rights of parties by administrative authorities then the administrative authority will be free to take arbitrary decision because there is much truth in the aphorism of Lord Atkin that " power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Natural justice is , therefore , the name given to certain rights which are considered necessary to proper exercise of power. Pendency of a lis in strict sense is not essential before a statutory function becomes quasi -judicial . When an administrative order takes away any right then principles of natural justice becomes applicable to it and their violation can be challenged in a court of law. This is not a case of enforcing administrative order but objecting to the violation of the principles of natural justice . If an administrative order confers a right which becomes part of service conditions than it will become enforceable . Principles of natural justice are applicable to deprivation of such rights .

34. As held above , settlement Ex . MW1 / 11 confers a right on all Darbans , recruited from ex - servicemen category, to be placed in Grade II applicable to Security Guards w.e.f. 12-10-2000 . This right became enforceable under Section 18 of the Act . Its operation was in continuance , as per provisions of Section 19 of the Act . During continuance of operation of settlement Ex. MW1 / 11 , the administrative instructions in the form of policy Ex . MW1 /4 was brought in, which impinges upon the right of the claimant . While giving effect to that policy the bank was under an obligation to act judiciously.

35. Now it would be considered as to whether the policy answers standards of fairness , substantive and procedural . No procedure is there in the policy, under which right of the Durban , recruited from ex - serviceman category, can be taken away in the event of his transfer on compassionate grounds . Hence policy Ex. MW1 /4 does not answer standards of fairness . The policy is in the form of an order or an administrative instructions , which can not take away right of livelihood of the claimant, without satisfying the standards of substantive as well as procedural fairness . None of these standards stood satisfied, when the bank opted to act upon the said policy. Consequently, the action of the bank cannot be upheld, being violative of the right to livelihood available to the claimant . Therefore , action of the bank is found to be unjust unfair and illegal on that count too .

1023 G1/11--24

2757

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

36. In view of the reasons detailed above it is concluded that the bank had acted contrary to the settlement Ex . MW1 / 11 and in violation of fundamental rights of the claimant , when his pay was fixed in the scale of Darban vide order dated 22-2-2006 . The bank was under an obligation to place him in Grade II applicable to Security Guards and to protect his pay. Therefore , action of the bank to that extent is set aside . The bank iscommanded to place the claimant in Grade II applicable to the Security Guards , refix his pay and release his arrears accordingly. An award is passed in terms of the missives given hereinabove . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 27-12-2010 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 910. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स नेशनल फरेट करियर एण्ड ट्रॉस्पोर्ट मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई के पंचार (संदर्भ संख्या 6/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31011 /9/ 2002- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th March , 2011

S.O. 910. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , (the 6/2003 ... ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Freight Carriers and Transport Mumbai and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-3-2011 .

[No. L- 31011 /9/2002 - IR ( M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 MUMBAI PRESENT Κ. Β . ΚΑΤΑKE

Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2 / 6 OF 2003 Employers in Relation to the management of National Freight Carriers 2758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

The Director,

M/s. National Freight Carriers , C/ o . Orient House , 4th floor Adi Marzban Path , Ballard Estate Mumbai-400038

AND THEIR WORKMEN

The President , Transport & Dock Workers Union , P. D'mello Bhawan , Carnac Bunder, Mumbai -400 038 .

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. S. K. Walunj , Representative .

FOR THE WORKMEN : No appearance .

Mumbai , dated the 7th December , 2010

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No.L-31011 / 9/2002 - IR ( M) dated 23-01-2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management in relation to National Freight Carriers , Mumbai in retrenching the 162 workmen as per the list annexed in terms of their order dated 9-11-2001 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workmen entitled to ? " 1. Mr. Ashok K. Sharma ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002. )

2. Mr. A.Y. Mukalingum

3. Mr. Dilip B. Walimbe

4. Mr. Jagdishchandra Sharma

5. Mr. Lanka Dellerao

6. Mr Padala C. Dillerao

7. Mr. Rambriksha Z. Pandit (Taken back as per HighCourt order on 15-3-2002.)

8. Mr. Sauleram R. Sarathi

9. Mr. Satyam Madhavan

10. Mr. Shashipal Sharma

11. Mr. Shahaji Ghadge ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

12. Mr. Baban Dabade

13. Mr. Bapu Katkar (Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

[PART II SEC.Stii) 14. Mr. Balu Katkar ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

15. Mr. Chandrakant Chauhan

16. Mr. Dilip Borge (Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

17. Mr. Hardayal Choudhary ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

18. Mr. Kundalik Katkar

19. Mr. Muktar Husain

20. Mr. Popat Dada Pawar

21. Mr. Tanaji Yamgar

22. Mr. Ramprasad Chouhan

23. Mr. Ram Vilas Pandit

24. Mr. Sayaji Thitme

25. Mr. Subash Sangolkar

26. Mr. Sachidananda Singh

27. Mr. Adik Ghadge

28. Mr. Bajrang Javir

29. Mr. Hariram Prasad

30. Mr. P. Tarkeshwarrao

31. Mr. Rajkumar Sarova

32. Mr. Ratanlal Sharma

33. Mr. Sanjaykumar Mishra

34. Mr. Satnam Singh

35. Mr. Shivaji Saste

36. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma

37. Mr. Sanchitkumar Chouhan

38. Mr. Sampat R. Jadhav

39. Mr. Bhikaji Ishwar Jadhav

40. Mr. Khasaba Sule

41. Mr. Pandurang K. Sargar

42. Mr. Ansiram Pokale

43. Mr. Babji Chikne

44. Mr. Lalji D. Yadav

45. Mr. Balu Thorat

46. Mr. Indrajit L. Singh

47. Mr. Kisan D. Jadhav ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

48. Mr. Bharat S. More

49. Mr D.G. Wagh

50. Mr. Premsingh G. Punia

51. Mr. Shahji Jagdale

52. Mr. Uttam V. Ghadge

53. Mr. Baba Nana Taware

54. Mr. Balu A. Kadam [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

55. Mr. Dyandeo G. Ughade

56. Mr. Nankumar S. Katkar

57. Mr. Arun C. More

58. Mr. Arun V. Bansode

59. Mr. Dada Barge

60. Mr. Dattray D. Roman

61. Mr. Hanumant V. Pawar

62. Mr. Hariram M. Dande

63. Mr. Jalinder Jadhav

64. Mr. Kalapa L. Kurbet

65. Mr. Krishna A. Gaikwad ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

66. Mr. Mahdeo Mahiwale

67 Mr. Rajendra B.Salunke

68. Mr. Rajesh R. Chouhan

69. Mr. Rajgopal D.Sahani

70. Mr. Ramsingh B. Patel

71. Mr. Ratnkat B. Shinde

72. Mr. Satish N. Pinjare

73. Mr. Sharad S. Kadam

74. Mr. Subash D. Bagal

75. Mr. Vijay D. Lingade

76. Mr. Vijay S. Kadam

77. Mr. Vilas Pawar

78. Mr. Vilas Katkar

79. Mr. Balkrishna K. Kadam

80. Mr. Bipinkumar Thakur

81. Mr. C.B. Awate ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

82. Mr. Kuldeep M. Dhiman

83. Mr. Mohan Sanghraj Raj ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

84. Mr. M.B. Gaikwad (Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

85. Mr. Nan Balku Awate

86. Mr. Ramsare B. Jaiswal

87. Mr. Ravindra Wankhede

88. Mr. Shivaji Gadge ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

89. Mr. Sunil Suryavanshi

90. Mr. B.B.Diongre

91. Mr. B.B.Shinde ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

92. Mr. Mahadeo Gahdge ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

93. Mr. R.M.Katkar ( Taken back as per High Court

2759

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

order on 15-3-2002 . )

94. Mr. Pradeep K.Babar

95. Mr. Shivaji Suryawanshi

96. Mr. Vaman S. Karmare

97. Mr. Babanrao Salunke

98. Mr. Vilas R.Gawade

99. Mr. Prakash P. Udhar

100. Mr. Rajaram R.Narsale

101. Mr. Ashok N. Zaware

102. Mr. Dilip S. Khupte

103. Mr. Vilas D. Gawade

104. Mr. Bhausaheb B. Choudhari

105. Mr. Baban K. Mangade

106. Mr. Sambhaji V. Narsale

107. Mr. Dyaneshwar B. Gawade

108. Mr. Appa V. Kusekar

109. Mr. Dugdu Pawar

110. Mr. Sham A. Bhosle ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

111. Mr. Babulal M. Saket

112. Mr. Ramesh V. Ahire

113. Mr. Suhas Mane

114. Mr. Anil R.Farande ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

115. Mr. Akram Khan

116. Mr. Prakash Patankar

117. Mr. Surendra Shukla

118. Mr. Vithal Taware

119. Mr. Sopan A. Suryawanshi

120. Mr. Ankush D. Kare

121. Mr. Balu Nivruti Dabade

122. Mr. Arogya Das

123. Mr. Sadashiv D. Kankatray

124. Mr. Uttam Temkar

125. Mr. Vikas Kadam

126. Mr. Ananda Pradhan

127. Mr. Suresh Ghutugade

128. Mr. Sanjay Lawate

129. Mr. Santosh Waikar

130. Mr. Ashok Rajbhar

131. Mr. Rambhor Chouhan

132. Mr. Rakeshkumar Chouhan

133. Mr. Rambriksha Yadav

134. Mr. Arjun B. Singh

135. Mr. Anna D. Thitme THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12. 1933

136. Mr. Ramchandra Chouhan

137. Mr. Arvind More

138. Mr. Santosh Bibve

139. Mr. Ramdas Kandalkar

140. Mr. Karryappa N. Sargar

141. Mr. Jaiprakash Singh

1.12. Mr. Bhavan Singh

143. Mr. Jaihind L Singh

144. Mr. Rajesh Yadav

145. Mr. Abdul Shaikh

146. Mr. Hargovind Singh

17. Mr. Parsuram Chouhan

148. Mr. Nandkumar Shelke

149. Mr. Ashok Pawar

150. Mr. Ashok Mane (Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002.)

151. Mr. Balrarm Singh ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002.)

152. Mr. Deepchand Rajbhar( Taken back as per High Courn order on 15-3-2002 .)

153. Mr. Rohidas Randive ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

154. Mr. Babso Gaikwad

55. Mr. Sohansingh Negi ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

150. Mr. Ronald Menezes

1.57 Mr. Dinanatlı Chouhan ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

158. Mr. Paguram Chouhan (Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

i . Mr. Om Prakash Singh

160. Mr. Patan Chouhan (Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 . )

101. Mr. Ramdeen Chouhan

152. Mr. Ramkewal Chouhan ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

163. Mr. Ramdeo Chouhan

164. Mr. Ramkwal Shukla ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002 .)

165. Mr. Subahs Singh

166. Mr. Birendra Singh

167. Ramashankar Barai ( Taken back as per High Court order on 15-3-2002. )

168. Mr. Dashrath Thitme

169. Mr. Chandrakant Khatke

170. Mr. Dagdu Kadam

171. Mr. Anthony D'Souza

172. Mr. Feux Parriera

173. Mr. Ashok Brahme

[PART II S ===

174. Mr. Sahab lal

175. Mr. Devidas K. Bhosle

176. Mr Virendra Mourya

177. Mr. Sudama B. Rai

178. Mr. Deepak Peer

179. Mr. Reginaldo Fernandes

180. Mr. Arokia Agne !

181. Mr. Cyril D'Souza

182. Mr. Joseph Cardoza

183. Mr. Sanjay B. Gangurde

184. Mr. Randhir Singh

185. Mr. Anil Jagdale

186. Mr. Deepal Mohite

187. Mr. Manish Sawant

188. Mr.Vitthal Barge

189. Mr. Dilip Jadhav

190. Mr. Shantaram Pal

191. Mr. Shahji Bhjosale

2. In response to the notice of Reference second party union has filed its statement of clans Exh.6 . According to them , the first party manageme served one workman with a notice dated 9-11-2001 : retrenchment . The company has served with the st notice of retrenchment with malafied intention to termin .. the services of workman under the garb of retrenchm The notices were sent at the residential addresses of d respective workers . They have not contacted the un though office of the company is just near to the offis. of the union . Many workers received their respect notices at a late stage . Some received the notices 21-11-2001 for the retrenchment w.e.f. 22-11-2001 union was kept in dark . The action of the company illegal and unjustified . Therefore , the union approached to Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Mumba There was much unrest amongst the workers of the company. The Labour Commissioner made an attempt conciliation . There was prolonged discussion . However there was no settlement . Therefore , Labour Commissioner made report of the dispute to Central Government . Ministry of Labour and Employment . The Ministry setum the above said Reference to this Tribunal for determination. The Union , therefore , pray that action of the company retrenching 162 workmen be declared unjustified, illegal and void . The Union also prays that the said order of retrenchment be set aside and service of162 workmen be continued with full back wages and other benefits including continuity of services .

3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex.8. Accordingto them , the Reference in respect of retrenchment of 162 workmen is bad in law and the same deserves to be rejected [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

According to them , out of retrenched 191 workmen , some are Round Bosses and Supervisors . They were working purely in supervisory and managerial capacity. They were drawing pay of Rs.1600 per month . They are not workmen within the meaning of section 2 (s ) of I.D. Act . Inspite of that they were given retrenchment compensation and notice. It is further contended that issue of retrenchment is pending before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.638 / 2002 . Out of 162 employees , 76 employees have accepted all their legal dues including notice pay, retrenchment compensation , gratuity etc. They have no grievance about their retrenchment . The rest of the workers were also served with the notices . Cheque of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay were also sent along with the notices of retrenchment . The company is facing economic problem , therefore , they have decided to retrench their workers . They have followed the procedure as per law . The union is thus not entitled to any relief . Therefore , they pray that the Reference be rejected .

4. Following are the issues for my determination . ! record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Issues

Findings

( i) is reference maintainable since 21 employees are not falling under the definition of employees " as stated under para - 2 of the written statement ? In the negative ( ii) Whether 76 employees cannot contest the reference since they accepted their legal dues

as a result of settlement ? In the negative .

( iii ) Whether retrenchment of 313 workers is just and proper and was effected by following due process of law?

In the affirmative .

( iv) Whether 160 employees are entitled for reinstate- ment with back wages and continuity in service ? In the negative ( v) What order ?

As per final order .

Reasons

issue no . 1 :

5. According to the first party, company the 21 employees are not falling under the definition of employees . According to them, they were Round Bosses and Supervisors and were working purely in supervisory and managerial capacity . They were drawing pay of Rs . 1600 p.m. therefore they are not workmen within the

2761

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

meaning of Section 2 ( s ) of the 1.D.Act . In this respect would like to point out that the second party workers have not produced any evidence to show the contrary . The burden was on the second party union to establish the fact that these 21 employees were workmen as defined under Section 2 (s ) of the 1. D. Act . Though the Secretary of the union has filed his affidavit dated 25-8-2004. However neither he remained present for affirmation thereof nor attended the court to face the cross examination , therefore his affidavit by way of examination in chief cannot be read in evidence . In short union has not led any evidence in support of its case and to discharge the burden. Thus I hold that the union failed to establish the fact that the 21 employees referred in issue no.l are the workmen as defined under Section 2 ( s) of the I.D. Act . Accordingly I decide this issue no.l in the negative .

Issue no . 2 :

6. It is alleged on behalf of the first party company that 76 employees cannot contest this reference and claim any relief as they have already accepted their legal dues as a result of settlement . The burden was on the second party union to lead the evidence or to examine the representative of these 76 witnesses to deny the allegation . The second party union has not examined any of the witnesses or their representatives . They have not denied the averments on oath . Therefore , this issue is required to be decided against the union for want of any evidence . Accordingly, I decide this issue no . 2 in the negative that these 76 employees cannot contest the reference since they have accepted the settlement and also received their legal dues in consequent thereto .

Issues no . 3 & 4 :

7. It is the case of the first party company that their financial condition is not good, therefore , they have retrenched 313 workers . According to them , they served to these workers each with a notice of retrenchment alongwith a cheque of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay . This averment of first party company is not denied by the second party union by examining relevant witnesses or by producing any document . Therefore neither retrenchment can be called illegal nor the employees are entitled for reinstatement as has been claimed for . There is absolutely no evidence led by the second party union . Accordingly I decide these issues no . 3 & 4 in the negative . As a result , I dismiss the reference for want of evidence and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

cost . The reference is dismissed with no order as to Date : 7-12-2010

Κ. Β . ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer 2762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 911.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. चैन्नई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 380/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था !

[सं. एल-30011 /22/2004 - आई आर (एभ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th March , 2011

S.O. 911.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the 380/ 2004....) 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 AED Cauvery Project ONGC Karaikal/ TEXCO Chennai and their workman , which was received by the C'entra! Government on 8-3-2011 .

[No. 1-30011 / 22 / 2004 - IR ( M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 21st December, 2010 Present . A.N. JANARDANAN Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 380/2004 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d ) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industria ! Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of ONGC and their workmen)

BETWEEN

: 1 Party/ Petitioner Union i he General Secretary, ONGC General Employees nion

AND

: 2nd Party/

IstManagement 1. The Assistant Manager/ AED, Cauvery Project , : ONGC. Karaikal

2. The Management of TEXCO, Chennai .

: 2nd Party/ 2nd Management APPEARANCE :

For the Ist Party/Petitioner : Mr. J. Narayana Moorthy, Advocate

[PART il- SEC. Stin For the 1st Respondent

M/ s . P. Arulmudi & P. Srinivasan , Advocates

For the 2nd Respondent

M3.S.K. Selvaran Advocates

AWARD ON SETTLEMENT

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour Ma Order No.L- 30011 /22 /2004 - IR ( M) dated 9-6-2004 referred the dispute to this Tribunai for adjudication Ti. Schedule mentioned dispute is as follaves ,

"Whether the workmen ( listed below) are conten labourers of ONGC or not ? ift, to what relic the are entitled and whether the termination of the workmen is justified or no in not to what refier they are entitled ? List S/ Shri C. Kannan . G. Pandarinathan , P. Nagarajan . M. Sanıbandar . U. Swaminathan , V. S. Bose , N. Subramania... P. Balasundaram and A Redhakrishnan ." 2. After the receipt of the reference it was taken file as I.D.No.380 /2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and riled their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Clair . Statement are briefly as foliows :

The Petitioner union espouses the cause of the str workmen concerned in this dispute . They are ex - servicemer and are fully qualified for the post and on being relieved from military tenure these employees got registered ar Ex servicemen Corporation Ltd. for employment namely under 2nd Respondent and these workmen were sponsored for an interview and selection by the Ist Respondent on 16-5-94 and they were selected as instrumen : technicians . The 1st Respondent initially appointed these persons on contract basis . They were given training by the Ist Respondent Corporation . After their training , they were given posting in a rigs at various sites on general shit basis and it was carried out by the Deputy Superintending Engineer ( Instrument ) of Respondent/Management . Thus . the control of engagement , deployment and relieving from duty was carried out by Deputy Superintending Engineer who is the officer of 1st Respondent/Management and their duties were also fixed by Ist Respondent and these employees after performing the duties have to report to officers of 1st Respondent . Further, the Government of India under Section 10 ( 1 ) of Contract Labour ( Regulation &Abolition) Act issued not issued notification on 8-9-94 prohibiting the employment of contract labourers in 13 categories and instrument technician is one of the categories prohibited by the Government of india to be employed on contract basis . Therefore , the Ist Respondent corporation did not enter into any written contract for 2763

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

disciplinary matters . Their service conditions are framed by the 2nd Respondent . Further , the concerned employees do not fall under definition of contract labour as per Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition ) Act since they are hired ofthrough the contractor only in connection with the work of 1st Respondent . Therefore , they remain permanent employees of 2nd Respondent and not of the ONGC as alleged and there is no any nexus of employer and employee relationship between them and ONGC as alleged . The Ist Respondent gave a contract to the 2nd Respondent for the purpose of providing technical services for its R & T system . The services to be provided were only semi skilled . The repairs and maintenance operation were done by their technical staff. For this work, the 1st Respondent has fixed sum of money to the 2nd Respondent as stipulated in the contract. The concerned employees are engaged only in maintenance work of ONGC through 2nd Respondent where there is no prohibition . The notification mentioned by the Petitioner will not be applicable to the concerned employees . The vacant post in the office will be strictly filled up by open recruitments in accordance with service regulation of ONGC . The claim of the Petitioner for recruitment has no legal basis and they are not entitled to any regularisation under service rules . Between this Respondent and the petition mentioned workmen , there is no employer -employee relationship and they are employed by the 2nd Respondent which pays their salary etc. and all service conditions are governed by 2nd Respondent . The concerned employees were terminated consequent upon the enquiry and they were never appointed by this Respondent . The concerned employees have no locus standi to question the contract entered into between the 1st and 2nd Respondent . Even assuming that the contract is not valid one , it does not mean that the Petitioner became the regular employees of the Respondent . Hence , for all these reasons , the 1st Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

supplying these labourers with the 2nd Respondent . Further in the communication to employees , it was not stated that employment of these employees is by 2nd Respondent TEXCO under contract with the 1st Respondent . No doubt , wages were paid to 2nd Respondent herein and who in turn , distributed the same to the employees . But the 2nd Respondent acted only as Mukdum or Maistry in collecting wages and distributed the sum so collected to these employees . Further , merely collecting service charges will not establish the concerned employee as contract employees . Manpower study of Cauvery Project made by 1st Respondent Industrial Engineering Department recommended vacancies to be filled up by recruitment and the 1st Respondent invited applications to fill up these posts . Even though the concerned employees made representation , they were not considered for recruitment to these posts . Therefore , they have filed a Writ Petition before High Court and High Court has passed an interim order restraining the employment and in case any appointment is made , it is subject to outcome of the writ petition . Again , the employees filed a Writ Petition before High Court in the year 1998 for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent to regularise the services of nine Petitioners based on the decision of Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union reported in 1997 SCC 25 1344. When the matter is pending the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court have decided in a subsequent case overruling the above decision of Full Bench and therefore , the Respondent immediately terminated the services of concerned employees and the concerned employees raised a dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) on 1-1-2002 informing him of threatened termination. But the 1st Respondent ante dated the termination order as 31-12-2001 and issued orders not to the individuals or Texco but to the rig- in- charge to disengage the services of nine instrumentation mechanics . Since there is no valid contract entered into between the Ist and 2nd Respondent it has to be concluded that concerned employees are to be treated as regular employees with effect from the date of their joining and fix them in regular scale of pay as applicable to regular employees . Hence , the Petitioner union prays to hold that the nine workmen in this dispute are not contract employees and they should be listed as regular employees as instrument technicians .

5. The 2nd Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that this Respondent is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking having its office at Saidapet , Chennai . The object of this Respondent is to take care of the welfare of ex - servicemen . This Respondent sponsored the candidates who are only ex - servicemen to the employment in Government of India undertakings and public sector undertakings on contract basis . In the year 1994 , the 1st Respondent required instrument technicians and requested this Respondent to sponsor candidates . Accordingly , this Respondent sponsored list of persons including the petition mentioned employees . The Ist Respondent arranged interview and selected the concerned employees . In that , this Respondent had no role . After the expiry of contract , their services were terminated. This Respondent is only a sponsoring agency for employment . As such , there is no employer - employee relationship , between this Respondent and members of the Petitioner Union .

4. As against this , the 1st Respondent in its Counter Statement alleged that the concerned employees are employees of 2nd Respondent which has distinct legal entity and has been engaged in corporate as a Govt . company of state of Tamil Nadu under Companies Act . Further , the 2nd Respondent has been incorporated for rehabilitation of ex - servicemen personnel and it secures with various public sector undertaking and deploys its employees for execution thereof and the employees are under its direct control and supervision and for all 2764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART II SHC Further, this Respondent has nothing to do with the concerned employee's employment with the Ist Respondent . Hence , for all these reasons , this Respondent prays to dismiss the claim against the 2nd Respondent.

6.My learned predecessor after an enquiry - marking EX.WI to Ex . W28 ( series ) and examining WW1 and WW2 on the petitioner's side and marking Ex.M1 and examining MWI and MW2 on the Respondent's side held in the award dated 10-03-2006 that the termination of the employees concerned is not justified and is not according to the provisions of the I.D. Act also holding that they are not contract labourers and directing them to be reinstated into service of the Ist Respondent Management with continuous service but allowing only half of the back wages . In Writ Petition No. 28702/2006 filed by the 1st Respondent against the award as per order dated 24-07-2009 , the High Court ofMadras remitted the matter to this Tribunal to deal with the same in accordance with law with a direction for fresh disposal in accordance with Section - 10( 4) of the ID Act permitting both parties to file additional pleadings and ifnecessary with liberty to lead oral evidence . There was a further direction to the parties to appear before this Tribunal on 4th May, 2009 without any further notice from the Tribunal .

7. Accordingly on 4-05-2009 , the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent represented before this Tribunal and the Ist Respondent was absent and unrepresented and was set ex -parte . On the next adjourned date the 1st Respondent got on application the ex - parte order set aside. First party filed additional Claim Statement , 1st and 2nd Respondents filed additional Counter Statements . The petitioner also filed rejoinder and amended Claim Statement . The petitioner and the 1st Respondent filed additional documents .

8. The averments in the additional Claim Statement briefly read as follows:

Maintenance Mechanics as per the contract entered denied that the workmen were sponsored for intervi on 16-05-1994 . The workmen were taken as labora contract after finding out the suitability by ONGC 1... denied that after initially taking them on contract thes were given postings in rigs . It is denied that the Depa Superintending Engineer controlled and engaged the.. It is not correct that their duties were fixed and supervis by ONGC . That Instrument Technicians is a catego prohibited by Govt . of India notification dated 8-09-1007 is not correct. The contract labour supplied was onts Instrument Maintenance Mechanics and the notificatio isnot applicable to them. ONGC issued letter of inden to supply labour. It is denied that there was no valu: contract between 1st and 2nd Respondent . It is derte: thatthe petitioners are to be treated as regular employee An ID can be espoused only by an existing Trade Unior Only workers of Ist Respondent can raise ID . Its worker are not members of the alleged claimant union. Worker of the 1st Respondent has not espoused the dispat ONGC General Workers Union is not now exisun: ONGC General Employees Union has not espoused the dispute . The petitioners are workers of 2nd Responden Based on a contract agreement to supply labour . Respondent Contractor supplied the workers . There no dispute between the petitioners and the 11 Respondent . After deducting service charges , 2nd Respondent Contractor paid wages to the petitioners . Pi contribution is also paid by the 2nd Respondent . When the contract system is in vogue , petitioners employed t the 2nd Respondent are not workers of Ist Responden: The contract labour supplied by the 2nd Respondent are not the persons whose cause is espoused in thedispute The contract labour supplied was engaged on 14 days on off pattern . In an year it was only 182 days and not for 240 days , as admitted by claimant union in their counter to WP No. 28702/2006 . They were neither appointed nor terminated by ONGC . The dispute is not espoused by a substantial number of workers of ONGC under Section - 2K either.

10. The 2nd Respondent raised the following contentions in their additional counter statement filed The claim petition dated 22-07-2004 may be read as part and parcel of the Claim Statement of the petitioner. As already stated in the initial Claim Statement since there is no valid contract entered into between the 1st and 2nd Respondent , it is to be decided that the petitioners are not contract labourers and as such their termination is not justified. They are entitled to be reinstated back into service as regular employees from the date of termination with backwages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits .

9. The averments in the additional Counter Statement of the 2nd Party/ 1st Respondent briefly read as follows:

The additional Claim Statement filed by ONGC Employees Union which is not a party to the reference is to be rejected . The dispute had been espoused by the ONGC General Workers Union . It is denied that the petitioners were working as instrument technicians . The 2nd Respondent Contractor only supplied Instrument

TEXCO , a company registered under the Compam Actwas formed for the welfare of ex - servicemen . The object of it is to take care of their welfare . It sponsored ting petitioners for the post of Instrument Technicians unda 1stRespondent, to be selected and wages fixedby ONGO after conducting tests . Each of them was issued letter... appointment . ONGC supervised their work and deployi them. Attendance was maintained by ONGC . They wer paid the same rate of wages fixed by ONGC . ONGC did nie . relieve them from work till other shift workers reported ter duty. There is no contract entered between ONGC and t for supply of labour . They are only to be treated as ONGE employees. The employer is only ONGC . It has a objection to them being regularized under ONGC . It ist भाग 11 - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

a necessary party. There is no employer- employee relationship between the TEXCO and the workers . TEXCO is not an industry. There cannot be any claim against TEXCO. As against them the claim is only to be dismissed .

1 In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners , the Following contentions are raised:

It is the ONGC General Employees Union who represented the petitioners before the conciliation . ONGC General Workers Union is not a registered Union . The employees union represented petitioners under Section- 36 gi the LD Act . Thedispute is only about the non -employment of the employees . It is the employees whe have raised the dispute and the ONGC General Employees Union only represented them. From the cursory book of the reference the Union name is nowhere mentioned but copy of reference order was sent to the Secretary, ONGC General Workers Union at the General Secretary's residential address . It is a typographical error to write as General Workers Union instead of General Employees Union. It is wrong to state that the Claim Statement is filed by a stranger to the dispute . The names of the workmen who are party to the dispute have been mentioned as represented by ONGC General Employees Union . When a number of workmen raised the dispute it is an industrial dispute. For the dispute of non -employment of the minor or majority of workers need not raise dispute . A minority union can also raise the dispute . There is no written contract between the 1st and 2nd Respondent . In the counter the Ist Respondent merely denies facts . After amendment of Section - 2A of ID Act , Tribunal is clothed with the power to adjudicate the dispute of termination of service . It is denied that the petitioners were engaged 14 days on/ off pattern.

12. In the amended Claim Statement of the petitioner, the contentions raised are the same as those in the additional Claim Statement .

13 Originally on the side the petitioner WWi and WW2 had been examined and Ex . W1 to EX . W28 ( series ) marked . After remitting back the case to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras a third witness was examined as WW3 who filed sworn affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and marked Ex. W29 to Ex. W44 . The witness remained cross - examined in part by the 1st Respondent and the further cross - examination of the witness stood deferred due to request of the Respondent's counsel . On the Respondent's side initially Ex.M1 had been marked and MWI and MW2 were examined . After remission Ex.M2 to Ex.M9 were also marked . No further oral evidence was adduced thereafter from the Respondent's side . The I.D. was again disposed ex - parte as per award dated 17th February, 2010 , which was set aside and I.D. restored to file as per order dated 14-06-2010 on IA 18/2010. While the matter stood for continued enquiry it was represented that negotiations are on for amicable settlement of the I.D. in consideration of the suggestions of this Tribunal . A letter dated 7-7-2010 of the Chief Manager (HR ) of the 1023 GI /11-25

2765

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011/चैत्र 12, 1933

Management was produced expressing the comme intention to settle the dispute. The case was also included in the various Lok Adalats proposed to be held by this Tribunal . While the matter stood posted for further proceedings by way of continued and ongoing attempt at amicable settlement , the 9th petitioner filed a meno with a vakalat engaging a new Advocate for which consent ofthe advocate already appearing for the petitioners has not been obtained and the 9th petitioner appeared to be not g for the settlement proposed to be reached by all the ther 8petitioners . The matter further stood adjourned from ar to time for final settlement. When the matte Irailv up for consideration this day both sides represented ... ep . the 9th petitioner and 2nd Party/2nd Respondent w. only a formal party. All the petitioners except the 9th petitioner and the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Party, a formal party. have affixed their signatures to the settlement.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited thisCourt's attention to the decision of the High Court of Judicature , Bombay in G.B. HINGORANI , PARTNER , FASHION APPARELS , MUMBAI VS. VINAYAGA NARAYAN GOVEKAR AND ANOTHER ( 2010-4- LLN - 167) wherein it is held as follows " if the parties entered into the agreement and/or settlement and proceeded accordingly and basically acted upon the same by majority ofthe workers , as well as , the employers , there is no reason now to permit such complainantto re - agitate the closure issue on merits . Apart from above , as so - called binding settlement was well within the framework of law and the record and as the parties have already acted upon , unless it is re - agitated on the ground of fraud and / or misrepresentation , which is not the case here , it needs to be respected for the purpose , therefore , the complaint is not entertainable . In terms of industrial jurisprudence, it is necessary and desirable that such Industrial Disputes should be , settled as early as possible and once settled not to disturb at the instance of only one person " .

15. The ruling is squarely applicable to the facts of this case . The 9th petitioner not forthcoming to sign the settlement if not on approval of a final and amicable settlement is not to be allowed to be a bottleneck for the passing ofthe final and amicable settlement reached by all other 8 petitioners out of 9 and a settlement award is only to be passed in terms of the settlement signed between the two rival parties except 9th petitioner and the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Party which is only a formal party.

16. The salient terms of settlement among others , are agreed (a) financial package as per which (i ) backwages @ 50% of Rs . 5,840 ( including D.A. ) for the period 1-1-2002 till date of settlement i.e. August 2010 or till attaining age of 60 years , whichever is earlier for all the 9 Instrument Technicians . ( ii ) Ex - gratia @ Rs . 5,814 x 2 (for each completed year of service ) or Rs . 5,814 per month 2766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

for the balance months of service ( till completion of 60 years of age) whichever is less in respect of the Instrument Technicians who still have leftover service as on 31-08-2010 viz . S/ Sri C. Kannan , U. Swaminathan , V. S. C. Bose , N. Subramanian , P. Balasundaram and A. Radhakrishnan ( b) in addition to the above , the goodwill amount to the aforesaid 6 persons at Rs . 1,210 per month as ex - gratia . Total financial benefit to each is as follows:

(a) Sri C. Kannan - Rs . 5,27,100.00

(b) Sri U. Swaminathan - Rs . 5,13,100.00 ( c) Sri N. Subramanian - Rs . 5,13,100.00

(d) Sri V.S.C. Bose - Rs . 5,13,100.00

(e) Sri P. Balasundaram - Rs . 5,13,100.00 ( f) Sri P. Nagarajan - Rs . 1,22 , 100.00

(g) Sri M. Sarmbandam - Rs . 1,22,100.00

(h) Sri G. Pandarinathan - Rs . 2,87,800.00 ( i ) Sri A. Radhakrishnan - Rs . 4,99,900.00 The above settlement is in full and final settlement of the claims in I.D. 380/2004 or in any other cases or forum .

17. On the term ; embodied in the Memorandum of Settlement the I. D. is sought to be withdrawn and the I.D. is to be treated as closed .

18. The above settlement is recorded and an award is passed in terms thereof except as against the 9th petitioner ( Sri A. Radhakrishnan) who has not been a signatory to the settlement as on the date , unless henceforth he appears and accepts the settlement by subsequent conduct within a reasonably proximate period in view of the release of cheque by the Management in his favour too in anticipation of he accepting the settlement though not a signatory thereto, instantaneously.

19. The Memorandum of Settlement will form part of the award .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typedby him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 21st December, 2010. )

A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

For the Ist Party /Petitioner None

None For the 2nd Party/ Management :

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Description

Dare Nid

On the Management's side

Ex . No.

Date

Description

Nil

[PART II -SEC S MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF O.N. G. C. AND THE WORKMENAS STATED BELOW :

Representing the Management of O.N.GC. CAUVERY ASSET, KARAIKAL

1. T. VASUDEVAN G.M.H. R. and E.R 2. A. K. PILLAI C.M. H.R.

Representing Workmen

1. C. KANNAN

2. N. SUBRAMANIAN

3. U. SWAMINATHAN

4. V. S. BOSE

5. G. PANDANNATHAN

6. P. BALASUNDARAM

7. P. NAGARAJAN

8. M. SAMBANDHAM

9. A. RADHAKRISHNAN

Short Recital

Cauvery Asset , ONGC Karaikai had obtained the services of 9 Ex - servicemen through M/s . Tamilnadu 1. Servicemen's Corporation ( TEXCO ) a Govt . of Tamilnadu Enterprise for the re - settlement of Ex - servicemen , for instrumentation maintenance work since 16th May, 1991 , TEXCO is sponsored by the Directorate General Resettlement( DGR) Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India . New Delhi . The ONGC General Workers Union . representing the nine TEXCO technicians filed a Writ Petition No.8583 of 1998 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras seeking regularisation of service in ONGO The said Writ Petition was disposed by the High Court of Madras on 26-2-2003 with the order, that the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter is the Industrial Tribunai The CGIT Channai which listed the ID as 380: 04 by its award dated 10-3-2006 held that as the services were terminated by ONGC , the TEXCO technicians were the employees of ONGC and they were entitled t reinstatement with 50% back wages . The award was challenged by ONGC in W.P. No.28702 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras , winch ultimately by the order dated 27-4-2009 remanded matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication.

The CGIT, Chennai took the ID back on record and suggested settling the matter by bilateral negotiations The parties have threatereaft held negotiations on various dates and reached a mutually acceptable financial settlement on 20-8-2010 at Chennai .

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Terms of Settlement

The following financial package was agreed to after deliberations / negotiations held on 19th and 20th August , 2010 .

( 1 ) Backwages @@ 50 % of Rs . 5814 ( including DA) for the period 1-1-2002 till the date of settlement i.e. August 2010 or till attaining age of 60 years , whichever earlier for all the nine Instrumentation Technicians .

(2) ( a) Ex - gratia @ Rs.5814 × 2 ( for each completed year of service ) or Rs.5814 per month for the balance months of service ( till completion of 60 years of age ) , whichever is less , only in respect of the following Instrumentation Technicians who still have left over service , caiculated as on 31-8-2010 .

S/ Shri

C. Kannan

U. Swaminathan

N. Subramanian

V. S. C. Bose

P Balasundaram

A. Radhakrishnan .

(b) In addition to this , the goodwill amount to the above six persons @ Rs.1210 per month for the reckoned for calculationex - gratia as brought out above .

(3) Thus the total financial benefit is as follows :

Sl.No.

Name

(Shri)

Amount (Rs .)

527100

C. Kannan

( 1)

U. Swaminathan

513100 (2)

513100

N. Subramanian

(3)

V. S. C. Bose

513100 (4)

513100

P. Balasundaram

(5)

122100 (6)

P. Nagarajan

122100

M. Sambandam

(7)

287800

G.. Pandarinathan

(8)

499000

A. Radhakrishnan

(9)

(4) The above will be in full and final settlement in respect of the claims made by the Instrurnentation Technicians before the CGIT in 1. D. No.380/ 04 and or any other cases ( s ) if filed by them in any other oourt or forum.

(5) The industrial dispute raised will therefore stand resolved fully and it is clearly understood and accepted by both the parties that the acceptance of the financial settlement will have the effect of full and final settlement of

2767

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

any past , present or future conceivable liabilities against ONGC and no further claim of any nature shall be made by the TEXCO Instrumentation Technicians or any union on their behalf against ONGC in any form before any forum.

(6) It is further agreed and understood by and between the parties that acceptance of benefits under this financial settlement by the concerned TEXCO Instrumentation Technicians shall be in full and final settlement of all their past or future claims or demands of whatsoever nature as may be conceived under any law arising out of their engagement or non - engagement in the establishment of ONGC through Texco or otherwise .

(7) It is further agreed that in future , no dispute or claim or demand of whatsoever nature , whether monetary or non - monetary, shall be raised by the signatories or any union on their behalf before any court of law on the issue ofpermanency or reinstatement or regularisation in ONGC .

(8) The above settlement shall be filed before the CGIT with a petition signed by both parties stating that the dispute is settled out of court and the workmen have withdrawn the I.D. No. 380 of 2004 and hereby agree not to raise any dispute on the issue covered by the above settlement and the HON'BLE TRIBUNAL may please treated the I.D. No. 380 of 2004 as closed .

Received the payment through cheques .

REPRESENTING THE MANAGEMENT WORKMEN : PARTIES THE ABOVE DISPUTE

1. C. Kannan

1. T. Vasudevan G.M.H.R.

2. N. Subramanian

3. U. Swaminathan

4. V. S. C. Bose

2. A.K. Pillai C. M. H. R ..

5. P. Balasundaram

6. P. Nagarajan

7. M. Sambandam

8. G.. Pandarinathan

9. A. Radhakrishnan

Witnesses :

1. Sd/ -Illegible

2. Sd/ - Illegible

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 912.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डायरेक्टोरेट जनरल ऑफ सिस्टम एण्ड डाटा मैनेजमेन्ट कस्टम एण्ड सेन्ट्रल एक्साइज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के THE GAMESTE OF INDIA APRIL 2 , 2011/CHAIT

अनबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक नाधिकरण नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2010 ) को प्रक्शत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2010 को पाप्त its

[सं. एल -42011 /88 /2005 - आई आर ( डीयू) ] New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 912.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby published the award ( Ref. No. 27/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the maragement of Directorate General of System and Data Management , Custom and Central Excise , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2010.

[No. L -42011 / 88 /2006-1R ( DU ) }

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 27/2010

Shri Gajay Singh and Two others ,

Vill . Devli , P.O. A sowati , Tehsil : Palwal , Faridabad ( Haryana) .

Shri Rajesh Kumar,

S - 126 /415 - A , Kanak Durga Colony, Sector- 12 , R. K. Puram , New Dehi - 110022

Workmen

Versus

The DirectorGeneral ,

Directorate General of Systems , Custom and Central Excise , Ministry of Finance , 4th and 5th Floor , Samrat Hotel , Chanakyapuri , New Delhi .

...Management

AWARD

Director General of Systems and Data Management , Customs and Central Excise , Ministry of Finance , Government of India , New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the management ) awarded work of cleaning office premises and coro

provider , natali

as the contraceplcam :

and others r

job in the previous offer

the Contracter whore compta 4

and enger od Star Dress

Kueur, Ram: Singhan , Paujay Alber

of demand war went by the charu.w

receipt of the met the clanna

namely, Gajay Singh and Madet. Stian

before the Conciliation Officer

proccedings . Conciliation Offer sub

management and the contra for ser service with continenty and b management replied the nat communication sated 28-1-2 employee of the contractor, reinstatement of us savita vt. Lt. the claim , it resulted in fair of th report to the appropriate overrunt. Un of the failure report so submi - ed . de 2.11 Government referred the dispute to ins adjudication , vide order Na . 1.4.2018

New Delhi dated 30th of March , 2010 with ich "Whether the action of the a

Divectorate General of System and clato M Custom and Central Excise , Plex Defin the services of Gajay Sinh Rashe Madhu Sudan we.f. 13-8-2005 s legatione Ifnot what relief the workmea acerLUCA 2. Claim statement was fried by the chan Rajesh Kumar pirading therein that he server of the management continuously com 10-8-2005 . He was paid initially suniorite subsequently Rs. 3044 per month as bes signatures were obtained on plam paper , wh2014.

were released the served for 292 days from 2003 to 31st December , 2001 , for 230 days trotte 2004 to 31st December, 2004 and 181 days tron 2005 till 10th October , 2005. As per standangbang 5-7-2004, proximity cards were issued from 13 10-8-2005 in his favour for entry in the ches management . He was ordered to issne veste persons visiting office of the management and as had issued visitor pass to various persons for 401 days , which fact establishes that he was service of the management

3. The clamant pleads that тері statement , filed before the Corn hatuar management took a stand that he was an emples .

contractor. He presents that in case he had pleseed facts before the Corciliation Officerit may be dis sace he is not well educated. According to him , he novet arked with a contractor He presents that often and ther at was calien to perform duries even ou Saurdays an s tots poss were issued in his favow for those days iso . Waen he reached office of the management on 8-2005 proximity card was not issued in his favour. Or nqui ), Security Assistant told him that Shri Upendur Capia had utspensed with his services from that cate and robind his entry into the office . He asserts that his fays for the month ofAugust, 2005 were not stonen schien offre manageme Wh грицу and full pack

Norme ele pod day from recent of Un Singh and Shri Madhu Sudan opted to tak Mesotements Notices were sent to them at theic resential andresses located at Village Darli , Post Office Cuti Palwal . District Faridabad , Haryana , for 2008-2010 and 30-6-2010 calling upon themto le shom laen statement . Notices were received back with the Gajay Singh and Madhu Sudan were not areable in the village. In a village , a person can be Loupsfied by his name . Thus report of the postal authorities ande it apparent that Shri Gajay Singh and Madhu Sudan in the village for good Under those racuerstances the toual could not procure attendance of Shai Garay Singh and Madhu Sudan for tiling their claim statements in the 3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading untu it has power and authority to get work of cleaning office equipments and maintenance of dust free environment in its premises through any agency . As such the sold work was awarded to a service provider. Claimant was an employee of the service provider and visited office of the management to discharge his hability under contract fur service . It were M/ s . Krishan Gautam and M/ s . A. K.. Atora to whom contract of cleaning office premises , equipments and maintenance of dust free environment in the premises ofthe management was awarded from timeto tome The comractors engaged manpower to carry out work awarded to them . Claimant was an employee of the cotractor. There was no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management . Vide letter dated 5-9-2005 , contractor had withdrawn service of the clanaant from office of the management and deputed one Dinesh Kumar in his place to perform contracted Job . Under these circumstances the claimant might have nos been allowed entry in the building . There was no permanent and sanctioned post against which services of rie siamant were utilized through a contractor . Since the management discharged sovereign functions relating revenue, therefore , provisions of Industrial Disputes Ae 1947 in short the Act ) are not applicable to it. Fad stared in the claim statement , being misconceived , ar , fank to be dismissed A claim has been made that order of reference was beyond competence of the approriate Government, hence it may be rejected .

6. On pleadings of the parties , following issue : wore so tied

1. Whether there was us clotiustio ci emplovet and emplovec bewa cut the part the warae b Lotto lied beth No other winess was stained by enbet of the partic & Arguments wore heard at tire bai . Surt R.Ş. Sang authorised representative , taised submissions on beh ofthe ciarmant . Sou S. & Singh, authorised representat presentec farts are behall of the management . Wrinc submissions were flied by the claimant . I have given careful considerations to the arguments advanced an de bar and cautiousty perused the record . My finding , issues involved a the controversy are as foliows Issue No. i

e discharge caus testing on him , the claarm deposed that he was engaged as a peon on Ist of Januar 2003 in the office of the management . Shri Upender Gugt .: Additional Director, recruited him on the post of peon ih was paid minimum wages . He claims that he was an employee of the management . However , he does not dispute that no vacancy was advertised in any newspaper. against which he was appointed . He projects that he went to the office of Shr . Upender Gupta at the instance of on Shri D. K. Nayyar , friend of Shri Gupta . He gave his bio- data, two photographs , copy of voter identity card to Shri Gupta . He concedes that neither any appointment lette : was issued on his favour nor his name was sponsored b the employment exchange . He further concedes that no pay slip was ever issued in his favour .

10 Shri A K. Gupta , Assistant Director , swears a his affidavu. Ex . MW1 / A that the management has power and authority to get work of cleaning office equipment and maintenance of dust free environment in its premises done through any agency . M / s . Krishna Gautami approached the management and was engaged for cleaning office promises and computer hardware installed in the office of the management . The claimant was engaged by Mis . Krishan Gautam , which fact was conceded by him in his demand notice and claim statement , filed before th Cone liation Officer . There was no relationship of employe : and employee between the claimant and the management 2770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

The claimant was withdrawn by the service provider vide his letter dated 5-9-2005 and he deputed one Dinesh Kumar in his place . Since claimant was not its employee , no record ofhis service was maintained by the management . During the course of his cross examination he concedes that no one can enter premises of the management without an entry pass . Hefeigned ignorance as to whether contractor used to issue identity cards to his employee or not .

ii. When facts unfolded by the claimant and Shri Ami Kumar Gupta were appreciated , it came to light that demand notice dated 30-9-2005 , served on behalf of aunant on the management, was proved as Ex . MW In the claimant opted not to dispute factuin of service of denmand notice Ex.MW1/ ! nor contents thereof. nsequenti ; it is evident that Shri Gupta could establislı thai demand notice Ex.MWI/ I was served on behalf of the claimant apon the management . Perusal of demand anice Ex.MWI/ 1 crystalises facts of the present Controversy. In para one of the demand notice it has been projected that the claimant was engaged as a casual labour 25-10-2000, for doing manual job ofperennial in nature , dermand of the management through service provider, nanacly, Mis Krishan Gautam . The claimant detailed in nat very para that the service provider was an agent of is management . In subsequent section it was projected that the services of the claimant were retrenched w.e.f. 12-8-05 with malatide intentions and new persons , namely, Kildeep , Santosh , Sanjay and Ram Singh were engaged. therefore, out of contents of Ex.MW1 / 1 it emerge over the record that the claimant admits that he was engaged as a casual labour by the managementmanage through the contractor.

12. On entering the witness box , the claimant deposed conflicting facts , when he claimed to have been engaged as a peon by Upender Gupta ,to whom he submitted hisbio-data , photographs and copy of voter dentity card . He coined a story to the effect that he approached Shri Gupta at the instance of one Shri D. K. Nayyar , friend of former . Therefore , it is evident that when claimant was called upon to establish his case , he improved facts , which were detailed in demand notice Ex.MW 11. He provided embroidery and embellished events with view to establish factum of his engagement by the management . In his claim statement, presented before this Tribunal, he presented an explanation to the effect that before the Conciliation Officer he claimed that he was working under a contractor, since being not well educated he could not understand intricacy of the language . He made a request to this Tribunal that those facts may be discarded. Copy of the claim statement , presented before the Conciliation Officer, is available over the record . The management could not prove copy of the said claim statement but when contents of the claim statement are not in dispute on behalf of the claimant , it would be expedient to have a glance on facts detailed therein . When

[PART II SI perused it emerged that in claim statement , presente.: the Conciliation Officer, claimant unfolded that he w... engaged by the management through service provid namely, M/ s . Krishan Gautam . All these events highl that while serving notice of demand and filing char statement before the Conciliation Officer case Da claimant was that he was engaged by the managem through M/ s . Krishan Gautam , the service provider Ner. ofdemand Ex.MW1 / 1 and claim statement , filed bele... the Conciliation Officer, were drafted on legal adv . Consequently, it is evident that facts projected in notte ofdemand Ex.MW !! and those detailed in clarm stateme nied before the Conciliation Officer , were untoided ... intance of the claimant, on legal advice . Now clatr wants totake a detour to come out of legal wrangle by his admission , referred above . He seeks indulgen the Tribunal for getting comes of his a discarded. Can claimant be permitted to approbate us ruppahate facts " Answer lies m negative . It is a setde..

proposition of law that a person cannot say some lact one time anddiscard it at other point of time . He cannot allowed to take a benefit under an instrument and diseran lisbilities imposed by that instrument . A person cauch say at one time that his transaction is valid and theren obtain advantage , to which he could only be entitled .....

the footing that it is invalid and then turn round and say is valid for the purpose of securing some other advantage That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction . ..

maxim that the person cannot approbate and reprobate :

only an application of doctrine of election and its operation must be confined to release the claim in respect of the same transaction and to the persons who are patte thereto. Therefore , it is evident that on the principles ilir a person may not approbate and reprobate he would estoppedfrom contradicting facts which were detailed by him at earlier point of time. Thus it is evident that now claimant cannot be permitted to say that he was directis engaged by Shri Upender Gupta in service of the management . Facts unfolded by the claimant in that regant are brushed aside , since those facts were subsequents coined by him with a viewto espouse his cause .

13. As detailed above , the claimant projects Ex . MW1 / 1 that he was engaged by the managerier through the service provider, who was its agent. It is to be ascertained whether claimant could establish that the service provider was working as an agent of the management . Consequently, it is expedient to know the meaning of the word " agent " . An agent is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealing with third person , enacts section 182 of a Contract Act. According to this definition , an agent never acts on his behalf but always acts on behalf of another He either represents his principal in any transaction or dealing with a third person or performs any act for the principal The crucial test of status of an agent is that his acts bind [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the principal . General agents are authorised to do all acts pertaining to a particular business or trade , or at a particular place or of a particular class or series . They may be authorised to do all acts for their principal which can be delegated to an agent . Special agents are agent who have only authority to do some particular act or represent their principal in some particular transaction . Special agents are authorised to do only some particular act or to act on some particular occasion .

14. It would be considered whether M / s . Krishan Gautam was an agent of the management , when claimant was engaged to do jobs awarded to the former. No evidence was adduced by the claimant to establish the proposition thatM / s . Krishan Gautam was an agent of the management . On the other hand , the management brought certain documents over the record on the strength of which work was awardedto M/ s . Krishan Gautam for supply of manpower to the former . Ex . WW1 / M10 to Ex . MW1 / M26 are the documents on the strength of which M / s . Krishan Gautam was engaged for cleaning office premises and computer hardware installed in the premises of the management and for maintenance of dust free environment therein . It emerge over the record that contract was awarded with effect from 1st January , 2003 to 28th February , 2005, vide agreement Ex . WWI /M11 . Contract was extended from 1-1-2003 to 31-5-2003 , vide Ex . WW1 / M12 . Ex.WWI / M13 to Ex . WW1 /M26 bring it over the record that the said contract was extended in favour of Mis Krishan Gautam from time to time . Conditions , on which contract was awarded and extended as detailed in the aforesaid documents , are thus :

" 1. The service provider shall ensure availability of a minimum of six persons on all working days from 9.00 a.m. to 6 p.m. for performing services contracted.

2. The person is deployed for services should be of a good moral character , free from any communicable disease and not have been convicted for any offence .

3. The management shall pay a sum of Rs.3000 per month per person on submission of a bill for the aforesaid services .

4. If the services are found not to be satisfactory the contract shall be liable to be terminated even before the period of 30 days , specified in contract document .

5. If the contract is terminated before completion of a month , the amount payable to service provider for number of days worked shall be calculated @ Rs . 100 per day.

6. If the services are required on any of public holidays an amount of Rs . 100 per day will be paid extra .

2771

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

7. The service provider shall observe all relevant laws relating to employment of the person assigned to the management ( such as those relating to payment of minimum wages , employment of child labour etc. ) . "

15. Now it would be ascertained as to whether the service provider was an independent contractor or an agent of the management . It is a matter of common knowledge that it is the element of control of work that distinguishes relationship of master and servant from independent contract relationship . The most important test for determining whether one employed to do certain work is independent contractor or mere servant is the control over the work , which is reserved to the employer . In other words , identifying mark of the servant is that he should be under control or supervision of the employer in respect of the details of his work . Reference can be made to a precedent in Chintaman Rao [ 1958 11 LLJ 252 ] . In Shivanandan Sharma [ 1955 ( 1 ) LLJ 688 ] the Apex Court cited observations of Lord Porter in Mersey Docks & Harbour Board ( 1947 A.C.17 ) with approval , which are reproduced thus:

"Many factors have a bearing on the result . Who is pay master , who can dismiss , how long the alternative services lasts , what machinery is employed , have , all to be kept in mind. The expression used in any individual case must always be considered in regard to the subject matter under discussion but amongst the many test suggested I think that the most satisfactory. by which to ascertain who is the employer at any particular time is to ask who is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he is to do the work upon which he is engaged . "

16. In other words , " direction and control " are the telling factor in determining relationship of employment . Control is obviously an important factor . In some cases it may still be a decessive factor , but it is wrong to say that in every case it is decessive factor. It is now no more than a factor albeit a very important one . To distinguish between an independent contractor and a servant , the test is whether or not the employer retains the power , not only of directing what work is to be done , but also controlling the manner of doing the work . If a person can be overlooked and directed in regard to manner of doing his work , that person is not a contractor . The control of management , which is necessary element of relationship of master and servant , is not directed towards providing or disclosing the nature of the article to be produced or the work to be done , but refers to the other incidents having a bearing on the process of work the person carries out in the execution of the work . The manner of the work is to be distinguished from the type of work to be performed. Reference can be made to the precedent in Shanker Balaji THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2, 20 : 1 /CHAITRA

Waje 1962 ( 1 ) LLJ 119] . Under a contract of sin vic man is employed as a part of the business and his work i Hope as an integral part of the business , whereas under a ontract for service his work , although done for the business is not integrated into it but is only necessary to 1. For ascertaining relationship of master and serveut arious considerations, such as nature of the undertaking, reedom of action given, magnitude of the contraci ammouan, themanner in which it is to be paid for, power of disnessal circumstances in which the payment of reward may be withheld, bear on the solution on the question . In other words, determination of the questions would depend on ferrerms of the contract entered into between the parties å ne general proposition of universal application cua re laid down. Reference can be made to the precedent ta Mirdhi Chand Sharma , ( 1961 ( 11 ) LLJ 86) .

17 When aforesaid conditions of contract of service te gauzed, it emerges that M/ s . Krishan Gautam was to 838 six persons to perform cleaning of office , puters installed in the premises of the managemem tor maintenance of dust free environment , lie was ven liberty to deploy persons of good moral character, Gilowing relevant law relating to their employment . A ser 3000 per person was to be paid initially, which an unt as enhanced subsequently to Rs . 3200. In case services endered by the contractor was found not re be sati Jactory his contract was liable to be terminored , is do event of obtaining service of the contractor en subie Folidays he was to be paid an amount of Rs . 100 per day eta . It was made clear that employees deployed by service Provider will not claim any regular employment in the office at the management . Elements of contract of service are found missing when contract documents EX.MWI0 to XMW1 /26 are scanned . It is energing over the record that service provider , namely, M / s . Krishan Gautam was nindependent contractor on whose work ne control was exercised by the management. It cannot be said that he was an agent or an employee of the management . ontention made by the claimant in that regard is enfounded.

18 Now it would be ascertained as to whether claimant could show that the contract so entered into between service provider and the management was shana bogus . In his evidence the claimant had not brought ven ansota of fact over the record to the effect that the onitor was interposed in between by the management itlaview to deprive him of the benefits available under arous labour laws . The claimant took a stand that he was an employee of the management . No evidence worth name was brought over the record by him to the effect that the terms referred above project that the contract entered into between the parties was not genuine . At the cost of repetition it is said that the management entered into a contract with the service provider since it intended to engage him for doing job of cleaning of its

PARE

Spuice stated in premises ai

maintenance at the POVOLAN

shown that b

perennial in

record by the da pianist

engagement.fut contract

regator

performed

management Consequently industha taken by the best

nominal and not the cucine or s

between with very to evad, payrect of 5 aer to the claimant a dur vario

clear that the

declaration by the Triboner th

and to announce stai the duran

the principat carployer

19. Where the pourager המיניהנל relationship o seu poyer and a

at any point or to her on palk as to how red ship of s

The relationships employer zady fo

by a contrací JA

employee . A end of servwUP ACRAM undertakes tege

orders within the repe of the dhas andertese of employment may be inferred warn tee rends goes to show thai, and

never expressen nd she theme nas, te employment all , jhorama employees . Anys inference, scurtope as by showing Gat the rebtion between th concerned was on charrabic hostela Ad relations or partner or were dholesaled which employed te stati . Wife thermoplyse when his services were engaged, tend not save identity ofhis cover our

contract by which he portes de master or servand

20. In order to estabiel talamushi and employee between the partes the calmant stress on photo copies of pronbany cards in EX.WW1/ 2 to EXWWISS He iso places teta copies of visit register

EX.WW1 / 351 Merinyak wate

management to per il entry supersoeid t being a restricted area , Ceren jetes , of prev no way establishe statice ship at mapikyot between the pa . Coptes et d EX.WW1/86 to EXWW1/3 ans where the L. P establish that the performed job for the marag respect of issuance of Viole passe to pubir who used to visit premises of the Gamegenem a may go to show that the charmant rendered servi management to that job , riowever, it has established that tot the service serendered by the White [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

he obtained instruction from the management . It is an admitted case that the claimant gained entry in the premises of the management , as an employee of the service provider to clean office premises , computer installed therein and for maintenance of dust free environment. He had not brought it over the record that maintenance of visitor book and issuance of visitor pass to public at large was part of his duty, under a contract of service independently instead in to between him and the management .

21. Whether maintenance of visitors register by the claimant would go to establish that the management created relationship of employer and employee between the parties ? As testified by the claimant , he was an employee of the management . However , he concedes that no appointment letter was issued in his favour. He also concedes that no pay slip was ever issued by the management in his favour. He presents that his signatures were obtained on plain paper as and when wages were released to him. Out of the aforesaid facts the claimant projects that as and when wages were paid , no record of payment was maintained by the management . The management is an instrumentality of the State , who has to draw money out of the exchequer . Without presentation ofa bill and a favourable note by the Accounts Officer no money can be drawn for payment to the claimant for work performed by hon . Therefore , assertion made by the claimant to this effect that his signatures were obtained on plain paper when wages in cash were paid , is against official practice and procedure applicable to the management. The claimant is a person who was in the habitof collection of documents , to support his claim. He has testified that he obtained photo copy of visitors register on day to day basis for his safety. It is emerging over the record that from the very initial day, when he was sent by the service provider to the office of the management , he used to obtain photo copies of documents wherever he put his pen , to substantiate his claim . In case bills were prepared for payment of his wages , he would have obtained photo copies of those bills also .

22. Reliance on Ex.WW1 / 1 was placed by the claimant to project that proximity cards were issued in his favour. Ex . WW1 / 1 highlights that proximity cards were to be issued to all daily wagers on daily basis . A register in this regard was to be maintained by Security Assistant in prescribed proforma . Ex . W W 1/2 to Ex . WW1 / 85 are photo copies of record relating to issuance of proximity card in favour of the claimant . Perusal of these documents make it clearthat proximity cards were issued , as and when claimant went to the office of the management. However , these proximity cards nowhere project that the claimant was an employee of the management . Ex . WW1 / 1 nowhere excludes issuance of proximity card in favour of an employee of a service provider. Therefore , factum of issuance of proximity card in favour of the claimant nowhere go to establish that the management recognized 1023 GI/11-26

2773

भारत का राजपत्र अप्रेल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12. 1933

the claimant as its employee . Reliance has also been placed bythe claimant on visitors pass issued, which are Ex.WWI/ 87 to Ex . WW 1/351 . These passes were issued in token of a fact that the claimant visited office of the managerment on a particular day. By issuance of visitor card, the management nowhere conceded that the claimant became its employee , issuance of proximity card as well as iswors pass nowhere go to show even by implication that the parties intended to enter into a relationship of master ar servant . Therefore , these documents nowhere show that atany point oftime the management accepted the claimant to be its employee . The claimant could not establish by circumstantial evidence , that the management took bis in its direct employment at any point of time. Consequentis , the documents produced by the claimant nowhere go to show that though his services were engaged by the management through a service provider, yet it opted to establish direct relationship of employer and employce between the parties . Therefore , the evidence brought over the record nowhere go to establish that the claimant has been able to bring it over the record that direct relationship ofemployer and employee were recognized by the parties , when proximity cards or visitor pass were issued in his favour. Admittedly the claimant went to the premises of the management as an employee of service provider and visitor pass or proximity card was issued in his favour , to allow him entry inside the premises of the management . These documents nowhere make out a case that the claimant was taken in its employment by the management . The claimant has miserably failed to establish relationship of employer and employee between the parties . Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the management and against the claimant.

Issue No. 2 .

23. Ex.MW 1/9 is a document issued by the service provider on the strength of which he withdrew the claimant from the office of the management and deputed one Dinesh Kumar in his place to perform job relating to the contract. When claimant was confronted with this document he simply opted to deny that such a document was issuedby Shri Krishan Kumar Gautam . His denial could not dispel the document . On the other hand he has placed reliance on Ex.WW1 /355 which is a written statement filed by Shri Krishan Kumar Gautam before the Conciliation Officer. When efforts were made to compare signatures on Ex . WW1 /355 with Ex. WW1 /M9 , it came to light that these two documents are authored by one and the same person . Consequently it is emerging over the record that it was Krishan Gautam , who withdrew the claimant from the premises of the management and deputed one Dinesh Kumar in his place to perform job relating to the contract , awarded to him by the management . Consequently it is established that it was Krishan Gautam , who withdrew the claimant from the premises of the management . The management had not terminated his services .

2774

[PART il THE AZFITE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 19

ofthe Food Corporations Act , 1964 ( 37 of 196

or the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994 ( 55 of 1994 ) , or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Region RuralBanks Act , 1976 ( 21 of 1976 ) , or the Expo Creditand Guarantee Corporation Limited or

the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India

Limited, the National Housing Bank established 24. As detailed above there was no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management . In such a situation whether the Central Government is appropriate Government to make a reference of the dispute? To adjudicate as to who is appropriate Government for making a reference of the dispute , definition of the appropriate Government contained in clause ( a) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 (in short the Act) on the date of reference is to be considered , which is extracted thus .

under section 3 of the National Housing Bank

Act, 1987 ( 53 of 1987 ) or an air transport servic "( a) appropriate Government " means-

or a banking or an insurance company, a mine .

anoil field , a Cantonment Board , or a major porn. the Central Government and

(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute , h State Government: " .

25. Who shall be the appropriate Government for

(a)( ii) of section 2 of the Act , which contemplates tha in

relation to any other industrial dispute the State

Government is the appropriate Government . However , this

Tribunal is not oblivious of the proposition that unius

territory of Delhi enjoins a special status under the

the present dispute ? Answer has been provided in clause Constitution .Delhi is a Union Territory having some special provisions with respect to its administration . Articles 239 of the Constitution speaks that every union terutor shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit , through an administrator te he appointedby him with such designation as he may specity Article 239 AA makes special provisions with respect to Delhi , detailing therein that the union territory of Peihi shall be called the National Capital Territory of Deih ; and the administrator thereof appointed in article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor. There shall be Legislative Assembly, an povisions of articles 324 to 3 and 329 shall apply in relation the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi as they apply in relation to a State . The Lagislative Assembly shall have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the National Capital Territory with respect to the matters enumerated in the State List of the Concurrent List except the matters with respect to entries 1 , 2 and 18 of the State List and entries 64 , 65 and 66 of that list , in so for they relate to the said entries 1 , 2 and 18. The Council of Ministers shall be headed by the Chief Minister to aid and advise the ii Governor in exercise of his functions in relation of the matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly has power to make laws. In case difference of opm between Lt. Governor and his ministers on any matter the Lt. Governor shall refer it to the President for decision and act according to the decision given thereon by the President and pending such decision the Ld . Governor is

competent to take action in urgent matters . The Chiet Minister shall be appointed by the President and Ministers ( i) in relation to any industial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers ( Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948 ) , or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act , 1956 ( 1 of 1956 ) or the Employees ' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) , or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1948 (46 of 1948) , or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1948 (46 of 1948 ), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B , respectively, of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act , 1956 (31of 1956) , or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act , 1956 ( 1 of 1956) , or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act , 1961 (47 of 1961 ), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act , 1962 ( 58 of 1962 ) , or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act , 1963 (52 of 1963 ) , or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 , or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under Section 16 , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

shall be appointed by the President on the advise of the Chief Minister . Therefore , it is evident that though a Legislative Assembly is there in National Capital Territory of Delhi , yet it is a union territory administered by the President through the Administrator appointed by him . In case of difference of opinion between the Administrator and the Ministers , it is the decision of the President that prevails . Consequently the State Government merges with the Centre when Lt. Governor administer the Union Territory or in case of difference of opinion the President decides the issue .

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

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

"The award was sought to be voided , inter alia , on the ground that by virtue of the constitution and composition of the Corporation , Central Government was the only authority competent to make a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Court and that the reference by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was , therefore , in excess ofpowers . Even otherwise no exception could be taken to the order of reference , even if it be assumed that Central Government was the appropriate Government in as much as the distinction between the Central and the State Government in relation to the Union Territory in our constitutional framework is rendered illusory , Union Territory is administered by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution of India , acting to such extent as he thinks fit . Therefore the Administrator , to be appointed by him . in the case of Union territory, there is an amalgamation of the constitutional classification of legislative and executive powers between the Centre and the States . According to section 3 (60 ) of the General Clauses Act ,the " Central Government " in relation to the administration of Union Territory means the Administrator acting within the scope of authority given to him under

2775

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

article 239 of the Constitution of India and in terms of section 3 ( 60 ) of the General Clauses Act , " State Government " as respects anything done or to be done in the Union Territory means the Central Government . In the case of Union Territory, therefore , the Central and State Governments merge and it is immaterial whether an order of reference is made by one or the other . This contention must, therefore , fail " .

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

29. Whether the Central Government can be termed as State Government for any purpose ? Article 53 of the Constitution provides that the executive power of the Union shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution . Article 73 defines extent of executive power of the Centre , that is , on matters which shall be controlled and administered by the Central executive . It has been detailed therein that the executive power of the union shall extend ( a ) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws and (b) to the exercise of such rights , authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement . The extent of the State's executive power is set out in Article 161 of the Constitution. Administrative relations between the union and the states is to be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Articles 256 , 257 , 258 , 258A, 260 and 261 of the Constitution . Articles 258A was added by 7th Amendment Act , 1956 to make a matching provision to clause ( 1 ) of Article 258 of the Constitution . While exercising powers contained in clause ( 1 ) of Article 258 , the President is empowered to entrust union functions to a State Government or its officers . There was no provisions enabling the Governor of a State to entrust state functions to the Central Government or its officers . The lacuna was found to be of practicable difficulty and provisions of Article 258 A were inserted in the Constitution . Thus it is evident that arena of union executive powers and the state executive powers are well defined.

30. Clause ( 8 ) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act defines the Central Government in relation to THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

rainistration ofUnion Territory, the Administrator thereof acting within the scope of authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution . Therefore , it is evident that Administrator of Government of N.C T. Delhi has been defined to mean as Central Government to administer the Union Territory of Delhi . Hence for the limited purposes , provided in the Constitution , executive functions of the Central Government can be entrusted to Government of a State or its Officers . The Central Government would not be termed as the State Government , when those functions are being executed by the State Government or its officers . So executive power of the Union can be exercised , in certain matters by the State Government or its officers but in that situation too the Central Government would not be termed as the State Government . The special provisions referred above would not make the reference , made by the Central Government as the reference made by Government of N.C.T. ofDelhi .

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

32. Since this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference , hence the Tribunal refrains its hands from entering into other questions of merit . The Central Government was not competent to make a reference of this dispute to this Tribunal . The parties should seek redressal at the appropriate forum . With these observations an award is passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R.K. Yadav , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 913.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सहारा एयरलाईन्स 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

[PAR SEM (संदर्भ संख्या 63/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केंद्रीय स्कार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुन थाः ।

[सं. एल-1012/31/2 - आज डी. एस. एस. श्रवाः New Delhi , the 10th March, 201

S.O. 913. In pursuance of Section 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 19471, Dietertet Government hereby publishes the award ( Ret ofthe Central Government industrial Trun Court, Chennai as shown in the Amexure b Dispute between the employers mr.co management of Sahara Airlines Limited and their wo which was received by the Central Govern 10-3-2011 .

[No. L- 11013 /31 /2009- IR DA D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Oft ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNΜΕΝΤ INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURE CHENNAI

Monday, the 28th February, 2011 Present: A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication wide 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 M / s Sahara Airlines Ltd. and the Workmen)

BETWEEN

: IParty/Petitioner SriP.V. Dayalu

Vs.

2nd Respondent IstParty

1. M/ s Sahara Airlines Limited L-70/329 , Mahipalpur Exten- sion, New Delhi - 110037

2nd Responden! 2nd Party 2. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd. Sahara India Centre , 8th floor No. 2 , Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj , Lucknow- 226024

: 2nd Respondent 3rd Party

3. M/s Jet Airways Ltd. S.M. Centre , Andheri - Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai-400059

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

Sri K. Sudalai Kanna I .. Kalaieswaran M/sGupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ : 1st Party [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

For the 2nd Respondent/ : M/ s V. Devraj , Auth . Representative 2nd Party

M/ s Gupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ : 3rd Party

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 11012 / 31 / 2009 - IR ( CM - I ) dated 19-6-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of Sri P. V. Dayalu for his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share Purchase Agreement of dated 1-4-2007 entered by the Management of Jet Airways ( India ) Ltd. Sahara India Comercial Corporation Ltd. and others and Sahara Airlines Ltd. is justified and legal ? ( ii ) to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 63/2009 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance , petitioner in person , Ist and 3rd Respondents through Advocates and 2nd Respondent through Authorized Representative . The petitioner filed Claim Statement . No Counter Statement has been filed by any of the Respondents .

3 Short recitals of facts in the Claim Statement are as follows:

The petitioner appointed as Security Assistant on 1-9-1996 with last drawn salary of Rs . 10,700 /- later promoted as Security officer on 11-6-2005 by the First Respondent later by a Bipartite Agreement dated 18-1-2006 amended on 1-4-2007 between Jet Airways ( India ) Ltd. , Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and ( iii ) Sahara Airlines Ltd. continued employment of Pilots , Engineers , etc. keeping out petitioner for no reason . On 1-9-2007 Sahara Airlines purported to transfer petitioner to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. ( SICC ) who in turn deputed him to Jet Airways . On 1-6-2007 he was transferred to Rajnandgaon , Chhatisgarh , through objected wherein he joined but due to personal problems he came back and the ID is raised . The petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in Jet Airways without being discriminated under Share Purchase Agreement dated 18-1-2006 . Permission under Section - 25 ( N) of the ID Act had not been obtained . Petitioner would at least be entitled to 3 months salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation . He was never employed by SICC created to defeat his rights and his deputation is a camouflage . Termination could amount to retrenchment . Demand for his absorption in Jetlite with all benefits is prayed for .

4. Points for consideration are :

(i ) Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways ( India ) is justified and legal ?

2777

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

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

Points No. 1 & 2

4. When the ID stood posted today for further proceeding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petition supported by Affidavit , both signed by him praying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the dispute has been settled with the Management and that he already submitted his resignation alongwith PF Withdrawal Forums and that after collecting fuli and final payment of dues be forgoes his right of reinstatement . in view of the above embodies terms of the settlement the ID is sought to be withdrawn and an award is to be passed.

5. On a consideration of the request of the petitioner supported by the written application and affidavit sworn to in support thereof , approved by the Respondent by endorsing no objection , that the dispute has been settled between the parties in consideration of the full and final payment of dues thereof to be made by him and on foregoing the right of reinstatement , he be permitted to withdraw the dispute in the wake of the repeated appeal of this Tribunal before the parties to have the dispute amicably settled and petitioner having effected out of court settlement of the dispute in terms thereof as was originally claimed the prayer is only to be accorded .

6. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the dispute . In view of the fact that withdrawal is in lieu of agreed monetary compensation to be fulfilled thereof and his claim for absorption being given up no question further survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether legal andjustified.

7. 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 28th February , 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

None For the 1st Party /Petitioner

None For the II Party/ Petitioner

Documents Marked : -

On the petitioner's side

Date

Ex.No.

Description

Nil

On the management's side

Date

Ex.No.

Description

Nil 2778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 914.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सहारा एयरलाइन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10 3-2011 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/33/2009- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 914. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 65/2009 ) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunai - Cum - Labour ourt . Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sahara Airlines Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/33 /2009 - IR( C - I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR-COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 28th February, 2011

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 65/2009

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) arid Sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of M/ s Sahara Airlines Ltd. , and their Workman)

BETWEEN

: Ist Party/ Petitioner Nu M. Vijaykumar

Vs.

Ms. Sahara

Airlines Limited

: 2nd Respondent/ IstParty.

1. -70/329 , Mahipalpur

Extension, New Delhi - 110037

2. M / s . Sahara

2nd Respondent/ 2nd Party India Commercial Corpn.

1.td.. Sahara India Centre , 8th Floor No. 2. Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj , Lucknow- 226024 :

[ PART II- SEC. 30

: 2nd Respondent 3rd Party

3. M/ s . Jet Airways Ltd. , SM Centre , Andheri- Kurla Road Andheri East , Mumbai -400059 .

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

: Sri K. Sudalai Kannu L. Kalaieswaran

: M/ s . Gupta & Ravi For the 2nd Repondent/ IstParty

For the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Party

Mis . V. Devraj , Autli Representative

: M/ s . Gupta & Ravi for the 2nd Respondent/ 3rd Party

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour its Order No. L - 11012/ 33 / 2009-1R ( CM -1 ) datd 19-6-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of Sri M. Vijayakumar les his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share Purchase Agreement of dated 01-4-2007 entered by the Management of Jet Airways ( India ) Ltd .. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. , and others and Sahara Airlines Ltd. , is justified and legal ? ( ii ) To what relen is the workman concerned entitled ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 65/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance , petitioner in person , 1st and 3rd Respondents through Advocates and 2nd Respondent through Authorized Representative The petitioner filed Claim Statement . No Counter Statement has been filed by any of the Respondents .

3. Short recitals of facts in the Claim Statement art asfollows:

The petitioner appointed as Security Guard can 1-9-1996 with last drawn salary of Rs . 9,994 and promoted on 11-6-2005 as Security Sup . by the First Respondent later by a Bipartite Agreement dated 18-1-2000 amended on 1-4-2007 between ( i) Jet Airways ( India) Ltd ( ii) Sahara India Commercial Corporation 1.td. and ( in Sahara Airlines Ltd. continued employment of Pilots . Engineers , etc. keeping out petitioner for no reason. On 20-4-2007 Sahara Airlines purported to transfer petitioner to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. ( SICC ) who in turn deputed him to Jet Airways . On 1-6-2007 he was transferred to Lucknow , though objected wherein he joined but due to personal problems he came back and भारत का राजपत्र अप्रल 2 , 2011 / पत्र 121955

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( 11 ) ]

the ID is raised . The petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in Jet Airways without being discriminated under Share Purchase Agreement dated 18-1-2006 . Permission under Section - 25 ( N ) of the ID Act had not been obtained . Petitioner would at least be entitled to 3 months salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation . He was never employed by SICC created to defeat his rights and his deputation is a camouflage . Termination could amount to retrenchment . Demand for his absorption in Jetlite with all benefits is prayed for.

4. Points for consideration are :

( i ) Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways ( India ) is justified and legal

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

Points No. 1 & 2

5. When the ID stood posted today for further proceeding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petition supported by Affidavit, both signed by him praying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the dispute has been settled with the Management and that he already submitted his resignation along with PF Withdrawal Forms and that after collecting full and final payment of dues he forgoes his right of reinstatement . In view of the above embodied terms of the settlement the ID is sought to be withdrawn and an award is to passed .

7. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the dispute . In view of the fact that the withdrawal is in lieu of agreed monetary compensation to be fulfilled thereof and his claim for absorption being given up on question further survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether legal and justified.

8. 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 28th February, 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : -

None For the I Party /Petitioner

None For the II Party / Petitioner

Documents marked :

On the Petitioner's side

Ex . No.

Description

Date Nil

On the Management's side

Ex . No.

Description

Date Nil

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 915. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार 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 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/170/2005- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 915.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 50/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011.

[No. L - 20012/ 170 /2005 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference u / s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A) of I.D. Act . Reference No. 50 of 2010

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of C.C.W.D. Area , Kathara of M / s . C.C. Ltd. AND Their workmen

PRESENT : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2780

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers

Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate .

FortheWorkmen

Shri D. Mukherjee , Advocate .

State Jharkhand

Coal .

Industry:

Dated , the 25th February, 2011

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 / 170 /2005 - I.R. ( C - I ) dated 27-4-2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Dhanbad .

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Washery Mazdoor Sangh from the management of C.C. W.D. Area , Kathara of M/ s . C.C.Ltd . that 128 workmen (as per list including 80 workmen of Sawang Washery and 48 workmen of Kathara Washery) be regularised in the service of M/s . Central Coalfield Ltd. isjustified ? If so , to what relief are the workmen entitled andfrom what date ?"

2. As per order of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in WritPetition No. 1105 of 2010 dated 13-8-2010 the above reference case has been transferredfrom Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2 to Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal No. I at Dhanbad .

3. The case of the concerned workmen is that S/ Sri Basudeo Ram and other concerned workmen whose names appearing in the order of reference have been working in Swang Washery ( SO) and Kathara Washery (48) in permanent nature of jobs against permanent vacancy since long under the direct control and supervision of the management . All the implements for execution ofjobs are being supplied by the management . They have been rendering services and producing goods for the benefit of the management . The management have prepared paper arrangement to camouflage the real issue . Though the concerned workmen have been performing regular and permanent nature of job still then the management denying employer - employee relationship to exploit the poor workmen . Disbursement of arbitrary wage in the name of different intermediaries is nothing but legal camouflage . Swang Washery and Kathara Washery are the large coal washery plants and both are under the administrative control of General Manager , C.C.W.D. and as well as under the ownership of C.C.Ltd. The main function of the washeries are to wash coal and to sell the washed coal to different customers . During the course of operation of washery large volume of washed coal is liquid form flow out of the plant which are collected at different ponds /points and are used as

[PART 11---SEC. 3014 commercial product and sold to the parties . For collecting and removing slurry from different ponds / points large number of permanent workmen are required as the flow ef slurry is continuous process and flow of slurry will be theretill the existence of washery. For doing the aforesai jobs the concerned workmen were engaged along with other workmen in the year 1988 and since then they have beenworking regularly . The slurry is coal . The concernen workman and the union represented before the management several times for their regularisation and payment of wages as per NCWA but without any effec Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before A.L.C( C1 Hazaribagh, which ended in failure , resulting to the presen dispute.

The demand of the concerned workman for then regularisation is legal and justified .

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribun be pleased to answer the reference in favour of the work an by directing the management to regularise all concerned workman with retrospective effect with all ar ofwages and consequential benefits .

4. The case of the management is that no employe employee relationship exists between the management o Swang Washery and Kathara Washery and the persons concerned. Neither the management Kathara Washery now the management of Swang Washery ever engaged the persons concerned in any kind of job . The demand foss employment cannot be turned as industrial dispute witlup the meaning of sec . 2 (k) or 25 (k) of the I.D. Act . 1947. The sponsoring union enrolled the name of job seekers and raised the present industrial dispute to get employment in public sector undertaking through litigation . Swang Washery and Kathara Washery are very small coal washing plants and few number of workmen are engaged in both the plants for running the plants and very lass amount of slurry goes out of the washery campus through drain which contains waste materials . The washery is enclosed by wall. The washery is engaged in washery raw coal and to befit at the same and produce clean coal suitable for use in the steel plant . In this process some fluid with fine particles of sand and other coal rejects etc. flow out ofthe washery and the management never engage the persons concerned for removal of slurry. The volume of slurry drain through the boundary wall of washery arenegligible in quantity.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal b pleased to hold that the demand of the union is neither legal nor justified and the concerned workman are not entitled to get any relief.

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

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12. 1933

6. The management has produced MW- 1 , Chandra Kant Tiwary, who has proved Exts . M - 1 series and Ext . M -2 series .

pass and if they have worked through any contiactory have mentioned the name of that contractor . So , it shows that neither they have worked themselves with tire management nor through the contractor.

The concerned workmen produced MW- 1 , Badrinath Prajapati and WW- 2 , Shailesh Dutta Pandey.

7. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that they with other 79 workmen are working since 1988 in Swang and Kathara Washery and they are working in permanent and prohibited category ofjob because the function of Swang Washery is to wash coal for its use to different Steel Plant and other industries . The slurry is a fine coal and it is a good quality of coal . Bleeding of slurry will go on still the running of the washery. Flowing of slurry is a continuous process and removal of slurry is also a continuous process . They are working as slurry cleaning mazdoor at Swang Washery since long under the direct control and supervision of the management . They are not getting wages as per NCWA . It has been argued that the contractor neither possessing any licence nor the management possessing any registration certificate under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act . Some other slurry removal workers of different washeries of M/ s . CCL and M /s . BCCL have been regularised as per award of the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal No. 1 and No. 2 .

9. In this respect on behalf of the concerned workmen referred AIR 1940 Patna 633 in which Hon'ble High Court , Patna laid down that witness not cros: - examined, his evidence must be accepted . Anomer aw referred on behalf of the concerned workmen is 200535) FLR 1067 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid dowr, thet pleadings are no substitute for proof. Another law refered onbehalf of the workman is 2001 LLR 951 in which Hon Die Supreme Court laid down that the impugned notificati dated 9-12-1976 apart from being an omnibus notification does not reveal compliance of sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 10 of the Act . This is ex- facie contrary to the postulates of Section 10 of the Act . Besides , it also exhibits non- application ofmind by the Central Government . Thus , the said impugned notification dated December 9 , 1976 issued by the Central Government cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Court further held that while over- ruling the judgement of this Court in Air India's case prospectively it is declared that any direction issued by any industrial adjudication / any court including High Court for absorption of contract labour following the judgement in Air India's case shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside , altered or modified on the basis of this judgement in uses where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final . Another law referred on behalf of the workmen is LLR 1994 page 634 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is mere camouflage and smile screen is a question of fact . The Hon'ble Court further held-- 8. The management's representative argued that there is no slurry removal workers and no work is taken from the concerned persons and neither the management of Kathara Washery nor the management of Swang Washery ever engaged the concerned workmen in any kind of job . Swang Washery and Kathara Washery are very small coal washing plants and few number of workmen are engaged in both the plants for running the plants . The management never engaged the workmen concerned for removal of slurry.

Inthis respect WW- 1 stated in cross - examination at page 2 that I cannot say the meaning of para 20 of my affidavit . There is no contractor which is mentioned in para 11. I have got no gate pass . We have got no pay slip . No contractor is getting our job . I do not know M/ s . Amrit Singh. I never met him . The original of photocopy which have been filed by me is with me .

WW- 2 , Shailesh Dutta Pandey, stated in his cross- examination that I have got no Gate Pass to work in the washery . None of the workmen got their Gate Pass . Distance between Kathara to Swang is for about 4 k.m. I do not know who is M/ s . Amrit Singh . I cannot recognise S.D. Pandey . I have never worked under any contractor. We have got no paper from the management to work . We have got no pay slip from the management regarding payment . It shows that they have not worked with the management because if any work is taken from the workmen by the management they have been given gate

"Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen as has been urged in this case , is a question of fact and has to be established by the contract labourers on the basis ofthe requisite material . It is not possible High Court or this Court , while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions , only on the basis of the affidavits . It need not to be pointed out that in all such cases , the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors . As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer , eliminating the contractor from the scene , is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the Court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act are the competent force to adjudicate such disputes on the 1023 Gl /11-27 ১ 2782

HP GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART !!

basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them ."

Onbehalf of the concerned workmen.other laws referred are--- 1962(I ) LLJ 131 ; SCLJ ( 6) 3867 ; 1964 ( 11 ) L.LJ 633 ; F.L.R. 1990 (60) 20; 1987 Lab . 1.C. 619; 2002 (2 ) LLN . 368 ; 2001 ( I ) LLN 923 ; 2003 ( 99) FLR 5 ; 2003 ( 98 ) FLR 8 , and 2003 ( 98 ) FLR 826.

The workmen have referred Reference No. 58/92 decided by this Tribunal on 3-10-1996 which has been confirmed in CWJC 199/97 by the Hon'ble High Court . Also referred 1998 ( 1) S.L.J. page 138 ( Patna) and also referred 2008 AIR SCW 3996 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laiddown-" Regularisation of service--Contractual workers--Disentitlement from claiming regularisation- Not inflaxible rule- Workers appointed by ONGC initially through contractor--Claim for regularisation- Reference to Tribunal Finding of fact by Tribunal that workmen were employees of ONGC and not contract employees-- being employees of ONGC workmen would be entitledto all benefits available in that capacity, and issue of regularization would pale into insignificance ."

The Hon'ble Court further laid down " Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , S. 10 -Reference Scope Pleadings of parties and evidence produced- Relevant for determining real scope of dispute-Wording of reference showing that dispute vas as to regularisation of service ofcontractual workers-Pleadings however showing that core issue before Tribunal was with regard to status of workers as employees of the principal employer Award of 1 ribunal Holding workers to be employees of principal employer and granting relief of regularisation- Not outside to jurisdiction ."

10. The management referred 2006 Supreme Court Cases ( L& S) 753 ( State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & others ) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down ....

such directions , certain to defect the concept of justice , equal opportunity for all and the constitui . scheme of public employment ---Supreme Cour is how to insist on the State making regular recruitments a appointments and not to encourage or shut its exes to persistant transgression of the rules ofdes recruitment-It is erroneous for Supreme Court in consider equity for the handful of people who approached the court with a claim whilst ignoring equ for the teeming millions seeking employment and opportunity for competing for employment For courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interte unduly with the economic / financial arrangement affairs of the State or its instrumentalities Phenome .... of' litigious employment' which had arisen due to isse of such directions by High Courts , and even Supe Court, highlighted-Held, merely because an eniples . had continued under cover of an order of the court o 'litigious employment ' or had been continued beyote term ofhis appointment by the State or its instrumentali he would not be entitled to any right to be absor hed made permanent in service , merely on the strength of s continuance, ifthe original appointinent was not following a due process of selection as envisaged relevant rules-It is further not open to the court to presen regular recruitment at the instance of such empios Unsustainability of claim to permanence on basis of .... continuance in irregular or illegal public employt discussed in detail - Held, decision of the Supreme running counter to or containing directions counter these principles will stand denuded of their statas precedents --Union and State Goveraments and t instrumentalities directed to set in motion the process regular recruitment in cases where temporary orde wages were employed against vacant sanctioned pos within six months of the date of this judgement Furt . cases of irregular appointments ( not illegal appointmear of duly qualified persons in duty sanctioned vacant pos who had coninued to work for ten years or more. without the intervention of orders of courts or tribun ان may have to be considered for regularisation on mietits light ofthe principles laid down in this case , as a one - me measure , within six months of the date of t judgement.

Constitution of India Arts . 142 , 32 & 136 and par III and IV--Rule of Supreme Courts Individualising justice to suit a given situation Scope for Assumpt reparties before the court being representativet ! cause-Propriety--Need for balancing of rights i numerous not before the court as against the tew who before the court-Held, We have given upto cursels system of governance by rule of law The role Supreme Court is to render justice according to lo expected to decide questions of law for the county , d not to decide individual cases without referen

principles of law--- In the name of individualising justice d "Constitution of India-Arts . 32, 136 , 141 , 142 & 226 and 16, 14 & 309 and 38 & 39 ( a) --Public employment-- Absorption , regularisation , or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual , casual daily - wage or ad hoc employees appointed / recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment Issuance of directions for, and for stay of regular recruitment process for the posts concerned----Impermissibility of-- Need for addressing concerns of equality for ali , and not of just the few before the court , by upholding of constitutional scheme ofpublic , employment . whose hallmark is equality of opportunity- Held, Supreme Court and High Courts should not issue such directions unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme-- Reasons for, discussed extensively- Financial/ economic impact of such directions , as a factor-The Wide powers under Art . 226 are not intended to be used for issuance of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

is not possible for the Supreme Court to shut its eyes to the constitutional scheme and the rights of the numerous as against the few who are before the court- Directive principle of State policy have also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part III and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizens- -Practice and procedure--Rule of law- Meaning of Implications of a system of governance by ruie of law. for Apex Court of the land . "

Uma Devi's case is still binding on all courts . By Puran Chandra Pandey case the judgement of Uma Devi which has been decided by Constitution Bench cannot be ignored and Unia Devi case is binding . Another law referred by the management is ( 2009 ) I Supreme Court Cases ( L & S ) 943 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held by virtue ofArt . 141, the judgement of Constitution Bench in Uma Devi case is binding on all courts including the Supreme Court till the same is overuled by a larger Bench-- The attempt in dilute the rulings in Uma Devi by the suggestion in Pooran Chandra Pandey case that Uma Devi case cannot be applied to a case where regulararisation has been sought for in pursuance of Art . 14 , held , is obiter and the two- Judge Bench in Pooran Chandra Pandey case had no occasion to make any adverse comment on the binding character of the Constitution Bench judgement in Uma Devi case- The said comments and observation made in Pooran Chandra Pandey case should be read as obitar and should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts , tribunals and other judicial foras nor should they be relied upon or made the basis for bypassing the principles laid down in Uma Devi case-Absorption-- Regularisation.

Constitution of India -Arts . 141 and 124 ( 6 ) , 219 and 144 Binding effect of judgments of Supreme Court- Judicial discipline-Cardinal importance of strongly emphasised---Total commitment to constitutional ideals by those who take oath to uphold it---High Courts or smaller Benches of Supreme Court ignoring or bypassing ratio of larger Benches of Supreme Court including Constitution Benches ---Impermissibility- Need to adhere to basics of judicial discipline , strongly emphasised- Need for predictability and certainly in the law- Impact of disrespect to constitutional ethos and breach of judicial discipline , spelied out Held , discipline is a sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system . If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the rule of law , it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law --- Judiciary-- Judicial discipline Cardinal importance of Precedents Stare decisis - Retionale for doctrine of, explained .

High Courts--Precedents Binding effect of rulings of coordinate / larger Benches of High Courts , reiterated .

Constitution of India-Arts . 16 & 14 and 32 , 226 & 156 Public employment Power of employer--Judicial

2783

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

review-- Scope of Though decision of employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe source or mode of recruitment , etc. is not immune from judicial review, held , power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated by mala fides Abolition/ Reduction of posts . "

10. Considering the above facts and circumstances it shows that the concerned workmen have not been able to prove that they have worked themselves with the management or through contractor , no gate pass , no pay slips have been filed , no relevant document has been filed to show that they have worked with the management so that they should be regularised .

Considering the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009 ) I Supreme Court Cases (L& S ) 943 held that Uma Devi decision which is still binding effect on all courts in which Hon'ble Supreme Court Constitution Bench laid down that court cannot direct for regularisation , appointment or absorption in public sector undertaking because such order is against the Art . 14 of the Constitution of India .

In view of the above facts and circumstances and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court , I come to the conclusion that the demand of the union for regularisation of the concerned workmen in the services of M / s.CCL is notjustified.

11. Accordingly, I render the following award- The demand of Rashtriya Washery Mazdoor Sangh from the management of C.C. W.D. Area , Kathara of M / s . C.C. Ltd. that 128 workmen , the names mentioned in the order of reference including 80 workmen of Swang Washery and 48 workmen of Kathara Washery, be regularised in the service of M / s . Central Coalfield Ltd. is not justified . So , the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 916.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार लुफतांशा कार्गो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई नं.-। के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/17/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/03/2011 प्राप्त को हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -11012/57/2001- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

New Delhi , the 10th March, 2011

S.O. 916.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , ise Central Gevemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 01 / 17/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- abour Court - 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the ndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the nagement of Lufthansa Cargo and their workman , which Abs received by the Central Government on 10-03-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/ 57/2001 - IR( C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I, MUMBAI Justice G. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-1/17 of 2003

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Lufthansa Cargo .

AND

Mukesh Kumar Karotia

Appearances:

For the Management

Ms. Monica Parekh , Advocate .

For the Workmen

Shri J. P. Sawant, Advocate. State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , the 28th February, 2011

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L - 11012/57/2001 - IR(C- I ) , dt . 04-04-2003 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

" क्या मैसर्स लुफ्थांसा कार्गो द्वारा कर्मकार श्री मुकेश कुमार करोटिया की सेवाएं दिनांक 2-6-1999 से समाप्त किया जाना उचित विधिवत् एवं न्याय- संगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? "

2. According to the statement of claim submitted by the workman Mukesh Kumar Karotia he was working continuously with the first party since 1989 and he acquired the status of permanent employee on account of his completing 240 days in continuous service of the first party. The first party by oral order abruptly and arbitrarily terminated his services with effect from 2-6-1999 .

PAP

The action the fleste is per se bada and as suce n deser quashec d

was mandatory on the d

or give wages in lien of

retrenchment compel cors

services but the first party fat !

the action of the first part ist lay de 2004 prayed for direction to the first parts

service with all consequenuat jenera

service and full back wages w

3. As per the written stateint...

first party, Lufthansa Cargo tada name of Lufthansa Cargo Indis Pvt. Lt. separate legai entity duly incorporated Companies Act 1956 cn 09-2-1996 tron Cargo which is a division of iufthansa Gerтан Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt . Ltd. is a non - eр company which was formed in 1996 as a joina with Hinduja Group (Ashok Leyland ) and oft's German Airlines . After learning of the non- tub status of Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt . Ltd. the second workman chose to abandon his claim against Lufi Cargo India Pvt . Ltd. and is pursuing a false claim a the first party. The second party workman not havins employed by the first party there is no quest termination of services of the former by the latter second party, therefore , prayed for dismissal of the of the second party workman with compensatory 4. The second party workman filed his affidav thereafter he was cross - examined by learned counselor the first party whereas the first party filed affidavit ervar Dilipkumar Rane who was cross - examined by learned counsel for the first party workman .

5. Heard learned counsel for the first party learned counsel for the second party workınan 6. In this case the first party is Lufthansaar and in the statement of claim filed by the second party workman it is alleged that the second party workman working continuously with the first party since 1989 he thereby acquired the status of a permanent employ of the first party. However, in affidavit the second party workman Mukesh Kumar Karotia states that he was employed as a peon by Lufthansa German Airlines we 29-11-1989 through M/ s. Welserve Enterprise and thereafter he was directly employed by M/ s . Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 1-8-1996 . There is thus , a material difference in the allegation made in the statement of clases submitted by the second party workman and the affida submitted by him and there is absolutely nothing or record to support the claim of the second party workman that he was employed by Lufthansa German Airlines w .? 29-11-1989 . A certificate Ex . C and vouchers EX, D fikd by the second party workman only show that he was employed by Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt . Ltd.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7. It is thus clear that there is no proof of the fact that the second party workman was ever employed by the first party and he was in continuous service of the first party. It is also clear that Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt . Ltd. different from Lufthansa Cargo which is a division of Lufthansa German Airlines . Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt . Ltd. is a separate entity incorporated on 09-2-1996 .

8. Since Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt . Ltd. is altogether a different entity from the first party Lufthansa Cargo and there is absolutely no proof of the fact that the second party workman was any time employed by the first party , therefore, in such a situation the second party workman is entitled to any relief as against the first party .

9. An Award is passed accordingly . JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 917. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सहारा एयरलाइन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-03-2011 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/16/2009- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 917. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 48/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sahara Airlines Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-03-2011 .

[No. L - 11012 / 16 /2009 - IR ( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Monday , the 28th February, 2011

Present : A. N. Janardanan Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 48/2009

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10

2785

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of M / s . Sahara Airlines Ltd. , and thier Workman. ]

BETWEEN

Sri S. Mahendran

I Party / Petitioner

: Vs.

2nd Respondent 1st Party 1. M/ s . Sahara Airlines Limited, L- 70 /329 , Mahipalpur Extension , New Delhi - 110037

: 2nd Respondent 2nd Party 2. M/ s . Sahara ladia Commercial Corpn. Ltd., Sahara India Centre , 8th Floor No. 2 , Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj , Lucknow - 226024

: 2nd Respondent 3rd Party 3. M / s . Jet Airways Ltd. , SM Centre , Andheri - Kurla Road , Andheri East Mumbai - 400059

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

In person

M/ s. Gupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ : 1st Party

For the 2nd Respondent/ : 2nd Party M/ s . V. Devraj , Auth. Representative

M/ s . Gupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ : 3rd Party

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 11012 / 16 / 2009 IR ( CM - I ) , dated 19-06-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of Sri S. Mahendran for his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share purchase Agreement of dated 01-04-2007 entered by the Management of Jet Airways (India ) Ltd. , Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and others and Sahara Airlines Limited is justified and legal ? ( ii ) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 48/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance , petitioner in person , Ist and 3rd Respondents through Advocates and 2nd Respondent through Authorized Representative . No Claim or Counter Statement filed by the respective parties .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

Peints for consideration are :

Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways ( India ) is justified and legal ?

( To what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?

Peints No. 1 and 2

+ When the ID stood posted today for further ceding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petit.on supported by Affidavit , both signed by him reying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the Japute has been settled with the Management and already submitted his resignation alongwith PF Aharawal Forms and that after collecting full and final ment offurs he is to forgo his right of reinstatement ew of the above embodied terms of the settlement tee sought to be withdrawt: and an award is to be maonsideration of the request of the petitioner rected by the written application and affidavit sworn t. support thereof, approved by the Respondent by sing no objection , that the dispute has been settied ween the partics in consideration of the full and final rent of dues thereof to be made to him and on epoing the right of reinstatement , he be permitted to ingraw the dispute in the wake of the repeated appeal of Tribunal before the parties to have the dispute amicabiy fied and the petitioner having effected out of court Settlement of the dispute in terms thereof the prayer is mis to be accorded.

3. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to thdraw the dispute . In view of the fact that the withdrawal is in lieu of agreed monetary compensation to be fulfilled and his claim for absorption being given up no question nother survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether lega ! and justified .

7. 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 28th February, 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :----

None For the I Party/Petitioner

None For the il Party/ Petitioner

Documents Marked :

On the Peitioner's side

Date

Ex . No.

Description

Nil

[ PART II S On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 918.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 . का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरलाइन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजका श्रीर कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पचा: सोत्र्या 66/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरका 16-03-201: प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल-11012/34/ 2009 आई आर डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डाक New Dethi , the 10th March , 2011 S.O. 918. in pursuance of Section 17 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 19471 , the terte Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunai - t Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation the management of Sahara Airlines Limited and workmen, which was received by the Central Goven . on 10-03-2011 .

[No. 1-1101234/ 2009-12 D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk IRA

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN INDUSTRIAL - TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Monday, the 28th February, 2011 Present : A. N. JANARDANAN . Presiding ficer Industrial Dispute No. 66/2009 [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under e (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) ef Sect 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 195 between the Management of M/ s . Sabara Airlines and thier Workmen

BETWEEN

Sri P. Sundharsanan

|Party/Petibes

Vs.

2nd Responda

Ist Party 1. M/ s. Sahara Airlines Limited: L -70/ 329 , Mahipalpur

Extension , New Delhi - 110037 भाग !!- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2. M/ s . Sahara India

: 2nd Respondent/

2nd Party Commercial Corpn . Ltd. ,

Sahara India Centre ,

8th floor, No. 2 , Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj ,

Lucknow - 226024

: 2nd Respondent/ 3. M/ s Jet Airways Ltd. ,

SM Centre , Andheri -Kurla 3rd Party Road , Andheri East , Mumbai - 400059

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

In person

M/ s . Gupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ : ist Party

For the 2nd Respondent/ :

M /s . V. Devraj , Auth .

Representative 2nd Party

For the 2nd Respondent/ :

M/ s . Gupta & Ravi 3rd Party

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 11012 / 34/ 2009 - IR ( CM - 1 ) dated 19-06-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"( i ) Whether the demand of Sri P. Sundarsanan of his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share Purchase Agreement of dated 01-04-2007 entered by the Management of Jet Airways ( India ) Ltd. , Sahara India Commerical Corporation Ltd. and others and Sahara Airlines Ltd. is justified and legal ?

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

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 66/2009 and issued notices

to both sides . Both sides entered appearance , petitioner in person , Ist and 3rd Respondents through Advocates and 2nd Respondent through Authorized Representative . No Claim or Counter Statement filed by the respective parties .

3. Points for consideration are :

( i ) Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways ( India ) is justified and legal ?

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

2787

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

Points No. 1 and 2

4. When the ID stood posted today for further proceeding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petition supported by Affidavit , both signed by him praying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the dispute has been settled with the Management and that he already submitted his resignation alongwith PF Withdrawal Forms and that after collecting full and final payment of dues he is to forgo his right of reinstatement . In view of the above embodied terms of the settlement the ID is sought to be withdrawn and an award is to be passed.

5. On a consideration of the request of the petitioner supported by the written application and affidavit sworn to in support thereof, approved by the Respondent by endorsing no objection , that the dispute has been settled between the parties in consideration of the full and final payment of dues thereof to be made to him and on foregoing the right of reinstatement , he be permitted to withdraw the dispute in the wake of the repeated appeal of this Tribunal before the parties to have the dispute amicably settled and the petitioner having effected out of court settlement of the dispute in terms thereof the prayer is only to be accorded .

6. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the dispute . In view of the fact that the withdrawal is in lieu of agreed monetary compensation to be fulfilled and his claim for absorption being given up no question further survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether legal and justified .

7. 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 28th February, 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : -

None For the I Party /Petitioner

None For the II Party / Petitioner

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Date

Ex . No.

Description

Nil 2788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 919. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सहारा एयरलाईन्स 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 51/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -11012/19/2009- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S. O. 919. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sahara Airlines Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/ 19 /2009 - IR (CM - I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 28th February, 2011

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 51/2009

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of M/ s . Sahara Airlines Ltd. and their Workman. ]

BETWEEN

: IstParty/Petitioner Sri K. Nageswarrao

Vs.

2nd

1. M/ s . Sahara Airlines Limited , : Respondent/

1stParty L-70/329 , Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi - 110037

2. M/s . Sahara India Commercial Corpn . Ltd. ,

2nd Respondent/ 2ndParty

[PART 11 -SEC. But Sahara India Centre ,

8th Floor No. 2 Kapoorthala Comples , Aliganj , Lucknow -226024

: 2nd Party/ Respondent 3rdParty

3. M/ s . Jet Airways Ltd. , Respondent/ SM Centre , Andheri - Kurla Road, Andheri East , Mumbai -400059

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

: Sri K. Sudalai Kannu L. Kalaieswaran

: M/ s . Gupta & Ravi Forthe 2nd Respondent/ 1st Party

: M/s . V. Devraj , Auth . Representative

Forthe 2nd Respondent/2nd Party

: M/ s . Gupta & Ravi Forthe 2nd Respondent/3rd Party

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vid itsOrder No. L - 11012/ 19 /2009 - IR ( CM - I) dated 19-6-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of Sri K. Nageswarrao for his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of let Airways with reference to the Share Purchase Agreement of dated 1-4-2007 enteredby the Management of Jet Airways ( India) Ltd. , Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and others and Sahara Airlines Ltd. is justified and legal ? ( ii) To what reliet is the workman concerned entitled ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribuna! has numbered it as ID 51/2009 and issued notices to both sides. Both sides entered appearance , petitioner in person , 1st and 3rd Respondents through Advocates and 2nd Respondent through Authorized Representatives . The petitioner filed Claim Statement . No Counter Statement has been filed by any of the Respondents .

3. Short recitals of facts in the Claim Statement are as follows:

The petitioner appointed as Security Guard of 1-9-1996 with last drawn salary of Rs . 7,963 by the First [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2:89

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011/चैत्र12 1933

7. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the dispute , In view of the fact that the withdrawal is in lieu of agreed monetary compensation to be fulfilled and his claim for absorption being given up no question further survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether legal and justified.

8. 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 28th February, 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : -

Forthe I Party/ Petitioner : None

For the II Party/Petitioner : None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Respondent, later by a Bipartite Agreement dated 18-1-2006 amended on 1-4-2007 between ( i) Jet Airways (India) Ltd. ( ii ) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and (iii ) Sahara Airlines Ltd. continued employment of Pilots, Engineers , etc. keeping out petitioner for no reason . On 20-4-2007 Sahara Airlines purported to transfer petitioner to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICC ) who in turn deputed him to Jet Airways . On 1-6-2007 he was transferred to Lucknow, though objected wherein he joined but due to personal problems he came back and the ID is raised . The petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in Jet Airways without being discriminated under Share Purchase Agreement dated 18-1-2006 . Permission under Section- 25(N) of the ID Act had not been obtained . Petitioner would at least be entitled to 3 months salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation . He was never employed by SICC created to defeat his rights and his deputation is a camouflage . Termination could amount to retrenchment. Demand for his absorption in Jet Lite with all benefits is prayed for.

4. Points for consideration are :

Date

Description

Ex. No.

Nil

On the Management's side

(i) Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways (India) is justified and legal ?

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

Points No. 1 & 2

5. When the ID stood posted today for further proceeding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petition supported by Affidavit , both signed by him praying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the dispute has been settled with the Management and that he already submitted his resignation alongwith PF Withdrawal Forms and that after collecting full and final payment of dues he is to forgo his right of reinstatement . In view of the above embodied terms of the settlement the ID is sought to be withdrawn and an award is to be passed.

1023 GI /11-28

Ex. No.

Date Nil Description

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 920. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद नं. -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 166/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/321/1989- आई आर (सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S. O. 920. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/ 1990) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, I Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/ 321 / 1989 - IR (C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1953

2790

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CEN FRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 ) (d )(2A) of I.D. Act .

Reference No. 166 of 1990

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Hazaribagh Area of M/ s . C.C. Ltd.

And

Their Workmen .

PRESENT : Shri H.M Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

None.

FortheEmployers :

None .

For the Workmen

State: Jharkhand

PARI I S In view of such circumstances . I rente. 'No Dispute' award in the present reference case.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding M नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 921.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1943 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मीसांगन प प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच बन्दम में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. - 1 , धनबाट के पंचाट 70/90) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11 : 3 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/224/89 - आईआर डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

Industry: Coal

Dated the 24th February, 2011

AWARD

By Order No. 20012 ( 321 )/ 89 - IR (Coal - I ) dated 11-7-1990 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Hazaribagh Area of C.C.L. Chachi , at and P.O. Charbi , Dist. Hazaribagh by making wrongful deduction of4 days wages i.e. for the periodfrom 17-4-1989 to 20-4-1989 from: the wages /salary of staff/workman payable for the month of April , 1989 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman concerned are entitled?"

2. This order of reference was received in this Tribunal on 16-7-1990 . Thereafter notices were issued to the parties for filing their respective written statement . The workmen appeared only on one date but did not appear on subsequent dates and as such , a ' no dispute ' award was passed , on 14-5-1991 . On a petition moved by the sponsoring union the case was re - opened . Both the parties filed their written statement respectively. Thereafter management examined one witness as MW- 1 who was cross -examined by the workman and discharged . Thereafter again the concerned workmen did not appear on several dates . Then the case was fixed for adducing evidence by the workman on 30-8-2010by sending registered notice . Even then none appeared on behalf of concerned workmen on 30-8-2010 , 13-10-2010 and 10-12-2010 . It shows that neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workmen are interested to contact the case .

S.O. 921. - In pursuance of Section of t Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal com Court , 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relamet the management of CCL and their workmen , which received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011

[No. 1.- 20012-22 0801201月 D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO skil

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , AT DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 )( d ) ( 24) OH.D . Vet Reference No. 70 of 1990

Parties Employers in relation to the managem انس Sounda D Colliery ofCCL And

Their Workmen .

PRESENT : SHRI H.M. SINGEL , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES:

None.

Forthe Employers

None.

For the Workmen

Industry State: Jharkhand

Dated the 28th Februa [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 / 224 / 89 - IR ( Coal - I ) dated 10-4-1990 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 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :

"Whether Shri Chandra Oraon was a workman of Sounda ' D ' Colliery of CCL and if so whether the action of the management of Sounda D' Colliery of CCL , P.O. Saunda , Dist. Hazaribagh by not regularising Shri Chandra Oraon in Cat . I & II , rendering him idle w.e.f. 13-2-83 and non - payment of compensatory wages for the period of his forced idleness i.e. 13-2-83 to till date is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? " 2. In this reference case both the parties filed their respective written statements , rejoinders . Management filed their documents to substantiate their case , but the union did not file any document . Management examined one witness as MW- 1 who have proved Exts . M - 1 to M - 1 / 11 . Thereafter the case was fixed for adducing evidence by the workman . But inspite giving several adjournments no evidence was adduced by the workman till 1997. After that again the case was fixed for adducing evidence by the workinen on 28-7-2010 by sending registered notices to both the parties . Even then no evidence was produced on behalf of the workman on 28-7-2010 , 13-8-2010 and 22-10-2010 . Thereafter , it seems that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case further .

Accordingly, I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 922.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. - 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/470/1999 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S. O. 922.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 36/2000 )

2791

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

of the Central Government industrial Tribunai - cum - Labour Court 2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L -20012/470 / 1999 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , AT DHANBAD .

PRESENT : KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer Reference No. 36 of 2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman Mr. B.B. Pandey , Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate . State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal Dhanbad , Dated , the 25th February , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour . in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L - 20012/ 470/ 99 - IR ( C - 1 ) , dated the 18th February , 2000 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management to dismiss Sri A.N. Tiwary 24 days before due date of his retirement and to stop payment of his retirement benefits is just and proper ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

2. The case of the sponsoring union is that workman A.N. Tiwary (Anandi Nath Tiwary ) , the Clerk (Revenue ) after appointment in BCCL in the year 1992 was placed in the Estate Section of the Area by the then General Manager , Govindpur Area as per the assignment of him for dealing with the land files concerning the land of the Area , he was performing his duty satisfactorily . The Management/Agent of theGovindpur Colliery had sent a proposal to the General Manager for acquisition of 0.76.50 acre of land under plot 22 at Mouza Jamua , Thana No. 254 as required for extension of quarry Nos . 5 , 6 and 7 Seam of Coal , and the atoresaid land had 13 houses standing over the plot . The General 2

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 2, 1933

Manager instructed to the Deputy Manager (Admn) to process the same immediately under proposal No. CC / Lan Surv/91 /2334 dated 29-1-91 . As per the direction of the Deputy Manager (Admn) , the workman was entrusted with collecting all the documents of the land owners , preparation of land files and accordingly after discussion, tae documents were collected and put up before the Deputy Mahager (Admn) on perusal of the same , a Note Sheetwas repared as per direction and advice given by the Deputy Manager (Admn ) and found it satisfactory and thereafter the same under his signature was forwarded to the General Manager under Ref. No. B.C.C.L./Area III/ Rehabilitation/ 91 dated 9/ 12-3-91 .

3 Further case of the workman is that the aforesaid Note Sheet categorically stated the existence of 13 dwelling houses of 13 families over the land , hence necessary approval required for the employment of 13 persons but only " subject to the verification ofthe claim " . Consequently on the recommendation of the General Manager concerned to the competent authority for its approval in urgency, the committee so constituted by the General Manager for the valuation of the houses in question comprised of the Area Engineer (Civil), Dy. P.M. (Admn) and representative of the Finance . On the verification of the committee , the valuation report was prepared by Shri Valmiki Prasad , AC(E ) on measurement and signed by all the committee members and was submitted before the General Manager which was forwarded to the competent authority for approval , but in the month ofOctober, 1991 , the approval was dropped and the file was returned to the Genreal Manager Shri . S.N.P. Rai who kept it in his custody. But due to his transfer at the same time, Shri S.M. Kochhar , the Additional General Manager of the same Area took charge of the General Manager, who tried his best to use the concerned workman us false evidence (witness ) against aforesaid previous General Manager and also had asked to arrange the land on easy term and conditions from the villager; and when the concerned workman declined to satisfy him it resulted in the chargesheet against him . The chargesheet contained firstly giving a false report about the dwelling houses over the land and secondly fraudulently trying to get employment for his son Dinesh Chandra Tiwary along with others as levelled against the workman . Though the workman has submitted his reply in detail in denial to the charges yet in the year 1993 Shri R.P. Debral , Shri B. Singh, the P.M. and the Estate Officer of the said Area were appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the presenting Officer of the Company as per letter No. ref. No. GM/ AR - III/ PD / 93/28/ 310/7018-27 dated 29-3 /5-4-93 respectively.

4. Further case of the workman is that suddenly after the lapse ofthree years , the workman received a letter dated 21-5-96 from Deputy Chief Personnel Manager ( Shri R.P. Debral , the former enquiry officer) in which Shri O.P. Joshi , P.M. Govindpur Area was appointed as the Enquiry Orticer

PALS and aforesa Siri Birendr Singh , the Jentor Estate as the Representing fficer were respectively apρολ In course of the enquiry the working was

ولوا the supreannuation letter No. 547 datee

stating thereir . he would te ire with effect from

holding the enquiry after examrowthe wise

ofboth the par les and he ng don the sa submitted his enquiry report, Loving he

charges stated in the chargeshee and lastly

the second show cause issued by the Gene :

dismissal order was issued. Brune per

documents , the Note Shee: prepansi A the

the statement of witness transpinus thatbe

held guilty of the charges winect consider h favourable points and accordingly punished , asca with his being unguilty as apparent frin the statem the witnesses . Even theAppelllate Authority ( CMDD did not consider his case of innocence in his Thereafter on raising the issue in C. W. J. C. No. 537 OF (R), the Hon'ble High Court Patna ( Bench Ranchis pleased to pass an Order concerning the dispute Industrial Dispute to be decided by the proper Labour at Accordingly the dispute raised before the Assn La Commissioner ( C) , Dhanbad for conciliationn which fait despite the best efforts of the Conciliation Officer ressaltet in the Reference to this Tribunal for adjudication 5. Whereas the case of the management is workman had processed the Note Sheet for the empiovocn .

of 13 persons of the 13 families owing their house.

It also mentioned the eviction of the aforsaid houses u the land under Plot No. 22 , Khata No. 4 ofMouza No. affect 13 families and about 200 family members . But on dueverification not a single house fully constructed except one house with the tile roof but without doors and windo which was alleged to be owend by his son Shri Dinesh Chandra Tewary and his brothers with a view employment in favour of aforsaid Dinesh Chandra Flewar by fraudulent means adopted by the workman himself the workman was chargesheeted on 18 / 19-11-92 tors aforsaid act amounting to his misconduct andere Certified Standing Orders of the Company. Finding los reply to the chargesheet unsatisfactory as per order to Fa management the departmental enquiry was conducted Shri O.P. Joshi , the P.M. as the Enquiry Officer in accordance, with the principle of natural justice . At the enquiry, me Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report against the workman for the charges having been proved fully ad thus he was held guilty of it. The Competent Auth after considering the gravity of the charges passed order of dismissal against the workman which was als justified and legal . The Enquiry was conducted far proper and as per the principle of natural justice .

Furtherit is also alleged that the Appeal the workman filed against this dismissal order before the Appellate [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Authority as per the dismissal order dated 20-8-1997 of the Hon'ble High Court concerned passed in his C. W. J.C. No. 2181/1997 ( R ) , was also dismissed , being without merit .

6. In course of hearing , since the workman A.N. Tewari expired on 6-2-2005 as per his death certificate dated 22-3-2005 , his son Suresh Kumar Tewary 30 years on his application dated 16-1-2008 supported with the affidavit dated 8-5-88 was authorised by his two brother Ganesh Chandra Tewary and Dinesh Chandra Tewary has been suustinued as the legal heir for the workman vide Order daed6-1-11

FINDING WITH REASONS

7. In the instant case , I find that the Tribunal after hearing both the parties on the basis of no objection of Mr. B.B. Pandey , the Ld . Advocate for the workman in course of the evidence of the management at the preliminary point of the domestic enquiry held the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workman ( now deceased ) was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . In course of hearing on the preliminary point as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry , the enquiry proceeding papers i.e. copies of the Chargesheet , reply of the workman concerned to the chargesheet as Ext . M - 1 and M - 2 respectively and the original copies of the appointment letter of the Enquiry Officer , notice of Enquiry Officer , the entire proceeding , photo copies of enquiry report and dismissal order have been marked as Ext . M - 3 , M - 4 ( M - 4 ) Ext . M - 5 ( series ) , M - 6 and M - 7 respectively .

Upon holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper in consonance of the principle of natural justice the Tribunal in exercise of the powers as conferred upon under Section 11A of the I.D. Act . , 1947 is to confine its adjudication only to the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the workman in view of the proved charges levelled against him.

From the perusal of the materials available on the case record , it stands clear that the following facts are indisputable:

(i) Workman Anandi Nath Tewary ( now deceased) was a clerk (Revenue ) Estate Department , Govindpur Area who as the Dealing Clerk had dealt with File Reference No. BCCL / AR - III/Rehabili/ 91 dt . 9 / 12-3-91 submitting his Note Sheet about rehabilitation of 13 families owing 13 houses situated over 0.76½ acres situated under plot No. 22 , Khata No. 4 of Mouza Jamua No. 254 with the proposal for employment of 13 persons ofthe said family.

2793

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

(ii) Out of 13 family, one was his son Dinesh Chandra Tewary who had only house of tile , without door and windows over the disputed land for which the workman as a Dealing Clerk had also sought for the employment of his son .

8. The charges against the deceased workmen were that he processed the file concerned with his Note Sheet regarding the rehabilitation of 13 families alleged owing 13 houses situated over the said plot and consequently the workman had recorded in his Note Sheet that the 13 farmilies that about 200 family members were likely to be affected by the eviction of the said 13 houses , but on verification of it , factually not a single house except one house with the Tile roof but without door and window was found and there was no human habitation and that the aforsaid owen: house was alleged to be owned by his son Dinesh Chandra Tewary and others only with a view to get his employment and rehibilitation by fraudulent means .

9. On the scrutiny of the Enquiry report ( Ext . M - 6 ), it clearly reveals the fact that the Enquiry Officer thoroughig held the domestic enquiry by examining together 12 persons onbehalf ofboth the parties namely, ( 1 ) Shri Birendra Kumar Singh , Management Representative , ( 2 ) Sri S.P. Prassed , Dy. Personnel Manager (Administration ) , ( 3 ) Sri U.K. Sarkar . Finance Officer of Area No. III , ( 4 ) Sri Arvind Chatterjee . Assistant Survey Officer of Govindpur Colliery. ( 5 ) Shri Valmiki Prasad , Asstt . Enqineer ( Civil ) , ( 6 ) Shri Balmukund , the Despatch Clerk , ( 7 ) Shri K.B. Rai , Revenue Inspector , ( 8 ) Shri A.K. Sarangi , Dy. Estate Manager Head quarters on behalf of the management and ( 9 ) Shri Shivaji Tewary, ( 10 ) Shri Shyamnarayan Pandey, ( 11 ) Shri Chandra Bhushan Tewary and ( 12 ) Shri Anandi Nath Tewary , ( the deceased workman ) on behalf of the workman himself. On the analysis of the evidence as contrasted with the relevant domestic as well as the note dated 9-3-91 signed by the Dy. P.M. (Administration ) of deceased workman found that no house was completely built except one with the country tile , that the workman Anandi Nath Tewary prepared the fileknowingly that one of the house owner was his son yet he did not disclose either in the Note Sheet or in his writing to the superiors while dealing with the file which was dealt with by himself and the Dy. P.M. ( Administration) on 9-3-91 . So the factual position as stated by the workman was contradictory. As such the Enquiry Officer held that the deceased workman Anandi Nath Tewary connived with others with a view to get employment and rehabilitation site for his son Dinesh Chandra Tewary , the present petitioner and 12 others by false report and accordingly the charges were proved against him. I find the enquiry report is based on reasoning and on thorough consideration ofthe facts provided on behalf of both the parties . It is also pertinent to mention that the workman concerned has fully participated in the enquiry. Upon the submission of the 2794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

Enquiry report to the compentent authority before whom the deceased workman Anandi Nath Tewary had submitted his representation dated 25-7-97 on receipt of the copies of the enquiry papers , the authority concerned found the atorsaid misconduct being established against him and ocing of very serious in nature providing no scope of any lemency and awarded him the punishment of dismissal as is bonatide for his said misconduct .

10 On due consideration of all the aforsaid facts and circumstances , I am also of the opinion that the workman now deceased) as a Clerk dealing with the rehabilitation ale concerned had malafide betrayed , loyality for the eamployment ofhis son Dinesh Kumar Tewary ( the petitioner) fraudulent means which amounted his misconduct as defined under Clause 26-1-11 and 26-11-12 of the Certified Standing Order. His such fraudulent misconduct was of so much grave that the dismissal from his service cannot be baid to be disproportinate to it . Hence, I hold that the action 1. the management in dismissal of workman A.N. Tewary now deceased) 20 days before due date of his retirement d stop payment of retiral benefit was quite just and proper in the uye of law. It is cardinal principle of law that such a fraudulent person can be dismissed from his service even one day before of his superannuation . Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 201 !

का.आ. 923. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 की 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सहारा एयरलाईन्स 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 57/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/25/2009- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S. O. 923. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sahara Airlines Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L - 11012/25 /2009 - iR ( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

[PART II SH

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURBI CHENNAI

Monday, the 28th February, 2011 PRESENT : A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Industrial Dispute No. 57/2009 In the matter of the dispute for adjudication underst (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 14 of 1947 ) , oth The Management of M's . Sahara Airlines itd and Workman

BETWEEN

C.S. Mohan

: Ist Party Pouth

Vs.

2nd Respondent Party

M/ s . Sahara Airlines Limited L- 0 /329 , Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi - 110037

2nd Respondeht ... Party

2. M/ s . Sahara India Commercial Corpn . 1.td. Sahara India Centre , 8th floor No. 2, Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj Lucknow -226024

: 2nd Respondent 3 . Party

5. M/ s.Jet Airways Ltd. SM Centre , Andheri -Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai -400059

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

: Sri K. Sudalai Kanno L. Kalaieswaran

: M/ s . Gupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ ist Party

:M/s . V. Devraj , Anth Representative For the 2nd Respondent/2nd Party

: M/s. Gupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ 3rd Party [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 11012 / 25/ 2009 - IR ( CM - I ) dated 19-6-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the demand of Sri C.S. Mohan for his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share Purchase agreement , of dated 01-04-2007 entered by the Management of Jet Airways ( India ) Limited , Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited and Others and Sahara Airlines Limited is justified and legal ?

(ii ) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? " 2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 57/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance , petitioner , 1st and 3rd Respondents through Advocates and 2nd Respondent through Authorized Representative . The petitioner filed Claim Statement . No Counter Statement has been filed by any of the Respondents .

3. Short recitals of facts are as follows are as follows:

The petitioner appointed as Data Entry Operator on casual basis on 22-10-1997 and subsequently promoted as Junior Executive on 1-12-2004 with last drawn salary of Rs . 15,580 by the First Respondent later fully acquiring whose shares by Third Respondent as per letter dated 20-04-2007 was informed to be on deputation with the R1 which is incorrect R2 by letter dated 19-05-2007 paying Rs . 60,000 to the petitioner as Ex - Gratia and also acknowledging petitioner as workman of RJ was further issued with letter dated 1-06-2007 by R2 with whom there is no privity of contract and informed petitioner's relief from deputation and also requiring him to report to Chattisgarh which order is invalid. There he had no work and therefore he came back to Chennai . He claimed reinstatement by sending advocate notice dated 27-12- 2007 which was not replied hence the ID was raised. The petitioner is now not gainfully employed . There is no basis to shunt the petitioner out of employment . The establishment at Chennai covered under Section - 25N of ID Act employing more than 100 workers and hence the termination amounting to retrenchment by R1 and R3 have to comply with the provisions under Section - 25N of the ID Act failure to which the termination is void abinitio . There is no legal or factual justification for the termination . Hence the prayer for reinstatement and absorption .

4. Points for consideration are :

(i ) Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways ( India ) is justified and legal ?

2795

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

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

Point Nos . 1 & 2

5. When the ID stood posted to today for further proceeding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petition supported by Affidavit , both signed by him praying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the dispute has been settled with the Management and he is to collect his full and final payment of the dues . He has also stated that he is to forgo his right for reinstatement .

6. On a consideration of the request of the petitioner supported by the written appiication and affidavit sworn to in support thereof, approved by the Respondent by endorsing no objection , that the dispute has been settled between the parties in consideration of the full and final payment of dues thereof to be realized by him and he be permitted to withdraw the dispute in the wake of the repeated appeal of this Tribunal before the parties to have the dispute amicably settled and the petitioner having effected out of court settlement of the dispute on collecting the dues in terms thereof and is to forgo the right for reinstatement as was originally claimed the prayer is only to be accorded .

7. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the dispute . In view of the fact that the withdrawal is in lieu of agreed monetary compensation with due receipt to be obtained thereof acknowledged by the petitioner and his claim for absorption being given up no question further survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether legal and justified.

8. 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 28th February, 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : -

None

For the I Party /Petitioner :

None

For the II Party/ Petitioner :

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Date

Ex . No.

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

Nil 2796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 9.24.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/26/1988- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 924. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 116/90) 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 B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/26/ 88 - IR ( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/S . 10( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) of I. D. Act Reference No. 116 of 1990

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Nuraidih Colliery of M / s . B.C.C.L. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT : Shri H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

None

For the Employers

For the Workman

None

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal Dated the 25th May, 2011

AWARD

ByOrder No. L- 20012 (26) / 88 - D . III (A) /IR (C- I ) dated 17-5-1990 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

[PART II SH Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispon for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Muraian colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. , P.O. Nawagarh , Disti Dhanbad in not allowing S / Sri Narayan Rewand 56 other workers as mentioned in Annexure - A resume their duties is justified ? Ifnot, to what rein the workmen are entitled ? "

2. In this reference case the written statement bas been filed on behalf of the concerned workmen and the management has filed written statement - cum - rejoinder. Bai no documents have been filed from either side. Thu management examined one witness , MW- 1 , Suresh Prasad Singh . Since none appeared on 5-10-95 on behalf of the concerned workmen to cross - examine the witness , the witness was discharged . After giving several adjourn no further evidence was produced by iss management . Thereafter again the case was fixed adducing evidence by the management on 25-8-2010 sending registered notice to both the parties. Even neither party appeared on 25-8-2010 , 21-9-2010 a 22-10-2010 to contest the case . It , therefore , appears th .. neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring are interested to proceed with the case further.

In such circumstances , a No Dispute Awarn passed.

H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 925. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 194 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एविएसन कम्पनी 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 मुम्बई नं. 2. क पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/24/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीग सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/ 45/2009- आई आर ( सी ) डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 925 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 2:24 2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cun .. Labour Court 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation is the management of National Aviation Company of ladia Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/45/2009 - IR ( C -D ) D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 2797 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011/चैत्र 12 , 1933

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer : Mr. Abhay Kulkarni , Advocate .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2 MUMBAI

For the Workmen : No appearance .

Present : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

Mumbai , dated the 25th January, 2011 Reference No. CGIT-2/24 of 2010

AWARD

Employers in Relation to the Management of National Aviation Company of India Ltd.

The Executive Director

National Aviation Company India Ltd.

Western India , Mumbai

AND

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L- 11012 /45 / 2009 - IR (CM - I ) , dated 11-3-2010 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:

Their Workmen

The Regional Secretary

AirCorporation Employees Union

New Engineering Complex

Sahar, Mumbai -400 099

"Whether the demand of the Air Corporations Employees ' Union from the management ofNational Aviation Company of India Ltd. For compassionate appointment of 15 persons (as annexed ) is justified and legal ? (ii ) To what reliefs are they entitled ? " List for compassionate appointments as on date :

Name

Sr. No.

Applicant

Designation

Vishal Kumar S. Ganapathy (Son) S / Shri U.S. Ganapathy

Manager

Mihir M. Dalvi

Mahadeo R. Dalvi

Sec. Supdt ( SG)

Ridhima R. Baliga

Dy. Manager

Rajiv L. Baliga

Mrs. Charubala M. Gohil

Mrugank Mahendra Gohil

PFA (TA)

Kartiki Vilas Kawle 5

Vilas A. Kawle

Sr. Master Tech

Vaishali Darshak Ghegadamal Darshak S. Ghegadamal

Chintamani K. Gava K.L. Gava

HelperComm Sr. Hd Peon

Peon

Gayatri D. Prajapati Devnath F. Prajapati

Sunita Suresh Shendge

Sr. Aircraft Tech (AO)

Suresh M. Shendge

Harshli H. Kadam 10

Harish V. Kadam

CommHelper

IFS Officer

Avinash R. Mahatre

Prajakta Avinash Mhatre 12

NazirA. Kadar

Shanaz Begum

Operator

Sarita B. Suradkar 13

B.R. Suradkar

Atish A. Kasare 14

Ashok S. Kasare

Sr.Engg Helper

Mast . Yash S. Magar

Carpenter

Suryakant D. Magar

2.After receipt of the reference both the parties were served with notices . They appeared through their representatives . The second party was supposed to file its statement of claim . Sufficient time was given to them . However they did not file the statement of claim . On the other hand since 8-11-2010 , union and its representative were absent . Therefore the matter was kept today for order. As the second party union failed to file its statement of claim , the reference deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus I proceed to pass the following order :--

ORDER

The reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 25-1-2011

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer 1023 GI /11-29 2798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 926.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सहारा एयरलाईन्स 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 64/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-11012/32/2009 आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March, 2011

S.O. 926. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sahara Airlines Limited, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011.

[No. L- 11012/ 32/2009 - IR (C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Monday, the 28th February, 2011 Present : A.N. JANARDANAN Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 64/2009 (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 M/ s Sahara Airlines Ltd. and their Workmen)

BETWEEN

Sri R. Srinivasan

: IstParty/Petitioner

Vs.

2nd Respondent/ IstParty

1. M/ s Sahara Airlines Limited L-70/ 329 , Mahipalpur Exten- sion New Delhi - 110037

2. M/ s Sahara India Commercial Corpn . Ltd.

2nd Respondent/ 2nd Party Sahara India Centre , 8th floor No. 2 , Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj Lucknow - 226024

3. M/ s Jet Airways Ltd.

: 2nd Respondent/ 3rd Party

S.M. Centre , Andheri -Kurla Road , Andheri East Mumbai-400059

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) | APPEARANCE :

Forthe Petitioner

Sri K. Sadalai Kannu , L. kalaieswaran M/sGupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ : 1stParty

M/s. V. Devraj , Auth Representative For the 2nd Respondent/ : 2nd Party

M/sGupta & Ravi For the 2nd Respondent/ : 3rd Party

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L - 11012/ 32/ 2009 - IR ( CM - 1 ) dated 19-06-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the demand of Sri R. Srinivasan for his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of det Airways with reference to the Share Purchase Agrement of dated 01-04-2007 entered by the Management of Jet Airways ( India ) Ltd. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and others and Sahara Airlines Ltd. is justified and legal? ( ii) to what relief isthe workman concerned entitled ?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 64/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both side entered appearance . petitioner in person, 1st and 3rd Respondents through Advocates and 2nd Respondent through Authorized Representative . The petitioner filed Claim Statement . No Counter Statement has been filed by any of Respondents .

3. Short recitals of facts in the Claira Statement are asfollows:

The petitioner appointed as Security Assistant on 10-02-2000 with last drawn salary of Rs.9,968 later promoted as Security Officer on 01-04-2007 by the First Respondent later by a Bipartite Agreement dated 18-01- 2006 amended on 1-4-2007 between Jet Airways ( India) Ltd., Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and ( iii) Sahara Airlines Ltd. continued employment of Pilots . Engineers , etc. keeping out petitioner for no reason . On 20-04-2007 Sahara Airlines purported to transfer petitioner to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. ( SICC )who in turn deputed him to Jet Airways . On 1-6-2007 he was transferred to Lucknow, though objected wherein he joined but due to personal problems he came back and the ID is raised . The petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in jet Airways without being discriminated under Share Purchase Agreement dated 18-1-2006 . Permission under Section- 25(N) ofthe JD Act had not been obtained. Petitioner would at least be entitled to 3 months salary in heu of notice and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

retrenchment compensation . He was never employed by SICC created to defeat his rights and deputation is a camouflage . Termination could amount to retrenchment . Demand for his absorption in Jetlite with all benefits is prayed for.

4. Points for consideration are :

(i) Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways ( India ) is justified and legal ?

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

Points No. 1 & 2

5. When the ID stood posted today for further proceeding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petition supported by Affidavit , both signed by him praying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the dispute has been settied with the Management and that he already submitted his resignation alongwith PF Withdrawal Forms and that after collecting full and final payment of dues he forgoes his right of reinstatement. In view of the above embodied terms of the settlement the ID is sought to be withdrawn and an award is to be passed .

6. On a consideration of the request of the petitioner supported by the written application and affidavit sworn to in support thereof, approved by the Respondent by endorsing no objection , that the dispute lias been settled between the parties in consideration of the full and final payment of dues thereof to be made by him and on foregoing the right of reinstatement , he be permitied to withdraw the dispute in the wake of the repeated appeal of this Tribunal before the parties to have dispre amicably settled and the petitioner having eftecie i out of court settlement of the dispure it terms ties was originally claimed the prayer is caly to be accordeu 7.Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the dispute . In view of the fact that the withdrawal is in lieu of agreed monetary compensation to be fulfilled thereof and his claim for absorption being given up on question further survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether legal and justified .

12. The reference is answered accordingly .

(Dictated to the transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th February, 2011 )

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witness Examined :

None Forthe I Party / Petitioner :

None Forthe II Party /Petitioner:

2799

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner's side

Ex . No. Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Nil

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 927.-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 धनबाद न. -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 143/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 283/1998 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Deiki , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 927. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.143/ 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2011 .

[No. L - 20012 /283 / 1998 - IR ( C - I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947

REFERENCE No. 143 of 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of The Project Officer, Bararee Colliery of M/s . B.C.C. L.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None

Onbehalf of the Employers : Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal Dated , Dhanbad , the 21st Feb. , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 2800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12 , 1933

[PART II - SE (1) ( d) of the I. D. Act . 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 283/98 - IR(CM - I) , dated 19-2-1999 .

proceeding ended in failure due to the adamant attitude of the management . Hence it was referred by the Ministry too thisTribunal for adjudication .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bararee Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L.in dismissing Sh.Somar Manjhi M /Loader from the services of the company w.e.f 16-7-1996 is justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ?

3.Whereas with specific denial to the allegation of the sponsoring union, the case of the management is that since the workman began to unauthorisedly absent fron hisduty with effect froin 9-9-1995 , he was charge sheeted for itand accordingly as per procedure for legal enquiry , a domestic enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer is perhis appointment order dated 9-4-1996. Upon the notices . the workman participated in the enquiry being conducteri by the Enquiry Officer in accordance with the principle f naturaljustice and the enquiry report was submitted agants him holding him guilty of the said charge . The workman was aslo supplied the copy of the report and on ans representation to it the management dismissed him as per orderdated 15-7-1996 which was quite legal and justified Moreover, the workman as habitual absentee never worked regularly and continuously as apparent from his three years . attendance proviously i.e his attendance was 42, 124. 7" and 47 days in the years 1990 to 1995 respectively, iftis the workman was not entitled to any relief.

4. From the perusal of the case record it is evtáčni that despite several times registered notices dated 8-5-2002, 17-11-2003 and 15-11-2010 , Shri R. A. Chantaria Advocate and then N. M. Kumar Advocate on 12-8-2002 . 10-1-2006 appeared and filed the authorities of the union concerned respectively and thereafter aforesaid N. M. Kumar represented the union on 12-4-2006, 8-3-2008. 5-6-2008 , 8-12-2010 , 22-12-2010 and 2-2-2011 . It cannot be over looked that in course of hearing on preliminary point MW- 1 Lalan Pandey as the Enquiry Officer has been examined on 15-9-2005 yet he was not cross - examined by the either ofthe aforesaid Advocate representing the union . Evenuntil the case record came up for hearing on argument . So as per order dated 13-9-2005 of the Tribunal thedomestic enquiry was held fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice .

FINDING WITH REASONS 2. The case of the sponsoring union is that the workman Somar Manjhi was a permanent employee as Miner/Loader of Bararee Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. His employee number was 02747301. He was illiterate, not knowing to read and write Hindi and English except to put his signature in Hindi . He performed all along his duties without any complaint but to the satisfaction of his superior. He was being assigned to his duty in rotation in three shifts . Despite having no residential accommodation even athis repeated request the workman who was a married person, regularly performed his duty, though his residence was at a distance from his work place . But due to his falling sick after attending his duty on 8-9-1995 , he could not attend to his duty from 9-9-1995 and he reported the management of his sickness by post for his treatment by Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh. On his recovery, he reported for his duty on 24-2-1996 along with the medical certificate as well as on the subsequent dates , yet he was not allowed to joinhis duty. He got the Charge sheet bearing No. BBC/ 95/4587 dated 9-12-1995 under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified StandingOrder related to " Habitual late attendance or wilful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause" . Onsubmitting his explanation to the charge sheet he had again requested to join the duty, but the management malafide issued letter No. 5318 dated 8-4-1996 for an enquiry into the charge . He participated along with his co- worker Shri Kaleshwar Prasad in the enquiry proceeding on 10-4-1996 and his statement was also recorded, but he was not given proper opportunity for his defence . Neither a witness nor relevant documents were examined on behalf of the management in the enquiry proceeding which was harriedly concluded against the principle of natural justice and accordingly enquiry report without consideration of the materials on the record was biasedly submitted which is unsustainable and baseless . Finally as per letter No. BBC/96/5911 dated 16-7-1996 , the management illegally and unjustifiably dismissed the workman with retrospective effect from 9-12-1995, the date ofthe charge sheet, without any payment of any retrenchment compensation . It is alleged that the workman had not committed any misconduct under the aforesaid clause of the Standing Order without fair and proper enquiry he was unmindfully dismissedfrom the services on the basis of illegal unsustainable enquiry report . Even on raising the industrial dispute of dismissal before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Dhanbad the conciliation

5. In the instant case , I find that the management with his witness MW - 1 Lalan Pandey has proved the entire domestic enquiry as fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice . The aforsaid MW - 1 Lalan Pandey, who was the then Dy. P. M. ofthe Bararee Colliery in the year 1996 as the Enquiry Officer as per appointment letter (Ext. M - 1 ) has proved the Charge sheet dated 9-12-1995 ( Ext . M- 2) to which the workman had submitted his reply (photo copy Ext.M -3 ) . According to him he issued notices ( Ext.M - 4 ) to the concerned workman and after receiving it the workman appeared in course of the domestic enquiry along with his co - worker Kaleshwar Prasad concerned who defended his case and both of them put their signature on all the enquiry proceeding papers bearing the signature of his own and the entire enquiry papers [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2801

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2, 2011 /चैत्र12 , 1933

have been marked as Ext . M - 5 series over which the signatures ofthe worker and his co - worker were marked as Ext. M - 6 and Ext . M - 7 series respectively. On the completion of the enquiry, the witness submitted his enquiry , report ( Ext. M - 8 ) , holding thef workman guilty to the charges . The witness has established that the workman was previously two times charge sheeted ( copies Ext . M - 9 and M - 9 / 1 respectively ) for his absentism , for his habitual absentism for which he was given three warning letters (Ext.M - 10 , M - 10 /1 and M - 10 / 2 ) to amend his such habit . Thereafter the workman had begged apology for their previous misconduct as per his letter Ext.M - 11 series . On considering all the aspects , the Disciplinary Authority issued second show- cause notice ( Ext . M - 13 ) concerning the present absentism for due punishment and at last the Disciplinary Authority after considering all the facts dismised the workman .

6. Shri D. K. Verma , Ld . Advocate for the management has submitted that virtually the case is of abandonent case , because the workman concerned remained unauthorisedly and habitually absent from his duty on the last occasion since 9-9-1995 as he used to do it previously without any proper information to the management . So his dismissal from the service is quite legal and justified.

7. In the instant case in view of the aforesaid proofof absentism under the aforesaid relevant clause of the Standing Order despite full opportunity to the workman , he could not justify his absentism and in such circumstances , I find the management was quite competent to legally dismiss him from his service for his regular unauthorised absence from his duty without any proper information to the management . Therefore it is held that the action of the management of Bararee Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing thef workman Somar Manjhi Miner /Loader from the services of the company with effect from 16-7-1996 is quite justified.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 928.-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 न. - 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 230/ 2003- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 928.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 50/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 3-2011 . 10-

[No. L- 20012 / 230/ 2003 - IR ( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Disspute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947

REFERENCE No. 50 of 2004

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area of M/ s . B.C.C. L. and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Workman Mr. J. N. Das , Advocate Onbehalf of the Employers : Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate State: Jharkhand Industry : Coal Dated , Dhanbad , the 22nd February , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1) (d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012 / 230 / 2003IR- ( C - I ) , dated , the 26th March , 2004 .

SCHEDULE

" Kya Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress KJl Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Lodna Kshetra key pravaudhtantra sey mang ki karmkar Shri S. K. Sarkar ko dinank 5-6-1992 sey store cadre mey niyamit kartey hue savi anuvarti laab jaisey padannoti , S. L. U. pay protection etyadi diye jaien uchit evam nayasangat hain ? Yadi ha to okt karmkar kis pad par kis tarikh sey niyamitkaran key patra hain tatha anya kis lav key patra hain ? "

2. The case of the sponsoring union is that workman K. S. Sarkar was appointed as U.G. M /L under his personnel No. 822759 against the V.R.S. taken by his father the employee of the BCCL . In view of his educational and teachnical qualification he was diverted to work as Telephone Operator since the year 1982 itself by the management . He was transferred to Londa Washery as Store Keeper by the management as per office order No.501 dated 3 / 5-6-1992 whereas as per clause 7.2 of the Certified Standing Order he ought to have been regularised as Telephone Operator T / S Grade - B in the year 1983 by the management though he was regularised as Junior Telephone 2802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

Operator T / S Grade- B in conformity with the Cadre Scheme as per the office order No. 11258 dated 12-12-83 which was wrongly amended by the management as per corrigendum No.374 dated 12-12-1983 putting him as T/ S Grade - E contrary to the provision of that cadre scheme . Suddenly in the year 1992 his service was rediverted from Telephone Cadreto Store Cadre as Store Keeper in exigency as per office order No 0501 dated 3/ 5-6-1992 . Since then he has been working as Store Keeper efficiently and sincerely. As per diversion of his service in Clerical Grade from 1-7-92 his service was to be regularised in the year 1997 as Per BCCL Circular No. 2002/1594 dated 13-6-2002 of the Director of Personnel itself but the management failed to do so Though he was working as Store Keeper on Clercial Grade despitehis continued service in Telephone Cadre he was promoted to T/ S Grade -C on 28-8-1991 which should have been T/ S Grade B and its S.L.U. Benefit from 13-9-2000, but at the relevant time as required in T/S Grade -A. Pua the management has committed mistake in it depriving niin of his due demand. As per the aforesaid Director of Personnei's Circular ofthe BCC , it approved the change or cadre by imposing unwanted and illegal conditions ;

(a) Written undertaking to accept clerical grade and (b) Written undertaking to accept the clerical Grade II pay scales

thereby it did not reduce his status rather it reduced his total salary unacceptable in any circumstances . Thus the action of the management towards him in not regularising his service in Clerical (Store Grade ) from 5-6-1999 was totally tilegal mala ride and unfair labour practice contrary to the provision of circulars of BCCL itself. Therefore, the workman is entitled to his regularisation in the Clerk Grade ith aforesaid due date along with all consequential benefits of promotion , pay protection S.L.U. and seniority etc.

3. On the other hand the case of the management in that factually the workman was originally appointed as Miner/Loader in the year 1982 , subsequently in the year 1983 he was regularised in the time rated job and was placed in the Telephone Department . Despite his designation of Telephone Operator working in Clerical Grade , he was deputed in the Store department by the management of Lodna Colliery. After due consideration the management agreed to change his cadre from Telephone Operator to the Store Cadre . The competent authority also observed that the workman could be brought in the store cadre as the Asstt. Store Keeper in the Clerical Grade - II in the bottom seniority of Asstt. Store Keeper and that since the workman was in Technical and Supervisory Grade - B . no protection of wages could be extended except his acceptance of the Clerical Grade - II scale . As per the letter 13-8-2002 of the Lodna Area management , the case of the workman for regularisation in ministerial cadre was forwarded to the Headquarters for examination and

PART 11 SEC 300 approval of the competent authority. Thereafter the competent authority accorded him the approval in Clerical Grade- II with the bottom seniority in Grade - X without any protection of wages and the management advised hint give his written consent regarding the change of his cadre inthe ministerial job and to accept the bottom semont ... the aforesaid cadre without any pay protection. Bu te workman has never submitted inis written consent fod change of his cadre to the effect se he was not emitles regularisation in Clerical Grade-IIin store l'adre .

Further pleaded case of the management according to the cadre scheme ofthe telecom cadre und person/workınan having experience of 3 years in Technical and Supervisor Grade E' is eheible to be pronto ata Techincai and Supervisery Grade - D. Oa sympathete consideration of the workman's case the management to regularise him in the clerical cadre but he deliberatern did not submit it's written consent . Moreover the Writica statement signed by Shri J. N. Das. Advocate nenhar authorised by the union Bilhas Prodesh Collicry Maz Cor.gress but verified by the workman S K. Sarkali d sustainable in the eye of law as provided in the ledastvar Dispute Actbecause the case was sponsored by aforesaid union . Se neither workman ner his afore : 4 Advocate has locus standi to file the W.S. on behalf of workman.

In the instan; case the workanan in his rejoinder not positively resputed to his locus statidi to file hus writte statement along with his aforesaid Advocate .

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In this case the workinan Sudhir Kumar Sark (S. K. Sarkar ) as WW- 1 and Arvind Kumar Sinha as MW. have been produced and exarained on behalf of ha workman and management respectively in support of there claim

In the instant case I find that the workmar Sudi Kumar Sarkar as WW - 1 has tried to substancate his cha ... based on his verified representation under the signatu his own Advocate J. N. Das which is in contravention t the basic principle of law as provided in sub - section ( 10 Section 36 under heading " Representation of parties " of the I. D. Act. , 1947 which also under its sub- section 14, provides the representation of the workman by a legar practitioner only with the consent of other parties and with the leave of the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be . Yet neither of the requisites has been fulfilled on behalf of the workman in this case which has been sponsored by the union Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress , Dhanbad .As such the workman himself stand not entitled to represent his own case because the case was sponsored by the union concerned, against whom nothing adverse was reported by the workman himself about the stand of the union [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

concerned as negligent etc. nor it is pleaded in his Written Statement dated 24-12-2004 .

5. However , in exercise of the discretionary power conferred upon the Labour Court as apparent sub - section (4) of Section 36 of the Act I would like to consider the materials adduced on behalf of both parties available in the case record for the ends of justice .

WW- 1 Sudhir Kumar Sarkar ( the workman) in his claim has started to have been appointed as Miner / Loader at South Tisra Colliery under the management with effect from 2-1-1982 . But in the month of August of the same year he was appointed as the Trainee Telephone Operator and accordingly in the year 1983 , he was regularised as Telephone Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade - E as apparent from Exts . W - 2 and W- 3 . In the year 1987 he got promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade - D in the next higher scale and then as well in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C in the year 1991. Thereafter the management by order ( dated 5th June 1992 - Ext . W - 5 ) posted him as a Store Keeper in the existing scale of wages at Lodna Washery . After his successful training ( Ext . W- 7- the certificate dated 13-5-93 ) for handling store materials at Kusunda Vocational Training Centre as per the order of the management he again joined as the Store Keeper in the Store of Lodna Washery in the month of April , 1996 he was transferred to purchase section of Lodna Area and thereafter to Lodna Regional Store in receipt section as a Store Keeper in the month ofAugust , 2002 , though he had got S.L.U. Grade - B in the Technical and Supervisory Grade as Telephone Operator which is apparent from ( Ext . W- 9 ) the Office Order dated 15-9-2000 . The workman has stated against the management that even on several representations he was neither regularised nor got his wages in the scales of Store Keeper, but has admitted that the management in the year 2002 as per its Office Orders (Exts . W- 10 , 11 and 12 ) regularised him in the post of Asstt . Store Keeper Clerical Grade - II without giving him seniority; hence the industrial dispute raised for his justified claim. The workman in his cross - examination has accepted to have got his time to time promotion in the post of Telephone Operator as per the order of the management but again he denied it except the receipt of his S.L.U. benefits in that cadre . The workman had not acceded to the proposal of the management communicated to him by Office Order dated 13-8-2002 ( Exts . W - 10 read with Exts . W - 11 and W- 12) .

6. Whereas the statement of MW - 1 Arbind Kumar Sinha , the Area Manager , M. M. , Lodna Area and the Incharge of Regional Store Lodna apparently indicates to affirm prior to the year 1992 ( the starting year of the workman as Store Keeper ) the workman was working as Telephone Operator and thereafter on his transfer he worked as Purchase Assistant in Purchase Section of Lodna Area Office and then to Lodna Regional Store in

2803

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

October , 2002 where he has been working accordingly in the receipt section in his existing grade . It also affirms his representation before the management for his regularisation which was though considered yet not accepted or consented by him on the ground of ' with the bottom seniority of the Asstt . Store Keeper but without any pay protection' the management witness has also admitted that as per letter dated 28-9-2002 of the Dy . C.P.M. , the workman was regularised in the store cadre and posted in the Lodna Regional Store .

7. On the scrutiny of the materials as adduced on behalf of both the parties , available on the case record I find that initially the workman on successful training was absorbed as Junior Technical Operator as per order of the management dated 12-12-1983 ( Ext . W - 2 ) and since then he achieved Technical and Supervisoy higher grade in that cadre and during that period the management by its administrative order transferred him to Lodna Washery Plant as Store Keeper as per order of the management (Ext.W - 5- Office Order dated 3 / 5-6-92 ) and side by side the workman as Telephone Operator was given S.L.U. - B Grade in the year 2000 as apparent from Ext . W- 9 ( the Office Order dated 15-9-2000 ) and thereafter the management accorded his approval for his regularisation as the Asstt . Store Keeper in Clerical Grade - II with immediate effect but on the condition " with the bottom seniority in the grade without any protection of wages provided on his written consent " (the BCCL letter dated 13-8-2002 as Ext . W - 10 ) and the workman did not accept the conditional regularisation . According to the management witness the purchase section is not the store cadre which is quite different . He has denied the violation of the provision under Section 9A of the I.D.Act . by the company.

8. Mr. J. N. Das , the learned Advocate for the workman relying upon the authorities mentioned ( within brackets ) has argued that Petitioners continuously working as pump operator and chowkidar since 1979 and 1983 on daily wages against sanctioned scheme vacant post in the light of the list having been prepared as per the scheme and pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularisation and the respondents are duty bound pay them arrear of salary' (2009 ( 1 ) J. LJR page 268 ( SB ) Jagdish Mahato- versus - State of Jharkhand ) , that petitioners working since long till date against sanctioned scheme vacant post without any leave , break in service and some of them have already been regularised in accordance with the order and direction issued by the Supreme Court and accordingly on the representation by the petitioner to dispose of within a period of two months , the respondent are also directed to pay admissible dues towards the arrear of salary (2009 ( 1 ) J LJR 322 ( SB ) , Etwar Oraon - versus - State of Jharkhand ) , that the person completed more than 5 years of continuous service against one post in the workcharged establishment , and otherwise eligible have a right of consideration for 2804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

[PART 1 SEC. 301,

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 929.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 194 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 औद्योगिवः अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद न. -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 261/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-201 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/463/1998- आई आर ( सी डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March, 2011 taking over their services in permanent ( regular) establishment , irrespective of the date of appointment then the respondent were directed to pass speaking order in accordance with the law (2010 (2) JLJR 570, Anil Kumar Tewary-versus - State of Jharkhand , relied upon 2005 ( 3 ) JCR 9 ( Jhar ) , 2005 ( 3 ) JLJR 39 ( FB ) relied upon and lastly that the petitioner continuously working as Survey Khalasi since 1982 till date on daily wages against sanctioned Scheme vacant post was held entitled for arrear of salary for the period during which he actually worked and the respondents were directed to clear the salary and consider his claim for regularisation in accordance with the seniority position in the list prepared as per the scheme and pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court (2009 ( 1 ) JLJR 2008 (SB) , Dinesh Singh- versus- State of Jharkhand .

S.O. 929. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.261 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum Labour Court , No. 2 Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of M's . B.C.C.L .. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011.

[No. L- 20012/463 / 1998 - IR ( C - 1 ) D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer Inthe matter of an Industrial Disspute under Section 1011 ) (d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947

REFERENCE NO . 261 of 1999

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area ofM/ s . B.C.C. L. and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None Onbehalf ofthe Employers : Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad , the 23rd February . 2011 AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour , exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section i (1) (d) of the 1. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Orde. No. L -20012/463/ 98-1R( C - I ) , dated , the 4th June 1999.

SCHEDULE

9. Whereas the contention of Mr. D. K. Verma Ld. Advocate for the management, based on the authority : SCILJ Vol.12 at page 578 ( CB ) , Ram Prasad Viswakarma- versus - Industiral Tribunal , Patna as held therein , is that "the representation of the workman should continue throughout the proceeding in the absence of exceptional circumstances which may justify the Tribunal to permit other representation of workman concerned . If the union had not taken up of his case , there would not have been any reference the prayer for the representation of the workman through representative of his own choice is therefore refused ' and accordingly it has been submitted on behalf of the management that the present representation of the workman through his Ld . Advocate J. N. Das is contrary to and is without his locus standi under the industrial dispute Act . In the instant case , I find that no such exceptional circumstances regarding the personal representation by the workman through his Lawyer have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Yet such representation is not any peculiar incident of industrial law. The change of the representative of a party cannot change the character of the dispute . As under the ordinary law as in the industrial law, mala fides of the representative vitiates the representation . In the instant case , though the victim workman has himself represented through his aforesaid Lawyer Mr. J. N. Das which is quite in violation ofthe mendatory provision as laid down under Section 36 of the I.D.Act, 1947. Thus the workman is held not to have locus standi to represent himself in the case raised by his union concerned. So his entire case being sans (without) his representation through the concerned union comes to nonentity in the eye of fact and law. In result, I find and hold that since the case of the workman has not been represented by the Union concerned nor its cause represented by him before the Tribunal , I decline to afford any of the relief as sought by the Union in favour of the workman and accordingly the Award is responded.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

" Whether the action of the Management to dismiss Shri Mangal Manjhi from service is justified and 2805 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

legal ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

consideration of the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report , the Disciplinary Authority after taking approval from the competent authority dismissed the workman w.e.f. 30-10-96 . It is alleged the dismissal of the workman following the fair and proper domestic enquiry was legal andjustified.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the case , I find in course of evidence of the management exparte on preliminary point in presence of the Ld . Counsels for the respective parties concerned on 17-6-2006 the documents as per list dated 8-7-05 related to enquiry proceeding ( on formal proof dispensed with) have been marked as Exhibit M - 1 to M - 8 which are the appointment of enquiry officer dated 4-11-96 , the chargesheet dated 17-8-96 , the reply of the concerned workman dated 12-12-96 to the chargesheet , enquiry notice dated 28-11-96, the enquiry proceeding (four sheets ), the enquiry report , the notesheet and the dismissal order dated 28-5-97 respectively. On the consideration of the aforesaid enquiry papers and also after hearing both the sides , as per order dated 17-6-2006 the Tribunal (presided by my predecessor concerned ) has held the domestic enquiry fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Therefore, it straight forward came up for hearing argument on merit .

From the perusal of the order sheets , it is evident thatMr. D. K. Verma and Mr. N. G. Arun , both as the Ld . Advocate and the representative for the management and the workman concerned were present on 6-6-2008 and since thereafter despite notice dated 8th November, 2010 the representative of the workman never but Mr. D. K. Verma , Ld. Advocate for the management all along presented for hearing argument after giving last chances on 7-12-2010 . At last the argument on merits was heard on behalf of the management . Hence , it came up for Award . So in the exercise of the power of the Tribunal / Labour Court under Section 11A of the 1. D. Act . , 1947 , I would like myself to confine to the quantum of punishment on the basis of the aforesaid materials of the enquiry as proved and available on the case record.

2. The case of the sponsoring union is brief is that the workman Mangal Manjhi , Miner /Loader of Govindpur Colliery under Govindpur Area of M / s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. under personnel No.02803690 was chargesheeted videNo.GC/CS/95 /2441 dated 7-4-1995 (the No. of the chargesheet dated 7-4-95 wrongly stated as contrasted with the present chargesheet No.96/2212 dated 17-8-96 in issue) for his unauthorised absence from 21-2-1996 . But the chargesheet was not sent to his village Rangadih , P. S. Topchanchi where he lives. He was suffering from too acute illness to get treatment at the colliery hospital which is about 10 K. M. away from his village , though he had informed through his co - worker of the same village about his illness. When he presented the Medical Certificate, the management took it without its receipt and issued the chargesheet without suspension , disallowing him to resume his duty. The management alleged to have held an enquiry as stated before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Dhanbad before whom even at his request to the authority for the production of the copies of the chargesheet , appointment of enquiry officer , the letter to the workman for the enquiry, proceeding , the enquiry report and the letter to him prior to his dismissal , not anything was produced by the management and he was dismissed from his service from 30-9-1996 . Further the workman claimed to have written that since he became very week, so he should be examined by the Medical Board vide letter VI (24)/96/3995-96 dated 14-12-96 and his reminder letter VI (24) 97/343-44 dated 11-2-97 to the General Manager , but no reply was given either to the Union or to the workman . During his serious illness, his wife went with a letter of dismissal and thereafter the application made by the workman to the management for the consideration of his dismissal . But the management took it without any its receipt . He was never supplied with the copies of the enquiry report and its proceeding before his dismissal . So his dismissal was quite illegal unjustified and against the principle of natural justice . Moreover, the enquiry was totally sham and malafide as well as unfair and partial . So it was alleged for the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and other benefits in view of his being as a Scheduled Tribe and illiterate miner/ loader, a piece rated worker.

3. Whereas the pleading of the management is that since the workman began to absent from his duty unauthorisedly with effect from 27-10-94 , so he was chargesheeted vide Chargesheet dated 7-4-95 for his aforesaid misconduct and the workman submitted his reply. On finding his reply to the chargesheet unsatisfactory, the management initiated the enquiry against him for the charges by appointing the Enquiry Officer , who held the domestic enquiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice and submitted his enquiry report against him , holding the charge to have been proved against him fully. On the

5. On the perusal of the materials ( the entire proceeding of the enquiry marked as Exts.M - 2 to M - 8 I find that as per the Chargesheet dated 17-8-96 ( Ext.M - 2 ), workman Mangal Manjhi , Miner/ Loader was proceeded for the charge of his unauthorised absentism from 21-2-1996 from his duty under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order under which such absentism is defined as miconduct . The workman is alleged to have represented it as per his reply dated 12-12-96 (Ext.M - 3 ) that he was quite unable to perform his duty on account of his remaining physically very weak . The reply of the workman appears to be not in the pen of the workman except under his signature Mangal Manjhi . In course of the domestic enquiry, Mr. Dilip Kumar Banerjee , the Leave Clerk has stated that 1023 GI/11--30 2806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

the sick record of the colliery workers is in the department but the department had not any sick paper or any leave record of the workman nor had any information of his absence nor it was sent to the office . Workman Mangal Manjhi himself as defence has admitted his unauthorised absence from his duty from 21-2-1996 and that he had already got the chargesheet, but he intentionally did not reply to it because he had physically became over weak and then there was no possibility for him to serve , as he had not to work. So he requested to pay him his dues and except that he had not to say anything . But in the present case I find the statement of the workman that he intentionally did not reply to the chargesheet goes contrary to the allegedfiling ofhis reply to it as alleged on behalf of the managment . The Enquiry Officer as per his enquiry report Ext.M - 6 on the aforesaid basis has held him guilty of the aforesaid charges of absentism , as he had himself confessed his guilt and he intentionally did not submit his any explanation to it despite having received information from the office . As per the notesheet dated 13-5-97 ( Ext.M- 7) of the Project Officer concerned which was also endorsed by the General Manager concerned , on recommendation ofhisdismissal the workman was dismissed from his service as per the dismissal order ( EM- 8 ).

6. On the consideration of the aforesaid facts , I find that the workman was rightly punished for his misconduct of unauthorised absentism from the said date as admitted by himself voluntarily not to serve on account of his ill health , so he was rightly punished with the dismissal from the service , and accordingly the action of the management for the dismissal of workman Mangal Manjhi from his service isjustified and legal . Consequently he is not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ . 930.---औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 414 ) आओ धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनवाद न. -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/1997 ) को प्रकाशित च.रती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [पं. एल-20012/427/1995- आई आर ( सी-1) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 10th March, 2011

S.O. 930. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.15/ 1997 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L -20012/427/ 1995-1R ( C - 1 ) } D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO . Desk Unicor

PARI 11 SEC Sanj

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 AT DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference Li's . 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A ) of LD . Act REFERENCE NO. 15 of 1997

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area ofM/ s . B.C.C. L.

And Their Workmen .

PRESENT : Shri H. M. SINGH . Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers :Shri R. N. Ganguly, Advocate For the Workman Shri S. C. Gour , Advocate State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated, the 24-1-2011

AWARD

By order No.L -20012/ 427/95 - IR( Coal - 1 ) dated 2-1-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - sec. and sub - section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 , referred the following dispute adjudication to this Tribunal :

Whether the demand of the Union for regularisation and subsequent promotions of Sh . Mansoor Hassan. Auto- Electrician on the lines of Memorandura ot settlement arrived in respect of other Auto Electricians of East Bassuriya Colliery under Kusunda Area is legal and justified? If so , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he we appointed on 20-1-1982 as trainee Auto-Electrician or consolidated basic of Rs . 17.20 per day i.e. initial of Grade "E" Excavation . He was prometed as Auto - Electrician Helper in Crade " E " from 13-8-1983 . He was further promotedto Grade " D " Auto Electrician on 19-11987m 23-10-1990 he was again promoted to Grade "CA Electrician (Excavation ) . The workman was originally posted inBassuriya Colliery under Kasunda Area along with other Auto Electricians , Nitab lha , Sankar Khan , Jafar imar and Yayant Kr. Sinha. In the year 1984 the concerned workinkan was transferred to Godhur Colliery under Kusunda Are whereas the other four Auto Electricians were transferred to cast Bassuriyallicry in the same capacity and unde the same Kusunda Are The Projecisi Basuriya Collien.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

winded- up in the early part of 1985. The other four Auto Electricians of East Basuriya Colliery had raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. ( C) , Dhanbad that they are entitled for Grade " D " after completion of one year of probation period i.e. 1983 itself. The industrial duspute before the A.L.C. ( C ) , Dhanbad ended with memorandum of settlement arrived on 12-2-1988 that the concerned workman shail stand regularised as Auto- Electrician in Gr . " D " w.e.f. the date of completions of one year training and their basic wages shall be fixed in Excavation Grade " D " from the date of completion of one year training . The concerned workman of present reference has also raised an industrial dispute that he should also be regularised in Gr. " D " after one year completion of probation period . Godhun Colliery and East Bassuriya Colliery are both in Kusunds Area of M / s . BCCL under the direct supervision and control of one General Manager .

lı has been prayed thai the demand for regularisation and subsequent promotion of Mansoor Hassan , Auto Electrician , Godhar Colliery , on the lines of Memorandum of Settlement arrived in respect of other Auto - Electricians of East Basuriya Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/ s BCCL is legal and justified and he is entitled for regularisation in Gr . " D " w.e.f 13-8-1983 and subsequent promotions thereafter.

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman was appointed on the post of a trainees in the trade of Auto - Electrician by letter dated 20-7-82 and he was given Category " E " fixed for Excavation Cadre in respect oftrainees as well as Helpers . After completion of one year's training , his case was considered for his placement on suitable post in Excavation Grade " E " on the basis of skill acquired by him during the training period and it was observed that he was suitable for the post of i felper and accordingly , he was regularised as Auto - Electric Helper in Grade " D " w.e.f 13 3-83 . Thereader he was promoted as EP Fitter / Electrician in Grade " ? " w.e.f 19-1-87 and was promoted to Grade " C " w.e.f. 23-10-90 . As per the aforesaid settlement , the workman who have been found suitable for their placement in Excavation Grade " D " as Auto Fitter / Electrician after completion of one year's of training should be put in Grade " D " and they should be promoted to higher grades as per the cadre scheme . The concerned workman was not working in the aforsaid Open Cast Projectat the relevant time and his case could not be considered by the DPC and the management for assessment of his skili to consider his case in the same line as the workman covered it, that settlement . Therefore , the concerned workman cannot demand for his placement in Grade " D " after completion of one year's training in the Auto Electrician trade .

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

2807

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

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

5. The management has produced MW- 1 , G..P . Sinha . The concemed workman , Mansoor Hassan , examined himself as WW- 1 and has proved documents , as Exts . W- 1 and W- 2.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the workman is that the juniors to him have been regularised in his colliery and he has been promoted from 19-1-87 though he should have been promoted w.e.r. 13-8-1983 because his justers have been regularised in Grade " D " on the year 1983.

Inthis respect the management has admitted in para 7 of their written statement that oth persons have been regularised as per conciliation settlement dated 12-2-1988 in Auto Fitter /Electrician Grade " D " after completion of one year from 1983 .

The order ( Ext . W- 2 ) which has been passed by the management for promoting the concernco workınan as Auto-Electrician on 16-4-1987 does not seem proper when other persons as per Annexure " A " dated 8-10-88 Nitab Jha , Soukat Khan , Jafar, Imain and Jayant Kr . Sinha have been promoted as Auto - Electrician in 1983. Thus there is no ground to promote the concerned workman in the year 1987. The management on the basis of settlement which was arrived at on 12-2-88 other workman have been given Auto-Electrician post in Gr . ' D ' and accordingly the concerned workman should have been given the post of Auto- Electrician Grade " D " when his juniors have been given Auto -Electrician Grade " D " vide Annexure dated 8-10-88 from back date i.e. 1983. Therefore , the concerned workman is entitled to be promoted from 1983 .

7.Accordingly, i render following Award-- The demand of the Union for regularisation and subsequant promotions of Sh . Mansoor Hassan , Auto Electrician on the lies of Mamorandum of Settlement arrived in respect of other Auto- Electricians of East Bassuriya Colliery under Kusunda Area is legal and justified, and the concerned workman is also entitled to be promoted in Grade " D " from the year 1983. The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award .

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 931.-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 धनबाद न. के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 163/1989 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/04/1989- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी 2808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 931. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No.163/ 1989 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . C.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/04/ 1989 - IR (C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I. DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) of I.D. Act REFERENCE NO . 163 of 1989

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Pindra Colliery of M / s . C.C. Ltd.

And

Their Workmen .

Present: Shri H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

: None

For the Employers

:None

For the Workman

State: Jharkhand

[PART II Sta with other consequential reliefs The management aray sometimes record the age of the workman at theit wa whims in their own record which causes serious prejudice to the workman but the age of a workman as recordai in the C. M. P. F. records has to be given prime importante in as such as the management itself certifies such deckeretion of age of the workman and sends the same to APE authorities and the said declaration is accepted . Froетпе records of C.M.P.F. authorities , the age of Sri Birbal Singh stands as 36 years on 2-10-73 and hence the actual kate ef birth of the concerned workman stands to be 2-10-1987 and accordingly his date of retirement should have been 2-10-97, but the management has illegally retired hings . I 1-4-88.

In such circumstances , the concerned worknu...n prayed before this Tribunal to pass an award by direct ... the management to correct his date of birth as per CAMRY record and to reinstate him with payment of full back wants 3. The management has filed written statement Ma that the concerned workman was employed in the ... d colliery w.e.f. 1-4-73 . The Form ' B ' Register namin d under theMines Rules , which is a statutory record , the ofthe concerned workman was indicated as 45 years the date ofhis appointment i.e. 1-4-73 and this entry as the other entries in the Form 'B ' Register were explaned to the concerned workmar, and after he confirined the correctness thereof he affixed his L.T.I. in Form 15 Register.

Industry: Coal

Dated , the 21st January, 2011

AWARD

By Order No.L- 20012 /4 / 89-1R( Coal - I) dated 15-11- 1989 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 Dispute Act , 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :

Whether the action of the management of Pindra Colliery ofC.C.L. P.O. Topa, Dist . Hazaribagh by not making correction in date of birth of Shri Birbal Singh is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman , in brief, is that the management has acted against the provision of Certified Standing Orders of the Company in the matter of making correction of his date of birth which amountsto termination attracting the provisions of Sec . 25 - F of I. D. Act. Since the management has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the law, the concerned workman isentitled to reinstatement with payment of full back wages In the service sheet prepared for the workrian concerned the entry relating to his age was recorded 45 years as on 1-4-1973 and accordingly his date of birth comes 1-4-28 . Hence his date of retirement was due we 1 . 1-4-88 .

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal he pleased to reject the claim/ prefer of the union and answ the reference in favour of the management .

4. Management has produced MW- 1. Ram Lakhan Singh and proved documents Exts.M - 1 to M-3.

The concerned workman neither produced any witness not filed any document to justified his claim in spite of notice being sent by registered post .

5. Therefore it appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case , otherwise they would have appeared before this Tribunal tojustify their claim .

6. considering the above facts and circumstances .

I hold that the action of the management of Pandra Colliery of C.C.L. , P.O. Kuju , Dist . Hazaribagh by not making correction in date of birth of Birbal Singh is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 932.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 319/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012 / 266/2000- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 932. 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 ) 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 B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-03-2011 .

[No. L - 20012 /266 /2000 - 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. 319 of 2000

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Godhur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL .

AND

Their Workmen .

Present : Shri H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri R. N. Ganguly , Advocate .

For the Workman

Shri R. K. Mukherjee , Advocate .

State : Jharkhand .

2809

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

"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 ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was initially appointed at Industry Colliery in a Capacity of Line Mazdoor and later on he was transferred to Godhur Colliery in the same capacity . The management introduced the service excerpts in the year 1987 and accordingly the concerned workman furnished his service perticulars including his date of birth 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 of his date of birth . But the management never conducted any MedicalBoard Examination of recording of his actual date of birth . The concerned workman represented before the management several times for correction of his date of birth but without any effect . As per 1-1-76 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 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 pre - maturedly superannuated the concerned workınan w.e.f. 1-3-1942 instead of 30-10-53 which is arbitrary, illegal , prejudiced and unjustified and violation ofnatural 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 .

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 .

Industry: Coal

Dated , the 2010 .

AWARD

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) 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 :

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman is a permanent worker of Godhur Colliery who was appointed on 18-10-71 . At the time of his 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 of the concerned workman was recorded as 1-3-1942 in all the 2810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA . 1933

records ofthe company. Service Excerpt was issued to the concerned workman in the year 1987 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1-3-1942 . There is no variation of date of birth of the concerned workman in the records of the company Reference to the Apex Medical Board for ascertaming age is called for only when there is variation ofdate of birth in different records of the 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 ecessary 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 Beard For ascertaining his age is fair and justified and the corcemed workman is not entitied to any relief.

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

5.The management is produced MW- 1 , Glosir um Pd . Sisina. The concerned workman has produced himself as WWI and has proved documenis as Exts . Wet W-4.

Main argument advanced on setall of the concerned workman is that his date of birth is 30-10-53 the management bas illegally mentioned his aste of birth 351-3-12

! this respect managencent's counsel argued that les date ofbirth was recorded in foon B ' Register as 1- 12 which is a statutory register maintained under the Mines Act Fie has also argued that the concerned woreman accepten the same by putting his L.T.L. and it sul be bered

In this respect the concerned workman argued that he has his age assessed by the Medical Board dely constituted under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon-Cuir- 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 teferred him to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age.

7 As per Ext. W- 1 Form ' 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 merely just below 18 years which is not possible and permissible under law because less than 18 years majority cannot be achieved . He moved application Ext . M-2 for correction ofhis age but he has not mentioned that he should be referred to Apex Medical Board , so that management can consider his case . Mon application had been moved on 27-12-90 though het service excerpt in the year 1987 as per Ext. W - 1 , huendat upto three years it shows that he was kept shum getting service excerpt as her Fat. W- inhchauNGES birth has been encntioned as 1942 WW examination he stated that Ido not know Time ; unico were entered in Forra ' B' Registrut not indot sa date of birth in Form 3 Register 1-3-42. I cannot say of i have to shot d that entry. I care mentioned 15 service excreba i have subunitet oppidonor a regard.

8. Constgering the evincereit shows the concerned worketan has not tread any applicauca ta assessment of his age through Apex Medicat toca management . However, if his sed assesshacot of dat: birth as 30-10-53 be considered that it is not possibist get employment at the age of edow 18 tears as h employment on 13-10-11 and not onpleted 18 year age.

9.Accordial rear bellewind on t The acne the managem Haan Col M/s.BCCLinteoingtofertal Fasware Apex Mobi Board for ascertaining his age is fair and justitied and c concerned workuran is pot entitled to any reriet

ILM. SINGH, Prasidan Hia

2011

'का 14 ) की अग एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट लेयोगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय ररकार औद्यागि अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद नं. क पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10 3 201 को प्राप्त हुआ था । अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकारनं. भो संबद्ध नियाजका जीर उनके कर्मकारों के बा [सं. एल-20012/353/1999- आई आरसी श्री. एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकार New Delhi , the 10th March , 2011

S.O. 933. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispates Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government herehy publishes the award ( Ref. No. 84/20 ( 月 of the Central ( vernment Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labou Court 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in th Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 1 . the management of B.C.C.L. and their workman , which : was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L-20012/353 / 1999 - IR ( C- D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U / s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 24 ) of 1.D. Act .

Reference No. 84 of 2000

Parties

Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/ s . BCC Ltd.

AND

Their workmen .

Present

Shri JH . M. Singh , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate .

For the Employers :

For the Workman

Shri S C. Gour , Advocate & Vice-President , N.C.W.C. State : Jharkhand .

2811

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

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 of Group V- A piece rated job . The concerned workman represented before the management several times for his regularisation as time- rated Driver in Cat . V but without any effect . An industrial dispute raised before 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 jobs of T / R were regularised in Time Rated in the year 1997 but the workman's case was not considered .

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.

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 11th January 2011

AWARD

By Order No. 1-20012/ 353 / 99-1R- ( C - 1 ) dated 28-1-2000 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 following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal :

"Whether the demand of the Union before the Management of Nichitpur Colliey under Sijua Arca of M / s . BCCL to regularise Sri Jogindra Nonia , as Time Rated Driver , since the workman continuously working as such since 1993 is proper and justified? if so , what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 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 - A Miner 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/ R job in Cat. V of NC WA on clear vacancy Due to acute shortage of Drivers in Nichitpur Colliery, the workman was 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 ner paid proper Category wages but also intentionaily did not pay difference of wages of Cat Vand 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 3. The case of the 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 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 - li and other type of skilled workman put into Category - IIIto 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 various kinds of time rated jobs . They are placed in particular category according to skill they possess . The Union demanded regularisation of the workman concerned as a Driver in Category - V through an industrial dispute . It is relevant to inention that the promotion of any workman is a particular post is a managerial function and prerogative 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 Industry . The demand of the Union is neither legal nor justified. The management can not promote a single workman by way of regularisation .

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 paragraphs of each other's written statement .

5. The concemed workman , Jogindra Nonia , has examined himself as WW- i and the proved documents as Exts . W- F to W- 6 2812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

The management has examind MW- 1 , Babulal Turi and has proved document as Ext . M - 1 .

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 the 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 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 perExt . W - 2 /5 Office Order dated 7-6-2000 the concerned workman was ordered to report for duty to S.E. ( Excvn . ) NOCP 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 ofaplication as per Ext . W - 4 , W -4 / 1 , Ext . W - 4/ 2 and Ext. W- 4/3 from time to time .

7. management's witness MW- 1 , Babulal Turi , has stated in cross - examination that I cannot say if the concerned workman possesed the heavy driving licence when he was engaged as a driver . As per document proved by the 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 if the concerned workman deserves regularisation in Category - V. Still now he is getting wages of Group 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

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 a job of permanent nature for a period of upleast 6 months or who has satisfactorily put in 6 months

[ PART IH SEL. Sunt

continuous service in a permanent post as a probationer . shows that the management has taken work from the concerned workman as Heavy Vehicle Driver since 9-7-9 .. so he is entitled for regularisation as time - rated Driver .

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances . 3 hold that the demand of the Union before the management ofNichitpur 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 sine: 1993 is proper and justified . So the concerned workman is entitled to be regularised as Time- Rated Driver Category - V after 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 the Award

Thisis my Award .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Office नई दिल्ली , ।। मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 934.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 194 ) का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सब डीविजन ऑफिसर ( टेलिग्राफस ) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2003 : को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/94/ 1988- डी. - 11 ( बी जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 934. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Centrai Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 44/2003 1 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum ILabour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sub - Divisional Officer . Telegraphs and theit workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-03-2011 .

[No. L -40012 94 / 1988-0 - II ( Bi JOHAN TOPNO , Under Sect

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI.J.P.CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER. CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT / NGP / 44 / 2003

Date: 03-03-201 Party No. 1 : 1. The Sub - Divisional Officer . Telegraphs , Bhandara - 481340.

ભારત વરે

છ 74 2

31931 4 , 23388 ? 8789 -- 3 18Y33

2. The Director, Telecommunication , C.T.O. Compound , Nagpur - 440001.

3. The General Manager Telecommunication , Maharashtra Circle , Mumbai .

Versus

Party No. 2 : Ku . Sanjiwani D/ o Devidas Pusadkar , C / o Shri Pradeep Wamanrao Puradbhat , Near Dr. Deo's Dispensary, Sudam Road , Itwari , Nagpur .

AWARD

(Dated: the 3rd March , 2011 )

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Sub Divisional Officer , Telegraphs , Bhandara and their workman , Smt . Sanjiwani for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur , as per letter No.L - 40012 / 94 / 88 - D - II ( B ) dated 13-6-1989 , with the following schedule: -

Telegraphs and her service was continuous without any break for 745 days , exceeding 240 days , the period which is required for regular appointment in services and despite the above stated facts , the SDO , Telegraphs terminated her services by the order dt.29-1-84 , w.e.f. 31-1-84 , without issuing the mandatorry notice and without any reason and termination of her service is bad in law , malafide and against the provisions of law and natural justice and therefore , the same is liable to be set aside . Th . rtber case of the workman is that a post of office assistance is lying vacant in the department of telecommunicatie a therefore , there is work for her and after her terminat ... she approached the authorities of telecommunica ... department in writing repeatedly to reinstate her and alle w her to continue in service and also personally visid the authorities at Bhandara and Nagpur and the authorities gave her false promises to reinstate her and not to approach the Court for redress , but as she was not reinstated , she agitated her grievances before the ALC. Nagpur and as the conciliation between the parties failed , the ALC reported the fact of failure of the conciliation to the Centrai Government . The workman has prayed to set aside the order of termination of her service w.e.f. 31-1-84 and to reinstate her in service in the post of casual office assistant , with continuity in service and full back wages alongwith other service benefits and revised pay scales .

"Whether the action of the management of the Sub- Divisonal Officer , Telegraphs , Bhandara is justified in terminating the services of Smt . Sanjiwani , former casual clerk w.e.f. 31-1-1984 ?

If not , to what relief the employee concerned is entitled to . "

Subsequently , the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law .

2. Being noticed , the . Workman , Smt . Sanjiwani (" the workman " in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of Telegraphs , ( " the Party No.1 " in short) filed its written statement .

3. The party No.1 has resisted the claim of the workman by . filing their written statement and pleading inter - alia that the workman was not engaged as casual office assistant/ casual clerk , but was engaged as casual labourer and her name was enrolled in the muster roli on daily wages as labourer and the workman was not engaged in the work like typing , handling of files and registers , telephone clerk and other office work during her tenure of service but her engagement was purely as a casual labourer and mazdoor and the issuance of certificate at Annexure- IV by the then Sub Divisional Officer , Telegraphs is not known to them and the workman worked as a causal office peon and her work was purely on temporary basis , so , there was no need to issue any notice and therefore , her service was terminated w..e.f. 31-1-84 ( wrongly mentioned as 31-3-94 in the additional WS ) and the SDO Telegraphs was empowered only to engage casual labourer / mazdoor and no post of casual office assistant is lying vacant in the department and there was never any promise from the authorities to reinstate the applicant , whenever there would be vacancy and there was also an advertisement as per Annexure - 21 issued by the higher authorities for the post of telecom office assistant and the SDO Telegraph is empowered only to appoint Class - IV casuallabour / mazdoor on muster roll according to the schedule rate declared by the Collector of the District and the engagement of the applicant was made accordingly and there was a break in her service for 16 days in the month of March , 83 i.e. from 16-3-83 to 31-3-83 and therefore , it can The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that she was initially appointed as a Casual Office Assistant/ Casual Clerk on 20-11-1981 and served till 31-1-1984 under the Sub Divisional Officer , Telegraphs , Bhandara and her name was enrolled in the muster roll of daily wages as Labour and identity card was granted to her for the period from 81 to 84 by the Party No. 1 and she was doing her duties regularly such as Typist , Clerk , Handling of files . and registers and also other works and thus , gained sufficient knowledge and experience during the period of her service and she worked honestly and sincerely and to the satisfaction of the authorities and she worked for 745 days in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer , Telegraphs , Bhandara for the periodfrom 20-11-81 to 31-1-84 and an experience certificate was also granted to her on 2-2-84 by the SDO

1023 GI /11-31 2814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

be held that the workman had left her work and as such , the claim ofthe workman that she had worked beyond 240 days continuously is denied and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. The workman has relied on the oral evidence adduced by herself and the other witness examined by her , besides , relying on the documentary evidence . Management did not adduce any oral evidence . Management also did not file any document in support of its claim .

5. It is necessary to mention here that the case had been closed on 4-4-2007 and had been fixed for passing of award. As my predecessor- in- service did not pass any award till the date of his retirement , i.e. 6-8-2010 , the case was reopened and notices were issued to the parties for hearing of arguments on merit and on 7-1-2011 hearing of argument was completed and the case was posted for award to ' oday i.e. 3-3-2011 .

6. Before going into the merit of the case , I think it proper to mention about the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 regarding the maintainability of the reference. It was submitted that during the casual employment of the workman for the period from 1981 to 1984, the party No.1 was purely a Government of India department under the name of " Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department" and the workman was reported to have been engaged as casual clerk for a temporary periodby the then SDO , Telegraphs and during the year 1985 , two separate departments , viz . " Department of Telecommunications" and " Departmental of Posts" were formed and the old department became totally non - existent and after formation of the new departments , the legality of P& T Department automatically ceased to be non- existent by all means and in October , 2000 , a Government of India Enterprise was formed by the name , " Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (" BSNL " in short ) " for providing telecom services as a service provider, under the Department of Telecom , Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and BSNL is a separate 100 % owned Government company with separate board of Directors for running the same and all the old permanent employees except ITS Officer working in the erstwhile DOT were got absorbed in BSNL by way of option and under these scenario , BSNL cannot be a party to the dispute and the petitioner was well aware of these changes and in spite of knowing all these organizational restructuring that had taken place during the long span of years , she did not make any attempt to approach the Court for change of name and status of the Party No. 1 (Non- applicant) to maintain the legality of the case and as the non - applicant and representing department are no more in existence , the case has lost its legality and the BSNL cannot be treated as non - applicant in this case and on the said ground , the case is liable to be dismissed. It was also submitted that the appointment of the workman

[PART II SEC Song was purely on temporary basis on daily wages as a labout and her appointment was not in accordance with the recruitment rules and procedure and as such , she is not entitled for any relief. It is necessary to mention here that though the advocate for the Party No.1 has mentioned in the written notes of argument regarding filing of some documents , actually no document has been filed tron the side of the Party No.1 .

was 7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that as according to the earty No. 1 all the old employees working in erstwhile DOf were absorbed in the BSNL by way of option , the management ofBSNL is under legal obligation to absorb the work man and the grounds of arguments submitted from the sale of the management are after thought and baseless. also submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that from the documents filed by the workman and the oral evidence adduced on her behalf, it is clear that the workman worked from 20-11-81 till 31-1-84 and without compliance of the mandatory provisions and in violston of the principles of natural justice , her service was terminated w.e.f. 31-1-81 and as such , the termination is illegal and therefore , the workman is entitled for reinstatement .

8. So far the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that due to the reconstruction of the original Posts and Telegraph Departmem , the reference is not maintainable is concerned. I find no force in the same. The Party No.1 never raised such objection during the hearing of the case and only at the time of the argument, such contention was raised . It is also admited by the Party No. 1 that the employees of DOI were absorbed in BSNL and as such , it can be held that BSNL has entered into shoes of the old DOT and as such, the management of the BSNL is under legal obligation to comply the orders , if any, passed in this reference .

9.On perusal of the documents filed by the workman and so also the oral evidence adduced on her behalf, it is found that she was appointed as a casual clerk on 20-11-81 and she worked as such , till 31-1-84. Evenit. the contention ofthe Party No.1 is believed that there was a discontinuance of the service of the workman From 16-3-83 to 31-3-83 , still then , it is found from the evidence on record that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous work, preceding the 12 months from the date of termination i.e. 31-1-84. As the workman had already completed 240 days of work preceding the 12 months from 31-1-84 , the termination of her service amounts to retrenchment , in view of the definition of " retrenchment " givenin Section 2 ( 00) of the Industrial Disputes Act . 19-47. Asthe termination of the service of the workman was not done after observing the mandatory provisions as provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , it is held [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

that the termination of the service of the workman is illegal and cannot be sustained.

10. The next question for consideration in this case is regarding the relief for which the workman is entitled too . The workman has not pleaded specifically and has not adduced any evidence that she was or is not in gainful employment , after her dismissal from service . Moreover , it is clear from the pleading of the workman and so also the documents filed by her that she was a daily wager . Such fact can be found from the copy of the appointment letter filed by the workman herself . It is also found that in the appointment letter itself, it has been mentioned that the pest of causal clerk was purely casual and can be terminated at any time without any notice and the wage of the workman was Rs . 7 per day , including the weekly off day.

Atthis juncture , I think it proper to refer to the two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard as reported in 2010 ( 8 ) Scale 583 ( Incharge Officer and another Vs Shanker Shetty ) and (2009 ) 15 SCC 327 ( Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another) .

In the decision reported in 2010 ( 8 ) Scale ( supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that:

" Labour Laws- Industrial Disputes Act , 1947- Section 25F Daily wager- Termination of service in violation of Section 25F - Award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement ---Respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by appellants in 1978 His engagement continued for about 17 years intermittently upto 6-9-1985 - Respondent raised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of procedure prescribed in section 25F of the Act- Labour Court rejected respondent's claim holding that Section 25 F of the Act was not attracted since the workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination on 6-9-1985 . On appeal High Court directed reinstatement of respondent into service holding that termination of respondent was illegal-Whether the order of reinstatement will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of Section 25 F of the Act- Allowing the appeal , Held ,

2815

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

ordered accordingly . Such payment shall be made within 6 week from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum.

In the decision reported in 2009 ( 15 ) SCC 327 , ( supra ) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :

" It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal , the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However , in the recent past , there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases , this Court has consistently taken view that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure . Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

Itwould be , thus , seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time , this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not , however , be automatically passed . The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where 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 . This Court has distinguished between a daily wagers who does not hold a post and a permanent employee" .

Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decisions , to the present case at hand , it is held that the workman is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement or back wages and monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice . In my consider opinion , the compensation of Rs . 50,000 ( Rupees fifty thousand only ) shall be appropriate , just and equitable . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of the Sub Divisional Officer, Telegraph , Bhandara is not justified in terminating the services of Smt. Sanjiwani , former casual clerk w.e.f. 31-1-1984 . The order of termination of the service of the workman is set aside . However , the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service and back wages . She is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs . 50,000 ( Rupees fifty thousand only ) . The management of Party No.1 ( at present the management of BSNL , Bhandara ) is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs . 50,000 ( Rupees fifty thousand only ) to the workman , Smt . Sanjiwani within one THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA 12, 1933

ironth , from the date of publication of the award, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 935 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल पेनजर , ओरडनेन्स फैक्ट्री 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 CGIT/ LC/ R/ 103 /2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती हे जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -14011/6/2005- आईआर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 935. 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/ 103/2005) 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 General Manager, Ordnance Factory and their workman, which was received ythe Central Government on 11-3-2011 .

[No. L- 14011 /6/2005 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 103/2005

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Sheikh Mustaq ,

General Secretary, Ordance Factory Karmchari Union ( INTUC) , C/ o Shri Sudhir Shukla , B - 10/ 2 ,

Gandhi Nagar. At Katni ,

Katni

Workman

Versus

he General Manager ,

Ordnance Factory,

Katni (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of February, 2011 Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 14011 / 6 /2005 - IR( DU) dated 26-9-2005 has

PAR S referred the following tribunal: -

"Whether the acting of the

Manager, Ordnance Facto Sama

the scale ofpay Rs 330- met

1.S G. I to Shri Sama

Fitter as per the recommendation al

justified? If not , what relhet She wa

is entitled to ? "

2. The case of the workmetinion

workman was initially appointe..: 15 Se the trade ofFitter Electronics in October 1996 . factory, Katni . Thereafter he was promoted as skule and then IIigh Skilled Grade - II It is stated that High Skilled Grade - I & li had been merged into the p High Skilled ( HS) . It is stated that the ECC Consc recommended the pay scale of Fitter Electron Rs. 330-480 which has now been revised as Rs N 6000 but the workman was not given the said scale submitted that the management be directed to fis the fi accordance with the recommendation of ECC Comtois with payment of difference ofpay and costs of the litigats 3. The management appeared and filed Wor Statement in the reference . The case of the managens ad interalia, is that the workman was appointed in the tradot Fitter Electric (Semi Skilled) on 29-10-90 at Opto Elecireriss Factory, Dehradun where he was subsequently protasted asFitter Electric (Skilled) on 19-12-1992 in the pay scalet Rs . 950-1500 . He was re -designated as Fitter Electrom (Skilled) in the same scale . On his own request he .. transferred to Ordnance Factory, Katni on 1-7-200011. was granted ACP on 29-10-2002 on completion of 12 years in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 . Subsequently he was promoted to Fitter Electronics (Skilled ) in the year 1990 His pay cannot be compared with Shri V.K. Vishwaka who was appointed as Fitter Electronics (Highly Skill a Grade- II) w.e.f. 6-11-1984. On these grounds , the workman isnot entitled the scale of pay as has been claimed by hum 4. During the course of the proceeding , the w has filed an application dated 20-10-2010 to withdraw the case. There is no such provision in the I.D. Act. Die management has no objection , if no dispute award is passed Considering the fact that the Union does not want contest the reference , I find that there is no dispute in vis ofthe application of withdrawal of the case . The reference isaccordingly answered .

5. In the result, no dispute award is passed with any order to costs .

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding in...

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 936.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ जनरल मैनेजर ( टेलीकॉम ) 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 105/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 का प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/192 /1994- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

$ .00 . 936.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Mustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/ 2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chief General Manager , Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-03-2011 .

[No. L -40012/ 192 / 1994 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT- CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT / NGP / 105/2004 Date : 7-03-2011

Party No. 1 : The Chief General Manager, Telecom ( RE ), Project - 66 , Bajaj Nagar , Nagpur. Versus

PartyNo. 2 : Shri Sharad Madhorao Mohitkar , Ward No. 6 , At Post Tali , Narkhed , Distt.Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 7th March , 2011)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chief General Manager , Telecom ( RE ) , Project, 66 and their workman , Shri Sharad M. Mohitkar for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur, as per letter No. L - 40012 / 192 / 94 - IR ( DU ) dated 27/ 28-12-1995 , with the following schedule :

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom ( RE ) , Project , 66 , Bajaj Nagar , Nagpur in stopping Shri Sharad Madhorao Mohitkar, Casual Labour from his duty w.e.f. June , 1988 is justified and

2817

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to."?

Subsequently , the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

2. Being noticed , the Workman , Shri Sharad ( " the workman " in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of Chief General Manager , Telecom (RE ) ( " the Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was appointed on 31-7-1985 with the party No.1 as casual labourer and worked continuously till June , 1988 and he was required to do all kind of miscellaneous works . including digging of earth and laying down of cables etc. and initially , he worked with the Division , but subsequently he was transferred to the Railway Electrification w.e.f. January, 1987 and he worked continuously without any break in the service till he was illegally orally terminated from his service w.e.f. June , 1988 and though , work was available all the time with the Party No.1 , he was not provided with work and allowed to continue in service and there was no reason for termination of his service and neither he was served with one month's notice or was paid the notice pay , in lieu of the notice and he was also not paid the retrenchment compensation and his service was terminated without following the legal provisions of Section 25F of the Act and as such , the termination is illegal , improper and contrary to law and he had approached the Party No.1 by registered letter dt. 13-6-1991 and 30-3-1993 but no reply was received by him and as such , he raised the industrial disputes before ALC ( Central ) , Chhindwara and as the conciliation proceedings failed , the ALC submitted report of failure of conciliation to the Central Government . The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages .

3. It is pleaded by the Party No 1 in its written statement interalia that the workman was not appointed w.e.f. 31-7-1985 by it , as a casual mazdoor, but he was engaged in Railway Electrification project , w.e.f 1-1-87 and he worked from 1-1-87 to 31-3-88 for 454 days and absented from duty in the month of April , 1988 and again from May . 1988 to July , 1988 , he worked for 86 days and left the work on his own accord w.e.f. 1-8-1988 , without giving any notice to AET ( RE ) , Pandhurna and thereafter, he did not turn up for duty and as the workman left the job on his own accord , question of giving one month's notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation did not arise and as such , there is no question of violation of Section 25F of the Act and the workman did not approach it on 13-6-91 and no notice was received by it in this regard and it had not engaged other workers after the termination of the service of the workman and juniors to the workman were also not continued in service with it and there is no substance in the allegation made in the statement of claim and no work is available with the department at present and there was 2818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

no retrenchment in this case and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4 The parties adduced oral evidence in support of their respective claims , besides placing reliance on documents , the workman examined himself as a witness on his behalf, whereas , one Shri Wasudeo has been examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1 .

The workman in his evidence in chief, which is on. allidas it has reiterated the facts mentioned by him in the statement of claim . In his cross-examination , he has admitted that he worked as a casual labour in the electrification division ofthe railway from 1-1-87 to July, 88 and his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he did not receive any written order and he also did not receive any termination order. The witness has denied suggestion given to him that he voluntarily left the work and did not attend duty from 1-8-88 .

The witness examined on behalf of the Party No.1 has also reiterated the stands taken by the management in the written statement , in his evidence , which is on affidavit . to his cross -examination , he has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the case of the workman and he has not brought the record showing the period of the work of the workman . He has admitted that the records produced by the workman are correct . This witness has stated that management did not issue any notice to the workman for hi . absence .

5. It is necessary to mention here that the Party No.1 sbrected by this Tribunal for production of the muster roll trom July, 85 to March , 88 , but the Party No.1 did not croduce the documents on the ground that the same had aiready been destroyed . However, no document was filed by the Party No.l to show that actually there was desuuction of the muster roll , in question . For non- production of the muster roll , adverse inference has to be drawn against the Party No. 1 .

6. Perused the record including the oral evidence adduced by the parties and documents filed by the workman. From the evidence on record, including the two documents filed by the workman , it is found that the workman worked with Party No. 1 from 31-7-1985 till June , 1988. It is also found from the record that the workman had worked for more than 240 days , preceding the 12 months from the date ofhis termination . There is no legal evidence on record to show that the workman left the work on his own accord w.e.f. 1-8-1988 . The Party No.1 has failed to produce anydocumentary evidence or any other legal evidence to show that the workman left the work on his own accord . Admittedly, the provisions of section 25F of the Act were not complied with , before the termination of the service of the workman . Hence , it is held that the termination of the service of the workman is not justified and the same is illegal .

7. The next question for consideration is as to what relief the workman is entitled . The workman in his statement of clain has not taken any specific stand that he was / is

[PART II -SEC. 300 , not gainfully employed , though he has stated that he living a very miserable life and is thrown on the road alongwith his family members and is in great need of employment . However, in his cross - examination , he ha admitted that at present he is working as a labour and as such , the workman is not entitled for any arrear of wages The workman has also adınitted in his cross - examination that he did not receive any written order from the department and his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, which clearly shows that the appointment of the workman was not in accordance with the rules and regulation of appointment . Moreover, the workman has admitted that he was working as a casual labourer.

The learned advocate for the workman at the time of argument submitted that the workman is entitled for reinstatement and full back wages . in support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in 2004 III CLR 557 ( NICKS ) ( India Tools Ramsurath and Another) . 1998 I CLR 1205 ( M. Gamshat Patel and another Vs M. Consumer Co - operative ) . 2010 ( 1) Scale 631 ( Harjinder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation) and (2010 ) 5 SCC 497 ( Anu Sharma Vs Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1. Panipat, Haryana With respect. I am of the view that the decisioL cited by the learned advocate for the workman have clear application to the present case at hand , as the fact . and circumstances of the cases referred in the said decisio arequite different from the facts and circumstances of the present case at hand.

8. At this juncture , I think it proper to refer to the two recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard as reported in 2010 (8 ) Scale 583 ( Incharge Officet and Another Vs Shanker Shetty) and ( 2009 ) 15 SCC 320 (Jagbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another) .

Inthe decision reported in 2010 (8 ) Scale ( supra ) the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that:

" Labour Laws Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 Section 25F- Daily wager--Termination of service in violation of Section 25F - Award of monetary compensation in lieu ofreinstatement- Respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by appellants in 1978 His engagement continued for about 17 years intermittently up to 6-9-1985 Respondent raised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of procedure prescribed in Section 25 -F of the Act -Labour Court rejected respondent's claim holding that Section 25 - F of the Act was not attracted since the workman failed to prove that he hadworked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination on 6-9-1985 On appeal High Court directed reinstatement of respondent into service holding that termination ofrespondent was illegal-Whether the order of reinstatement will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of Section 25 - F ofthe Act Allowing theappeal,Held, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

A. The High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent . The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about seven years intermittently up to Sept.06 , 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one , it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead of monetary compensation would meet ends ofjustice . In our considered opinion , the compensation of Rs.1,00,000 ( Rupees one lac ) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just and equitable. We ordered accordingly . Such payment shall be made within 6 week from today failing which the same shall carry interest atthe rate of 9 % per annum . In the decision reported in 2009 ( 15 ) SCC 327 , ( supra) the Hon 'ble Apex Court have held that:

" It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal , the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow . However , in the recent past , there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases , this Court has consistently taken view that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure . Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice .

It would be , thus , seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time , this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not , however , be automatically passed . The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where 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 . This Court has distinguished between a daily wagers who does not hold a post and a permanent employee .

9. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decisions , to the present case at hand , it is held that the workman is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement or back wages and monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice . In my consider opinion , the compensation of Rs.30,000 ( Rupees thirty thousand only ) shall be appropriate , just and equitable . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the Chief General Manager , Telecom (RE) , Project , 66, Bajaj Nagar , Nagpur in stopping Shri Sharad Madhaorao Mohitkar , Casual Labour from his duty w.e.f. June , 88 is notjustified and legal . The order of termination of the service of the workman is set aside . However , the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service and back wages . He is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs.30,000 ( Rupees thirty thousand only ) . The management of Party No.1 is directed to pay the compensation amount

2819

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

ofRs . 30,000 ( Rupees thirty thousand only ) to the workman , Shri Sharad M. Mohitkar within one month , from the date ofpublication of the award , failing which , the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 201 ।

का.आ. 937.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सब - डिविजनल ऑफीसर ( टेलीग्राफस ) 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/ 109/ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -40012/131 / 2000 - आई आर ( डी यू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 937.- 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/ 109/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sub Divisional Officer ( Telegraphs ) . and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-03-2011 .

[No. L -40012/ 131 / 2000 - IR ( DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

NO . CGIT /LC / R/ 109/ 2000

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN Shri Jyoti Prakash Beck S/ o Alfraid Beck , Bhagalpur,

Jashpurnagar (MP)

Workman Versus

The Sub Divisional Officer , ( Telegraphs ) .

The Sub Divisional Officer ( Telegraphs ) , Raigarh Pathalgaon , Jashpurnagar ( MP)

...Managements

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day. of February 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 40012 / 131 / 2000 - IR ( DU ) dated THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2 , 2011 / CHAITRA 12 , 1933

2020

21-6-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : --

"Whether the action of Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraphs ) , Raigarh and Pathalgaon ( MP) in terminating the services of Shri Jyoti Prakash Beck , ex - casual labour w.e.f. 1989 is justified ? If not , to whatreliefthe workman is entitled ? "

2.The workman did not appear inspite of repeated notices and therefore the then Tribunal proceeded the reference ex - parte against the workman on 2-8-2007.

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management in short is that the workman was engaged on daily wages as casual labour . He worked in the year 1978-73 days , in 1979-83 days , in 1980-98 days , in 1982-40 days , in 1987-30 days and in 1988-177 days on the basis of muster roll . He is said to have been absconded from October , 1988 and whereabout was not known . He was not fulfilling the requisite criteria of temporary status nor he had completed 240 days in any year and also preceding the date of reference . It is submitted that he is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of reference and pleadings of the management , the following issues are formulated :---

1. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the alleged workman w.e.f. 1989 is justified?

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled ?

5. Issue No. I

To prove the case , the management has examined Shri Basant Xalxo . He is working as A.D.S.II at BSN N Raipur. He has stated that he was engaged in a project work as casual labour on contract basis . He never worked 240 days in any year. This shows that the provision of Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. He has further stated in his evidence that he had left the work on his own will . He has stated the days of work of each year which he had done . The maximum 177 days he worked in the year 1988 and from 1983 to 1986 he had not worked for a single day.He has stated that to provide temporary status under the scheme of 1989, he should be in continuous employment till 7-11-89 and he should complete 240 days in a year. Both the requisite he had not filled . This shows that he was not entitled to give the temporary status as well . His evidence isunrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . This issue is , accordingly, decided in favour of the management and against the workman .

6. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above, it is evident that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

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

[PART II Sony नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 938.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 194 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डिपार्टम ऑफ टेलीकॉम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय गरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटीए -75/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो कन्ट्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/23/1997- आई आर ( डा जोहन तोपनो, अवर अभिन New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 938. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Centrai Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGHA 75/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Anm . sure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re- thon to the management of Department of Telecom and workmen , which was received by the Central Governat on 11-03-2011 .

[No. L-42012/23 / 1997-1R (D JOHAN TOPNO , Under Se

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AHMEDABAD Present: - Binay Kumar Sinha Ahmedabad , dated 28th February, 2011 Reference ( ITC ) 24/1998 Reference : ( CGITA) 75/2004

Divisional Engineer Telecom ,

Indian Post & Telegraph Department , CCP, Navarangpura , Ahmedabad ( Gujarat ) -380009

FirstParty Their Workman

V/ s Shri Satyendraprakash Tiwari , C/ o Dinesh S Gohil , Advocate , 66/ Jantanagar , Odhav, Ahmedabad- 384415 , (AtPresent Satyendraprakash Tiwari , S/ o . Ishwar Dutt Tripathi, Village: Bhujhwan Tiwari Ka Porra , P.O. Piyarepur ( Katehari) , P.S .: Akbarpur,

Distt. Ambedkarnagar (U.P.) - 2241151 )

Second Party Forthe first party employer : None For the workman ( second party) : Shri B.M Joshi , Advocate .

भारत का राजपत्र | भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

As per Government of India , Ministry of Labour & mployment/ Shram Mantralaya by its Order No. L -40012 / 23 /97-1R ( DU ) dated 9-2-1998 , in exercise of the power conferred by elause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) aud the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, have referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication under the schedule as follows :

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of Jepartment ofTelecom in denying temporary status to Shri Satyendra Prakash Tiwari Muster Roll casual workman of Coaxial Cable Project is legal and justified? Ifnot to what relief the concern workman is entitled to ?"

( 2 ) The workman ( second party) in support of subject matter referred in reference , filed statement of clamı ( Ex . 3 ) pleading interalia that he was taken as a Casual mazdoor in CCP and posted at District Masau . Siddhapur and he worked there from 1-7-1987 to 30-06-1988 i.e. 366 days continuous services under Shri P.V. Varia . He further worked under Shri S. V. Chhoker in CCP at Baroda from 17-4-89 to 31-7-89 . Thereafter . Assistant Engineer , on 1-8-1989 , formally informed him that his service is no longer required and refused to provide work . It has been claimed that the action of Assistant Engineer is arbitrary and against Principle of Natural Justice and that he was retrenched without paying any compensation . Further case is that the persons junior to him , are still working in the department , whereas his services have been taken away without showing any reasons . CCP project is still continuing and will remain contmus being a big project . He is only earning member in his family and the act of the retrenchment put him and his family members in great hardship . On the above grounds relief has been claimed for his reinstatement with full back wages after declaring the action of the first party illegal . arbitrary and also for any other relief to which he is found entitle .

(3 ) The reference was disputed by the first party management of the Post and Telecoin Department , filed W.S. (Ex. 5 ) contending therein that the claim made by the second party is not maintainable under this reference and the second party workman has no cause of action . Although admitting that altogether for 334 days the second party workman had performed , his work in first phase in the year 1987 to 1988 from 1-07-1987 to 31-03-1988 for 243 days and in the year 1988-1989 ( 1-4-1988 to 30-06-1988 ) for 91 days only and thereafter the workman left the work. Further case is that the workman under SV Choker worked only for 106 days in 1989-90 and the break between the

2821 प्रेल 2 , 2011/चैत्र 12 , 1933

first spell of working and the second spell of working is more than 6 months having a gap of 290 days from 1-7-1988 to 17-04-1989 and during that break period , no representation was submitted by the workman and than the , workman second party left the work of his own accord and has lost the benefit of continuous service . It has been denied that the Assistant Engineer had removed the workman . It has been denied that the workman ever worked 240 days in calendar year whereas the present service is only of 106 days i.e. from 17-04-1989 to 31-07-1989 which does not entitled the workman for any compensation . It has been denied further that the person's junior to the workman are working because the service of the workman (second party) can be counted only from 17-04-1989 and not earlier due to 290 days break of service prior to 17-04-1989 , last come and first go principle is not applicable . Further case is that there is no violation of section 25 ( F ) of the I.D. Act and so this reference is fit to be dismissed and the workman ( second party ) is not entitled to get any relief.

(4) In view of the pleadings of the parties following issue arises for determination .

ISSUE

( i ) Whether the reference is maintainable ?

(ii) Whether the second party workman could have been able to prove that he worked for 240 days in the calendar year ?

( iii ) Whether the first party violated the provision ofsection 25 ( F) of the ID Act ?

( iv) Whether the second party workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement as claim ?

(v) Whether he is entitled to any other relief ?

FINDINGS

(5) ISSUE No. ( II) : -

The second party workman as well the first party management both lead evidence oral and documentary in support of their representative case . Admittedly the second party workman Satyendraprakash Tiwari was inducted as casual labour by the first party on 1-07-1987 and was working as casual labour in the CCP . It is also not disputed that the second party workman continued his work as a casual labour in CCP continuously from 1-07-1987 to 30-06-1988 in the year 1987 and 1988 i.e. a total period of 366 days continuously as per Ex . 10. So , since the workman had completed more than 240 days of continuous work , a right had accrued to the workman that if, his employer intended to retrench him , he cannot do so out rightly by stopping him on work rather under section 25 ( F ) of the Industriai Disputes Act 1947 , the employer had to comply with giving 1 month notice in writing THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 2 , 2011 /CHAITRA12, 1932

11 08-1990 ( Ex . ST giving croiraw that

period of his absence at 90 days from

17-04-1989 cannot e cod

representation and this c

workman prove dat he ho cita ve

ang thcreby lost time benditoris

Ex. 3/3 is taler of PG. Var te muuress

31-08-1990 reporting that Satrapak

worked as a caseai mazdoor fes prem

30-06-1988 i. e. for 366 days and inth, a a

that the said mazdoor ran away from

his salary for the month of June 19ds .

claim ofthe workman that in the Srst phase th

worked for366 days dated 01 07 1988 元オンハート such was situation the workman himse

ofhis own accord than that time no atty noter we

him at his address present or permanent by the ar cating the reasons for removing han from work (that ans bis retrenchment) or should have paid wages in Lu ofsuch nonce . And the employer had to make nayment of compensation equivalent to 15 days , average pay for wing complete year of continuous service for any part thereof in access of 6 months , and 3rd notice to the sporepriate government in the prescribed manner. But in for bastant case the first party employer has come up with stylea that the workman himself left the party and work And that the first party had not removed him from the work. In this connection there is only oral evidence of a witness on behalf of the first party- namely Surajbhan Ramkhiladi Chokanr in such support that the first party officer. Assistant engineer have not ask the workman not to come as his services are no longer required , rather the Workman Satyendra himself left the work. But no documentary evidence have been produced by the first party to show that if, first party have not removed the vorkman fromjob than any notice on the workman address resent or permanent were ever sent . On the other hand , workman Satyendra in his evidence has supported his ich claim that he was continuously working in the C.C.P und in first phase from 01-07-1987 to 30-06-1988 Continuously for much more than 240 days continuously nd thereafter work was not provided to him and he made presentation and again he was deployed to casual works From 17-04-1989 to 31-07-1989 for 106 days and thereafter newas asked by the Assistant Engineer that his service is longer required and he was not provided work, whereas he was approaching to the officers for providing him work for a considerable long period by staying at Ahmedabad and therein he made representation dated 11-08-1990 addressed to DET CCP and Assistant Engineer Indian Post and Telegram Department Navarangpura , vide Ex . 8/1. So , from the oral evidence of the workman at Ex. 6 together ith Ex. 8/1 his representation this much is proved that ne workman Satyendraprakash Tiwari was agitating the matter regarding his physical removal by the assistant ngineer by way of stopping him from work. Though, it is lear that the status of the workman Satyendraprakash wari was of casual labour, but since he had completed Hore than 240 days of continuously work in the year 1987 nd 1988 continuously. In this way the workman had a quired right of a casual worker in the CCP under the employment of the first party and so he was not to be removed without complying with the provision of section 15 ( F) of the ID Act 1974. factum of his working as a casual abour in the second phase from 17-04-1989 to 31-07-1989 as per Ex. 10 period of 106 days does not go to preclude the right of the workman Satyendraprakash Tiwari that he worked only for 106 days , rather he has completed minimum of240 days of continuous work and so he was entitled for compensation . Ex. 8/2 is the copy of the letter of DET addressed to the workman Satyendraprakash Tiwari dated 01-09-1990 in reply to the workman letter dated

intimation to the under sigried Net but again he was deployed to work from 17-04 go to show that the first party recognizary da workman as a casual labour having completed have 240 days continuous work in calendar year so , WI onwork again from 17-04-1989. Had it beer n first party could not have taken the workman J work from 17-04-1989. In this regard then evahi the workman that he was performing his wowk 17-04-1989 to 31-07-1989 , thereafter he was ask come since his service is not required . On the tree the case of the first party is that they have not sh workman not to come rather he left the work : 1 31-07-1989 of his own accord . In this connection tips only oral evidence of a witness but there is no suppor oral evidence of the said assistant engineer S.V. C under whom the workman had worked for 17-04 31-07-1989 to support the first party's case tha workman himself left the work and he had not askesi workman not to come and that he had not remove workman from work . Ex . 8/4 is the correspondence nem by the S.V. Chhoker i.e. to DET dated 03-09-1990 στη application of casual mazdoor Satyendraprakash Tiwa Ex. 8/5 is the another representation of works Satyendraprakash Tiwari dated 15-09-1990 address: DET Navarangpura , Ahmedabad praying for allowing h to work and to save him from unnecessary harassme and also highlighting that he is the only earning men. inhis family and have no other source of income an small service as a casual worker could,be of great help him and his family. Ex. 8/6 is a written representation of t workman Satyendraprakash Tiwari addressed to the Cent Minister Telecom , New Delhi , dated 26-12-1990 Ex 8 another representation of the workman made to Ceno Minister ofTelecom , Government of India , NewDein 8/8 isthe copy of Buffsheet of the public relation offic the Minister of U.P recommending for taking Satyendraprakash Tiwari on his job . Ext . 8/9 is yet anot भाग 11 -- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

representation made by the workman addressed to the D. , Ahmedabad on the subject of allowing him to join hts duty as a casual mazdoor which is dated 02-08-1995 . This representation also made by the workman while he was staying in Ahmedabad from 02-08-1995 . Ext. 8/10 is a pleader's notice sent on behalf of the workman to the Divisional Engineer Telecom Ahmedabad which is dated 18-11-1995. Ex . 8/12 is the representation " made by workthan to the Regional Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) gitan egarding his termination from his work . Ext . 8/13 he report regarding failure of conciliation to the copropriate government from C/ o . O / o . R.L.C ( Central ) , redubad Ex . 8 / 13A is circular of the Government of artment of Telecomunanication New Delhi dated 1995 on the subject of temporary status and arizon ofcasual Labours scheme , 1989. Ex . 8/14 is anther circular of the Governanent of India Department munication , New Delhi dated 22-06-1988 on the gect of casual labour recruitment . Ex . 8/15 is the letter Office of Director General Post and Telegraphs , New liu , dated 30 April 1985 on the subject of stopping of wech recruitment and employment of a casual labour of an type of work and to take the work from those casual aboures already employed as per requirement at a different places

( 6 ) After consideration of the evidence , both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the second party workman , it is proved that the second party workman Satyendraprakash Tiwari had already acquired status of a Kasual labour having worked , continuously of 240 days in calendar year from the date of his employment and so , he was not to be removed or retrenched from services without complying with provision of section 25 ( F ) . This issue is decided in favour of the workman , second party .

(7) ISSUE NO . III

As per findings given to issue No. II , in the foregoings , this tribunal findings that the second party workman Shri Satyendraprakash Tiwari had acquired a status of a casual worker continuously work for more than 240 days in calendar year , more so , continuously for i year, in that situation if, the first party employer was to remove him from the work than duty was caste upon the first party employer to send 1 month notice or in lieu of notice pay to the workman which has not been complied with . The plea of the first party is not acceptable that the second party workman of his own accord left the work Accordingly this issue is decided against first party that they have violated the provisions of Section 25 - F of the 1.D.Act .

( 8) ISSUES NO , I , IV & V

As per findings given in the fore- goings , the dispute raised by the workman resulted in sending of reference for adjudicationby the tribunal is maintainable . The schedule

2823

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 2 , 2011 /चैत्र 12 , 1933

of the reference henceforth required to be answered that the action of the Management of Department of Telecom in denying temporary status to Sri Satyendraprakash Tiwari muster roll casual workman of CCP is illegal and unjustified and workman Shri Satyendraprakash . Tiwari is found entitled for his reinstatement as a casual workınan of CCP project , but since the workman had not actually worked for such long period after his removal from 01-08-1989 on ward and adopting the principle as to no work no pay the workman is entitled for 25 % back wages only.

ORDER

This reference is allowed and the first part is directed to reinstate their workman Shri Satyendi aprakash Tiwari and witin further order as to payment of 25 back wages with interest @ 9 % per anum .

Diociated BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली. ।। मार्च, 201 ।

का.आ. 939.- केन्द्रीय सरकार के संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप -खण्ड ( VI ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में , भारत सरकार के श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. दिनांक 09-09-2010 द्वारा नाभिकीय ईधंन , सघंटक , भारी पानी और संबध रसायन तथा आणविक ऊर्जा जोकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 28 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों , के लिए दिनांक 14-09-2010 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की ओर कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है :

अतः , अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप - खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 14-03-2011 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । [फा. सं. एस -11017/3/97 - आइआर ( पीएल) ] रवि माथुर, अपर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 939. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clause ( vi ) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 09-09-2010 the service in the Industrial Establishments manufacturing or producing Nuclear Fuel and Components , 28.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 2, 2011 / CHAITRA 12, 1933

Hewy Water and Allied Chemicals and Atomic Energy which is covered by item 28 of the First Schedule to the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) to be a Public tility Service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 14th September, 2010 .

And whereas , the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisioto sub - clause ( vi) of clause ( n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government herch, declares the said industry to be a Public Utility Serive for the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six 100tus from the 14th March , 2011 .

[F.No.S 1017/3/ 97 -IR( PL ) ] RAVI MATHUR , Addl . Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 940.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 34 की धाग -1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रेविस करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा (01 अप्रैल, 2011 को उस नागख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 144 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी ८. अध्याय-5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के स्पबंध महाराष्ट्र राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

' रायगढ़ जिले की ' पनवेल' तहसील के अर्न्तगत आने वाले स्मरत क्षेत्र । "

[संख्या एस-38013/24/2011 - एस.एस. 1] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 940. - In exercise of the powers conferred by SHD section (3 ) of Section I of the Employees State surance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist April , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- Vaned VI ( except Sub - Section1 ( 1 )( 1 ) ofof SectSection 76 and Sections 7. 78.79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Maharashtra namely

"Entire area under ' Panvel ' Tehsil in the District of Raigarh"

[No.S-38013 /24/2011 -S.S.I . ) ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च, 2011

का. आ. 941.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 की 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 अप्रैल , 2011 कोउस नानंख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के

[PART II S ===

अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ) और धार 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुक के उपबंध महाराष्ट्र राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प अर्थात्:

क्रम सं. वसूली सीमा में अंतर्निहित तहसील गाँव के अधीन क्षेत्र

हिंगणा

नागलवाड़ी 1 .

डिगडोह: सर्वेक्षण

हिंगणा

नम्बर 94 , 98 , 299

के तहत एम.आइ. डो.सी. हिंगणा के अंतर्गत कार्यान्वित क्षेत्र को छाड़कर ।

3. भोकारा (बोराड़ी रोड) नागपुर

4. पांजरा काराड़ी रोड ) कानठी

नागपुर ग्रामाण 5. कापसी खुर्द

नाग

कामठी

कापसी -बुजुर्ग

[संख्या एस-38013/ 25/2011 प्रस.

एस. डी. जेवियर अवर New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 941.- In exercise of the powers conferm sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees Slat Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ), the Central Govetunne hereby appoints the Ist April , 2011 as the date on whi the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI ( except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Section. 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought ins force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the followin areas in the State of Maharashtra namely :

Disea Sl . Name of the areas within the Tehsil No. limits or Revenue villages

Hingna

1. Nagalwadi

2. Digdoh ( except survey Hingna

Nos . 94 , 98 , & 99 which arein MIDC , Higna Road area and are already implemented)

Bhokara ( Koradi Road) 3. Nagpuri

4. Panjara(Karodi Road ) Kamptee

5. Kapsi-khurd NagpurGramin Negpt 6. Kapsi-Buzurg Kamptee

[ No. S - 38013 25:2011-8 S. D. XAVIER, Under Se Printed by the Manager, Government of india Press , Ring Road, Mayapurı. New Delhi - 116064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.