This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . NO.D. L. (N4005 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 15]

नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 3 अप्रैल 9 , 2011 , शनिवार/चैत्र 13 चैत्र 19 , 1933 NEW DELHI , APRIL 3-APRIL 9 , 2011 , SATURDAY/CHAITRA 13-CHAITRA 19, 1933

No. 15

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 , 30 मार्च, 2011 .

का.आ. 942. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में विधि द्वारा स्थापित परीक्षण न्यायालयों और पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालय में इन मामलों की अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए श्री ब्रहम देव मिश्रा , अधिवक्ता को लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं 225/36/2010- एवीडी- II ]

वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव 1112 G1/2011

(2825)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, the 30th March , 2011

S.O. 942. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoint Shri Brahama Dev Mishra, Advocate in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Uttar Pradesh instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law.

[No.225/36/2010- AVD- II ]

V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

2826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 4 अप्रैल , 2011

का.आ. 943. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तामिलनाडु राज्य सरकार, गृह ( पोल. vii ) विभाग की दिनांक 18 मार्च, 2011 की अधिसूचना सं. जी.ओ. ( एम. एस. ) सं. 195 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से थीरू सादिक बासा , चेन्नई की कथित आत्महत्या रिपोर्ट के संबंध में पुलिस स्टेशन , ई, 3 , टेनाम्पेट, ( तामिलनाडु ) में पंजीकृत अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 174 के अंतर्गत केस अपराध सं. 560/2011 के तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या उससे संबद्ध प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरण तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में या उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध/ अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार एत‌द्वारा सम्पूर्ण तामिलनाडु राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

[ फा. सं. 228 /23/2011 - एवीडी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 4th April , 2011

S.O. 943. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25. of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Tamil Nadu , Home ( POL . VII ) Department ide Notification G. O. (MS ) No. 195 dated 18th March 2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Deli Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of tamil Nadu for investigation of case Crime No. 560/201 registered at Police Station E - 3 , ynampet , (Tamil Nada ) under section 174 of the Code of firminal Procedure 193 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) relating to reported suicide of Thu Sadiq Batcha, Chennai and mpt, abetment cod conspiracy in relation to or in Conection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offences.committed in course of the sarne ansaction or arising out of the same facts .

[F. No.228 /23 /2011 -AVD- II ] V. M. RATHNAM , Dy. Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 1 अप्रैल , 2011

का.आ. 944, भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक अधिनियम , 1989 ( 1989 का 39 को धा ( 6 ) की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के साथ पठित धारा ( 6 ) की धारा के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्राय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चाद, एतद्द्वारा , श्री सुशील मुहनोट , ( जन्म तथि 19-09-1956 ) , वर्तमान में कार्यकारी निदेशक, आईडीबीआई

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] बैंक लिमिटेड, को उनके द्वारा पद का कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 7/2/2010- बीओ -1 ] समीर के. सिन्हा, निदेशक MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 1st April , 2011

S.O. 944. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section (6 ) read with sub- section ( 2 ) of Section ( 6 ) of the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 ( 39 of 1989 ) , the Central Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Sushil Muhnot (DoB: 19-09-1956) presently Executive Director , IDBI Bank Ltd. as Chairman and Managing Director , Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI ) for a period of five years with effect from his assumption of charge of the post or until further orders , whichever is earlier,

[F. No. 7/2/2010 -BO- I ] SAMIR K. SINHA , Director शहरी विकास मंत्रालय (समारोह अनुभाग /कार्य प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 31 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 945.-दिनांक 26 दिसम्बर 2005 की अधिसूचना सं. 25011 /7/ 85 - डब्ल्यू-2 में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए , राजघाट समाधि अधिनियम , 1951 ( 1951 का 41 ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) तथा ( 3 ) के साथ पठित धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का उपयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार श्री एस . जयपाल रेड्डी के स्थान पर श्री कमलनाथ , शहरी विकास मंत्री को राजघाट समाधि समिति का अध्यक्ष नियुक्त करती है ।

[ सं. 25011 /7/85 - डब्ल्यू-2 ] प्रेम जीत लाल , निदेशक ( निर्माण ) MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (Ceremonial Section /Works Division ) New Delhi , the 31st March, 2011

S.O.945. In partial modification of the Notification No. 25011 /7 /85 - W2 dated 26th December , 2005 , the Central Government appoints Shri Kamal Nath , Minister of Urban Development, as Chairman of Rajghat Samadhi Committee inplace of Shri S. Jaipal Reddy , in exercise of the powers conferredby Section 3 read with sub - section ( 1 ) , (2 ) and (3 ) of Section 4 of the Rajghat Samadhi Act , 1951 (41 of 1951 ).

[No. 25011 / 7/85 - W -21

PREMJIT LAL , Director ( Works ) 2827

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

( स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 946.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र 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 कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) , के अन्तर्गत " जिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः:-

(3)

(2)

एम. एस. ( हड्‌डीरोग विज्ञान )

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( हड्‌डीरोग विज्ञान )

(जी.आर. मेडिकल कालेज , ग्वालियर , मध्य प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में जिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा वर्ष 1981 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त मानी जाएगी ) ।

डी. ओर्थो

" ( हड्‌डी रोग विज्ञान में डिप्लोमा "

(जी.आर. मेडिकल कालेज , ग्वालियर , मध्य प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में जिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा वर्ष 1980 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त मानी जाएगी

सभी नोट करें कि : 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई मान्यता अधिकतम 5 वर्ष तक की अवधि के लिए होगी जिसके पश्चात इसे नवीकृत करवाना होगा ।

2. उप- खण्ड 4 में अपेक्षित मान्यता को समय से नवीकृत न करवाने के परिणाम स्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में दाखिले बंद किए जा सकते हैं ।

[ सं यू 12012/ 16/2010 - एम . ई. ( पी. II ) ] अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 18th March , 2011

S. O. 946. 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, due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely:-

In the said Schedule

(a) against " Jiwaji 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 :-

(2)

(β)

MS (Ortho.)

"Master of Surgery ( Orthopaedics ) "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Jiwaji University in respect of students being trained at G.R. Medical College , Gwalior , Madhya Pradesh on or after 1981 .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

(3)

D. Ortho .

*Diploma in (Orthopaedics) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Jiwaji University in respect of students being trained at GR. Medical College , Gwalior , Madhya Pradesh on or after 1980 .

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 / 16/2010 - ME ( F . II ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 23 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 947.-दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामतः

2. दि तमिलनाडु डा. एम.जी.आर. विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भांग- I में XIII की क्रम संख्या 34 के समक्ष कॉलम 2 एवं 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में तामिलनाडु सरकार दंत महाविद्यालय एवं अस्पताल , चेन्नई के संबंध में निम्नलिखित को शामिल किया जाएगा , नामत :-

एम डी एस ( जन स्वास्थ्य दंत चिकित्सा ) , दि तमिलनाडु डा. एम.जी. आर. विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई , " "( ii) जन स्वास्थ्य दंत चिकित्सा (यदिदिनांक 25-3-2010 को या उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो )

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/40/2006-डी. ई . ] अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd March, 2011

S. O. 947. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) , the Central Government , after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following amendments inPart- I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XIII Serial No. 34 , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.GR. University, Chennai the following entries in respect of Tamil Nadu Government Dental College & Hospital , Chennai , shallbe inserted thereunder:

" (ii) Public Health Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 25-3-2010)

MDS ( Public Health Dentistry) , The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.GR. University , Chennai "

[F. No.V.12017/40 /2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

2829

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग !!- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 948, 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 आर डी बिज़नेस सर्विसिज प्रा.लि. , शैड नं. एस- III/ 18-25 एंड 26 , कालुका इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , आई डी सी , राउरकेला -770031 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एबीडब्ल्यूबी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वेमास्टर " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ 296 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

TCMZ

आकृति -2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सी लंग 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 उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे 100 मि.ग्रा . से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100. से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन 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 ( 200 ) / 2010 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

New Delhi , the 31st January , 2011

S.O. 948. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Electronic Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy ( Accuracy class -III ) of Series " ABWB " and with brand name " WEIGHMASTER " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s . Ardee Business Services Pvt . Ltd. Shed No. S - III / 18 . 25 & 26 , Kalunka Industrial Estate , IDC , Kalunka , Rourkela - 770031 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 ; 10/296 ;

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

Figure- 1

Figure - 3 sealing provision of the indicator of the Model

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

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 ofsimilar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value 1x10k , 2x10 * , or 5x10 *, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the said manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured .

[ F.No. WM -21 (200 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 2831 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 949.-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 आर डी बिजनेस सर्विसिज प्रा.लि. , शैड नं. एस-111/ 18-25 एंड 26 , कालुका इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , आई डी सी, राऊरकेला -770 031 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एबीपीएफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहिप्त अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " बेमास्टर " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/ 295 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) 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 ठपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

STAMPING PLATE SIDE SEALING

OTHER SIDE SEATING

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 ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोगः करते हुए यह घोषणा करती हैं कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक.की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10*, 5x10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।..

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 200 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) )

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 949. 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 " ABPF " and with brand name "WEIGHMASTER" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s . Ardee Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Shed No. S - III/ 18 , 25 & 26, Kalunka Industrial Estate , IDC , Kalunka , Rourkela - 770 031 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/295 ;

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

Figure- 1

STAMPING PLATE SIDE SEALING

OTHER SIDE SEATING

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the said , Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy performance and of the same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . up to 5000 kg . with number ofverification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with number of verification scale Interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value 1x10k , 2x10k, or 5x10 *, ' k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured.

[ F.No. WM - 21 (200 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2833 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 950.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा ठसे 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 स्वास्तिक इंस्ट्रूमेंट , 54 , भगवती कृपा सोसायटी, चिराग डायमंड के सामने , एलबीएस रोड , बापूनगर , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसआई-टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " स्वास्तिक " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/43 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) 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 ड़ी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

TOP BODY OFSCALE

SEAL WIRE

0000

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

BOTTOM OF SCALE

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । बाटम प्लेट में दिए गए, छेदों में से टिविस्ड सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग के लिए साइडकवर और स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट पर लीड सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 44 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1112 Gl/ 2011-2 2834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9,2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January , 2011

S.O. 950. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " SI -T " and with brand name " SWASTIK " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s. Swastika Instrument, 54, Bhagwati Krupa Society Opp . Chirag Diamond, LBS Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Gujarat which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/43;

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

Figure- 1 Model

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIRE

0000

LEAD SQUAREL SEAM

BOTTOM OF SCALE

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . Twisted sealing wire passes through the holes of bottom plat, sidecover and stamping plate with lead seal for stamping. A typical schematic diagram ofsealing provision of the model is given above .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central Governmenthereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for .' e ' value of 100mg. to 2g. and with number of verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value 1x10k, 2x10 , or 5x10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and withthe same materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM -21 /(44)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2835 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ ) ] .

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 951.- 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 मापः 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 रखोगा 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 स्वास्तिक इंस्ट्रूमेंट , 54 , भगवती कृपा सोसायटी चिराग डायमंड के सामने , एलबीएस रोड, बापूनगर, अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -111 ) वाले " एसआई - पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " स्वास्तिक " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/44 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान 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 ।

TOP OF HORGE FR

000

SEAL WWIIKE

SEAL WIRI

1EAD SQUAIRE SEM

LEAD YOU BSAL

BOTTOM OF INDICATOR

swastik

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । बाटम प्लेट में दिए गए क्रेदों में से टिविस्ड सीलिंग वायर निकालकर स्टाम्पिंग के लिए साइडकवर और स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट पर लीड सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है ।

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (44 )/2010]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 951. 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 " SI - P " and with brand name " SWASTIK " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Swastika Instrument , 54 , Bhagwati Krupa Society , Opp . Chirag Diamond , LBS Road , Bapunagar , Ahmedabad Gujarat which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/44;

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

Figure- 1

}

swastik

951

000

Figure - 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . Twisted sealing wire passes through the holes of bottom plate, sidecover and stamping plate with lead seal for stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

Further , in exercise of the 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 , and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . up to 5000 kg . with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g. or more and with ' e ' value 1x10k , 2x10k , or 5x10k , 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 / (44)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2837 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 952.- 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 राधे श्याम ऋषि पाल ( फैक्टरी ) , 308/14 , शहजादा बाग इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , दयाबस्ती रेलवे स्टेशन , दिल्ली -35 ( भारत ) द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पीएस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मैकेनिकल व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " विरगो " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/440 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल स्प्रिंग सिद्धांत पर आधारित मैकेनिकल अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मैकेनिकल व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है ।

UTPER PLATE

LOWER

PAN BOREN

STAMPING STUE

SEAL NSRE

DIAL

BASE

आकृति -2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

उपकरण की बाडी पर दिए गए छेदों के माध्यम से लीड और सील तार लगाकर सीलिंग की जाती है । कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 200 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10* या 5x10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 262 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

NewDelhi , the31st January, 2011

S.O. 952. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing, instrument (Mechanical Person Weighing Machine ) of Ordinary Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " PS " and with brand name " VIRGO" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , maunfactured by M/ s . Radhey Shyam Rishi Pal ( Factory), 308/14, Shahzada Bagh Industrial Area, Opp . Daya Basti Railway Station, Delhi - 35 ( India) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/440;

Thesaid model is the Principal of spring based non- automatic weighing instrument (Mechanical Person Weighing Machine) with a maximum capacity of 150 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 200 g .

Figure-1

UPPER PLATE

PLATE

PAN-- CREN

STAMPING STHE

SEALNIRE

DIAL

JASE

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

Sealing can be done by applying lead & seal wire through the holes provided on the body of the instruments. Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said , Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 200 kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 1,000 for ' e' value of 5 g. or more and with ' e' value 1x10k , 2x10k , or 5x10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F.No.WM-21/(262)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2839 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 953.- 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 राधे श्याम ऋषि पाल ( फैक्टरी ) , 308/14 , शहजादा बाग इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , दयाबस्ती रेवले स्टेशन , दिल्ली -35 ( भारत ) द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस सी एच एस " श्रृंखला के एनालाग सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( स्प्रिंग बेलेंस हैंगिंग एवं डायल टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " विरगते " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10 /441 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल स्प्रिंग सिद्धांत पर आधारित मैकेनिकल अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( स्प्रिंग बेलेंस हैंगिंग एवं डायल टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 500 ग्रा. है । डायल सूचक पर एनालाग टाइप सूचित करता है ।

Virgo

आकृति -2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

उपकरण की बाडी पर दिए गए छेदों के माध्यम से लीड और सील तार लगाकर सीलिंग की जाती है । कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5.ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 1000 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. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 262 ) / 2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 953. 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 (Spring Balance Hanging & Dial Type ) with analogue indication of ordinary Accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " SCHS " and with brand name " VIRGO" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , maunfactured by M/ sRadhey Shyam Rishi Pal ( Factory ) , 308/14 , Shahzada Bagh Industrial Area , Opp. Daya Basti Railway Station , Delhi -35 (India) and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 / 10 /441 ;

The said model is a spring based mechanical non - automatic weighing instrument ( Spring Balance Hanging & Dial Type) with a maximum capacity of 100 kg . and minimum capacity of 5 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 500 g . The indication is of analogue type on a dial indicator.

Figure- 1

Virgo

FEALING WI . ?

TAMTING srons

SCHEMATIC DRY Figure-2 Schematic diagram of sealing arrangement

Sealing can be done by applying lead & seal wire through the holes provided on the body of the instruments . Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said , Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 1000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 1,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10k , or 5x10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM- 21 / (262 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2841

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 954. 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 शार्प इन्स्ट्रूमेंटस, 126 रोटकर ले आउट , न्यूओम नगर, हुडकेश्वर रोड, नागपुर-440034 ( महाराष्ट्र) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसआईसी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज टाइप ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सनसुइकॉन " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/422 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

51243

TIL SOY 1004

SEM SIAMMINKI MA

आकृति-2 माडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (252) /2010]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1112 GI/2011-3 2842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19, 1933

[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii) }

New Delhi , the 31st January , 2011

S.O. 954. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge type) with digital indication ofmedium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " SIC " andwith brand name " SANSUICON " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s . Sharp Instruments , 126 , Rotkar Lay- Out , New Om Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road , Nagpur - 440034 ( Mah .) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/422;

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

Figure- 1

111 501 1000 Sk

SEAMIINKS A

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

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

The instrument has external control to calibration. 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 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or above and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10k, 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 ( 252)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2843 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 955.- 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 सैनी स्केल ( इंडिया ) , सैनी कालोनी , ओपी जिन्दल पार्क के सामने , झांसा रोड , कुरूक्षेत्र 136118 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसएसडब्ल्यू " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज टाइप ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " थॉमसन " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 10 / 279 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

Head hele scre

Laard seal

Head bole acre

888888

0000

Indicator of the Weighbridge- Front Side)

Lead seal

Sealing wire

(Indicator of the Weighbridge Lower back Side) आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 178 ) /2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 28/14

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9,2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January , 2011

S.O. 955. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of medium Accuracy ( Accuracy class -III ) of series " SSW " and with brand name " THOMSON " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , maunfactured by M/ s Saini Scales ( India) , Saini Colony, Opp . O. P. Jindal Park, Jhansa Road , Kurukshetra - 136118 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/279;

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

Figure- I

Head hole screw

I ead seal

Head hole screw STHOMSON

Indicator of the Weighbridge Front Sidel

Lead seal

Sealing wire

(Indicator of the Weighbrkige Lower back Side)

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said , Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or avove and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10k , or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F.No. WM -21 ( 178 )/2010 )

B. N. DIXFI, Director of Legal Metrology 2845 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 956.- 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 मदरसन्स स्केल ( इंडिया ) , बी -2638 , डीएसआईडीसी , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , नरेला , दिल्ली 110040 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता. ( यथार्थता वर्ग -II ) वाले " एमएसटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " टॉपर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/363 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 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

Lead seal

Stamping Plate ...

आकृति 2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 233 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 956. 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 " MST " and with brand name " TOPPER " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s . Mothersons Scale ( India ) , B - 2638 , DSIDC , Industrial Area, Narela , Delhi - 110040 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10 / 363 ;

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

Figure- 1

Lead seal

Stamping Plate

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similarmake , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 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 for ' e ' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10 , or 5x10 , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 233 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2847 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 957. 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 मदरसन्स स्केल ( इंडिया ) , बी -2638 , डीएसआईडीसी , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , नरेला , दिल्ली-110 040 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एमएसपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " टॉपर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 10 / 364 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 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 ।

Stamping plate

Lead seal

7kg 0000

[Indicator of the Platform Scale Front Side)

Stamping Plate

Lead seal

Sealing wire

Andicator of the platform Scale - Lower back Side) आकृति 2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (233 ) /2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II -SFC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January , 2011

S.O. 957. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " MSP " and with brand name " TOPPER " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s Mothersons Scale ( India ) , B - 2638 , DSIDC , Industrial Area , Narela, Delhi - 110040 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/ 10/364;

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

Figure- 1

Stamping plate

0000

Lead seal

(Indicator of the Platform Scale-Front Side )

Stamping la

Lead seal

Sealing wire

(Indicator of the platform Scale Lower back Side ) Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model .

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

The instrument has external control to calibration. 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 1x10k, 2x10k , or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 (233 )/ 2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 2849 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 958.-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 मंगलम वेइंग सिस्टम , डा. गजरा चौक , शोप नं. 3 श्रीमालीब्राह्मन वाडी , दीवानपरा रोड, भावनगर द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एमईएस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हाई- टैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/257 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।

Weigh Bridge

HI -TECH

000

आकृति 2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडिकेटर की बाडी के होल में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती 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 हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10* , 2x10 , 5x10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 161 )/2010]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1112 G1/2011-4 2850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 958. 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 ( Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " MES " and with brand name " HI - TECH " ( hereinafter referred toas the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Mangalam Weighing System, Dr. Gajjara's Chowk , Shop No 3 , Sharimalibrahman Wadi , Divanpara Road, Bhavnagar and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/257 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge) with a maximum capacity of 50 tonne and minimum capacity of 200 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 10kg . 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

Weigh Bridge

HI- TECH

Figure 2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or above and with ' e ' value of Ix10k, 2x10k, 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 ( 161 )/2010]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 2851 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र19, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 959. 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 एडसन इलेक्ट्रोवे , विश्वकर्मा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , अमरेली रोड, सावरकुंडला , गुजरात-364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित मैकेनिकल काउंटर मशीन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " राडो " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/32 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति -मॉडल

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 28 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 959. 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 ofthe saidAct , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Mechanical Counter Machine with brand name " RADO" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Adson Electroweigh , Vishwakarma Industrial Area Amreli Road , Savarkundla Gujarat - 364515 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 10 / 32;

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

Figure 1-Model

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Govemment hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with capacities 1kg. , 2kg. , 5kg. , 10kg. , 20kg. , 25kg . , 30kg . , and 50kg . , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 /(28 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 2853 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 960.- 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 प्रिसीशन इलैक्ट्रोनिक इंस्ट्रूमेंट कं. , एच -45 , उद्योग नगर , पीरागढ़ी, नई दिल्ली-110041 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जीएलएफ 3 " शृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल. का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " गोल्डलाइन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 10/ 628 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) 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 व्यवक्तलनात्मक 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 ---- 1

Lead seal

Stamping Piste

GOLDLINE

200000

आकृति 2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 383 ) /2010 ] बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 30th March , 2011

S.O. 960. 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 " GLF3 " and with brand name " GOLDLINE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s Precision Electronic Instrument Co. , H -45 , Udyog Nagar , Peeragarhi , New Delhi - 110041 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10/ 628 ;

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

Figure- 1

Lead seal

Stamping Plate

GOLDLINE

000000

Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

The instrument has external control to calibration . 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 upto 50 kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e' value 1mg . to 50mg . and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 5000 to 100,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10 or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 383 ) /2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2855 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 961 , 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 प्रिसीशन इलैक्ट्रोनिक इंस्ट्रूमेंट कं. , एच -45 , उद्योग नगर , पीरागढ़ी , नई दिल्ली-110041 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जीएलईजी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " गोल्डलाइन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 10 / 629 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) 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-1

Lead seal

Stamping Pipse

GOLDLINE

आकृति 2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 383 ) /2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 30th March , 2011

S.O. 961. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, issatisfied 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 " GLEG " and with brand name " GOLDLINE " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Precision Electronic Instrument Co. , H-45, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi , New Delhi - 110041 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10 /629;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with amaximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verfication scale interval ( e) is 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 or 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

cal seal

Stanihing Lale

GOLDLINE

Figure2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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 similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg. to 2g . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10k , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21 ( 383 )/ 2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2857 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 962, 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 गिरिश स्केल कं. , हर्ष वी. डोडिया , श्रीजीनगर, नियर पगजीमूलजी, पटरावाला , सावरकुण्डला द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " केटीटी -03 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " साईकल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/594 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करतीं है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) 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 ।

LED

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (264 )/2010] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निर्देशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1112GI/2011-5 2858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 30th , March , 2011

S.O.962 . 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 " KTT- 03 " and with brand name " CYCLE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Girish Scale Co. , Haresh V. Dodia . Shrijinagar , Near Pragjimulji , Ptravala , Savarkundla and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/ 10/ 594 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verfication 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 resultes . The instrument operates on 230 Volts or 50Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1

250

SemiSide Seating

LED

Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

The instrument has external control to calibration . 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 upto 50 kg. with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg . to 2g . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k or 5x10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 264 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2859 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 963 .--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 गिरिश स्केल कं. हर्ष वी. डोडिया , श्रीजीनगर, नियर पगजीमूलजी , पटरावाला , सावरकुण्डला द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " केपीएफ-02 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " साईकल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/595 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 ।

PLATFORM SCALE

NOSCATOR HEAD

LEP .

DISHAY

↑

963

Stamping Pat

WEIGHING PLATFORM

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 264 ) /2010 ] बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान .

2860

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

New Delhi , the 30th , March , 2011

S.O. 963. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " KPF - 02 " and with brand name " CYCLE " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Girish Scale Co. , Haresh V. Dodia, Shrijinagar, Near Pragjimulji , Ptravala , Savarkundla and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/ 595 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with amaximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2k. g . The verfication 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 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

graer side scales

PLATFORM SCALE

INDICATOR HEAD

LEP. DISPLAY

↑

Stamping Plat side sesñes

WEIGHING PLATFORM

Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

The instrument has external control to calibration . 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 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 1x10k , 2x10k 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 ( 264 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2861 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 964.-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 ए एंड डी कंपनी लिमिटेड , 3-23-14 , हिगाशी , इकेबुकुरो , तोशिमा कु. टोक्यों- 170-0013 जापान द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एचटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ए एन डी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स ए एंड डी इंस्ट्रूमेंटस इंडिया ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड , 509 , उद्योग विहार , फेज- V , गुडगांव -122016 , हरियाणा द्वारा भारत में बिक्री से पूर्व अथवा बाद में बिना किंसी परिवर्तन के विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/375 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 310 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.1- ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

MIYAL SEALE

00000

आकृति 2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 236 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 30th , March , 2011

S.O. 964. 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 " HT " and with brand name " AND" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M /s A & D Company Limited, 3-23-14, Higashi - Lkebukuro, Toshima -Ku,, Tokyo 170-0013 , Japan and marketed in India without any alteration before or after sale byMs A&D Instruments India (P) Limited , 509Udyog Vihar , Phase -V, Gurgaon- 122016 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/375 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type ) with amaximum capacity of 310g . and minimum capacity of 2g . The verfication scale interval ( e) is 0.1g . It has atare device with a100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Diode (LCD) display indicates the weighing resultes . The instrument operates on 230 Volts or 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

METAL SEAL .

Figure2- Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) inthe 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 1x10k , 2x10 or 5x10k , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 (236)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2863 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र19 , 1933

( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ) नई दिल्ली , 23 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 965.- 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 : -

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

(1)

( 2)

(3)

(4)

28 फरवरी 2011 1. आई एस 2026 ( भाग 7 ) : 2009 पॉवर ट्रांसफार्मर भाग 7 तेल निमज्जित पॉवरट्रांसफार्मरों के लदान की मार्गदर्शिका

इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति 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 ।

तिथि 23-03-2011

[ संदर्भ : ईटी 16 /टी -57 ]

आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 23rd March , 2011

S.O. 965. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and Year of the

Date of Established No. and Year of the Indian Standards

Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standards

(4)

( 1 )

(2)

(3)

28 February, 2011 1. IS 2026 (Part 7) : 2009 Power Transformers Part 7 Loading guide for oil - immersed power transformers

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. Date: 23-03-2011

[Ref: ET 16/T- 57]

R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E ' & Head (Electrotechnical) 2864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 24 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 966.-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 दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

संशोधन की संख्या

और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

25-2-2011

3 फरवरी , 2011

आई एस 325 : 1996 तीन-फेजीय प्रेरण मोटरें- विशिष्टि (पांचवां पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियां 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 ।

तिमि 24-03-2011

[संदर्भ : ईटी 15 /टी -1 ]

आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

New Delhi , the24th March , 2011

S.O. 966. 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 amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

SINo . No. and Year of the Indian Standards

No. and Year of the

Amendment

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

25-2-2011

3 February, 2011

1. IS 325: 1996 Three-phase induction motors- specification (Fifthrevision)

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

[Ref: ET 15/ T- 1 ] Date:24-03-2011

R. K. TREHAN, Scientist ' E ' & Head (Electrotechnical )

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 967. 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: - 2865 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र19 , 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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

31 मार्च 2010

आई एस 1798: 1982

आई एस 1798 :2010 मिर्च एवं मसाले काली मिर्च , साबुत और पिसी-विशिष्टि

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

31मार्च 2010

आई एस 2447: 1993

आई एस 2447 :2010 मिर्च एवं मसाले सफेद जीरा , साबुत -विशिष्टि

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

30अप्रैल 2010 3.

आई एस 3576: 1994

आई एस 3576:2010 मिर्च एवं मसाले हल्दी, साबुत और पिसी-विशिष्टि

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

31मार्च 2010 4.

आई एस 4404:1992

आई एस 4404:2010 मिर्च एवं मसाले लौंग , साबुत और पिसी-विशिष्टि

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

28फरवरी 2010

आई एस 12575 :1989

आई एस 12575:2010 तली हुई आलूचिप्स-विशिष्टि

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

31 अगस्त 2010 6.

आई एस 12700: 1988/ आई एस ओ 3093: 1982

आई एस 12700:2010/ आई एस ओ 3090:2004 गेहूँ, राई और संबद्ध आटा, ड्यूरम गेहूँ और ड्यूरम गेहूँ सेमोलीन- हगबर्ग- परटन के अनुसार फालिंग नम्बर ज्ञात करना-

विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30अप्रैल 2010 7. आई एस 15855 :2010 कॉटन सीड डीलिन्टिंग मशीनरी-सर्ज बिन मशीन- विशिष्टि

30अप्रैल 2010 8. आई एस 15856 :2010 कॉटन सीड डीलिन्टिंग मशीनरी- पूर्व- तापन मशीन- विशिष्टि

28फरवरी 2010 9. आई एस 15887 :2010 आधुनिक जैव प्रोद्यौगिकी से व्युत्पन्न खाद्य पदार्थों के जोखिम विश्लेषण के सिद्धांत

1112GI /2011-6 2866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

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

(1)

(3)

(4) 10.

31मार्च 2010 आई एस 15888 :2010 रिकॉम्बिनेन्ट-डी एन ए पौधों से व्युत्पन्न खाद्य पदार्थों के खाद्य सुरक्षा आकलन के संचालन के लिए दिशानिर्देश

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

तिथि 03-03-2011

[संदर्भ: एफएडी/जी -128 ]

डा. आर. के. बजाज , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि )

New Delhi , the 30th March , 2011

S.O. 967. 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 ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

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

No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

IS1798: 1982

31 March 2010 1. IS 1798 :2010 Spices and condiments- Blackpepper, Whole and ground- Specification (second revision)

IS2447: 1993

31 March 2010 2. IS 2447 :2010 Spices and condiments- Cumin (Safed Jeera) Whole- Specification (third revision)

IS3576: 1994

30April2010 3. IS 3576 :2010 Spices and condiments- Turmeric, Whole and ground Specification (third revision)

IS4404:1992

31 March 2010 4. IS4404:2010 Spices and condiments- Cloves, Whole and ground Specification (third revision)

28 Feb. 2010

IS 12575 : 1989

$. IS 12575 :2010 Fried potato chips-- Specification (first revision)

31Aug. 2010

IS 12700 : 1988/

ISO 3093 :1982

IS 12700: 2010 /ISO 3093 :2004 Wheat , Rye and respective flours , Durum wheat and Durum wheat semolina- Determination ofthe falling number according to Hagberg- Perten ( first revision) 2867 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

30April 2010 7. IS 15855 : 2010 Cotton seed delinting machinery --- Surge bin machine- Specification

30April 2010 8. IS 15856 :2010 Cotton seed delinting machinery--- Pre-heating machine- Specification

28 February 2010 9. IS 15887 :2010 Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology

31 March 2010 10. IS 15888 : 2010 Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant ---DNA plants

Copy of these standards are 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.

Date : 30-03-2011

[ Ref: FAD/G - 128 ]

Dr. R. K. BAJAJ , Scientist ' F ' and Head ( Food & Agri . )

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2011

का.आ. 968.- 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

(2)

( 1)

(3 )

(4) 1.

आई एस 710 :1976

1 अप्रैल 2011 आई एस 710 : 2010 समुद्री उपयोग के लिए प्लाईवुड - विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियों 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 ।

तिथि 30-03-2011

[ संदर्भ : सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियर ) [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

New Delhi , the 30th March , 2011

S.O. 968. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

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

No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

IS 710 : 1976

1April2011 IS710: 2010 Marine Plywood- Specification (Second revision)

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

Date:30-03-2011

[Ref: CED/Gazette]

A. K. SAINI , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg. )

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च, 2011

का.आ. 969.- 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

क्रम सं.

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

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

आई एस 2190 :1992

30नवम्बर 2010 आई एस 2190: 2010 प्राथमिक सहायता अग्नि शामकों का चुनाव, संस्थापन एवं रख- रखाव - रीति संहिता (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियों 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 ।

तिथि30-03-2011

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र]

ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) 2869 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 30th March , 2011

S.O. 969. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl.No. No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and Year of Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

( 1)

30November 2010

IS 2190 : 1992

1. IS 2190 : 2010 Selection , installation and maintenance offirst - aid fire extinguishers- Code of Practice (Fourthrevision)

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 .

Date: 30-03-2011

[ Ref: CED/Gazette)

A. K. SAINI , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg .)

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल , 2011

का.आ. 970.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 2960 तारीख 4-12-2010 द्वारा श्री एन . कन्नन , विशेष तहसीलदार को तमिलनाडु राज्य एवं पुडुचेरी केंद्र शसित प्रदेश में मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया था ।

है । और उक्त श्री एन. कन्नन का स्थानांतरण हो गया है और श्री आर. चन्द्रशेकरन स्पेशल तहसीलदार को उनके पद पर नियुक्त किया गया और उक्त श्री एन . कन्नन का मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में अतिरिक्त कार्यभार समाप्त कर दिया गया है । अतः , अब , भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में और भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 2960 तारीख 4-12-2010 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए , नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्ति को उक्त मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए निम्नलिखित अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है । 2870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

अनुसूची

व्यक्तिका नाम और पता

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र (1)

(2)

श्री आर. चन्द्रशेकरन ,

स्पेशल तहसीलदार ,

सम्पूर्ण तमिलनाडू एवं पुडुचेरी यूनियन टैरेटरी मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर

गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, 172, कमाराजर सलई,

कराइकोल 609602

[फा. सं. एल-14014/26/11-जी.पी. ]

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

New Delhi , the 1st April , 2011

S.O. 970. Whereas , in pursuance of clause ( a ) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962), the Government of India vide Notification in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 2960 dated 4th December, 2010 appointed Shri N. Kannan , Special Tehsildar to perform the functions of Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of pipeline by M/s . GAIL ( India ) Ltd. , in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry ;

And, whereas, Shri N. Kannan has been transferred and Shri R Chandrasekaran, Special Tehsildar has been posted as his incumbent ;

And, whereas, the services of the said Shri N. Kannan with M/ s . GAIL ( India) Ltd. , have come to an end ;

Now, therefore, in pursuance ofclause ( a) of Section 2 ofthe said Act and in supersession of the notitication ofthe Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide S.O. 2960 dated 4th December, 2010, Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the schedule given below to perform the functions of the CompetentAuthority under the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/s. GAIL ( India) Limited in the area mentioned in column (2) ofthe said schedule .

SCHEDULE

Area of Jurisdiction

Name and Address of the person

(1)

(2)

Shri R. Chandrasekaran,

Whole State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory ofPuducherry.

Special Tehsildar, Ondeputation to M/s. GAIL (India) Ltd. , 172, Kamarajar Salai , Karaikal 609602

[ F. No. L- 14014/26/ 11 -GP. )

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 6 अप्रैल , 2011

का.आ. 971.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में सलाया से उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में मथुरा तक पैट्रोलियम क्रूड के परिवहन के लिए " सलाया - मुथरा पाइपलाइन के अन्तर्गत डी- बॉटलनेकिंग परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

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

अनुसूची

तहसील : बाली जिला : पाली

राज्य : राजस्थान खसरा संख्या

क्षेत्रफल क्रम गांव का सं. नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

मीटर

(3)

( 1) ( 2)

(4) ( 5) ( 6) 1- नाना

02 80 00 265 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

265/1

00 08 10

00 07 20 263/4185 ( सरकारी भूमि )

263

11 30

00 14 80 262( सरकारी भूमि)

00 05 70 261 ( सरकारी भूमि)

260( सरकारी भूमि)

245 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 13 50 250 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 14 30 246 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 20 247 ( सरकारी भूमि)

2871

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

(3)

( 1) ( 2)

(4) ( 5 ) ( 6)

00 10 40 1- नाना (जारी ) 247/3

247/2

00 15 40

00 02 70 241( सरकारी भूमि)

00 05 30 239/4119 ( सरकारी भूमि)

239

00 09 40 235 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 09 40 233

01 00

230( सरकारी भूमि)

211

00 02 20 223

07 40

222

221

00 05 10

13 50 220

00 11 40 219

00 06 20 217

00 11 60 216

00 09 20 199

04 40

200

02 20

201(सरकारी भूमि)

30 196 ( सरकारी भूमि)

07 20

193

00 09 70 194

184/4171 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 05 80 184/4211

00 02 60 184

00 01-20 133 ( सरकारी भूमि)

114

00 10 60 118

00 08 50

14 10 119

121

00 14 00 122

00 19 40

00 09 40 124( सरकारी भूमि)

125

13 30

00 08 20 127

ΟΙ 20

128 ( सरकारी भूमि)

11 90

08 20 52/4094

00 12 40 49

00 10 70 42

00 09 60 41

34 ( सा.नि.वि. )

00 01 90 428 ( सा.नि.वि. )

33 ( सरकारी भूमि) 2872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

( 2) (3)

( 1)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

00 20 60 506

1-नाना (जारी )

546

00 22 70 547

00 08 50 548 ( सरकारी भूमि)

584

585

00 15 70

00 20 587

90 586

00 01

00 05 00 589

00 06 30 590

00 01 591

00 03 70 2875

2. चामुण्डेरी

2877

00 06 2876

2863

00 08 10 2866

2865

2864

00 03 40 2852

00 21 00

14 00

2846

00 02 20 2847 ( सरकारी भूमि)

2709

00 05 50 2708

2707

00 05 20

80 2710

2705

00 17 70 2704( सरकारी भूमि)

2699

00 04 20

00 07 50 2700 ( सरकारी भूमि)

2701

00 18 50 2671

80 2601 ( सरकारी भूमि)

2552

00 01 80 1761

3. वीरमपुरा

1762

.00 03 60 1763

00 06 70 1766

1767

00 06 40 1772 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 14 00 1775

1789 (सरकारी भूमि)

1790

00 08 90

00 04 40 1792

00 03 70 1793

00 06 90 1796

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ( 1 ) ( 2) (3)

( 5 ) ( 6 )

(4)

1875

00 02 50 3- वीरमपुरा

1874

00 02 60 (जारी)

00 06 00 1873

1801

00 04 40 1804

00 03 80 1806

00 07 20

10 1864

00 12 1858

1809

00 00 30

20 1810

00 03

10 1857

00 06

1846

03 90 1847

00 04 20

00 15 90 1851

00 03 30 1850.

1849

00 03 20 1845

00 20

1848

00 05 90

1847

08 80

00 05 40 1844/4716

1844

00 01 90

00 05 10 1842

1841

1840

00 04 70 1839

00 04 80

00 09 30 1837

1836

00 03 60

00 04 60 1829 ( सरकारी भूमि)

1831

00 03 70 1830

00 01 20

00 02 10 1982 ( सरकारी भूमि)

2004

00 03 80 2005

2006

00 05 40 2011

00 06 50

00 08 10 2022

2024

888

00 07 90 4. भन्दर

05 20

871

869

03 20

00 03 50 868

860

04 80

00 04 00 856

00 04 10 847

845

00 05 10 841 2873

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5) (6)

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

(4) (5) (6) ( 1 ) ( 2)

801

840

6000 4 भन्दर

5 कोठार

00 03 60

798

00 11 80 831

(जारी )

(जारी)

00 05 80

799

829

00 05 60

796

00 07 80

00 03 20

822

795

00 02 70

811 ( सरकारी भूमि)

785

804

00 10

00 00 60

00 03 80

786 (सरकारी भूमि)

805

00 05 50

26 50 801

79 (सरकारी भूमि)

6. कुमटीया

802

05 60

00 03 :0

00 06 30

00 05 40

643(सरकारी भूमि)

00 03 70

622

09 40

00 02 40

626

00 06 30

625

00 03 80

00 03 40

636

00 11 50

00 02 90

00 11 80

638

02 00 637

00 02 20

00 06 50

640

02 00 641

70 778

00 02

00 01 20 775

1267

00 01 80

7. बेडा

00 01 60

774(सरकारी भूमि)

02 30

1268

00 04 50

644

1269

00 01 90

00 03 90

646

1280

645

00.00

1279

00 03 70

648

00 04 10

1270

649

00 04 30

1278

00 04 10

650

00 01

1271

00 01

652(सरकारी भूमि)

1272

00 05 20

653

00 04 30

1274

00 04 50

658

00 01 90

1273

659(सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 80

1254 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 05 20

663

00 08 60

1251

00 06 20

664

00 02 80

1248

00 01 70

665 ( सरकारी भूमि)

1247

00 02 30

00 04 70

666

1246

00 02 50

00 04 30

668

1244

00 06

00 08 40

669

1242

00 11 70

670

1240

00 01 10

00 10 70

672

1252

679

00 02 40

1235

.00 33 30

671

1236

00 10 20

:00 00 20

676

1224

00 01 80

822

5. कोठार

00 00 70

1220

00 10 80

815

00 03 50

1223

00 05 30

814

1221

00 06 10 1112GI/2011-7 874

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

(3)

( 1 ) ( 2 )

(4) ( 5) ( 6) 1) ( 2 ) (3)

(4) ( 5) (6)

3773

00 07 90 7. बेडा

7. बेडा

1212

00 01 30

3790/4748

00. 30 10

(जारी)

(जारी )

09 60

1211 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 90

3789 ( सरकारी भूमि)

1206

00 01 40

00 15 50

3782( सरकारी भूमि)

1209

00 04 40

849

00 00 80

8. भाटुन्द

1208

00 06 20

00 01 70 1202

00 12 50

848 (सरकारी भूमि)

717

13 10

13 40

834

842

00 09 50

00 03 90

718 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 08 10

833 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 80

713 (सरकारी भूमि)

515

00 06 70

688 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 07 80

516

711

00 02 50

518

689

00 04 20

549

00 03 60 710

00 05 50

551

00 00 SC 696

00 08 10

552

00 04 20 698

00 04 20

553

851

00 19 70

00 04 90

554

859 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 80

555

877

00 14 80

00 07 70

573

849

00 15 40

00 03 20

571

847

00 02 80

572

00 59 70 846

00 02 40

00 05 10

649( सरकारी भूमि)

00 01

842

00 07 60

600

841

00 06 90

00 01 90

792

00 05 80

939( सरकारी भूमि)

793

00 01 20

00 07

3669/4767

789

00 09 10 3669/4768

00 11 90

00 01 70

766 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 09 40

3660/5023

669

00 13 20 3669/5030

00 05 60

670

3669

00 12 40

00 03 50

686

3670

03 70

685

3671

00 20

684

3672

08 30

674

40 3676

00 03 20

00 05 10

675

3678

02 60

677

00 01 80

3677

11 90

679

3740

00 11 60

753

00 03 10

00 21

3742/1 :

00 01 20

719 (सरकारी भूमि)

3741

700

00. 00 20 3749

00 12

.704

3752

00 23 80

00 08 50

703

3751

00 13 00

707

00 06 50

3754

00 40

00 41 30

00 3755/4964

649 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 07 10

3773/1

00 14 10

359 ( सरकारी भूमि)

3773/2

00 12 80

243

00 03 20 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6 )

2875

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

( 5 ) (6 )

(4)

(3)

( 1 ) ( 2)

( 1 ) ( 2 )

00 04 20 242

00 10 10 248

8. भाटुन्द (जारी)

253

04 20

00 02 90 254

00 02 40 255

00 03 80 261

00 03 00 260

00 02 60 267

00 06 40 268

00 00 60 269 (सरकारी भूमि)

05 20 280

00 06 30 286

287

00 04 20 290

00. 01 30 285

298

00 04 20 299

00 03 70 300

00 02 60 144

00 05 70 143

00 06 50 303

00 02 40 142

141

00 04 90 140

00 02 90 138 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

139 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 15 50 1081(सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 60 1078

00 09. 60 1079

00 01 80 1083( सरकारी भूमि)

00 14 50 1089

00 23 60 1090

1092

00 01 60 1093 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 08 10 1094

00 05 50 158

9. बीजापुर

00 08 30 159

00 17 00 156

00 16 20 257

00 03 20 155 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 70 148

00 05 70 258

145

146

00 08 60 142

02 70 261(सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 70 407

9. बीजापुर (जारी)

00 03 20 371(सरकारी भूमि)

330

06 90

06 70

331

05 90

405 ( सरकारी भूमि)

10 90

372

15 90

402

00 20 50 379

00 12 90 377

00 02 40 568 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 07 10 621

621/1

623

00 07 80 695/2

10 30 695/1

00 08 30 695

00 02 50 694

696

00 07 90 697

00 00 30 698

00 01 00 692

00 02 60 691

02 80

690

00 03 50 689

02 70

688

00 03 687

00 05 80 686

03 30

685

02 20

684

03 30

683/1

00 02 90 682/1

00 02 80 681

00 03 40 680/1

679

00 05 60 678.

677

00 03 40

40 676

0003

00 02 90 675

00 03 60 674

02 40 673

00 05 90 672

671

00 03 20 670

00 02 10 669

00 57 50 10. पादरला 4 ( सरकारी भूमि) 2876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

( 1 ) (2) (3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6) 564( सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 60 553

00 02 30 10. पादरला (जारी)

550

00 04 60 545/2

00 12 00 544

00 04 00 543

00 04 00 542

00 03 60 541

00 04 20 538

00 08 80 536

00 03 10 535 ( सरकारी भूमि)

531

00 07 20 366

00 11 10 362(सरकारी भूमि)

00 06 90 21

00 04 80 29

00 06 40 218

00 06 60 11. सेवाड़ी

217

00 06 30 216

00 05 90 312

00 07 40 311

30 314

00 06 70 315

00 06 80 319

00.00 320

[ PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ( 1 ) ( 2) (3)

(4) (5) ( 6) 513

00 03 40 11. सेवाड़ी

514

(जारी)

515

00 04 00 516

00 04 10 517

00 104 00 518

00 03

597

19 30

00 01 10 642( सरकारी भूमि)

598

643

15 00

00 00 8) 792( सरकारी भूमि)

945

00 03 50 958

00 03 10 957

00 02 30 946

00 06 ४० 956

00 01 50 955

00 00 90 954

00 01 50

947

04 90 952

00 01 8)

90 948

951

949

04 950

00 02 70 882

00. 19 80 881

00 49 30

00 01 80 874( सरकारी भूमि)

869

00 24 50 12. पातावा

176

00 09 20 177

00 01 60 173 ( सिंचाई विभाग )

171

00 07 20 78

00 12 20 83

00 09 80 84

00 10 40

00 02 80 457 (सरकारी भूमि)

497

498

00 10 80 499

00 05 60 500

00 06 20 503

00 09 20 545

(0)

02 506

00 02 70 507

00 06 509

00 03 40

00 16 80 12 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि )

13 (सा.नि.वि. )

00 06 20 14 (ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

00 01 21 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 35 10 22 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

00 70 25. ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 00 28 (सरकारी भूमि)

40 19

00 00 20 20 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 36 40 13. बारबा

00 20 60 536 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

535 (सा.नि.वि. )

00 02 60

00 28 80 380 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि )

509

00 15 40 510

00 04 80 2877

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4) ( 5 ) ( 6 )

(3)

( 1) ( 2)

( 5 ) ( 6)

(3)

(4)

( 1) ( 2)

00 03 30

737

00 10 50

13. बारवा

505

13. बारवा

00 01

735

00 20

506

(जारी)

00 03

745

00 07 90

424

744

00 06 80

422

00 09 60

743

00 03

426

756

02 80

420

00 13 00

742

00 07 90

427

00 01 10

757

02 20

428

00 01

472

172( सरकारी भूमि)

14. लुणावा

00 01

490

00 03 30

182

00 01 30

491

183

05 10

488

00 00 40

200

00 06 80

487

03 00

201/1

00 04

486

00 00 40

210/1

474

202

477

00 05 80

205

00 05 10

479

204

00 06 20

478

00 01

00 02 60

769

15. सेसली

00 08 20

481

00 02 60

768

00 05 90

762

00 01 40 342 ( सरकारी भूमि)

09 70

00 05 10 340 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

770 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 60

00 00 50

760

654( सरकारी भूमि)

00 02

758

00 01

655 (सा.नि.वि.)

757

00 12 30

656 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

775

00 22 10

1094

738 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 80

1093 ( सरकारी भूमि)

737

00 04 40

806

777

00 11 20

00 06 40

819

00 02 90

815

00 01 60

818

00 01 90

812

820

00 02 20

811

00 05 40

821

00 02 80

810

00 10 10

822

00 19 80

838 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 11

823

965

02 20

00 11

824

966

00 07 30

00 06 90

1075

00 02 20

967

00 03 40

1074

00 01 10

968

825 ( सरकारी भूमि )

960

00 11 20

830

00 06 10

845

829

846

00. 01 20

833

00 02 20

847

00 10 10

834

00 05 30

947

785 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 10

946 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 20

729

00 07 90

943 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 70

730

00 11

856

00 02 50

718 2878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

(1)

(4) (5 ) ( 6)

( 2)

(1 )

: (3)

(4) (5) ( 6)

00 01 20

855 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 10

1039 ( सरकारी भूमि)

17. कोटबालीयान

854

00 14 60

15. सेमली (जारी)

00 42 40

1041 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि) 860

00 04 30

00 02 10

1042 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 01 80

509 (सरकारी भूमि)

1045/2

00 04 70 505

00.00 30

1045/1

00 04 70

00 07 10

507

1045

04 70

00 07 40

187

16. पुनाडिया

1057

00 02 00

00 02 50

188 ( सरकारी भूमि)

1094 ( सरकारी भूमि)

552( सरकारी भूमि)

1093

00 30

05 30

551( सरकारी भूमि)

00 00 70

1101 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 05 40

549/1( सरकारी भूमि)

1110

04 40 549

1113

00 12 60

00 00 70

215 (सरकारी भूमि)

1114

00 12 80

536

03 50

1115

00 03 60

533 ( सरकारी भूमि)

1112

00 04 50

00 03 60

532( सरकारी भूमि)

1117

00 03 60 531

00 09 20

00 03 60

1118 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि )

00 02 10

524

00 04 00

1125 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 06 30

523

1176/15

02 40

519 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 40

1176/16

517

00 06 70

1176/12

362

1176/11

364

00 05 70

1176/10

04 00 363

00 02 60

1176/9

00 00 20

00 05 20

367

1176/6

02 40

00 01 10

1176/5

00 01 10 227 ( सरकारी भूमि)

340

1176/4

00 31 50

1176/2

338

1176/1

00. 00 70 334

00 09 30

00 06 20 333

1016 (सा.नि.वि.)

00 17 00 333/662 ( सरकारी भूमि )

966 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 01 20

990

00 04 80 315 (सरकारी भूमि )

00 05 50

991

00. 00 20 237 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि )

00 03 00

244

989 ( सरकारी भूमि)

245

00 14 40

980

00 09 30

00 01 20

248 ( सरकारी भूमि)

983

00. 00 80 251

982

00. 05. 20

00. 09 90

250

985

00 01 70

: 00 24 30

260

00 02 10

1002 ( सरकारी भूमि)

261

725

00.03 70

00 01 60

726

262 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 03 30

281

00 09

729

00 08 90

730

00 286

02 80

00 05 30

287

734

00 03 00 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 1 ) (2)

00 02 80

2879

(4) ( 5 ) ( 6) (3)

( 1 ) ( 2)

00 00 60 152

18. सादलवा

735

17. कोटवालीयान

00 04 80 697

(जारी)

700

08 80

00 04 699

13 20

657

00 12 40 642

00 10 00 644

00 14 50 648

90 646

00 11

0000 88

18. सादलवा

00 03 20 87

00 01 60 86

00 02 40 85

00 02 20 84

00 03 40 83

00 03 70 82

00.02 40 144

(जारी)

00 14 70 145

00 19 80 493/2

19. टीपरी

00 15 90 493/12

488

00 24 00 485

00 23 00 484

00 25 80 473

00 07 70 470

00 04 80 469

00 06 10 468

00 06 10 467

00 06 10 466

00 04 1

20. मुन्डारा

00 00 90 142( सरकारी भूमि)

21. भीटवाड़ा

00 02 50 81

00 01 40 80

00 00 20 74

00 20 90 114 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि )

00 09 40 114/5

00 01 80 275/291 ( सरकारी भूमि )

00 07 80 275 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

125 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 40 234(सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 50 239/315 ( सरकारी भूमि )

239

00 05 40 238

00 02 40 236

00 07 30 237

233 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 20 213

00 10 216/313

00 00 213/312

00 07 40 216

00 07 10 217

00 07 60 220

00 02 40 197 ( सरकारी भूमि)

196

182

00 04 80.

181

00 02 60 180

00 01 80 177 ( सरकारी भूमि)

0030 70 161

00 1670 153

00 14 80 347/1

00 42 70 343(सरकारी भूमि)

00 11 00 342 (ग्राम पंचायत भूमि )

00 02 20 341 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 12 60 340(सरकारी भूमि)

74 50

281 ( ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

890

00 01 30 889

00 01 965 ( सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 : 991

00 20

990

00 14 40 862( सरकारी भूमि)

00 03 760

759(सरकारी भूमि)

10 773

00 07

00 05

00 02 778

80 779

00 01

00 05 30 784

00 02 40 785

00 00 20 788

00 00 60 786

00 02 60 787

792

794.

797

00 05 30

00 06 70 801

00 04. 40 802.

[फ. सं. आर-25011/9/2011 - ओआर -1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव 2880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

New Delhi the 6thApril , 2011 S. O. 971.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum crude a pipeline from Salaya in the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh , ( Under Salaya - Mathura Pipeline De- bottlenecking Project) should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

Now, therefore, in 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) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of User therein;

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

SCHEDULE

District: Pali

Tehsil : Bali

State : Rajasthan

Area Sl . Name of Khasra No.

No Village

Hec- Are Square Metre

tare

(3)

(1 ) (2)

(4) (5) (6)

80 00 1. Nana 265 (Gram Panchayat Land) 02

00 08 10 265/1

00 07 20 263/4185 (Govt. Land)

00 11 30 263

00 14 80 262(Govt . Land)

0005 261 (Govt . Land)

260(Govt. Land)

245(Govt. Land)

00 13 50 250(Govt. Land)

00 14 30 246(Govt. Land)

00 02 20 247 (Govt. Land)

00 10 40 247/3

00 15 40 247/2 :

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (1) (2)

(3)

(5) (6)

(4)

1. Nana 241 (Govt. Land)

00 02 70

00 0530 (contd.) 239/4119 (Govt . Land)

239

00 09 40 235(Govt . Land)

233

00 09 40 230(Govt. Land)

211

223

00 02 20 222

00 07 40 221

00 05 10 220

00 13 50 219

00 11 40 217

00 06 20 216

00 11 60 199

00 09 20 200

00 04 40

00 02 20 201 (Govt . Land)

00 02 30 196(Govt . Land)

193

00 07 20 194

00 09 70

00 07 60 184/4171 (Govt . Land)

184/4211

00 05 80 184

00 02 60

20 133(Govt. Land)

114

00 10 60 118

00 08 50 119

00 14 10 121

00 14 00 122

00 19 40

00 09 40 124(Govt. Land)

125

00 13 30 127

00 08 20

00 01 20 128 (Govt . Land)

00 11 90 52/4094

00 08 20 49

00 12 40 42

00 10 70 41

0009 60 40

34(P.W.D)

00 80

428(P.W.D.)

00 01 90

000020 33(Govt . Land)

506

00 20 60 546

00 22 70 547

00 00 30

548 (Govt . Land)

0850 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5) (6)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

80 1. Nana 584

15 70

585

(contd.)

00 00 20 587

00 01 90 586

589

00 06 30 590

00 01 591

00 03 70 2. Chamun- 2875

00 00 20 2877

deri

00 2876

00 08 10 2863

2866

2865

00 03 40 2864

00 21 00 2852

00 14 00 2846

00 02 20 2847 (Govt. Land)

2709

00 05 2708

00 05 20 2707

2710

00 17 70 2705

2704 (Govt. Land)

00 04 20 2699

00 07 50 2700(Govt. Land)

00 18 50 2701

2671

00 07 80 2601 (Govt . Land)

00 01 80 2552

3. Virampura 1761

00 03 60 1762

00 06 70 1763

1766

00 06 40 1767

1772(Govt . Land)

00 14 00 1775

1789 (Govt . Land)

00 08 90 1790

04 40

1792

00 03 1793

1796

00 02 50 1875

00 02 60 1874

1873

00 04 40 1801

00 03 80 1804

1112GI/2011-8

2881

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

(4) (5) (6) (3)

(1) (2)

00 07 3. Virampura 1806

00 05 10 1864

(contd.)

00 12 60 1858

1809

00 03 20 1810

00 06 10 1857

00 03 90 1946

00 04 20 1947

00 15 90 1851

1850

00 03 30

00 03 20 1849

1845

00 05 90 1848

1847

00 08 80

00 05 40 1844/4716

1844

00 01 90

00 05 10 1842

20 1841

00 04 70 1840

1839

00 04 80

00 09 30 1837

00 03 60 1836

00 04 60 1829(Govt . Land)

00 03 70 1831

00 01 20 1830

00 02 10 1982(Govt. Land)

00 03 80 2004

2005

00 05 40 2006

00 06 50 2011

00 08 10 2022

2024

00 07 90 4. Bhandar 888

871

00 05 20

00 03 20 869

868

00 03 50

00 04 860

856

00 04 10 847

845

00 05 10 841

03 60

840

00 05 80 831

00 05 60 829 2882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

(1)

(5) ( 6)

(4) (5) (6)

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

00 03 20

795

00 05 90

5. Kothar

822

4. Bhandar

00 02 70

(contd.) 785

00 19 00 811 (Govt . Land )

(contd.)

804

10 80

786 (Govt . Land)

805

00 03 80

00 26 50

6. Kumtiya 79 ( Govt . Land)

801

00 05 50

00 03 10 802

00 05 60

00 06 30

00 05 40

00 03 70 643(Govt. Land)

622

00 09

00 02 40 626

00 06 30

00 00 30 625

00 03 80

00 03 40 636

00 11 50

00 02 90

11 80

638

02 00 637

02 20 640

00 06 50

641

00 02 70

00 778

ΟΙ 20 775

1267

01 80

00 06 00

7. Bera

00 01 60

1268

02 30 774(Govt . Land)

644

00 04 50

00 01 90

1269

646

00 03 90

1280

645

1279

00 00 90

00 03 70

1270

00 04 10 648

649

00 04 30

00 20

1278

00 650

1271

00 01 90

00 04 10

00 01 10

1272

652(Govt. Land)

653

00 05 20

1274

00 04 30

00 04 50

00 01 90 658

1273

00 01 80 659(Govt . Land)

1254 (Govt . Land)

00 663

00 05 20

1251

08 60

00 06 20

00 02 80 664

1248

00 01 70

1247

00 02 30 665 (Govt . Land)

04 70

666

1246

00 02 50

00 06 30 668

1244

00 04 30

00 08 40

1242

669

00 01 10 670

00 11 70

1240

1252

00 20

00 10 70

00 672

00 02 40

1235

679

00 10 20

00 33 30

1236

677

676

1224.

00 ΟΙ 80

1220

822

5. Kothar

815

1223

00 03 50

00 10 80

00 05 30

06 10

1221

314

00 01 30 801

00 09 50

1212

09 60

00 11 80

798

1211 ( Govt . Land)

1206

00 01 40 799

1209

00 07 80

00 04 40 796 2883 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

(3)

( 1) (2) (3)

(5) (6) ( 1) (2)

(5) (6)

(4)

00 06 20

00 01 70 1208

7. Bera

848 (Govt. Land)

8. Bhatoond

00 13 10

00 12 50

834

(contd.) 1202

(contd.)

00 09 50 717

13 40

842

0008

718 (Govt . Land)

833 (Govt . Land)

00 01 80

515

713 (Govt . Land)

00 07 80

00 06

516

688(Govt . Land)

711

00 02

518

00 04 20

689

549

00.03 710

00 05 50

551

20 696

00 08

552

0004

553

00 04 20 698

00 19 70

04 90

00 851

554

00 04 80

555

859 (Govt . Land)

877

14 80

00 07 70

573

849

00 15 40

00 03 20

571

00 847

00 02

59 70

572

00 05 10 846

00 02 40

649(Govt . Land)

00 01 60

00 07 60 842

600.

00 06 90

792

00 01 90 841

00 01 20

00 05 80

793

939 (Govt . Land)

10 3669/4767

789

00 07 70

00 01 70 3669/4768

00 11 90

766(Govt . Land)

00 13 20

00 09 40

3669/5023

669

0005 00

00 05 60 3669/5030

670

00 12 40

686

03 50 3669

3670

00.22

685

00 03 70

00 00 20 3671

684

00 08 30

674

3672

00 03 20

675

00. 05 10 3676

677

00 01 80 3678

02 60

00 11 90

3677

679

753

00 11 60

00 03 10 3740

00 21 40

3742/1

00 01 20

719 (Govt . Land )

00 00. 20 3741

700

00 30 70

00 12 20

704

3749

00 08 50 3752

00 23 80

703

00 13 00

707

3751

00.00 40

00 06 50

3754

649(Govt. Land)

00 41 30

00 14 10 3755/4964

359 (Govt . Land)

00 07 10

243

00 03 20 3773/1

00: 04 20

242

3773/2

00 12.80

00 07 90

248

00 10 10 3773

00 30 10

253

3790/4748

00 04 20

254

02 90

00 02 90 3789 (Govt . Land)

00 02 40

00 15 50

255

3782(Govt . Land)

00 00 80

00 03 80

261

8. Bhatoond 849 2884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

(3 )

(1) (2)

(5) (6)

(4)

260

Bhatoond (contd.)

267

00 02 60

00 06 40 268

00 00 60 269 (Govt. Land)

280

05 20

00 06 286

30 287

290

04 20

00 01 30 285

60 298

04 20 299

00 03 70 300

144

00 02 60 143

00 05 70

00 06 50 303

142

00 02 40 141

00 04 90

140

05 00

02 90

138 (Gram Panchayat Land)

00 90

139 (Govt. Land)

00 15 50 1081 (Govt . Land)

1878

00 04 60 1079

00 09 60

00 01 80 1083 (Govt. Land)

1089

00 14 50 1090

00 23 60 1092

00 01 60 1093 (Govt. Land)

1094

00 08 10

00 05 50 158

9. Beejapur

159

00 08 30 156

00 17 00

00 16 20 257

03 20

155 (Govt . Land)

148

00 01 70 258

00 05 70 145

146

142

00 08 60

00 02 70 261 (Govt . Land)

00 04 70 407

00 03 20 371 (Govt. Land)

330

00 06 90

00 06 70 331

00 05 90 405 (Govt . Land)

372

00 10 90

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ( 1 ) (2 ) (3)

(5) (6)

(4)

00 15 90 9. Beejapur 402

00 20 50 (contd.) 379

377

00 12 90

02 40

568 (Govt . Land)

621

00 07 10 621/1

06 00

623

01 00 695/2

80 695/1

00 10 30 695

08 30

00 02 50 694

00 696

00 10 697

00 07 90

00 00 30 698

01 00

692

00 02 60 691

690

00 02 80

00 03 50 689

70 688

00 687

00 03 686

05 80

00 03 30 685

00 02 20 684

683/1

00 03 30

00 02 90 682/1

00 02 80 681

680/1

00 03 40

679

05 60

678

02 00 677

00 03 40 676

00 03 40

00 02 90 675

674

03 60 673

00 02 40 672

00 05 90 671

00 03 20 670

669

00 02 10

00 57 50 10. Padarla 4(Govt . Land)

00 02 60 564 (Govt . Land)

00 02 30 553

550

00 04 60 545/2

00 12 00 544

543

542

00 03 60 2885 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

(2) (3)

( 1) (2) (3)

(1)

(4) (5) (6)

(5) (6)

(4)

00 01 10

00 04 20

642(Govt . Land)

11. Sewari

10. Padarla 541

00 20

00 538

598

(contd.)

00 08 80

536

00 05 10

643

00 15 00

00 03 10

792(Govt . Land)

535 (Govt. Land)

00 03 60 531

07 20

945

00 03 10 366

00 11 10

958

957

00 02 30 362 (Govt . Land)

00 06 80 18

00 06 90

946

01 21

08 00

956

00.

00 06 00

955

00 25

954

01 50 27

00 04 90

947

00 04 80

01 80 29

00 06 40

952

00 04 90

00 06 60

218

948.

11. Sewari

00 02 00 217

00 06 30

951

216

00 05 90

00 04 50

949

312

00 02 70

00 07 40

950

00 19 80 311

882

314

00 06 70

00 49 30

881

00 01 80 315

06 80

874 (Govt . Land)

24 50

869

319

16 80 320

00 12 00 12. Patawa 12(Gram Panchayat Land) 00

00 06 20 176

00 09 20

13 (P.W.D.)

00 01 60

177

10. 70

14(Gram Panchayat Land ) 00

01 40

21 (Govt . Land)

173 ( Irrigation Dept. )

171

00 07 20:

22 (Gram Panchayat Land) 00 35 10 78

00 12 20

00 09 80

25(Govt . Land)

00 10 40

00 40

28 (Govt. Land)

00 02 80

457 (Govt . Land)

20 497

20(Govt . Land)

00 36 40

00 10 80

498

20 60 499

00 05 60 13. Barwa 536 (Gram Panchayat Land) 00

00 06 20

500

535(P.W.D. )

00 02

00 09 20

503

28 80

380(Gram Panchayat Land) 00

00 15 40

509

545

506

510

00 04 80

00 02 70

00 10 50

00 06 70

507

505

506

.00 03

509

424

00 07 90

00 03 40

513

514

422

00 00 20

00 03 30

426

515

02 80

420

00 516

00 04 40

00 04

427

00 07 90 517

00 03 50

428

02 20 518

472

597

00 19 30 2886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (1) (2) (3)

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6)

(4) (5) ( 6) (1 ) (2)

00 01 40

490

00 01 20

14. Lunawa 172(Govt . Land)

00 01 30

491

182

13. Barwa (contd.)

00 03 30

00 05 10

488

183

00 40 487

00 06 80

200

486

04 30

201/1

03 00 474

00 01 00

00 00 40

210/1

00 04 20

477

202

00 60 479

00 05 10

205

00 05 80 478

00 01 60

204

00 06 20 481

00 08 20

769

15. Sesli

00 02 60

00 05 90

768

342 ( Govt . Land) .

00 02 60

762

00 01 40 340 (Gram Panchayat Land) 00 09 70

654 (Govt . Land )

00 05 10

770 (Govt . Land)

760

655 (P.W.D. )

00 02 60

758

00 02 60 656 (Gram Panchayat Land) 00

00 22 10

1094

757

00 01 80

775

00 00 20 1093 ( Govt . Land)

806

00 04 40

738 (Govt . Land )

819

00 06 40

737

00 01 60

818

777

00 11 20

820

815

00 02 90

00 05

821

812

00 01 90

00 10 10

822

00 02 20

811

823

00 11 00

810

00 02 80 824

00 11 00

00 19 80

838 (Govt . Land)

00 06 90

1075

965

00 02 20 1074

00 03 40

966

00 07 30

967

825 (Govt. Land)

00 02 20 830

00 11 20

968

00 01 10 829

960

00 01 20

833

845

06 10 834

00 10 10

846

00 785 (Govt . Land)

847

02 20

00 04 20

729

947

00 05 30

00 02 70

730

00 01 10

946 ( Govt . Land )

718

00 02 50

00 07 90

943 (Govt. Land )

737

03 30

856

00 11 30

00 ΟΙ 00

735

00 01 20

855 (Govt . Land)

745

00 03 30

854

00 14 60 744

00 06 80

860

00 04 30 743

00 09 60

00 01 80

509 (Govt . Land)

756

505

742

00 13

507

00 07 10

00 01 10

757 2887 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

(3)

(5) (6)

(3)

(1 ) (2)

(4)

(1 ) ( 2)

(5) ( 6)

(4)

04 70

00 07 40 17. Kotbaliyan 1045/2

16. Punadiya 187

(contd.)

00 02 50

1045/1

04 70

(contd.)

00 188 (Govt. Land)

1045

00 04 70 552 ( Govt. Land)

1057

00 05 30

00 02 551 (Govt . Land)

00 05 40

1094 (Govt . Land)

549/1 ( Govt . Land)

00 30

1093

00 08 00

549

00 70

1101 (Govt. Land)

215 (Govt . Land)

1110

00 04 40

536

00 03

1113

12 60

00 03 60

533 (Govt . Land)

00 12 80

1114

00 03 60

532 (Govt . Land)

1115

00 09 20

531

00 04 50

11:12

524

00 02

1117

03 60 523

00 06 30

03 60

1118 (Gram Panchayat Land) 00 519 (Govt . Land)

00 04 00 517

00 06 70

1125 (Govt . Land)

1176/15

00 02 40 .

362

00 03

1176/16

00 02 40

00 05 70

364

1176/12

363

00 02 60

1176/11

367

00 05 20

00 04

1176/10

00 01 10

227 (Govt . Land)

00 00 20

1176/9

340

02 40

1176/6

00 31 50

338

00 01 10

1176/5

334

00 09 30

1176/4

333

1176/2

00 00 80

333/662 (Govt . Land)

1176/1

00 01 20

315 (Govt . Land)

00 06 20

05 50

1016 (P.W.D. )

237 ( Gram Panchayat Land) 00

00 17 00

966 (Govt. Land)

244

00 04

990

00 14 40

245

991

00 01 20

248 (Govt . Land)

989 (Govt . Land)

251

00 09 30

980

250

00 09 90

983

260

00 24 30

982

00 05 20 261

985

00 01

262 (Govt . Land)

00 02 10

1002 (Govt . Land)

281

00 03 30

725

00.

00 08

286

726

287

00 05 30

729

00 09 40

00 02 10

17. Kotbaliyan 1039 (Govt . Land)

730

00 02 80 1041 (Gram Panchayat Land) 00 42 40

734

1042 (Govt . Land) 2888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (1) (2) (3 )

(4) (5) ( 6) (1) (2) (3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

00 02 80 18. Sadalwa 144

00 02 40 17. Kotbaliyan 735

00 04 80

00 14 70 (contd.) 697

(contd.) 145

493/2

00 19 80 700

19. Teepri

08 80

493/12

00 15 90 699

00 04 90

488

657

00 13:20

485

00 24 00 642

00 12 40

484

00 23 00 644

00 10 00

473

00 14 50

648

00 25 80 646

470

00 11 90

00 07 70

469

00 04 18. Sadalwa 88

00 90

03 20

468

00 06 10 86

00 ΟΙ 60

467

00 06 10 85

00 02 40

466

00 06 10 84

00 04 20

20. Mundara 1

00 03 40

142 (Govt . Land)

21. Bheetwara

00 03 70

347/1

00 14 80 81

00 02 50

00 42 70

343 ( Govt . Land)

00 01 40

11 00

342 (Gram Panchayat Land ) 00 74

00 02 20

341 ( Govt . Land)

114 (Gram Panchayat Land) 00 20 90

00 12 60

340 (Govt . Land)

114/5

00 09 40

74 50

281 ( Gram Panchayat Land) 00

01 80

275/291 ( Govt . Land) 00

890

00 00 70

275 (Gram Panchayat Land)

889

00 01 30

00 01 00

125 (Govt . Land)

00 01 60

965 ( Govt . Land)

00 04 40

234(Govt. Land)

991

00 04 60

00 02 50

239/315 (Govt . Land)

990

239

00 14 40

862(Govt . Land)

238

00 05 40

760

03 70 236

00 02 40

759 (Govt. Land)

237

00 07 30

00 07 10

773

233(Govt . Land)

777

213

00 04 20

778

216/313-

10 00

779

00 ΟΙ 80 213/312

784

216

785

00 02 40 217

00 07 10

788

20 220

00 07 60

786

00 60

197 (Govt. Land)

00 02

787

00 02 60 196

792

00 08 00 182

794

181

00 04 80

797

00 05 30 180

00 02 60

00 06 70

00 01 80

801

177(Govt. Land)

00 30 70

161

802

00 04 40

00 16 70

153

[F. No. R -25011 / 9 /2011 -OR - I ] 152

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल , 2011

का.आ. 972.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में सलाया से उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में मथुरा तक पेट्रोलियम क्रूड के परिवहन के लिए " सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन के अंतर्गत डी- बॉटलनेकिंग परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

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

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

2889

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

00 03 70 895

1 सांतपुर

(जारी )

00 07 30 896

894

00 여 8)

00 07 70 887

879

00 08 60 881

00 10 10 880

851/1336 (सरकारी भूमि) 00 35 20 866

855

02 50

00 05 40 854

00 06 10 856

00 14 20 919(वन भूमि)

00 02 30 919/1342(सरकारी भूमि)

00 08 10 920

01 30 2. ओड

00 00 .50 34

00 20

3. मोरथला

00 01 52

00 14 60 46

00 13 00 45

00 20

965

4.किवरली

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

अनुसूधी

राज्य : राजस्थान तहसील : आबूरोड जिला: सिरोही

क्रम गांव का खसरा संख्या

क्षेत्रफल सं. नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

मीटर (1 ) ( 2 )

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6) 996

00 15 10 1 सांतपुर

994

00 04 20 1492/923

00 34 30 921

00 02 90 922

00 02 30

00 02 40 903(सरकारी भूमि)

907

905

00 04 20

00 09 40 908/1341 (सरकारी भूमि)

904

00 11 70 902

00 04 40 900

00 05 60 899

00 1 20 1112GI/2011-9

02 70 847

00 06 50 871 (सरकारी भूमि)

866

00 11 40

00 05 90 865

00 13 50 864

80 858 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 03 10 857 (सरकारी भूमि)

856

[फा. सं. आर-25011/10/2011- ओआर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 6th April , 2011

S.O. 972.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum crude a pipeline from Salaya in the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh , ( Under Salaya- Mathura Pipeline De- bottlenecking Project ) should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

2890

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 ; 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

(5) (6)

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

2. Ore

00 01

20 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) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

3. Morthala

00 01

00 14 60

00 13 00

956

4. Kiwarli

847

00 02 70

00 06

871(Govt. Land)

866

00 11 40

865

00 05 90 Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to Shri Bhim Singh, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division ) , 33 , Muktanand Nagar, GopalpuraByepass , Jaipur - 302018 (Rajasthan ) .

864

00 13 50 SCHEDULE

858(Govt . Land)

00 03 10

857(Govt . Land)

Tehsil : Aburoad District : Sirohi State: Rajasthan

856

Area

Khasra No.

Are

Sl . Name of No Village

Hec- tare

Sq. Metre

[F. No. R-25011/ 10/2011 -OR- I] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

(2)

( 1 )

(3) ( 4) ( 5 )

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल , 2011

00 15 10

996

1. Santpur

00 04 20

994

00 34 30

1492/923

921

00 02 90

922

00 02 30

00 02 40

903(Govt. Land)

03 00

907

का.आ. 973.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में सलाया से उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में मथुरा तक पैट्रोलियम क्रूड के परिवहन के लिए " सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन के अंतर्गत डी- बॉटलनेकिंग परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

00 04 20

905

908/341 (Govt. Land) 00 09 40

904

00 11 70

902

00 04 40

00 05 60

900

899

00 11

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

895

00 03 70

896

00 07 30

00 01

894

00 07

887

00 00 70

879

00 08 60

881

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

880

00 10 40

851/1336( Govt. Land) 00 35 20

866

855

00 02 50

00 05 40

854

00 06 10

856

00 14 20

919 (Forest Land)

919/1342 ( Govt. Land) 00 02

00 08 10

920

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनसाधारण को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में , श्री भीम सिंह , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पाइपलाइन प्रभाग, 33 , मुक्तानंद नगर, गोपालपुरा बाईपास , जयपुर-302018 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 2891 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

( 5 ) ( 6)

(4)

(3)

( 1) ( 2 )

अनुसूची

11 40

राज्य : राजस्थान

3 मॉडियावड

अजमेर

: किशनगढ़ जिला :

तहसील

00 20

कलां ( जारी ) 39

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

क्रम गांव का

00 10 60

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

सं. नाम

40/209

मीटर

00 06 90

( 5) (6)

(4)

(3)

( 1 ) (2)

00 01 00

1. जोरावरपुरा

00 06 20

00 11 40

00 02

23 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 01

00 04 50

00 02 30 4. मोठी

263 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 60

262(सरकारी भूमि)

00 04 60

261(सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 10

242 (सरकारी भूमि)

32 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 30 40

156

133 (सरकारी भूमि)

2. ढ़सुक

00/01 00

00 08 20

117 (सरकारी भूमि)

199

00 04 50

116

00 11 90

200

00 19 80

119

01 30

202

00 06 40

08 70

115

215

00 11 00

113

00 17 50

214

00 34 60

00 06 40

213

108 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 01

00 210

07 20

5. मांडियावड़ खुर्द 1/1

00 14

225

4 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 30

228

00 21 00

5/4

06 90

226

00 11 20

232

[फा. सं. आर-25011/ 11 / 2011- ओ.आर. - 1 ] बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

00 17 60

65/3

3. मांडियावड़

New Delhi , the 6th April , 2011.

00 12 30

कलां

00 08 40

65/5/219

00 09 40

65/5

00 28 00

00 01

00 44 90

S.O. 973. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum crude a pipeline from Salaya in the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh , ( Under Salaya - Mathura Pipeline De- bottlenecking Project ) should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

00 이 50

00 16 30

78/1

00 ΟΙ 10

00 16 60

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

00 02 50

49(सरकारी भूमि)

07 70

13/8

13/7 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 00.90

13/3

00 12 90

13/5

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 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

00 09 40

13/6

00 02 20

17 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 53 10

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date onwhich the copies of this notification issued under sub- 2392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

( 1 ) ( 2)

(4) ( 5) ( 6 )

(3)

3. Mandiyawar 13/3

00 12 90

Kalan ( contd . ) 13/5

00 09

13/6

00 02 20

17 (Govt . Land)

section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Bhim Singh, Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division) , 33 , Muktanand Nagar , Gopalpura Byepass , Jaipur - 302018 ( Rajasthan) .

53 10 SCHEDULE

00 11 40

State: Rajasthan

Tehsil: Kishangarh District : Ajmer

00 10 60

Area

Khasra No.

SI . Name of

40/209

20 Hec- Are

No.

Village

06 tare

Sq. Metre

00 00 70 ( 1 ) ( 2)

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

00 01 00

00 06 20

00 01 70

1. Jorawarpura 12

00 02 60

23 (Govt. Land)

00 11 40

4. Mothi

04 50

263 (Govt . Land)

01 70

262(Govt. Land)

02 30

261 (Govt. Land)

00 04 60

00 02 10

242(Govt . Land)

00 04 60

133 (Govt . Land)

32(Govt . Land)

00 Οἱ 00

117 ( Govt . Land)

00 30 40

2. Dhasuk 156

00 04 50

116

199

00 08 20

119

19 80 200

00 11 90

00 06

115

00 01 30

202

113

00 11 00

00 08

215

00 34 60

108 (Govt. Land)

00 17 50

214

00 07 20

5. Mandiyawar 1/1

00 06 40

213

Khurd

210

00 01 40

4(Govt. Land)

5/4

00 21 00

225

228

00 01 30

[F. No. R - 25011 / 11 / 2011 - OR - 1 ]

226

06 90

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

232

00 11 20

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2011

00 17 60

65/3

00 12 30

3. Mandiyawar Kalan 66

65/5/219

00 08 40

00 09 40

65/5

01 70

00 44 90

00 01 50

78/1

00 16 30

00 01 10

00 16 60

का.आ. 974.-भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1493 , तारीख 4 जून , 2010 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आंध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर - हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

00 02 50

49(Govt . Land)

00 07 70

13/8

13/7(Govt. Land)

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 29 अक्तूबर , 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

2893 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र19 , 1933

(1 ) (2 )

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

00 22 07

। शासनम ( जारी ) 172/5

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

172/6

00 00 59

00 07 81

172/7

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

170

00 27 29

01 06

196/10

00 .

196/3

10 48

196/4

00 13 00

196/5

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

00 23

196/1

196/11

00 00 99

197

13 03

195/2

00 12 91

195/3

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

195/1

00 07 94

00 33

201/1

202/2

00 14 26

204

00.

163

00 03 54

00 22 96 और , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

145/3

145/2

00 14 79 अनुसूची

00 12 82

145/4

राज्य आंध्र प्रदेश

145/7

00 09 50 जिला : श्रीकाकुलम

मंडल तहसील/ तालुक : कचिलि

145/8

00 07 19 क्र. गांव का नाम

144/2

00 00 76 सं

सर्वेसं/सब डिविजन सं.

146/1

00 07 74

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

146/4

00 24 90 हेक्टेयर एयर सि

146/3

00 05 60

एयर

146/2

00 00. 10 (1 ) ( 2)

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

148/2

00 19 44

00 13 85

57/9

1. नुवगंडा

148/1

00 08 10 57/10

00 10 68

149

00 02 06 57/8

00 01 02

150/1

00 00 53

59/3

07 58

150/2

00 43 35

59/4

10/2पी

3. जलन्तराकोटा

00 01 52

59/2

14/1

09 98

00 21 90

60/9

13/1

03 45 60/7

00 22 34

13/2

43 45 60/6

00 04 61

12/3

00 05 00 60/5

00 12 99

12/5

00 01 38 60/4

00 12 06

12/4

07 16 245

00 36 82

2. शासनम

12/2

244/1

00 16

25/1

00 13 85 00

173/1

23 80

25/2

00 58 57 173/6

00 07 45

00 10 77. 173/2

00 15 66

00 22 90 172/4

00 05 95 2894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6) ( 1 ) ( 2)

(4) ( 5 ) ( 6) (1 ) (2)

50/4

00 00 12 3 जलन्तराकोटा

0020 4. जनघाई ( जारी )

00 06

50/5

00 08 (जारी)

50/6

00 01 02 163/1

14 17

50/12

163/3

36 76

49/5

21 46

00 162/6

08 27

49/6

36 00

166/1

15 47

49/10

08 160/7

00 00 44

04 93

49/12

00 00 06

160/5

49/11

00 01 45 00

160/4

07 49

49/13

00 09 32

00 18 22

160/2

49/14

00 05 82

00 03 25

157/4

11 28

35/12

157/2

18 47

18 28

35/1

00 07 76

157/1

35/4

01 69

137/3

31 81

00 01 70

35/3

137/1

00 02 30

04 31

35/2

00 138/3

00 42 88

00 10 34

37/20

138/2

00 00 82

37/21

00 09 79 138/4

00 이 58

00 00 14

36/9

00 09 22

141/2

00 12

36/8

139

00 45 43

-36/7

140/6

02 40

36/6

00 01 20

00 21

140/5

36/5

93 112/9

00 03 07

36/2

00 01 25

00 11 32

112/16

36/1

02 22

00 08 71

124/5

00 13 85

37/9

00 01 89

124/1

356/6

5. बोनोमली

07 73

00 06 14

124/2

356/5

28 25 123/2

00 05 12

356/4

00 00 10

52 12

123/3

05 56

356/1

00 01

125/2

355/6

00 4]

122

24 04

355/7

00 05 12

00 36

120/2

00 03 27

355/8

121

00 28

355/5

05 66

117/2

62 11

07 09

355/9

00 02 85

117/1

355/10

02 89

113/9

00 10

355/11

00 02 98

52/2

21 81

00 4. जनघाई

03 13

355/12

00 05 29

52/3

00 06 07

355/2

52/4

00 25 40

353/5

05 70

00 11

44/15

10 86

354/8

44/10

00 00 17

354/7

01 44/14

00 03 73

00 06 28

353/1

44/13

00 09 23

351/12

04 46

00 50/2

00 00 28

01 87

351/11

50/1

00 09 27

352/1

16 82 2895 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

( 1 ) ( 2)

( 3)

(5) (6) ( 1 ) ( 2)

(3 )

(4)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

554

00 45 75

27 78

5. बोनोमली ( जारी ) 362

7. पुडभद्रा ( जारी )

00 364/19

00 12 70

555

02 35

00 04 89 364/18

01 17 8. पुरूषोतमपुरम

49 364/17

69/8

15 19

69/9

364/16

00 02 39

364/15

00 01

69/10

03 33

00 364/14

69/11

69/12

07 364/13

01 366/20

00 00 18

69/15

00 04 98

366/21

69/16

366/24

69/17

00 11

00 00

00 00 10

68/16

366/25

366/17

02 33

68/23

60/2

366/16

00 01 98

02. 47

08 76 366/14

60/1

03 52

00 20 39 366/13

60/4

00 09 69

366/12

60/5

00 00 10

00 38

00 10

00 30

61/13

00 00

366/11

00 10

00 03 63 366/10

58/7

366/6

00 01 39

00 01

58/6

58/8

00 05 07

05 46

366/3

05 366/2

00 00 32

58/5

00 06 24

366/4

59/5

00 09

59/6

00 366/5

02 61

00 10

00 01 65

371/8

59/8

00 371/3

10 18

59/4

00 49

371/7

59/3

00 03

00 10 371/6

00 00 74

53/1

02 35

371/5

59/2

00 25 30

00 11 41

54/2

371/4

01 07 376/8

54/1

00 01 88

06 71

54/3

00 14 44 376/9

ΟΙ 67

54/4

376/7

08 51

07 84

00 10 29

00 376/5

54/5

54/6

00 13 72 376/4

04 43

54/7

42 376/3

11 57

01 48

05 02 377

54/9

00 18

00 00 10

54/10

378

00 . 00 10

379/1

00 05 46

54/8

00 14 68

503

34/10

00 01 62 6. माटमसारीपल्लि

00 67 74

34/13

504

00 03 59 551/9

07 11

34/14

00 19 7. पुडभद्रा

551/8

00 10

34/11

00 07 28 551/10

00 00 85

34/12

00 08 33

02 90 552

02 57

35/16

00 10 553

00 06 88

35/15

00 2896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

(1) (2)

(1) ( 2)

(4) ( 5) ( 6 )

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6) 35/8

74 00 13 32

00 01

9. कर्तली. ( जमीन ) 52/8

8. पुरूषोतमपुरम

35/7

00 22

(जारी)

52/7

00 06 43

(जारी)

35/9

13 67

52/1

00 35/6

00 07 48

00 10 35/5

00 04 55

11 87

53/1

35/4

00 11 57

26/3.

00 08 90 36/1

00 01 68

26/2

63 37/8

00 02 81

26/4

00 00 10 37/9

26/1

00 05 68 37/10

00 04 70

00 06 % 37/6

00 13 12

27/6

00 13 78 37/5

00 00 10

27/5

13 38/6

00 08 99

27/3

38/5

08 55

21/10

11 38/4

00 01 05

21/8

00 00 78 38/2

00 07 87

21/9

00 09 66 38/3

00 21 38

22/6

00 00 10 43/3

00 06 61

20/24

77 43/1

00 00 92

00 01 12

20/14

43/4

00 12 07

20/12

00 00 10 43/2

00 01 85

20/25

93 43/7

00 00 10

19/22

08 59

08 23/6

00 01 13

22/1

00 26

17/2

00 02 02 00

17/3

00 03 13 12/6

00 08 11

02 26

17/4

00 12/1

00 09 45

17/5

00 12 23 12/2

00 02 79

05 94

18/9

00 13

20 62

18/8

15 27

00 06

16/10

00 01 70 6/14

00 10 66

15/4

00 08 27 6/13

00 07 74

15/5

00 08 63 6/12

00 02 12

15/6

00 이 50 6/11

00 04 33

14/9

00 56

00 6/10

00 10

06 44

14/10

00 6/9

00 03 56

14/18

00 02 62 6/8

00 04 16

14/17

01 86

00 6/6

00 01 92

14/12

24 6/5

00 06 19

14/11

14 96

00 6/4

14/5

00 00 10 6/3

00 02 44

13/8

00 19 18 6/2

13/5

02 67 7/2

00 02 39

13/6

7/3

05 16 8/2

00 09 77 00 13

13/7

9/12

00 00 09 08

00 28 9. कर्तली ( जमीन ) 52/11

52/9

16 19 00 01

9/13

00 2897

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

(4) (5) (6)

(1) ( 2)

00 00 29

00 03 18

9/11

294/5

10. जाडुपूरी (जारी )

9/10

62/11

00 01 02

9. कर्तली ( जमीन ) (जारी )

74 00 06 92

00 06

62/10

9/14

00 Of 09

62/2

10/10

00 11 99 00

10/9

62/9

00 02 87

62/4

04 98

10/8

62/5

10/7

62/6

00 10/6

00 01 92

04 ہو

61/6

00 00 02 57

10/5

00 17

617

14 84

10/4

00 07 48

61/5

00 10/3

61/1

00 19

00 13

61/2

00 27

314/1

10. जाडुपूडी

00 00 10

60/14

06 30 314/2

02 79

60/15

315/3

00 08 34

60/13

03 94 315/4

60/12

02 54

310/3

60/16

06 02 310/4

15 42

00 47 310/6

60/11

00 00 10

60/5

310/7

00 04

60/6

308/7

00 12 67

00 04

00 05 49

60/10

308/6

00 10 46

04 87

60/9

306

60/7

00 05

308/5

00 00 50

50/13

308/4

00 06 26

51/2

308/3

10 98

00 07

51/3

308/2

00 10

51/1

307/17

00 05 14

51/4

00 02

307/16

51/5

00. 08 08

00 05 95

307/14

04 63

51/6

00 02 05

307/10

01 10

52/16

00 10 86

307/12

00 03 45

52/14

00 00 21 307/13

52/17

00 08 98 300

00 00 14

52/19

297

01 36

52/18

00 07 64

301

00 07

00 02 90 296/7

52/13

52/12

00 03 84

00 13

296/1

52/6

02 70

00 296/2

00 09 59

52/7

00 00 10

00 02 30

295/7

00 02. 37

00 09 28

52/3

295/11

52/5

02 22

00 00 35

295/8

00 07 95

52/8

00 62 295/10

52/4

00 03 51

00 02 81

293/1

01 15

52/2

00 09 14

00 294/8

45/22

00 00 49

00 04 27

294/7

1112Gl/2011-10 2898

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

(5) (6)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6)

(1)

(1) (2)

00 08 94 00 02 70

14/5

10. जाडुपूरी ( जारी )

५०. जाहुपूरी ( जारी ) 45/23

14/13

00 03 04 00 00 10

45/25

14/12

09 67 00 02 65

45/24

14/16

45/20

02 86

14/15

45/21

14/14

00 04 45/19

03 42

18/2

00 45/18

00 00 43

11 79 45/17

18/1

00 01

42 45/4

11. गोकरनपुरम

01 64

00. 10

8/16

00 45/5

00 08

8/15

45/16

00 01

00 00 26 45/15

00 08 75

8/19

05 07

00 00 05 40

8/18

45/14

8/17

00 03 70 00 00 21

45/13

8/14

02 74 45/12

8/13

45/11

8/12

08 91

45/9

8/10

11 00

45/8

02 99

8/11

00 02 00 00 32

45/7

8/1

03 05

12/17

00 01

00 33 07

10/1

00 05 03

16/27

15 03

00 03

16/26

00 00 14

13/3

16/24

05 91

13/4

00 01

16/25

00 13

13/1

00 04 05

16/5

01 67

13/2

16/7

03 07

00 04

16/4

12. केसरपाडा (जमीन ) 536

00 10

00 16/8

00 00 57

535/3

00 00 85

16/9

00 02 58

535/4

16/10

02 96

535/5

16/13

00 01

535/6

16/14

535/7

00 16/1

04 60

535/8

00 02

16/2

00 03

535/9

02 16

16/3

00 03 60

535/10

00 02 86

16/15

00 02 15

535/11

00 05 73

15/4

00 02 38

535/12

00 00 90

1513

05 26

535/13

15/2

01 46

535/14

00 03 82

15/5

00 05 80

534/13

00 00 57

15/1

00 07

534/14

00 05 22

15/6

04 44

534/15

00 92

14/10

00 00 22

534/16

14/9

534/17

00 07 98

00 09 85

14/11 2899 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3 )

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

(1 ) (2)

( 5) (6)

(3)

(4)

(1 ) ( 2)

00 03 69 00 03 42 12. केसरपाडा ( जमीन ) 494/5

534/18

12. केसरपाडा ( जमीन )

00 01 32

494/6

00 01

534/19

(जारी)

00 16 13

495

534/20

00 00 00 10

496/10

533/11

496/11

00 67

533/12

483/6

00.00 82 00 07 36

533/13

00 00 31

483/13

00 06

531/2

483/15

00 01

531/3

00 04

483/16

14 80

531/4

00 05 13

483/17

531/5

05 61

483/18

00 03

531/6

00 05 18 00

483/19

00 77

531/7

483/20

03 00 06 13

531/8

00 25

484

14 00 04 47

531/9

00 01

485/1

00 03 30

531/11

00 10

485/2

531/12

485/5

00 02 40

530/1

00 17

330/1

11. 47

530/9

13. भिन्नलकोतूरू

00 06 90

331/1

00 01 47

518/9

00 04 71

331/7

00 13 39

529/1

00 03 86

331/8

00 06

529/2

00 06 82

331/9

00 08

529/3

05 73

331/10

00 02 55

529/5

00 00 14

334/9

00 04 75

519/1

08 47

334/10

00 01

520/2

00 07 51

334/11

00 00 64

520/3

334/12

00 06 14 00 01 89

520/4

00 04

334/13

00 02

520/5

06 30

334/16

520/6

00 05

00 03 60

325/10

520/7

00 01

00 04 91

325/11

00 27 84

520/10

00 10

07 76

327

520/11

00 08 17

326

521

00 01 28

90 05

522

14. समंता रामचन्द्रपुरम 125/8

00 06 49

125/7

00 05

492/1

00 00 65

125/14

00 01 15

492/2

125/6

08 02.

00 04

492/3

00 06 25

125/5

00 02 86

492/4

125/4

00 02 38

00 42

492/5

00 13 22.

125/2

00 04 65

493/2

125/1

00 01 35

493/3

39 74

126

00 03

493/4

15. पदमातुला

00 22 84

127

00 02

493/5

04 16

128/16

00 04 18

493/8

00 00 93

128/18

00 04 76

494/1

128/17

09 00 05 50

00% 494/4 2900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

(2)

(4) ( 5) ( 6)

(1)

00 04 52

128/15

15. पदमातुला ( जारी )

128/14

00 02 04

128/13

00 02 10

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

128/2

00 00 27

128/3

00 00 49

128/1

00 10 23

129/5

00 40

129/4

00 10

129/1

23 69

And further, in exercise of the powers cosferred by sub-section ( 4 ) of Section 6 ofthe said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Kight of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication ofthe declaration, in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

130/1

SCHEDULE

130/2

00 04 44

130/3

10 84 Mandal/Tehsil/ District : Srikakulam

130/12

Taluk: Kanchili

State : Andhra Pradesh

130/4

01 75

Sl . Village

Area to be acquired 130/5

No.

forRou

00 03 50

Are C -Are

Survey No./ Sub-Division No.

Hec 130/6

00 02 36

130/7

00 04 97

(3)

( 1) ( 2 )

(4) ( 5) ( 6 ) 130/8

00 02 12

57/9

13 85

1. Nuvagada

57/10

00 10 68 [फा. सं. एल-14014/53/2009-जी.पी. ]

57/8

00 01 02 के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

59/3

07 58 New Delhi , the 8th April , 2011

59/4

0 10

00 17

59/2

60/9

00 21 90

60/7

60/6

60/5

00 12 99

60/4

00 12 06

245

36 82

2. Sasanam

244/1

00 16 72

23 80

173/1

173/6

00 07 45

173/2

00 15 66

172/4

05 95 S.O. 974. Whereas by notification of Government ofIndia inMinistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1493 dated 04th June , 2010, issued under sub - section (1) ofSection 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government ofIndia declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada- Basudebpur- Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/s Reliance Industries Limited by Mis Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to consumers in various parts of the country;

172/5

00 22 07

172/6

00 00 59 And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 29th October, 2010;

172/7

07 81

170

00 27 29

196/10

00 01 06 And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

196/3

00 10 48

196/4

13 00

196/5

00 00 44 And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted report tothe Government of India;

196/1

00 23 63

196/11

00 99

197

00 13 03

195/2

12 91

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

2901 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3 )

( 6 )

(4) ( 5 )

( 1 ) ( 2)

(5) ( 6)

( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 )

(4)

00 31 81 2. Sasanam

195/3

3. Jalantharakota 137/3

137/1

00 02 30 00 07

195/1

(contd.)

201/1

00 33 18

00 42 88

138/3

00 14 26

202/2

00 00 82

138/2

00 00

204

00 01 58

138/4

163

00 09 22

141/2

145/3

00 45 43

139

145/2

00 14

00 02 40

140/6

145/4

00 12 82

00 21 98

140/5

145/7

00 03

112/9

145/8

00 11

112/16

00 00 76

144/2

08 71

124/5

00 07

146/1

00 01 89

124/1

24 90

146/4

00 06 14

124/2

00 05 60

146/3

00 05 12

123/2

146/2

00 52

123/3

148/2

19 44

01 07

125/2

148/1

00 24 04

122

00 02

149

36 62

120/2

00 00

150/1

28 83

121

00 00 43 35

150/2

00 62 11

117/2

00 01 52

3. Jalantharakota 10 /2P

00 02 85

117/1

14/1

00 09 98

00 00 10

113/9

00 03 45

13/1

52/2

00 21

4. Janaghai

43 45

13/2

00 05 29

52/3

00 05

12/3

00 25 40

52/4

12/5

00 11 42

44/15

00 07 16

12/4

00 00 17

44/10

05 28

12/2

03 73

44/14

00 13 85

25/1

09 23

44/13

00 58 57

25/2

00 00 28

50/2

00 10 77

00 09

50/1

00 22 90

00 00 12

50/4

00 08 25

50/5

00 06 48

50/6

00 01 02 00 14 17

163/1

00 02 04

50/12

00 36 76

163/3

00 21

49/5

00 08 27

162/6

00 00 36

49/6

00 15

166/1

00 08 49

49/10

00 00 44

160/7

00 04

49/12

06 59

160/5

00 01

49/11

00 07

160/4

49/13

160/2

00 18

49/14

82 157/4

00 03 25

35/12

00 11 28 00 18 47

157/2

00 18 28

35/1

00 07 76

157/1 2902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

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

(3)

(1)

(4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 1 ) ( 2)

(3)

(4) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) 35/4

366/16

01 69

00 02 47 35/3

00 01

366/14

00 03 52 4. Janaghai (contd.)

5. Bonomali

(contd.)

35/2

00 04 31

366/13

00 09 69 37/20

10 34

00 00

366/12

00 38 37/21

00 09 79

366/11

00 30 36/9

00 00

366/10

00 00 10 36/8

00 00 12

366/6

00 01 33 36/7

366/3

46 36/6

366/2

00 00 32 36/5

366/4

24 36/2

00 01 25

366/5

00 02 61 36/1

00 02 22

371/8

00 01 65 37/9

371/3

10 18 356/6

00 07

5. Bonomali

371/7

00 00 49

356/5

28 25

371/6

74 00

356/4

00 10

00 02

371/5

356/1

05 56

00 25 30

371/4

355/6

00 00 41

376/8

00 01 88

355/7

05 12

00 06 71

376/9

355/8

376/7

00 08 51 00

376/5

355/5

10 29

00 355/9

376/4

00 04 00 07

43 00

57 355/10

02 89

376/3

00 355/11

00 02

377

01 48

00 03 13

355/12

378

00 00 18 355/2

00 06 07

379/1

05 70

353/5

00 14 68

6. Matamsaripalli 503

354/8

10 86

504

67 74 354/7

00 01 44

7. Pudabhadra 551/9

00 07 11 353/1

00 06 28

551/8

00 00 10

00 04

00 351/12

551/10

00 85 351/11

00 01 87

552

01 02 57 352/1

00 00 16 82

553

06 88 362

00 27 78

554

00 45 75 00

364/19

12 70

555

00 02 35

00 01

364/18

00 04 89

8. Purushotham- 70

364/17

00 01

69/8

puram

00 02

364/16

69/9

00 15 19

00 01

69/10

364/15

364/14

03 33

69/11

03 35

00 364/13

00 57

69/12

07 91 366/20

69/15

01 36 00 00 18

00 366/21

00 11 95

69/16

00 04 98

69/17

366/24

00 11 22 366/25

00 00 34

68/16

00 00 10 366/17

68/23

00 02 33

09 19

00 2903

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र19 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड ( ii) ]

(3)

( 2)

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 1)

(4) (5) ( 6 ) ( 2)

( 1 )

00 00 10

43/7

00 01 98 8. Purushotham-

60/2

8. Purushotham-

08 59

60/1

puram ( contd . )

puram (Contd . )

01 13

23/6

00 60/4

00 20 39

06 07

00 10

60/5

00 10 00

61/13

00 10

12/6

00 08 11 00

58/7

03 63

12/1

09 45 00

58/6

01 39

12/2

02 79

58/8

20 62 00

58/5

06 66

00 09 41

59/5

6/14

00 10 66 00 00 74

59/6

00 07

6/13

00 10.

59/8

00 02 12

6/12

00 05 07

59/4

04. 33

6/11

00 03 68

59/3

6/10

00 10 00 00 10

53/1

00 03 56

6/9

59/2

00 04

04 16

6/8

54/2

00 11

6/6

00 01

54/1

06 19

6/5

54/3

00 14

6/4

00 02 13

54/4

00 01

6/3

02 44

07 84

54/5

6/2

00 00 53

13 72

54/6

7/2

00 02 39

06 42

547

7/3

00 10

05 02

00 13 23 54/9

8/2

00 09 08 54/10

9. Kartali ( Zamin ) 52/11

00 05 46

52/9

00 01 54/8

01 74

52/8

01 62

34/10

52/7

34/13

13 67

52/1

00 00

34/14

00 00 07 28

34/11

53/1

00 08 33

34/12

08 90

26/3

35/16

00 02 90

05 63

26/2

35/15

26/4

00 10

00 00 13 32

35/8

05 68

26/1

35/7

00 06 96

ΟΙ 95

35/9

27/6

00 13 78

35/6

07 48

00 14 13

27/5

0 04

35/5

23 21

27/3

00 11 57

35/4

00 11 29

21/10

00 01 68

36/1

00 00 78

21/8

00 02 81

37/8

00 09 66

21/9

04 62

37/9

00 10

22/6

37/10

00 04

20/24

00 02 7

13 12

37/6

00 01 12

20/14

00 00 10

37/5

20/12

00 10

99.

38/6

00 15 93

20/25

38/5

00 08

00 08 34

19/22

00 01

38/4

00 00 92

22/1

00 07 87

38/2

02 02

17/2

21 38

38/3

00 03 13

17/3

00 06 61

43/3

00 02 26

17/4

00 92

43/1

00 12

17/5

00 12 07

43/4

18/9

00 01 85

43/2 2904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6)

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(1) ( 2)

00 15 27

18/8

16/10

00 01 70

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6 ) 296/1

00 13 79 296/2

00 09 59

10. Jadupudi

(Contd.)

9. Kartali (Zamin) (contd.).

15/4

00 08 27

15/5

08 63

15/6

00 01 50

14/9

00 00 56

14/10

00 06 44

14/18

00 02 62

14/17-

00 01 86

14/12

00 03

14/11

14/5

13/8

00 19 18

13/5

00 02 67

13/6

0500

13/7

00 09

9/12

00 00 28

9/13

9/11

00 03 18

9/10

00 01 86

9/14

00 06 92

10/10

00 03 82

10/9

00 03 78

10/8

00 04 98

10/7

00 01 32

10/6

00 01 92

10/5

02 57

10/4

00 . 14 84

10/3

00 07 48

00 13 56

00 27 69

314/1

10. Jadupudi

314/2

00 15 81

315/3

315/4

08 34

00 00

310/3

310/4

00 15 42

310/6

00 18 24

310/7

00 02 55

308/7

00 12 67

308/6

05 49

306

00 04 87

308/5

00 05 58

308/4

308/3

00 06 26

00 07

308/2

307/17

00 10 34

307/16

00 02 56

00 05 95

307/14

00 02 05

307/10

307/12

00 10 86

00 03 45

307/13

300

00 00 14

297

301

00 07

296/7

00 07 27

295/7

00 02 30 295/11

00 09 28 295/8

00 00 35 295/10

00 07 95 293/1

00 02 81 294/8

00 09 14 294/7

00 04 27 294/5

00 00 29 62/11

00 01 02 62/10

06 74

62/2

01 09

62/9

00 11 99 62/4

06 62/5

66 62/6

00 00 10 61/6

00 04

617

00 17 61/5

00 04 81 61/1

00 19

61/2

00 10 60/14

06 30

60/15

02 79

60/13

03 94 60/12

00 02 54 60/16

06 02

60/11

00 60/5

00 10

04 90

60/6.

60/10

04 63

10 46

60/9

60/7

00 36

50/13

00 50

51/2

46 51/3

00 10 51/1

00 02 51/4

00 05 14 51/5

00 08 08

04 51/6

52/16

00 01 10

52/14

00 21 52/17

00 08 52/19

00 00 65 52/18

00 01 36 52/13

00 02 90 52/12

00 03 84 52/6

00 02 70 52/7

00 00 10

52/3

02 52/5

00 02 22

00 00 52/8

62 2905 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19, 1933

( 1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6) (1) (2)

(4) ( 5) (6) 52/4

14/16

03 51

10. Jadupudi

52/2

00 01

00 00.

14/15

00.00 (Contd.)

(Contd.)

45/22

00 00 49

14/14

00 04 60 45/23

00 02 70

00 05 76

18/2

45/25

11 79

18/1

45/24

00 02

00 42 74

11. Gokarnapuram 22

45/20

02 86

8/16

01 64 45/21

00 00 28

8/15

00 OR 95 45/19

00 00

8/19

8/18

45/18

00 00

05 07 00

00 45/17

8/17

03 70

74 45/4

00 00

8/14

00 02 45/5

00 00 10

8/13

00 01 35 45/16

00 01

8/12

00 08 91 00

00 45/15

08 75

8/10

00 11

00 45/14

00 05

8/11

02 19

8/1

45/13

00 00

02 51

01 74 45/12

63 00

00 33 07 45/11

00 37

10/1

45/9

00 15 03

00 00 14

13/3

45/8

02 99

00 05 45/7

13/4

00 32

13/1

00 13 34 44

03 05

12/17

13/2

00 01 67 00 01 05

16/27

536

00 03 07 00 05 03

00 00 10 16/26

535/3

12. Kesarapada

(Zamin)

16/24

00 02 58

535/4

00 10

02 96

535/5

16/25

00 01 90

04 05

535/6

00 01 63 16/5

00 10

535/7

00 01 98 16/7

00.04 00 04 35

535/8

16/4

00 16/8

00 57

03 76 00

535/9

00 03 60 16/9

00 00 85

535/10

00 02 15

16/10

535/11

00 02 38 16/13

535/12

00 05 26

535/13

16/14

00 01 46 16/1

535/14

534/13

05 80 16/2

00 02 12

07 73

00 00 02

534/14

16/3

04 44

00 00

16/15

02 86

534/15

00 00 22 00

534/16

15/4

05 73

00 07 98

534/17

15/3

00 03 42

534/18

00 00 49

15/2

534/19

01 70

15/5

00 03

00 00 10 00

15/1

534/20

00 57

00 00 10

533/11

05 22

15/6

533/12

14/10

00 07 36

533/13

14/9

00 00 17

06 53

00 00 09 85

531/2

14/11

00 01 40

531/3

00 08 94

14/5

00 14 80

531/4

14/13

00 03 04

531/5

00 09 67

03 43 14/12

1112GI/2011-11 2906

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

( 2)

(3)

( 1)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

( 6)

(4) ( 5) (4) (5) ( 6 )

531/6

00 03 90

485/2

12. Kesarapada

12.Kesarapada

00 00 77

00 00 21 531/7

(Zamin) (Contd.)

(Zamin) ( Contd .) 485/5

531/8

13. Bhinnalakothuru 330/1

17 82 00

531/9

06 90

331/1

00 03 30

531/11

331/7

04 71 00 00 46

531/12

331/8

00 03 86

530/1

00 02

00 06

331/9

00 11

530/9

331/10

00 05 00

518/9

01 47

334/9

00 00 14 529/1

00 13 39

334/10

00 08 47

529/2

334/11

529/3

00 08

334/12

06 14

529/5

334/13

00 04

519/1

06 30

334/16

00 01

520/2

325/10

00 03 60 00

00 64

325/11

91 520/3

520/4

01 89

00 00 10 00

327

326

08 17

00 520/5

00 02 00

00 01 28 520/6

00 05

14. Samantha Rama- 125/8

00 06 49

520/7

125/7

chandrapuram

125/14

00 00 65

520/10

00 27

125/6

08 02

07 76

520/11

06 25

125/5

521

00 01 02

00 02 38

125/4

90 05 90

522

125/2

22 492/1

00 05 61

125/1

00 00 00 01 15

492/2

126

00 39 74

15. Padmathula

492/3

04 31

127

00 22 84 00 02 86

492/4

128/16

00 04 492/5

128/18

00 00 93 00 04 65

493/2

01 09

128/17

493/3

128/15

00 04 52 493/4

00 03 74

128/14

00 02 04 00 02 20

493/5

02 10

128/13

00 493/8

00 04 18

00 27

128/2

00 494/1

00 04 76

128/3

00 00 49 494/4

00 05 50

128/1

10 23

00 494/5

00 03 69

00 00 40

129/5

00 01 32

494/6

00 00 10

129/4

495

00 16 13

00 23 69

129/1

04 71

496/10

130/1

00 10 496/11

130/2

00 04 44

483/6

130/3

00 10

483/13

00 00 12

130/12

00 04 00

483/15

130/4

00 01 75 483/16

00 04 26

130/5

03 50 00 05 13

483/17

00 02 36

130/6

00 05 61

483/18

130/7

00 04 97 00 05 18

483/19

130/8

00 02 12 00

483/20

03 93

[F. No. L-14014/53/2009-GP.]

25 14.

484

01 95

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secу. 485/1

00 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 975.--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 , धनबाद नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/1990 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-03-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/ 114/ 1988 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011

S.O. 975. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 150/ 1990) ofthe 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 03-03-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/ 114/ 1988 - 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. 150 of 1990

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Industry Colliery ofM/ s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workman

PRESENT :

Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : None

For the Workman : None

2907

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

AWARD (Dated the 31st January , 2011 )

By Order No. L - 20012 / 114/ 88 - IR ( Coal - I ) dated 13-7-1990 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 demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union that the date of birth of Sri Bhagwan Das , Trammer , Industry Colliery of M/ s , BCCL is 4-6-38 ? Ifso, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

2. In this reference case both the parties have filed their respective written statements , rejoinders and documents . Therefore , the case was fixed for 25-8-10 for adducing evidence by the workman for which registered notices were sent to both the parties . But on 25-8-10 neither side appeared for which case was adjourned to 24-9-10. Again on 24-9-10 neither side appeared , so the case was adjourned to 12-11-10 . On that date also none appeared from either side . As such , it appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .

3.Accordingly, I render the ' No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute .

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 976.-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 , धनबाद नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-03-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/33/2002- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011 .

S.O. 976. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 16/ 2003) 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 03-03-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/33 /2002 - IR( C - I ) | D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) of L.D. Act. Reference No. 16 of 2003

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Coke Plant ofM/s . B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Theirworkman

PRESENT:

Shri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

FortheEmployers : Shri U.N. Lal , Advocate For the Workman : Shri Raghunandan Rai , Representative

Jharkhand

State:

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) | Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian vide letter No. 2001/210 dated 15-9-2001 stating that her age is 55 years , which is not correct . VRS Scheme was notified by the Company in the year 1998. At that time an application was submitted by Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian which was not considered by the management . Then an industrial dispute was raised by the union before the A.L.C. (C ) , Dhanbad, which was ended in failure. Thereafter the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , intimated vide their letter No. L- 20012/417.99- ( C - 1 ) dated 24-1-2000 that V.R.S. is in force till now and company will consider her demand after submission of application in proper form. As per direction of the Ministry an application was filed before the Chief Engineer ( Chemical) . Bhowra Coke Plant but her application was rejected on 16-5-2000.

Inview ofabove facts and circumstances it has been prayed that Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour ofthe workman .

Industry : Coal

(Dated the 31st January, 2011 )

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/ 33 /2002 - IR (Coal - I ) dated 24-1-03 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the management of BCCL , Bhowra Coke Plantisjustified in not giving the benefit of VRS (F) to Smt. Pan Muni Manjhian ? Ifnot to what relief is is the workman entitled ?"

2. The case of the sponsoring union is that Smt. Pan Muni Manjhian has been working as (General Mazdoor ) Kamin w.e.f. 18-10-1973 under the management ofBhowra Coke Plant. Voluntary Retirement Scheme was adopted by M/s . BCCL for those female employees whose age was below 55 years as on 5-6-2001 as per Order No. BCCL/GM/P & IR/ES/2001 / 11543-643 Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian had submitted an application before Chief Engineer (Chemical ), Bhowra Coke Plant on 20-5-2001 for employment of her son , Sri Paresh Manjhi under V.R.S. Scheme . On the basis of application of the workman, Personnel Officer , Bhowra Coke Plant had taken examination of Paresh Manjhi on 6-7-2001 as per letter No. 2001 /PER/ 130 dated 4-7-2001 . The Chief Engineer (Chemical) Bhowra Coke Plant, rejected the application of 3. Written statement has been filed on behalf ofthe workman stating that the female employee concerned had submitted her resignation under Spl . VRS ( F ) on 20-6-2001 in respect to the Spl . VRS (Female) Circular circulated vide No. BCCL/GM/P & IR/ ES/2001 / 11543-643 dated 5-6-2001 . The case was sent through Eastern Jharia Area to the Headquarter and the request was not acceded to as by that time the female employee had crossed the age limit of 55 years . As such the female employee was intimated about her case and the request was not acceded to as per letter No. BCCL /PA - II/ Spl . VRS (F)/EJA/01 / 18821 dated 29 / 30-3-2001 . Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian , P. No. 00954081 is working as General Mazdoor being a permanent employee ofBhowra Coke Plant . her date of appointment is 16-10-73 and date ofbirth is 16-7-46 as per Form ' B ' Register. The workman had filed a Writ bearing No. W.P. (L) No. 1018/03 for getting the case referred for adjudication to CGIT, As per Spl. VRS (F ) vide No. BCCL/GM ( P& IR)/ES/2001/11543- 643 dated 5-6-2001 vide clause 8 it was also stipulated as under:

"8. As per the provision of Scheme any application of female employee can be rejected and employment may not be given to the dependent by the management without assigning any reason to the claimant."

The case for VRS could not be considered for the reason that the female employee had crossed the age limit by that time the case was placed before the Competent Authority at Headquarters and as such the regret was communicated vide letter dated 29/30-8-2001 .

In such circumstances it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass the award holding thatthe action of the management is justified and the female employee concerned is not entitled to any relief.

[ भाग II ----खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 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 workman has produced herself as WW- 1 (Pan Muni Manjhian ) and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W-6.

The management has produced MW - 1 , R.D. Tripathy, who has produced documents as Exts . M - 1 to M-4.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian , who is permane at workman and engaged as General Mazdoor since 18-10-73 . His P. No. 00954081 and Identity Card No. 146942. The management issued order No. BCCL / GM ( P & IR )/ ES/2001 / 11543-643 dated 5-6-2001 by which it was required that the female employee who has not attained 55 years of age can take VRS ( F) and last date was fixed 20-6-2001 . The concerned workman Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian complied with all conditions and had given her application for VRS (F ) on 20-6-2001 . On that basis the management had taken examination of her son , Paresh Manjhi on 6-7-2001 and after that on 15-9-2001 her application for VRS ( F ) was rejected for giving employment to her son on the ground that she has crossed 55 years of age . It has been argued that she had applied well in time and her application has been rejected after that on the ground that she has crossed 55 years which is against the record of the management .

Inthis respect the document which has been issued by the management is very much important . As per Ext . W-4 the concerned workman , Pan Muni Manjhian , who has given VRS ( F ) letter has been written by Sr. Personnel Officer, Bhowra Coke Plant , intimating that to instruct her dependent son as mentioned in prescribed application form to present before Area Personnel Manager , E.J. Area on 6-7-2001 along with two attested self photograph for test . As per Ext . W- 6 which is service Excerpt of the concerned workman, it shows that Pan Muni Manjhian's date ofbirth is 16-7-1946 and she has given application on 20-6-2001 which shows that on that date she has not crossed 55 years of age seeking VRS ( F ) .

In this respect management's witness MW- 1 , S.D. Tripathy in cross - examination at page 5 stated that the concerned workman applied for VRS ( F ) on 20-6-2001 . The concerned workman gave application on 5-2-2000 to the Ministry. He has also admitted that Service Excerpt of the concerned workman is Ext . W - 6 in which her date of birth has been mentioned as 16-7-46 . It shows that the concerned workman has not cross 55 years of age on the date of application of VRS ( F ) Scheme on 20-6-2001 . When the concerned workman has not crossed 55 years of age further proceeding started for employment of her dependent son and on that ground after considering the

2909 application of the concerned workman for giving dependent employment it cannot be rejected though she has attained 55 years of age so this benefit can be given to her because she has given application before attaining 55 years of age . It is latches on the part of the management when they have not taken step immediately to give employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman . So , rejection of giving employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman, as per Ext. W- 5 , iswithout any basis and against principle of natural justice .

Management's witness , MW - 1 , R.D. Tripathy , admitted that Female VRS was introduced in the year 1995 . Second Scheme of VRS was introduced on 5-6-2001 . On that basis the concerned workman applied for VRS on 20-6-2001 on which 20-6-2001 was last date for submission ofthe application.

Another argument advanced on behalf of the management is that Smt. Pan Muni Manjhian has completed 60 years of age and superannuated , on this ground her dependent son cannot be given employment . Butit does not effect management's own circular for giving VRS (F ) who has not attained 55 years of age . The circular was issued by the management on 5-6-2001 in which the concerned workman has given , her application on 20-6-2001 as last date was mentioned management . So , if the management did not take any action and illegally rejected VRS ( F ) application of the concerned workmen , she is not responsible for this .

7. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above , it is held that the management of BCCL , Bhowra Coke Plant is not justified in not giving the benefit of VRS ( F) to Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian . So , the dependent son of Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian , concerned workman , is entitled for employment in M/ s . BCCL . The management is directed to give employment to the dependent son of Smt . Pan Muni Manjhian , namely , Paresh Manjhi , within 30 days from the date of publication of the award .

This is my Award.

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 977. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरफ्लोट रसियन एयरलाईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , दिल्ली नं. 1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-03-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. 11012/04/2008- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी 2910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011/ CHAITRA 19, 1933

NewDelhi , the 3rd March, 2011

S.O. 977. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11 / 2010) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court- 1, Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Aeroflot Russian Airlines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-03-2011.

[No. L- 11012/04/2008- IR(C- I) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 11/2010

M/s. Aeroflot Russian Airlines , Ground Floor, 15-17 , Tolstoy House ,

Tolstoy Marg ,

New Delhi- 110001

.Applicant/Management

Versus

Shri Jagpal

R/ o RZ - 131 -Z , X-Block,

Nazafgarh,

New Delhi -110043

...Respondent/Workman

AWARD

Ground handling services were undertaken by Aeroflot Russian International Airlines , (hereinafter referred to as the Airlines ) at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi . The Airlines has employed a handful of employees for that purpose. Vide circular dated 28th of September, 2007 , Director General Civil Aviation, took a decision to enlist agencies which can undertake ground handling services on various aerodrums . In anticipation of that decision , a press release was made by the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, New Delhi on 1st of February, 2007, informing that approval has been granted by Ministry of CivilAviation regarding ground handling policy at Metropolitan Airports , including I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi . Itwas detailed in the Press Release that ground handling servicesat Metroplitan Airports would be carried out by respectiveAirport Operators itselfby its joint venture and the Airlines , involved in ground handling will not be permitted to undertake self handling w.e.f. Ist of January, 2009. On the date of the press release , the Airlines was doing selfhandling at IGI Airport, New Delhi . The Press Release made employees of the Airlines paniky about their future . They started approaching other agencies for

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ] employment and informed the Airlines that they would take employment elsewhere . 22 employees including operators of the Airlines tendered their resignation in August, 2007. Since ramp ground handling service require high level of cooperation and team work in a fixed time frame hence ramp ground handling services cannot be engaged in peace -meal and on account of resignation of its employees the Airlines took a decision to request Combata Civil Aviation Pvt. Ltd. , to provide complete ramp ground handling service to them .

2. Aeroflot Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) raised an industrial dispute against the Airlines trough demand letter dated 2nd of May 2005. Since the Airlines failed to consider their demands , the Union was left with no option but to initiate conciliation proceedings by way of filing a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed, a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government . On consideration of that failure report , the appropriate Government had referred a dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L- 11012 / 11/ 2006 - IR( CM - I) , New Delhi dated 1st ofJune , 2006 wherein issues relating to demand of proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions applicable to the employees of the Airlines , doing ground handling jobs , were sent for adjudication .

3. During the pendency of the said dispute for adjudication , Rishi Pal , Suresh Kumar, Sunil Kumar Rathi and Jagpal were served with charge sheet , wherein allegations were levelled that on 28-3-07, it was reported by them to a new channel that there was a great security threat at I.G.I. Airport , New Delhi due to actions of the Airlines , besides allegations that the aforesaid employees , who were working from last 12 years , claimed that they were not aware for whom they were working despite the fact that they were employees of the Airlines . Replies . submitted by the aforesaid employees to the charge sheets referred above , were found to be not satisfactory. The Airlines took a decision to hold a domestic enquiry in the charges levelled against the aforesaid employees and appointed an enquiry Officer vide order dated 4-5-07 . The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry ex parte, when charge sheeted employees opted not to participate in the enquiry. He submitted his report dated 1-8-07 to the Airlines . Show cause notice dated 4-8-07 against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service was served oncharge sheeted employees . Explanation offered by the charge sheeted employees were found to be not satisfactory. Charge sheeted employees were dismissed from service vide order dated 14-8-07 . The Airlines preferred approval applications , as contemplated by clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) and paid an amount of Rs. 7500/- each to them , being equal to one month's salary, by money orders dated 14-8-2007 , in lieu of one [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

month's notice . A prayer was made to this Tribunal to accord approval to the action ofAirlines in dismissing the services of the charge sheeted employees .

4. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President , Rishi Palwas General Secretary, Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was ordinary member of the union. The Union sought status of protected workman for them , by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from A.L.C. in that regard. It was agitated that when Airlines failed to respond to their applications within 15 days time frame, it was assumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman . A claim was made that the Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman , save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal before whom dispute , relating to proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions , was pending adjudication . The Union projected that the approval applications , moved by the Airlines are irrelevant, since an industrial dispute pends adjudication . A claim was made that the approval . applications may be dismissed.

5. When report of the Enquiry Officer was under consideration , the Union moved an application before this Tribunal on 16-7-2007 , seeking directions to restrain the Airlines from changing service conditions of members of the Union, besides seeking status of protected employees in terms of sub - section ( 4) of section 33 of the Act, read with rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 ( in short the Rules ) . The said application was disposed ofby this Tribunal vide order dated 13-8-2007, commanding the Airlines to comply the provisions of section 33 of theAct, in case it opts to discharge or dismiss the charge sheeted employees.

6. The Airlines dismissed the employees referred above, which issue was raised by them before Conciliation Officer by way of filing a claim statement . Conciliation proceedings resulted into a failure . Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the appropriate Government, as contemplated by sub- section (4) of section 12 of the Act. On consideration of the said failure report, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide orderNo. L- 110012/4/2008 - IR( CMI) , New Delhi , dated 14th ofAugust, 2008 with following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Russian International Airlines , New Delhi , in dismissing the services of S/Shri Suresh Kumar, Jagpal , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Rishi Pal is justified and legal ?

(2) To what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"

7. Claim statement was filed , in response to the above reference, by the Union pleading that despite orders

2911

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

passed by this Tribunal , the Airlines terminated services of two office bearers and one ordinary member of the Union, who were protected employees . It went on to detail that the Union sought status of protected workman from theAirlines vide its letter dated 13th of December, 2006 , which communication was not responded to. Though there was an obligation on the Airlines to reply the said communication within a period of 15 days , as contemplated by sub -rule (2) of rule 61 of the Rules , yet the Airlines opted to maintain an eerie silence . The Union moved Assistant Labour Commissioner for seeking a declaration ofprotected workman . Since the aforesaid employees were protected workmen , the Airlines was under an obligation to obtain prior permission of this Tribunal to terminate their services . Since their case was covered by sub- section (3) of section 33 of the Act, the approval applications moved by the Airlines are irrelevant. The Airlines acted in . utter disregard to the order dated 13-8-2007 passed by the Tribunal . It was projected that this Tribunal may not approve the illegal action taken by the Airlines , dismissing the aforesaid employees from their services and to reinstate them in service with continuity, full back wages and consequential benefits .

8. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President, Shri Rishi Pal was General Secretary, Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was the ordinary member of the Union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from Assistant Labour Commissioner in that regard . It was agitated that when the Airlines failed to reply their application within 15 days time frame, it was presumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman . The Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman, save with express permission in writing ofthe Tribunal , before whom dispute relating to the issue raised by the Union for proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions was pending adjudication . Approval applications are irrelevant , claims the Union .

2912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

Explanation submitted by them were considered and found tobe unsatisfactory. TheAirlines decided to dismiss their services.Accordingly, their services were dismissed vide letter dated 14-8-2007 . Since an industrial dispute was pending before this Tribunal , approval applications as contemplated by clause (b) of sub - section ( 2) of Section 33 oftheAct were moved and simultaneously one month's salary was sent to them by money order. It has been disputed that the aforesaid employees were protected workmen . The Airlines claimed that letter dated 13-12-06 and its postal receipts were manipulated documents . No such letter was ever received by Airlines, hence there was no question of its reply. It has been projected that when ramp ground handling services were given to Combata CivilAviation Pvt. Ltd. , the Airlines had to retrench 29 employees on 14th of September, 2007. Since the Airlines is not doing ramp ground handling services , claim of the Union for reinstatement of the services of the aforesaid employees had become infructuous . The Airlines projected that the provisions of clause (b) of sub - section (2 ) of section 33 of the Act are applicable to the controversy under reference, hence approval applications were moved. The dismissed employees were never declared as protected employees , hence claim of the Union that provisions ofsub-section (3 ) of section 33 of the Act are attracted, is uncalled for . It has been agitated that the disputereferred by the Government may be dismissed and action of dismissal of the aforesaid employees may be approved.

10. On approval applications following issues were settled:

(1) Whether the claimant was protected workman ?

(2) Whether action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal , fair andjustifled? Ifyes , whether approval needs to be granted to the management ?

(3) Relief.

11. Though no issue as to virus of the enquiry proceedings was settled in the approval application , yet the Tribunal thought it expedient to deal that proposition atthresh-hold. Parties called upon to adduce evidence on that proposition. To discharge onus resting on it, Airlines examined Shri Jitesh Pandey, the Enquiry Officer. The Union brought Shri Suresh Kumar in the witness box to rebut facts unfolded by Shri Pandy. No other witness was examinedby either ofthe parties .

12. After hearing Shri M.K. Dwivedi , authorized representative for the Airlines , and Shri M.A. Niazi , authorized representative of the Union and on appreciation ofevidence produced by the parties , issue relating to virus of the enquiry was adjudicated vide order dated 12-11-2010 and it was concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Airlines was neither just nor fair nor

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ) proper. It was commended that order dated 14-8-07 , on the strength of which charge sheeted employees were dismissed, cannot be given a favourable node .

13. When question relating to virus of enquiry proceedings has been answered against the management and an industrial dispute for adjudication ofjustifiability and legality of dismissal of the aforesaid employees pends articulation , a proposition arises as to whether approval applications have lost its efficacy. Hence parties were heard . Shri M.A. Niazi , authorised representative , raised hissubmissions on behalf of the Union . Shri M.K. Dwivedi authorised representative , presented his point of view on behalf of the Airlines . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows .

14. In Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( 1976 Lab . I.C 4 ) theApex Court ruled that the jurisdiction under section 33 oftheAct is confined only to see whether a prima facie case has been made out and the Authority " does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or appreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence in domestic enquiry as it is, in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse" for arriving at the finding that the charge has been proved , but struck to the adjudication scrutiny of the domestic enquiry and the bona- fides of the employer. Accordingly , it is open to the Authority under section 33 of the Act to review the findings of fact arrived at in the domestic enquiry , the question of adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence , however, were not considered relevant in this limited jurisdiction, by the Apex Court in Lord Krishna Textiles Mills [ 1961 ( 1 ) L.L.J. 211 ] . The Apex Court detailed the scope of two fold approach to the problem by an Authority under Section 33 of the Act in granting or refusing permission in Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra) in the followingwords :

" Firstly in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employce , the Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal on one or other of the following conditions :

(1) If there is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic enquiry against the concerned employee with reference to the charge or if no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the charge levelled against the employee on the evidence recorded against him in the domestic enquiry. This is what is known as perverse finding.

[ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

(2) Even if there is some legal evidence in the domestic enquiry but there is no prima facie case of guilt made out against the person charged for the offence even on the basis that the evidence so recorded is reliable . Such a case may overlap to some extent with the second part of the condition No. I above . A prima facie case is not , as in a criminal case , a case proved to the hilt .

It must be made clear in following the above principles , one or the other , as may be applicable in a particular case , the Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or reappreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the finding of the enquiry officer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse .

Secondly, in the same case , i.e, where there is no failure of the principles of natural justice in the course of domestic enquiry, ifthe Tribunal finds that dismissal of an employee is by way of victimisation or unfair labour practice, it will then have complete jurisdiction to interefere with the order of dismissal passed in the domestic enquiry. In that event the fact that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the course of the domestic enquiry will absolutely lose its importance or efficacy. " 15. The enquiry contemplated by clause ( b ) of sub section (2 ) of section 33 of the Act , with respect to the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry, is of very limited nature. The Tribunal can disregard the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer only if they are perverse . A finding can be said to be perverse in case not supported by legal evidence . If the finding is not perverse one and if there is a prima facie evidence to support the finding, the Authority under section 33 of the Act cannot refuse to grant approval to the order passed by the management . Reference can be made to K.N. Mohanan [ 1993 ( 11 ) L.L.J. 514 ] . The Apex Court in catena of precedents , in parallel to reference cases under section 10 of the Act has ruled that even under section 33 , where employer had held no enquiry or the domestic enquiry held by him is found to be vitiated by the Tribunal , the right of the employer to justify action of discharge or dismissal taken by him against the delinquent workman by adducing relevant evidence , for the first time before the Authority is well recognized. Reference can be made to the precedents in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 644 ] , Ritz Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd. [ 1962 (II ) LLJ 498 ] , P.H. Kalyani [ 1963 ( I ) LLJ 679] , Motipur Sugar Factory (Pvt. ) Ltd. [ 1965 (II ) LLJ 162] , Jitendra Chandrakar [ 1971 (1) LLJ 543), Ganesh Dutt [ 1972 (1 ) LLJ 172 ) , Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India 1112Gl /2011-12

2913

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र19 , 1933

(Pvt.) Ltd. [ 1973 ( I ) LLJ 278 ] , Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel (supra), Britania Biscuit Company Ltd. [ 1977 ( 1 ) LLJ 197 and K.M. Dev ( 1985 Lab . I.C. 254) . Likewise right of the workman to lead evidence contra has been recognized . In such cases the entire matter is open before the Authority, which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited question of validity of the enquiry and the bona fides of the employer but also to satisfy itself, on facts before it . whether the action was justified . In other words, in such situation jurisdiction of the Authority is not confined to prima facie examination of the employer's action and the Authority can come to his own conclusion on consideration of evidence adduced before it . Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Ltd. (supra) and Radio and Electrical Manufacturing, Company Ltd. [ 1978 ( 11 ) LLJ 131 ] .

16. As detailed above , jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 33 of the Act has been made parallel to its jurisdiction under section 10 of the Act . What the Tribuna ! is required to adjudicate on this approval applications, that very course is available to the parties when dispute referred above would be articulated . Two remedies arc open to the workman viz . he may lodge a complaint under section 33 -A or seek prosecution of the Airlines under section 31 ( 1 ) or may seek a reference under section 10 and have its adjudication when he claims contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act. Since approval application was moved the only recourse adopted by the charge sheeted employees was under section 10 of the Act and a dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication . In case these applications are disposed of, pending adjudication of the reference , doctrine of prejudice cannot rob the Airlines of its right to prove misconduct of the charge sheeted employee and adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . Pendency of these approval applications will onlymultiply the litigation.

17. The rights or defences , which are available to theAirlines in these approval applications , can be claimed by it in the adjudication of the reference . Therefore , it is thought expedient to dispose of these approval applications with a command that disposal of the approval applications by this award will be subject to the outcome ofthe dispute , referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal . Consequently, approval applications are disposed of with a command that the award passed herein would be subject to the findings that wouldbe recorded on adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . An award is , accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 07-01-2011 Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 2914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च, 2011

का. आ. 978.-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 , धनबाद नं. -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20032/346/1994- आई आर(सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011

S.O. 978.--- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/ 1995) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court-2 Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM / s. BCCL , and their workman , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 3-3-2011 .

[No. L-20012/346/ 1994- 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. 120 of 1995

Parties :Employers in relation to the management ofKatras Area of M/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES

Onbehalf of the employers

Mr. H. Nath, Advocate Onbehalf of the workman

: Mr. B. B. Pandey, Advocate State : Jharkhand

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Union for reinstatement ofSri Basant Bhuian, Ex - Miner/ Loader of Keshalpur Colliery w.e.f. 17-2-93 by the management of Keshalpur under Katras Area of M/ s . BCCL is justified ? If so , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. The case of the workman Basant Bhuian , husband of Smt. Sabujwa Bhuini , Wagon Loader, Salanpur Colliery was appointed as Miner /Loader in place ofhis wife under V.R.S. (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) ( Female) . He was posted at Kesalpur Colliery as per letter No. KA/PD/VRS / 323/5200 dated 3 /4-6-87 . He and his wife peacefully lived. Heworked in Kesalpur Colliery for 6 years . But a charge- sheet No. KP / BCCL/ Dy / CME / PD/CS/ 3461 , dated 15-11-91 was issued against him that he got the said employment by fraudulent means , claiming to be the husband of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini . On his show cause reply itwas found unsatisfactory, in the result a domestic enquiry was held by Shri K. S. Singh , Personnel Manager , Katras Area as the Enquiry Officer. The workman participated in it, pleaded not guilty to the charge. He also produced his legal document of marriage having been socially entered with Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini . She had also admitted her marriage with him , but she had complained to the management about her non -maintenance by him. After considering the aforesaid evidence , though the Enquiry Officer found him not guilty ofthe charges , yet the higher management disagreeing with his report ordered for a fresh enquiry.

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad , the 17th January, 2011

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the 1.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/346/94-1.R. (Coal - I ) , dated , the 30th August, 1995.

3. Consequently Shri M. C. Yadav as the Enquiry Officer again held an afresh enquiry . On examination of witnesses , he found the workman guilty of the charges and submitted his report , on the basis of which the workman was dismissed . Since there was no successful conciliation in the industrial dispute raised by the union ofthe workman, hence the industrial dispute came to this Tribunal for adjudication . Further it is pleaded that the case triggered of the complaint of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini and Panku Bhuia, Dumper Khalasi , East Katras Colliery whichwas lodged before P. Jha , P. M. (IR) on 12-11-91 that the workman was not her husband rather her husband was Panku Bhuia. Basant Bhuian was said to be Basanı Beldar, and was actually not the husband of Sabujwa Bhini . Basant Bhuian denied all the allegation as false and mischievous , and produced his registered deed of marriage with her along with the photo copies affixed to it. In the first enquiry both Panku Bhuia and Sabujwa Devi had claimed to be the husband and wife , and had one son and two daughters. The management admitted not to have verified whether they were husband and wife and they had children; although working in different collieries of Katras Area Sabujwa has stated that they were married prior to the nationalisation of the colliery, but the Panku has stated that they were married in 1977. Basant Bhuia 2915 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19, 1933

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

report ' The creation of confusion of all such informations and the circumstances thereof were too difficult to conclude it , so it was requested to appoint other Enquiry Officer to properly evaluate the evidence for definite finding over the relationship between the concerned workman and Smt. Sabujwa Bhuini , as it was a case of serious fraud practiced on the basis of manufactured document . ' stated that Sabujwa insisted for legal marriage on the ground of her doubt that Basant Bhuia might neglect her after getting the job under V. R. S. (Female ) . On the consideration of these facts , the Enquiry Officer K. S. Singh found the workman not guilty of the charge . The first enquiry into the charges against the workman did not prove , so the second enquiry for the same was not necessary. Further pleaded by the workman that the production of Form F of both Sabujwa and Panku Bhuia by the management could have easily proved a decisive factor the appointment ofworkman as fraudulent ifSabujwa was found to be the wife of Panku but that record was not also produced by the management in the second enquiry despite specific point to it . Moreover, the second enquiry for the same unproved charges without its justification is a bone of contention . Because of the fact that mere differences ofthe statements workman and Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini as husband and wife in their respective statement concerning their marriages , age and name of children etc. asnoted in 4 points and accordingly recommended by the Project Officer, for his dismissal. It was agreed by Dy. C. P. M, on whose proposal the order of his dismissal from his service was passed by the G. M. Katras Area which was quite unfair and improper and contrary to the natural justice, for it was based on doubt only and without consideration of the illiterate status of Sabujwa Bhuini as well as the evidence and circumstances of the case . As such the punishment was alleged to be quite unfair. Further pleaded that the workman was chargesheeted after 6 years .

5. Consequently Shri M. C. Yadav, the Personnel Manager of the area as per his appointment letter dated 17-7-92 of Dy. Chief Mining Engineer /Agent of Keshalpur Colliery, held the departmental enquiry as the Enquiry Officer in presence of the workman and his co - worker in accordance with the principle of natural justice . The earlier statement of aforesaid Panku Bhuia , the Dumper Khalasi of East Katras Colliery and Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini were proved by Shri P. Jha as a witness in the Enquiry. On fairly and properly conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer (Shri M. C. Yadav) submitted his enquiry report dated 28-1-1993 that in the service particulars of Panku Bhuia Smt. Sabujuwa Bhuini was shown as his wife, with one son and one daughter aged 6 and 10 years old respectively as their dependents ; since both of them were working in different collieries in the same area , the concerned workman somehow or the other influenced Smt . Sabujwa , and asked her to swear an affidavit declaring him as her husband so that he could get an employment and she could remain peacefully with him as husband and wife . The enquiry report also described the swearing of the affidavitby Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini on 20-11-1985 concerning the workman as her husband due to possibilities of some strain relationship between Panku Bhuia and her. The concerned workman got one marriage certificate on 2-1- 1986 from Shri R. P. Singh , Marriage Officer , Chas . describing him as the husband of Smt. Sabujwa Bhuini . On the consideration of those two documents , the management provided him employment . The fact remained concealed until its knowledge came to Shri Panku Bhuia who knew the details between his wife and the concerned workman, and represented it before the Press as well as before the management , challenging the authority of the so - called marriage and the employment of the concerned workman as the husband of his wife . On due consideration of the matter involved the aforesaid Enquiry Officer, M. C. Yadav gave his finding concerning the workman as not the husband of aforesaid Smt . Sabujwa, as well as the procurement of aforesaid both documents namely affidavit and the marriage certificate after the deal between the workman and Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini as per their settlement possibly based on the possibility of consideration of money payable to her by the workman . The possibility of quarrel amongst them in a period of four years or so was the cause for Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini and her husband Panku Bhuia to report the matter to the management and authorities concerned for drawing the present proceeding . As such the action of the management in dismissal of the workman from his service on the ground ofmisconduct of 4. Whereas specifically denying the allegations made in the W.S. of the workman concerned , the pleaded case of the management it that the workman Basant Beldar appointed in the name of Basant Bhuia as the husband of Sint . Sabujwa Bhuini on her V. R. S conspiredly as per appointment letter dated 3 /4-6-1987 , and he continued to work in the colliery without any objection . In the year 1981 , it came to the light through Newspaper the " Awaj " dated 2-11-91 widely circulated in the locality that Sabujwa Bhuini was really the wife of Shri Panku Bhuia , a workman working in the company in the same area , but she surreptitiously gave the workman her employment on false and fabricated document . She and her husband Panku Bhuia gave their statement under their thumb impression before Shri P. Jha , the Personnel Manager of the Area that Shri Panku Bhuia was her real husband and the workman could not be her husband . On their statement as well as news circulated in the aforesaid newspaper, the workman was issued Chargesheet dated 15-11-1991 by the management for his misconduct of dishonesty and giving false information regarding relationship between the husband and wife under clause 26.1.11 and 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing Order. On his reply to the chargesheet Shri S. K. Singh , the Personnel Manager of Keshalpur Colliery though conducted the departmental enquiry in presence of the workman yet could not give any definite finding to the charges against him mentioning in his enquiry 2916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART 1 ]-SEC. 3 ( ii ) | dishonesty with the forged document was alleged to be legal , justified and no entitlement of any relief to the workman.

Personnel Manager on their complain dated 12-11-91 ( м M -8/9 ) before the Management prove that workman Basant Bhuiya managed to obtain his employment as her fake husband fraudulently in place of her under Voluntary Retirement Scheme ( female) but later on , aforesaid Panku Bhuia and her wife Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini turned hostile as managedby the workman himself. Moreover , the workinan admitted in his statement to have mistakenly left the name ofSmt. Sabujwa Bhuini as a nominee in (his service excerpt ) Form ' F' , so as such the real relation of the workmanits husband of Smt . Sabujwa Bhuini was found ambiguous which is evident from the Inquiry Report (Ext . M-3) .

9. On the aforesaid ground, Shri M. C. Yadav ( the then Personnel Manager ) of Katras Area Office , as the InquiryOfficer held the workman concerned as the guilty of the charges . But the workman Basant Bhuia as WW - i insupport of his claim as also stated in his reply ( Ext . M- 2) that he was the husband of Smt. Sabujwa Bhuini but he has stated in his deposition that Patiku Bhuia had stated in the enquiry proceeding that this Sabujwa Bhuini was not the wife rather another Sabujwa Bhuini was his wife. Butthe evidence of the workman about the existence of two women Sabujwa Bhuini being unpleaded is inadmissible in the eye of law. The workman's claim as the husband ofdisputed lady Sabujwa Bhuini rests upon the photo copy ofhis marriage certificate ( Ext . W- 1 ) which is not conclusive proof of his marriage with Sabujwa Bhuini because it relates to his alleged marriage with her on 23-6- 79 which is apparently contrary to his oral evidence that he was married to her in 1976-78 . The proof of death certificate of Sabujwa Bhuini as Ext. W- 2 by him in course of his deposition has been proved to show him as her husband but this fact in lack ofpleading closes its probity inthe eye of law.

6. As per the proved materials available on the case record, I find MW - 2 Kripa Sankar Singh known as K. S. Singh, the Personnel Manager, as the Enquiry officer after holding initial domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman ( in the year 1991 ) submitted his report Ext.M-5--" I fail to arrive into any conclusion . I requested the management to take up further enquiry against the concerned workman thereafter I was transferred to Block- II Area" as apparent from his deposition before this Tribunal . Since the first enquiry report (Ext. M- 5 ) lacked concrete conclusion of the aforesaid Mr. K. S. Singh (the first enquiry officer) on account of certain confusion rendering it too difficult for him to hold the concerned workman guilty for the charges stated in the chargesheet . MW- 3 M. C. Yadav, Personnel Manager of Kessurgarh Colliery under the same Katras Area was duly appointed as the enquiry officer to hold the second domestic enquiry (" denovo" ) against the workman in the year 1992 identifying all the papers relating to the enquiry proceeding , he proved the enquiry proceeding as Ext . M- 1 to M- 11. After completion of the domestic enquiry he submitted his enquiry report (Ext . M -9) to the Disciplinary authority wherein he had found the concerned workman guilty of the charges and thereafter the concerned workman was dismissed from his service. The evidence of MW- I Deepak Kumar Viswakarma as the Legal Assistant ofKatras office confirms his full awareness of the facts . So the aforesaid documents were produced and marked as exhibits mentioned above on the formal proof dispensed with. But the aforesaid MW-3 M. C. Yadav has proved all those documents concerning the enquiry proceeding as earlier mentioned which include chargesheet , the enquiry report dated 28-1-93 , notesheet and the dismissal order which have been proved as Exts . M- 1 , M -9, M - 10 and Ext . M-11 respectively by the aforesaid Enquiry Officer before the Tribunal , whereas WW- I Basant Bhuia who is the workman himself has proved his two documents , the photo copy of alleged marriage certificate as Ext . W- 1 , (on no objection) and the death certificate in original of Sabujwa Bhuini as Ext . W- 2 in support of his own case or claim.

7. Going through the documentary proof namely the Inquiry Report (Ext . M-9) in view of the charges under clause 26.1.11 and 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing order (hereinafter referred to as C.S.O) , I find that the finding of MW- 3 M. C. Yadav as the Enquiry Officer /Personnel Manager is based on the statement of Shri Ramji Singh , the management representative , Panku Bhuia and P. Jha , the Personnel Manager ( both latter as Management witness No. 1 and 2 respectively) on behalf of the management and the statement of workman Basant Bhuia .

8. The statements of Panku Bhuia and his wife Smt. Sabujwa Bhuini personally recorded by Shri P. Jha the

10. In the light of the evidence adduced on behalfof both the parties , Shri B. B. Pandey, the Ld . Counsel for the workman has submitted that no charges as levelled against the workman have been proved by the management and that he should be reinstated in service with back wages . Whereas Shri H. Nath , Ld. Advocate for the management seems to have irrationally conceded accordingly in favour ofthe workman but without back wages perhaps in view of the domestic enquiry which was already held unfair. But in the instant case after its scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties I find that out of two charges only the charge under clause 26.1.12 has been proved by the management crystal clearly against the concerned workman Basant Bhuia who gave faise information regarding particulars of one Sabujwa Bhuini as his own wife for the purpose of the present employment. Accordingly on the recommendation (Ext . M - 10 ) of the Project Officer , Keshalpur Colliery which is based on the enquiry report (Ext. M -9) of Shri M. C. Yadav as the Enquiry Officer, the workman Shri Basant Bhuia has been dismissed from his service under clause 27.2.6 of the Certified Standing [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Order by the General Manager , Katras Area on 12-2-93 as perletter dated 14/ 17-2-93 ( Ext . M - 11 ) issued by the project Officer concerned to the workman in view of the gravity of his aforesaid proved misconduct . Accordingly. I hold that any employment obtained on false information is non -entity or non - est concerning this workman.

11. Under the circumstances , I find and hold that the demand of the union for reinstatement of Basant Bhuia , Ex - Miner / Loader, Keshalpur Colliery with effect from 17-2-93 by the management of Keshalpur Colliery under Katras Area of BCCL is quite unjustified . So the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever .

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 979. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरोफ्लोट रशियन एयरलाईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , दिल्ली नं. - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था !

[सं. एल -11012/04/ 2008 - आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011

S.O. 979. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 13/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court - 1 , Delhi , as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Aeroflot Russion Airlines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-3-2011 .

[No. L - 11012/04 /2008 - IR( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

L.D. No. 13/2010

M/ s. Aeroflot Russian Airlines ,

Ground Floor , 15-17 , Tolstoy House ,

Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi - 110001

Applicant/Management

Versus

Shri Sunil Kumar Rathi ,

S/ o Sh . Mukhtiar Singh ,

Nazafgarh , Pole No. 19 ,

R/ o Vill . Goyala Khurd , New Delhi - 110071 .

Respondent/Workman

2917

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

AWARD

Ground handling services were undertaken by Aeroflot Russian International Airlines , ( hereinafter referred to as the Airlines ) at I.GI. Airport , New Delhi . The Airlines has employed a handful of employees for that purpose . Vide circular dated 28th of September , 2007, Director General Civil Aviation , took a decision to enlist agencies which can undertake ground handling services on various aerodrums . In anticipation of that decision , a press release was made by the Press Information Bureau , Government of India, New Delhi on 1st of February, 2007, informing that approval has been granted by Ministry of Civil Aviation regarding ground handling policy at Metropolitan Airports , including 1.G.I. Airport , New Delhi . It was detailed in the Press Release that ground handling services at Metropolitan Airports would be carried out by respective Airport Operators itself by its joint venture and the Airlines , involved in ground handling will not be permitted to undertake self handling w.e.f. 1st of January , 2009. On the date of the press release , the Airlines was doing self handling at IGI Airport , New Delhi . The Press Release made employees of the Airlines paniky about their future . They started approaching other agencies for employment and informed the Airlines that they would take employment elsewhere . 22 employees including operators of the Airlines tendered their resignation in August , 2007. Since ramp ground handling service require high level of cooperation and team work in a fixed time frame hence ramp ground handling services cannot be engaged in peace - meal and on account of resignation of its employees the Airlines took a decision to request Combta Civil Aviation Pvt . Ltd. , to provide complete ramp ground handling service to them.

2. Aeroflot Employees Union ( hereinafter referred to as the Union ) raised an industrial dispute against the Airlines through demand letter dated 2nd of May, 2005 . Since the Airlines failed to consider their demands , the Union was left with no option but to initiate conciliation proceedings by way of filing a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed , a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government . On consideration of that failure report , the appropriate Government had referred a dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L- 11012/ 11 / 2006 - IR ( CM - I ) , New Delhi dated 1st of June , 2006 wherein issues relating to demand of proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions applicable to the employees of the Airlines , doing ground handling jobs , were sent for adjudication .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

Airlines, besides allegations that the aforesaid employees , who were working from last 12 years , claimed that they were not aware for whom they were working despite the fact that they were employees of the Airlines . Replies , submittedby the aforesaid employees to the charge sheets referred above , were found to be not satisfactory. The Airlines took a decision to hold a domestic enquiry in the charges levelled against the aforesaid employees and appointed an Enquiry Officer vide order dated 4-5-07 . The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry ex - parte , when charge sheeted employees opted not to participate in the enquiry. He submitted his report dated 1-8-07 to the Airlines. Show cause notice dated 4-8-07 against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service was served on charge sheeted employees . Explanation offered by the charge sheeted employees were found to be not satisfactory. Charge sheeted employees were dismissed from service vide order dated 14-8-07 . The Airlines preferred approval applications , as contemplated by clause (b) ofSub - section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) and paid an amount of Rs. 7500 each to them , being equal to one month's salary, by money orders dated 14-8-2007 , in lieu of one month's notice. A prayer was made to this Tribunal to accord approval to the action ofAirlines in dismissing the services of the charge sheeted employees .

4. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President , Rishi PalwasGeneral Secretary, Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was ordinary member of the union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them, by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from A.L.C. in that regard . It was agitated that when Airlines failed to respond to their applications within 15 days time frame, it was assumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman. A claim was made that the Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman, save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal before whom dispute , relating to proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions , was pending adjudication . The Union projected that the approval applications , moved by the Airlines are irrelevant , since an industrial dispute pends adjudication . A claim was made that the approval applications may be dismissed.

5.When report of the Enquiry Officer was under consideration, the Union moved an application before this Tribunal on 16-7-2007 , seeking directions to restrain the Airlines from changing service conditions of members of theUnion , besides seeking status of protected employees in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the Act read with rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central) Rules 1957 ( in short the Rules) . The said application was disposed of by this tribunal vide order dated 13-8-2007, commanding the Airlines to comply the provisions of

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) } Section 33 of theAct , in case it opts to discharge or dismiss the charge sheeted employees .

6. The Airlines dismissed the employees referred above, which issue was raised by them before Conciliation Officer by way of filing a claim statement. Conciliation proceedings resulted into a failure . Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the appropriate Government , as contemplatedby sub - section (4) of section 12 of the Act. On consideration of the said failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L - 110012/4 /2008-1R( CM- I) , New Delhi , dated 14th ofAugust , 2008 with following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Russian International Airlines, New Delhi , in dismissing the services of S / Shri Suresh Kumar, Jagpal , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Rishi Pal is justified and legal ?

2. To what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"

7. Claim statement was filed , in response to the above reference, by the Union pleading that despite orders passed by this Tribunal , the Airlines terminated services of two office bearers and one ordinary members of the Union, who were protected employees . It went on to detail that the Union sought status of protected workman from the Airlines vide its letter dated 12th of December , 2006 , which communication was not responded to . Though there was an obligation on the Airlines to reply the said communication within a period of 15 days , as contemplated by Sub - rule (2) of Rule 61 of the Rules , yet the Airlines opted to maintain an eerie silence . The Union moved Assistant Labour Commissioner for seeking a declaration ofprotected workman . Since the aforesaid employees werc protected workmen . The Airlines was under an obligation to obtain prior permission of this Tribunal to terminate their services . Since their case was coveredby Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Act , the approval applications moved by theAirlines are irrelevant . The Airlines acted in utter disregard to the order dated 13-8-2007 passed by the Tribunal . It was projected that this Tribunal may not approve the illegal action taken by the Airlines , dismissing the aforesaid employees from their services and to reinstate them in service with continuity, full backwages . and consequential benefits .

8. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President , Shri Rishi Pal was General Secretary, Japal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was the ordinary member of the Union . The Union sought status of protected workmen for them by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from Assistant Labour Commissioner in that regard . It was agitated that when the Airlines failed to reply their application within 15 days time frame , it was presumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workmen . The Airlines cannot terminate 2919 [भाग II----खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र19 ,1933

fair and justified ? Ifyes , whether approval needs to be graned to the management ?

3. Relief

services of protected workman , save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal , before whom dispute relating to the issue raised by the Union for proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions was pending adjudication . Approval applications are irrelevant , claims the Union .

11. Though no issue as to virus of the enquiry proceedings was settled in the approval application , yet the Tribunal thought it expedient to deal that proposition atthresh -hold . Parties called upon to adduce evidence on thatproposition . To discharge onus resting on it, Airlines examined Shri Jiteshh Pandey, the Enquiry Officer . The Union brought Shri Suresh Kumar in the witness box to rebut facts unfolded by Shri Pandy. No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

13. When question relating to virus of enquiry proceedings has been answered against the management and an industrial dispute for adjudication ofjustifiability and legality of dismissal of the aforesaid employees pends articulation , a proposition arises as to whether approval applications have lost its efficacy. Hence parties were heard Shri M.A. Niazi , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the Union , Shri M.K. Dwivedi authorised representative , presented his point of view on behalf of the Airlines . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows .

9. The Airlines demurred the claim that the employees referred above had committed serious acts of misconduct , hence they were charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 5th of April , 2007. Explanation submitted by them were found to be unsatisfactory, hence a decision was taken to hold domestic enquiry . Shri Jitesh Pandey, an independent and impartial person , was appointed as Enquiry Officer , vide letter dated 4-5-2007 . Shri Pandey conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and submitted his report dated it of August , 2007to the Airlines . Since charges stood proved against the aforesaid employees , they were served with a show cause notice dated 4-8-2007 , along with the copy of the enquiry report , calling them to submit their explanations as to why they should not be dismissed from service . Explanation submitted by them were considered and found to be unsatisfactory. The Airlines decided to dismiss their services . Accordingly their services were dismissed vide letter dated 14-8-2007 . Since an industrial dispute was pending before this Tribunal , approval applications as contemplated by clause ( b ) of Sub - section ( 2) of Section 33 of the Act were moved and simultaneously one months salary was sent to them by money order it hasbeendisputed that the aforesaid employees were protected workmen . The Airlines claimed that letter dated 13-12-06 and its postal receipts were manipulated documents . No such letter was ever received by Airlines , hence there was no question of its reply . It has been projected that when ramp ground handling services were givento Combata Civil Aviation Pvt . Ltd. , the Airlines had to retrench 29 employees on 14th of September, 2007. Since the Airlines is not doing ramp ground handling services , claim of the Union for reinstatement of the services of the aforesaid employees had become infructuous . The Airlines projected that the provisions of clause (b ) of Sub- section (2 ) of Section 33 of the Act are applicable to the controversy under reference , hence approval applications were moved . The dismissed employees were never declared as protected employees , hence claim of the Union that provisions of Sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 33 of the Act are attracted , is uncalled for. It has been agitated that the dispute referred by the Government may be dismissed and action of dismissal of the aforesaid employees may be approved.

10. On approval applications following issues were settled:

1. Whether the claimant was protected workman ?

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

under section 33 of the Act in granting or refusing permission in Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra ) in the following words :

" Firstly in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employee , the Tribual can interefere with an order of dismissal on one or other of the following conditions :

( 1 ) If there is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic enquiry against the concerned employee with reference to the charge or if no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the charge levelled against the employee on the evidence recorded against him in the domestic enquiry . This is what is known as perverse finding .

(2) Even if there is some legal evidence in the domestic enquiry but there is no prima facie case of guilt made out against the person charged for the offence even on the basis that the evidence so recorded is reliable . Such a case may overlap to some extent with the second part of the condition No. 1 above . A prima facie case is not, as in a criminal case , a case proved to the hilt.

Authority under Section 33. of the Act cannot refuse to grant approval to the order passed by the management. Reference can be made to K.N. Mohanan [ 1993 ( II ) L.L.J. 514 ] . The Apex Court in catena of precedents , in parallel to reference cases under Section 10 of the Act has ruled that even under Section 33 , where employer had held no enquiry or the domestic enquiry held by him is found to be vitiated by the Tribunal , the right of the employer to justify action of discharge or dismissał taken by him against the delinquent workman by adducing relevant evidence , of or the first time before the Authority is well recognized . Reference can be made to the precedents in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 644 ] , Ritz Theatre ( Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1962 ( II ) LLJ 498 ] , P.H. Kalyani [ 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 679 ] , Motipur Sugar Factory ( Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1965 ( II ) LLJ 1621 Jitendra Chandrakar [ 1971 ( 1 ) LLJ 543 ] , Ganesh Dutt [ 1972 ( I ) LLJ 172 ] , Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1973 ( 1 ) LLJ 278 ] , Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra ) , Britania Biscuit Company Ltd. [ 1977 ( 1 ) LLJ 197 and K.M. Dev ( 1985 Lab . I.C. 254 ) . Likewise right of the workman to lead evidence contra has been recognized . In such cases the entire matter is open before the Authority. which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited question of validity of the enquiry and the bonafides of the employer but also to satisfy itself, on facts before it . whether the action was justified . In other words , in such situation jurisdiction of the Authority is not confined to prima facie examination of the employer's action and the Authority can come to his own conclusion on consideration of evidence adduced before it . Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur. Sugar Factory Pvt . Ltd. ( supra ) , Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Ltd. (supra ) and Radio and Electricals Manufacturing Company Ltd. [ 1978 ( II ) LLJ 131 ] .

It must be made clear in following the above principles , one or the other , as may be applicable in a particular case , the Tribunal does not sit as a Court of appeal , weighing or reappreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse .

16. As detailed above , jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act has been made parallel to its jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act . What the Tribunal is required to adjudicate on this approval application , that very course is available to the parties when dispute referred above would be articulated . Two remedies are open to the workman viz . he may lodge a complaint under Section 33 -A or seek prosecution of the Airlines under Section 31 ( 1 ) or may seek a reference under Section 10 and have its adjudication when he claims contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act . Since approval application was moved the only recourse adopted by the charge sheeted employees was under Section 10 of the Act and a dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication . In case these applications are disposed of, pending adjudication of the reference , doctrine of prejudice cannot rob the Airlines of its right to prove misconduct of the charge sheeted employee and adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . Pendency of these approval applications will only multiply the litigation .

15. The enquiry contemplated by clause ( b ) of Sub section ( 2 ) of Section 33 of the Act , with respect to the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry, is of very limited nature . The Tribunal can disregard the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer only if they are perverse . A finding can be said to be perverse in case not supported by legal evidence . If the finding is not perverse one and if there is a prima facie evidence to support the finding , the [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

17. The rights of defences , which are available to the Airlines in these approval applications , can be claimed by it in the adjudication of the reference . Therefore , it is thought expedient to disposal of these approval applications with a command that disposal ofthe approval applications by this award will be subject to the outcome ofthe dispute, referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal . Consequently, approval applications are disposed of with a command that the award passed herein would be subject to the findings that would be recorded on adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . An award is , accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated : 7-1-2011 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 980.---औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरफ्लोट रसियन एयरलाइन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय दिल्ली नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/04/2008- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011

S.O. 980. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 12/ 2010) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court - 1 , Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Aeroflot Russian Airlines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-3-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/4/2008 - IR (C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 12/2010

M/s. Aeroflot Russian Airlines ,

Ground Floor, 15-17 , Tolstoy House ,

Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi - 110001

... Applicant/Management

Versus

1112GI/2011-13

2921

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

Shri Suresh Kumar,

S/o . Harichander,

R/ o . 1443 , Saini Mohalla,

Nazafgarh ,

New Delhi - 110043

Respondent/Workman

AWARD

Ground handling services were undertaken by Aeroflot Russian International Airlines , (hereinafter referred to as the Airlines) at L.G.I. Airport , New Delhi . Tie Airlines has employed a handful of employees for that purpose. Vide circular dated 28th of September, 2007 Director General Civil Aviation , took a decision to enlist agencies which can undertake ground handling services on various aerodrums . In anticipation of that decision , a press release was made by the Press Information Burcau . Government of India, New Delhi on Ist of February, 2007 , informing that approval has been granted by Ministry of Civil Aviation regarding ground handling policy at MetroplitanAirports , including I.G..I . Airport , New Delhi . Itwas detailed in the Press Release that ground handling services at Metroplitan Airports would be carried out by respective Airport Operators itself by its joint venture and the Airlines , involved in ground handling will not be permitted to undertake self handling w.e.f. 1st of January, 2009. On the date of the press release, the Airlines was doing selfhandling at 1.G.I. Airport, New Delhi . The Press Release made employees of the Airlines paniky about their future . They started approaching other agenties for employment and informed the Airlines that they would take employment elsewhere . 22 employees including operators of the Airlines tendered their resignation in August , 2007. Since ramp ground handling service require high level of cooperation and team work in a fixed time frame hence ramp ground handling services cannot be engaged in peace- meal and on account of resignation of its employees the Airlines took a decision to request Combata Civil Aviation Pvt .. Ltd. , to provide complete ramp ground handling service to them .

2. Aeroflot Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) raised an industrial dispute against the Airlines trough demand letter dated 2nd of May 2005. Since the Airlines failed to consider their demands , the Union was left with no option but to initiate conciliation proceedings by way of filing a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer. When conciliation proceedings failed, a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government . On consideration of that failure report , the appropriate Government had referred a dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L- 11012/ 11 /2006 - IR( CM - 1 ) , New Delhi dated 1st of June , 2006 wherein issues relating to demand of proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions applicable to the employees of the Airlines , doing ground handling jobs, were sent for adjudication .

2922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

3. During the pendency of the said dispute for adjudication , Rishi Pal , Suresh Kumar, Sunil Kumar Rathi and Jagpal were served with charge sheet , wherein allegations were levelled that on 28-3-07 , it was reported by them to a news channel that there was a great security threat at I.G.I. Airport , New Delhi due to actions of the Airlines , besides allegations that the aforesaid employees , who were working from last 12 years , claimed that they were not aware for whom they were working despite the fact that they were employees of the Airlines . Replies , submitted by the aforesaid employees to the charge sheets referred above, were found to be not satisfactory. The Airlines took a decision to hold a domestic enquiry in the charges levelled against the aforesaid employees and appointed an Enquiry Officer vide order dated 4-5-07 . The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry ex - parte , when charge sheeted employees opted not to participate in the enquiry. He submitted his report dated 1-8-07 to the Airlines . Show cause notice dated 4-8-07 against the proposed punishment ofdismissal from service was served on charge sheeted employees . Explanation offered by the charge sheeted employees were found to be not satisfactory. Charge sheeted employees were dismissed from service vide order dated 14-8-07 . The Airlines preferred approval applications , as contemplated by clause (b) of sub - section (2) of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (in short the Act ) and paid an amount of Rs . 7500 each to them , being equal to one month's salary, by money orders dated 14-8-2007 , in lieu of one month's notice. A prayer was made to this Tribunal to accord approval to the action ofAirlines in dismissing the services of the charge sheeted employees .

4. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President, Rishi Halwas General Secretary, Jagpal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was ordinary member ofthe union . The Union sought status of protected workman for them , by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration fromA.L.C. in that regard . It was agitated that when Airlines aled to respond to their applications within 15 days time Fame , it was assumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman. A claim was made hat the Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman, save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal before whom dispute , relating to proper pay cales and other facilities under well defined service conditions, was pending adjudication . The Union projected that the approval applications , moved by the Airlines are irrelevant, since an industrial dispute pends adjudication. A ciaim was made that the approval applications may be dismissed.

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) | the Union , besides seeking status ofprotected employees in terms of sub- section (4) of Section 33 of the Act read with rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 (in short the Rules ) . The said application was disposed of by this tribunal vide order dated 13-8-2007 . commanding the Airlines to comply the provisions of Section 33 ofthe Act , in case it opts to discharge or dismiss the charge sheeted employees .

6. The Airlines dismissed the employees referred above , which issue was raised by them before Conciliation Officer by way of filing a claim statement . Conciliation proceedings resulted into a failure. Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the appropriate Government, as contemplated by sub- section (4) of Section 12 of the Act . On consideration of the said failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L - 11012/4/2008 - IR( CM - I) , New Delhi , dated 14th ofAugust , 2008 with following terms :

"Whether the action of the management of Russian International Airlines , New Delhi , in dismissing the services of S / Shri Suresh Kumar , Jagpal , Sunil Kumar Rathi and Rishi Pal is justified and legal ?

2. To what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"

7. Claim statement was filed , in response to the above reference, by the Union pleading that despite orders passed by this Tribunal , the Airlines terminated services oftwo office bearers and one ordinary member of the Union, who were protected employees . It went on to detail that the Union sought status of protected workman from the Airlines vide its letter dated 13th of December , 2006 , which communication was not responded to. Though there was an obligation on the Airlines to reply the said communication within a period of 15 days , as contemplated by sub - rule (2 ) of rule 61 of the Rules , yet the Airlines opted to maintain an eerie silence . The Union moved Assistant Labour Commissioner for seeking a declaration ofprotected workman. Since the aforesaid employees were protected workmen , The Airlines was under an obligation to obtain prior permission of this Tribunal to terminate their services . Since their case was covered by sub- section (3) of Section 33 of the Act , the approval applications moved by the Airlines are irrelevant . The Airlines acted in utter disregard to the order dated 13-8-2007 passed by the Tribunal . It was projected that this Tribunal may not approve the illegal action taken by the Airlines, dismissing the aforesaid employees from their services and to reinstate them in service with continuity, full back wages, and consequential benefits .

8. In reply to the approval applications it was projected that Shri Suresh Kumar was the President , Shri Rishi Pal was General Secretary, Jaipal was Secretary and Sunil Kumar Rathi was the ordinary member of the Union .

2923 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

action of dismissal of the aforesaid employees may be approved .

10. On approval applications following issues were settled :

( 1 ) Whether the claimant was protected workman ?

(2) Whether action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal . fair andjustified ? Ifyes , whether approval needs to be granted to the management ?

(3) Relief.

The Union sought status of protected workmen for them by moving appropriate applications as well as seeking declaration from Assistant Labour Commissioner in that regard . It was agitated that when the Airlines failed to reply their application within 15 days time frame, it was presumed that the aforesaid employees were granted status of protected workman . The Airlines cannot terminate services of protected workman , save with express permission in writing of the Tribunal , before whom dispute relating to the issue raised by the Union for proper pay scales and other facilities under well defined service conditions was pending adjudication . Approval applications are irrelevant , claims the Union .

11. Though no issue as to virus of the enquiry proceedings was settled in the approval application , yet the Tribunal thought it expedient to deal that proposition atthresh - hold . Parties called upon to adduce evidence on thatproposition . To discharge onus resting on it , Airlines examined Shri Jitesh Pandey, the Enquiry Officer . The Union brought Shri Suresh Kumar in the witness box to rebut facts unfolded by Shri Pandy. No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

12. After hearing Shri M.K. Dwivedi , authorized representative for the Airlines , and Shri M.A. Niazi , authorized representative of the Union and on appreciation. ofevidence produced by the parties, issue relating to virus of the enquiry was adjudicated vide order dated 12-11-2010 and it was concluded that the enquiry conducted by the Airlines was neither just nor fair nor proper. It was commanded that order dated 14-8-07, on the strength of which charge sheeted employees were dismissed, cannot be given a favourable node.

13. When question relating to virus of enquiry proceedings has been answered against the management and an industrial dispute for adjudication of justifiability and legality ofdismissal of the aforesaid employees pends articulation , a proposition arises as to whether approval applications have lost its efficacy . Hence parties were heard Shri M.A. Niazi , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the Union . Shri M.K. Dwivedi authorised representative , presented his point of view on behalf of the Airlines . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows .

14. In Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( 1976 Lab . I.C. 4 ) theApex Court rules that the jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Act is confined only to see whether a prima facie case has been made out and the Authority " does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or appreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence in domestic enquiry as it is , in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse " for arriving at the finding that the charge has been proved , but struck to the 9. The Airlines demurred the claim that the employees referred above had committed serious acts of misconduct , hence they were charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 5th ofApril , 2007. Explanation submitted by them were found to be unsatisfactory, hence a decision was taken to hold domestic enquiry. Shri Jitesh Pandey, an independent and impartial person, was appointed as Enquiry Officer , vide letter dated 4-5-2007 . Shri Pandey conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and submitted his report dated 1st of August , 2007 to the Airlines . Since charges stood proved against the aforesaid employees , they were served with a show cause notice dated 4-8-2007 , alongwith the copy of the enquiry report , calling them to submit their explanations as to why they should not be dismissed from service . Explanation submitted by them were considered and found to be unsatisfactory. The Airlines decided to dismiss their services . Accordingly their services were dismissed vide letter dated 14-8-2007 . Since an industrial dispute was pending before this Tribunal , approval applications as contemplated by clause (b ) of sub- section (2 ) of Section 33 of the Act were moved and simultaneously one month's salary was sent to them by money order. It has been disputed that the aforesaid employees were protected workmen . The Airlines claimed that letter dated 13-12-06 and its postal receipts were manipulated documents . No such letter was ever received by Airlines , hence there was no question of its reply. It has been projected that when ramp ground handling services were given to Combata CivilAviation Pvt . Ltd , the Airlines had to retrench 29 employees on 14th of September , 2007. Since the Airlines is not doing ramp ground handling services , claim of the Union for reinstatement of the services of the aforesaid employees had become infructuous . The Airlines projected that the provisions of clause (b ) of sub - section (2 ) of Section 33 of the Act are applicable to the controversy under reference , hence approval applications were moved . The dismissed employees were never declared as protected employees , hence claim of the Union that provisions of sub - section (3 ) of section 33 of the Act are attracted, is uncalled for. It has been agitated that the dispute referred by the Government may be dismissed and THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] adjudication scrutiny of the domestic enquiry and the bona fides of the employer . Accordingly , it is open to the Authority under section 33 of the Act to review the findings of fact arrived at in the domestic enquiry, the question of adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence , however, were not considered relevant in this limited jurisdiction, by the Apex Court in Lord Krishna Textiles Mills [ 1961 ( 1 ) L.L.J. 211 ] . The Apex Court detailed the scope of two fold approach to the problem by an Authority under, section 33 of the Act in granting or refusing permission in Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra) in the following words:

" Firstly in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employee , the Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal on one or other of the following conditions :

( 1 ) If there is no legal evidence at all recorded in the domestic enquiry against the concerned employee with reference to the charge or if no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt on the charge levelled against the employee on the evidence recorded against him in the domestic enquiry . This is what is known as perverse finding .

(2) Even if there is some legal evidence in the domestic enquiry but there is no prime facie case of guilt made out against the person charged for the offence even on the basis that the evidence so recorded is reliable . Such a case may overlap to some extent with the second part of the condition No. 1 above . A prima facie case is not , as in a criminal case , a case proved to the hilt.

15. The enquiry contemplated by clause ( b ) of sub section ( 2 ) of section 33 of the Act , with respect to the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry, is of very limited nature . The Tribunal can disregard the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer only if they are perverse . A finding can be said to be poiverse in case not supporte by legal evidence. If the finding is not perverse vane and if there is a prima facie evidence to support the finding , the Authority under section 33 of the Act cannot refuse to grant approval to the order passed by the managem Reference can be made to K.N. Mohanan [ 1993 ( 11 ) L..L.J . 514 ] . The Apex Court in catena of precedents . in parallel to reference cases under section 10 of the Act has led that even under section 33 , where employer had hela enquiry or the domestic enquiry held by him is found to be vitiated by the Tribunal , the right of the employer ic justify action of discharge or dismissal taken by him against the delinquent workman by adducing relevant evidence, for the first time before the Authority is well recognized . Reference can be made to the precedents in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 644 ] , Ritz Theatre (Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1962 ( II ) LLJ 498 ] , P.H. Kalyani [ 1963 ( I ) LLJ 679 ] , Motipur Sugar Factory ( Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1965 ( 11 ) LLJ 162 | Jitendra Chandrakar [ 1971 ( 1 ) LLJ 543 ] , Ganesh Dutt [ 1972 ( 1 ) LLJ 172 ] , Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India ( Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1973 ( I ) LLJ 278 ] , Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel ( supra ) , Britania Biscuit Company Ltd. ( 1977 ( 1 ) LLJ 197| and K.M. Dev ( 1985 Lab . I.C. 254 ) . Likewise right of the workman to lead evidence contra has been recognized . In such cases the entire matter is open before the Authority. which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited question of validity of the enquiry and the bona fides of the employer but also to satisfy itself, on facts before it . whether the action was justified . In other words , in such situation jurisdiction of the Authority is not confined 10 prima facie examination of the employer's action and the Authority can come to his own conclusion on consideration of evidence adduced before it . Reference can be made to the precedent in Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt . Ltd. ( supra) , Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Ltd. ( supra ) and Radio and Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd. [ 1978 ( II ) LLJ 131 ] .

It must be made clear in following the above principles , one or the other , as may be applicable in a particular case , the Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or reappreciating the evidence for itself but only examines the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is in order to find out either whether there is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse .

16. As detailed above , jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 33 of the Act has been made parallel to its jurisdiction under section 10 of the Act . What the Tribunal is required to adjudicate on this approval application , that very course is available to the parties when dispute referred abovewould be articulated . Two remedies are open to the workman viz . he may lodge a complaint under section 33- A or seek prosecution of the Airlines under section 31 ( 1 ) or may seek a reference under section 10 and have its adjudication when he claims contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the Act . Since approval application was moved the only recourse adopted by the charge sheeted employees was under section 10 of the Secondly, in the same case , i.e , where there is no failure of the principles of natural justice in the course of domestic enquiry , ifthe Tribunal finds that dismissal of an employee is by way of victimisation or unfair labour practice , it will then have complete jurisdiction to interfere withthe order of dismissal passed in the domestic enquiry. In that event the fact that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the course of the domestic enquiry will absolutely lose its importance or efficacy. " [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Act and a dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication . In case these applications are disposed of, pending adjudication of the reference, doctrine of prejudice cannot rob the Airlines of its right to prove misconduct of the charge sheeted employee and adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . Pendency of these approval applications will only multiply the litigation.

17. The rights or defences , which are available to the Airlines in these approval applications , can be claimed by it in the adjudication of the reference . Therefore , it is thought expedient to dispose of these approval applications with a command that disposal of the approval applications by this award will be subject to the outcome of the dispute , referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal . Consequently , approval applications are disposed of with a command that the award passed herein would be subject to the findings that would be recorded on adjudication of the dispute referred by the appropriate Government . An award is , accordingly , passed .It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 07-01-2011 Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 981.-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 नं.-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 293/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 117/1999- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2011

S.O. 981. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 293 / 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 2 , Dhanbad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-3- 2011 .

[No. L - 20012 / 117 / 1999-1R ( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT:

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1) ( d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947

2925

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

Reference No. 293 of 1999

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of C.C.I .. and their workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Mr. D. Mukherjee , Advocate workman

On behalf of the Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate employers

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated , Dhanbad , the 18th January, 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/ 117 / 99 - IR ( C - 1 ) , dated , the 4th August , 1999 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Bishun Ram , L.D.C. by the CCL Management from service w.e.f. 9-10-1988 is justified , proper and legal ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. The case of workman as sponsored by the Union as pleaded in the written Statement is that Sri Bishun Ram had been working as a permanent employee at Sirka Colliery of M/ s . Central Coalfield Ltd. since long with unblemished record of service . Though he promptly submitted his reply to the false and baseless allegations contained in the charge sheetdt . 28-10-95 yet the management mala fide dismissed him from his services for his alleged misconducts :

I. Theft , fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Employer's business or property.

II . Wilful in subordination or disobedience whether alone or inconjunction with other or any lawful or reasonable order of a superior.

III . Habitual late attendances and absence without leave or sufficient cause .

IV. Habitual indiscipline .

V. Leaving work without permission or sufficient reason .

The Enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice , for a biased person was appointed as the Enquiry Officer , who conducted the enquiry without completing the cross - examination of one 2926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

any dispute relating to subsistence allowance in no way vitiates and enquiry proceeding.

FINDING WITH REASONS

3. The perusal of the case record transpires that previously by Order dated 15-12-2005 , the Tribunal . ascertained the domestic enquiry was held fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice in this case . So the case matured for hearing argument on merit.

4. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Tribunal by Section 11A of the I.D. Act , 1947 , I have scrutinised the materiais available on the record.

after another witness . Accordingly, the Enquiry Report unbased on the materials/evidence unreasonably submitted was perverse . The perverse finding amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice . Non - payment of subsistence allowance or even wages at the places of his frequent transfers on the dramatic evasive grounds of his non -joining to the workman during his suspension pending his enquiry until his dismissal is quite illegal , and it vitiates the entire enquiry . The workman was dismissed from his service for the charges which have not been conclusively proved . Though he filed an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority yet in vain . Even the industrial dispute raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Ranchi failed for the -adament attitude of the management. The dismissal of the workman is pleaded unjustified and illegal , so he is entitled to re- instatement with full back wages .

5. In the instant case , as per evidence of solitary witness Bijoy Swaroop as MW- 1 who was the Personnel Manager, and held the domestic enquiry as the legally authorised Enquiry Officer ( Ext . M-3 ) into the charges as per the Charge sheet ( Ext . M - 1 ) . The workman submitted his reply ( Ext . M -2) . On notice ( Ext . M- 4) to the workman. the workman appeared and detended his case through his co-worker Soab Khan. In course of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses of both the parties including that of the concerned workman as Ext . M - 5 . The Enquiry Proceeding papers in the pen and signature of the aforesaid Enquiry Officer (MW- 1 ) are Ext . M - 6 , series , and the signatures of the workman on the proceeding papers are Ext . M - 7 series . and accordingly the signatures of Soab Khan the Co- worker as Ext . M - 8 series . After completion of the enquiry. he submitted his enquiry report ( Ext . M - 9 ) holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges and the copy of the enquiry report was sent to the workman as per the letter marked as Ext . M- 10 . It is also established that second show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry reportwas also sent to him and the workman also submitted his reply as Ext. M - 11 . Thereafter the disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from his services as per the letter marked as Ext . M - 12 , although aforesaid documents were marked exhibits without any objection.

3.Whereas the pleaded case of the management is thatworkman Bishun Ram , Clerk Grade - II L.D.C. originally posted at Sirka Colliery of Argada Area was assigned the job of processing LTC / LLTC Bills of the employees of Sirka Project but regularly not attending to his duty, he engaged an outsider Md. Samsul for performing his official job on his behalf. On account of his unauthorised absentisın, he was charge sheeted on 28-10-94 by the ProjectOfficer concerned . On his reply to the charges , it was found unsatisfactory . It resulted in appointment of Shri Bijay Swaroop, Deputy Personnel Manager ( EE), CCL , Ranch as the Enquiry Officer by the competent authority to hold domestic enquiry against the concerned workman in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Thereafter observing the aforesaid principles of natural justice in the enquiry in which the workman along with hisco -worker participated. The Enquiry Officer concluded it , and submitted his report that charges levelled against the workman were proved ; and accordingly, he was found guilty ofthe charges . On the consideration of the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report , the Disciplinary Authority concerned by agreeing with the finding with the Enquiry Officer issued second show cause notice to the workman for his representation . On his representation , the Disciplinary Authority through the application of his mind came to his conclusion that only termination of his service would meet the end ofjustice . So the order of his dismissal from his service was issued and his dismissal was quite legal and justified . Besides that the management has specifically denied the allegation as made out by the workman in his W.S. The management pleaded that the placement of a workman under suspension and serving ofcharge sheet are two courses of disciplinary action , but sometimes cover by the same order. Suspension of a workman does not support the master and servant relationship and the payment of subsistence allowance as per certain provision depends upon the fulfilment of certain obligations by the workman under suspension . So

6. The evidence of MW- 1 Bijoy Swaroop , the aforesaid Enquiry Officer in the later part of his cross- examination establishes that the concerned workman had submitted his application ( Ext . M - 14) to him that he was not allowed to join on transfer and the management also refused to pay him his suspension allowance ( subsistence allowance ) , and also that the workman had produced photocopy ofmedical certificate as (Ext . M - 15) issuedby the Private Doctor showing his treatment from 17-7-95 lo 29-7-95 , although the sanction and the payment of his sick leave for the disputed period were beyond his knowledge . The Enquiry Report (Ext . M -9 in 14 sheets ) which is based on the statement of the management witnesses namely MW- 1 Shri I.N. Jha , Manager Vigilance , CCL Ranchi , MW- 2 Shri A.K. Sinha , Sr. P.O. and MW- 3 2927 { भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 20117चैत्र 19 , 1933

surprise check on 24-8-95 at about 11.00 A.M. , the workman was not present, but he appeared there at 2 P.M. and the workman stated to have gone to Area Accounts Office which is contrary to his admitted fact as stated in his W.S. that ' after knowing the arrival of Shri I.N. Jha from Ranchi , he (workman ) had come from his house and rushed to the office to see him . It is also evident from the cross - examination of the workman during the enquiry proceeding that he was absent from duty on 24-8-1995 . So the second charge of absentism was proved . The finding of the Enquiry Officer Shri Bijoy Swaroop ( 1 ) MW- 1 appears to be reasoned and justified.

Shri B.P. Singh , P.M. , Sirka , and that of workman Bishun Ram , the proceeded as DW - 1 ( M -5 ) as recorded during the enquiry proceeding . Out of three charges as levelled against the workman Bishun Ram , Charge No. I - related to not carrying out by the workman his official job of processing L.T.C./L.L.T.C . Bills of the workers of Sinka Project rather he engaged Md . Samsul an outsider in processing the bill on his behalf and charge No. 2 concerning his absentism from his duty on 29-7-95 and 24-8-95 alleging to have been proved against the workman. The Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of first charge on the basis of the statement of Shri I.N. Jha that on his surprise check ( as per surprise check report Ext . M - 13 / 1 ) in Sirka Project at about 11.00 A.M. on 24-8-95 in presence of aforesaid B.P. Singh , P.M. , he found the workman Bishun Ram absent , but he suddenly appeared at about 2 P.M. , and gave his own written statement (ME - 2) admitting that he used to get L.T.C./L.L.T.C. bills prepared by one Md . Samsul . This fact also stands corroborated by Shri B.P. Singh , P.M. , MW - 3 and also by the workman Bishun Ram ( W- 1 ) in his own statement ( Ext . M - 5 ) , in which he has admitted that due to work load he used to take his home the bill concerned and he himself did the job ofbill , but at time , he got the bills afresh by his house- hold members . But his such statement of the workman appears to be a little bit different from his show cause reply ( Ext . M - 2 ) only to the extent of the preparation of the bills by Md . Samsul only. Besides that B.P. Singh (MW- 3) has corroborated the fact that the workman had voluntary written his statement ( ME - II ) before aforesaid Shri I.N. Jha that he used to get the bills concerned prepared by Samsul . The workman in his reply ( Ext. M -2 ) also had admitted to have taken the help- from Md . Samsul whenever heavy accumulation occurred , and it was to the knowledge of the officials , as that the poor educational background , he was not in a position to discharge the job ofwriting in good manner . Onthat proof the aforesaid first charge concerning the preparation of the official bills by another person instead of the workman in his official capacity stands proved .

8. First contention of Shri D. Mukherjee , L.d. Counsel for the workman with reference to authority 1983 Lab . I.C. page 1909 SC ( CB ) ( D) M / s . Glaxo Laboratorics ( 1 ) Ltd. versus Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Meerut and others concerning Section 13A of the I.E. ( S.Ο. ) Λει , 1946 ( 20 of 1946 ) as held therein that ' Misconduct neither defined nor enumerated and it may be believed by the employer to be misconduct ex - post - facto would not expose the workman to a penalty (para - 23 ) . In that prospective , Ld. Counsel for the Workman submits that in the instan! case no charges has been proved against the workman and as such the dismissal on any ground other than the charges mentioned in the charge sheet is illegal . Whereas Mr. D.K. Verma , Ld . Advocate for the management responded that the charges I and II as mentioned in the charge sheet (Ext . M - 1 ) falling under specific S.O. as well defined and enumerated in the Industrial Employment ( SO ) Central Rules , 1946, have been very specifically established against the workman in course of enquiry proceeding by the Enquiry Officer Bijoy Swaroop who has been examined asMW- 1 before the Tribunal . In the instance case , I find that charge No. I wilful insubordination or disobedience and charge No. II Inhabitual absentism without leave or without sufficient cause rather are well defined under aforesaid S.O. 17 ( 1 ) ( c) and ( d ) respectively , though apparently the charge sheet mentions " S.O. 18 ( i) ( c ) and S.O. ( i ) ( d ) in place of aforesaid S.O. 17 (i ) ( c ) and S.O. ( i )( d ) respectively. But misenumeration of the aforesaid relevant S.O. in the face of specific charges defined there in cannot obliterate or obsecure the departmental proceeding which has already been held fair and proper by this Tribunal . Thus I accordingly, hold the argument of the Ld . Counsel for the workman cuts no ice with me . " 7. So far as the charge No. II isconcerned it relates to habitual unauthorised absentism of the workman concerned from his duty on 29-7-95 and on 24-8-95 as found on the surprise check . As per the surprise check reports dated 29-7-95 and 24-8-95 ( Exts . M - 13 and M - 13 / 1 ) respectively as stated in the enquiry report ( Ext . M - 9 ) , the workman Bishun Ram was found absent from his duty on the aforesaid dates when the surprise check held by Shri I.N. Jha . Dy. C.V.M. , CCL Ranchi in presence of Shri A.K. Sinha , Sr. P.O. and one Shri B.P. Singh , P.M. at Sirka respectively and the attendance register ( ME - 1 ) had no mark of presence for the aforesaid first date being blank , it was confirmed by Shri A.K. Sinha that no leave application of the concerned workman was made available to him . Shri B.P. Singh also confirmed that incourse of the

9. Secondly, the plea of the Ld . Counsel for the workman with the citation of 1999 L.L.R. 499 SC ( DB ) , Capt . M. Paul Authority Anthony - versus- Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Others is , as held therein under B , that ' Non- payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee is an inhuman act which he likened to slow- poisoning . The provision for payment of subsistence allowance made in the Service Rules only ensures non- violation of right to life of the employees , ' as also held that ' since in the instant case the appellant was not 2928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

provided any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension on account of his penury occassioned by non - payment of subsistence allowance , he could not undertake a journey to attend the disciplinary proceeding , the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer at such proceeding , which were held ex parte stand vitiated ( para- 32 ). In the present case under adjudication , I find the workman concerned has fully participated in the domestic enquiry, but the deprivation of the workman from his subsistence allowance during his suspension is admittedly a glaring example of inhuman dealing with him in course of domestic enquiry and his suspension period . It is apparent from the charge - sheet ( Ext . M - 1 ) and the application ( Ext . M - 14) made by the applicant that he was not allowed to join on transfer and also the management refused to pay his suspension allowance as admitted by MW- I Bijoy Swaroop , the Personnel Manager as the Enquiry Officer asserted in his deposition . The Industrial Employment ( SO ) Central Rules , 1946 applicable to the present case , under its order 17 with the heading Disciplinary Action for Misconduct ( i ) mandatorily postulates as such-

"A workman may be suspended by the employer pending investigation or departmental enquiry and shall be paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 ( a ) of the Act Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act , 1946. " Under Section 10A of the said Act , the employer has not complied with the mandatory provision of law relating to the payment of his subsistence allowance to the workman. Thus the argument by the Ld . Counsel for the workman appears to be plausible in the eye of law . On the consideration of the materials available on the case record , I find that the charge Nos . I and II relating to insubordination and absentism for two specified dates have been proved against the workman in the domestic enquiry which was held fair and proper . In that aspect , Shri D.K. Verma , Ld . Counself or the management relying upon the authorities : ( 2008 ) 1 SCC ( L & S ) 890 ( DB ) , West Bokaro Colliery, ( Tisco Ltd . ) - versus - Ram Pravesh Singh as held therein , submits that where two views are possible . Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interfering the findings arrived in the domestic enquiry , the standard of proof in the domestic enquiry is preponderance of probabilities and not proofbeyond reasonable doubt ; it was improper for the Tribunal to interfere with the findings of the domestic enquiry on the ground that there was no independent evidence apart from management witnesses however general provision of law accepted is that Labour Court can award lesser punishment in a given case ( paras 18 and 21 ) . But in the present case there are no two views on the evidence brought before the Tribunal as Held earlier . Further it has been submitted on behalf of

[PART.II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | the Ld . Counsel for the management with reference to the Authority 2005 SCC ( L & S ) 407 ( DB ) as held therein, that ' in case of misappropriation of fund by delinquent employee , the punishment may be awarded on the consideration of two factors- loss of confidence as the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated ; when an employee is found guilty of misappropriation of a corporation's fund , there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal: in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and there interfering with the quantum of punishment ( paras 12 and 13 ) ' . But unfortunately, the present case relates to the fact of absentism of the workman for two specified dates and also to insubordination concerning the preparation of L.T.C./L.L.T.C . Bil ! by one Md . Samsul instead of the workman . It is different from the factum of the aforesaid authorities , moreover , the case has no double views on the evidence and the materials available on the case record.

10. In view of the preceding discussed facts and laws , it is pertinent to mention that I find the punishment of dismissal to the concerned workman for his aforesaid insubordination and absentism for two dates appears to be too harsh and disappropriate to the nature of his aforesaid two guilts . Section IIA of the I.D. Act , 1947 empowers this Tribunal with the discretionary power to set aside the order of dismissal . to its satisfaction , based on the materials only . In the instant case under this circumstance , I find and hold in view of the aforesaid proved two charges , namely, insubordination and two daysabsentism , the workman ought to have been awarded with lesser punishment , not with his dismissal from his permanent service . Hence , the dismissal of the workman from his service is set aside and the management isdirected to reinstate the workman Bishun Ram , L.D.C. in his service with full back wages with stoppage of one increment for his aforesaid minor misconduct from the date of his dismissal .

11. In the result , it is held that the dismissal of Shri Bishun Ram , L.D.C. by the CCI . management from his service with effect from 9-10-1998 is unjustified , improper and illegal . But in view of his suffering , he deserves compensation of his suffering during his suspension to the tune of Rs . 10,000/ - ( Rupees Ten thousand) . He is entitled to reinstatement of his service with back wages in full minus one increment with effect from the aforesaid date . The management is directed to implement the award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India .

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च, 2011

का. आ. 982.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन एयरलाईन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/32/2004- आई आर( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th March , 2011

S.O. 982. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2005 ) ofthe 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 . Indian Airlines Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-3- 2011 .

[No. L- 11012/32/2004- IR (C- I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , MUMBAI PRESENT:

Κ . Β . ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2/35 of 2005

Employers in relation to the management of:

M/ s . Indian Airlines Limited, (Now: NACIL) , New Engineering Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East) , Mumbai-400 099.

AND

Their Workman Mr. B. M. Gohil , C/ o . Maljibhai P. Gohil , Dadabhai Building No. 3 , Shiv Parvati Building No. 3 , Behind Room No. 1 , N. M. Joshi Marg , Mumbai-400013

1112 GI /2011-14

2929 APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer : Shri Abhay Kulkarni , Advocate

For theWorkman : Shri M. B. Anchan , Advocate

Mumbai , the 31st January, 2011

AWARD

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment by its Order No. L- 11012 / 32 / 2004-1.R . (C - I ) , dated 17-12-2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.:

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Indian Airlines Ltd. , Mumbai in dismissing Shri B. M. Gohil , Operator from service with immediate effect vide order dated 19-4-2002 is just , fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"

2. Both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice the Second Party appeared through hisRepresentative and filed its statement of claim at Ex . 11 . Accordingto the Second Party workman the Indian Airlines management had framed the charges against him on 31-12-1999 alleging misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty for 206 days in 1997 , 184 days in 1998 and 204 days in 1999. However, the said charge sheet was not served on the workman . He also did not receive the letters dated 21-7-2000 and 9-11-2000. The acknowledge receipts do not bear his signature . Enquiry notice was also not served on him. Since he was sick he could not attend the office, the said acknowledgement receipt also does not bear his signature. He received enquiry notice dated 19-12-2000. He could not attend the enquiry proceeding as he was sick . He made application requesting to postpone the enquiry as he was sick . However, the enquiry proceeded "exparte" against him. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty. He did not receive the order of dismissal dated 19-4-2002 . He received only cheque of Rs. 11,734 . According to him the enquiry is not legal and proper and order of dismissal is also not legal . Therefore , he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central). The matter could not be settled in conciliation proceeding before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner and they sent the matter to Labour Ministry for reference. The workman thus prays that the enquiry and order oftermination be held illegal and he be reinstated in the service with full back wages .

2930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

3. The management of National Aviation Company Ltd. , resisted the claim and filed their W.S. at Ex . 12. They denied all the allegations made against them in the statement of claim . According to them the workman was absent for a total period of 654 days from Feb. 1997 to Oct. 1999 . Sufficient opportunity was given to the workman to participate in the enquiry, however , he deliberately remained absent , the enquiry proceeded " exparte " in his absence and he was terminated from the service . One month's pay was sent to the workman alongwith the order of termination of his service. Therefore , they pray that the Reference be rejected.

4. My Ld . Predecessor has framed Issues at Ex . 16 . The matter was adjourned for recording evidence and for affidavit of witness of workman . However, the workman was found absent, therefore , at the request of his Representative notice was issued to the workman , notice returned with endorsement " not claimed " . The L.d. Advocate of workman has withdrawn his Vakalatnama. The workman is absent and has not led any evidence in support of his pleadings in the statement of claim . In this case , the entire burden is on the workman to show that the enquiry was unfair and illegal and the acknowledgement receipt bears signature of somebody else . The burden is also on the workman to show that there was violation of principle of natural justice . The workman was supposed to discharge the burden . However , he remained absent and failed to Idad his evidence . Thus , reference deserves to be dismissed . ence 1 pass the following order:

ORDER

The claim is dismissed for default .

kate : 31-1-2011

K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 983. औद्योगिक त्रिवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 मी 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एन. 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 42/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

नं. एल-22012/96/ 1988 -डी-4 ( बी ) ] डॉ. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 983. -in pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 42/2003 )

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/ 96/ 1988 - D-4 ( 13 ) | D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT -CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 42/ 2003

Date: 28-2-2011 Party No. 1 : The Sub Area Manager , Chanda Rayatwari Colliery of Western Coalfield Limited , Chandrapur-442 402 .

Versus

Party No. 2 : The General Secretary,

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union ( CITU ) , Police Lane , Tukum Ward , PO and Dist . Chandrapur -442 402 .

AWARD (Dated : 28th February , 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 Mahakali Colliery of Western Coalfield Limited and their workman , Shri Mahadev M. Madavi for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur , as per letter No. L - 22012( 96 ) /88 - D - 4 ( B ) dated 22-2-1989, with the following schedule :

"Whether the action of the Sub - Area Manager . Rayatwari Sub - Area of M / s . Western Coalfields Ltd. in not considering the date of birth as 30-4-1940 as per details submitted by Sri Mahadev Mangru Madavi , Driver , is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law .

2. Being noticed , the workman , Shri M. M. Madavi (" the Party No. 2 " in short ) filed the statement of claim through his union and the management of Western Coalfields Limited ( "the Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement.

2931 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

3. The claim of the Party No. 2 is that he was appointed as a Lorry Driver in October , 1974 , after facing the interview and as the workman was illiterate , he could not able to produce any document regarding his date of birth , so , the Party No. 1 recorded his date of birth as 30-4-1929 in English in the records of the management and when he received the notice dated 10-6-1986 , he came to know about the mistake in recording his date of birth , so , he made a representation in writing on 21-6-1986 in writing to correct his date of birth from 30-4-1929 to 30-4-1940 and he also swore an affidavit on 4-7-1986 , before the Executive Magistrate , Chandrapur regarding his date of birth and submitted the same to the Colliery authorities and he also appeared before the Civil Surgeon , Chandrapur , as per the oral direction of the Sub - Area Manager for his medical examination and after his medical examination , his age was determined as 46 years , but as the management did not correct his date of birth , so the union took of the matter with the Party No. 1 and on 10-5-1987 , in Form No. 7 , his signature was taken in presence of two witnesses and the Sub Area Manager , in which a cross mark was given against the date of birth recorded as 30-4-1929 and the actual date ofbirth , 30-4-1940 was noted, but the management did not accept the same and his signature were taken by the management in some blank forms and also on the declaration form which was in English on 27-10-1977 and as his real date of birth is 30-4-1940 , it is necessary to direct the management to correct his date of birth as 30-4-1940 , from 30-4-1929.

the workman , his date of birth has been recorded as 30-4- 1929 and the workman has also signed on the same and the management had also on record the photocopy of the entry containing in the birth register of the Police Station , Chanda , showing the date of birth of the workman as 30-4-1929 and the union claimed the date of birth of the workman to be 30- 4-1940 on the basis of the affidavit submitted by him and the certificate alleged to have been issuedby the Civil Surgeon and as far as the affidavit is concerned , no reliance can be placed on the same and on perusal of the alleged certificate , it can be found that the same has not been issued on the basis of any scientific or medical test required for assessment of the age , but was simply based on the statement given by the workman himself and as such , the certificate also cannot be relied upon and as there were large number of disputes regarding correction of date of birth , the matter was discussed with all the unions in the national level by the JBCCI and after prolonged discussion , itwas decided to issue a notification showing the date of birth of the workmen as contained in the records of the management and to invite objections , for the consideration of the same , by the management by appointment of age determination committee and accordingly , the case of the workman was also considered by the age determination committee and by order dated 2-5-1987 , the workman was informed that the committee did not find any reason to change his date of birth and as such , there is no justification for claiming change of the date of birth of the workman and when the workman was given appointment , he submitted his joining report with a certificate dated 28-9-1974 , in which his age had been shown as 46 years and at the time of interview, the workman himself had filled the declaration form , which indicates his date of birth as 30-4-1929 and in the said declaration form , the workman had also mentioned ofhis having 25 years of experience in driving and from the above facts , it is clear that the claim of the workman that his date ofbirth should be corrected as 30-4-1940, is nothing but after-thought and is not based on any authentic document , whereas all the documents available with it, show hisdate of birth as 30-4-1929 and the same documents are being maintained since long period of time and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

6. In the hearing of the case , both the parties adduced oral evidence , as well as documentary evidence . Perused the evidence . The documents on which reliance has been placed by the workman are unilateral documents . Those documents are of no help to come to a finding that the date ofbirth of the workman is 30-4-1940 . On the other hand , the management has produced the documents maintained by it in respect of the workman from the date of his joining . The documents clearly show that the workman himself admitted his date of birth as 30-4-1929 . Hence , it is found that the claim of the workman that though his date of birth is30-4-1940 , the party No. I wrongly recorded the same as 30-4-1929 has no force. The workman has failed to prove 4. The management resisted the claim of the workman by filing its written statement pleading inter - alia that the workman was working as a Driver in Mahakali Colliery from 1-10-1974 and at the time of interview, the workman gave declaration of his having 25 years of experience as on 17-8-1974 and as such , by no stretch of imagination , it can be said that the date of birth of the workman is 30-4-1940 , as claimed by him and every employee , who is appointed in a Coal Mines is required to give the details about his dateofbirth and other particulars , which are entered in the register of the employment , known as " Form - B " register and at the time of the employment of the workman , entries in the " Form - B " register were made as per the informations supplied by him and as per the said informations , the date ofbirth of the workman was recorded as 30-4-1929 and the said register was signed by the workman and after the amendment of the Coal Mines Rules and Regulation , separate " Form - B " registers were prepared sometime in the year 1975-76 and in that " Form - B " register also , the date of the birth of the workman has been shown as 30-4-1929 and the workman has also signed on the same, in token of its correctness and apart from the same , the workman also gave a declaration in Form No. A to become a member of Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme on 27-4-1977 in which also , the workman had mentioned his date of birth as 4th April , 1929 and in the service book of 2432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

that his date of birth is 30-4-1940 and therefore it is necessary to correct his date of birth in the records of the Party No. 1 from 30-4-1929 to 30-4-1940 . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the Sub Area Manager , Rayatwari Sub Area of M / s . Western Coalfields Ltd. in not considering the date of birth as 30-4-1940 as per details submitted by Sri Mahadev Mangru Madavi , Driver is justified . The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 984.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. एवं 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 35/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012 /149/2002 - आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 984.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central workshop Tadali of WCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2011 .

[No. L - 22012/ 149/2002 - IR ( CM - II ) } D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 3-3-2011 Case No. CGIT/NGP / 35 /2004

Party No. 1 : The General Manager , Central Workshop Tadali , Western Coalfields Limited , Post-Tadali , Chandrapur

Versus

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)| Party No. 2 : Shri P. B. Waghamare ,

President . Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Linion ( CITU ) , Branch Central Workshop Tadali . Post- Tadali , Chandrapur

AWARD (Dated: 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 Cent .. Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Central Workshop Tadali of WCL and their workman , Shri Trizes Mallaiya Gumpalwar for adjudication as per letter No. 1.- 22012/ 149/2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 23-2-2004 , with the following schedule:

" Whether the action of the management of M/ S . Western Coalfields Limited in relation to its Central Workshop , Post Tadali , Dist . Chandrapur represented by The Chief General Manager is justified in denying regularization of the workman Shri Trilesh Mallaiya Gumpalwar in the post of Ciork Grade - III with retrospective effect i.e. 1-7-1999 in the pay scale of Rs . 1826-60-2666 as it stood on that date (subsequently revised to Rs . 3545-87-5111 effective from 1-7-1999 as per NCWA - VI ) with all consequential monetary and other benefits ? If not . to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. Being noticed , the workman , Shri Tritesh Mallaiya Gumpalwar ( " the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim through his union and the management of Western Coalfields Limited ( "the Party No. 1" in short ) filed its written statement .

In the statement of claim , it is pleaded by the workman that he is in service of Party No. 1 since 10-8-1996 and while he was in service at Area workshop, Ghugus , the Chief General Manager , Wani Area , Urja Gram Tadali published one circular vide No. VE . KO. LI / 167 /98 dt . 23-4- 97 inviting applications from the workers , who had passed Matric/ SCC examination for undergoing clerical training. with the condition that the worker should have passed SSC examination and should have completed more than . one year of service in his category and it was also mentioned in the said circular that after the training , the worker would be posted against the store cadre clerk grade- III and according to the said advertisement , he filed his application and the additional General Manager , Wani Area . Ghugus transferred him vide Office Order No. WCL/ WA Additional GM ( OP )/ Ghugus /Per 809 dt . 29-9-1997 from Ghugusto Central Store, Tadali and cordingly he joined 2933 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9, 2011 /चैत्र 19, 1933

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

orderdt . 8-10-2006 to the post ofAsstt . Store Keeper Grade- Il and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that after filing of statement of claim , the workman did not appear in the case . The Party No. 1 after filing of the written statement did not appear in the case and as such , the case was closed on 14-2-2011 for award.

atTadali and took charge of the Store Clerk , Central Store , Tadali on 28-9-97 and as per the Office Orderdt . 25-3-98 , he was posted to Central Store , Tadali to undergo training of clerk for a period ofone year w.e. f. 25-3-98 and in the said office order, it was mentioned that on completion oftraining of one year, he would beconsidered for regularization as Clerk Grade - III in Store cadre , in case he would be found suitable for the same , otherwise, he would be reverted back and after the period of training and after verification ofhis past record including confidential report , the departmental promotion committee selected him for the post of Clerk Grade- III , in the pay scale of Rs . 1826-60-2666 w.e.f. 1-7-99 and posted him at Central Store , Tadali and since 1-7-99, he is in service in that post and performing his job but he had not been given the pay scale of Clerical Grade - III from 1-7- 99 upto his regularisation vide order dt . 1-9-2003 and the party No. I paid the pay of General Mazdoor Category - Ito him till 31-8-2003 and therefore , he sustained loss of Rs . 24,500 for the period from 1-7-99 to 31-8-2003 and as he has already completed more than 8 years ofservice , according to the cadre scheme, his pay should have been fixed in higher scale in every three years and accordingto the said norms , he is eligible for enhancement of his pay ofAssistant Store Keeper Grade - II in the scale of pay of Rs . 3698-110- 4578-130-5878 , as per NCWA - VI but the Party No. 1 has not given him the Grade - II pay scale , though he is eligible for the same w.e.f. 1-7-2002 and thus , he has sustained loss ofRs . 17,500 and therefore , he is entitled for regularization w.e.f 1-7-1999 in Clerical Grade - III and to get all consequential monetary and other benefits .

5. Perused the office order No. 809 dt 28/29-9-1997 issued by the Additional General Manager ( OP ), Wani Area, Ghugus andfound that the workman was transferred in the same capacity, category and scale of pay to Central Store . Tadali and not as a Store Clerk , as claimed by the workman in his statement of claim . It is also found from the documents that the workman was regularized as Clerk Grade - III w.e.f. 1-7-1999 as per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee along with two others. Though the Party No. I has claimed that the order of regularization of the workman w.e.f. 1-7-1999 was kept in abeyance , as the appointment letter of the workman as Clerk was in violation of the procedure of the appointment as Clerk , the management has failed to produce any document or evidence in support of such claim . As it is found from the documents filed by the workman that he was regularized as Clerk Grade - III in the pay scale of Rs . 1826-60-2666 w.e.f. 1-7-1999, he is entitled to get his salary w.e.f. 1-7-99 in the pay scale of Rs . 1826-60-2666 as stood on that day and subsequently revised to Rs . 3545- 87-5111 and all other consequential monetary and other reliefs . Hence , it is ordered :

ORDER

The action of the managementof M/ s Western Coalfields Limited in relation to its Central Workshop , Post Tadali , Dist . Chandrapur represented by the Chief General Manager in denying regularization of the workman Shri Trilesh Mallaiya Gumpalwar in the post of Clerk Grade - III with retrospective effect i.e. 1-7-1999 in the pay scale of Rs . 1826-60-2666 as it stood on that date ( subsequently revised to Rs . 3545-87-5111 effective from 1-7-1999 as per NCWA- VI ) with all consequential monetary and other benefits is not proper. The workman , Shri Trilesh Mallaiya Gumpalwar, is entitled for regularization as Clerk Grade - III w.e.f. 1-7-1999 in the pay scale of Rs . 3545-87-5111 as per the NCWA - VI with all consequential monetary and other benefits . The management of the WCL is directed to regularize his service as Clerk Grade - 111 w.e.f. 1-7-1999 and to pay him all the monetary benefits and consequential benefits , within one month from the date of publication of notification .

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer 3. The Party No. 1 in its written statement has admitted about the appointment of the workman and issuance of the circular and transfer of the workman to Central Store , Tadali w.e.f. 28-9-97, but it has pleaded that the workman was not transferred as Store Clerk , but he was transferred purely on administrative ground in the same capacity, category and same pay scale and the workman was selected to undergo the training of one year and was also selected for the post of Clerk Grade - III w.e.f. 1-7-99 , but while issuing the letter of posting the workman as a Clerk , all his credential were not considered by the departmental promotional committee and as the appointment letter ofthe workman as Clerk was in violation ofthe procedure of appointment of Clerk , immediately, the management issued the order to keep the said appointment in abeyance and the order of keeping the appointment in abeyance was never challenged by the workınan and it is not true to state that the workman was not paid the difference of wages since 1-7-99 to 31-8-2003 and it is regularly paying the dues to the workman from the date of his regularisation i.e. 31-8-2003 and the management has also given notional fixation to the workman w.e.f. 1-1-2000 and all the financial benefits from the date of regularisation i.e. 31-8-2003 and having given the notional fixation to the workman w.e.f. 1-1-2000 , he has also been promoted vide 2934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 985.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बेसिक सीड मल्टीप्लिकेशन एण्ड ट्रेनिंग सेन्टर 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 30/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 16/2003- आई आर ( सी एम -11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 985. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government bereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 30/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur . Now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2011.

[No. L -42012/ 16/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 28-2-2011 Case No. CGIT /NGP/30/2004

: The Asstt . Director,

Party No. 1

Basic. Seed Multiplication and Training , Centre, Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organisation , Central Silk Board, Dawripar, Distt . Bhandara , Bhandara-441 904

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Sahadeo Ramaji Maske , R/ o . Shrinagar, Tahasil & Distt. Bhandara ,

Bhandara -441 904

AWARD (Dated: 28th February, 2011 )

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub-section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between theemployers , in relation to the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre and their workman , Shri Sahadeo R. Maske for adjudication , as per letter No. L-42012/16/ 2003 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 25-02-2004 , with the following schedule :

"Whether the action of the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organisation , Central Silk Board, at Sawripar, Bhandara-441904 ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Sahadeo Ramaji Maske , Casual Labour w.e.f. 28-2-1992 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?" 2. Being noticed , the workman , Shri Sahadeo R. Maske, (" the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre ( " the Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

In the statement of claim , it is pleaded by the workman that he is a workman within the definition of Section 2( s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( " the Act" ) and he came to be appointed with the Party No. I in the year 1984 , as a Mazdoor and he was being paid Rs . 14 perday towards his wages and from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1984 , he was continuously working with the Party No. I without any break in his service , with clean and excellent service record and the Party No. 1 is being engaged in the business of preparation of cocoon and more than 100 employees are being employed by the Party No. 1 for the same and on 17-2-1992 , he was served with a memo , wherein , various false charges were levelled against him and he submitted his reply to the said memo , denying the charges leveled against him and he was in continuous employment of the Party No. 1 for more than eight ( 8 ) years and completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year and thereby he had acquired the status of a permanent employce and it was obligatory on the part of the Party No. 1 to regularise him in service , by taking into consideration his unblemished and loyal services , but , the Party No. 1 , instead of regularizing his services , issued him the memo dated 17-2-1992 , with mala fide intention , as he was demanding his regularization and to increase his wages and the Party No. I on 28-2-1992 , served the order of termination of his services with immediate effect and the termination of his service was without complying the mandatory provisions of law, contemplated under Sections 25- F and 25 -G of the Act and no notice or any notice pay in lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation was given to him and the Party No. I also did not display any notice as required under Section 25 -G of the Act and illegally terminated his services , which is illegal , arbitrary [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

2935 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

and violative of the principles of natural justice and the Party No. 1 also did not obtain prior permission from the Appropriate Government under Section 25 ( 0 ) of the Act , for termination of his service . The further case of the workman is that as he was served with a memo containing various charges and he denied the charges , it was obligatory on the part of Party No. I to conduct a full- fledged enquiry before termination of his service , but no enquiry was conducted by the Party No. 1 and therefore , the termination of his service w.e.f. 28-2-1992 is in colourful exercise of powers , without complying the due procedure oflaw and therefore , the order of termination is liable to be set aside . It is also pleaded by the workman that being aggrieved by the action of the Party No. 1 , he had approached the Labour Court at Bhandara , challenging the action of termination of his service and the Labour Court had directed to reinstate him in service , as per the order dated 16-10-1993 , in complaint Case No. ULPA 9/92 and when he went to join his duty, he was informed by the Party No. 1 about their preferring a revision application before the Industrial Court , Nagpur , challenging the order of Labour Court , Bhandara and the Industrial Court set aside the order dated 16-10-1993 and the Labour Court , Bhandara , on 2-9-2002 , rejected his application for want of jurisdiction , with a direction to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances within 90 days and therefore , he approached the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Nagpur and raised the Industrial Dispute and as the conciliation proceeding before the ALC ended in failure , the matter was referred to the Central Government .

their assigned jobs and duties , but to provide employment to the local people , with all these ordeals to employer. he wasprovided with the work and on 28-2-1992 , the services ofthe workman were terminated with immediate effect , on the ground of very serious misconduct , for which , the workman had tendered apology but continued to indulge in the same activity further and as the workman had not acquired the status of permanent workman , there was no question of complying the provisions of Sections 25-1 and 25 -G of the Act , as the said provisions are not applicable . The further case of the party No. I is that daily wagers are appointed by it , whenever the works are available , after taking orders from the Appropriate Authority and those persons , who had already worked with it , are being appointed , as they had already gained the experience in its activity and as work was not available . two labourers , namely, Naneshwar Sidam and Ashok Kachelan were discontinued w.e.f. 22-1-1992 , but those workers again reported for duty on 23-1-1992 , so , other workmen including the present workman allowed those two workers to work on 23-1-1992 and when the Assistant Director , Mr. Raju Durai objected the engagement of those two workers , the present workman and B. R. Kalnayake started shouting at the Assistant Director by using filthy fanguage and also being armed with sickle ran towards theAssistant Director to assault him and when the officer was about to be assaulted , other employees intervened and dragged away the workman and the other employees . who had witnessed the occurrence endorsed about the same in writing and subsequently, the present workman and Shri Kalnayake approached the Assistant Director on 24-1-1992 and admitted their guilt and tendered their apology; but on 3-3-1992 , the workman approached the Director and lodged a false complain against the Assistant Director, but the workman and Shri Kalnayake were placed under suspension , by order dated 22-2-1992 and enquiry was conducted against them and in the enquiry , as it was found that the workman and Shri Kalnayake had already admitted their guilt , they were terminated from service by it and the presence of the workman in the establishment was not only harmful but equally injurious to the persons working there and as there was admission of the guilt and begging of apology by workman , there was no necessity to conduct the enquiry and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter alia that the workman had been working in its establishment since the year 1984 , but his status was that of casual labourer and he was required to work on as and when necessary, therefore , he had not acquired the status of permanent worker . The Party No. 1 has denied that it is being engaged in the business of preparation of cocoon but has pleaded that its activity is to impart training ofproduction of cocoon and allied activities and therefore , it cannot be said that it is doing any business , as alleged by the workinan and a memo containing true charges were issued against the workman on 17-2-1992 and the charges levelled against the workman are absolutely correct and there is no concoction or any elaboration to give colour to the charges and the misconducts committed by the workman was very serious in nature and the same were committed during his duty hours . It is also pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the workman had not worked continuously and he was working on as and when basis and he had not completed 240 days of continuous service and such facts were known to him and as such , he did not raise ary dispute or demand to regularize his services and whenever the workman reported for duty, he used to create scene and very instrumental to cover other workmen living

4. In this case , the workman has examined himself as a witness , his evidence has been given on affidavit . In his evidence , the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and also in the rejoinder . The evidence of the workman has not at all been challenged . It is necessary to mentioned here that the Party No. I did not appear in this case on 10-5-2002 and thereafter and as such , no cross order was passed and the argument was heard ex - parte .

2986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

5. It is admitted by the Party No. I that the workman was working since 1984 and his service was terminated on 28-2-1992 . It is also admitted that no enquiry was conducted in respect of the memo filed against the workman . The party No. I has taken contradictory stands in its written statement regarding holding of departmental enquiry . At one place , it has stated that enquiry was conducted and as in the enquiry , it was found that the workman had admitted his guilt , his service was terminated. At another place , the Party No. 1 has pleaded that as the workman admitted his guilt and he was a casual labourer , there was no need for conducting any enquiry . Though , the Party No. 1 has pleaded that the workman was working as and when required, there is nothing on record to support the same . The Party No. 1 has not adduced any evidence in support of its claim of the misconduct committed by the workman . In view of the unchallenged testimony of the workman on affidavit and in absence of any rebuttal evidence , it is held that the workman was working continuously as a Mazdoor from the year 1984 till the date ofhis termination i.e. 28-2-1992 and the termination of the workman amount to retrenchment . It is also found that the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act are applicable in this case and the said mandatory provisions were not complied with by the Party No. 1 at the time of the termination of the services of the workman . So , the termination of the service of theworkman is held to be illegal .

6. Now, the point for consideration is regarding the reliefs , for which the workman is entitled to . Admittedly the workman has not mentioned either in the statement of claim or in the affidavit filed by him that he was engaged against any particular post or sanctioned post . Rather , he has mentioned that he was appointed as a Mazdoor on daily wages and he was being paid Rs . 14 as his daily wages . The workman has also neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence that he was not gainfully employed after the dateof termination of his services . In his context , I think it apposite to refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courtas reported in 2010, ( 8 ) SCALE at pg . 583 ( Incharge Officer and Another Vs. Shankar Shetty ) .

The Hon'ble Apex Court have 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 25 - F of the Act- Labour Court rejected respondent's claim holding that Section 25 - F of the Act was not attrated since the workman

[ PART II -SEC. 3 ( i ) | failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination on 6-9-1985 - Un appeal High Court directed reinstateinent 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:

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 upto September 26 . 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one , it appears to us that reliel of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead of monetary compensation would meet ends of justice . In our considered opinion , the compensation of Rs . 1,00,000 ( Rupees one lac) only, in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just and equitable . We ordered accordingly . Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum . "

Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision 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 considered 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 Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organisation , Central Silk Board at Dawripar . Bhandara - 441904 ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Sahadeo Ramaji Maske , Casual Labour w.e.f. 28-2-1992 is not legal and justified . The workman is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs . 50,000 ( Rupees fifty thousand only ) . The management of Party No. 1 is directed to pay the said amount , within one month from the date of publication of the award , failing which , the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum .

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

का. आ. 986.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. मी.

[ भाग 11--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 148/90 और 149/90) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल 22012/ 18 / 1990- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] [सं. एल 22012/21 /1990- आई आर ( सी -11 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 986.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 148/90 and 149/90 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2011 .

[No. L-22012/ 18/ 1990- IR (C - II) ] [No. L- 22012 /21 / 1990 - IR (C- II) ] D. S. S.SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer Case No. CGIT /LC /R/ 148/90

Workman The Area Vice President , National Colliery Workers Federation , Post South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt, Surguja

Versus

The General Manager, Hasdeo Sub Area of SECL , PO South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt. Surguja

2937 The General manager,

Management Hasdeo Sub Area of SECL , PO South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt. Surguja

AWARD (Passed on this 21st day of February, 2011 ) 1. (a) The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its otification No. L-22012 ( 18 )/90 - IR ( C - Ii) dated 29-5-1990 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Ramnagar SubArea of M/s . SECL in not protecting the pay of their workmen S/Shri Ratiram, Kodai Prasad , Rangilal Singh , Ram Surat Dubey and Ram Niwas Rao on theirpromotion and Mining Sirdar , Clerk Gr. III and Peon respectively and granting them fitment as per para 50 of Chapter XII of the report of Central WageBoard for Coal Mining Industry is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

(b) The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012 (21 )/ 90 - IR ( Coal- II ) dated 29-5-1990 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Jhimar Sub Area of Hardeo Area of M/s . SECL , PO . South Jhagrakhand colliery in not protecting the pay of Shri Lal Bachan on his promotion as Mining Sirdar and granting fitment as per para 50 of Chapter XII of the report ofthe Central Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry, is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

2. Both the references are consolidated together vide order dated 10-5-1995 which are arising on a common subject matter.

Management

Case No. CGJT/ LC/ R/ 149 /90

The Area Vice President,

Workman National Colliery Workers Federation , Post South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt, Surguja

Versus

1112GI /2011-15

3. According to the Union / workmen , the workmen wereworking on the post of Loader - cum - Dresser in Hasdeo Area of SECL . They were promoted to the post ofMining Sardar - cum- Shot Firer . After promotion the wages of the workmen were to be fixed of Mining Sardar - cum- Shot Firer by giving the benefit of the Fundamental Rules 22 ( C ) as the post was promotional post which carries higher duties and responsibilities along with higher pay scale but their pay was not accordingly, fixed by giving them one increment and their basic pay could not have been reduced 2938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii )

6. Issue Nos . 1 & 11 :

under any circumstances . It is stated that they cannot be treated to be promoted on a notional promotion . On these grounds, it is submitted that the management be directed to pay monetary benefits along with arrears .

The pleading and the evidence of the witness Shri G. R. Rathore of the management show that the wages of Shri Ratiram , Kodai Prasad, Rangilal Singh and Lal Bachan . who were made Mining Sardars were protected notionally without any arrears but these workmen claimed that they should be paid monetary benefits as well . The management has not produced the letter No. SECL - BSP - PER - IT - 87- Estate - 465 dated 25-6-1987 whereby the wages was rotected to show that the management was justified for granting protection of wages notionally without payment of arrear. The said letter is concealed and is not produced for the inspection of the court for the reason best known to the management .

7. According to the Union , the workmen were promoted to the post of Mining Sardar, therefore after their promotion , their wages was to be fixed by giving the benefit of the fundamental rules22( C) . The workman Shri Lal Bachan has stated in his evidence that the notional protection of pay had been done by the management while applying the principle of Para - 50 Chapter XII of Central Wage Board report ( in short CWB report ) implemented on 15-8-1967 whereas the management has pleaded that the recommendation of Para 50 of Chapter XII of Central Wage Board for the Coal Industry has no relevancy to the present dispute.

4. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management, inter alia, is that the workman Shri Ram Niwas Rao was initially appointed as Piece rated Trammer and the other workmen were initially appointed as Piece rated Loaders . The management is said to have circulated vacancies ofMining Sardars and invited application fromi the departmental candidates who had passed Mining Sardarship Certificates . These workmen submitted their applications . After examining their suitability the Departmental Promotion Committee selected Shri Ratiram . Kodai Prasad, Rangilal and Lal Bachan as Mining Sardar and were placed in the initial scale of pay without any protection of group wages of carlier post . The NCWF Union raised industrial dispute for protection of pay in existing grade and thereafter the wages of these above four workmen were protected not onally without any arrears as per clarification received from Dy. CPM ( IR) , SECI . , Bilaspur vide letter No. SEC .- BSP - PER - IR - 87 - Estab-465 dated 25-6-1937 . The workinen Shri Ram Surat Dubey and Ram Niwas Rao were regularized as Gr . III Clerk and Peon respectively and were placed in initial scale of pay without any protection of pay of Group wages as these two jobs were of light nature and cannot be compared for pay protection . It is stated that pay protection arises only if the person is promoted in the same cadre whereas in the instant case there was change of cadre . It is stated that the workmen were initially piece rated employees and opted to come in time rated scale of pay . As such they canhot claim protection of wages which they were getting as piese rated employees . Norms of payment in piece rated and time rared are entirely different. Under the circumstances , the management is justified in fixing their pay

5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for adjudication ..

1. Whether the workmen are entitled to protection of pay on promotion as Mining Sardar, Clerk Grade III and Peon respectively ?

8. Now it is important to see as to whether it was promotion or it was a direct recruitment to the post of Mining Sardar . Admittedly these workmen were departmental candidates who were working in the establishment and during the said period , they acquired the requisite criteria of the post of Mining Sardar. The appointment letter of the workman Shri Ratiram is filed by the management and is marked as Exhibit M/ 1 . The appointment letter clearly shows that he was promoted to the post of Mining Sardar - cum-Shot Firer. Nowhere in the appointment letter, it shows that it was direct recruitment to the post of Mining Sardar. The Management has filed Office order dated 21-12-1982 which is marked as Exhibit M/2. The said order shows that the workman Shri Kodai Prasad was allowed to work as officiating Mining Sardar- cum-Shot Firer vide letter dated 20-9-1979 and when he acquired all requisite criteria of Mining Sardar, he was promoted asMining Sardar- cum - Shot Firer w.e.f. 1-10-1979. This also shows that he was promoted and was not appointed directly on the post of Mining Sardar . The Union has also filed appointment letter dated 22-6-1978 of Lalbachan which also shows that he was promoted to the post of Mining Sardar- cum-Shot Firer instead of direct appointment on the post .

II. Whether the provision of Para 50 of Chapter XII of the report of Central Wage Board of Coal Mining Industry is applicable for fixing their pay on the respective posts of their promotion ?

11. To what relief, the workmen are entitled ?

9. Another point raised by the Union that they were entitled for pay protection with monetary benefits .

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Though the Management has protected notionally the wages without arrears . The workman Shri Lalbachan has stated in his evidence that the notional fixation of his pay had been done by the management after applying the principle of Para 50 of Chapter XII of Wage Board Report implemented on 15-8-1967. He has further stated that the above principle was applied after the agreement between the management and the Union representative which was held on 13-9-1974 . Para 18 of the said note of discussion is evident to prove the fact that they were entitled for pay protection whereas the management has pleaded that the recommendation of Para - 50 of Chapter XII of CWB report has no relevancy with the present dispute.

10. Admittedly the management has not filed the orderdated 25-6-1987 whereby these workmen were given notional protection of wages .It is better to reproduce Para 50 of Chapter XII of CWB report and Para 18 of the agreement arrived in the discussion held on 13-9-1974 between the management and representative of the Federation . Para 50 of Chapter XII of the report of CWB runs as follows :

" It is claimed on behalf of the workmen that when an employee of a lower category temporarily works in the place of a higher category workman he should be paid an officiating allowance of 10 % of his total wages or the statutory pay of the higher category worker for whom he deputises , whichever is higher . We are of the opinion that the formula should be that where an employee in a lower category works in the place of a workman of higher category , he should be entitled to payment of officiating allowance which shall be the difference between his wage and the minimum of the higher category, if such minimum is " higher " than his existing pay . In case , by this method of adjustment , he gets less than one increment in the officiating scale , he should be given one increment in that scale . In the event of the existing pay ofthe officiating workman being higher than the minimum of the scale of pay of the higher category in which he works , then his existing pay should be adjusted into the next higher step in the higher category's scale and he should be given one increment in that scale " .

Para- 18 of the agreement arrived by the management and the Federation runs as follows :

" Fixation of Wages on promotion :

The Federation demanded that at the time of promotion to the higher category also the principle of one increment at the time of adjustment in the scale of higher category should be accepted on the

2939

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

basis of recommendations of the Wage Board for Acting and Officiating Allowances , vide Para - 50 . Chapter - 12 of the Wage Board Recommendations . Vol . I.

After discussions , the management agreed to accept the demand of the Federation . "

Thus, it is clear that the workmen were entitled for wage protection and to grant them only notional wage protection without payment of arrears was not justified . They are entitled for the monetary benefit as well from the date oftheir promotion.

11. The case of the workmen Ram Surat Dubey and Ram Niwas Rao are on different footings who were made Grade III Clerk and Peon respectively. They are not examined in the case by the Union . It appears from the materials on the record that the workman Ram Surat Dubey was officiating on the post of Clerk Grade III . Thereafter he was regularized on the post . The management has filed an application of the workman Ram Niwas Rao which is marked as Exhibit M/ 5 to show that Shri Rao was working on the post of Peon and he himself prayed to regularize him on the said post . Thus it is evidentthat their cases are of regularization on the post inwhich they were officiating . These two workmen appear to be not entitled to be granted wage protection as their case is on different footings . Considering the discussion made above , I find that the workmen Shri Ratiram , Kodai Prasad , Rangilal and Lal Bachan are also entitled the payment of monetary benefit from the date of protection of wages as Mining Sardar- cum- Shot Firers . Both issues areaccordingly decided.

12. Issue No. III :

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workmen Shri Ratiram , Kodai Prasad , Rangilal and Lal Bachan are entitled of payment of the difference ofwage protection on the post of Mining Sardar from the date of promotion . Accordingly, the management is directed to pay them the difference of wages arising on account of fixation of protection of wages on the post of Mining Sardar from the date of their fixation within two months from the date of notification of the award . Accordingly, both the references are answered .

13. In the result , the award is passed with above direction without any order to costs .

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer .

2940

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 11 मार्च , 2011

letter No. L -42015 / 12 / 2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 25-2-2004 , with the following Schedule :

"Whether the action of the management of Basic SeedMultiplication and Training Centre , Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organisation , Central Silk Board . at Dawripar, Bhandara-441904 ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Bakaram Ratiram Kalnayake , Casual Labour w.e.f. 28-2-1992 is legal andjustified ? If not. to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? " का. आ. 987.-औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बेसिक सीड मलटीपलेक्शन एण्ड ट्रेनिग सेन्टर 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 31/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 15/2003 आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

2. Being noticed , the workman , Shri Bakatam Ratiram Kalnayake , ( " the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre (" the Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

S.O. 987.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 31 / 2004) ofthe 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 Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2011 .

[No. L-42012/ 15/2003 - IR( CM - II ) ] D.D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 28-2-2011

Case No. CGIT/NGP /31 / 2004

Party No. 1 : The Assistant Director ,

Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organisation , Central Silk Board, Dawripar, Distt . Bhandara , Bhandara -441904

Versus

Party No. 2: Shri Bakaram Ratiram Kalnayake ,

R/ o Khapa , Post - Dawripar, Tahsil and Distt.-Bhandara ( Maharashtra ) , Bhandara -441904

AWARD (Dated: 28thFebruary, 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 Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre and their workman , Shr Bakaram Ratiram Kalnayake for adjudication , as per

In the statement of claim , it is pleaded by the workman that he is a workman within the definition of Section 2 ( s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( " the Act" in short ) and he came to be appointed with the Party No. 1 in the year 1984 , as a Mazdoor and he was being paid Rs . 14 per day towards his wages and from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1984 , he was continuously working with the Party No. I without any break in his service , with clean and excellent service record and the Party No. 1 is being engaged in the business of preparation of cocoon and more then 100 employees ate being employed by the Party No. 1 for the same and on 17-2-92, he was served with a memo , wherein , various false charges were leveled against him and he submitted his reply to the said memo , denying the charges levelled against him and he was in continuous employment of the Party No. 1 for more than eight ( 8 ) years and completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year and thereby he had acquired the status of a permanent employee and it was obligatory on the part of the Party No. 1 to regularise him in service , by taking into consideration his unblemished and loyal services , but . the Party No. 1 , instead of regularizing his services , issued him the memo dated 17-2-92 , with mala fide intention , as he was demanding his regularization and to increase his wages and the Party No. I on 28-2-92 , served the order of termination of his services with immediate effect and the termination of his service was without complying the mandatory provisions of law , contemplated under Section 25 - F. and 25 -G of the Act and no notice or any notice pay in lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation was given to him and the Party No. I also did not display any notice as required under Section 25-0 of the Act and illegally terminated his services , which is illegal , arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and the Party No. 1 also did not obtain prior permission from the Appropriate Government under Section 25 ( o ) of the Act , for termination of his service . The further case of the workman is that as he was served with a memo containing various charges and he denied the charges , it was obligatory on the part of Party No. I to 2941 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

conduct a full - fledged enquiry before termination of his service, but no enquiry was conducted by the Party No. 1 and therefore, the termination of his service w.e.f. 28-2-92 is in colourful exercise of powers, without complying the due procedure of law and therefore, the order oftermination is liable to be set aside . It is also pleaded by the workman that being aggrieved by the action of the Party No. 1 , he had approached the Labour Court at Bhandara , challenging the action of termination of his service and the Labour Court had directed to reinstate him in service , as per the order dt . 16-10-93 , in complaint Case No. ULPA 9/92 and when he went to join his duty, he was informed by the Party No. 1 about their preferring a revision application before the Industrial Court , Nagpur, challenging the order ofLabour Court , Bhandara and the Industrial Court set aside the order dt . 16-10-93 and the Labour Court , Bhandara, on 2-9-2002 , rejected his application for want of jurisdiction , with a direction to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances within 90 days and therefore , he approached the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Nagpur and raised the Industrial Dispute and as the conciliation proceeding before the ALC ended in failure , the matter was referred to the Central Government .

and 25 -G of the Act , as the said provisions are not applicable. The further case of the Party No. 1 is that daily wagers are appointed by it . whenever the works are available , after taking orders froin the Appropriate Authority and those persons , who had already worked with it, are being appointed, as they had already gained the experience in its activity and as work was not available . two labourers , namely, Naneshwar Sidam and Ashok Kachelan were discontinued w.e.f. 22-1-1992 , but those workers again reported for duty on 23-1-1992, so , other workmen including the present workman allowed those two workers to work on 23-1-1992 and when the Assistant Director , Mr. Raju Durai objected the engagement of those, two workers, the present workman and Sahadeo R. Maske started shouting at the Assistant Director by using filthy language and also being armed with sickle ran towards the Assistant Director to assault him and when the officer was about to be assaulted , other employees intervened and dragged away the workman and the other employees . who had witnessed the occurrence endorsed about the same in writing and subsequently, the present workman and Shri Sahadeo R. Maske approached the Assistant Director on 24-1-1992 and admitted their guilt and tendered their apology, but on 3-3-92 , the workman approached the Director and lodged a false complain against the Assistant Director, but the workman and Shri Sahadeo R. Maske were placed under suspension , by order dt . 22-2-1992 and enquiry was conducted against them and in the enquiry. as it was found that the workman and Shri Sahadeo R. Maske had already admitted their guilt , they were terminated from service by it and the presence of the workman in the establishment was not only harmful but equally injurious to the persons working there and as there was admission of the guilt and begging of apology by the workman, there was no necessity to conduct the enquiry and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. In this case , the workman has examined himself as a witness , his evidence has been given on affidavit . In his evidence, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and also in the rejoinder . The evidence of the workman has not at all been challenged . It is necessary to mention here that the Party No. 1 did not appear in this case on 10-5-2002 and thereafter and as such , no cross order was passed and the argument was heard ex-parte.

5. It is the admitted by the Party No. 1 that the workman was working since 1984 and his service was terminated on 28-2-1992 . It is also admitted that no enquiry was conducted in respect of the memo filed against the workman. The Party No. 1 has taken contradictory stands in its written statement regarding holding of departmental enquiry. At one place , it has stated that enquiry was conducted and as in the enquiry it was found that the workman had admitted his guilt , his service was terminated .

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter - alia that the workman had been working in . its establishment since the year 1984, but his status was that of casual labourer and he was required to work on as and when necessary, therefore , he had not acquired the status of permanent worker . The Party No. 1 has denied thatit is being engaged in the business of preparation of cocoon but has pleaded that its activity is to impart training ofproduction of cocoon and allied activities and therefore , it cannot be said that it is doing any business , as alleged by the workman and a memo containing true charges were issued against the workman on 17-2-92 arid the charges levelled against the workman are absolutely correct and there is no concoction or any elaboration to give colour to the charges and the misconducts committed by the workman was very serious in nature and the same were committed during his duty hours . It is also pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the workman had not worked continuously and he was working on as and when basis and he had not completed 240 days of continuous service and such facts were known to him and as such, he did not raise any dispute or demand to regularize his services and whenever the workman reported for duty, he used to create scene and very instrumental to cover other workman living their assigned jobs and duties , but to provide employment to the local people , with all these ordeals to employer, he wasprovided with the work and on 28-2-1992 , the services ofthe workman were terminated with immediate effect , on the ground of very serious misconduct for which the workman had tendered apology but continued to indulge in the same activity further and as the workman had not acquired the status of permanent workman , there was no question of complying the provisions of Sections 25 - F 2942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

At another place, the Party No. 1 has pleaded that as the workman admitted his guilt and he was a casual fabourer, there was no need for conducting any enquiry. Though , the Party No. 1 has pleaded that the workman was working as and when required , there is nothing on record to support the same . The Party, No. 1 has not adduced any evidence in support of its clain of the misconduct committed by the workman . In view of the unchallenged testimony of the workman on affidavit and in absence of any rebuttal evidence , it is held that the workman was working continuously as a Mazdoor from the year 1984 till the date ofhis termination i.e. 28-2-1992 and the termination of the workman amount to retrenchment . It is also found that the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act are applicable in this case and the said mandatory provisions were not complied with by the Party No. 1 at the time of the termination of the services of the workman . So , the termination of the service ofthe workman is held to be illegal .

6. Now, the point for consideration is regarding the reliefs , for which the workman is entitled to . Admittedly the workman has not mentioned either in the statement of claimjor in the affidavit filed by him that he was engaged against any particular post or sanctioned post . Rather , he has mentioned that he was appointed as a Mazdoor on daily wages and he was being paid Rs . 14 as his daily wages . The work man has also neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence that he was not gainfully employed after the dateof termination of his services . In his context, I think it apposite to refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courtlas reported in 2010 , ( 8) SCALE at pg . 583 ( Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty) .

The Hon'ble Apex Court have 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 reinstatment - Respondent wasinitially engaged as daily wager by appellants In 1978- His engagement continued for about 17 fears intermittently upto 6-9-1985 - Respondent taised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of procedure prescribed in Section 25 - F ofthe Act Labour Court rejected respondent's claim holding that Section 25 - F of the Act was hot 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 Courtdirected 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 ,

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( i ) ] A. The High Court erred in granting relict of reinstatement to the respondent . The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about seven years intermittently upto 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 of justice . In our considered opinion , the compensation of Rs . 1,00,000/ - ( Rupees onc lac) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just and equitable . We ordered accordingly. Such payment shall be made within a week from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum . "

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 Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organisation , Central Silk Board , at Dawripar , Bhandara - 441904 ( M. S. ) in terminating the services of Shri Bakaram Ratiram Kalnayake , Casual Labour w.e.l. 28-2-1992 is not legal and justified . The workman is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs . 50,000 ( Rupees fifty thousand only) . The management of Party No. 1 is directed to pay the said amount, within one month from the date of publication 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 , 2011

का. आ. 988. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12012/45/ 2006- आई आर ( बी -1 ) रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011-

S.O. 988.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011

[No. L- 12012/ 45/2006 - IR( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated : 21st February, 2011

PRESENT:

Shri S. N. Navalgund , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 44/2006

1 Party:

Shri Rangaswamy B. K. ,

C/ o Jayaprakash B H ,

Opp . To Tennis Court ,

Urdu Boys School Road , Kanakapura, Bangalore Rural District , Bangalore - 562117

II Party :

The General Manager ( P) ,

State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Region - I , No. 48 , 5th Floor, Church Street , P. B. No. 5014 , Bangalore- 560001

APPEARANCES :

I Party : None

II Party : Shri A. G. Shivananda , Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby Clause ( d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L - 12012 /45 / 2006 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 27-10-2006 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in imposing the punishment of discharge from the services of the bank on Shri B. K. Rangaswamy, Senior Assistant , Kanakapur Branch ,

2943

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

State Bank of India w.e.f. 31-5-2005 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

2. On receipt of this reference though as per the direction of the Central Government the I party failed to submithis claim statement notices were issued to him and since the notice issued to him returned unserved with an endorsement that he has left the address , notice was caused for service by way of affixture and inspite of due service by way of affixture he did not enter his appearance and filed his claim statement . The counsel for II party was called upon to file his statement to substantiate the impugned action taken against the I party , the counsel for the II party while filing the affidavit of enquiry officer examining him on oath as MWI got marked :

Marked as Sl . Description of Document

No.

I. Copy of Charge Sheet with list of documents served on the I party dated 12-2-2005

Ex,M - 1

Ex . M-2 2. Letter appointing Sh . S. S. Parvathikar , Manager (IOR ) as Enquiry Officer and Smt . Nagashree , Dy . Manager as Pre senting Officer

Ex .M -3 3. Enquiry Report dated 5-3-2005

4. Order of Disciplinary Authority dated 31-5-2005

Ex .M -4

Ex. M-5 5. Order of Appellate Authority dated 23-7-2005

Ex . M-6 6. Letter written by I party to AGM dated 25-6-2005

and also addressed his arguments .

3. It is borne out from the evidence brought on record for the II party while I party was working as Senior Assistant at Kanakapura Branch of SBI charges sheet . dated 12-2-2005 was served on him with the following charges.

Charges :

" I. ( a ) You have marked off the entry pertaining to TDR No. 15564 dated 4-4-2003 for Rs . 50,000 due on 4-4-2006 , favouring Smt . H. V. Pushpa , appearing on Folio No. 94 , of TDR Register No. 5 by noticing " a/ c closed " under your authentication .

(b ) You have marked off the entry pertaining to TDR No. 15519 dated 6-1-2003 for Rs . 50,000 due on 3-11-05 favouring Shri T. Narayanaswamy , appearing on Folio No. 73 of TDR Register No. 5 by noting " a/ c closed " under your authentication .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

24-4-2008 favouring Shri Sudershanam and Smt . Sheivanaik appearing on Folio No. 102 of TDR Register No. 5 by noting " a/ c' closed " under your authentication .

Consequently , these above mentioned deposit entries were not carried over to the Banking System onthe date of computerisation on 1-6-03 . You have made good the amount as under in the presence of Shri S. Krishnamurthy, the then Branch Manager and Shri G. Sukumar , the then Asstt . Manager (Accts .) and confessed having committed the irregularity and submitted a confession letter to the. Branch Manager.

Remitted Rs . 50,000 on 1-1-04 towards issue of a TDR favouring Smt . H. V. Pushpa in respect of ( a ) above .

Remitted Rs . 50,000 towards issue of TDR favouring Shri T. Narayanaswamy in respect of(b) above.

Remitted Rs . 1,00,000 on 17-1-04 towards issue ofSTDR favouring Shri Sudarshnam and Smt . Sheiva Naik in respect of ( c ) above .

Paid the interest for the period from 4-4-03 to 1-1-04 in respect of ( a) and for the period from 6-1-03 to 1-1-04 in respect of (b ) directto the depositors in the presence of Shri S. Krishnamurthy and Shri G. Sukumar.

Paid the interest for the period 17-5-03 to 17-1-04 in respect of ( c ) to Shri G. Sukumar, Asstt . Manager ( Accounts ) for depositing into the Bank .

You have made a fictitious credit entry of Rs . 35,000 on 11-1-03 in the ledger A/ c No : 12/ 1328 of Shri N. H. Shivasiddegowda and authenticated the resultant balance .

You have made a factitious credit entry of Rs . 25,000 on 31-12-02 in the ledger A/ c No. 42/5238 of Shri Shivalingegowda and authenticated the resultant balance .

You have made a fictitious credit entry of Rs . 30,000 on 30-1-03 in the ledger A/ c No. 42/ 5273 of Shri Munisiddaiah and authenticated the resultant balance .

In order to cover up the above fictitious entries you have made the following extraneous

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] entries in Savings Bank Day Book on 7-2-03:

(a) Debit entry of Rs . 90,000 against S.B. A/ c No. 632 of Shri C. Byrappa without customer's debit confirmation ,

AND

( b) Credit entry of Rs . 35,000 against S.B. A / c No. 1328 of Shri N. H. Shivasiddegowda .

(d) Credit entry of Rs . 30,000 against S.B. A / c No. 5273 of Shri Munisiddaiah.

You have also increased the totals of Transfer Scroll by Rs . 90,000 on both debit and credit sales , without any corresponding entries therein . The Savings Bank Day Book has been checked by you deliberately ignoring the above entries in the Day Book , without corresponding vouchers as well as entries in the respective ledger accounts . You have balanced the ledgers and confirmed it as tallied with the Progressive Balance for January and February 2003 despite the above discrepancies .

In order to cover up the extraneous debit entry of Rs. 90,000 made in the Savings Bank Day Book on 7-2-03 , you have remitted Rs . 90,000 on 31-5-03 . In Case , entered in the Cash Scroll , S.B. Day Book , against S.B. A/ c No. 632 of Shri Byrappa , but did not post in the relative ledger account . You have ignored the discrepancy while checking the Day Book.

III

You have made the following fictitious entries in the S.B. Ledger A / c No. 9/1006 of Smt . Chandra:

Date

Amount ( Rs . ) Dr./Cr. Entry

Cr.

29,500.00 1-1-03

8-1-03

Dr.

22-1-03

Dr.

2,000.00 You have authenticated the resultant balance .

On 31-1-03 , you have remitted a sum of Rs . 17.500 which has been entered in Cash Receipt Scroll and SB Day Book against S.B. A/ c No. 9/1005 but not entered in the relative ledger account . The S.B. Day Book has been checked by you , deliberately ignoring thediscrepancy .

On 10-5-03 you have made an extraneous credit entry ofRs . 25,000 in S.B. A/ c No. 21/2599 of Kum . Deepa and authenticated the resultant balance .

The above extrenaous credit entry has been covered up by you as under :

On 31-5-03 a cash remittance of Rs . 25,000 made for credit of the above account has not been entered in [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

the ledger account. The S.B. Day Book has been checked byyou on 31-5-03 ignoring the discrepancy between the entries in the S.B. Day Book and the ledger Account.

On 27-2-03 , you have made a fictitious credit entry of Rs . 40,000 in S.B. A/c No. 39/4960 of Shri Anand and authenticated the resultant balance in the ledger account . You have also entered the amount in the Pass Book of Shri Anand and authenticated the balance therein . Subsequently, you have struck off this entry in the ledger account and incorporated the correct balance . On31-5-03 , cash deposit of Rs . 40,000 was made into the account and entered in the ledger account . However, credit entry dated 31-5-03 has not been incorporated in the relative PassBook .

On4-4-03 , you have made an extraneous credit entry of Rs . 35,000 in the S.B. Account No. 20/2523 of Shri V. Nagendra and the resultant balance has been authenticated by you .

The above extraneous credit entry has been covered up by a cash remittance of Rs . 35,000 on 23-4-03 which is entered in the Cash Receipt Scroll and S.B. Day Book and has not been posted in the relative ledger account . You have ignored this discrepancy while checking the Day Book . "

4.After collecting the reply of the I party being not satisfied with the same the management ordered enquiry dated 28-2-2005 appointing Sh. S. S. Parvathikar , Manager ( IOR) as Enquiry Officer and Smt . Nagashree as Presenting Officer . Then the Enquiry Officer fixed the preliminary enquiry on 5-3-2005 and the I party who appeared on that day before the Enquiry Officer when the charges were read over to him, he admitted the charges and even then the Presenting Officer examined Sh . K. Shiva Prakash , Branch Manager , Kanakapura as MW 1 and got marked DEx 1 and first party did not challenge his evidence . Since the 1 party admitted the charges and submitted that he has no defence evidence and written submission to be filed, the Enquiry Officer having regard to the evidence placed by the management submitted his findings holding first party guilty of the charges . Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the copy of the enquiry findings to the I party calling upon his reply and the I party in his reply also admitted the charges and requested for lenient view the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the grave charges ofmisconduct proved against the I party coming to the conclusion that the appropriate punishment is the discharge passed the impugned order of discharge on 31-5-2005 . Then the I party appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority to the Appellate Authority wherein 1112GI/2011-16

2945 also he requested to view leniently and the Appellate Authority having regard to the grave and serious misconductat misappropriation of a sum of Rs . 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh only) affirmed the punishment of discharge imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by its orderdated 23-7-2005.

5. On going through the proceedings of the enquiry and the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer absolutely I find no reason to state that the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper and in view of the clear admission made by the I party on the charges of misappropriation the findings of the Enquiry Officer for no reason can be said as perverse or wrong and similarly the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority also cannot be said to be excessive. Under these circumstances and the I party failed to enter into his appearance to file claim statement and challenge the validity of Domestic Enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority absolutely I find no reason to interfere either in the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority in imposing the punishment ofdischarge . In the result , I arrive at conclusion of rejecting the reference and passing the following order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected holding that the action of the management imposing the punishment of discharge against the I party being legal and justified.

(Dictated to UDC , transcribed by him , corrected and signed by me on 21st February, 2011 )

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer Witness examined :

On behalf of Management - Sh . S. S. Parvathikar - MWI Onbehalf of Workman - None

Documents marked :

Ex. M- 1 1. Copy of Charge Sheet with list of documents served on the I party dated 12-2-2005

Ex . M-2 2. Letter appointing Sh . S. S. Parvathikar, Manager ( IOR ) as Enquiry Officer and Smt. Nagashree , Dy. Manager as Presenting Officer

Ex. M-3 3. Enquiry Report dated 5-3-2005

Ex. M -4 4. Order of Disciplinary Authority dated 31-5-2005

Ex. M-5 5. Order of Appellate Authority dated 23-7-2005

Ex. M-6 6. Letter written by I party to AGM dated 25-6-2005 2946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , ।। मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 989.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947. ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12025/ 1/2010- आई आर ( बी -11 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th March , 2011

S.O. 989.- In ; ursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 03 / 2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 10-03-2011 .

[No. L - 12025/1 / 2010 - IR ( B - 11 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Misc. Application No. 03 of 2008

U/ s 3.3A of the I.D. Act , 1947

(Arising out of Reference No. 44 of 2005 ) PARTIES:

Kamal Kumar Sahoo , Part - time Sweeper , C/ o Punjab National Bank , Mahapal Branch , P.O. Petbindhi , Dist . Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal - 721517

[ PART 11--St . 30 APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the Applicant : Mr. R. Chattopadhyay . Treasurer of the Bank Employees ' Federation (W.B. ) with Mr. A. Mitra . General Secretary , Punjab National Bank Employees ' Federation .

On behalf of the Opp. Party : Mr. Arvind Indwar , Manager HRD of the Bank .

Industry Banking Dated : 03-03-2011

AWARD

This matter has been initiated in reference to Reference No. 44 of 2005. The Applicant's case is that he is engaged as the Part- time Sweeper in the Mahapal Branch (District Paschim Medinipur ) of Punjab National Bank since 1987. Another post in the subordinate cadre , Peon , was held by Shri Chittaranjan Singha and on his retirement since 1st February , 2002 the said post of Peon fell vacant and the Opp . Party neglected and / or failed to provide a substitute of Shri Chittaranjan Singha in the said post of Peon . The Applicant claimed that he was verbally engaged by the Opp . Party Bank to carry on day - to- day normal business of the branch , as Peon of the Branch over and above his normal duties and responsibilities as part - time Sweeper from 1st February , 2002 which he did continuously and uninterruptedly in addition to his normal duties . The Manager of the Bank failed and neglected to pay normal usual pay and allowances attached to the post of Peon to the Applicant even though he did the job of Peon as an added work . The Opp . Party Bank has regularized the service of one Shri Nitya Ghosal , another similarly circumstanced part - time Sweeper of the Bank employed atGobindanagar Branch at Purulia to the post of Peon and such filling up the post of Peon by some other person , the Bank tried to subvert the claim of the present workman and it was claimed to be in violation of Section 33 ( 1 ) read with Section 20 ( 3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

... Applicant

Vs.

The Chie Manager , Punjab National Bank, CircleOffice( Former Zonal Office) , Appejay House . 4th Floor, 15, Park Stream , Kolkata -700016

The Circle Head , Punjab National Bank , Circle Office, Vidyasagar Road , Battala Chowk . Medinipur - 721101 ... Opp . Parties .

PRESENT :

Mr. Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer 2. The Opposite Party Bank , in the written objection submitted that the provision of Section 33 of the Act deals with the condition of service to remain unchanged in certain circumstances during the pendency of proceedings and the Applicant , Shri Sahoo failed to explain as to how the process of recruitment for filling up the vacancy of Peon at the Branch Office at Mahapal has changed his condition of service and infringed his right causing prejudice to him . It is further stated that after retirement of the permanent Peon on 31-01-2002 , the recruitment process was initiated and finally the post of Peon was filled up in 2007. It is claimed by the Opp . Party that Shri Sahoo was appointed as a Part - time Sweeper in 1 / 3rd scale wages and whenever Shri Sahoo voluntarily performed some duties , he was adequately compensated for the same and such additional work done by him does not confer any [ भाग 11-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

right upon him to claim appointment in subordinate cadre dehors and rules. The Opp . Party Bank claimed that any condition of service as applicable to the Applicant , Shri Sahoo has not been changed or altered and the pending proceeding in the main Reference No. 44 of 2005 has got no relevance to the recruitment process undertaken by the Bank under the rules .

3. In the rejoinder nothing new has been stated by the Applicant, rather has expressed that the Applicant reiterate all the averments made in the main application .

4. This is an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 where the Applicant has alleged that there was a change of service condition by the act of the management Opp . Party as they filled up the vacant post of Peon during the pendency of the Reference No. 44 of 2005 where the present Applicant , who is a Part- time Sweeper, claimed his regularization to the said post of Peon . In this context , a reference may be made to the provision of Section 33 ( 1 ) of the Act where it has been provided that during the pendency of any proceeding before any Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute , no employer shall in regard to any matter connected with the dispute , alter, to the prejudice of the workman concerned in such dispute , the condition of service applicable to them immediately before commencement of such proceeding .

5. As alleged , filling up of the post of Peon in regular vacancy of the Bank was to be done by going through the prescribed procedure for such filling up. The Applicant here was actually working as a Part - time Sweeper in the concerned Branch of the Bank and as the previous Peon , namely, Chittaranjan Singha retired on Superannuation , the Bank authority asked him to do some job of Peon- cum -Daftary against some remuneration on verbal request in addition to his usual duties of part- time Sweeper which was his substantive posting . This Applicant further alleged that he claimed his regularization to the post of Peon as it was lying vacant at that point of time and since his claim or request was not entertained by the Opp . Party Bank by way of regularization , on his initiation conciliation, proceeding before the conciliation officer and thereafter a reference through the Ministry of Labour , Government of India came to this Tribunal and that reference is pending . The Applicant claimed that his claim of regularization is still alive in the pending reference and during such pendency, the Opp . Party Bank filled up the post of Peon ignoring the claim of the present Applicant and this act of the Opp. Party Bank , has been claimed by the Applicant as being a change of service condition which is barred by the provision of Section 33 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

6. In appreciation of the submission and presentation on behalf of the Applicant concerned , I am of the view that the Applicant's substantive posting is as

2947 part - time Sweeper and not as the Peon as a part - time job or otherwise keeping the Peon's post vacant . The Applicant himself has admitted that since after the retirement by the erstwhile Peon , namely , Shri Chittaranjan Singha , he was verbally requested by the Bank authority to do some job of the Peon - cum - Daftary for a temporary period over and above his usual job of part- time Sweeper. So , the job of Peon by the Applicant , has no legal status for claiming that any change in the situation of vacancy to the post of Peon , creates right in the Applicant to raise his voice alleging a change in service condition.

7. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get regularization or not that is not a point for discussion and decision here since it is a matter relating to the reference referred above , which is pending before this Tribunal in a different capacity. So , the entitlement of regularization is not in the zone of consideration in the present matter. It is simply to find if any change has been done in respect of the vacancy of the post of Peon , that does not give any right to the present Applicant to raise his voice alleging a change of service condition in respect of the post of Part- time Sweeper .

8. In view of the discussions made in the earlier paragraphs , I am of the view that the present application has got no basis and the present Applicant also has no locus standi in raising the issue of change in the service condition on filling up the vacancy of Peon in the Bank by the Opp . Party Bank .

9. In result , the present application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 fails and it is rejected.

An Award is passed accordingly .

MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer Dated : Kolkata , the 3rd March . 2011 .

नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 990.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर- पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-201 । को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -41012/08/ 2007 - आई आर ( बी -1 ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th March , 2011

S.O. 990.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 40 / 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Centrai Government оп 10-03-2011 .

[No.1-41012/ 8/2007 - IR( B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT :

Dr. Manju Nigam , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 40/2007

Ref. No. L- 41012 / 8 / 2007 - IR( B- 1 ) dated 31-08-2007 Between

Sh . Nand Lal S /o Shri Banshraj Yadav ,

C/ o Sh . Parvez Alam ,

Resident of 283/63 , Garhi Kanora ,

Premwati Nagar ,

P.O. Manaknagar,

Lucknow ( U.P. )

And

1. The Dy. Chief Engineer ( C) North Eastern Railway, DRM Office , Ashok Marg , Lucknow

2. The Sr. Divisional Engineer (RA ) ( East ) North Eastern Railway,

Gorakhpur

AWARD

1. By order No. L -41012/ 8/2007 - IR ( B - I ) dated :

31-08-2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between Sh . Nand Lal S/ o Shri Banshraj Yadav, C/o Sh . Parvez Alam , Resident of 283/63 , Garhi Kanora , Premwati Nagar, P.O. Manaknagar , Lucknow and the Dy.Chief Engineer ( C) , North Eastern Railway, DRM Office , Ashok Marg , Lucknow & the Sr. Divisional Engineer (RA ) ( East) , North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is:

Kya purvottar , Railway Prabandhan Dwara Shri Nand Lal Suputra Shri Vansh Raj Yadav, $thanapann Shramik Ko Audhogik Vivaad Ke Praavdhano Ka Paalan Key Bina Dinank 15-12-79 Ko Naukari Se Nikaal Diya Jana Vaidh Va Nyayochit

(PART II --SFC . 3 ( ii ) | Hai ? Yadi Nahi , To Kaamgaar Kis Rahat Ka Adhikaari Hai ? "

3. The case of the workman , Nand Lal , in brief, is that he worked as substitute worker w.e.f. 18-07-78 to 15-12-79 for 505 days and his services has been terminated on 16-12 79 without any notice or retrenchment compensation , in violation ofthe provisions of the section 2SF of the I.D. Act . He has alleged that management retained other workmen who were junior to him in violation to the provisions of Section 25G & H of the Act as well as itregularized other junior workmen after empanelling them in the panel of year 2001-2002 , but the workman has not been regularized till date . He has further submitted tliet he is entitled for reinstatement and regularization as per provisions contained in Railway Establishment Code 2501 、 2505, 2301 & 2302 and Railway Board's P.S. No. 9048 & 9199. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that he he reinstated with back wages and other consequential benefits w.e.f. the date of his retrenchment .

4. The workman filed photo copy of casual labour card , paper No. 7/2 to 7/5 and photo copy of postal receipts . paper No. 7/6 , in support of his claim .

5. The opposite parties were called upon to file their written statement vide registered notices dated 08-10-2007. However , the envelop containing notice to the opposite party No. 02 was received back unserved . The opposite party No. I put appearance through its authorized representative , Shri Deepak Shukla on 26-10-2007 and subsequently on 30-11-2007 filed application for deletion of opposite party No. I from the array of parties , supported with an affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sharma, Dy. ChiefEngineer ( C ) , NER , Lucknow ; wherein it has been pleaded that the workman never worked under the Unit of Deputy Chief Engineer ( C ) , NER , Lucknow and the workman has impleaded Dy . Chief Engineer ( C ) wrongly as opposite party no . 1 ; and accordingly prayed that since the Dy. Chief Engineer ( C ) , NER , Lucknow has been wrongly impleaded in the case as opposite party no . 1, hence the present claim petition may be dismissed due to misjoinder of necessary parties . Also , it submitted that the matter pertains to the open line under DRM , Lucknow under which workman has claimed his alleged working on the basis of casual labour card hence the name of opposite party no. 1 is liable to be deleted from the array of parties . No formal written statement was ever filed by the either opposite parties .

6. The authorized representative of the workman filed objection to the above application for deletion of opposite party No. 1 from the array of parties , paper No. A- 10 ; wherein it stated that the opposite parties contented their case before Regional Labour Commissioner ( C ) . Lucknow according to which present industrial dispute has been referred to this Tribunal ; and accordingly, the power to delete any of the parties vests in the Ministry of Labour only .

2949 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

( ix) 2006 ( 108 ) FLR 592 Sonepat Co - operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumaг .

(x) 2008 ( 119 ) FLR 398 Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. a Sankaralingam .

(xi ) 2008 ( 119 ) FLR 404 Atam Prakash vs. State of UP & other.

11. In the present case the onus was on the workman to set the grounds for his claim that his services were terminated in violation of Section 25 F of the LD . Act and the workman has discharged his burden and ins proved by way of its affidavit that he worked as substitute casual labour from 18-07-78 to 15-12-79 for 505 days and his services were terminated without any notice vi retrenchment compensation. The management has not turned up to rebut the facts stated by the workman in its evidence .

7. The notice dated 03-03-2009 was issued to opposite party no . 2 by registered post as well as Dasti ; but the notice issued by post was received back un - served; whereas dasti notice was received in the office of pravar Sahayak Mandal Engineer ( Pratham ) , NER , Gorakhpur , even then none turned up from opposite party no . 2. At the request of workman another registered notice dated 18-05-2009 was issued at the address of Mandal Engineer (Pratham ) , NER, Gorakhpur ; which too was received back unserved. This Tribunal , taking into account the receiving through office stamp of Mandal Engineer ( Pratham ) , NER , Gorakhpur , vide its order dated 16-09-2009 held that notice was duiy served upon the opposite party no . 2; and arcordingly the case was ordered to proceed ex - parte aainst the opposite party no . 2. Likewise , when the opposite party no. I did not turn up to press its application for deletion of opposite party No. 1 from the array of parties , the case was ordered to proceed ex - parte against opposite party no. I also , vide order dated 07-01-2010 and next date was fixed for workman's evidence .

8. The workman filed its evidence on affidavit and next date was fixed for arguments . The workman forwarded its oral as well as written arguments and the case was reserved for award .

9. Heard representative of the workman and perused evidence on record .

12. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2006 ) 3 SCC 276 State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava & others the statement of the witness . having not been controverter would be deemed to be admitted. In the present case the workman has sustained his case of having worked for 505 days in total by filing his affidavit and in view of non- filing of any written statement or affidavit by the management in rebuttal to controvert the workman's claim of statement , there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the workman given on oath .

13. The workman has filed photocopy of ' record of service as casual labour ' ; wherein following working details , in respect of the workman , has been mentioned :

Number of days

Period of employment as casual labour

From

10. It is the case of the workman that he worked as substitute worker w.e.f. 18-07-78 to 15-12-79 for 505 days and his services has been terminated on 16-12-79 without any notice or retrenchment compensation , in violation of the provisions of the section 25F of the 1.D. Act . He has filed photocopy of the ' record of service as casual labour ' in support of his claim; wherein it has been mentioned that the workman has worked for 505 days as casual labour w.e.f. 18-07-78 to 15-12-79 . It has relied on following case laws:

18-07-78

15-10-78

15-01-79

16-10-78

(i ) 2009 ( 123 ) FLR 201 Gayanendra Pal Singh & Others vs. Cane Commissioner & other.

15-03-79

18-01-79

15-08-79

150

19-03-79

( ii ) 2004 ( 100 ) FLR 109 State of U.P. & another vs. PO , Labour Court , Agra & another.

15-9-79

19-8-79

(iii ) 2004 SCC ( L & S ) 506 Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & others .

15-11-79

19-9-79

15-12-79

16-11-79

( iv) 2003 (96 ) FLR 1094 Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar & others .

505

Total

( v) 1992 ( 64 ) 1005 Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others .

(vi ) 2000 SCC ( L & S ) 362 Nar Singh Pal vs. Union of India & others .

(vii ) 2001 ( 88 ) FLR 508 Deep Chandra vs. State of U.P. & another.

14. The representative of the workman has contended that after having worked for 120 days the workman should have granted temporary status . A bare perusal of the period of employment in respect of workman it is evident that workman worked continuously for two spells i.e. from 18-07-78 to 15-10-78 and 16-10-78 to 15-01-79 for 90 days and 92 days respectively . This shows (viii) 2004 ( 103 ) FLR 146 Krishna Bahadur vs. M/s . Purana Theatre & others .

2950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

that the workman worked continuously w.e.f. 18-07-78 to 15-01-79 , continuously for 182 days ; which was sufficient for grant of temporary status to the workman having worked continuously for 182 days in 6 month's time .

[ PART II- SEC. 3tii ) ] with full back wages . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

20. Award as above .

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer Lucknow, 24-02-2010

15. In 2003 (96 ) FLR 1094 between the Union of India & another vs. Girja Shankar & others Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that the respondents remained in services for more than 120 days in accordance with the Rule 2511 of Chapter XXV of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual , he acquired the status of temporary Government servant .

16. Further , in 1992 ( 64) 1055 Union of India & others vs. Basant Lal & others Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in case the workers were employed in the construction work on the open line then they would acquire a temporary status after continuous employment of 120 days , but if the workers were employed on a project work then they can acquire temporary status only after completing 360 days of services . Workers were appointed in the post of casual labour and it was nowhere mentioned that they were employed as casual labour on a project work . All the 105 workers would be entitled to the salary equal to a temporary status employee of the Railway at the initial stage of the pay.

17. Also , in 2004 ( 100) FLR 109 State of UP & another vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Agra & another Hon'ble Allahabad High Court found no illegality or informity in the award given by the Labour Court ; wherein the Labour Court held the order of termination as illegal and unjustified . In the said case the employers neither appeared nor led evidence before the Labour Court in support of their case ; whereas workman examined himself and proved that he had worked as a Clerk . Therefore , Labour Court granted relief of reinstatement with full back wages.

18. In the instant case , it is the case of the workman that he worked for 505 days and he was entitled for temporary status as per provisions of Railway Establishment Manual on completion of 120 days ' continuous service . In the absence of any rebuttal from the management, it is well proved that the workman had worked for more than 120 days without a break in capacity ofcasual labour and in view of the legal position discussed above; it can be held that the workman deemed to have acquired temporary status on completion of 120 days continuously and termination of his services without giving him a notice was in violation of the provisions of Rule 2304 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and was not sustainable in law.

19. Thus , I came to the conclusion that the action of the management of North Eastern Railway in terminating the services of workman , Nand Lal was illegal and unjustified and accordingly, he is entitled to be reinstated नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 991.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ट्रेनिंग शिय चाणक्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या मी जी आई टी-2/41 ऑफ 2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीग सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31012/14/2010- आई आर ( वी- II ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 991. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award PART- 11 ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 41 of 2010 ) 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 Training Ship Chanakya and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-03-2011 .

[No. L -31012 /14/2010 - IR ( B - 11 ) RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 2 / 41 of 2010 Employers in relation to the Management of Training Ship Chanakya

Capt. Superintendent , Training Ship Chanakya , AtVillage Karve , Nerul , Navi Mumbai - 400 706

And

Their Workmen , Ms. Harshita Patil , C/ o 105 ' C ' Type, B -Wing . Malhar Sankui , Near Mahindra Singh Kabul Singh High School , Agra Road , Kalyan ( W) 421 301 .

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer : Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate For the workmen : No appearance .

Mumbai , Dated the 12th January , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No. L - 31012 / 14 /2010 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 07-04-2010 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 Captain Superintendent , Training Ship, Chanakya , Mumbai in terminating the services of Ms. Harshita Patil , ex - LDC with effect from 1-04-2008 is legal , just and proper ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? " 2. Notices were served on both the parties . However , second party though duly served , remained absent . Registered AD receipt to that effect is at Ex - 4 . The second party Ms. Harshita Patil did not appear and file the statement of claim therefore , this reference cannot be decided on merit and the same deserves to be rejected . Thus I pass the following order :

ORDER

Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution .

Date: 12-01-2011

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 992.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीचं, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय -2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012 / 136 / 1998 - आई आर ( बी -11 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 992. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 39/ 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 2 , Dhanbad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 136 / 1998 - IR( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGII , Desk Officer

2951

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2 ) AT DHANBAD PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 )( d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 39 of 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate

Onbehalf of the workman : Shri Pratap M. Thacker , the concerned workman himself

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking .

Dated , Dhanbad , the 14th February, 2011

AWARD

SCHEDULE

"Whether the order of dismissal of the management ofBank ofBaroda against Sh . Pratap M. Thacker , Ex- Clerk Bank of Baroda , Dhanbad is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. The case of workman Sh . Pratap M. Thacker , Ex- Clerk ofBank of Baroda , Dhanbad as pleaded in his Written Statement is that though he had been working permanently atBank of Baroda since long with unblemished record of his service yet he was charge sheeted on 27-3-95 after .. lapse of two years by the management out of conspiracy with some interested persons with ulterior motive to remove him from the service on false and frivolous allegations that during the period between 1-11-93 and 17-11-93 , he had allegedly manipulated and tampered with bank records , connived with outsider to commit fraud , caused considerable loss and prejudicial to the Bank and its interest respectively , defrauding the Bank , he caused wrongful gain to himself and equally corresponding loss with it , and that his act was unbecoming of the Bank employee . The core allegation against the workman was that one customer J. K. Sah had committed fraud of Rs . 40,000 upon the Bank 2952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[ PART 11- S1: c . 3 ( ii) by presenting a cheque and the concerned workman had helped him to commit the fraud . As per the procedure of the Bank , the workman had entered O.B.C. into the lodgement register, and forwarded to his superior authority for verification and check . It was the duty of the verifying officer to check and verify O.B.C. and to instruct the destination Bank accordingly just as the official had to do so , namely, verification of the signature of the sender's Bank . The O.B.C. is entered in the Saving Bank Account after checking and verification by the superior officer . In the instant case after due verification and checking by the superior officer it was credited in the saving account of afroresaid Shri J. K. Sah , who had submitted his withdrawal cheque under his signature and accordingly the said amount was paid to him . All the allegations contained in the charge - sheet were emphatically denied as false and frivolous , though the management directed for perfunctory departmental enquiry against him .

corresponding gain to Sri Jayesh Kumar Sah by fraudulently indicating realisation of that amount from U. B. I , New Delhi . through a fabricated cheque drawn in his favour. The workman also committed fraud for Rs . 606 as his T.A. and D.A. on 29-9-73 for his alleged claim to have attended the Regional Office at Jamshedpur for a interview on 3-3-93 . So he was charge sheeted on 27-3-95 for his aforesaid fraudulent acts and after its detection he was suspended with effect from 4-4-94 and was paid subsistence allowance as per the Rules of the Bank during the pendency of the enquiry. But the workman did not submit his reply to the charges .As per Office order dated 27-3-95 , the management appointed Shri Rajendra Kumar , Branch Manager and Shri V. S. Nishtala both Branch Managers of Bhiyadih Branch and Burma Mines Branch as the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer respectively for holding the enquiry against the workman . On notices , both the workman and the Presenting Officer appeared on 8-8-95 in the enquiry . and the documents concerned produced by the Presenting Officerwere properly verified and accepted by the workman as genuine and authentic which were marked as M - 1 , M - 2 to M - 53 but it did not raise any objection rather he desired to defend his case accordingly. On not pleading guilty by the workman to the charges levelled against him . The workman in course of enquiry on 5-9-95 requested for permission to engage his lawyer for his defence , but on its reference to the Disciplinary Authority, the workman was advised to engage his defence representative instead of lawyer as per Banking Rules . So the workman engaged Shri Sukanta Paul as Defence Representative to assist him in conducting his defence in the enquiry : Both the parties participated in it and the workman was given full opportunity to cross - examine all the management witnesses to give his statement and defence witness if any as well to file his any document . Thus the departmental enquiry was failry and properly held in accordance with the principle of natural justice. But it did not raise any objection against the Enquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer and the procedure of the enquiry at any time . After the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 9-4-96 . holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him.

Further case of the workman is that for the same allegation , a criminal case was lodged against aforesaid Shr J. K. Sah for defrauding with the Bank . Even then the workman was belatedly charge sheeted for the aforesaid allegations without holding a preliminary enquiry properly. So the charge sheet was illegal and void ab initio . A biased and prejudiced Enquiry Officer was appointed to save his colleague officer who was actually helped in the commission of fraud by aforesaid J. K. Sah . The departmental enquiry , inwhich he was not given an opportunity to cross - examine the management witness or to defend his case even by submitting their statement voluntarily, was against the all norms of the natural justice . The Enquiry Officer put only leading question to the management witness . Shri J. K. Sah had also confessed his guilt in writing before the management . Even in invalid and irregular enquiry departmentally, though the charges as levelled were not proved against the workman , yet he was dismissed by an unauthorised person without issuing second show cause notice to him prior to imposing such dimissał punishment upon him . When his representation before the management against the illegal and arbitrary dismissal order was ineffective , he raised this industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) , Dhanbad which a'so failed, it resulted in its Reference for adjudication at the point whether his dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct , and lastly it is alleged that the action of the management in dismissing the workman was mala fide , unjust and against the principle of natural justice . The dismissal of the workman was too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged offence .

3. Whereas the case of management is that the concerned workman committed serious misconduct in course of hisdischarge of his duty as a Clerk in the Bills Department of Dhanbad Branch of the management between the period from 1-11-93 to 17-11-93 , and caused loss of Rs . 40,000 to the management with the

4. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority issued a letter dated 16 / 18-4-96 along with copy of the enquiry report and proceeding to the concerned workman for his representation against the finding of the enquiry report and proposed penalty to be imposed upon him . The workman submitted his representation dated 3-6-96 and the Disciplinary Authority gave him opportunity to personally making his submission or the charges of the finding of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter as per order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28-9-96 he was dismissed from his service as his penalty as per the rules of the Bank after holding full hearing of the case on 18-9-96 . The appeal which was preferred by the workman before the Appellate Authority against the order of the renalty dated 28-9-96 [ भाग 11-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19, 1933

after full hearing, the workman was dismissed being without merit . So the action of the management in his dismissal from the services was alleged to be legal , bonafide and justified.

5. Further pleaded on behalf of the management is that factually, the workman was though holding the permanent post yet had previously misappropriated the amount of Rs . 64,480 by withdrawing it from the Post Office . On asking him to refund and deposit the amount in the Bank, he requested to adjust the amount against his P.F. gratuity etc. falling due on retiring. Thus no management of the Bank could retain such person in the service . The detailed acts and omissions ofthe workman in dealing with the deposited cheque clearly indicate his personal involvement in its transaction in collusion with Shri Sah , Besides that, previously the workman was punished on two occasions, firstly, deference ofhis due increment date as penalty as per letter RM : PD : 92 : 31/884 dated 30-4-1981 for his frequently unauthorised absentism, and secondly, the stoppage of one increment for 6 months as per the order dated 15-3-1991 for unauthorised borrowing money from UCO Bank during the year 1980 and 1982 without prior permission from the Bank management as well as for his failure to pay off loan as complained by the saidBank to the management.

with the copy of the Enquiry Report as per letter ( Ext. M - 5 ) of the Disciplinary Authority. The workman submitsubmitted his representation under his signature (Ext . M -6) to the Disciplinary Authority, who also issued in the letter (Ext . M-7) providing an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal through his personal appearance on 18-9-96, the date on which the workin was present as per his attendance ( Ext. M - 8 ). On the aforesaid 18-9-96, he along with his represen represented under his signature (Ext. M- 9 ) proposed punishment and thereafter, in concerned workman , the hearing -was co Disciplinary Authority as per its proceeding, wal signatures of the Disciplinary Authority ( D. K. Sap RM, Sukant Paul , the defence representative and workme P. M. Tahcker ( Ext. M -10). Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from his service as per his order (Ext . M- 11 ): Though the worlanan filed an appeal against it ( its copy marked as Ext . M - 12) before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy General Marnger Satish Chandra Ahuja who was , after hearing him , pleased to dismiss his appeal as per his order (Ext . M - 13). The aforesaid Enquiry Officer has proved to having held the preliminary enquiry against the workman fairly, properly and in accordance with the principle of natural justice , giving him full opportunity to defend his case.

6. In the instant case , the Tribunal as per order dated 8-6-2004 after taking evidence of both the parties has held the domestic enquiry proceeding against the workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice.

7. FINDING WITH REASONS

In the instant case under adjudication , the single issue involves or evolves is whether the dismissal of workman from his service was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct of the workman for fraudulent withdrawal of Rs . 40,000 by customer J. K. Sah in his collusion through unauthorised instrument (Cheque ) from the Dhanbad Branch of the management , during the tenure ofhisClerkship between 1-11-93 and 17-11-93.

8. From the cross -examination of aforesaid Enquiry Officer, Rajender Kumar (MW- 1 ) , it stands evident that before the domestic enquiry against the workman , Shri P R. Sharma (MW-2 ) had investigated the case but submitted his investigation report after the closure of the domestic enquiry proceeding, in which the disputed cheque was not produced before him by the Presentung Officer though the cheque of Rs . 40,000 was credited to the account of customer J. K. Sah, who had thereafter withdrew it According to the aforesaid management witness, on the receipt of an outstation cheque by the Bank, it is entered into the outstation Bill collection register which is placed along with the cheque before the Passing Officer, yet the O.B.C register was not placed before the Passing Officer for making an endorsement on the back side ofthe cheque for collection . The credit voucher ( its photo copy marked as Ext . W- 1 for the amount of Rs . 40,000 (the disputed amount) standing in the name of J. K. Sah (J. K. Sah- Jayesh Kumar Sah ) proves that its amount was credited in his account . He has himself ascertained that the encashment ofa cheque requires filing it with a deposit slip which has two parts :One part is returned to the customer concerned , and the other part along with the cheque concerned is retained by the Bank, and that there is no scope to pass any direction to credit the amount in the account of the customer on the day when the customer deposits an outstation cheque except on the receipt of its advice from the outstation Bank concerned later on. When a cheque is presented by aforesaid J. K. Sah for withdrawal of the On scrutiny of the materials available on the case record, I find MW- 1 Rajender Kumar, the senior Branch Manager ofGelmuri Branch of Bank of India as Enquiry Officer having been appointed as per order dated 27-3-95 ofthe Disciplinary Authority (Ext. M -2) held the domestic enquiry as per Enquiry Proceedings (Enquiry papers marked as Ext . M - 3 series ) into the charges as contained in the Chargesheet (Ext . M - 1 ) against the workman who though participated in it and did examine one witness (DW- 1 Sri Sukant Paul ) on his behalf, following the examination of two witnesses (MW- 1 Shri P. K. Poddar, MW - 2 Shri P. R. Sharma) by the management, both of whom were cross- examined by the workman P. M. Thacker. After conclusion of the enquiry proceeding he submitted his report dated 9-4-1996 (Ext . M -4 ) holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges and accordingly, the workman was furnished

1112 GI/2011-17 1954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHATURA 19 , 1933

[PART 11 ---SEC . 3 ( i) ) amount , his signature is verified by the passing officer before its payment . Though the management witness (MW- Rajender Kumar ) as the Enquiring Officer has denied to have victimised this workman holding him guilty to the charges in the domestic enquiry with intent to save his colleague officer concerned . He also denied to have not fairly held the domestic enquiry against the workman in accordance with the principle of natural justice .

yet the departmental enquiry followed by his dismissal was motivatedly towards him but his contention appears to be empty and unreasonable in the face of the tangible proof of the charge of his misconduct as proved on behalf ofthe management . Secondly, he submitted that the denial of the management to his request to engage a lawyer for his defence in the departmental enquiry is against the violation of the natural justice . But this submission of the workman being baseless is untenable . Moreover, as per clause 19.12 ( a ) ( iii ) under Chapter XIX under the heading " THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND PROCEDURE THEREFOR " of the Bipartite settlement between certain Banking Companies and their workmen ( 1966 to 1979 ) specifically stipulates as to the representation of the workman himself or by representative of the registered trade union of the Bank employees as member thereof or aiso with the Bank's permission , by a lawyer. It clearly invests the Bank Management with the discretionary power to allow a lawyer for the representation of the workman concerned for his defence subject to the permission of the Bank concerned . In the instant case , the workman has fully contested by his active participation along with his defence representative Sri Sukant Paul in the departmental enquiry for the aforesaid charges of misconduct against the presen workman . Thirdly, he submitted that his dismissal from the Bank's service was without notice . But this submission of the workman appears to be quite meritless , because he was given the notice which is the management's letter dated 30-8-1996 ( Ext . M - 7 ) as proved on behalf of the management witness ( MW- 1 ) Rajendra Kumar as a show cause to him against the nature of proposed punishment of dismissal . Lastly, the contention of the workman is that he suffered double punishment , namely , the termination of his 26 years service as a dismissal and the recovery of aforesaid defrauded amount in violation of the natural justice as well as Bipartite Settlement . It also seems inplausible , because it was already pointed out concerning the deduction of aforesaid amount as unpleaded , and also for the reason that the misconduct of the workman as omission or commission in course of discharge of his duty while dealing with the aforesaid disputed cheque concerned as detailed in Ext . W- 1 itself has been proved by the management against the workman very tangibly.

9. On the other hand , workman P. M. Thacker as WW- I has stated in his evidence that he was posted as a Clerk at the Bank of Baroda , Dhanbad , in the year 1993 but over an incident of 1993 , the management submitted a chargesheet against him in the year 1995 , though the management have simultaneously lodged the FIR for the alleged fraud at Bank More Thana in the year 1993 against 1. K. Sah , but not against him . According to him , on the collection of outward cheque from the outward bill collector , Itwas his duty to inake entry of those cheques in the register , namely, the O.B.C. Lodgement Register , and thereafter the same were handed over to the officer incharge ofthose O.B.C. cheques ; that on 1-11-93 , he received one D.B.C. cheque from customer J. K. Sah for amount of Rs . 40,000 and made its entry in the O. B. C. lodgement register, and thereafter handed over it to the Officer - in- Charge B. K. Sarawgi , who after its receipt made his endorsement in the respective column of lodgement register, and kept it in his persession for needful ; that despatch deals in seperate department which was unconcerned with him ; that the realisation advice from out side used to be received by the Bank office and noi by him , and that aforesaid B. K. Sarawgi after receipt of the cheque concerned handed over its realisation advice to him for making its necessary entry into the register and after making its entry in the O.В.С. realisation register, the realisation advice was returned to the Officer- in- Charge along with the O.B.C. realisation register for necessary endorsement in it . The workman has stated to have produced that realisation advice along with the realisation register to Mr. B. K. Sarawgi , who made its necessary entry into the same register after verifying its entry, but he ( the workman ) never passed any cheque of J. K. Sah concerning any amount to aforesaid customer . The workman has admitted in his statement that he did not submit any reply to his chargesheet , as it was not asked for, yet stated about his unpleaded facts relating to his one thousand rupees taken as T.A. and D. A from the management for his appearance before the Interview Board concerned and the deduction of aforesaid disputed Rs . 40.000 amount illegally and arbitrarily from his gratuity. His such pleas being unpleaded are not tenable . Lastly, he denied to have committed any misconduct in the discharge of his duties under the management .

10. In this case , the workman has himself argued firstly that initially he was not named in the FIR lodged by the management concerning the fraud just alter its detection

11. Whereas Mr. D. K. Verma , the Ld . Counsel for the management relying upon the authority : 2003 SCC ( LS ) 468 ( DB ) , Chairınan and Managing Director , United Commercial Bank Versus P.C. Kakkar has submitted Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of the misconduct or otherwise , and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings , notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case . It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings . At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstanice to be considered while awarding punishment , it would depend upon the facts of each case .

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

and even that cannot have universal application . ' ( para- 15).

12. In view of the aforesaid discussed facts and laws , I find the management has succeeded in the proof of the charge of the aforesaid misconduct against the workman in accordance with the principle of natural justice with the cogent reason . So the administrative decision of the management to dismiss the workman as a Clerk for his misconduct involving the loss of Rs . 40,000 to the Bank was quite just and proper in the eye of law, and his dismissal does not seem to be disproportionate to the gravity of his misconduct , because such a glaring misconduct of the workman who is required to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity in deal with the money of the depositors and customers , shakes the very foundation of the Banking management in the eye of the public.

13. In the result , I find and hold the dismissal of the workman P. K. Thacker , the Clerk of the management , Dhanbad Branch was rightly dismissed from his service for his misconduct in course of his discharge of his duty at the relevant time , and his dismissal by the management is quite proportionate to the gravity of hismisconduct . Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any other relief.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 993.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ट्रेनिंग शिप चाणक्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/42 ऑफ 2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31012/ 15/2010- आई आर( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 993. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Part - 1 ! ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/42 of 2010 ) 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 Training Ship Chanakya and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L -31012/ 15/2010- IR( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

2955

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI PRESENT:

K. B. Katake , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/42 of 2010 Employers in relation to the management of Training Ship Chanakya , Capt . Superintendent, Training Ship Chanakya , At Village Karve . Nerul Navi Mumbai- 400706.

AND

Their Workman

Shri Machindra P. Bhoir Karave Gaon, In front of Marathi School , Tah . Distt . Thane , Navi Mumbai-400 706.

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer :Mr. M. B. Anchan , Advocate .

For the Workman :No appearance Mumbai , the 12th January, 2011

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment by its Order No. L- 31012/ 15 /2010 [ IR (B - II ) ] , dated 7-4-2010 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- 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 Captain Superintendent , Training Ship , Chanakya, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Machindra P. Bhoir , Ex - Steward with effect from 1-4-2008 is legal , just and proper ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? " 2. After receipt of the reference from Ministry of Labour and Employment , notices were sent to both the parties . The notices of second party workman returned unserved twice with postal endorsement " unclaimed " . The workman has neither approached the Labour Commissioner nor to this Tribunal . He has not accepted the notice. There is no statement of claim on record , therefore , this reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be rejected for want of prosecution . Thus I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution. Date: 12-1-2011

К. В. КАТАКЕ , PresidingOfficer ТИВ БАЛЕТТE OF INDIA : APRIL 9, 2011 /CHAITRA 19, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च, 2011

आ 994 औद्योगिक विवीध अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मोरमुगाव पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट गोपालक निषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी माई टी -2/94 ऑफ 2005 ) की करती हैं, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था

[सं. एल-36011/3/2005 - आई आर( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March, 2011 י S.C. 994.-In pursuance of Section 17. of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award PART- II (Ref. No. CGIT - 2/ 94 of 2005 ) 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 Mormugao Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 ..

[No. L- 36011/3 /2005 - IR(B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2. MUMBAI PRESENT:

K. B. Katake , PresidingOfficer

Reference No. CGIT-2/94 of 2005 Employers in relation to the Management of Mormugao Port Trust

The Chairman,

Mormugao Port Trust, MormugaoHarbour, God-403803

AND

Their Workmen, TheGeneral Secretary,

Mormugao Port and Railway Workers Union, Zaiboon Apartment, Near Cine El-Monte, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa-403802

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer : Shri M. B. Anchan , Advocate .

For the Workman Shri E. O. Mendes , Advocate

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) | Mumbai , the 28th January, 2011

AWARD

1. TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour and Employmentby its Order No. L-36011 /3/2005 -IR (B- 11 ) dated 21-7-2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

" Whether the action of the management of Mormugao Port Trust , Goa in not promoting Sin Mick Fernades and others as per pre-revised Recruitment Rules as demanded by the Mormugan Port and Railway Workers ' Union , Goa their letter under reference No. MPRWU /2005 / G -283 dated 20-1-2005 ( Annexure 3x.1) is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the union is entitled for ? " 2. Both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice , the Second Party Union has filed its statement of claim at Ex. 6. Accordingto them while giving promotion to Mr. S. Y. Kamat and Mr. Ulhas Kerkar undue advantage of six years of ad hoc promotions were given to them and they were promoted as Asstt . Managers on regular basis in July, 2004. According to them , the I.T. Assistants Mr. Finton Saldanha , Sanjay Nadkarni and Mick Fernandes were in violation of rules continued to be employed on ad hoc basis although regular posts were available since February, 2003 .

3. According to them Mr. S. Y. Kamat and Mr. Ulhas Kerkar were continued in service on ad hoc basis for six years and were promoted on regular basis after amending the Recruitment Rules for relaxation of qualification for the post ofSr.Asstt . Manager ( 1.T. ). The Recruitment Rules were amended to suit Mr. S. Y. Kamat and Mr. Ulhas Kerkar though eligible candidates as per the existing Recruitment Rules were available in the feeder channel . The management also appointed Mr. Laxmikant Gawde to the post of I.T. Assistant initially in O.B.C. category against a transfer post from another department . The dispute raised by the Union is that Mr. Laxmikant Gawde is not eligible for promotion. The Union espoused the cause of the case of 1.T. Assistants , ex facie Mr. Mick Fernandes who was denied promotion and instead of promotion he was reverted back to accommodate some other employee. The Union therefore prays that the reversion of Mr. Mick Fernandes be set aside and the appointments on ad hoc basis be regularized in terms of existing rules governing appointments in MPT.

4. The management party No. 1 resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex. 8. According to it , in 1998 the two posts of Sr. Asstt . Managers (1.T. ) were filled up on ad hoc basis from seniormost employees Mr. S. Y. Kamat and Mr. Ulhas Kerkar fromthe feeder category ofAsstt . Manager (I.T. ) who were 2957 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9, 2011/चैत्र19 , 1933

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

admitted at Ex. 13 that two seniormost employees viz . S. Y. Kamat and Ulhas Kerkar were appointed as Senior Asstt . Manager on ad hoc basis . Their witness No. 2 A. J. Peter has also admitted in his cross that Mr. Mick Fernandes involved in the Reference is junior to S. Y. Kamat and Ulhas Kerkar. Witness No. 3 Prasad Naik for Party No. 2 has also admitted in his cross at Ex . 26 that Mr. Kamat and Mr. Kerkar are the seniormost employees in the Finance Department of the first party and they were appointed as Senior Asstt . Manager ( I.T. ) w.e.f. 4-2-1998 . He also admitted in his cross that both were senior to Mr. Fernandes . In the circumstances and admission given by these witnesses it is clear that neither there is any irregularity in promoting them nor both these employees have superseded Mr. Fernandes .

working in the I.T. Sector for more than 16 years . The Recruitment Rules for the post of Asstt . Manager ( I.T. ) was amended as advised by Ministry and educational qualification was relaxed from post graduate to graduate. Ruleswere accordingly amended. The ad hoc promotions ofMr. S. Y. Kamat and Mr. Ulhas Kerkar were regularized w.e.f. 31-7-2004 after implementing the amended Recruitment Rules . Mr. Gawde was from OBC category at the time of his appointment as he is belonging to Gawda community which has been subsequently notified as S.T. inthe official gazette dated 17-4-2003 , hence , he is entitled for promotion in reserved post for S.T. They deny that Mr. Mick Fernandes was denied promotion and he was reverted back to accommodate some other employee . Mr. Mick Fernandes, Clinton Saldanha and Sanjay Nadkarni were promoted on ad hoc basis on 18-4-2002 . They have been granted ACP w.e.f. 29-11-2004 in the next promotional post of Jr. Programmer. Therefore there is no reversion and there was no adverse effect on their financial benefits . Therefore , management prays that the Reference be rejected with costs.

5. The Second Party Union filed its Rejoinder to W.S. at Ex . 9. They denied the claim of the First Party and repeated their allegations in the W.S.

6. Following are the issues framed by my Ld . Predecesors for my determination. I record my findings thereon for reasons to follow :

Issues

Findings

Yes

( 1) Whether First Party proves that, decision of it in ignoring claim of Mr. Mick Fernandes and others as per pre - revised Recruitment Rules is just and proper ?

8. From the cross - examination of witness No. I and witness No. 2 it appears that they did not like promotion given to Mr. Gawde as he was junior to Mr. Fernandes . In this respect it was argued on behalf of the first party companythat Mr. Gawde was promoted against OBC post and subsequently his Gawda cast was notified in ST category. Therefore , Mr. Gawde was promoted to the post against ST category. Therefore , his promotion cannot be challenged though he has superceded Mr. Mick Fernandes . It is a fact that, Mr. Gawde was promoted against OBC seat and subsequently his cast was notified by Goa Government as ST category. All these witnesses of party No. 2 have admitted in their respective cross - examiriation at Ex . 13 , 25 and 26 that Mr. Gawde belong to Gawda caste and he was promoted against OBC seat and subsequently Goa Government has declared Gawda community as ST community. They have admitted that Mr. Gawde was promoted under backlog of ST category . In the circumstances it cannot be said that Mr. Gawde has superseded Mr. Fernandes or any other employee who are from open category.

(2) Whether employees involved in the Reference are entitled to get any relief ?

(3) What order ?

Asper final order

REASONS

9. In this respect it is the case of the management that Mr. Mick Fernandes though was not given regular promotion , he was given ACP promotion. Witness ofUnion WW - 2 has admitted in his cross at Ex . 25 that ACP promotion was given to Mr. Mick Fernandes. Witness No. 3 Mr. Prasad Naik has admitted in his cross at Ex . 26 that concerned workman is drawing salary under ACP which is equivalent to promotion grade . All this support the version of the management that there was no illegality in giving promotion to the aforesaid workers and the interest ofMr. Mick Fernandes was also protected by giving him ACP promotion . In short , it cannot be said that any injustice was causedto Mr. Mick Fernandes or any other employec due to promotion of Mr. Kamat , Mr. Kerkar and Mr. Gawde . On the other hand from the evidence on record it is clear that Mr. Mick Fernandes though was not given regular promotion he was granted ACP and he is drawing the salary equivalent to the promotion grade . Accordingly ! decide this issue No. 1 in the affirmative that the decision 7. Issue Nos . 1 and 2 : In the case at hand it is an admitted fact that Mr. S. Y. Kamat and Mr. Ulhas Kerkar were promoted as Senior Asstt . Manager on ad hoc basis . Thereafter, rules were amended and instead of post graduation qualification , graduation was sufficient qualification for the promotion . Thereafter they were promoted in the regular cadre of Senior Asstt . Manager . Though their names are given in the Reference from the facts and circumstances on record it is clear that both these employees were the seniormost and the party No. 2 also admitted the said fact . In the cross examination of witness No. I of party No. 2 Mr. Seby Coutinho has 2958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

of the management in ignoring claim of Mick Fernandes and others was just and proper . Consequently I hold that the employees involved in the Reference are not entitled to any benefit. Thus , I decide this issue No. 2 in the negative . In the light of above discussion I arrive at the conclusion that the reference deserves to be rejected . Thus I pass the following order :

ORDER

The Reference stands rejected with no order as to costs

Date 28-01-2011 Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 995.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई दी -2/ 35 ऑफ 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -31011 / 1/2007 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011 S.O. 995. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award PART- Ji ( Ref. No. GIT- 2/35 of 2007 ) 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 Mumbai Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L -31011 / 1 /2007 - IR ( B - 11 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI PRESENT :

K. B. Katake , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2 /35 of 2007

Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai Port Trust :

The Chairman , Mumbai Port Trust , Port Bhawan , Ballard Estate , Mumbai -400 038

AND

[ PART II-- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Their Workmen ,

The General Secretary , Mb . P. T. Mazdoor Sangh , 3 -AB , Hashim Building , Ist Floor , 40 , Veer Nariman Road , Fort , Mumbai-400 001

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer : Shri Umesh Nabar , Advocate

Forthe Workmen Shri H. R. Singh , Advocate

Mumbai , dated the 31st January, 2011 AWARD

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employmentby its Order No. L - 31011 / 1 / 2007 - IR ( B - II ) dated 2-8-2007 in exercise of the powers conferredby clause ( d ) ofSub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust by giving the unlawful promotion to Shri W. E. Fernandes Sub - section Leader to Section Leader is justified ? If not , what relief the union i.e. Mb . P.T. Mazdoor Sangh is entitled to ? " 2. Both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice , the Second Party Union appeared through its representative and filed its statement of claim at Ex . 5. According to them , the union has addressed a letter to Smt . Rani Jadhav, the Chairman , Mumbai Port Trust requesting her to revert Shri W. E. Fernandes as he was unlawfully promoted to the post of Section Leader from Sub -section Leader . According to them Mr. W. 1.. Fernandes is not possessing essential educational qualifications as prescribed in the Mb PT Employees R. S. P. regulations , 1977. The Mb PT Management has modified the regulation in 1977 by which new essential qualifications for the higher two posts of promotions is made mandatory w.e.f. 8-1-1998 . The promotion to Sr. Section Leader can be given only when one is having SSC passed certificate and has obtained Sub - station officer's certificate from the National Fire Service College , Nagpur or from equivalent body. There are sufficient numbers of trained personnel available for promotion for such two higher posts of Sub- Section Leader and Section Leader . The MbРТ Management is sending the staff for acquiring training from the National Fire Service College , Nagpur . There are more than 12 employees who are having such essential qualification in the Port Fire Service . Therefore , the union request the promotion given to Shri W. E. Fernandes be cancelled and he be reverted .. Instead of him , rightful claimant Shri A. B. Bhatacharya , V. R. Vaskar and [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

B. H. Jadhav be considered who have essential qualifications .

3. The first party , management of Mb PT resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex . 6 . According to them , the claim of the second party is false . They denied that they have promoted Mr. W. E. Fernandes to the post of Section Leader illegally. They have denied that he does not have basic qualification for the said promotion . According to them , Shri Walter E. Fernandes is performing his duties on the promoted post . He is not made party to this reference and no order should be passed without hearing him and adverse to his service conditions . The claim is bad for want of necessary party .

4. According to them , Mr. W. E. Fernandes was promoted on the basis of his seniority and suitability. All the promotions are made on the basis of seniority - cum suitability. The existing employees in the line of promotion who have not passed SSC examination cannot aspire for promotion to higher post of Section Leader and Sr. Section Leader . The Station Officer's certificate for the post of Sr. Section Leader was also not met out by the employee in the line of promotion . The first party has also taken into consideration the progress of employees and in such circumstances has to open promotional avenues . The First Party has proposed amendment to the schedule to the RSP Regulations for promotion to the post of Section Leader and Sr. Section Leader. There is no irregularity or illegality in giving promotion to Mr. W. E. Fernandes . The grievance of Second Party is not genuine . Therefore , they pray that the reference deserved to be dismissed .

5. The Second Party filed its rejoinder to written statement at Ex . 7. They have denied the claim of the management and repeated their pleadings in the statement ofclaim .

6. Following are the issues framed by my Ld . Predecesor . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Issues

Findings

Yes ( i ) Whether the decision taken by the first part in giving promotion to Shri W. E. Fernandes , Sub- section Leader to Section Leader is justified and proper ?

( ii ) What order ?

Reference Rejected

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

7. In the case at hand , though sufficient time was given , the union has neither produced any documents not led any oral evidence . The burden was on the union to

2959

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

show that there were eligible employees who were not promoted. Union was supposed to show with the help of oral and documentary evidence that W. E. Fernandes was promoted illegally by superseding the eligible candidates . The union failed to discharge the burden . They failed to show that any other candidate was eligible for promotion inspite of that Mr. Fernandes was promoted .

8. In this respect , further I would like to point out that the union has challenged the promotion of Mr. W. E. Fernandes , He is not party to the reference . It would amount to violation of principle of natural justice to pass any adverse order against Mr. Fernandes . The union ought to have added Mr. Fernandes as party to this reference to which they failed . In the circumstances , and for want of evidence on behalf of union , I come to the conclusion that the reference deserves to be rejected . Thus I decide issue No. 1 in the affirmative . Thus I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference stands rejected with no order as to cost .

Date : 31-01-2011 Κ . Β . KATAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 996.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/ एन जी पी/47/ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल- 12012/591/ 1989/डी-2 ( ए) आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 996.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 47 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L - 12012 / 591 / 1989 / D - 2 ( A )-IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 2-3-2011 Case No. CGIT /NGP/47/2003 2960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Party No. 1 : The Regional Manager ,

Union Bank of India,

PlotNo. 19 ,

Wardha Road,

Nagpur

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Vijaysingh Umraosingh

Raghuwanshi ,

WadekarGalli ,

Sangamner,

Dist . Ahmednagar.

AWARD

(Dated : 2nd 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 Union Bank of India and their workman , Shri Vijaysingh for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur , as per letter No. L - 12012/ 591/89 - D-2 (A) dated 2-7-1990, with the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in dismisssing Shri Vijaysingh Umraosingh Raghuwanshi from the services of the Bank is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

2. Being noticed, the workman , Shri Vijaysingh ( "the workman" in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of Union Bank of India , (" the Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement.

of gold and a joint enquiry came to be conducted by the Party No. 1 and though he was exonerated from the charges levelled vide charge sheetdt . 8-1-75 , the charges levelled in charge sheetdt . 11-11-74 . were held to have been proved against him in the departmental enquiry and therefore , he was dismissed from service vide order dt . 11-11-75 and the Party No. 1 on 7-11-74 , lodged a Police Report against him accusing him of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 467 , 468 , 420 and 120 ofthe Indian Penal Code and the allegations in the Police complaint were identical to the allegations contained in the charge sheet dt. 11-11-74 and in pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, Patur Police filed a charge sheet against him and vide judgement dt . 28-1-81 , he was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Akola. but he preferred an appeal vide criminal appeal No. 24/81 against the said judgement and vide judgement di . 30-7-81 , the learned Additional Session Judge , Akola allowed the appeal and the Party No. I preferred an appeal against the judgement of acquittal before the Hon'ble High Court, Judicature of Bombay , Bench at Nagpur and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Party No. 1 vide judgementdt . 1-9-86 and Paragraph 521 of the Shastri Award stipulates that the management is entitled to conduct a departmental enquiry only, if the delinquent employee not put on trial within a year of commission of the offence and even in such an eventuality , the right of the management is restricted to effect a simple discharge and if an employee is proceeded against departmentally on allegations constituting an offence involving moral turpitude and steps are taken to initiate prosecution , the management has no right to dismiss an employee and the order of dismissal dt . 11-11-75 was challenged by him , before the Appellate Authority, the Chief Principal Officer of the Union Bank of India vide appeal dt. 1-12-75 and though the appeal was forwarded to the said Appellate Authority by registered post with acknowledgement due , the same was not even acknowledged , much less heard on merits and as such , he moved the conciliation authority för redressal and as the conciliation proceedings ended in failure , the matter was reported to the Central Government .

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he joined as a Cashier, at Sangamner Branch on 27-4-1970 and he was posted to Patur Branch as Head Cashier Category -A on 25-2-1972 and while he was working as such , on 11-11-1974 , he was served with a charge sheet and on 8-1-1975 , he was served with the second charge sheet and in the charge sheet dt. 8-11-74 , the allegations made against him were that he issued a cheque book bearing cheque Nos . 9162526- 9162540 to an unauthorized person on 10-6-74 and two cheques purported to have been drawn by the account holder of Saving Bank Account No. 762 , in favour of one Shri.S. J. Ingle were presented for encashment at Patur Branch and he paid the said cheque amount in cash on 27-9-74 and 30-9-74 respectively and the third cheque bearing No. 9162531 was also encashed by an unauthorized person on 4-10-74 and the second charge sheet dt . 8-1-75 was issued against him on the allegations that he was unauthorisedly indulging in buying and selling

It is further pleaded by the workman that the service condition of the employees of the Party No , I are inter - alia governed by various Bipartite Settlement and Awards . which have been made from time to time and Shastri Award is one such award , which determines the service conditions and Paragraph 521 stipulates that when in the opinion of the management , an employee committed an offence . unless the employee is otherwise prosecuted , the bank may takes steps to prosecute him and to get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be suspended and paragraph 521 ( c ) restricts the disciplinary right of the management to a simple discharge in the eventuality of an employee being acquitted in the criminal trial and the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank is subjected to a further 296!

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

furtherance of their said plan , the workman obtained a cheque book in the name of one Shri Pandhurang , who was having a saving bank account in its Batur Branch and in which branch , the workman was working as the Cashier and from the account of the said Pandhurang, the workman alongwith Shri Ingle withdrew an amount of Rs . 22,000 in total by committing forgery and cheating and thereby caused loss to it and further the workman committed breach of trust and therefore , the workman was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No. STF 2668 dt. 8-11-74 on the changes of committing fraud or abatement of fraud of Rs . 22,000 and dishonesty in connection with the Bank's business and doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and subsequently further charge sheet was issued against the workman on the basis of perusal of his account, which disclosed that the workman had some other sources of income than his salary income of the Bank and therefore, he was charged for gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of his duties and the enquiry was held by giving opportunity to the workman to defend himself and by following the principles of natural justice and the workman was acquitted by the learned Additional Session Judge , Akola under benefit ofdoubt and the appeal filed by the state against the order of such acquittal was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 2-9-86 and acquittal of the workman by the Appellate Court has no material bearing on the issues involved in the present case and Para 521 of Shastri Award is not applicable to the facts of the present case and it was not debarred from conducting the departmental enquiry and the right of the management is not restricted to effect simple discharge in the eventuality of an employee being acquitted in a criminal trial and the workman had not submitted any appeal against the order of dismissal dı. 11-11-75 and a false averment has been made in that regard and in the case of charges of gross - misconduct involving moral turpitude, it has right to effect dismissal of an employee and there was no breach of Para 521 of Shastri Award and in the enquiry, the workman gave out before the Inquiry Officer to defend himself in the case and he also cross - examined the witnesses and as such , it cannot be said that he was not given proper opportunity todefend himself and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perversed and are within the scope of the charge sheet and the same are based on the evidence on record and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

rider that in the event , the management decides after conducting an enquiry to discontinue the employee in service , the employee shall be liable only for a simple termination and Sub - para 3 of para 521 , imposes a further restriction on the Disciplinary Authority, in as much as the Bank is permitted to initiate the departmental enquiry, only if, the employee is not put on trial within one year , after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee and sub- para 3 further stipulates that even when such an enquiry is conducted, the employee shalt liable only for a simple termination and as such , the dismissal order dt . 11-11-75 is nonest in the eye of law, on the ground that provisions of Shastri Award have been breached and not only did the party No. 1 initiate the enquiry within one year ofthe Police complaint but also imposed a punishment ofdismissal , which could not have been done on the face of clear and unequivocal provisions of Para 521 of Shastri Award and the right of an appeal is a valuable right recognized by Shastri Award and although an appeal was preferred by him well within the time , the Party No. I did not acknowledge the receipt of the same and the appeal preferred by him was not decided at all and on that ground also , the dismissal order is bad in law and the Party No. 1 failed to observe the principles of natural justice in the departmental enquiry and the entire enquiry was a mere formality and the same was decided on ugly haste and the Inquiry Officer assumed the role of the prosecutor himself and adjournments were denied on untenable grounds with the result that the entire evidence of the management came to be recorded behind his back and fair opportunity was not given to him to defend himself in the inquiry and the inquiry proceedings are also bad in law as he was not permitted to engage a lawyer , even though the Presenting Officer was a law graduate and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are beyond the scope of the charge sheet dt . 11-11-74 and as such , the enquiry report and subsequent order of dismissal cannot stand the scrutiny of law and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on no evidence at all and are perversed and the Inquiry Officer did not take into consideration the evidence adduced by him in his defence and specially the evidence of Shri Ingle , the beneficiary of the encashment of the alleged cheques , who was examined as a defence witness and as such , the entire inquiry report is vitiated and the consequent dismissal is liable to be declared as illegal . The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of wages and seniority.

4. As this is a case of dismissal from service of the workman , the validity of the departmental enquiry was decided as a preliminary issue and by order dt . 7-2-96, the departmental enquiry was held to be just, proper and legal . Hence, now it is to be considered as to whether the findings . are perversed and the charges of misconduct are proved on the facts of the case and whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal .

3. The Party No. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter - alia that the workman was dismissed from service vide an order dt . 11-11-74 on the charges of gross misconduct involving moral turpitude , after a duly held departmental enquiry and the workman and one Shri Suryabhan Ingle in furtherance of their common intension entered into a plan of cheating and defraud it and in

1112 GI/2011-18 2962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

5. The workman has examined himself as a witness insupport of his claim , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence . The Party No. 1 has not adduced any oral evidence . However, it has placed reliance on documentary evidence relating to the departmental enquiry.

The workman in his evidence on affidavit has reiterated the facts stated by him in the statement of claim.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that on 7-11-94 , the party No. 1 lodged a Police complaint against the workman and Police register a case under sections 467 , 468, 420 and 120 of Indian Penal Code and submitted charge sheet and the workman was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola on 28-1-81, but he was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Akola on 30-7-81 in the appeal preferred by him and as according to Para 521 ofthe Shastri Award , the management has empowered to conduct a departmental enquiry, if the employee is not put on trial within a year of commission of a offence and even in such eventuality , the right of the management is restricted to effect simple discharge and not the dismissal as is being done in the present case , the impugned dismissal of the workman from service is illegal and the appeal preferred by the workman hetore the Appellate Authority evoked no response and is the departmental enquiry, Shri Ingle, the beneficiary the encashment of the cheques in question was ext ned before the Inquiry Officer in the defence of the woman and though the said witness has jearly stated that the cheques in question were handed over to him by one Shr : Rode , the Peon , the Inquiry Officer berately did the such evidence into account and such , the indings the Inquiry Officer are perversed and great iniusticenccasioned upon the workman and meconclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer is not based the evidence on record and as such , the order of smissal is illegal and liable to be set aside .

7. On the other hand , the learned advocate for the y No. I submitted that acquittal of an employee in a iminal action in respect of the misconduct concerned , giving benefit of doubt , would not per se be binding ason employer and does not automatically give the Laployee right to be reinstated . In support of such contention reliance has been placed on the decision reported in20055C ( Land S) 609 ( Manager, RBI Vs S. Moni and other 2005 SCC ( Land S) 1020 [ Ajeetkumar Na Ve GM.Pd.. It was also submitted that the workman did not preter arav appeal against the order of the Disciplinar . Authority and unsuccessful attempt has been made by him that the filed an appeal before the Appellate Auth: rity and on hat ground also. the reference is lable to be answered in 4gative. In support of such contention , relance has been placed on the decision reported in 2005 SCC ( L & S ) 200 ( DM Plantation Revision. Andaman Vs Munnu Barric's ) . It was further submitteri

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] that the Tribunal has no power to interfere with the quantum of punishment, unless and until it is found by it that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman and conclusive proof of guilt is not required in a domestic enquiry and it is only necessary to find out as to whether the management was justified in coming to the conclusion in a bona fide , fair and proper domestic enquiry that the charges against the employee were well founded. In support of such contentions , reliance has been placed on the decision reported in 2005 SCC ( L & S) 1020 ( supra ) , AIR 1974 SC 555 (E.P. Royappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu) , AIR 1970 SC 1255 ( State of Assam Vs Mahendrakumar Das ) , 1999 L.IC 2819 ( SC) ( BOI Vs D. Sujjanarayana) and many others .

Keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts in the decisions cited by the learned advocate for management , now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

8. So far the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman regarding initiation of the departmental proceedings in breach of the provisions of Para 521 of the Shastri Award is concerned , the same was taken for consideration at the time of deciding the validity of the departmental enquiry and the same was answered against the workman and as such , there is no scope for reconsideration of the same at this juncture . Admittedly. Para 521 , sub - para 3 of Shastri Award provides that in the event of the management deciding , after enquiry, not to continue him in service , he shall be liable only for termination with three months ' pay and allowances in lieu of notice as directed in sub - para 2 and sub - para 2( d ) of Shastri Award provides that when an employee prefers an appeal or revision application against his conviction and isacquitted , in case , he had already been dealt as above . and he applies to the manageinent for reconsideration of his case, the management shall review his case and may ceither reinstate him or proceed against him under the provisions set out below in sub - paragraphs 9 and 10 infra relating to discharge , and the provisions set out above as to pay, allowances and the period of suspension will apply. the period up-to-date for which , full pay and allowances have not been drawn being treated as one of suspension. In the event of the management, deciding after enquiry . not to continue him in service, the employee shall be liable only for termination with three months ' pay and allowances inlieu ofnotice as directed above . In this case at hand , the charges levelled against the workman were found to have been proved in the departmental enquiry and accordingly. the workman was dismissed from service . There is nothing on record to show that after his acquittal , the workman applied to the management for reconsideration of his case and as such , I find no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman that the order ol dismissal of the workman from service is illegal as para 521 of the Shastri Award only provides simple termination.

[ भाग [ I-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

9. Though the workman has tried to show that he had preferred an appeal against the order of his dismissal from service and his appeal was not considered , there is no legal evidence on record to show that any appeal was preferred by the workman before the prescribed Appellate Authority. Hence , I find no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman that the appeal preferred by the workman evoked no response by the authority.

10. The most important contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman was that at the time of giving his findings , the Inquiry Officer did not take into consideration the evidence of Mr. Ingie , who was examined as a defence witness and who had stated that the cheques in questions were handed over to him by Mr. Rode , the Peon of the Bank and as such , the findings are perversed and the order of the dismissal from service basing on such findings is illegal . On perusal of the records of the departmental proceedings , it is found that Mr. Suryabhan Jairam Ingle was examined as a defence witness by the workman in the departmental enquiry. Shri Ingle was the beneficiary of the cheques in question as per the case of the Party No. 1. This witness has stated that the first two cheques in questions for Rs . 4,000 and Rs . 2,000 respectively were handed over to him by Mr. Rode, the Peon of the Bank and the third cheque of Rs . 16,000 was given to him by Mr. Pandhurang Parmale . However, the Inquiry Officer rightly did not place any reliance on such evidence , firstly , as Shri Ingle was a co - accused alongwith the workman in the criminal case instituted by the Police and secondly, the workman did not take such a plea at the time of cross - examination of Shri Rode and Shri Parmale . It is clear from the evidence on record that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record and the same are not perversed . It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in banking business , absolute devotion , diligence , integrity and honesty need to be preserved by every bank employee and if this is not observed , the confidence of the public /depositor would be impaired and the administration of justice cannot be allowed to be trembled by feel of mercy particularly, in the context ofadministrative law, where interference by Court is relegated to a secondary role and when faith is lost in an employee . particularly in banking business , where public money is involved , mercy has no role to play in reformative approach is totally uncalled for .

In the present case at hand , the workman held a position of trust , where honesty and intergrity were the inbuilt requirements of functioning , but the workman was found to be dishonest and the Party No. I lost confidence in the workman . From the materials on record, it is found that the punishment imposed against the workman is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against

2963

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

him and as such , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Union Bank of India in dismissing Shri Vijaysingh Umraosingh Raghuwanshi from the services of the Bank is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 997.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/139/2003- आई आर( बी -11 ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March, 2011

S.O. 997.-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the . Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 35 2003) ofthe Central Government industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 / 139/2003 - IR( B - II ) | RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 35 of 2003

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank

AND Their workmen

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer APPEARANCE :

Mr. Arvind Indwar , Manager- HRD of the Bank

On behalf of the

Management

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

On behalf of the Workmen

Mr. R. Chttopadhyay, Executive Committee member of the Bank Employees ' Federation (W.B. ) with Mr. A. Mitra , Secretary of the union .

[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii ) post of Peon with effect from the date of his initial engagement on and from 1st January, 2001 .

Industry Banking

State: West Bengal

Dated : 2nd March , 2011

AWARD

By Order No. L - 12011 / 139 / 2003 - IR ( B - II ) dated 21-10-2003 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) and ( 2A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether Mr. Aloke Santra , Part- time Sweeper is entitled for Regularization as Peon at the Birshanghamore Branch of Punjab National Bank w.e.f. 1-1-2001 in the vacancy caused by retirement of Shri Hare Hrishna Mondal ? If not , what relief he is entitled to ? "

2. In the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workman , it is submitted that at Birsinghamore Branch of the Bank at P.O. Radhanagar, Dist . Midnapore there are only two sanctioned posts in the subordinate cadre , one being a post of Part - time Sweeper with 1 / 3rd scale wage and another a Full- time Peon- cum- Daftary . The regular Peon , Shri Hare Krishna Mondal retired as such on 31-12- 2000 and thereafter on and from 1st January, 2001 the post of Peon became vacant . No other person was appointed or posted to the said post of Peon and the workman concerned , Shri Aloke Santra , a Part- time Sweeper was verbally asked todo the job of the Peon besides his normal duties as Part - time Sweeper with effect from 1st January , 2001 and so the workman concerned continued to perform the said duties of Peon in addition to his usual duties as Part-time Sweeper , Shri Santra was not paid the normal / usual pay and allowances attached to the post of Peon and he used to be paid with Rs . 450 for working as Daftary for the month of January, 2001 and that amount was increased to Rs . 750 per month and the payment used to be made through cash voucher ..The workman concerned used to receive the said amount or Rs . 750 upto August , 2001 and since September , 2001 , such payment of Rs . 750 for working as Daftary was stopped . The Bank has regularized one Shri Nitya Ghosal , similarly circumstanced Part- time Sweeper of the Bank employed at Gobindapur Branch in the district of Purulia in the post of Peon . Thereafter representation was made by the workmen union totne Bank over the issue of the present workman claiming his regularization in the post of Peon of this Branch and said claim was not heeded to and such refusal was unlawful and unjustified . It is claimed on behalf of the present workmen who have been engaged in the post of Peon of the Branch continuously and interruptedly for more than 396 days and thereby claimed his regularization to the 3. The management Bank in its written statement has claimed the present reference cannot be termed as an industrial dispute and thereafter submitted that the government guideline in respect of absorption.conversion ofeligible Part - time Sweeper Full - time Sweeper as Peon in the subordinate cadre is that 25 % of the vacancies are 10 be filled up from such subordinate cadre sweepers . Further the Bank claimed that the case of the present workiman . Shri Aloke Santra was premature one since eligibility of Shri Santra for absorption in the post of Peon has ner yet been reached . The management Bank claimed that the names were called from the local Employment Exchange for recruitment to the post of Peon and thereafter denied that Shri Aloke Santra was ever called upon verbally to do the work of Peon of the Branch in addition to his duties and he was never utilized as a Peon as claimed . But , the management Bank has admitted that cooperation from the workman concerned was taken time to time for work other than Part- time Sweeper and he was adequately compensated for the same and denied the claim of the workman that he was continuously and uninterruptediy performed the duties of the Peon of the Branch . The management Bank also admitted that compensation amount of Rs . 450 was paid in January, 2001 and thereafter since February, 2001 to August , 2001 he wasbeing paid Rs . 750 , excepting for the months of March and June, 2001 . It is further claimed by the management Bank that after August , 2001 no occasion arose to take such cooperation of Shri Santra and for that reason no compensation thereafter was paid to him . It is stated that the case of Shri Nitya Ghosal , the present Peon at Branch Office Gobindapur is not similar to the present case as claimed by the workmen union and it does not create any right in favour of Shri Santra to claim absorption as Peon . The management Bank submitted that the claim of the workmen uniori or the present workman for regularization to the post of Peon and to pay him appropriate full wages and other consequential benefits like other regular Peons with effect from Ist January, 2001 is not justified.

4. A rejoinder has been filed by the workmen union with usual denial of the case made out by the management Bank in its written statement .

5. Admittedly , the workman , Aloke Santra is engaged as a Part- time Sweeper under the management Bank at its Birsinghamore Branch of the Bank with 1 /3rd scale wage . It is also admitted fact that one Hare Krishna Mondal ( mentioned as Hare Hrishna Mondal in the schedule of reference ) , a Full - time Peon in the said Branch and on superannuation he retired from the post of Peon on and from 1st January , 2001 and thereafter the post of Peon became vacant .

6. It is the case of the workmen union that Shri Santra was verbally engaged to do the job of Peon in addition to [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

his usual duty of Part- time Sweeper in the vacant post of Peon after retirement of Shri Mondal and according to the workmen union the workman concerned was being paid some lumpsum amount through cash vouchers for working as Daftary since the post of Peon also had an annexed task of daftary . Mr. Chattopadhyay , authorized representative of the workmen union submitted that though the workman concerned was asked to do the job of peon- cum-Daftary as an added work besides his regular job of part- time Sweeper, a right has accrued in the workman concerned to be considered for regularization to the post of Peon since he was so engaged by the management Bank against payment of lumpsum amount , for a considerable period .

7. On the other hand , Mr. Arvind Indwar , the authorized representative of the management Bank submitted that there was no regular appointment or engagement of the workman concerned since he was employed as a Part- time Sweeper in the Bank and since the Post of Peon was lying vacant , he was asked to cooperate to do some function of Peon till the vacancy for the post of Peon is filled up in usual course and the said request for cooperation was made to the workman concerned till the month of August , 2001 and since thereafter no occasion arose to the management Bank to seek such cooperation from the workman concerned to do some job of the Peon in addition to his usual work of a Part- time Sweeper . Mr. Indwar also admitted that such assistance from the side of the workman concerned to do such job , was compensated with payment of some amount which the authorized representative of the workman has stated earlier . It is also submitted that the workman concerned worked as a Part - time Sweeper and from that position how he can claim regularization to the post of Peon .

2965 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of regularization of such a worker . So , the citations shown by Mr. Chatopadhyay, perhaps , are not applicable at the present stage.

9. Further , it is an admitted position that ' engagement ' of the workman , Aloke Santra to do the work ofa Peon , as per version of the workman side was verbally done which the management side has stated to be a request for cooperation from the side of the workman and it was so done when the workman concerned was regularly doing the job of a Part - time Sweeper against remuneration . Even through the two posts , namely , Peon- cum -daftary and Part- time Sweeper comes within Category - IV of the management Bank, the nomenclature of the posts are specifically described with different types of jobs and in different situation . So , by working as a Part- time Sweeper , only on the basis of a limited period extra work by the workman concerned to do the job of the Peon as an added work to his usual duties , automatically does not create any right upon the workman concerned to claim his regularization to the post of Peon which then lying vacant due to retirement of erstwhile regular Peon retiring on superannuation . Perhaps , the management Bank could not have denied his application for consideration to the post of Peon when the management Bank would have published a notice for recruitment of candidate to such post through proper procedures followed by the Bank . Nowhere the workman concerned has stated that he had applied for the said post ever on the requirement by the management Bank in the filling up process though he could have drawn the sympathy of the management Bank for a preference in this respect provided he would have proved his eligibility for the same .

10. In my view the claim from the side of the workman has got no basis and only taking advantage for a limited period doing the job of a Peon being the added job over and above his regular job of Part - time Sweeper for which he has been engaged by the management Bank . the workman cannot claim directly for regularization to the post of Peon as it is made in the present case.

11. So , I find Shri Aloke Santra , a Part - time Sweeper under the management Bank is not entitled for regularization as Peon at Birsinghamore Branch of the Punjab National Bank with effect from 1-1-2001 or from any time thereafter, in the vacancy caused by retirement of Shri Hare Krishna Mondal ( named as Hare Hrishna Mondal in the schedule of reference ) and he is not entitled to any relief. The present reference is thus disposed of with this negative note .

AnAward is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata ,

the 2nd March , 2011

8. In answering the said submission from the side of the management Bank Mr. Chattopadhyay submitted that both the post of Peon - cum- Daftary and the Part- time Sweeper falls in the Category - IV service of the Bank and was being a Part - time Sweeper , the workman concerned , he has done some work of a Peon as an added job for some time , can well claim for his absorption or regularization to the post of Peon . In this context , Mr. Chattopadhyay relied upon some decision on getting those down - loaded from JUDIS.NIC.IN as being judgment dated 24-9-1987 , 4-12-1987, 27-10-1987 and 12-8-1992 as reported in JT 1987 (4) 445 , JT 1987 (4 ) 585 , JT 1987 (4) 164 and JT 1992 (5) 179 and basing upon the said decisions wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court directed regularization of part - time or casual workers doing work for a pretty long time under an employer . But the position of law for regularization of a part- time/ casual/daily - wage earner has been totally changed after a Constitutional Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka " Umadevi case where the guideline and principle has been directed to be followed JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer 2966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 /CHAITRA 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 16 'मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 998. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआई टी-2/ 27 ऑफ 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-31011/ 12/2005 - आई आर( बी -11 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 998.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award PART- II (Ref. No. CGIT - 2/ 27 of 2006 ) 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 Mumbai Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-03-2011 .

[No. L- 31011 / 12/2005 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , MUMBAI PRESENT :

Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2/ 27 of 2006

Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai

PortTrust The Chairman , Mumbai Port Trust , Port Bhawan , Ballard Estate , Mumbai - 400038

AND

Their Workman

The General Secretary , Mb. P.T. Mazdoor Sangh , 3 -AB, Hashim Building , 1st Floor, 40 , Veer Nariman Road, Fort , Mumbai - 400001

APPEARANCE :

For the Employer : Shri Umesh Nabar , Advocate For the Workmen Shri H.R. Singh , Advocate

[PART 11--SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Mumbai , the 31st January, 2011

AWARD

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L- 31011 / 12 / 2005 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 18-05-2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in promoting the workmen from Sub- section Leader and Section Leader allegedly without having requisite qualification as required under Mumbai Port Trust ( Recruitment , Seniority & Promotion ) Regulations is justified ? If not , what relief, the union i.e. Mumbai Port Trust Mazdoor Sangh is entitled to ? "

2. Both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice and Second Party Union appeared through its Representative and filed its statement of claim atEx . 7. According to them the management of Mumbai Port Trust promoted 8 ( eight ) employees arbitrarily and without following the Regulations . They are ( 1 ) S / Shri S. S. Naik , ( 2 ) Andrew Pereira . ( 3 ) A.P. Sawant Desai , ( 4 ) S.S. Acharekar , ( 5 ) C.T. Thongire , ( 6 ) R.C. Braganza , ( 7 ) EJ. Kotian and ( 8 ) Sayyed Suleman . It amounts to unfair labour practice by giving promotions arbitrarily ignoring the Rules & Regulations and the eligible candidates . Therefore , the Union has raised industrial dispute before Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . As matter could not be settled . the Labour Commissioner ( Central ) made a report to Central Government , Ministry of Labour & Employment . The Ministry of Labour & Employment sent the Reference to this Tribunal . The union herein has prayed to declare the promotion of the above 8 ( eight ) employees amount to unfair labour practice as it is arbitrary and without following the Rules & Regulations . They also pray to set aside their promotions and also pray for direction to Mbl to follow the due procedure and Rules & Regulations while giving promotion to the employees .

3. The First Party MbPT resisted the statement of claim vide its W.S. at Exh . 8. They denied all the allegations made in the statement of claim . They denied that the management has ignored the procedure or the Rules & Regulations . They denied that the promotion to the post of section leader and senior section leader in Port Fire Service was given arbitrarily . According to them they have followed the due procedure . They have also followed all the Rules & Regulations while giving promotion to the 8 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

(eight) workers . The attitude of the Second Party union is bias , therefore, they pray that the Reference be rejected.

4. The Second Party Union has filed its reply in Rejoinder at Ex . 9. They have repeated the same facts . They have given names of other 8 employees who are fit for promotion . Rest of the contents in the Rejoinder is the repetition of pleadings in statement of claim.

5. Following are the Issues framed by my Ld . Predecessor at Ex . 11. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to found .

Issues

Findings

1. Does union prove that promotion given to eight employees was ultra- vires and was done against the MbPT Employees Rules and Regulation ?

2. Is Union entitled for declaration as sought ?

3. What order ?

Reference stand rejected.

REASONS

6. Issues No. 1 and 2 : The Second Party Union has challenged the promotion given to 8 employees by the First Party Management . According to the Second Party Union the promotions were given without following the procedure and the Rules & Regulations prescribed therefor . According to the management they have followed the procedure prescribed for the purpose of giving promotions , they have also followed the Rules & Regulations while giving promotion to the 8 employees . The burden was on the Union to show that there was any unfair labour practice played by the management , as has been alleged. The burden was on them to show that any senior eligible candidate was sidetracked by the management . The Second Party Union did not lead any evidence to that effect . They have produced some Xerox copy on record . However , neither the office bearer nor witnesses remained present and lead any oral evidence. Burden was on Second Party Union . The Xerox copy produced with list Ex . 10 cannot be read in evidence as originals are not produced . On the other hand the First Party Company has pleaded in its written statement frow they have selected the candidates and what procedure they have followed . The union has not lead any evidence to substantiate their claim that the eight employees were promoted illegally or without following procedure , therefor .

2967

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

The office bearers of the union and their representative neither remained present nor lead any evidence in support of their claim . Thus I hold that the union failed to prove thatpromotion given to eight employees was either ultra- vires or illegal . Consequently I also hold that the union is not entitled to the declaration sought for . Accordingly I decide these issues nos . 1 and 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

costs . The reference stands rejected with no order as to

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का, आ. 999.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 61/2007- आई आर ( बी -11 ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 999. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 28 / 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-03-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/61 /2007 - IR ( B - 11 ) | RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKAΑΤΑ

Reference No. 28 of 2007

Parties : Employers in relation to the Management of UCO Bank And

Their workman

PRESENT :

Mr. Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer 2968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

APPEARANCE :

: None

On behalf of the Management

: None

Onbehalf of the Workmen

Industry : Banking State: West Bengal

Dated : 21st February, 2011

AWARD

1. By Order No. L - 12012 / 61 / 2007 - IR ( B - II ) dated 23-08-2007 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) and (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank by relieving Shri Tapas Bandhyopadhyaya from the Bank's service w.e. f. 28-07-2003 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 2. On call today, none is present for the management. None is also present on behalf of the workman .

3. In the last order 16-12-2010 , Ld . Advocate for the workman was present and submitted that even after repeated intimation to the workman concerned , he did not contact her till that date and practically she had no instruction from the workman concerned and naturally she expressed her desire to retire from the present reference to represent the workman and her prayer was accepted.

4. A fresh notice was directed to be issued to the workman.concerned and it was so issued and the acknowledgment card was received back after due service upon the workman concerned on 29-12-2010 . Even then the workman has not responded to the notice concerned . Inthat case , it is presumed that the workman concerned at whose instance the present reference has been made , expressed his no interest .

5. The issue in the reference shows that the workman concerned was relieved by the management Bank from the service of the Bank with effect from 28-07-2003 which was questioned as to be justified or not and thereafter the present reference was made in the year 2007. In the statement of claim of the workman it is found that the workman concerned alleged about terinination of his service by the management Bank on the basis of his resignation letter which he could not recollect whether actually such event of submission of resignation letter at all happened from his side or not and subsequently submitted a letter for reinstatement in service which was rejected.

6. However , all these matters are subject to proof which the workman concerned failed to do by remaining absent on repeated dates and also by not responding to the repeated notices issued by this Tribunal . In that case , there is no way out but to presume that the industrial

[ PART II- SPEC. 3 ( ii ) ] dispute as alleged in this reference is not there at present and I do not find any reason to continue with the same which will be a futile effort and the present reference is disposed of as having no Industrial Dispute at present .

AnAward is accordingly .

Dated , Kolkata , 21stFebruary, 2011

MANIK MOHAN SARKAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 1000.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 203/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012 / 26/98- आई आर ( बी- II ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 1000.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 203 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Bhubaneshwar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/26 / 98 - IR ( B - II ) | RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneshwar

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 203/2001 Date of Passing Award 23rd February , 2011 BETWEEN :

The Management of the Zonal Manager , UCO Bank , UCO Bank Building , C - 2 , Ashok Nagar,

Bhubaneshwar.

1st Party Management 2969 [ भाग 11-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

AND

Their workman Shri Abhaya Barik ,

Ex-Driver, C/ o Braja Kishore Barik ,

Mukundapur , PO Chandal ,

Distt. Kendrapara ,

Orissa

2nd Party Workman

APPEARANCES :

M/s. Somnath Mishra , Advocate

For the 1st Party- Management

M/ s. Satyabadi Mishra, For the 2nd Party- Workman

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of UCO Bank and their workman in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide letter No. L- 12012/26/98-1R (B- II ), dated 29/30-12-1998 in respect of the matter specified in the schedule as quoted below:

1-7-1997. But to his utter surprise he was orally informed thathis services were terminated from 1-7-1997 . Thereafter he immediately on 1-7-1997 submitted a representation to the Zonal Manager for continuance of his service . When he heard nothing from the 1st Party - Management he raised an industrial dispute vide letter dated 5-7-1997 before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Bhubaneshwar and on failure of conciliation proceedings the dispute was referred to this Tribunal by the Government of India. During the long period of employment he discharged his duties with utmost satisfaction of the 1st Party- Management and he was issued certificates of good performance as a driver . He had received remuneration , bonus , dress allowance etc. from the 1st Party- Management which were debited to his personal S.B. Account from the account of the bank . He was retrenched from service without any notice or payment of compensation . He was never issued any charge- sheet nor any enquiry was conducted against him. Thus the termination of his service by the 1st Party - Management is illegal , unjustified and inoperative in law. Therefore order for reinstatement in service with full back wages and other service benefits be passed in his favour.

"Whether the disputant Shri Abhaya Barik is a workman , UCO Bank, under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ? If yes , whether the action of the management in terminating his services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

2. The 2nd Party -workman in pursuance of the order of reference has filed his statement of claim alleging that hejoined the service of the 1st Party -Management initially as a daily labourer, driver with effect from 17-12-1988 and continued till 28-3-1989 . Subsequently he was engaged by the ist Party - Management to drive the car No. WMB- 2505 on regular remuneration with increments as prescribed by the Head Office but he was designated as personal driver of the Chief Manager of Bhubaneshwar Main Branch of the 1st Party - Management . The above car helonged to the 1st Party- Management and wages to him were also paid by the 1st Party - Management . The disputant- workman continued in his employment till 26-6- 1997 and on that date he was orally instructed by the 1st Party -Management to proceed to its Zonal Office at Bhubaneshwar to hand over the car to Deputy Chief Officer with the understanding that his services were transferred to Zonal Office . He proceeded to the Zonal Office and handed- over the car as directed and continued reporting for duty at Zonal Office from 20-6-1997 to

3. The 1st Party- Management has filed written statement in which it has stated that the present reference is incompetent and not maintainable as there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Ist Party-Management and the 2nd Party- workman . The 2nd Party -workman was the personal driver of the officer of the 1st Party- Bank and was provided with bank's vehicle and can by no stretch of imagination be held as a "workman" .As per Regulation 26 of the UCO Bank Officers Service Regulation , 1979 certain officers of the Bank have been provided with the facility of Bank's car for official purposes and those officers who do not know driving can be authorized to engaged personal drivers who are to be reimbursed by the Bank . Such drivers being in personal employment of the concerned officer, however , are provided with uniform , washing allowance , extra duty and out of station allowance , ex - gratia equivalent to one month's remuneration once in a year as per circular ofthe Ist Party- Management . Sucli drivers have no privity of contract between themselves and the UCO Bank- Management. All payments to the drivers engaged by the officers have to be made by the officers themselves and they have to claim reimbursement after incurring expenditure from the Bank against a declaration duly supported by vouchers . The 2nd Party-workman who 1112 Gl/2011-19 2970

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

(5 ) The 2nd Party - workman has adduced evidence of himself as W. W. -1 and filed certain documents marked as Ext . -1 to 8. The 1st Party- Management has examined M.W. -1 Shri S.K. Tripathy and filed certain documents marked as Ext . -A to E/ 1 .

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. I

was engaged as a personal driver by the officers of the 1st Party-Management is not a " workman " under the Ist Party-Management as no appointment letter was issued to him and there was no termination of service by the 1st Party-Management . The 2nd Party - workman was paid for sometime directly by the 1st Party - Management to his account due to ignorance or wrong conception by the then officer of the bank and on this ground and 2nd Party- workman cannot claim himself a workman under the bank . Since the main branch of Bhubaneswar of the 1st Party- Management was re -categorized as Scale - III and the Chief Manager /Officiating Manager of that branch was no more eligible for the retention of the Bank's car , the personal driver of car No. WMB- 2505 was advised to handover the car along with keys to the Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar. In this way the engagement of the 2nd Party - workman as a personal driver came to an end . Since the 2nd Party- workman was never issued any appointment letter nor his services were terminatedby the Ist Party- Management , there is no industrial dispute between the parties and exfacie the reference is not maintainable . The wages and remuneration of the 2nd Party - workman were not paid by the st Party-Management . All such payments made to him were paid in the personal capacity by the designated officer. Any certificate issued by the officer of the bank in his personal capacity will not amount as certificate given by the Management itself. The question of giving notice of retrenchment and payment of compensation as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise since the 2nd Party - workman was the personal driver of the officer of the Bank and cannot be deemed to be a workman under Section 2( S) of the aforesaid Act. The Bank has not engaged and driver junior to the 2nd Party- workman as alleged by him . Therefore the 2nd Party- workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Following issues were settled in view of the pleadings of the parties .

ISSUES

( 1 ) Whether the disputant Shri Abhaya Barik is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ?

(2) Whether the termination of Shri Abhaya Barik by : The Management is legal and justified ?

(3) To what relief the disputant is entitled ?

6. The 1st Party- Management has contended that the disputant Shri Abhaya Barik is not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as he was engaged as a Personal Driver of the officer of the 1st Party - Bank . There is no employer and employee relationship between the list Party -Management and the 2nd Party-disputant. Under Regulation 26 of the UCO Bank Officers Service Regulation . 1979 certain officers of the Bank have been provided with the facility of Bank's car for official purposes and those ot the officers who do not know driving are authorized to engage a personal driver for the car whose remunerations are reimbursed by the Bank . Drivers so engaged are also provided with three sets of cotton uniform every year and one set of woolen uniform in every three years . They are also allowed washing allowance , ex - gratia duty and out station allowance and bonus by the Bank . They are also given increments and enhancement in remuneration from time to time by the Bank itself. On this basis it does not sound reasonable that the disputant or such type of drivers are said to be the personal drivers of the officers of the Ist Party -Management . The term personal driver has perhaps been devised to avoid the liabilities arising out of such employment by the Bank . Certain payments 10 the disputant had also been made admittedly by the 1st Party -Management by credit in his account running in the bank , though alleged to be made by mistake of the officers ofthe Bank . But that does not make any difference as ultimately all the payments to the disputant were made by the Bank itself either directly or through the officer of the Bank . The facility of providing car and driver to the officers not knowing driving has been extended by the Bank and therefore engaging a driver , though named as a personal driver, does not affect the right of such drivers bestowed under the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct . 1947. The definition of " workman " given under Section 2( s) of the aforesaid Act is wide enough to include all such persons under any colour of name engaged in the employmentby an employer in connection with the work of the establishment as an industry . Therefore , it is held (4) Whether the reference is maintainable ?

that the disputant Shri Abhaya Barik is a workman under [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the 2nd Party - Workman .

ISSUE No. IV

7. The 1st Party - Management has challenged the maintainability of the reference on the ground that there is no employer and employee relationship between the 1st- Party - Management and the 2nd Party - workman as the disputant -workman was the personal driver of the officer ofthe Ist Party - Bank . But it has been held in Issue No. I that the disputant Shri Abhaya Barik was a workman and in the employment of the 1st Party - Management , though named as the personal driver of the officer of the Bank. Therefore , it cannot be denied that the 2nd Party - workman was in the employment of the 1st Party - Management . It is worth consideration that the disputant - workman had not worked as driver with one officer of the Bank only , but had worked with five officers of the Bank who succeeded in office one by one . The personal driver loses employment when the officer engaging him relinquishes his office . There is no evidence that the 2nd Party - workman was every time engaged afresh by the new incumbent in office . The administrative Rules or Regulations cannot circumvent or set at naught the statutory provisions of law. In this view of the matter the reference is held to be maintainable and the issue is decided against the 1st Party- Management .

ISSUE No. II

8. The 2nd Party - workman has alleged that he was firstly engaged on 17-12-1988 as a casual labourer on daily wage basis to drive the jeep of the Bank in the Zonal Office and continued as such till 28-3-1989 . Subsequently he was engaged on 29-5-1989 and sent to the Main branch of the Bank to drive Ambassador Car bearing No. WMB- 2505 and drove the above car till 26-6-1997 under the Chief or Senior Manager of the Main branch . Later on , he was asked on 26-9-1997 to handover the above car to the Zonal office . He handedover the car to the Zonal Office and waited for five to six days for duty . On 1-7-1997 he was refused duty by the 1st Party - Management . In this way he had worked continuously under the 1st Party- Management from 17-12-1988 to 30-6-1997 and was paid his remuneration/ salary by the officer of the Main Branch . He was not given any written order of disengagement . His work throughout was satisfactory and he was issued certificates of appreciation by the Branch Manager of the Bank . The plea of the 1st Party - Management is that since the Main branch of the Bank at Bhubaneswar was degraded and re - categorized as Scale - III branch and the

2971 Chief Manager / Officiating Manager of the Main Branch was no more eligible for the retention of the bank's car , the car driven by the 2nd Party - workman bearing No. WMB- 2505 was required to be disposed off . The 2nd Party- workman was accordingly advised to handover the car and keys to the Zonal Office , Bhubaneswar and it was ultimately disposed of. In this process the engagement of the 2nd Party - workman as a personal driver came to an end. This fact has also been reiterated in the evidence of the M. W. - 1 Shri S.K. Tripathy . This action of the 1st Party- Management with regard to the disengagement of the 2nd Party -workman without complying the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be said to be legal and justified as the 2nd Party - workman had nearly put in nine years continuous service . He was required to be given due notice of retrenchment by the 1stParty - Management and to be paid compensation as required under Section 25 - F of the aforesaid Act. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the 2nd Party- workman and against the 1st Party - Management and it is held that the termination of Shri Abhaya Barik by the 1st Party -Management is illegal and unjustified.

ISSUE No. III

9. It has been admitted by the 2nd Party - workman that he was not issued any letter of appointment nor he faced any interview for selection on the post ofdriver . His name was also not sponsored by the Employment Exchange . It means that he was not appointed in accordance with due process of selection . Therefore , he is not entitled for reinstatement , back wages and other service benefits , but he is surely entitled to the benefits available under Sections 25 - F and 25 - H of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since the 1st Party - Management has not given one month's prior notice in writing giving reasons for retrenchment nor paid any wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice the 2nd Party- workman shall be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice and shall also be paid retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months .

10. The 1st Party - Management is directed to comply with the award within a period of three months from the date of its publication .

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me .

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer 2972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

: का. आ. 1001.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 199/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/20/98- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 1001.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 199/ 98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court- 2 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L - 12012 /20 /98 - IR ( B - 11 ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 199 of 1998

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Central ! Bank of India , and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman

Choudhary,

: Shri Bijay the concerned workman himself.

On beha or me employers : Mr. 11. Nath , Advocate .

State : harkhand

Industry : Banking Dhanbad . the 7th February , 2011

AWARD

1 e Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercis of the powers conferred on them under Section

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 10( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 12012 /20 /98 - IR ( B - II ) , dated the 14 December , 1998 .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Bijay Choudhary without observing the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is legal and justified ? If not . to what relief the said workman is entitled ? " 2. The pleaded case of the workman Bijay Choudhary is that he was originally appointed as a Peon on 5-10-1986 against permanent vacancy in the Central Bank of India at Lalpur Branch and accordingly continued his work from 7-5-1990 till his termination of his service with effect from 24-4-1991 , he was not allowed to complete 240 days of attendance in a calendar year . Though he put in more than 240 days during the aforesaid period of his service , his service was orally terminated without any reason and in violation of mandatory provision under Section 25F of the I.D. Act , 1947 , without affording him any opportunity to him . On his representation before the management against his illegal and arbitrary termination of his service , and waiting for a decision over it by the Headquarters as assured by the local management , the workman raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C ) . Ranchi , before whom the management submitted in writing that his service was terminated because of his failure in the examination conducted by the management for the post of sub - staff and that during the aforesaid period of his service i.e. 17-5-1990 to 23-3-1991 , the petitioner put 257 days attendance excluding holidays and Sundays . On the failure of the conciliation proceeding due to the adamant attitude of the management, hence the case was referred by the Ministry for adjudication . The action of the management was also pleaded as arbitrary , vindictive and anti - labour policy.

3. Further pleading of the workman is that even in case of his failure in the Written Test , his termination of service attracts Section 25F of the I.D. Act , 1947 and it cannot be the ground for termination of his service . because his appointment was not a condition precedent for his success in the alleged examination or test .

4. Whereas the case of the management as pleaded with the specific denial to the alleged facts of the workman is that workman---Bijay Chaudhury was simply being engaged as a casual worker by their Lalpur Branch as per exigency of the management on daily basis / wages . Since his engagement was purely casual in nature , no question of termination of his Bank service exists . He did not complete his 240 days continuous service in a year , so he is not entitled for absorption in the Bank's services . Even then at this request . he was given a chance to appear in the Written Test for Sub - Staff which was held on भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011/चैत्र 19 , 1933

[भाग II---खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

24-3-1991 , but he failed in it . Hence , he is not entitledto any automatic absorpt on in Bank's services . There is no violation of any mand, tory law of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such the claim of the workman being untenable is liable to be summarily rejected .

5. Fur her pleadings of the management is that the workman as a casual worker at Lalpur Branch put only 49 days attendance from 7-5-1990 to 15-8-1990 to perform general nature ofjob d iring the leave and sick vacancy of Class IV employee as per exigency ofwork. He also worked as a coolie for 55 days from 16-8-1990 to 27-10-1990 for miscellaneous job such as bringing water from water tap @Re. 1 per bucket for water supply. The workman as a casual labour or a coolie could be a supplier of water as per agreement entered into both the parties.

FINDING WITH REASONS

6. In this case each party has produced single witness on his behalf in support of their respective cases . WW- 1 is the workman himselfBijoy Chaudhury, whereas MW- 1 is Niranjan Sinha, the then Manager of the Central Bank of India, Lalpur Branch , Ranchi .

Workman Bijoy Chaudhury as WW- 1 in his statement has stated that he was engaged by the management of Lalpur Branch as Sub - Staff for the period 17-5-1990 to 23-3-1991 , during which he continuously worked and put his attendance for more than 240 days . He denied to have periodically worked during the period from August, 1990 to 23rd March, 1991 as a Coolie under the said management. He was stopped from service without issuance of any chargesheet or payment of any compensation and his termination of his service by the management is alleged to be illegal . Though the workman claims to have submitted his appointment letter before the Tribunal, yet there is no proof of his appointment letter issued by the management.

Whereas on the other hand MW- 1 Niranjan Sinha, as the then Manager of the Central Bank of India , Lalpur Branch , Ranchi has established that Mr. R. N. Jha , the then Branch Manager of Lalpur Branch in 1990 had died two months ago . According to him , no appointment letter was ever issued to the concerned workman to work under the management in any capacity, rather in fact , he periodically worked as Casual Worker from 17-5-1990 to 15-8-1990 i.e. for 49 days , and accordingly he worked as a coolie for 55 days from 16-8-1990 to 27-10-1990 1/2 ( one and two) hours per day but periodically ; as such he did not work as casual worker for 240 days in a year , and he was not an employee of the Bank so the termination of his service never arose . The witness proved the management letter dated 8-8-1997 as Ext . M - 1 , as a proof of the daily wage rateably paid to the workman through twenty payment vouchers which have been proved as Ext . M- 2 series . The witness has proved the statement ( Annexure)

2973 dated 18-9-1997 as Ext . M- 3 (on the part of the workman ) which refers to the working of the workman for 153 days as water supplier during the period 1-8-1990 to 22-3-1991 @Re. I per bucket in addition to his working as a casual worker and coolie for 49 and 55 days respectively for the aforesaid specified period . There was no agreement between both the parties for his engagement as a Coolie . The witness for the management has also proved the photo copy of three vouchers as Ex . W- 1 , which proves the payment ofdaily labour/ Coolie charges Rs . 30 for each of the rwo days i.e. March 11 and 22, 1991 and Rs . 15 for March 12, 1991 respectively.

7. In the backdrop of the case , the pleas raised on behalf of the workman are such that ' If the employer withholds certain records exclusively in the possession ofthe employer and the workman may not be able to lay their hands upon and prove that they worked for requisite number of days , the adverse inference may be drawn [208 LLR 549 (HC) (DB) paras 13 and 16 ] , that with reference to unfair labour practice the confidential circular directing the officers that workmen like the appellant should be engaged continuously but should as far as possible , be offered work on rotation basis and the case that the appellant is a badli worker, have to be characterised as unfair labour practice under Section 2(r )(a ) Sche . V Item 10 ofthe I.D. Act , 1947. [reported in SCLJ ( 1) 601 ( DB ) , H. D. Singh versus R.B.I. and others , para 11 ] , that even a casual or seasonal workman who rendered continuous service for one year or more cannot be retrenched on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty without complying with the requisites of Section 25F [ reported in 1982 SCC( 1 . & S): 124 (DB): ( 1982) 1 SCC 645 , L. Robert D. Souza versus Executive Engineer] , and that even in case of oral order of termination of service and there was no compliance of Section 25F, the delinquent was entitled to reinstatement with full backwages [ Reported in 1989 Lab . I.C. 623 ( Pat ) (DB) , State Bank of India versus Union of India , paras 12 to 15] .

8. Just contrary to the aforesaid contentions raised onbehalfofthe workman , the submissions made on behalf ofthe management are also worth considering in the context of the present case . Firstly the submission of the management is that the rule of equity in public employment is basic feature of our Constitution and if appointment is made flouting the rules , without proper competition amongst qualified persons , the same would not confer any right on the appointee . Assuming the appointment is contractual appointment or daily wage or casual basis , the same would come to an end when it is discontinued 2 [ reported in 2006 III LLJ Page 64 ( SB ) , Mohan , D versus P.O. CGIT - cum - Labour Court, Chennai para 12 ] , secondly that termination of employment of daily wage employee cannot give rise to an industrial dispute such a person is not within the sweep of the Act and employer terminating the employment of daily wager is not required to follow 2974

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( 1 ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

the management of United Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-3-2011 .

[No. L - 12011 / 79 /2006 - IR ( B -JI ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA the provision of Section 25F , and is not required to serve notice any pay compensation etc. [ 2008 ( 1 ) B.B.C.J. Vol V 460 ( DB) , Sanjay Kumar Tewary versus State of Bihar para 7] and thirdly, that if without following the recruitment rules for public appointment any appointment either temporary, contractual , casual , daily wage or ad hoc has been made, then the High Court cannot direct to absorb or regularise the services of such appointee as reported in 2010 [ 2 JCR 36 (Jhar) ( SB ) , Raj Kishore Banra versus State of Jharkhand para 3 to 6 ] .

Reference No. 29 of 2006

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of United Bank of India

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

Onbehalf of the Management :

9. On the consideration of all the aforesaid rulings cited on behalf of the parties as contrasted with the factum of the present case I find that in the instant case the workman had no continuous service as a casual labour for requisite number of the days i.e. 240 days in a calendar year as defined under Section 25B of the I.D. Act . Moreover , the workman has failed to prove his appointment as a casual labour for the alleged period of his employment as he seemed to have worked as a casual labour , as a coolie and as a water supplier . In this way, none of the aforesaid authorities as referred to on behalf of the workman holds good with the factum and legal position of the case , rather the cited authorities on behalf of the management being consistent with the factum of the case appear to be more pursuasive and plausible .

Mr. Sutirtha Das . Advocate

On behalf of the Workinen :Mr. Dalip Kumar Roy, Advocate

- STATE : West Bengal .

INDUSTRY : Banking

Dated , the 24th February , 2011 10. Under these circumstances , I find and hold that workman Bijoy Choudhury is not entitled to any relief whatsoever , and the action of the management of the Central Bank of India in terminating his service without observing the provisions of Industrial Act is quite legal and justified .

AWARD

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

By Order No. L - 12011 / 79 / 2006 - IR ( B - II ) dated 14-11-2006 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) and ( 2A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

" Whether the demand made by the United Bank of India Sramik Karmachari Samiti for posting of Shri Mrinal Chowdhury to his native place on medical grounds is justified ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? י

का. आ. 1002.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार युनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 /79/2006- आई आर( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 1002.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 29/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Kolkata , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

2. The workmen union stated in its statement of claim that the workman concerned is , posted at Bagnarı Branch of the management Bank and is a cardiac patient . undergone with a open heart surgery in September , 1994 at B. M. Birla Heart Research Center for replacement of two valves . He was promoted from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre under quota for physically handicapped persons and was transferred to Midnapore as relieving C.C.G. and then was transferred to Bagnan Branch under Hoogly Region with effect from 19-8-2002 as C.C.G. Shri Chowdhury, the concerned workman made many [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

2975 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

promotion, the management issued order No. 91/2002 dated May 27, 2002 posting the workman as C.C.G. at Bagnan branch within his home district Howrah under the Bank's Hooghly Regional Office . The workman , Shri Chowdhury appeared for promotion test as per Clause 2.3 of the Circular No. PA(AS) PLOM ( CLK)/ 12 /M - 79/2001 dated May 18 , 2001 and it is specifically provided that a subordinate employce promoted to clerical cadre may be posted anywhere within the same state and he accepted such terms. for promotion and he should be equitably estopped from praying for posting to a place of his choice . It is also claimed by the management Bank that the workman cannot claim posting on promotion to a place of his choice as a matter of right . However, his case was considered sympathetically and he was posted in a branch within his home district, Howrah . It is further submitted that there are surplus clerical staff in C.C.A. area of Kolkata and Howrah and Bank cannot afford more clerical staff in such area and there is acute shortage of staff in non C.C.A. areas of West Bengal deepening the crisis of manning the branches and rendering better customer services . It is further stated that no other posting nearer to his native place could be given by the Bank within the C.C.A. area of Howrah District . The statement concluded with the denial from the side of the management Bank that the Bank has already given posting to more than hundred CCG's /Clerks in various branches at Kolkata and Howrah though the Bank has transferred its several employees on rotation from one branch to another within the CCA areas of Kolkata and Howrah to obviate development of unhealthy nexus between the employees and customers to maintain its integrity as a financial institution .

4. A rejoinder has been filed by the workman concerned by denying the statements made by the management Bank in its usual process .

representation to the management on 4-1-2002, 19-8-2002, 30-7-2003 , 3-3-2014 and 20-6-2005 with due recommendation and forwarding note by the Manager of Bagnan Branch for consideration of his transfer to the nearest branch of his home town at Kadamtala , Howrah purely on medicat grounds as certified by the attending cardiologist of B. M. Firla Heart Research Center in view of the guidelines giver under Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance , DEA (Bankinı, Division) reference No. 302/33 /2/ 87 - SCT (B ) dated 15-2-1988 and in view of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 with regarding to posting of physically handicapper employees , as far as possible , near their native place . Though similar prayer of two other employees , namely , Shri Tapan Sarkar and Smt . Bharati Hazra have been considered for their respective transfer and posting around their native places on compassionate medical grounds , the prayer of the workman concerned has not been considered . It is further submitted that an option prayer under "Option transter " scheme which remains valid for two years , for considering his posting on compassionate ground , was made by the workman concerned, but the same also was not acceded to on the plea of non -existence of vacancies at branches at Howrah Kolkata. Since the management of the Bank had already given posting to more than hundred C.C.Gs/Clerks in various branches in Kolkata and Howrah during the period 2003 and 2005 and so the workman concerned claimed that he has fallen a victim of discrimination despite having bonafide ground for consideration. It is also submitted on behalf of the workman concerned that since his posting firstly in Midnapore Region and Bagnan branch of Hooghly Region the workman concerned had to commute to such long distance from his residence due to unavoidable family circumstances and since he has pacemaker, he had fallen ill many a times under high tension electricity lines on the railway track, which was advised to be avoided by the cardiologist treating him.

5. It is normał practice of service of employees having provision of transfer from one place to another in the offices of the employer in different places , and in such service condition a transfer to a particular place cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee . Representation with a request or prayer can be made by the employee to the employer for a transfer and if it is considered then it is a matter of discretion on the part of the employer and if it is not so done , the employee cannot express his grievances against such rejection of the representation.

6. In the present case , admittedly, there was a transfer of the workman concerned to Bagnan considering his representation for a transfer. It is argued on behalf of the management Bank that the workman's representation was considered by posting him at Bagnan , a place within the district of Howrah being the native place of the workman concerned . But , in this context, it has not been denied by the management Bank about the claim of the workman concerned that he is a resident of Kadamtala in Howrah 3. In their written statement the management Bank denied all the allegations made by the workmen union in the statement of claim and claimed that the present purported reference is highly misconceived and not maintainable in law as it was termed in a mechanical and routine way without application of mind and it is also not maintainable as the " claim for posting to the native place " is not a subject matter having no place in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also claimed that the Bank itself being ' United Bank of India' has not been made a party in the present reference and in its absence , no proper and effective adjudication can be made . The management Bank has denied the claim of the workman that he was promoted from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre under the quota for physically handicapped persons , but it was so done in the normal process and was posted temporarily as relieving C.C.G. at the Bank's South Regional Office at Tamluk and thereafter in consideration of his regular posting on [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | 2976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

and Bagnan is a town at the outskirt place of Howrah district neighboring East Midnapore . The management Bank has not denied that Bagnam is about 50/60 kms . away from Howrah city one way.

court of law. It is submitted that , however , the Bank has tried to accommodate the workman concerned balancing the hardship of the workman concerned and the exigencies and requirements of the Bank and also to make a balance in between the surplus staff in CCA areas at Kolkata and Howrah and shortage of clerical staff in non -CCA areas of West Bengal , posted the workman in his home district of Howrah at Bagnan . Mr. Das , Ld . Advocate for the management submitted that the workman concerned had made a representation to post him in his native place by stating that he is a resident of Howrah and made such representation to consider the matter sympathetically since he is a handicapped person being cardiac patient having undergone cardiac surgery and he is under periodical observation of cardiac surgeon in Kolkata . At this stage, may I have the opportunity to explain what " native place " actually mean in the context of the person claiming a native of a particular city or town or village . In the Oxford Dictionary , native has been described as " A person born in a specified place or associated with the place by birth or a local inhabitant " . In other words , it can be safely taken that a person is a native of a particular place where he is associated with either for long time or since his birth. In doing so a person cannot be stated a native of the entire district . Further , In BLACK Dictionary native has been stated " A person who is a citizen of a particular place , region or nation by virtue of having been born there " and it has been specifically stated that " A person whose national original derives from having been born within a particular place " . So , when a person is stated to be a native of a particular place , he should be treated as a person belonging to a specific place and not to an entire region . The explanation of native given by the management has nothing but an interpretation made by the management in its own way.

7. To start with para wise submission , argument by the learned Advocate for the management may be taken up first since the management side tried to hit at the root of the present reference by claiming that it cannot be maintained without impleading the Bank itself as a party and the reference suffers the defect of non -joinder of party and it can be cured only by impleading the Bank , " United Bank of India " as a party in the present matter . In this context reliance has been made on the judgment reported in (2003 ) 3 S.C.C. 472 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in any suit or proceeding by or against the Government , State concerned is a necessary party in a dispute relating to property of the State and so State must be impleaded in the suit or proceeding . On going through the said judgment it is found that the said order was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in civil jurisdiction involving right to property belonging to the State . But, in the present matter the dispute is otherwise than of a civil nature since the Bank is treated here as an ' industry' and the aggrieved person or employee of the Bank concerned is a ' workman ' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. In the written statement the management nowhere it is stated that the officer in the order of reference is not competent to comply with the order in the Award , if passed against it favouring the workman . It has already been discussed in the earlier paragraphs that since a claim for transfer in service cannot be enforced as a matter of right by an employee , in the present reference , it is not a question to decide whether the act of the management in respect of posting of the workman was justified or not . But , in the present reference so framed is to decide whether the claim made on behalf of the workman for posting him to his native piace on medical ground was justifed or not. The issue nowhere includes anything to be decided whether such claim of the workman concerned was legal or not . A legal right gives a person ciaiming it a forçe provided in some statute , rule or regulation or a settlement but if anything to be decided as justified , the question of promulgation of such claim does not become a statutory force . So , the plea of the Bank is not a party here , does not make the present reference as not maintainable . In other words , it can well be maintained to find that whether such claim can be entertained from the side of the workmen concerned as it is a one way traffic at the outset .

9. The management has stated that the representation made by the workman concerned was considered and from his posting at Tamluk in another region , he was brought to Bagnan in consideration of his representation to bring him within his district . In this context , one argument was made by the Learned Advocate for the workman that since the workman is posted at Bagnan , he is to commute daily by rail to Bagnan covering a distance of 50 to 60 kms . One way and thereby he is subjected to unnecessary strain which he cannot sustain as a normal person as the workman is a cardiac patient , undergone cardiac surgery sometimes back and he has beenprovided with pacemaker in his chest . It is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the workman that the transfer of the workman concerned does not show sympathy from side of the management , but it was an apathy on its side . Mr. Das , Ld . Advocate for the management Bank submitted that in that case the workman may well stay at Bagnan itself to attend his office in the Bagnan Branch of the Bank .

8. Next we find that the learned Advocate for the management Bank submitted that the workman based his claim on the basis of some administrative circulars issued by different authorities and it is claimed that such administrative orders are not subject to be enforced in the 2977 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19, 1933

party. If sympathetic consideration of the representation made by the present workman while he was posted at Tamluk, was to be considered by the management Bank sympathetically, he should not be advised to stay at Bagnan to avoid strain of daily commuting from Howrah city to attend his duty at Bagnan . If the situation means so in view of his posting at Bagnan , that could have been done while he was posted at Tamluk Branch of the management Bank and why the workman concerned pray for has posting in an around his native place , definitely the city of Howrah and not the entire district of Howrah . By posting the workman at Bagnan the management Bank rather has punished him since Bagnan may not be a far off from Tamluk and the workman concerned was put to more strain in attending duty at Bagnan from his native place at Howrah city

11. In my view, the management Bank actually did notconsider the representation of the workman concerned sympathetically but it may be treated as a consideration minus sympathy.

12. Again, I will repeat that the representation made by the workman in the present matter can never be enforced as a right, but it may be treated as request from the side of the workman . From management side , consideration of such representation as a matter of discretion on the part of the Bank concerned as being the employee but even then , in the matter of such consideration , the management Bank should have followed the provisions made in the Bipartite Settlement inthis context and also the office circular made from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India as referred earlier. However, these two provisions do not create any right to be enforced but it creates some guidelines how a representation for transfer to his native place by a worker on handicapped ground should be handled and disposed of. If it is not so done , it can be termed as an unjustified act on the part of the management though this tribunal will never say that the demand made on behalf of the workman concerned should be enforced.

10. In consideration of the submission made by the respective parties, it is found that the learned Advocate for the management Bank tried to impress upon the Tribunal that in consideration of the representation made by the workman for transferring him to his native place, proper sympathy was shown to him by posting him on transfer to the Bagnan Branch of the Bank which is within Howrah district , and claimed the said place being within the native district of the workman concerned . On going through the provisions made in Clause 20.17 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 , in between the banking companies and their workmen , it is found that a provision has been made for sympathetic consideration of request by the employee for transfer on compassionate ground and not to reject the same only on the ground that he will have to be paid emoluments of higher rates . A reference also be made to the Government circular in the form of a letter from the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in its letter No. 302/33/2/ 87 - SCT (A) dated 15-2-1988 (Exhibit W-17) wherein it has also been provided that when transfer of physically handicapped employee becomes inevitable on promotion it should be ensured that such employees are kept nearest to their original place of posting and in any case are not transferred to far off or remote places . Perhaps the management Bank tried to impress that the representation by the workman in the present case was not denied and by posting him at Bagnam Branch , the management considered his representation with sympathy and thereby the above referred provisions have not been overlooked . Learned Advocate for the management Bank also tried to suggest the workman concerned in course of his argument that he should find a residence at Bagnan to avoid strenuous journey from Howrah commuting all the way to attend his duty at Bagnan daily. In my view, in place of showing sympathy to the workman concerned, the management rather showed its apathy towards him by posting him at Bagnan in Howrah district . The management Bank has never denied that the workman concerned is a handicapped person as it is so claimed and in support of the same the workman has produced several medical documents in the present reference which he has stated to have supplied to the management Bank for consideration of his written representation for posting him to his native place . I think in posting the workman at Bagnan , the management remained satisfied that it has considered the representation of the workman with full Sympathy by treating the entire Howrah district as his native place . Thereby the management Bank actually ignored the suggestion or guidelines made by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in their letter No. 302/33 /2/ 87 - SCT (A) dated 15-2-1988 ( Exhibit W- 17) where transfer to far off and remote places is advised to be avoided in consideration of the representation made by the physically handicapped employee whose transfer become inevitable on promotion and also the Clause 20.17 ofthe Bipartite Settlement in which the management was a

13. In reference to all the discussions made above . lam ofthe view that all the exhibited documents in respect ofthe treatment of the workman concerned under a cardiac surgeon, it may be safely held that he may be treated as a handicapped person and on the basis of Clause 20.17 of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 as well as the office letter/circular from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India , the representation of the workman concerned for transfer on handicapped ground is justified though this Tribunal does not endorse that the word " demand " as stated in the schedule of reference as justified since the workman cannot demand or claim a transfer, but at best, can make a request for the same and leave the matter at the discretion of his employer . Though it is viewed that a request for transfer is justified but not a demand for the same , no relief specifically is awarded .

1112GI /2011-20 3978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

14. So , the matter is disposed of with above observation and let an Award be passed accordingly .

Dated : Kolkata ,

the24th February, 2011

Justice MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 1003.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र 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 23/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-3-2011 की प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/ 105/ 2009 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011 S.O. 1003.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 23 / 2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on4-3-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 / 105 /2009 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 23 of 2010

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra , Kolkata Region .

AND

Their workman

PRESENT .

Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer APF EARANCE :

Priyanka On behalf of the Management Mis.

Saikia , Manager

(HR)

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) |

:Mr. Subir Kumar Onbehalf of the Workman

Das , Organising Secretary of the workman union

Industry : Banking State : West Bengal

Dated, the 23rd February, 2011

AWARD

By Order No. L - 12011 / 105 / 2009-1R ( B - II ) dated 2-2-2010 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) and ( 2A ) of the Industrial Distputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

" Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in respect of its Regional Office . Kolkata , in abolishing the post of HC - A at N. S. Road branch and transferring the existing incumbent Shri Kishore Chowdhury to Jadhavpur Branch treating him an ordinary clerk and also relieving him from his duties at N. S. Road Branch during pendency of conciliation proceeding , is legal and justified ? What relief Shri Kishore Chowdhury is entitled for ? "

2. On call of the matter today , one application has been filed on behalf of the workmen union stating about the settlement of the dispute in the present reference in between the workmen union and the management Bank outside the court and also praying for a leave to withdraw the present reference in view of the said settlement and to dispose of the present matter . The maker of this application Mr. Subir Kumar Das , organising Secretary of the workraan union , the authorized representative of the workman union has submitted that the matter has been settled out of court and for that reason the workmen union does not want to proceed with the matter any more . Since the present reference has come from the Ministry of Labour . Government of India , a formal order for withdrawal cannot be entertained .

3. However , since the workmen union expressed ins desire not to proceed in the matter any more in view of the non- existence of any dispute at present as there has been a settlement of the dispute in between the parties outside the court . In view of the same the present reference is disposed of with the presumption of no existence of any industrial dispute at present in view of the settlement in between the parties and an Award accordingly is passed .

Dated , Kolkata ,

the 23rd February, 2011

Justice MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 201 ।

का. आ. 1004.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निष्टि औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. 120.2/ 72 / 2002- आई आर ( बी -11 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 1004 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 19/ 2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Indian Overseas Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/ 72/2002 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 3rd March , 2011

Present :

A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 19/2009

[ 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 Indian Overseas Bank and their Workman )

BETWEEN

: Ist Party/ Petitioner Sri A. Velayudham

Vs.

2nd Party / Respondent The Chairman and Managing : Director Indian Overseas Bank , Anna Salai ,

Chennai-2

2979 APPEARANCES :

For the Ist Party/ Petitioner : Sri K.V. Krishnaswami and S. Sulakshana , Authorized Repre- sentative

For the 2nd Party/ Management M / s NGR Prasad , Adovcates

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012 / 72 /2002 - IR ( B - II ) dated 23-12-2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the claim of Sri A. Velayudham , Casual Workman for appointment and regularization in the Indian Overseas Bank w.e.f. 3-4-1995 is legal and justified ? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? י

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 19/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Petitioner appeared through his representative and the Respondent through his Counsel and filed Claim , Counter , Additional Claim , Additional Counter and Rejoinder Statements as the case may be .

3. The averments in the Claim Statement berelt of unnecessary details are as follows:

Petitioner was appointed as a Casual Messenger in the South Indian Bank ( Tirunelveli ) at Panpozhi Branch as per order dated 10-2-1982 in a leave vacancy . The bank was renamed as Bank of famil Nadu in which also he worked in leave vacancies . The renamed Bank of Tamil Nadu stood amalgamated with Indian Overseas Bank , the Respondent on 20-2-1990 . As per the scheme of amalgamation all the employees of erstwhile Bank of Tamil Nadu shall be deemed to have been appointed by Indian Overseas Bank . Petitioner had been continuously working as Casual Messenger under the Respondent at Sencottai Branch since 20-2-1990 . While his demand for permanency stood recommended by the Illangi Branch Manager on 30-3-1995 , on 3-4-1995 he was abruptly terminated for no reason allegedly under Head Office instructions . His last drawn salary was Rs . 40 per day. Ile studied upto SSLC . As per order of High Court of Madras the reference is caused to be made on the failure of conciliation in the raised dispute culminating in a failure report . He has 8 years of service as Casual Employee with 5 years continuous service entitling him for permanent service . One S. Ganesan and G. Ramesh and many persons have 2980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 : CHAITRA 19 , 1933

been appointed as Messengers in his place depriving this rights who are still continuing . The illegal termination is to be set aside and he be reinstated .

4. Counter Statement contentions Bereft of unnecessary details are as follows :

Admittedly petitioner was a Casual Messenger in leave vacancies . Name of the petitioner was not found in the rolls of Bank of Tamil Nadu for any obligation on this Management to absorb him. Petitioner's name was not sponsored by Employment Exchange . Recruitment of temporary messengers is governed by Govt . of India guidelines . He should be interviewed and empanelled for appointment . He cannot seek employment bypassing recruitment guidelines for a backdoor entry. His request for absorption under the Staff Son Category also cannot be considered since he is over aged , his date of birth being 21-10-1966 . There was no vacancy or sanctioned post for his recommended regularization . Uma Devi's case (2006-4 - SCC- 1 ) is applicable to him . Noticing the engagement of petitioner as Casual his services were dispensed with . His Writ Petition was also dismissed by the High Court . His request for reinstatement was duly refused on 14-9-2001. Allegations that one S. Ganesan and another have been appointed in his place are vague and require to be elucidated by the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner is barred by resjudicata in view of the Writ Order of the High Court . The claim is to be dismissed.

5. Additional Claim Statement averments in a nutshell areas follows:

In the original reference it was wrongly mentioned as " appointment and regularization " instead of " reinstatement " . Hence the reference was sought to be amended accordingly which having not been effected by Government on a motion before the High Court it was directed that the Tribunal can construe the reference as one that for reinstatement as the dispute arose out of non-employment only. It is prayed for accordingly.

6. Additional Counter Statement contentions are only a repetition of the averments in the Counter Statement .

7. The Rejoinder Statement averments in a nutshel ! are as follows :

Petitioner has been requesting only for reinstatement throughout .

18. Points for consideration are :

(i ) Whether the claim of the petitioner for "appointment and regularization " to be modified as claim for " reinstatement " into service of the Indian Overseas Bank is legal and justified ?

[ PART I -SFC . 3 ( ii ) (ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?

9. As per order dated 19-1-2010 in WP No. 688/2010 filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Ministry of Labour and Employment to amend the schedule in the order of reference dated 23-12-2008 originally made by substituting " reinstatement " in the place of " appointment and regularization " it was observed and directed by the High Court of Madras that :

"there is no difficulty for the Tribunal to adjudicate such a reference , since the reference arose out of the non -employment of the petitioner . Though under Section 10 (4 ) of the ID Act , the Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to the points referred and the matters incidental thereto, it is not as if the Tribunals cannot read the real intention of the lis between the parties as answering a reference " .

5. It has been held in Minimax Vs. Its Workers reported in 1968-1 - LLJ - 369 that an order of reference hastily drawn in a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disputes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must be avoided . But , however, the Court struck a note of caution by stating that the Courts must attempt to construe the reference not too technically or in a pedantic manner but fairly and reasonably " .

7. Further , the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Vs. Its Workman reported in AIR - 1967- SC -469 has held that the tribunal must look to the pleadings of the parties to find out the exact nature of the disputes because in most cases the order of reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to cull out there from the various points about which the parties were at variance leading to the trouble . " 10. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of WWI and Exts . W1 to Ex . WI0 on the petitioner's side and that of MWI and Exts . MI to Ex . M8 on the Respondent's side

Points ( i ) and (ii ) :

11. Both sides filed written arguments as well is addressed oral arguments Perused the evidence documents and wrnten arguments . The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are that it is not disputed that petitioner has been engaged on a casual basis . The non - inclusion of his name in the rolls therefore cannot be material and cannot be disadvantageous to him. Petitioner cannot be found over aged as on 20-2-1990 , he being only 24 years of age as on the date . For unskilled workers the Employment Exchange ( Compulsory Notification of Vacancies ) Act provisions are now mandatory and for their engagement sponsoring through Employment Exchange is not necessary . As per the amalgamation scheme evidently all the employees of the 2981 [ भाग 1 ]-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

crstwhile Bank are to continue or deemed to have been appointed under IOB as is also seen admitted by MWI , Witness for the Respondent. He is terminated orally for no valid reason without notice . The alleged reason is that his name is not in the rolls whereas in fact no list of such employees has been furnished at the time of amalgamation as deposed to by MW1 . That the petitioner is over aged couldbe found to be belied by Ex . W7 , School Leaving Certificate as per which his Date of Birth is 21-1-1966 which according to Respondent is 21-10-1966 . As per Ex . M1 norms for recruitment maximum age for recruitment is 26 years with a relaxation of 3 years of OBC to which community petitioner belongs . Overage cannot be a ground for declining absorption . He has not been paid compensation too violating Section 25F of the ID Act .

12. On behalf of the Respondent the convassed contentions are that petitioner was not an employee of IOB . His name is not included in the roll which provides name of only permanent employees . Petitioner happened to be continued to be engaged until a circular to the contra was issued by 3-4-1995 . He was not sponsored through the Employment Exchange . Petitioner is now aged 44 years .

the erstwhile bank supervened to continue to be engaged until he was illegally terminated . That the petitioner has been over aged is disproved from the evidence adduced in relation to his age . Again that he was not sponsored through Employment Exchange cannot attach any stigma to his engagement for not being considered for continuance of engagement with chance of his being regularized . When in asmuch as his engagement as Messenger on casual basis had been continuously for a number of years , say for 5 or 8 years , the fact that his name did not find a place in the rolls in the list of amalgamation scheme indicates that he suffered indignation or insult willful or negligent as being a mediocre personnel to be included in the list . This adds insult to his injury suffered due to his casual nature of employment with mean and meagre salary of Rs . 40 a day. Actually it is not proved whether there is any list of employees furnished . The only thing that appears is not whether there has been a list or not the petitioner stood left out of consideration at the time of amalgamation . However, it is not disputed that petitioner has been engaged under the Respondent . It is also not disputed that petitioner was ordered to be terminated by the Respondent . But how it was done is violating S. 25 ( F ) of ID Act.

13. It is no more an axe to grind that petitioner stood engaged. though as a Casual Messenger . That his name did not find included in the list of employees in the scheme of amalgamation cannot be a reason to place him in a disadvantageous situation . Though he was a Casual appropriate consideration should have been weighed with the Management as to how he should have been dealt with. Instead of that the Management opted out to disengage him to gross violation of Section 25F of the ID Act without notice or any compensation . For recruitment of unskilled workers like messenger it is not obligatory that a candidate should be sponsored through Employment Exchange . Though evidently he was appointed not by an Appointment Order and he was being permitted to join the erstwhile South Indian Bank ( Tirunelveli ) , a private bank it is not to be invariable reckoned as a backdoor entry . The initial engagement of petitioner in the erstwhile private bank in continuation of which he worked under the Respondent Bank cannot at all be a reason to hold that if petitioner is absorbed it will be against the recruitment norms or guidelines . It is pertinent to note that petitioner's service commenced in a private bank . to which the guidelines of the Respondent halswere not applicable . Whatever be the mode of the commencement of his service , not assailed as a backdoor entry by depicting the manner of selection , appointment. ete, as being illegal or irregular, the engagement of the petitioner is not to be assailed as a backdoor entry. The engagement of the petitioner under the Respondent in continuation of the initial employment is not to be allowed to be missed to him except in accordance with the procedure as laiu down under Section 25F of the ID Act . The workman once engaged as early as from 10-2-1982 in

14. Petitioner is only to be reinstated and absorbed in any vacancy. Decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case is not one providing a total embargo to regularization of employees who were subject to Section 30 of the ID Act . While a workman would have been engaged due to exigencies of the department to reap benefits of his efforts and allowed to be engaged continuously for years , say 5 or 8 years and thereafter abruptly causing a cessation of his employment under the pretext of some norms or rules carving out no exceptions in appropriate cases as in this case . is totally unjust , unfair and is nothing short of unfair labour practice . Every dispensation of justice has to be assured to be done by seeing that wherever reasonable and probable exceptions to the enforcement of a given rule or norm , available are fairly thought of being extended to him so that the decision does not entail in a failure of justice . It is not every engagement made not through a recruitment process or under the rules or norms that has to be ill -described as a backdoor entry. It is especially so in the case of petitioner whose engagement was in a private bank in which he had his debut in service . The decision of theApex Court in Uma Devi's case also makes mention of contingencies upon which an engagement made apparently not through that structured procedure is still tobe protected by regularizing or absorbing the incumbent as a one- time measure by which cases pending regularization could have been considered and decided . To the case on hand the said consideration was not bestowed which is to the peril of the petitioner. In the case ofpetitioner his career commenced in the erstwhile private bank, progressed and continued under the Respondent Bank and thereby blossoming his right to such dimensions 1112GI /2011-21 2982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

that the Management could not escape his reinstatement and regularization conferred on him in aid of recruitment guidelines , perse , not applicable to the petitioner . The decision of the High Court of Kerala in Station Manager , Indian Airlines , Cochin Vs. Mr. C. T. Sebastian Chalayil House , Kathurukadavu , Kochi dated 7-4-1989 rendered by Kum. Justice M. Fathima Beevi , Judge , High Court of Kerala ( as she then was ) and that of Justice K. S. Haripoornan , Judge , High Court of Kerala ( as he then was) in WA No. 534/1989 dated 5-7-1990 are not applicable to the facts of this case . Here the dispute discernibly centres round petitioner's reinstatement and regularization . Hence the focus of adjudication has to be really on the said question.

15. In view of the above discussion the case of the petitioner could be discerned as one in which he is entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith with back wages , continuity of service and all attendant benefits followed by regularization . It is ordered accordingly . The Respondent is directed to comply with the order forthwith.

16. Thus the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 3rd March , 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnessed Examined :

For the 1st.Party/Petitioner

: WWI , Sri A. Velayudham For the 2nd Party /Management : MW1 , Smt . R. Mahalakshmi Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex . WI

15-2-1996 Notice to the 2nd Party / Respondent

Ex. W2

26-2-1993 Letter from IOB Sencottai Branch to the Central Office Ex. W3 Nil Letter from Central Office to the Sencottai Branch No. Pad/ 178 / Casual Labour / Sub/ 3 20 100 ~

Ex. W.1

Ietter from Sencottai Branch to the Central Office 30-3-1995

Ex. V'5

Letter from Illangi Branch to AGM Central Office 22-1-1996

Ex. v b

Letter from 1st Party /Petitioner to the Chairman and M.D.I.Ο.Β. ofIOB

[PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii ) | Date

Ex. No.

Description

Nil

Ex . W7

School Leaving Certificate of the 1st Party/ Petitioner Ex. W8

15-6-2009 Letter from 1st Party/ Petitioner to the Secretary to Government of India , Ministry of Labour On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

Norms for engaging messengers

Ex. M2

5-4-1990 Respondent Central Office letter to the Regional Office. Tirunelveli

Ex .M3

30-3-1993 Internal Correspondence of Respondent

Ex .M4

10-4-1995 Deputy Chief Office letter to Regional Office , Tirunvelveli Ex. M5 21-11-1998 Circular letter to Regional Offices

Ex. M6

19-6-2001 Order passed in WP No. 4283 of1996

Ex . M7

14-9-2001 Respondent letter to the petitioner

24-2-2005

Ex . M8

Circular letter to Regional Offices

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 1005.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -42011 / 27 / 2010 - आई आर ( डी यू) । जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 1005. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 45/2010 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labou Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-3-2011

[No. L -42011 / 27 /2010 - IR ( DU ) | JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ ।भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO. 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX , DELHI

1.D. No. 45/2010

Shri Prem Dass represented through

CPWD Service Centre ,

C.P.W.D. Workers Union , Sector - IV, R. K. Puram , New Delhi - 110032

.. Workman

Versus

The Chief Engineer ( F) .

Central Public Works Department , Vidyut Bhawan, Shankar Market ,

New Delhi - 110001

Management

WARD

A Khalasi was recruited by Central Public Works Department ( hereinafter referred to as the management ) on 7th ofApril , 1973 , in pay scale of Rs . 196-232 , which was revised to Rs . 750. 940 by Fourth Central Pay Commission. He reached maxima of the said scale and as such was granted in situ promotion w.c.f. 1-4-91 in pay scale of Rs . 800 1150. In normal line / hierarchy of his cadre , next promotional post was that of Assistant Wireman . In terms of arbitration award dated 31-1-1988 post of Assistant Wireman merged with the post of Wireman w.e.I. 1st January, 1973. vide order dated 7-5-1997 . He was granted ACP on 12-9-05 and promoted as Wireman on 16-2-06 , after passing the trade test . in pay scale of Rs . 950--1500 . He belaboured under a belief that in situ promotion was to be granted in pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 and not in the scale of Rs . 800- 1150. He approached CPWD Workers Union ( hereinafter referred to as the union ) for re -dressal of his grievances . The union raised a demand . which was not conceded to by the management . The union took a decision and raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since the management insisted that in situ promotion was given in a proper scale of pay , hence conciliation proceedings failed . Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report to the appropriate Government . On consideration of the said & ilure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. 1.- 42011-27-2010 - IR ( DU ) , New Delhi , dated 22-9-2010 . with following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the management of CPWD. New Delhi in denying the demand of CPWD Workers L'nion for grant of pay scale of Rs . 950 1500 w.e.t. 1۰۰ -1-1991 . to the workman Shri Prem Dass . Wireman , is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to

2983 2. During pendency of conciliation proceedings Shri Prem Dass , who was granted in situ promotion in the scale of Rs . 800-1150 , expired on 1-10-2009 . The union filed a claim statement , on his behalf , pleading that Prem Dass was appointed as Khalasi by the management on 7-4-73 . He was granted in situ promotion in pay scale of Rs . 800-1150 by the management w.e.f. 1-4-91 . Though he was given in situ promotion in pay scale of Assistant Wireman , which scale stood abolished on merger of post of Assistant Wireman with the post of Wireman , yet he was entitled for in situ promotion in pay scale of Rs . 950 1500. The union pleads that in situ promotion was to be given in next higher scale in normal line hierarchy of promotion . Despite demand , the management had not granted pay scale of normal line / hierarchy of promotion to Prem Dass , when in situ promotion was granted. Thus action ofthe management is illegal . It has been prayed that claim made by the union . on behalf of late Prem Dass , may be accepted and the management be commanded to accord next higher scale of pay to him in normal line / hierarchy of promotion from the date of grant of in situ promotion .

3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading that on grant of in situ promotion Prem Dass was not entitled for payment of his wages in pay scale of Rs . 950 1500 . According to the management , in situ promotion entitles an employce for payment of wages in next higher scale , but not to next higher post . Next higher post can be achieved on passing trade test and not otherwise . The management projects that Shri Prem Dass could pass trade test on 12-9-2005 and prior to that date he was not eligible for next higher post. Management does not dispute appointment of Prem Dass as Khalasi on 7-4-73 and grant of in situ promotion w.e.f. 1-4-91 . it is also not a matter of dispute that next higher post in normal zine / hierarchy of promotion was of Wireman , since post of Assistant Wireman stood merged with post of Wireman , in terms of arbitration awarddt . 31-1-88 w.e.l. 1-1-73 . vide order dated 7-5-1997 . According to the management , the claimant was entitled to next higher pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 only on being promoted to the post of Wireman , after passing required trade test . When he passed trade test , he was given pay scale of Wireman . The managers.ent claims that the present dispute has not acquired status of industrial dispute , without being espoused by a recognized union in the establishment of the management . It has been claimed that the dispute raised by the union is liable to be dismissed . being devoid of merits .

settled : 4. On pleadings of parties , following issues were Whether the dispute is not maintainable as industrial dispute for want of espousal by a recognized union in the establishment of the management ?

(2) As in terms of reference ?

(3) Relief 2984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRII . 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19. 1933

5. Shri Virender Singh , son of deceased Prem Dass , entered the witness box to unfold facts . Shri S. K. Goel , Executive Engineer, testified on behalf of the management . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

6.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Dhirender Sharma, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the union . Shri Rajan Lal , authorized representative , assisted by Shir S. K. Goel , Executive Engineer, raised submissions on behalf of the management . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No. 1

7. At the outset , it was argued that present dispute is an individual dispute , since it was not espoused by a recognized union in the establishment of the management. On the other hand , Shri Dhirender Sharma , authorized representative , claims that the union had espoused the dispute and thereafter it acquired status of an industrial dispute. He maintained that it does not lie in the mouth of the management to assert that an individual dispute has beenraised before this Tribunal . According to Shri Sharma, the dispute was adapted by the union on 9-9-04 and thereafter it acquired character of an industrial dispute .

8. The Tribunal has to ascertain as to whether the dispute raised by the claimant had acquired status of an industrial dispute . For an answer to this proposition , the Tribunal has to take into account definition of the word "industrial dispute " . Clause ( k ) of Section 2 of the Industrian Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act ) defines industrial dispute, which definition is extracted thus:

"industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between employers and workman , or between workmen and workmen , which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour , of any person ; " 9. The definition of " industrial dispute " referred above , can be divided into four parts , viz . ( i ) factum of dispute, (2) parties to the dispute , viz. ( a) employers and employers , (b ) employer and workman , or ( c ) workmen and workmen , ( 3 ) subject matter of the dispute , which should be connected with ( i ) employment or non - employment , or ( ii ) terms of employment , or ( iii ) condition of labour of any perdidclaic toan " industry " 10. Provisions of Section 10 of the Act , make it clear that the appropriate Government may refer an existing or apprehended dispute to the industrial Tribunal for adjuuization . Definition of industrial dispute" encon passes within its sweep any dispute or difference betive n the employer and employers , or between employer andw rkmen or between workmen and workmen , which is

[PART 1 ] SEC. 3 ( connected with the employment or non - employment terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person . The Act is a legislation relating to what is known as " collective bargaining " in the economic field Thispolicy ofthe Legislature is also implicit in the definition ofindustrialdispute.

11. TheApex Court in Bombay Union of Journalists [ 1961 ( II ) LLJ 436 | has observed that in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an industrial dispute , the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was taken up as supported bythe union ofthe workman ofthe employer against whom the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by a appreciable number of workmen. In order, therefore , to convert an "individual dispute " into an " industrial dispute " , it has tobe established that it had been taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number of the employees of the establishment As far as union of the workman of establishment itself is concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty, as the workmen who are members of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workmen But the difficulties arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular establishment , is sponsored by a union which is not of the workman of that establishment but is one of which membership is open to workman of their establishment as well in that industry. In such a case a union which has only microscopic number of the workmar as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen and the management . Representative character of the union has to be gathered from the strength : ofthe actual number of co - workers sponsoring thedispute The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the establishment , in which the concerned workman was employed . were also members of the union would not constitute sponsorship . It must be shown that they were connected together and arrived at an understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively supported the dispute.

12. What a substantial or considerable number of workmen could espouse a cause in a given case . depends on particular facts of the case. The fact that an " industrial dispute , is supported by other workmen will have to he established either in the form of a resolution of the unio of which workman may be member or of the workmen themselves who support the dispute or in any other manner From the mere fact that a general union , at whose instance an " industrial dispute " concerning an individual workman is referred for adjudication , has on its roll a few of the workman of the establishment as its members , it cannot be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted into an industrial dispute ". The Tribunal has , therefore . to consider the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned [ भाग II --- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राज़पत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

workman by participating in the particular resolution of the union . In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal , it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute . Nevertheless , in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute , it is not nece : sary that there should always be a resolution of substantia or appreciable number of workman . What is necessary is that there should be some express or collective will of a sub stantia ! or an appreciable member of the workman treating the cause of the individual workman wo this effect was held in as their own cause . P. Somasundrameran [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ] .

13. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workman either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute . In Pardeep Lamp Works [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual workmen themselves . But their case was subsequently taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co- workmen , if not a majority of them . Since this union was not registered or recognized , the workmen elected five representatives to prosecute cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized . The Apex Court held that the fact that these disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized union does not mean that they were not " industrial dispute " 14. It is not expedient that same union should remain incharge of that dispute till its adjudication . The dispute may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment , through a particular union for making such a dispute an "industrial dispute " , while the workman may be represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of Section 36 of the Act by a number of executive or office bearer of altogether another union . The crux of the matter is that the dispute should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen . It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union . Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union during continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would not affect maintainability of the order of reference . Lawto this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammonn India Limited [ 1974 ( II ) LLJ 34 ] . For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an individual dispute , the test is whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of the workman of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an appreciable number of the workman . In other words , the validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the

2985 reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause occurs . Reference can be made to a precedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. [ 1970 ( II ) LLJ 256 ] .

15. Now it would be considered as to whether the present dispute was espoused by the union or not . Shri Virender Singh unfolds that on grant of in situ promotion , his father was entitled to wages in pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 . His father , namely. Shri Prem Dass , approached the union for redressal of his grievances . He moved an application through the union on 9-9-04 requesting the management to fix his pay in the scale of Rs . 950-1500 . The management declined this request . When dues of his father were not given by the management he got a dispute raised before the Conciliation Officer through the union . On 22nd of February, 2009 , union took a decision to raise a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the dispute was accordingly raised . In due course the appropriate Government referred that dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal , deposed Shri Virender Singh .

16. Facts unfolded by Shri Virender Singh were not disputed on behalf of the management . No eye brows were raised by the management on facts referred above . Therefore , it is emerging over the record that the management does not dispute factum of Shri Prem Dass approaching the union for redressal of his grievances and moving an application on 9-9-04 for lisation of his pay in the scale of Rs . 950-1500 . It is also not disputed that when management declined his request , the union resolved to espouse cause of Shri Prem Dass on 22-2-2009 . It is also not a matter of dispute that after resolution by the union . it raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Therefore . it is crystal clear that during the life time ofPrem Dass , the union espoused his cause and raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer . The dispute raised by the union before the Conciliation Officer was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication . During conciliation proceedings Prem Dass expired .

17. A personal action dies with the person . Maxim " actio personalis moritur - cum- persona " has a limited application in industrial jurisprudence . It operates in limited class of actions , since its applicability depends upon the relief claimed . When a relief relates to wrongful termination of services of a workman , in that event death of a workman during pendency of the proceedings would make this maxim applicable , since relief of reinstatement obviously cannot be granted . But final determination of issues involved in the reference may be relevant for regulating conditions of service of the other workmen in the industry " . Death of a workman during pendency of the proceedings , therefore . cannot deprive his heirs or legal representative of their right to continue the proceedings and claim benefits as successors to the deceased workman . Reference can be made to the precedent in Rameshwar Manjhi ( deceased ) though his son Lakhi Ram Manjhi [ 1994 ( 1 ) LLJ 376 ] . Reliance 2986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 9. 2011 CHAITRA 19 , 1933

can also be placed on precedent in Anjilamma [ 1996 ( 1 ) LL.J 733] .

Government . The scope of adjudication by adjudicatory authority under the Act is much wider than the 18. The Legislature inserted sub- section ( 8 ) of Section 10 of the Act in the statute book, which provision became operative w.e.f. 21-8-84 . The said provision lays down that by reason of death of a workman , who was a party to an industrial dispute pending adjudication before the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , the proceedings before such adjudicatory authority will not abate . The adjudicator will have to complete such proceedings and submit his award to the appropriate determination of legal rights of the parties involved in redressing the grievance of an aggrieved workman in accordance with law. Resolution of industrial dispute by such authorities is necessary for industrial piece notwithstanding the death of the workman concerned pending proceedings . Reference can be inade to a precedent inGwalior Rayans Mavoor [ 1978 ( II) LLJ 188 ] . 1lere in the case Shri Prem Dass expired during conciliation proceedings and the management had not taken any objection when the appropriate Government was in the process ofmaking a reference of the dispute to this Tribunal . Therefore . on the dispute being referred to this Tribunal , this Tribunal is under an obligation to adjudicate it since non - adjudication may have a tendency to disturb industrial piece .

19. In view of above facts , it is concluded that on espousal of cause by the union , dispute acquired character of an industrial dispute . When it was referred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal , after the death of Shri Prem Dass , the Tribunal ought not refrain its hands from adjudication of the dispute . In view of these reasons , it is announced that on being espoused by the union, the dispute acquired character of an industrial dispute and after the death of Prem Dass this Tribunal have to pred with the adjudication proceedings . Issue is . therefore , answered in favour of the union and against the management .

issue No. 2

Shri Virender Singh deposed that his father joined services with the management as Khalasi on 7-4-73 , in pay scale of Rs . 196--232 , which was revised to Rs . 750-940 . On 1-4-91 his father reached maxima of his pay in the said scale. He was granted in situ promotion on 6-2-2001 w.e.f. 1-4-91. He ought to have been granted in situ promotion in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 . Shri S. K. Goel presents that on grant of in situ promotion Shri Prem Dass was entitled to pay in next higher scale of Rs 800-1150 . In case of in situ promotion, the worker is given only wages in next higher scale of pay and not next higher post, deposes Shri Goel However , Shri Goel does not dispute authenticity and applicability ofdocuments Ex . MWIWI , Ex . MW1W2 and Ex. MWL/W3 .

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii ) 21. Ex . MW1 /WI projects a scheme formulated by Government of India in respect of career advancement of group C and group ` D` employees . The scheme applies to:( i) employees who are directly recruited to a group (" or a group ' D ' post , ( ii ) employees whose pay on appointment to such a post is fixed at minima of pay scale . and( iii ) employees who have not been promoted on regular basis even after one year on reaching maxima of pay scale of such post . It is not a matter of dispute that Shri Prem Dass was recruited directly to a group ' D ' post and his pay was fixed at minima of pay scale . It is also not a matter of dispute that Prem Dass reached maxima of pay scale on 1-4-90 . There is no dispute that Shri Prem Dass was not promoted on regular basis even after one year on reaching maxima of pay scale for the post of Khalasi . Consequently itisclear that case of Prem Dass was covered within the ambit of scheme formulated by the Government of India, on the strength of Ex . MW1 WL .

22. When an employ ee is considered for promotion in situ . he is to get next higher scale of pay. What wouldbe thathigher scale of pay ? According to the management it was next higher scale of pay available in the establishment while according to the union it was next higher seale available in normal line hierarchy of promotion availableto the workman , Answer has been provided in scheme les MW1 /W1 in plain words . It proceeds that the employees will get promotion in situ to the next higher scale of pay available to them in normal line hierarchy of promotion . Promotions made on the basis of qualify ing competitive departmental examination or subject to passing or acquiring: higher qualification will not be treated as promotion in normal line hierarchy for the purpose of these instructions In cases where no promotional grade is available promotional scale will be decided by the Ministry of Finance.

23. As projected above , in situ promotion would be granted to next higher scale of pay available in normal line aierarchy of promotion. Claimant , namely, late Shri Prem Dass was working as Khalasi, It is not a matter ofdispute that in normal fine hierarchy of promotion post ofAssistant Wireman was available in 1973. the date when he jomed his services with the management , but by operation of arbitration award dated 31-1-1988 post of Assistant Wireman stood merged with the post ofWireman w.e.1 . 1-1- 73 , vide order dated 7-5-1997 Thus on 1-4-91 normal line hierarchy of promotion available to Shri Prem Dass was th post of Wireman . The management seems to have been baffled by certain contents of scheme Ex . MWI W1 . which are thus :

"Group 'D' employees will retain the benetit of retirement at 60 years even after they are promotesi in situ to the scale of Rs . 825-15-900 EB 20 1200 On promotion in situ to any higher group C scale the retirement age of 58 will apply " .

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 9 , 2011 /चैत्र 19 , 1933

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

24. The management went astray in concluding that a Khalasi will get in situ promotion in pay scale of Rs . 825-1200. Such situation may arise in a case where normal line / hierarchy of promotion is to be made in the scale of Rs . 825-1200 only. In case normal fine / hierarchy of promotion is to be made on the post of Assistant Wireman, which stod merged with the post of Wireman , in that situation nornline hierarchy for promotion for in situ promotion would be in scale of pay for the post of Wireman . Thus it is evident that on wrong interpretation of scheme Ex. MWI / WI . the management reached wrong conclusion . It resul nastice to late Sri Prem Dass . in pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 w.e.f. 1-4-91 was not based on terms of scheme Ex . MW1 / W1 . Action of the management cannot be termed as legal or justified . Issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the claimant, who is represented through the union and against the management . Denial of in situ prom

Relief:

25. In view of foregoing reasons , late Shri Prem Dass was entitled to in situ promotion in pay scale of Rs . 950- 1500 w.e. f. 1-4-91 . He was to retain seniority for the post of Khalasi till his functional promotion to the post of Wireman . His pay was to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Fundamental Rules . In view of the findings recorded above , the management is directed to grant in situ promotion to Shri Prem Dass in pay scale of Rs . 950 1500 w.e.f. 1-4-91 and consequential benefits accordingly . Functional promotion as Wireman , after passing trade test , will not govern benefit under rule 22 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of the Fundamental Rules . An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 18-2-2011

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2011

का. आ. 1006.-औद्योगिक त्रिवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन मिनीट्ररी एकेडमी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -14012 / 10 /2009- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th March , 2011

S.O. 1006. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 68/2009 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour

2987 Court , No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Military Academy and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-3-2011

[No. 1-14012/ 10 /2009 - IR( DL ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . II , KARKARDOOMA , DELHI- 110032 I.D. No. 68/09

Dated: 25-1-2011 In the matter of dispute between :

1. Shri J. R. Salaria , Son of Shri Budh Singh Salaria, 414 , Panditwari , Dehradun Versus Workman 1. The GO.C. - in- Charge . Hq. Central Comınand , Post Dilkhsha . Lucknow Management 2. The Commandant , Indian Military Academy , P.O. Rangar Walla . Prein Nagar , Dehradun

Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 14012 / 10 / 2009 - IR ( DU ) , dated 30-11-2009 bas referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication :

"Whether Shri J. R. Salaria is a workman of the management of Indian Military Academy ? If so , whether the action of the said management in terminating his services w.e.f. 14-9-2006 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The workman has filed a statement of claim in this case . However , written statement has not yet been filed by the management. Today, i.e. 25-1-2011 , the case was fixed for filing written statement by the management, but workman is not present . Ife was not present on the last three dates of hearing as well . In fact , an application by post has been received in this court wherein Capt . J. R. Salaria has also enclosed his affidavit and has submitted in the application that he has been assured by the OP that in case he withdraws this case , he will be paid all the benefits . AR for the managment who is present in court , however. denics having given any such assurance to him . In any case , the workman is not prosecuting the reference for the 2988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 9 , 2011 / CHAITRA 19 , 1933

last so many dates of hearing . In this situation , there is no way out except to pass a no dispute award as the workman is no longer interested to prosecute this reference . No dispute award accordingly is passed in this case and the reference sent by the Central Government is answered accordingly.

Dated : 25-1-2011

SATNAM SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 1 अप्रैल , 2011

का. आ. 1007.-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 दिनांक 7-10-2010 द्वारा बैकिंग उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 2 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 17-10-2010 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 और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है ;

अतः अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 17-4-2011 से

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । [सं. एस -11017/5/ 97- आई आर ( पी एल ) ।

रंवि माथुर , अपर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st April , 2011

S.O. 1007. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public intererst so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub - clause ( vi ) of the clause ( n ) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , declaredby the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 7-10-2010 the service in Banking Industry which is covered by item 2 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 17th October, 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 proviso to sub -clause ( vi ) of clause ( n ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Governement hereby declares the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six months with effect from the 17th April , 2011 .

[No. S - 11017 /5 / 97 - IR ( PL) ] RAVI MATHUR , Addl . Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press . Ring Road . Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 , 2011