This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं . डी. एल . ( एन ) 04 / 0007 / 2003-05

REGD, NO . D.L.. (N ) 04/0007/2003 05 भारतको राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 35

नई दिल्ली, अगस्त 21 अगस्त 27 , 2011 , शनिवार / श्रावण 30- भाद्र 5 , 1933 NEW DELHI , AUGUST 21 - AUGUST 27 , 2011 , SATURDAY / SRAVANA 30 - BHADRA 5 , 1933

No. 35]

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

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

भाग II- खण्ड 3 - उप -खण्ड ( ii ) PART II- Section 3 - Sub - section ( ii )

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

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

नई दिल्ली , 17 अगस्त, 2011

का. आ. 2248. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1945 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उत्तराखंड राज्य सरकार , गृह अनुभाग -1 की दिनांक 15 जुलाई , 2011 की सं. 1210 /एक्सएक्स ( 1 ) / 198 / सी.बी. आई/ 2011 , देहरादून द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से स्वामी निगमानन्द , मैत्री सदन , जगजीरपुर , कनखल , जिला हरिद्वार , उत्तराखंड की मृत्यु तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या सम्बद्ध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा , तथा षड्यंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में या उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्त किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों के अन्वषेण के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण उत्तराखंड राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/40/2011- एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव 3125G1 / 2011

(6089)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training ) New Delhi , the 17th August , 2011

S.O. 2248. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Estalishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946 ) , the Central Goverement with the consent of the State Government of Uttarakhand , Home Section - 1 , No. 1210 /XX ( 1 ) / 198 / CBI/ 2011 , Dehradun , Dated 15th July 2011 . hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the Whole of the State of Uttarakhand for investigation of death of Swami Nigmanand , Matri Sadan , Jagjirpur , Kankhal , District , Haridwar , Uttarakhand and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[ F. No.228 40/ 2011 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

6090

वित्त मंत्रालय ( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 18 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2249. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 ( 1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 क के साथ पठित धारा 21 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके , एतद्वारा , श्री एस. एम. लोढ़ा ( जन्म तिथि: 28-07-1951 ) को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के मुम्बई स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा.सं. 3/25/2010- वीओ -1 ] समीर के सिन्हा , निदेशक MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 18th August, 2011

S.O. 2249. - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 21 , read with section 21 A of the State Bank of Inida Act , 1955 ( 23 fo 1955 ) , the Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri S.M. Lodha ( DOB : 28-7-1951 ) as a member of the Mumbai Local Board of State Bank of India , for a period of three years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[ No. 3 / 25 / 2010 - BO - 1 ]

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

का.आ. 2250. बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम , 1999 ( 1999 का 41 ) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , सुश्री लोरेटा मैरी 'वास, अपर सचिव ( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) के स्थान पर वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग के संयुक्त सचिव श्री अरविन्द कुमार को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक , बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण के अंशकालिक सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[ फा. सं. 11 /6/2003 -बीमा- III ] ललित कुमार, निदेशक New Delhi , the 18th August , 2011 S. O. 2250.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatoryand Development Authority Act , 1999 ( 41 of 1999 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Arvind Kumar , Joint Secretary , Department of Financial Services , Ministry of Finance as Part- time Member of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vice Ms. Loretta Mary Vas , Additional Secretary ( DEA) , with immediate effect and until further orders .

[ F. No. 11 / 6/ 2003-1ns- III ] LALIT KUMAR , Director

नई दिल्ली , 23 अगस्त ,20:

का.आ. 2251. जीवन बीमा निगम अि

का 31 ) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग सरकार , एतद्द्वारा , भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम क २० श्री डी. के. महरोत्रा को भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के अतिरिक्त पदभार व्यवस्था को 26-8-2011 में अगले अवधि के लिए बढ़ाती है ।

[ फा. सं. ए 1.5011027

ललित कुमार, निद New Delhi , the 23rd August , 201 S. O. 2251. In exercise of ine powers Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act of1956 ) , the Central Government here by extends and charge arrangement of Chairman , Life 1 Corporation of India to Shri D. K. Mehrotra , Director , LIC for a further period of 3 months w.e.t ...

[ F. No. A - 15011 /02 /20

LALIT KUMAR , Directors मूख्य आयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय

जोधपुर , 18 अगस्त, 20।।

सं. /4/2011-2012 का.आ. 2252,- आयकर अधिनियम 1961 ( 1961 की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के खण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर 1962 के नियम 2 ग ए द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करत आयकर आयुक्त जोधपुर एतददद्वारा " मण्डा इंस्टिट्यूट ऑ सोसायटी , शिव शक्ति विहार , 220 के.वी. पॉवर हाउ जयपुर रोड , बीकानेर को उक्त धारा हो निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-10 के आगे तक निम्नलिखित शनों अनुमोदित करते हैं :

1. कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का प्रयोग अथवा का प्रयोग करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतः तथा उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापनाक निर्धारिति न्यास द्वारा एक प्रतिबद्धता ( अंडरटेकिंग ) का संस्थाका कार्य केवल शिक्षा प्रसार ही होगा व इसके अদা । कोई कार्य नहीं करेगी । संस्था को यह सुनिश्चित करना है। अन्डरटेकिंग का उल्लंघन न हो ।

2. कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से सं वर्षों की किसी की अवधि के दौरान धारा ।। की उप भिन्न तरीकों से विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक ל अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जवर फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्चियः भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करा 3. यह आदेश किमी ऐसी आय के संबंध में ल जो कि कारोवार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो এই कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा रखी जाती हों । [ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4. कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा ।

5. त्रिघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियां और वस्सिंपत्तियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी और उसका कोई भी भाग संस्थान के किसी सदस्य को नहीं दिया जाएगा । 6. आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के साथ पठित : 15खखग में परन्तुक 15 की शर्तों में अनाम दोनों के सम्बन्ध में यह अनुमोदन लागू नहीं होगा ।

7. यह अधिसूचना तब तक जारी रहेगी जब तक इसे वापस न लिया जाए ।

[ सं. मु आ आआअ( तक.) /जोध/2011-12 / 1786 ]

दिलीप शिवपुरी , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income -Tax Jodhpur , the 18th August , 2011

No. 4/ 2011-2012

S. O. 2252. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( vi ) of Section 10 ( 23C ) of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income - Tax Rules , 1962 , 1 , the Chief Commissioner of Income - Tax , Jodhpur hereby approve " Manda Institute of Technology Society , Shiv Shakti Vihar , Opp . 220 KV Power House , Jaipur Road . Bikaner " for the purpose of the said section for the assessment year 2009-10 onwards , subject to the Following conditions:--

1. the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application wholly and exclusively to educational parpose only. The assessee trust shall have to adhere to its undertaking that the activities of the Institue shall be contined oniy to edcuational purpose , The Institue shall do not other activity except education;

2. the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds ( other than voluntary contribution received and miantained in the form ofjewellery , furniture etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the fornis or niodes specified in sub - section ( 5) of Section 11 ;

3. this order will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gain of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;

4. the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of Income - tax Act , 1961 ;

5. that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organization with similar objectives and no part of the same will go to any of the members of the Institution;

6. the approval will not apply in relation to anonymous donations in terms of the fifteenth proviso to section 10 ( 23C ) r.w.s. 115BBC of the Act ;

7. thus notification will remain inforce until it is withdrawn .

[No. CCIT/ITO (Tech ) . Ju/ 2011-12/1786 ] DILEEP SHIVPURI , Chief Commissioner of Income fax

6091

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

जोधपुर , 19 अगस्त, 2011

सं. 5/2011-2012

का.आ. 2253.- आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के खण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2 ग ए द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जोधपुर एतद्वारा " ऑस्टीन एज्यूकेशनल सोसायटी , रोड न . 2 शक्ति नगर , पावटा सी रोड , जोधपुर को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजनार्थ निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-11 के आगे तक निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनमोदित करते हैं : -

1. कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का प्रयोग अथवा उसकी आय का प्रयोग करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतः तथा अनन्यतः उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई । कर निर्धारिति न्यास द्वारा एक प्रतिबद्धता ( अंडरटेकिंग ) की गयी है कि संस्था का कार्य केवल शिक्षा प्रसार ही होगा व इसके अलावा संस्था कोई कार्य नहीं करेगी । संस्था को यह सुनिश्चित करना है कि दी नई अन्डरटेकिंग का उल्लंघन न हो ।

2. कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी की अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर जेवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा ।

3. यह आदेश किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों । 4. कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी कं समक्ष फाइल करेगा।

5. विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसंपत्तियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी और उसका कोई भी भाग संस्थान के किसी सदस्य को नहीं दिया जाएगा । 6. आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के साथ पठित 115खखग में परन्तुक 15 की शर्तों में अनाम दोनों के सम्बन्ध में यह अनुमोदन लागू नहीं होगा ।

7. यह अधिसूचना तब तक जारी रहेगी जब तक इसे वापस न लिया जाए ।

[सं. मु आ आआअ( तक. )/जोध/ 2011-12 / 1801 ] दिलीप शिवपुरी , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त Jodhpur , the 19th August , 2011 No. 5/ 2011-2012

S. O. 2253. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( vi ) of Section 10 ( 23C ) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 , I the Chief Commissioner of Income - tax . Jodhpur hereby approve " Austins Educational Society, Road No. 2 , Shakti Nagar , Paota C Road , Jodhpur " for the purpose of the said section for the assessment year 2010-11 onwards , subject to the following conditions 6092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

1. the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application wholly and exclusively to educational purpose only. The assessee trust shall have to adhere to its undertaking that the activities of the Institue shall be confined only to edcuational purose . The Institue shall do not other activity except education ;

2. the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub - section ( 5 ) of Section 11 ;

4. the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of Income - tax Act , 1961 ;

6. the approval will not apply in relation to anonymousmous donations in terms of the fifteenth proviso to section 10 ( 23C ) r.w.s. 115BBC of the Act ;

7. this notification will remain in force until it is withdrawn .

[No. CCIT / ITO ( Tech ) . Ju/ 2011-12 / 1801 ] DILEEP SHIVPURI , Chief Commissioner of Income Tax .

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सीपी वी प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 11 अगस्त, 2011

का. आ. 2254,-राजनयिक और कौंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा श्री टी. मुरलीधरन सहायक को 11-8-2011 से भारत के कौंसलावास , दुबई में सहायक कौंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

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

New Delhi , the 11th August , 2011 S.O. 2254 . In pursuance of the clause ( a ) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and Fess ) Act , 1948 ( 41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government here authorise Shri T. Muralidharan , Assistant Consulate General of India , Dubai to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 11th August , 2011 .

[No. T- 4330/1/ 2006 ] R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. ( Consular)

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई , 2011

का. आ. 2255 , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा ।। की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " डॉ. एन.टी.आर. स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाडा , आंध्र प्रदेश " के समक्ष " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्

एम.बी.बी.एस.

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एवं बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अनंता होगी जब यह राजीव गांधी विज्ञान संस्थान , कडप्पा , आआंध्र में प्रशिक्षित विद्यार्थियों के बारे 2. हॉ. एन.टी. आर . स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्ववद्यालय, विजयवाडा , आंध्र प्रदेश " द्वारा मार्च , 2011 में या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) [फा. सं. यू. - 12012/198 / 2005 - एमई ( पी- II ) ] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर मचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare ) New Delhi , the 21st July, 2011 S.O. 2255. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely:

In the said First Schedule against " Dr. NIR University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada , Andhra Pradesh " under the heading ' Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ in column ( 2 ) ] and under the heading "Abbreviation for Registration " [ in column ( 3 ) ] . the following shall be inserted , namely :

(2) (3)

Bachelor of Medicine M.B.B.S.

and Bachelor of Surgery ( This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR Univeristy of Health Sciences . Vijayawada , Andhra Pradesh in respect of students trained at Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences . Kadappa , Andhra Pradesh on or afterMarch , 2011. )

[No. U- 12012-198/ 2005 - M1 : ( P - II ) | ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई , 2011

का. आ. 2256.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के परामर्श करने के बाद उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज विश्वविद्यालय , कानपुर , उत्तर प्रदेश " के समक्ष " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " ( इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " ( इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

एम.बी.बी.एस

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एवं बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी (यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह यू.पी. ग्रामीण आयुर्विज्ञान एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , सेफई , इटावा और उत्तर प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित विद्यार्थियों के बारे में " छत्रपति साहूजी महाराज विश्वविद्यालय कानपुर उत्तर प्रदेश " द्वारा मार्च, 2011 में या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) [फा. सं. यू. 12012 / 188 / 2005 - एमई ( पी- II ) ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st July, 2011 S.O. 2256. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely : -

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

(3)

(2)

Bachelor of Medicine M.B.B.S. and Bachelor of Surgey

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students trained at U. P. Rural Institute of Medical Sciences & Research , Saifai , Etawah , Uttar Pradesh on or after March , 2011. )

[ No. U - 12012/ 188 / 2005 - ME ( P - II ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

6093

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त , 2011

का. आ. 2257. भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात् उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " गुजराप्त विश्वविद्यालय अहमदाबाद , गुजरात " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ कालम ( 2) में ] के अंतर्गत और शीर्षक " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ कालम ( 3 ) में ] के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

एम.बी.बी.एस.

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एवं बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

(यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह केसर सल मेडिकल कॉलेज , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात में शैक्षिक वर्ष 2004-05 , 2005-06 और 2006-07 के बीच दाखिल किए गए और प्रशिक्षित किए गए विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में गुजरात विश्वविद्यालय , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा प्रदान की गई हो । )

[सं. यू. 12012/105/2003 एमई ( पी -11 ) खण्ड ] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st August , 2011 S.O. 2257.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely :

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

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgey M.B.B.S.

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Gujarat University, Ahmedabad . Gujarat in respect of students admitted between the academie year 2004-05 , 2005-06 & 2006-07 and trained at Kesar Sal Medical College , Ahmedabad Gujarat. )

[ No. U - 12012 105 2003 - ME ( P - II ) pt. ] ANITA TRIPATIII . Under Secy.

BIE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2010/ 311A/ GAS , 195

भारत्तीय डाक विभाग (कार्यालय मुख्य पास्टमास्टर जनरल छत्तीसगढ़ परिमंडल, रायपुर )

रायपुर , 17 अगस्त , 20 !!

का.आ. 2258 , - यतः श्री मनीष प्रधाम सिक्षक रेल डाकसेवा, रायपुर के विमागायल समन जारी करने की आवश्यकता है ।

विभागीय जांच ( साक्षी हाजिर कराना और अलेख प्रस्तुत कराना । 1971 1972 191 19027 प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार द्वारा भारतीय डाक विभाग निरुद्ध जांच के संबंध में उपबंक्त अधिनियम की धारा 5 के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तिनः का प्रयोग करने के लिये नी श्री एतद्‌द्वारा अधिकृत किया जाता है ।

DEPARTMENT OF POST .

(Office of the Chael Postmaster General Chhthsgarh Circle . Raspur )

Reipat, the 17th August , 201

tot the purpose of p 1942 , 2258.--Whereas the t'en i Government is of opinion : Shri Manish Pradhan , IRM Racer i is necessary to summon

Now, therefore , in exercise of thep wers conferred by sub - sects of Honest ofAttendance of Witnesses til Production of Documents :...

waathonzes Shri M.R.Kawadar as the inquiring authority to exercis a power specit edin , s Post

arn to Shri Manush Pradhan . IRM & Spur working in the Departmen

PANDA.Chet उपभोक मामले खाद्य और सार्वजनिक

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2011

4. 2259.-भारतीय मानक ग्रोधसचित करता है कि जिन नियम, 1987 के नियम के भारतीयों का विवरण नीचे अनुदा

अनुसूची

यापित भारतीय मानक ( का) का

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

अतिक्रमित भारतीय पारा

संवर्ष और गीर्षक

अथवा मानका वरि

को संख्या और (3)

(2)

आई एम 10

141.3.50 ( भाग अनु

आईएन

भो 60601-2-5: 2005

उपस्करः सुरक्षा पि

संशष्ट अपेक्षाएं

अनुभाग 5 अल्ट्रासोनिक फीजियोथ 6095 भाग 11 -खण्ड 3 ( i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

(2)

(3)

(4)

दिसम्बर , 2009 आई एस/ आई एस ओ 10555-5 : 1996 जीवाणु रहित , एक चार प्रयोग में आने बाली इंदावरकूलर कैथटर्स भाग 5 उपेयर नीडल पैरीफरल कैथर्स

अप्रैल , 2009

आई एस 3701 : 1985

आई एस आई एस ओ 4074: 2002 प्राकृतिक लेटेक्स रबर के कोंडोम अपेक्षाएं और परीक्षण पद्धडियां

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

तिथि 4-8-2011

[संदर्भ : एम एच ती जी 3.5 ]

डी ) राकेश कुमार, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(Bureau of Indian Standards )

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2011

S.O. 2259. 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 best terk ed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablished

No. and Year of Indian

No. and Year of the Indian Standard..

Standards , if any ,

Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

December . 2009

1 . IS13450 (Part2 / Sec5 ) : 2009 IEC

IS 13020 ( Part 1) : 1991 and

IS 13020 ( Part 2 ) : 1990

60601-2-5:2005 Medical lectrical Equipment Part 2 Particular Requirements for the safety Section 5 Ultrasonic Physiotherapy Equipment

December , 2009

ISISO 10555-5 : 1996 Sterile , Single-use intravascular catheters Part5. Over - needle peripheral catheters

IS 3701 : 1985

April, 2779

IS ISO 4074: 2002 Natural Latex Rubber Condoms - Requirements and test methods

Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadu 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 . Jaupur , Kanpur. Nagpur . Patna . Pune. Thiruvananthapuram .

IRed MID G -3.5 Date 4-8-2011

RAKESH KUMAR . Scientist & Head HD 6096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

[PART II SEC.3 ( 1 ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2260.- 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 स्थापित्त हो गए हैं: -

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

(2)

(1)

अनुसूची

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

(4)

(3)

आई एस 12818 : 1992

1 . आई एस 12818 : 2010 बोर- नलकूपों के लिए अनम्यकृत पी वी सी जाली और आवरक पाइप विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

4अगस्त , 2011 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर 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 : 98-2011

[संदर्भ : सीईडी / राजपत्र ] ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 9th August , 2011

S.O. 2260.- 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 :

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

(2)

(1)

SCHEDULE

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

(4)

(3)

IS 12818 : 1992

1. IS 12818 : 2010 Unplasticized Polyvinyl Chloride ( PVC - U) Screen and Casing Pipes for Bore /Tubeweils -Specification (Second Revision)

4August , 2011

Copy of the 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 and Thiruvananthapuram.

Date: 9-8-2011

[ Ref: CED Gazette

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

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2261.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप -विनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : - [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने की लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता संख्या

क्रम सं.

तिथि/वर्ष/माह

( 2)

(1 )

(3)

(4) 1. 3720958 27-4-2011 मै . जालन वायर प्रा.लि. प्लाट सं. 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 , और 37 , भारत इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , भीमपोर , नानी दमन , दमन एवं दीव-396210 2. 3723459 29-4-2011 मै. टोनी केबल्स यूनिट संख्या 5 , 6 वी के इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , बिलपाडा, वालीव , वसई--पूर्व, थाने-401208 3. 3724966 2-5-2011 मै. भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लि. भारत भवन , 4 , 6- करीमभाय रोड , बॅलार्ड इस्टेट , पी.बी.नं 688 मुंबई-400001

2-5-2011

4. 3723055

मै. श्रीजी वायर इण्डस्ट्रीज , प्लॉट संख्या 1399 , गट सं. 160 , एन. एच . ३ मुंबई आगरा रोड , नरदाना, जिला धुले , महाराष्ट्रा -425404 5. 3723156 2-5-2011

मै . श्रीजी वायर इण्डस्ट्रीज , प्लॉट संख्या 1399 , गट सं. 160 , एन . एच. 3 मुंबई आगरा रोड , नरदाना ,

जिला धुले , महाराष्ट्रा-425.404 3-5-2011

(6. 3723762

मै . आर्यन इलेक्ट्रीकल डिजायनर्स , 195/1562 मोतीलाल नगर- । , गोरेगाँव , पश्चिम , मुंबई -400 104

3-5-2011

3723863

मै. आर्यन इलेक्ट्रीकल डिजायनर्स , 195/1562 मोतीलाल नगर -1 , गोरेगाँव , पश्चिम , मुंबई -400 104

8. 3724158 4-5-2011

मै. पदमावती होम अप्लायंसेस , ए/ 8 , दोषी उ‌द्योग नगर , बी.पी. रोड , हम विडियों , उडपी होटल लेन , भाईदर - पूर्व , मुंबई-400 105

3125 GI /11-2

6097

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामा सं./ भाग खण्डः वर्ष (5)

(6)

भा.मा. 13730 भाग 3 :

1996

वाईडिंग वायर - भाग 3 , पॉलिस्टर इनेमिलित गोल तांबा तार , वर्ग -155 , श्रेणी 2 , आकार (0.120 मिमी से 1.016 मिमी

भा.मा. 1554 ( भाग 1 )

1988

पी वी सी रोधित ( भारी ड्यूटी ) विद्युत केबल : भाग 1 , 100 वोल्ट कार्यकारी वोल्टता तक व महित के लिए

भा.मा. 335 : 1993 नये विद्युत रोधन तेल

भा.मा. 398 : भाग 2:

1996

जस्तीकृत इस्पात के कोर के लिए इस्पात तार शिरोपरी प्रेषण प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रबलित एल्यूमिनियम चालक

भा.मा. 398 : भाग 5 :

1992

जस्तीकृत इस्पात के कोर के लिए इस्पात तार अतिरिक्त उच्च वोल्टता (400 केवी और अधिक ) के लिए प्रबलित एल्यूमिनियम चालक

भा.मा. 3854 : 1997 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विचें

भा.मा. 1293 : 2005 250 वोल्टता और 16 एम्पीयर्स तक रेटित धारा के प्लग्स और सॉकेट-

भा.मा. 4250 : 1980 बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर ( द्रवीपरक और ग्राइन्डर ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5, 1933

6098

(4)

( 2)

( 1)

(3)

5-5-2011

9. 3725160

सुपर केबल्स इंडस्ट्रीज, गाला नं 15 , शंकर मंदिर , गांधी नगर , चारकोप , कांदिवली- प. मुंबई-40067 5-5-2011

10. 3725261

मै. किरन इन्टरप्राईजेज , 122 , सरिता बिल्डिंग , प्रभात कंप्लेक्स , टोल नाका के नजदीक , दहिसर पूर्व, मुंबई 400068 11. 3725766 6-5-2011

मै. शकुन पोलिमर्स लि. , प्लाट नं 4 , सिलव्हर इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टंट , भिमपोरे , पतालीया रोड , दमन , दमन एवं दीव 396210 13-5-2011

12. 3727366

गंधार ऑयल रिफायनरी इंडिया लिमिटेड, यूनिट सं. 2 , प्लॉट सं. 2 , सर्वे सं. 678/1/3 , 677/1/1 , विलेज नरोली, चेक पोस्ट के नजदीक, सिलवासा-396230 27-5-2011

13. 3729673

लिडर इलेक्ट्रीकल प्रा.लि. , सर्वे नं 725/1 , 2 713/1 , 2 , 3 , साईधाम इण्डस्ट्रीयल कॉमप्लेक्स , सोमनाथ रोड , दाभेल , दमन -396 210 14. 3731963 3-6-2011 कॉम्पटॉन लाईटिंग कंपनी , डी 45 ,प्लॉट 427 ए चारकोप परिवर्तन आपरेटिव हाउसिंग सोसाईटी लि. , आरएसी सेक्टर 4 , चारकोप , कांदिवली पश्चिम , मुंबई -400067

15. 3733260 3-6-2011 गैस इंडस्ट्रीज,

ए/ 33 / एफ , मलाड इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट , रामचंद्र लेन ( विस्तारित ) काचपाडा, मलाड , पश्चिम , मुंबई-400064 16. 3737975 24-6-2011 लीडर इलेक्ट्रीकल प्रा.लि. , सर्वे नं 725/1 , 2 713/1 , 2 , 3 , साईधाम इण्डस्ट्रीयल कॉमप्लेक्स, सोमनाथ रोड , दाभेल , दमन -396 210

PART II SC Su

(6 )

(5)

भा.मा. 1554

1988

पी वी सी रोधित ( भारी डयूटी ) विद्युत केबल : भाग 1 , 100 वोल्ट कार्यकारी वोल्टता तक व सहित के लिए

भ.मा. 3854 : 190 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विचं

भा.मा. 694 : 1990 1100 वोल्ट तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी वौल्टता के लिए पी वी सी गंधित कंबल

भा.म.. 3351005 नये विद्युत रोधन तेल

भा.मा. 1293 : 200 250 वोल्टता और 16 एम्पीयर्स तक रंटित धारा के प्लग्स और सॉकेट

'भा.मा. 3854 : 1007 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विचं

भा.मा. 3854.190 " घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विचें

भा.मा. 3854 : 1997 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विचें [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

( 1) ( 2)

(4) 17. 3742867 24-6-2011 म. अल्फा इरेक्टर्स प्रा.लि. , सर्वे सं. 143 /डी, ऑफ दाभेल इण्डस्ट्रीयल सोसायटी, विलेजःदाभेल केन्द्र शासित , नानी दमन , दमन एवं दीव -396210 18. 3742968 29-6-2011 मैं अल्फा इरेकटर्स प्रा.लि. , सर्वे सं. 143 /डी , ऑफ दाभेल इण्डस्ट्रीयल सोसायटी, विलेजःदाभेल केन्द्र शासित , नानी दमन , दमन एवं दीव -396210

6099

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

(5)

(6)

भा.मा. 3854 : 1997 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विचें

भा.मा. 1293 : 2005 250 वोल्टता और 16 एम्पीयर्स तक रेटित धारा के प्लग्स और सॉकेट-

[सं. के. प्र. वि. 13:11 ] देवदत्त , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एम डी एम III )

New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2261. In pursuance of sub- regulation ( 5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulation , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the following schedule :

Sl . No.

Grant Date

Licences No.

Name and Address ( Factory) ofthe Party

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

1. 3720958 27-4-2011

Jalan Wires Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 31 , 32 , 33 , 36 , and 37 , Bharat Indl . Estate , Bhimpore , Nani Daman , Daman & Diu -396210 2. 3723459 29-4-2011 Tony Cables Units No. 5 , 6 , V. K. Industrial Estate , Bilalpada , Valiv Thane , Vasai -E Maharashtra - 401208 3724966 2-5-2011

Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. Bharat Bhavan, 4 , 6 , -Currimbhoy Road , Ballard Estate , P. B. No. 688 Mumbai -400001 4. 3723055 2-5-2011

Shreeji Wire industries , Plot No. 1399 , Gut No. 160 N.H.3 , Mumbai Agra Road , Nardana , DistDhule , Maharashtra - 425404 3723156 2-5-2011

Shreeji Wire Industries , Plot No. 1399 , Gut No. 160 N.Η.3 , Mumbai -Agra Road , Nardana , DistDhule Maharashtra - 425404

SCHEDULE

Product

IS No. Part/ Sec. Year (5)

(6)

IS 13730 Part 3 :

1996

Particular types of winding wires - part 3: polyester enamelled round copper wire , class 155

IS 1554 Part 1:

1988

Pvc insulated (heavy duty) electric cables : part 1 for working voltages upto and including 1100v

IS 335 : 1993 New insulating oils

Aluminium conductors IS 398 : Part 2 : for overhead transmission 1996 purposes : Part 2 aluminium conductors , galvanized steel reinforced

Aluminium conductors IS 398 : Part 2: for overhead transmission 1993 purposes: Part 5 aluminiumı conductors- galvanized steel reinforeced for extra ligh voltage ( 400 kv and above ) 6100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

(4) (2)

(3)

( 1)

3-5-2011

6. 3723762

Aryan Electrical Designers 516, Moorya Landmark- I , Behind Shreenath Hyundai , off New Link Road, Andheri ( W) Mumbai -400053 7

3-5-2011

3723863

Aryan Electrical Designers 516 , Moorya Landmark- 1 , Behind Shreenath Hyundai , offNew Link Road , Andheri (W) Mumbai -400053

4-5-2011

8. 3724158

Padmavati Home Appliances 1/8 Doshi Udyog Nagar , B.P. Road , Opp . Hum Vidco , Udapi Hotel Lane , Thane , Bhayandar- F Maharashtra - 401105

5-5-2011

9 . 3725160

Super Cable Industries Gala No. 15 , Shankar Mandir , Gandhi Nagar , Charkop , Kandivli -W Mumbai - 400067 10. 3725261 5-5-2011

Kiran Enterprises 122, Sarita Building , Prabhat Complex , Near Tollnaka Dahisar East Mumbai - 400068

6-5-2011

11. 3725766

Shakun Polymers Limited Plot No. 4 , Silver Indl . Estate , Bhimpore , Pataliya Road, Damann , Daman & Diu - 396210 12. 3727366 13-5-2011 Gandhar Oil Refinery India Ltd. Plot No. 2 , Survey No.678 / 1 / 3 , Village Naroli , Near Check Post , Dadra and Nagar Haveli , Silvassa - 396230 3729673 27-5-2011

13 .

Leader Electricals Pvt . Ltd. Survey No. 725 / 1,2,713 / 1,2,3 , Saidham Industrial Complex, Somnath Rd , Dabhel , Daman - 396210 1-1. 3731963 3-6-2011 Kompton Lighting Company, D-45 , Plot No. 427 , Charkop . Parivartan Co - op Housing Society Ltd , RSC Sector 4 , Chakop , Kandivli , Mumbai - 400067 15

3733260 3-6-2011

Guess Industries . A/ 33 / F , Malad Industrial Estate , Ramchandra Lane ( Ext ) Kachpada , Malad ( W) Mumbai - 400064

[ PART II SEC. 3 ( 1 ) (5)

(6)

IS 3854 : 1997 Switches for domestic and similar purposes

IS 1293 : 2005 Plugs and socket outlets of 250 volis and rated current up to 16 amperes

IS 4250 1980 Domestic electric food- mixers ( liquidizes and grinders)

IS 1554 Part ! 1988

PVC msclate, heavy duty ) electricbies part I forno voltages upto and 1100

IS 3854.199 Switches fo , doteestic and similar purposes

IS 694.1990 PVC insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100v

IS 335: 199

IS 1293-2005 Plugs and socket outlets of 250 volts and rated current upto 16 amperes

IS.3854 199 Switches for domestic and similar purposes

1S 3854 190 Switches for domestic and similar purposes [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

( 1)

(3)

(4) (2)

16. 3737975 24-6-2011 Leader Electricals Pvt . Ltd. Survey No. 725/1 , 2 , 713/1 , 2 , 3 , Saidham Industrial Complex , Somnath Rd , Dabhel , Daman - 396210 17. 3742867 24-6-2011 M/ s . Alfa Erectors Pvt . Ltd. Survey No. 143 /D , off . Dabhel Industrial Society , Village Dabhel , 396 210 (UT ) Daman , Nani Daman

29-6-2011

18. 3742968

M/ s . Alfa Erectors Pvt . Ltd. Survey No. 143 /D , off . Dabhel Industrial Society Ltd , Village Dabhel , (UT) Nani Daman Daman& Diu - 396210

6101

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

(5)

(6)

IS 3854: 1997 Switches for domestic and similar purposes

IS 3854 : 1997 Switches for domestic and similar purposes

IS 1293 : 2005 Plugs and socket outlets of250 volts and rated current upto 16 amperes

[No.CMD 13:11 ] DEV DUTT , Scientist- ' F ' & Head ( MDM - III )

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2262.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं :

लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता क्रम सं. संख्या

(2)

(1)

(3)

1. 1976579

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंसधारी के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(4)

(5)

भामा 1293 : 2005

माडर्न प्रोडक्टस ,

पोस्ट बाक्स नं 9075 , केसकाका कंपाउंड, आई बी पटेल रोड , गोरेगांव पूर्व , मुंबई 400 063

2. 7217666 प्रिस्म इण्डस्ट्रीज ,

20 6-2011

250 वोल्टता और रेटित धारित 16 एम्पीअर्स तक के प्लग और सॉकेट आउटलेट्स

23 6 2011

भामा 1258 : 2005

बेयोनेट लैम्प होल्डर्स

बिल्डिंग नं. बी. , प्लॉट 770 , महारानी उडयोग इस्टेट के पीछे , सोमनाथ रोड , दमण 396210 7496696

हिमांशु इण्डस्ट्रीज , गाला नं 34 , भंगार लेन , साईनाथ वाडी , तिलक नगर , साकीनाका , मुंबई 400 072

4. 7524776 अॅन्को मोटर्स,

45/46 , श्री शक्ती उद्योग नगर , पालघर मनोर रोड , पालघर -401404 , थाने

13 5 2011

भा मा 4250 ; 1980 बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर और ( द्रवीपरक और ग्राइन्डर )

216-2011

भामा 996 : 1979 single - phase small ac and universal electric motors 6102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5. 1933

( 2)

(1 )

(3)

5. 7880802 टेक्नोफ्लेक्स केबल्स , इ/ 1 , सिंगते कंपाऊंड , कोकनीपाडा , दहिसर ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400068 6. 7888414

PART II SE S (4)

66 2011

भा मा 1554 ( भाग 1 ) : 1988 पीवीसी रोधित ( भारी ड्यूटी विद्युत केबलः भाग 1 : 1100 वोल्ट कार्यकारी वोल्टता तक व सहित के लिए

1520

भा मा 1534 भाग 1 : 1977 फ्लोरोसेंट लैम्पों हेतु बैलस्ट भाग ।

स्विच स्टार्ट सर्किट हेतु

भारत इलेक्ट्रिक इण्डस्ट्रीज , गाला नं 1 , चलटा नं 82 बी , शीट नं 34 , बीके नं 1168 के पीछे , एसईसी हाई स्कूल के पास , पवई चौक के पीछे, उल्हासनगर

| म. के. प्र . वि .

देवदत्त , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमडीएम 111 )

New Delhi . the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2262 .--In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given a the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. Licence No.

Name and address of the licensee

(2)

(3)

(1)

1976579

Modern Products , PostBox No.9075 , Keshav Kaka Compound , I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon ( E) , Mumbai - 400063 2.

7217666

Prism Industries , Bldg . No. B. Plot 770 . B /H Maharani Udyog Estate , Somnath Road , Daman - 396210

7496696

Himansu Industries . Gala No. 34 , Bhanagar Lane , Sainath Wadi , Tilak Nagar , Sakinaka , Mumbai - 400072 4.

7524776

Anco Motors , 45/46 , Shree Shakti Udyog Nagar . Palghar Manor Rd , Palghar- 401404 , Thane .

7880802

Techno Flex Cables , E/ 1 Shingte Compound . Kokani Pada . Dahisar- E . Mumbai - 400068

7888414

BharatElectric Industries . Gala No. 1 , Chalta No. 82 - B . Sheet No. 34 , Opp . Bk No. 1168 . Near SEC High School , Behind Powai Chowk . Ulhasnagar

Date of cancellatie Article process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the Licence

(4)

20-06-2011 IS 1293 : 2005 Plugs and socket outlets of 250 volts and rated current up to 16 amperes

23-06-2011 IS 1258 : 1987 Bayonet lamp holders

13 5 2011 IS 4250 : 1980 Domestic electric food mixers ( liquidizer & grinder )

21-62011 IS 996: 1979 universal eletric motors Single - phase small ac and

66301 IS 1554: Part 1 : 1988 PVC insulated (heavy duty) electric cables : Part I for working voltages up to and including 1100V

IS 1534 : Part 1 -1977 Ballasts for fluorescent lamps Part 1 for switch start circuits

No CMDES 13 ;

DEV DUTT. Serentist & Head ( MDN - 111 ) [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii )

6103

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

प्रचालन तिथि 18-11-10 18-11-10 18-11-10

18-03-11

(14)

10-0211

1803-11

इकाई दरशेष

(13)

स्लैब2में इकाईयां

(12)

इकाई दरस्लैब2

(11)

इकाईयां

स्लैब1में

(10)

इकाईयां

300.00

10.40

38.00

इकाई

16.00 इकाईदर/

इकाई

0.50

प्रति इकाई

प्रति

प्रति इकाई

प्रति

प्रति (9)

56000

67000

27000

25000 (8)

अनुसूची

67000

79000

32000

29000

32000

न्यूनतममुहरांकनशुल्क बड़ेपैमानेछोटेपैमानेसभी पर पर

नईदिल्ली,16अगस्त,2011

(7)

फाईलिंग

कैबिनेट

इकाई

डीपोजिट लॉकर

एक सिलिंडर

एक

कम-सफ

एक

सेफ..

एकMT

एकपीस

(6)

उत्पाद

(5)

तिजोरीयुक्त

फाइलिंगकंबिनेट

जलमलतथा

विशिष्टि

निकासकार्योंके

फिटिंगोंकी

सुरक्षाजमालॉकर

पाइपोंऔर

स्लगकरनेवाले छल्लारिंच(पाने)

भरप्पयोग्यपरिवहनी योग्यजोड़रहित

लिएएस्बेस्टॉस ऐल्युमिनियममिश्र धातुकेगैससिलिंडर

खुलेमुंहवाले स्लगरिंच(पाने)

अग्निप्रतिरोधी (उष्मारोधी)

2006

2007

1992

1998

1992

1991 (4)

अनुभागवर्ष

(3)

(2)

का.आ.2263.भारतीयमानकब्यूरो(प्रमाणन)विनियम,1988केनियम6केउप-नियम(3)केअनुसरणमेंभारतीयमानकब्यूरोएतद्वारानीचेअनुसूचीमेंदिएगएउत्पादोंकी मुहरांकनशुल्कअधिसूचितकरताहै:-

14512

भारतीयभाग

15660

14561

मानक संख्या

4508

4509

6908 (1) 6104

18-11-10

10-02-11

(14)

[सं.के.मु.वि./13:10] (13)

remaining

units

unitfor

0.95per

(12)

Second

सी.के.महेश्वरी,वैज्ञानिकजीएण्डचीफ(प्रमाणन)

27000

units

1.90per

unitfor

(11)

27000

units

first

unitfor

3.80per

(10)

1.50

प्रति इकार्ड

(9)

66000

86000

(8)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

[ PART 11 Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] 18-11-2010

18-11-2010

Effective Date

(14)

Remain- ing

(13)

Units in Slab-2

(12)

Unit Rate Slab-2

(11)

Units

in Slab-1

(10)

300.00

38.00

perunit

Unit Rate/ All units 10.40 perunit

(9)

67.000 67.000 56.000

Small Scale

(8)

SCHEDULE

8000

101000

17)

NewDelhi.the16thAugust,2011 मीटर मीटर

एकSq

10Sq

(6)

(5)

टाइलें

चादरें

प्रेस्डसिरेमिक

बांसकीचटाई

कीनालीदार

2004

2006

(4)

(3)

(2)

15622

15476

(1)

MinimumMarking Fee(Rs.)

67.000

79.000 79,000 Large Scale

(7)

Cyclinder

deposit

locker Units

One filing Cabinet

cum-safe One

Onesafe- (6)

Aluminum

Refillable

Seamless

Product

Lockers.

Deposit (5)

AlloyGas Cylinders

FilingCabinets

SafecumSafe Iransportable

FireResisting (Insulating)

2006

1998

2007

Year

(4)

(3)

PartSec

(2)

S.O.2263.-Inpursuanceofsub-regulation(3)ofregulation6oftheBureauofIndianStandards(Certification)Regulations,1988,theBureauofIndian Standards,herebynotifiestheMarkingfeefortheproductsgivenintheschedule:-

14512 15660

14561

ISNo.

(1) 6105 जग 11 3 ( i ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

18-11-2010

10-02-2011

18-03-2011

10-02-2011

18-03-2011

[No.CMD/13:10]

remaining

units

0.95/unit

for

Second

27,000

units

1.90/

for

C.K.ESHWARI,Scientist-G&Chief(Certification)

units

3.80/unit forfirst 27,000

1.50

per

0.50 per

per unit

16.(k)

86,000

66.000

27.000

1,01,000

78,000

29.000

32.000

Sq.m

me Piece

Piece

One

One MT

10 Sq.m

Absbestos

Wrenches Slugging Wrenches Spanners)

BambooMat

Corrugated

Sheets

Pressed Creamk Tiles

OpenInge

Ring

Cement Paesand Fittingsfor Sewerage andDrainage

Slugging (Spanners).

2006

2004

15476 15622

1500

6908

3125 Gi: 11-3 PAR!!!

6106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011/BHADRA 5, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 16 अगस्त , 201 ।

का.आ. 2264.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में व्यापक ब्यूरा एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्थापित हो गए हैं

अनुसूची

स्थाप्ति निधि 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

(41 (2)

(3)

(1)

30 नवम्बर 1. 'SP 21: 2005 भवन निर्माण सामग्रियों से संबंधित भारतीय मानकों कासार'

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

तिथि :16 8 2011

ए. के. मैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' व प्रमुख मिनि

New Delhi , the 16th August, 2011

he S.O. 2204. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Reic Bureauof Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule to annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

SLNO.

Date of F stablistment No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established and Title

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

(2)

141

(3)

30 November, 2009 SP21 2005 Summaries of

Indian Standards for Building

Materals

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indan Standards , Manak Bhavan . 9. Bahadar Sthab ZalarMang, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi . Kolkata, Chandigarh. Chennai , Murmbar and als canch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar . Coimbatore . Guwahati . Hyderabad, sampai. Kaspar Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram .

ReFOCIDO wettel

AK SAINI. Sef & Head ggg ) | भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii )|

6107

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5. 1933

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 18 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2265. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है . कि इससे उपाबद्द्व अनुसूची में उल्लेखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में से कोयल' अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ;

अतः अब इस असूिचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक संख्या सी ( ई ) III जेजेएनआर 855 0311 तारीख 10 मार्च , 201। उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि का क्षेत्र का अन्तर्विष्ट किया गया है. निरीक्षण, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , ( राजस्व विभाग ) कोल इस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर, 440001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( एक्सप्लोरेशन प्रभाग ), कंन्द्रीय खान योजना एवं डिजाइन संस्थान, गांडवाना पलस , कांके रोड , रांची 83-4001 के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता "00001 के कार्यालय पं या जिला कलेक्टर यवतमाल ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है :

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम 195 ( 195 ) का 20 ) जिम इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा की उपधारा ( । ) द्वारा पदन शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त अनुसूचो में वर्णित भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ग कोई व्यक्ति

( 1 ) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उसके ऊपर किसी अधिकार के अजन पर आक्षेप या ( ii ) भूमि या ऐसी भूमि पर कोई अधिकार के प्रतिकर के हित के यदि कोई दावा , या

( 1 ) खनन पट्टा अर्जन करने के अधीन अधिकारों की पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्ति प्रभावहीन हो जाने और भूमि संबंधों सभी नक्श, चाटों तथा अन्य दस्तावेजों का परिदान , अयस्कों या अन्य खनिजों क नमूनों का संग्रहण और उनका सम्यक् विश्लेषण करने के लिए तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा में निर्दिष्ट कोई अन्य कालावधि अभिलेखों या सामग्रियों की तैयारी के लिए प्रतिकर । इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर . मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, वणी नाथं क्षेत्र, पोस्ट वर्णा, तहसोन वणी , जिला यवतमाल ( महाराष्ट्र ) या महाप्रबंधक, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , भूमि और राजस्व विभाग , कोल एस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर 440001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) को भंजंगा :

अनुसूची बोर्डा एवं बोर्डा विस्तारित खण्ड वणी उत्तर क्षेत्र जिला - यवतमाल ( महाराष्ट्र)

( रेखांक संख्या सी ( ई) /III/जंजेएनआर: 855-0311 . तारीख 10 मार्च , 2011 )

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

टिप्पणियां क्रम

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील का नाम

जिला का नाम

पटवारी सर्किल संख्या

भाग

125.00

यवतमाल

1 .

डोर्ली

मारेगांव

भाग 2.

मारेगांव

यवतमाल 380.00

नवरगांव

भाग 54

मारंगांव

यवतमाल 220.00

सगनापुर

425.00

मारगांव

यवतमाल

पुरा हित्ररी

200,00

वगाव

यवतमाल

मारंगाव

170.00

यवतमाल

मारेगांव

कगांव

यवतमाल

मारेगांव

015.00

अर्जुनो

15.00

मारेगांव

यवतमाल

रायपुर

भाग

यवतमाल

मारेगांव

300.00

गोधनी

यवतमाल 260.00

झरी

10.

सुर्ला THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 BIP 5,19

बोर्डा

भारंगांत्र

उमराट

12 .

भारंगांव

जगत्लान

3541.000

कुल क्षेत्र

श्रीया वर्णन

क. स्त्र : रेखा बिन्दु' क' के ग्राम होली आरानी है और ग्राम वेगांव 5 위해 내고 있다고 मिलती है ।

र : रेखा ग्राम बोर्डा से निकला भान्सा गिरनार क्लॉक की मीमा पहले ही अधिकृत की जा सकी है ये उमरवाट में ि

न : रेखा ग्राम उमरधाट, जगलांन , गुलां. अजुनी, रायपुर और सगनापुर

घ क : रेखा ग्राम नवगांव से होकर ग्राम डोर्ली के आभक विन्दु ' क '

MINISTRY OF COM

New Delhi , the 18th August , 2011

S. O. 2265.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that ( wal is likely be abtamed uta the locality mentioned in the Schedule aner sed hereto :

And Whereas , the plan bearing number C - 1 ( E ) III JINR 855-0311 . dated the 10th firch Jultomer areas of lands described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the Office of the Westoraalticlista Department ) . Coal Estate. Civil Lines . Nagpur 440 001 ( Maharashtra ) or at the effice of the thiet bezor (Exploration Division ) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute , Gondwana Palace . Kanke Road , Ranchi the office of the Coal Controller , 1. Council House Street . Kolkata- 700001 or at the office of the Distinct Colles (Maharashtra) ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section of the Cod itear (Acquisition and Development ) Act. 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the sand.Net ) , the Centralv reby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein :

Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedules may

( i) Object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land, or of any rights met over such har (11) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land , or (111) wek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mong leases bem.a and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land, collection from the land other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant records reizred to in sub - section of section 13 of the said Act .

to the office ofthe Sief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited . Wans North Area . Post Watt . Lahsed w Yavatmal ( Maharashtra ) or General Manager . Western Coalfields Limited. Land and Revenue Departm I mes , Nagpur - 440 001 ( Maharashtr.. ) withm ainety days frora the date of publication of thus notification n Gazette.

CEDULE

ORIDA INTENSION BLOCK

WONE NORTH ARES

AWAMAM (MAHARASHTRA )

pras Ith March, 2011 |

Remarks

Area in hectares

Num of

Part

12500

2106

Part

Toll

Part

Pirt

!!"

Part

15.00

Yavatmal

Part

20000

Yamal

Part

260.00

Part

1:15,00

Yavatmal

Pati ::

Yave mol

TOTAL AREN 3341.00 Hectares tapproximately )

or 8255.61 ach stapprovama.ely )

trough villages Wege 4. Kegaon and Gham and meets

bere far botondary of aready acquired erez otros salesaction ( 1) of Neemos ,Block and meets at Point Cin veilage that and

nyos sa suma Murt. Raper and segnapur and resets at Font D'm at thon thi mee's af staring Poru Arolloue Dorli

JENo 42015 CUPROW- 11 এ দিন সীমার মতে यप्रदेश के कार्यालय या कोयत्रक कांउसिल राउम स्ट्रीट , अ. अरनियाम हा एक प्रतियों में वर्णित भूमिकायल 6110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

PARI II - SL उक्त अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-

( i ) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग के अर्जन या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों के प्रति आक्षेप कर सकता ( ii ) भूमि में के किसी हित के प्रतिकर या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का दावा कर सकेगा. ' ; 41 ( iii ) प्रभावहीन हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों , खनन पट्टों के अधीन अर्जित कियेकथ जाने पर अधिकारों के लिए प्रतिकर प्राप्त कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 ' की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट भूमि के कोरों से संग्रहण या अन्य खनिज नमूनों तथा उनक सम्यक् विश्लेषण को तथा किसी अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेख या सामग्रियों की निर्मित से संबंधित सभी मानचित्र चार्ट और अन्य टम्नावज परिदत्त कर सकेगा ।

इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर, भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) साऊथ इस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

कपिलधारा भूमिगत खदान

हसदेव क्षेत्र

जिला-अनूपपुर ( मध्य प्रदेश )

( रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल /बीएसपी /सीजीएम ( पीएलजी ) /लैंड /402 तारीख 28 फरवरी , 2011 )

तहसील-कोतमा

जिला- अनूपपुर

ग्राम का नाम

टिप्र्माण भ

क्षेत्रफल ( हेक्टर में ) क्रम सं.

जनरल नम्बर

पटवारी हल्का

नम्बर

1 .

परसापानी

586

16.370

भाग 2.

428

दलदल

भाग

75.308

कुल क्षेत्र : 91.678 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

या 226.54 एकड़ ( लगभग ) सीमा वर्णन :

क ख : रेखा ग्राम परसापानी में बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम परसापानी के पश्चिमी भाग से गुजरती हुई ग्राम दलदल में अपश करती है और ग्राम दलदल से होती हुई बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख - ग : रेखा ग्राम दलदल के उत्तरी भाग से होती हुई ग्राम के पूर्वी सीमा के समीप बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है । गघ : रेखा ग्राम दलदल के पूर्वी भाग से होती हुई ग्राम दलदल - परसापानी के सम्मिलित सीमा ' घ ' पर मिलती है । घ क : रेखा ग्राम परसापानी के पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा.सं. 43015/6/2011 पी. आर . आई. चकम

एम . सी. भाटिया

New Delhi , the 24th August , 2011

S. O. 2266. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the b locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And Whereas , the plan bearing number SECL/ BSP / CGM ( PL.G ) Land 402 , dated the 28th Februar containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector Ard (Madhya Pradesh ) or at the office of the Coal Controller . 1 Council House Street . Kolkata - 700001 or at the office of the th Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section ) . Seepat Road . Bilaspur - 495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) :

6111 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the said schedule ;

Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedules may -

( i) Object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land , or of any rights in or over such land , or ( ii ) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land , or

( iii ) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining leases being acquired , and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land , collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub - section ( 7 ) of Section 13 of the saidAct.

to the Office- In- Charge or Head of the Department ( ( Revenue ) South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Seepat Road , Bilaspur- 495006 ( Chhattisgarh) ; within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE

KAPILDHARA UNDER GROUND MINE

HASDEO AREA

DISTRICT- ANUPPUR ( MADHYA PRADESH)

[ Plan bearing number : SECL / BSP / CGM ( PLG ) / Land/ 402 , dated the 28th February ,, 2011 ]

TAHSII - KOTMA

DISTRICT- ANUPPUR

Remarks

Area in hectares

SI . No.

General Number

Patwari District

Name of Village

6 1.

16.370

Part

586

Parsapani

Daldal

Part

428

2075.308

TOTAL : 91.678 Hectares ( approximately ) or 226.54 acres ( approximately ) BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

A-B I ine start from Point ' A ' in village Parsapani and passes through western part of village Parsapani then enter and passes through village Daldal and meets at Point ' B ' .

B-C I me passes through northen part of village Daldal and meets at Point ' C ' near eastern boundary of village Daldal C-D I me passes through eastern part of village Daldal and meets at Point ' D ' on the common boundary of villages Daldal Parsapam

DA I me passes through western part of village Parsapani and meets at starting Point ' A'.

[ F. No. 4.3015 6 2011 - PRIWI

S. C. BHATIA , Director

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ 2267. कंन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है . कि इसभ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लेखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि से कांयन्ना अभिप्राप्त किए जान को संभावना है :

आर उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि क क्षेत्र क अतर्गत आने वाल क्षेत्र क्र ब्यार रखांक संख्या एनटीपीसी/सीएम / एसईसी IV मात्र 19 23 अक्तूबर, 2010 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक , पकरी बरवाडीह काल माईनिंग प्राजक्ट , उज्जवल काम्प्लेक्स , पगमिल , डाकघर हजारीबाग अन्ना हजाराचाग, झारखंड 82530. के कार्यालय म या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक खाज प्रभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माईन प्लानिंग एवं डिजाईन इन्स्टीट्यूट THE GAZETTE ONGA 2

गोंडवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड, रांची के कार्यालय , nh

प

हजारीबाग जिला को कार्यालय में या कार्यकारी

14052

मेवटर -24, नोएडा , उधर प्रदेश 201301

कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की

अपने आशय की सूचन पैस

पनः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला ..

अनुसूची में विहित भूमि में हितबा काई स्यांग

संपूर्ण भूमि था उसके किसी भार

दीपा

के किसी हित के प्रतिकारक

प्रभावहीन हो गई क्षण अधि

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 15 ( 1 )

विश्लेषण को तथा किसी अन्य

कर सकेगा ।

सेक

अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन भी

झारखट-825301 सहजारीबाग

अनुसूची

नीमडीह कोल माइनिंग प्ला

अर्थ कानपुरा कोल्ইকার

जिला- हजारीबाग ( सर ( रखाना संख्या एनटीपीसो/सीएम/एसईसीसी / 09/ तारीख 23 भूमि अनुसूची :

(भाग - ५०

थाना

मोजा/ग्राम

संख्यांत

क्रम स.

केरेडारी

कंडाबेर

बरियातु

करेडारी

जबरा

म्हारी

यसरिया

नवाडीह

बरेडार

सिरमा

रेडारी

बेलतु 6113 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

भूमि अनुसूची:

(भाग- बी )

मौजा/ग्राम

थाना

क्रम सं.

जिला का नाम

थाना संख्यांक

क्षेत्र ( हेक्टर में ) लगभग

क्षेत्र ( एकड में) लगभग

बड़कागाँव 56

219.11

541.42 पकरी बखाडीह

हजारीबाग

770.57

1904,07 कुल योग क्षेत्र ( भागः ए + बी )

सीमा वर्णन :

भाग ए

रेखा ए 1 - ए2 - ए3 - ए4- ए5: - यह रेखा कोल ब्लाक के उत्तर - पश्चिम कोने से ग्राम कन्दाबेर में स्थित बिन्दु ए । ( प्लाट संख्या 454) से प्रारंभ होकर , पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त गांव के प्लाट संख्या 454 , 455 , 452 , 451 , 450 , 467 , 472 , 255 , 196 , 197 और 200 से गुजरती है । तत्पश्चात् , यह रेखा उसी दिशा में आगे बढ़ती है और ग्राम नवाडीह के प्लाट संख्या 422 से गुजरते हुए , उक्त ग्राम के ही बिन्दु ए 5 ( प्लाट संख्या 505 ) पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए 5 - ए6: - यह रेखा ग्राम नवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु ए 5 ( प्लाट संख्या 505 ) से प्रारंभ होकर , उत्तर दिशा की ओर में बढ़ते हुए उक्त ग्राम के ही बिन्दु ए6 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए6 - ए7 - ए8- ए9-:- यह रेखा ग्राम नवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु ए6 ( प्लाट संख्या 505 ) से प्रारंभ होकर , पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त गाँव के प्लाट संख्या 473 , 482 , 481 , 489 , 473 483 , 485 , 486 , 487 , 488 , 490 , 491,492 और 501 से गुजरती है । तत्पश्चात्, यह रेखा पूर्व दिशा में आगे बढ़ती है और ग्राम बसरिया के प्लाट संख्या 13 , 23 ,12 , और 24 से गुजरते हुए , उक्त ग्राम के प्लाट संख्या 25 के बिन्दु ए 9 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए१- ए 10-: - यह रेखा ग्राम बसरिया के प्लाट संख्या 25 के बिन्दु ए9 से प्रारंभ होकर , उत्तर दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही बिन्दु ए10 ( प्लाट संख्या 27 ) पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए 10- ए11- ए12- ए 13 -: - यह रेखा ग्राम बसरिया के प्लाट संख्या 27 के बिन्दु ए 10 से प्रारंभ होकर , पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुई ग्राम सिरमा के प्लाट संख्या 30 , 151 , 152 , 146 से गुजरते हुए , उक्त ग्राम के ही बिन्दु ए 13 ( प्लाट संख्या 148 ) पर समाप्त होती है । रेखा ए13- ए 14-:- यह रेखा ग्राम सिरमा के प्लाट संख्या 148 के बिन्दु ए 13 से प्रारंभ होकर , उत्तर - दक्षिण दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही प्लाट संख्या 137 में स्थित बिन्दु ए 14 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए 14-ए 15-:- यह रेखा ग्राम सिरमा के प्लाट संख्या 148 के बिन्दु ए 13 से प्रारंभ होकर , उत्तर दिशा की ओर बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही प्लाट संख्या 144 में स्थित बिन्दु ए 15 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए15- ए16- ए 17 ए 18 ए19- ए20 ए21- ए22- ए23 ए24 ए25 ए 26 ए27 ए28 ए29- ए30- ए31- ए32- ए33- ए34- ए35 36 37 38 39 40 ए41 ए42 ए43 ए44: यह रेखा ग्राम सिरमा के प्लाट संख्या 144 के बिन्दु ए 15 से प्रारंभ होकर , दक्षिण दिशा की ओर बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही प्लाट संख्या 243 , 242 , 241 , 244,245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259,286 , 295 और 296 से गुजरती है । तत्पश्चात् यह रेखा दक्षिण दिशा की ओर बढ़ती हुई ग्राम बरियातु के प्लाट संख्या 1693 , 1692 , 1691 , 1690 , 1689 , 1688 , 1856 , 1684 , व 1643 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम के प्लाट संख्या 1643 के बिन्दु ए44 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए44- ए45-: - यह रेखा ग्राम बरियातु के प्लाट संख्या 1643 के बिन्दु ए44 से प्रारंभ होकर , पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही बिन्दु ए45 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ए45- ए46- ए47 ए48 ए49 ए50 ए 51 ए52 ए53 ए54 ए55 ए56 ए57 ए58 ए59- ए60- ए61 ए62 ए63- ए64- ए65 ए66 ए67 ए68 ए 1: यह रेखा ग्राम बरियातु में स्थित बिन्दु ए45 ( प्लाट संख्या 1643 ) से प्रारंभ हांकर, उत्तर - पश्चिम दिशा में स्थित नाला के साथ आगे बढ़तें हुए उक्त ग्राम के ही प्लाट संख्या 232 और 63 से गुजरती है । ग्रवा उत्तर पश्चिम दिशा में आगे बढ़ती हुई और ग्राम जबरा में स्थित प्लाट संख्या 130 , 116 , 108. 107 , 98 एवम् ग्राम कन्दाबंर के स्थित 3125 Gl / 11--4 6114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

[PART II ...

प्लान संख्या 683 एवं ग्राम बेलतु में स्थित प्लाट संख्या 1975 , 684 ,62 , 63 , 64 , 68 और69 से गुजरती है । यह रेखा आगे बढ़ती हुई ग्राम कन्दाबेर में स्थित प्लाट संख्या 519 , 520 , 521 , 513 , 514 , 515 एवम् ग्राम बेलतु में स्थित प्लाट संख्यः 121, 120 , 119 , 105 , 106 , 114 , 110 और 143 से पुनः गुजरती है । यह रेखा पुनः उत्तर - पश्चिम दिशा में आगे बढ़ा संख्या 454 , 456 से गुजरती है और अन्ततः ग्राम कन्दाबेर में स्थित बिन्दु ए। ( प्लाट संख्या 454 ) पर समाप्त होती है । भाग बी:

रेखा बी 1- बी2: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिण- पश्चिम कोने में स्थित बिन्दु बी। ( प्लाट संख्या 1950 ) से प पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के प्लाट संख्या 1934 , 1933 से गुजरते हुए उक्त ग्राम में ही स्थित बिन्दु बी2 ( प्लाट संग पर समाप्त होती है ।

हुई रेखा बी2 - बी3: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी 2 ( प्लाट संख्या 1932 ) से प्रांरभ होकर उत्तर दिशा में प्लाट संख्या 1923 और 1918 से गुजरते हुए उक्त ग्राम में ही स्थित बिन्दु बी 3 ( प्लाट संख्या 1917 ) पर समाप्त होती है । रेखा बी3 - बी4: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी परवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी3 ( प्लाट संख्या 1917 ) से प्रारंभ होकर पूर्व दिशा में प्लाट संख्या 1918 से गुजरते हुए उक्त ग्राम में ही स्थित बिन्दु बी4 ( प्लाट संख्या 1919 ) पर समाप्त होती है । रेखा बी4 बी5: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी4 ( प्लाट संख्या 1919 ) से प्रांरभ होकर दक्षिण दिशा में : उनन ग्राम के प्लाट संख्या 1920 से गुजरती हुई उक्त प्लाट में ही स्थित बिन्दु बी 6 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी5 - बी6: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बीऽ ( प्लाट संख्या 1920 ) से प्रांरभ होकर पूर्व दिशा उक्त प्लाट में ही स्थित बिन्दु बी 6 पर समाप्त होती है ।

रखा बी6- बी7: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी6 ( प्लाट संख्या 1920 ) से प्रारंभ होकर पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ती ग्राम का ही प्लाट संख्या 1921 और 1922 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम में ही स्थित बिन्दु बी7 ( प्लाट संख्या 1937 ) पर समाप्त होती है । रेखा बो7 - बीड - बी9- बी10:- यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी 7 ( प्लाट संख्या 1937 ) से प्रांरभ होकर दोन में बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के प्लाट संख्या 1939 , 1940 , 1943 , 1944 , 1945 , 1946 , 1947 , 1948 , 1949 , 1950 , 1964 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही स्थित बिन्दु बी 10 ( प्लाट संख्या 1962 ) पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी 10 - बी 11: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी10 ( प्लाट संख्या 1962 ) से प्रांरभ होकर पूर्व दिश्व उक्त ग्राम के ही प्लाट संख्या 1960 और 1961 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही बिन्दु बी।। ( प्लाट संख्या 1962 ) पर समान रेखा बी 11 - बी12: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी ।। ( प्लाट संख्या 1962 ) से प्रांरभ होकर दक्षिण पश्ि बहती हुई , उक्त ग्राम के ही प्लाट संख्या 1960 , 1961 और 1952 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही स्थित बिन्दु बोके पर समाप्त होती है ।

गवा बी 12 -बी 13- बी 14 - बी 15 - बी 16 बी 17: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी । 2 (प्लाट संख्या दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के प्लाट संख्या 1742. 1741 , 2125 , 2130.2135 से गुजरती हुई न स्थिन बिन्दु बी । 7 ( प्लाट संख्या 2130 ) पर समाप्त होती है ।

ग्या बी 17 - बी 18: यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी । 7 ( प्लाट संख्या 2130 ) से प्रांरभ होकर पुनर वदनी हुई , प्लाट संख्या 1718 से गुजरती हुई उक्त प्लाट के ही बिन्दु बी 18 पर समाप्त होती है ।

"एम बी 18 - बी 19: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी 18 ( प्लाट संख्या 118 ) से प्रांरभ होकर दिया अयन ग्राम को प्लाट संख्या 1154 1137 , 1136 , 1134 , 1133 , 1132 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही स्थिन विन्द 1128 ) पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी 19 वी20 बी21 - बी 22 - ली 23 - बी24 बी 25 - बी26 - बी 27: यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में मिथन संख्या 1128 ) से प्रारंभ होकर पश्चिम पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुई , उक्त ग्राम के ही स्थित बिन्दु बी ( प्लान संख्या 1432 होती है ।

रेखा बी27 - बी 28 - बी29 - बी30 बी31 वी 32 बी33 बी34 बी35- बी 36 बी 37 - बी38 बी39 - बी40 - बी41 बी 42 वी43 बी45- बी46- बी47: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी27 ( प्नाट संख्या 14.32 ) से प्राग्भ हाकर दक्षिण बढ़ती हुई , उक्त ग्राम के ही प्लाट संख्या 1449 और 2495 से गुजरती है एवम् उक्त प्नाट के ही स्थित बिन्दु बो 6115 भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

रेखा बी47- बी48 - बी49- बी 50 - बी51 - बी 52 - बी53 - बी54 - बी55- बी 56 - बी57 - बी58 - बी 59 - बी60 - बी 61 - बी62 - बी63 - बी 64 -बी65- बी66 - बी 67 - बी 68 - बी 69 - बी70 - बी71 - बी72: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी47 ( प्लाट संख्या 2495 ) से प्रारंभ होकर उत्तर - पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ती हुई उक्त ग्राम के प्लाट संख्या 2476 , 2363 , 2362 , 2361 , 2359 , 2358 , 2325 , 2324 , 2323 , 2276 , 2275 , 2274 , 2273 , 2274 , 2270 , 2269 , 2268 , 2251 , 2230 , 1718 , 2216 , 2033 , 2032 , 2028 , 2029 , 2025, 2023, 2022, 2021 और 2020 से गुजरती हुई उक्त ग्राम के ही बिन्दु बी 72 ( प्लाट संख्या 1950 ) पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी72 - बी73 - बी74- बी 1: - यह रेखा ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह में स्थित बिन्दु बी 72 ( प्लाट संख्या 1950 ) से प्रांरभ होकर , उत्तर दिशा में स्थित नाला ( प्लाट संख्या 1950 ) के बगल से गुजरती हुई , उक्त ग्राम के ही स्थित बिन्दु बी ! ( प्लाट संख्या 1950 ) पर समाप्त होती है ।

[ फा.सं. 43015/2/ 2011- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ] एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 26th August , 2011

S. O. 2267.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas , the plan bearing number NTPC / CM / SEC IV / CBA/ 09 , dated the 23rd October, 2010 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the General Manager , Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project , Ujjwal Complex , Pugmil , Post Office- Hazaribagh , District - Hazaribagh , Jharkhand - 825301 or at the office of Chief General Manager ( Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute , Gondwana Place , Kanke Road . Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, Hazaribagh district or at the office of ED ( F.S. ) NTPC Ltd , R & D Building , Ist Floor , Plot Number A - 8A , Sector - 24 , Noida , U.P. -201301 .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , for all rights , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedule may -

(i ) Object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land , or of any rights in or over such land , or ( ii) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land , or

( iii) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining leases being acquired. and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land , collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub- section ( 7 ) of section 13 of the said Act .

to the Office of the General Manager , Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project , Ujjwal Complex , Pugmil , Post Office - Hazaribaglı , District - Hazaribagh , Jharkhand - 825301 within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Block Phase - V

North Karanpura Coalfields

DISTRICT- HAZARIBAGH ( JHARKHAND)

(Plan bearing number NTPC / CM / SEC IV / CBA/ 09 , dated the 23rd October , 2010 )

LAND SCHEDULE :

(PART - A)

Area (in hect

Thana

Name of

Sl .

Thana

District

Number

No.

Mouja/ Village

Keradari

Kandaber

Hazaribagh

219.0

Keradari

Barnatu

Hazaribagh

6116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

5 3. Jabra

Keradari 43

[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 6

7131 29.02

Hazaribagh

Keradari

Basaria

70.11

173.24

Hazaribagh

5. Nawadih

Keradari

155.07 63.12

Hazaribagh

Sirma

Keradari

78.91

194.99

Hazaribagh

Beltu

Keradari

20.56

50.80

Hazaribagh

TOTAL AREA

LAND SCHEDULE :

(PART - B)

Thana

Name of District Sl . No.

Thana number Mouja Village

1. Pakri Barwadih Barkagaon 56

551.46

1362.65 Area ( hectares approximately )

Area ( in acres approxi- mately) 219

541.42

Hazaribagh

GRAND TOTAL AREA ( Part : A+B)

Boundary Description:

PART - A:

770.5

1904.07 Line A1 - A2 - A3 - A4 - A5 : The Line starts from point Al in the north west corner of the coat block located in plot no . 454 ofvillage ' Kandaber' and moving eastward passes through plot nos . 454 , 455 , 452 , 451,450,467,472,255 , 196 , 197 and 200 of the said village . The line moves further in the same direction and passes through plot no . 422 of village Nawadih and ends at point A5 in plot no . 505 of the said village .

Line A5 - A6 : The line stats from point A5 in plot no . 505 of the village 'Nawadih ' and moves in north direction ending atpoint A6 in the said plot .

Line A6 - A7 - A8 - A9 : The line starts at point A6 in plot no.505 of village Nawadih and moving eastward passes through plot nos . 473 , 482 , 481 , 489 , 473 , 483 , 485 , 486 , 487 , 488 , 490 , 491 , 492 and 501 of the said village . The lime moves further eastward and passes through plot nos . 13 , 23 , 12 , and 24 of village Basaria and ends at point A9 in plot no . 25 of the said village .

Line A9 - A10 : The line starts at point A9 in plot no . 25 of village Basaria and moving in north direction ends at point A 10 in plot no . 27 of the said village .

Line A10 - A11 - A12 - A13 : The line starts at point A10 in plot no . 27 of village Basaria and moving eastward passes through plot nos . 30 , 151 , 152 , 146 of village Sirma and ends at point A 13 in plot no . 148 of the said village .

Line A13 - A14 : The line starts at point A13 in plot no . 148 of the village Sirma and moving northwestdirection ends at point A 14 in plot no . 137 of the said village .

Line A14 - A15 : The line starts at point A13 in plot no . 148 of the village Sirma and moving in east direction ends at pointA 15 in plot no . 144 of the said village .

moving LineA 15 - A 16 -A 17 -A 18 -A 19 - A20 - A21 - A22 - A23 - A24 - A25 - A26 - A27- A28 - A29 - A30 - A31 -A32 - A33 - A34- A35 A36- A37 - A38 - A39 - A40 - A41 - A42 - A43 - A44 :The line starts at point A15 in plot no . 144 of village Sirma and mo southward passes through plot nos . 243 , 242 , 241 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 254、255、256,257,258,259,286,295 and 296 of the said village . The line then moving further southward passes through plot nos . 1693. 1692. 1691.1690 , 1689 , 1688 , 1856 , 1684 and 1643 of village Bariatu and ends at point A44 in plot no . 1643 of the said village

Line A44 - A45 : The line starts at point A44 in plot no . 1643 of Village Bariatu and moving in west direction passing through the plot ends at point A45 in the said plot .

LineA45 - A45 - A46 - A46 - A46 - A47- A48 - A49 - A50 - A51 - A52 - A53 - A54 - A55 - A56 - A57 - A58-159-160-461-162-463- A64 - A65 - A66 - A67- A68 - A 1 : The line starts at point A45 in plot no . 1643 of village Bariatu and moving along the nala [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6117 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

in northwest direction passes through plot nos.232 & 63 of village Bariatu . The line moving further in the northwest direction passes through plot nos . 130,116,108,107 , and 98 of village Jhabra , plot no . 683 of village Kandaber and plot nos . 1975 , 684 , 62, 63 , 64 , 68 , and 69 of village Beltu . The line moving further in the same direction passes through plot nos . 519 , 520 , 521 , 513 , 514 and 515 of village Kandaber and plot nos . 124, 84 , 121 , 120 , 119 , 105 , 106 , 114 , 110 and 143 of village Beltu again . The line moving further in the northwest direction passes through plot nos . 454 , 456 and finally ends at the point A in plot no . 454 of village Kandaber .

Part- B:

Line B1- B2 : The line starts from point B1 in plot no. 1950 at the South West corner of village Pakri Barwadih and moving in the east direction passes through plot nos . 1934 , 1933 and ends at point B2 in the plot no . 1932 of the said village ..

Line B2 - B3 : The line starts from point B2 in plot no . 1932 of Pakri Barwadih village and moving in north direction passes through plots no . 1923 and 1918 ends said at point B3 in plot no.1917 of the said village .

Line B3 - B4 : The line starts at point B3 in plot no 1917 and moving in east direction of village Pakri Barwadih passes through plot no. 1918 and at point B4 in plot no . 1919 of the said village .

Line B4 - B5 : The line starts at point B4 in plot no. 1919 and moving in south direction passes through plot no . 1920 ends at said at point B5 of the village Pakri Barwadih .

Line B5 - B6 : The line starts at point B5 in plot no . 1920 of the village Pakri Barwadih and moving in east direction ends atpoint B6 in the said plot .

Line B6 - B7 : The line start at point B6 in plot no . 1920 of village Pakri Barwadih and moving in west direction passes through plot nos . 1921 , 1922 ends at point B7 in plot no. 1937 of the said village .

Line B7 - B8 - B9 - B10: The line starts at point B7 in plot no. 1937 of village Pakri Barwadih and moving south ward passes through plot nos . 1939 , 1940 , 1943 , 1944 , 1945 , 1946 , 1947 , 1948 , 1949 , 1950 , 1964 , 1963 ends at pomt B10 in plat no . 1962 of said village .

Line B10 - B11 : The line start at point B10 in plot no . 1962 of village Pakri Barwadih and mox ing im east direchon passes through plot no's . 1960 , 1961 and ends at point B11 in plot no . 1962 of said village .

Line B11 - B12 : The line starts at point B11 in plot no . 1962 of village Pakri Barwadih and moving m south west direction passes through plot no's . 1960 , 1961 , 1952 and ends at point B12 in plot no. 1743 of the said village .

Line B12 - B13 - B14 - B15 - B16 - B17 : The line stars at point B12 in plot no . 1743 of village Pakrı Barwadılı and moving in south east direction passes through plot no's . 1742,1741 , 2125,2130 , 2135 and ends at point B17 in plot no . 21.30 of the said village .

Line B17 - B18 : The line starts at point B17 in plot no . 2130 of village Pakri Barwadih and moving in north east direction passes through plot no . 1718 of the said village ending at point 1318 in the said plot .

Line 318 - B19 : The line starts at point B18 in plot no. 1718. of village Pakri Barwadih and mov ing eastward passes through plot nos . 1154 , 1137 , 1136 , 1134 , 1133 , 1132 and ends at point B 19 in plot no . 1128 of the said village .

Line B19 - B20 - B20 - B21 - B22 - B23 - B24 - B25 - B26 - B - 27: The line starts at point B 19 in plot no . 1128 of village Pakri Barwadih and moving in south east direction passes through plot no . 1128 and ends at point 827 im plot no . 1432 of the said village .

Line B27-828-829-829-830 - B31 - B33 - B34-835 - B36 - B37-338-339-340-341-342-843-844-8-45-846-847 : Пс . line starts at point B27 in plot no . 1432 of village Pakri Barwadih and moving in southwest direction passes through plot no . 1449 and , 2495 ending at point B47 in the said plot .

Line B47-1348-849 - B50-851-852-853 - B54 - B55 - B56-857-858 - B59 - B60 - B61 - B62-863-864-865-866-867-36 B69-870-871 - B72 : The line starts at point B47 in plot no.2495 of village Pakri Barwadih and moving in northwest direction passes through plot nos . 2476 ; 2363 , 2362 , 2361 , 2359、2358 , 2325 , 2324,2323、2276、2275、2274,273 , 2274.2270,2269 , 2268 , 2251,2230 , 1718 , 2216 , 2033,2032 , 2028 , 2029. 2025. 2023 , 2022 , 2021.& 2020 and ends atpaint B72 in plot no . 1950 of the said village .

Line B72 - B73-874 - B1 : The line starts at point B72 in plot no . 1950 of the village Pakri Barwadıh and moving northward along the nala in plot no . 1950 ends at point B 1 in the said plot.

[ F. No. 43015 2 2011 - PRIW- 1 ]

S. C BHATA , Director 6118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 BHADKA 5 , 1933

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2268.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ डोंडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बांच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89 2010 ) का प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल-12011/35/2010 - आईआर ( बो -11 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 27th July, 2011

S.O. 2268.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 89 2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 2. Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2011 .

[No. L - 12011 35 2010 - IR ( B - II) | RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer Case No. ID No. 89 of 2010

Registered on 10-12-2010

The General Secretary , Central Bank of India Employees ' Union Haryana , H. No. 3296 , Sector 19 - D , Chandigarh .

the power under Clause ( 1) of sub - section section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disa 1947 ( heremafter called as Act as referred the dispute for adjudication to this tribunal

"Whether the action of the management Bank of india in awarding the punten . Stoppage of one increment with cumulata .. just, fair and legal? What reftet the ... workman is entitled to and front what dete The parties did not turn up despue notices . them on 10-12-2010 , 17-1-2011 and by registere 23-3-2011. Notices sent by registered post received back undelivered . Service is presumedor; They failed to appear and submit their resp.. pleadings .

Since the clamant has failed to appear and dispute before the Tribunal , hens the refere answered against the clamant . Iwo copes at Bh be sent to Central Government for further necessar ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGl . Presid CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 2811: tuy . 2011

S.O. 2269. The Reference Not mennoge third line of the notification of even number 11-04-2011 may be read as 61 2000 msteadeto 20 .

No.1-200122019 D.S.S. SRINIVASA RA

नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई , 20

का.आ. 2270, ओद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम

का 14 ) की धारा 1 ? के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकारन लिमिटेड मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियं जकों और उनक के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण, श्रम न्यायालय नं. मुम्बई के पंचा संख्या 36/2007 ) कां प्रकाशित करती है, जो कन्द्रीय सद 27-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30011.27.2000 आई

.... Claimant

Versus

The Regional Manager , Central Bank of India , Regional Office , Ludhiana. Respondent

APPEARANCES

None

For the workman

None

I or the Management

AWARD

Passed on 4th July, 2011

The Central Government vide Notification No. L -12011 / 35 / 2010 - IR ( B - II ) dated 26-11-2010 in exercise of

जाहन नापना अन्दर New Delhi , the 28th July , 2011

S.O. 2270. In pursuance of Section Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1917 ), overnment hereby publishes the Award ( Ret of the Central Government Industriai Iribunai No.1 Mumbai now as shown in the Aene Industrial Dispute between the employers c . : the management of ONGL Mumba . workman , which was received me Cental C on 27-7-2011.

[No L-3001120

JOHAN TOPNO Lak [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI Justice G. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT- 1 /36 OF 2007

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C. Ltd. AND Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

Ms. N. Menon , Adv. For the Management

For the workman

Absent

Srate :

Maharashtra Mumbai , dated the 14th day of June , 2011

AWARD

1. In exercise of powers conferred under clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

"Whether the workmen working at ONGC through Contractors since past 10 years continuously , deserve MOU rates . If not , to what privileges , monetary benefits are they entitled to ? "

2. A notice of reference was issued to the Petroleum Employees Union . An advocate appeared on behalf of the union as per order sheet dated 10-9-2007 . However , since 26-8-2008 no one has appeared on behalf of the union .

3. On 4-3-2011 the first party has filed an application stating therein that the dispute in the reference has worked uself out and the workers concerned have no grievance left and the dispute has been settled in the way mentioned in the application . A notice was issued on this application to the union but inspite of service of the notice no one has appeared on behalf of the union .

4. Heard learned counsel for the management on the above application .

5. Considering the submission of learned counsel of the management I find it fit and appropriate to hold that no dispute exists between the parties .

6. An Award is passed accordingly .

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई , 2011

का:आ. 2271. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयर हाउसिंग कार्पोरेशन भोपाल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और

6119

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/3/91 आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th July, 2011

S.O. 2271. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 121/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Ware Housing Corporation Bhopal and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-7-2011 .

[No. 1. - 42012 / 3 / 91 - IR (M ) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/ LCR/ 121 / 91

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hassan Shri Guljarilal Ahirwar ,

VillageBajaria ,

PostLaxmipur,

Distt . Panna .

.... Workman Versus

Management The Regional Manager , Central Ware Housing Corporation . Regional Office , Amar Niwas , New Market , T.T. Nagar , Bhopal

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of June , 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L - 42012/3 /91 - IR (Vividh ) dated 18-6-91 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:---

"Whether the action of the management of Central Ware Housing Corporation , Bhopal ( MP ) in terminating the services of Shri Guljarilal Ahirwar , Ex. Chowkidarw.e.f. 16-6-1986 is legal and justified. If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was appointed as a Chowkidar in the Central Ware Housing Corporation and joined on 11-1-85 at Katni . His record was THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

qure satisfactory and there was no complaint what so ever. It is stated that the workman was terminated suddenly on 8-86 without giving any opportunity. He had already mpleted 240days in calendar year and he was terminated thout complying the provision of 25 - F of the Industrial pute Act , 1947 ( in short the Act , 1947 ) . He was not een any show cause before terminating the service and Gated the principle of natural justice . On these ground , it ... submitted that the action of the management be held Begal and his service be deemed to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits .

3 The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia , is that admittedly the workman was copointed as a chowkidar vide order dated 28-12-84 and he jomed on 11-1-85 . He was on probation for a period of one year in accordance with Regulation 10 of the Central Warehousing Corporation ( Staff) Regulation , 1986. The rice can be terminated during probation period , if it is to Lactisfactory . The services of the workman was found po satisfactory during probation period and adverse 1. porus were also received against him . Therefore the mpetent authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 10 ( 3 ) of the Central Warehousing Corporation ( Staff ) Regulation , 1986 discharged him from service during the period of probation . The amount 1.111 as required under the Regulation was paid . The rewenchment compensation of Rs . 716.70 was also paid to lim. As per contract of appointment the retrenchment compensation was not required to be paid . However the management had paid the said retrenchment compensation as well . It is submitted that the action of the management is legal and justified .

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

1. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 16-6-1986 is legal and justified ?

II . To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

3. Issue No. I

Jefore discussing the evidence , it is necessary to enumerate ile admitted facts on the basis of the pleadings of the parties.

1 The workman Shri Guljarilal Ahirwar was appointed as chowkidar vide order dated 28-12-84 by the management .

The workman joined the duty on 11-1-1985.

The probation and other terms and conditions was to be governed by the Central Warehousing Corporation ( Staff) Regulation , 1986 .

He was in service for about one and half year and his service was not yet confirmed .

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 5. No departmental enquiry was conducted nor any show cause notice was given by the competent authority before terminating him from service .

6. Regulation 10 of the Central Warehousing Corporation ( Staff) Regulations , 1986 reads as follows :

"(i ) Every person regularly appointed to any post either by direct recruitment or by probation shall be on probation for a minimum period of one year from the date of assumption of charge .

( ii) The Appointing Authority may , in its discretion , extend the period of probation up to a further period not exceeding one year .

(iii) During the period of probation , an employee directly recruited shall be liable to be discharged from the service without assigning any reason by giving him a notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof. A departmental candidate appointed to any higher post through direct recruitment shall during the period of probation be liable to be reverted to the original post held by him prior to such appointinent . without any notice and without assigning any reason ."

7. Now the important question is as to whether the workman was discharged during the probation period. Admittedly he was not confirmed after probation period of one year and there was no specific order of the apponting authority for extending the period of probation for further one year. The learned counsel for the workman has rehed a decision reported in 1989.A.C.C. ( 1. & S ) -0-471 , Sumati P. Shere Vrs . Union of India . The condition of appointment in this case was that she was appointed on ad hoc basis for period of six months or till a regular candidate from the Union Public Servic Commission became available which- ever was earlier . His period of service was extended timeto time and she was terminated without regular candidate was available whereas the fact of this case is quite different . The ruling appears to be not applicable.

8. On the other hand , the management has also relied a decision reported in 2005 LAB.1. C.203 . Registrar . High Court ofGujarat and another Vrs . C.G. Sharma wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

" Para 24: According to Mr. I..N. Rao , the Rule in question does not provide for any maximum period ofprobation and, therefore , the ordinary and general Rule would apply and that in any view of the matter the Rule itself contains an indication that the services could not be treated as confirmed unless a specific order is passed after the enquiry of probationary period if there is a vacancy and if the officer's work is found to be satisfactory.

" Para 26 : a large number of authorities were eited before us by both the parties . However , it is not necessary to go into the details of all those cases for the simple reason that sub rule ( 4 ) of Rule 5 the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Rules is in Parimateria with the Rules which was under consideration in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Veerappa Saboji and Anr. ( Supra ) and we find thateven if the period of two years expires and the probationer is allowed to continue after a period of two years , automatic confirmation cannot be claimed as a matter of right because in terms of the Rules , work has to be satisfactory which is a pre - requisite or pre - condition for confirmation and , therefore , even if the probationer is allowed to continue beyond the period of two years as mentioned in the Rule , there is no question of deemed confirmation . The language of the Rule itself excludes any change of giving deemed or automatic confirmation because the confirmation is to be ordered if there is a vacancy and if the work is found to be satisfactory . There is no question of confirmation and, therefore , deemed confirmation, in the light of the language ofthis Rule, is ruled out . We are , therefore , of the opinion that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect has no merits and no leg to stand . The learned single Judge and the learned Judges of the Division Bench has rightly cometo the conclusion that there is no automatic confirmation on the expiry of the period of two years and on the expiry of the said period of two years , the confirmation order can be passed only if there is vacancy and the work is found to be satisfactory. The rule also does not say that the two years period ofprobation as mentioned in the rule , is the maximum period of probation and the probation cannot be extended beyond the period of two years . We are , therefore , of the opinion that there is no question of automatic or deemed confirmation , as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent . We , therefore , answer this issue in the negative and against the respondent ."

This ruling appears to be applicable in the instant case as he was within the period of two years and his service was not confirmed by any specific order. He was deemed to be on probation on the extended period of one year as provided in the Regulation .

9. Now let us examine the evidence adduced by either of the parties in the case . The workman Shri Guljarilal Ahirwar has stated in his evidence that he was appointed and appointment letter was received by him. The said appointment letter is marked as Exhibit M/ 2 which is an admitted document . The appointment letter shows that for probation and other terms and conditions , his services will be governed by the Central Warehousing Corporation ( Staff) Regulations . He was admittedly joined on 11-1-1985. He was proved his own letters which are filed by the management which are marked as Exhibit M/ 5 and M/ 7. These letters show that the workman had tendered apologies for committing misconduct and misbehavior . He 3125 G1 /11-5

6121

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011/ भाद्र 5 , 1933

has also stated that he was once arrested by the police on the charge of rape . He has also admitted in his evidence that he had received one month pay at the time ofdischarge. This shows that he was paid one month salary in lieu of notice as required under Regulation 19 (3 ) of the Regulation , 1986. His evidence further shows that his conduct was not satisfactory during the period of probation .

10. The management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence . The management witness Shri M. Das Gupta was working as Regional Manager . He has stated that he was indiscipline and there was adverse report against him . His working was not at all satisfactory. The confidential reports are filed which are marked M / 11 series . He was issued memos which are marked as Exhibit M/4 and M/6 for his misconduct . He tendered apologies . His evidence clearly shows that his service was unsatisfactory during the period of probation .

11. Regulation 10 ( iii ) of the Central Warehousing (Staff) Regulation , 1986 provides that during the probation period, the employee shall be liable to be discharged from the service without assigning any reason by giving him a notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof. In this case , admittedly one month pay was given and also compensation was paid . Thus it is clear that appointing authority was authorized to discharge him without assigning any reason . On the basis of the evidence discussed abvoe , it is clear that the action of the management in terminating his service is justified and legal . This issue is decided in favour of the management .

12. Issue No. II

Considering the discussions made above , I find that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

13. In the result , the award is passed 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 नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 201 ।

का.आ. 2272.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एच पी सी एल मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनकं कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/62/2006 आई आर ( एम )

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव 6101

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 BHADRA 5. 1933

New Delhi , the 28th July , 201

5.0 . 2272.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 17/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IPCL Mumbai and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-7-2011 .

[No. 1. - 30012 / 62 / 2006 - IR ( M ) | JOHAN TOPNO , Under Seev.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO IMUSIBAI

PRESENT

Justice G.S. Sarraf. Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 17 of 2007

Emplovers in relation to the management of ILPC... And Their workman Shri V.S. Ainarkat

APPEARANCES :

For the management No appearance

Forthe workman

: Mr. Umesh Nabar , Advocate Mumbai , dated this the 23rd day of June , 2011

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order No. 1. - 30012/ 62 / 2006 - IR ( M ) dated 12th February, 2007. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Lube Plant - 1 , Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri V.S. Amarkar is justified ? If not, what relief , Shri VS Amarkar is entitled to ? "

2.Shet Nabar , learned advocate for the workman submits dust the workman is dead and his legal representatives are notresponding to his communications and such the reference be disposed očas pot prosecuted .

lustew ofthe above sahnessica Prizrence stands disposed of as not prosecuted on nehalf of the workman and his legal representatives .

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली . 28 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2273. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सिडको .

फोरक्स इन्टरनेशनल आई एन सी गुम्बई का पूर्वान नियोजकों और उसने कर्मकारों के बीच अनुनंद मंदर विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिका/ श्र मुम्बई के पंचाट ( मंदर्भ संख्या 51/200 ) 41 70.0 जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 277-2011 से

[मं. एल 29012120 New Delly, the 28th July , 2011 S.O. 2243. In pursuance of Secis Industrial Disques Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) Government harcby publishes the Award ( Pei ,' s of the Central lovemtent Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Munter now as shown in the Antiere Industrial Despite between the employers the management of Ms. Sedco Forex Intermultan INC Mumber and their workman , whach sa the Central Gotomentor 2011 .

ANNENUDE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO2 ARMEN PRESENE

ARKALARI Predme Reference No. ( GIF 2 51 of 206 Employers melation to the management ei Forex International Drilling in The ChiefTxecutive Offset Ms. Sedcolorex International Dallaty Traw- ocean House , I abke Boulevares Huamandam Business Park Pow Mumbai --08

And Then workma

Shin Vinod Ramaiw.duckermane RoGharkul Society Plot No 30. House Ne Sector 16 - A . Nerul ( W ) Nava Mutobar 10 06

APPEARACEN :

M: N. Anaokar se M: Puneet Cham For the ! mo For the mur

Nativo kad the Madd The Government of India Ministry . Employmentles its Order No. 1-20012120 | बाग !! -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

29-05-2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause id ) of sub- scouon ( 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 Shri Vinod Ramaiya Cuckemane " Yard Supervisor is a workman under the provisions of Section 2 ( s ) of L.D. Act , 1947 ? If so " Whether the termination of services of Shri Cuckemane by the Company M/ s . Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. Vide termination letter dated 25-1-2008 is just , legal and proper? To what relief Shri Cuckemane is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are Bccessary in the matter ? "

2. After receipt of the order of reference notices were issued to both the parties . Workman filed his statement of clain at Ex. - 8 making out his case . Management resisted the statement of claim vide their written statement Ex . - 9 . Thereafter matter was posted for rejoinder and for framing of isates . Meanwhile workman filed application Ex . - 11 for withdrawing the reference as he does not want to pursue the matter. Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference stands rejected as withdrawn .

Date: 02-03-2011

Κ . Β . ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2274, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच्च अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक निकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/ 89/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 / 43/ 1997- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th July , 2011

3.0 . 2274.-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: 89 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank Maharashtra and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2011 .

[No. L - 12011 / 43 / 1997 - IR (B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

6123

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR

No. CGIT /NGP / 89 / 2002

Party No. 1 : The ChiefManager , Bank of Maharashtra , Sitabuldi Branch , Dr. Munje Chowk , Sitabuldi , Nagpur - 440012 .

Versus

Party No. 2 : The General Secretary, Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees , 542 , Dr. Munje Marg , Congress Nagar , Nagpur .

This reference had been made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( here - in - after referred to as " the Act " ) for adjudication of the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman to CGIT, Jabalpur as per letter No. L- 12011 / 43 / 97 - IR (B - II ) dated 27-07-1998/6-8-1998 , with the following schedule: - "Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra , Sitabuldi , Nagpur ( rep . through the Asstt . General Manager) in not posting the workman ( list enclosed) , as per their seniorty, as Spl . Asstt . even after falling the posts of Slp. Asstt . Vacant w.e.f. March , 1996 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman are entitled?"

Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court ofCGIT, Nagpur for disposal according to the law.

2. Advocate for both the parties are present.

3. Advocate for the workman filed a pursis stating that the dispute was raised by the " Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees " on behalf of the workman about 10 years back and during this period , the dispute involved in the reference has lost its relevance and the beneficiaries of the reference have either retired from service or are not interested to proceed with the reference and the union is also not interested to proceed with the case and as such , necessary orders be passed for disposal of the reference . The pursis has also been signed by the Secretary ofthe union ,

4. Copy of the pursis has been served on the advocate for the Bank .

5. Perused the record . The workmen , 9 ( nine ) in numbers had challenged the action of the management in not posting them as per their seniority as Special Assistants w.e.f. March , 1996. The management in the written statement had pleaded its action to be justified .

6. In view of the pursis filed by the advocate for the workmen , it is necessary to pass a " no dispute award " in 6124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5. 1933

this case and to dispose of the reference accordingly . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference be treated as " no dispute award . "

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2275.- 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 , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

| सं. एल -12012 / 104/1998 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th July , 2011

S.O. 2275.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 65/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-7-2011 .

[No. 1. - 12012/104 / 1998 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR

No. 65/2002

Party No. 1 : The Asstt . General Manager , Bank of Maharashtra , Regional Office , Mahabank Building . Abhayankar Road, Sitabuldi , Nagpur - 440012

Versus

Party No. 2 : The General Secretary , Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees , 542 , Dr. Munje Marg . Congress Nagar, Nagpur.

[PART II S

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Barsa

!! .

Maharashtra , in stopping four increments cumulative effect upon Shri J.P. Deo , Clerk and justified ? If not, to what relief the said van isentitled ?"

Subsequently, the case was transferred to th ofCGIT, Nagpur for disposal according to the law 2.Advocate for both the parties are present 3.Advocate for the workman filed a pursts that the dispute was raised by the " Une Maharashtra Bank Employees " on behalf of the word mar about 10 years back and during this period, the involved in the reference has lost its relevance a beneficiaries of the referece has retired from sery: is not interested to prowed with the reference is union is also not interested to proceed with the as such necessary orders be passed for disposat reference . The pursis has a se been signed by the secity ofthe union.

4. Copy of the purtas been served on the a for the Bank .

5. Perused the reraman hadcha...read the action of the manag with regard to sh his four increments with cumlative erfect . The manu in the written statement had pleaded its actions justified.

6. In view of the pursis filed by the advecta workman , it is necessary to pass a " no dispute to this case and to dispose of the reference art Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference be treated as " no dispute aw۰۰۰ J. P. CHAND , Presid नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2276. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , १०८ का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्य को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की । हुआ था। い ( सं. एल 12012/302 1996 आई आर उमेश सिंह

New Delhi , the 28th July , 2011

S.O. 2276. In pursuance of Sechon Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 19471 , the Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No 9201 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labo Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the he strat Dispute between the employers in relation ! भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-7-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/302/ 1996 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR

No. 98/2004

Advocate for the management of officer call on the date as already fixed

Party No. 1 : The Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra , Amravati Region , Lokmanji Nagar , Amravati (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2 : The General Secretary , Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees , 542 , Dr. Munje Marg . Congress Nagar . Nagpur - 440012 This reference had been made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( dr of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of section 10 of industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( hereinafter referred to as " the Act " ) for adjudication of the Industrial lispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman . shri V.P. Bobde ( heremafter referred to as " the workman " ) to CGIT, Jabalpur as per letter No. 1. - 12012 / 302/ 96 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 24-11-1997 , with the following schedule : ...

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in not offering the post of Special Assistant second time to Sh . A.P. Bobde , Cashier without holding interview as provided in clause II of the settlement dt. 17-12-92 is proper , legal and justified? If not , to what rehef the said workman is entitled ? " Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court ofCGI I. Nagpur for disposal according to the law.

2. Advocate for both the parties are present .

3 Advocate for the workman filed a pursis stating that the dispute was raised by the " Union of the Maharashtra Bank Employees " on behalf of the workman about 10 years back and during this period, the dispute involved m the reference has lost its relevance and the beneficiary of the reference has retired from service and is not interested to proceed with the reference and the union is also not mterested to proceed with the case and as such necessary orders be passed for disposal of the reference. The pursis has also been signed by the Secretary of the amon

4. Copy of the pursis has been served on the advocate for the Bank

5. Perused the record . The workman had challenged the action of the management im not offering him the post

6125

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

of Special Assistant second time . The management in the written statement had pleaded its action to be justified .

6. In view of the pursis filed by the advocate for the workman , it is necessary to pass a " no dispute award " in this case and to dispose of the reference accordingly . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference be treated as " no dispute award . "

J. P. CHAND . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली. 28 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2277. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सन अर्थ सरेमिक लिमिटेड मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यायालय न. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/7/ 2009 आई आर ( एम ) | जओहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th July , 2011

S.O. 2277. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 70 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal I abour Court No. 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M's Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd.. Mumbai and their workman , which was recewed by the Central Government on 27-7-2011 .

[No.1-2901.27 2009 - IR ( M ) } JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

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

K. B. Katake . Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 2 / 70 of 2009

Employers in Relation to the Management of Sun Farth Ceramice Ltd. New Bharat Building , Ghoroupdeo Cross No. 1. R. Bhogale Marg , Byculla , Mumbai.

AND

Their workmen Shri Vijay Shankar Godse . Co. Anirudha Hanmade Papers , S. No 129. Nanded Phatta . Sinhagad Road , fat . Haveh, Pune - 411041 6126

IPARI THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5. 1933

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Absent

Commissioner wrote to the Ministry of Employment . New Delhi . The Ministry sent to this Tribunai .

For the Workmen Shri Jaiprakash Sawant , Advocate . Mumbai , the 15th February, 2011

AWARD

5. The first party manageriem darah d.. remained absent. Thus the Reference procco . against them . The workman in support ot he filed his affidavit at Ex 10 .

6. Following are the issues for my derens : record my findings thereon for the reasons from Sr. Issues No.

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment by its Order No. L- 29012 / 7 / 2009 - IR (M ) dated 31-08-2009 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:

1. Whether inc asion of manassinent ofMe Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. In terminating the services of Shri Vijay Shankar Godse , we 1. 30-11-2002 is unjust and illegal?

2. Whether the clam of workman total to the tune of Rs . 90,531 plus 1 interest is just ana proper Whether he is entitica to get the said amount from Party N. 17

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Sun Earth Ceramics I.td. , in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Shankar Godse w.e.f. 30-11-2002 is legal & justified? " 2. "Whether the following claims of the workman from the management are legal and justified: -1.1.TC & Medical Bill for 2 years 2000 & 2001 Rs . 28000.00 (@ Rs . 14000 per month x 2 years 2. Bonus for 22 years 14000 x 2 ½ Rs . 35000.00 3. Salary for Oct. & Nov. 2002 Rs . 15400.00 4. Project Expenses Rs . 5133.00 5. Notice Pay Rs . 7000.00 Total Rs . 90533.00-14% Int. What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

3. What order :

2. Both the parties were served with notices of Reference . In response to the notice the Second Party orker appeared through his Representative and has filed his statement of claim at Ex. 6. The management was absent since the first date , therefore , again notice was served to the management , however , they remained absent . Therefore , exparte order was passed against Party No. 1 management.

7. Issue No.1 2.1Aheers of the workman the all of sudden the Partes his services illegalty wahout followings we His averment in the starcinen of te Party No 11y tiling then WS . There Rule 5 of t ... if amounts to an adresstop the second Party worker in suppertalas claim filed as affidavit at Ps . 10. послед are also neither challenged nor demed os ch this witness . In the circumstances , as clam party is unchallenged and it amount to admissor no further discussion to arrive me at the cop . the termination of service of the workman under is unjust and illegal . Consequentis . I als , hote claim of the second Party workman is as goudas.... by the other sole for want of speerfic denial hold that the workman is entitled to get the Rs . 90,533 with interest thereon a 1-19 p . claimed by the workman Accordingly Ject No. 1 and 2 m the affismative and praesi b following order

ORDER

1. It is declared that ser Shri Vijay Shankar Godse wast and without followme due pre 3. According to the second party worker he was in the employment of first party w.e.f. 1-7-1997 as Mines Manager. Though he was designated as Mines Manager he was attending the work in the nature of operational and clerical type of work on payment of wages . In short , he was workman of the first party . He was not employed in the managerial or administrative capacity. According to him , first party terminated his services illegally and without following due process of law w.e.f. 30-12-2002 as the Mining operations of the first party have been closed thereafter . The second party has claimed his dues payable to him under the service conditions contended in the appointment order dated 30-8-1997 . He has claimed LTC and Medical Bills for two years for the year 2000 and 2001 total Rs . 28,000 (@ Rs . 14,000 per year. He has claimed Bonus for 22 years @ Rs . 14,000 per year it comes to Rs . 35,000 . He has claimed salary of earned wages for the month of October , 2001 and November , 2002 total Rs . 15,400 . He has claimed project expenses of Rs . 5,133 and notice pay Rs . 7,000 . He has claimed Rs . 90,533 and has also claimed interest thereon @ 14 % . He thus claims total amount inclusive of interest to the tune of Rs . 1.95.098 from the first party company .

2. The Party No Econpony shdir . No. 2 wol.1626300ny interest the : 2014 P of his teamaraité de . of amothat

Date: 15-2-201

4. As the first party did not give any response workman applied to the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . As the matter could not be settled the Labour 6127 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई , 2011

M/ s. S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates , Advocates

For the 2nd Party /

Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L - 29011 / 13 / 2009 - IR (M ) dated 05-01-2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

का.आ. 2278.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 की 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन रेअर अर्स लिमिटेड मणवालकुरिचि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में भेद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट संदभ मंख्या 52010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार 2.7 2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-29011 / 13/2009- आईआर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th July , 2011

"Whether the demand of the Kanyakumari District Mineral Workers and Staff Union , Manavalakurichi for fixation of pay scale of Sri B. Jayapaul , First Aider (D) in the grade of Rs . 4.270-120-9070 by the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. , Manavalakurichi is justified ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?"

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 3-2010 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be .

S.O. 2278.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 3.2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - 1.abour Comt , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Priestrial Dispute between the employers in relation to be management of indian Rare Earths Ltd. Manavalakurichi diñeir workmen , which was received by the Central ... minetton 27-7-2011.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement bereft of unnecessary details are as follows :

No. 1-2901113 / 2009 - IR ( M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday , the 28th June , 2011

PRESENTAN , JANARDANAN . Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 3/2010

to the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause idol sub section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Managerment of Judian Rare Earths I tod and their Workman )

BETWEEN

Ist Party Petitioner Union

The General Secretary Canyakumari District Mineral Wothers and Staff Umon , Near TRI Tad. Manasalakurichi Kanadamarı

Vs.

The Head

: 2nd Party Management

Indian Rate Parths I td. Manasafakurichi Kanyakumari District

APPEARANCE :

The workman . Thiru B. Jayapaul appointed as First Aider in Grade - A initially as Trainee on 06-05-1992 on a consolidated pay of Rs . 1,000 for 2 years who stood absorbed after 1 year training with effect from 06-05-1993 in Category - III Grade - A on 25-06-1993 in regular Time Seale of Rs . 1275-35-1450-40-2250 was confirmed in 1994 , On completion of 7 years service he was promoted as First Aider Grade - B in Category - III Time Scale of Rs . 4160-100- 8160 on Basic Pay of Rs . 5.260 w.e.f. 01-05-2001 as per the Settlement dated 01-07-1989- According to Revised Promotion Policy w.e.f. 01-07-1999 he was promoted as Pirst AiderGrade - C in Category - III in the scale of Rs . 4160-100- 8160 w - e - f - 01-07-2000 as per order dated 28-06-2002 . Under 12( 3 ) Settlement dated 25-03-2003 cancelling the order dated 28-06-2002 he was placed in the same grade of salary applicable to workman in Category 1 wef 01-05 2001 instead of 01-07-2000 by order dated 03-05-2003 In 2003 as per Promotion Policy the First Aider Grade - A was brought in Category - II . Grade - B kept in Category - III . Grade - C is brought in Category - IV and Grade - D and Grade- brought in Category - V. He was promoted as first Aider Grade -D in Category - V w.e.f. 01-07-2005 as per order dated 30-09-2005 in the scale of Rs.4185-110-8585 . First Ander Grade - A falls in Category - II as per 2003 promotion policy during which he was employed as First Aider Grade - C in Category - IV. His co - employee Srikuntaran Nair . Card No- 1319 working as Security Guard in Category - II appointed 3 months later to the appointment of the workman while was drawing Basic Pay of Rs . 10,020 during May 2009 , at the time of his M/ s . Sri R.N. Amarnath , Advocates

For the Ist party Petitioner Union !

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 201LBHADRAS, 1915

promoted tot ategory - lv from 01-05-2001 ati

service- As per the 12 (3 ) Settlement dated

implementaron dated from 01-07 1999, trement the workman was paid Rs . 8,700 only though he as appointed earlier to Srikumaran Nair in a higher grade a Category M. In the case of Srikumaran Ihanibi , Card 1120 who joined on 15-02-1993 as Security Guard in tegory-11, 9 months later than the workman' is drawing RastePay ofRs . 10,800 whereas the workruan is presently draw ang Basie Salary of Rs . 9,216 as anomaly requiring Rectification . The workman has to be paid at least the salary jrawn by his junior in the lower category to which Management has not come forward- Hence the claim for Fixing fus salary as above.

promotion due to the workman fell before d

date of implementation of the revised R &

promotion date during May 2001. Acunt..

4. Counter Statement averments , bereft of annecessary details are as follows:

Under12(3 ) Settlement dated 06-03-1989 Recruitment and Promotion Rules were given rise to as per which there were total Grades in Workman category , the lowest category being Category- I- The workman whose cause is espoused by the Union, now a First Aider- D under Category V with entry level for the First Aider- A in Category -IIf the channel of promotion for the post of First Ardeafrom Category - III to various categories is .

7Years

Cargory 1 to Category - IV

6 Years

Category IVto Category- VI

7Years

Category VIto Category - VII

7Years

Category - VII to Category - Vill

4Years

Category- VIIIto Category - IX

7 Years

Category - IX to Deputy Officer

With the revision of the Rules on 21-02-2002 w.e.f. 01-07-1999 the entry level for the post of First Aider - A was agreed to be placed in Category - II . Then the channel of promotion from Category - IIto various categories for the post of First Aider- A is :

the Petitioner Union and therefore it is dubs

questioning the implementation as regards t Initial Appointment

Category- II

The workman would be eligible for next

4Years

Category- II to Category - III

6Years

Category - III to Category - IV

4Years

Category - IVto Category- V

5Years

Category -V to Category -VI

5 Years

Category -VIto Category- VII

rules the number of years of service for pres Category - III to Category IV was reducedto years and hence promotic on date of Category - IV was changed from 01-05 2001 to じ which with further change from 01-07-1999 ( 1 under 12 ( 3 ) Settlement dated 25-03-2003 w-e-f- 01-05-2001 instead of 01-07-20 workman was subsequently promoted to Ca w.e.f. 01-07-2005 . All promotions given to the te as per the R & Rutes in force freetime to time da demand for giving proniotion as pet the olt K cannot be allowed . In the reference there's regarding pay anomaly issue . fiеньс раз апосль be raised in the Claim Statement . As regads pa the long term settlement dated 26-04-2001 р . as a result of the fitment formula , a semOTA the same designation draws a lower pay eman the same section then the Basic Pay of the sear will be brought on par with the Baste Pay of workman by stepping up the Basic hay anal the date of annual increment " and the sameto. Petitioner's case ( First Arder ) cannot be compate post of Security Guard ( Sri Kumaran Nare separate category. Under a 12 (3 ) Бери 08-12-2005 as a one time mensured wal rectification of pay anomalies of various ftat Fitters , Welders , etc. by comparing then jumos in other categories also- Post of First Aider not tell. the Tradesman category was then outside we that consideration . The R & P Rules were also Category- V w.e.f. 01-07-2010 Pentioner cato anything contrary to the 12 ( 3 ) Setterment raised by the pentioner by comparing the per two Security Guauls appointed sunstos petitioner bat drawing more pay than the po hence to tedify the pay anomaly, the tw Governnicat does not specify for rectificaten.

anomalies , hence the issue is barred,

5 Years

Category-VII to Category - VIII

compared the post of Secamy Guara

5Years

Category - VIII to Category- IX

category. I reaching the mаклаши да ча

required for the petitioner whereas 5-4 years ...

Category- IXto DeputyOfficer NotApplicable

for Security Guards . The claim is to be distatsM.

5. Points for consideration are:

Under 12 (3 ) Settlement dated 25-03-2003 the date of implementation ofthe above was changed from 01-07-1999 to 02-07-2001- Workman appointed as First Aider-A in Category- III on 06-05-1992 on a training period of 3 years was absorbed in Category- III as such from 06-05-1994 and

(i) Whether the demand for fixate Sri B. Jayapaul, First Aider-... Rs .4,270-120-9,070 is jusare पाखण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1) To what relief the concerned workman is cntitled?

6 The evidence consists of the testimony of WW1 end lex .WI to Ex .W13 on the petitioner's side and the oral evidene ofMWI and Ex.MI to Ex.M6 on the Respondent's ade

Ponts ( i) & ( ii )

7. Heard both sides . Perused the documents , records anti written arguments submitted on behalf of both. It is ugued on behalfof the petitioner that Srikumaran Thambi etyplayed as Security Guard- D in Category- V while draws Jasic Pay of Rs . 17,420 the workman Jayapaul employed as Fust Aider - Em Category - VI is drawing Basic Pay of Rs. 75,340 whichis lesser than his juniors who are working in the lowers ategory.

6129

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011/ भाद्र 5, 1933

the various settlements that the pay of the workman stood fixed at the present stage , vary from that of the Security Guard- Again while the First Aider Workman had to undergo 2 years training before he was regularized in the pay scale that is not the case with the Security Guard who got absorbed into his specific pay - scale simultaneously with his posting without having to undergo training . The incumbents in these posts are not alike for a like treatment invariably to equalize one's pay with that of the other . Hence the claim of the petitioner for fixation of salary of the workman is not justified and therefore he is not entitled to anyrelief.

10. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th June , 2011 )

A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: WW1 , Sri P. Chinna Nadar

For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1 , Sri S.V. Ramakrishnan Documents Marked

On the Petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date

Description

1: x.WI 24-04-1992 Order issued by the Respondent in favour of workmen .

-do-

Ex.W2 25-06-1993

-do-

19-09-2001

Ex.W3

28-06-2002

-do-

Ex.W4

-do-

1 :x.WS 03-05-2003

-do-

Ex.W6 13-09-2005

s. Line contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent s that the workman connot demand departure for him rom the earther settlement ( Ex.M1 ) winch provides for paumstion from Grade - IVto Grade - V for the post of First . Ander. The claim that if he had been considered for promotion from Grade - IV to Grade - VI as per Ex.MI no anomaly would have arisen cannot be advanced or be accepted , He is bound by the revised settlement Ex..M3 . It is clear from the evidence, both documentary as well as oral tenderedby WWI/ 1 that a First Aider ( C ) Grade - IV will automatically fall into Grade- V in terms of Fx - M3 settlement . the settlements do not stand challenged by any Union ashidang Petitioner Union , which have to be accepted in the entirety and not on bits and preces . Petitioner Union Jhad been signatory to the said settlements . Now it cannot che ander the disguise that the workman concerned is not treated at par with his junior employee . In the event of there being pay anomaly recourse can be had for the removal of the anomaly under Clause - 3.4 of lex.M2 witlement provading as follows . " IT, as a result of the above anean formula, a senior workman witin same designation Jhawsatower pay than its pintor in the same section , then the BasePay of the semce workmarn willbe brought on par dange Pay of the pumor workman , by stepping up the Basas Pay and or adhasament of the date of the annual Itis not identified made known as towho is draw ng man bin in the post of First Aider as a junior . Sakamaran fhambi is borne in the cadre of Security Guard which is not the same post as that of the workman. Post of Seduty toward is a direct recruited post whereas the post Aorkman is preceded as a trainee for 2 years .

xW7

Promotion policy

Ex.W8 09-10-2006 Petition submitted before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) by the Petitioner Umon.

1x.Wo

Reply filed by the Respondent before the Assistant Commissioner ofLabour (Central ) .

Pay Slip of Srikumaran Thambi Ex.W10 March 2010

Es W11 March 2010 Pay Slip of Workman Jayapaul ExW12 04-10-2010 Copy ofthe Office Order No. 284/2010

1x.W13 04-10-2010

9. The pehtreener's clarm has no sound foundation in saules settiements. He is bound by the settlements pered into bets on the Management and his Umon from tame to the Posts of Security Guard and I irst Aider are tae different posts. It is maccordance with the conferment pastrotten and fixanon of salary rules brought about by

Copy of the Office Order No. 283/2010 6130

THE GAZETTE OF INIMA On the Management's side

ExNo.

Date

Description

PMI 06-03-1989 Copy of the 12 ( 3 ) settioment regarding Recruitment and Promotion rules .

Ex.M2 26-04-2001 Copy of the 9th Long Term Settlement .

Ex.M3 21-02-2002 Copy of the revised 12( 3 ) Settlement regarding Recruitment and Promotion Rules .

Fx.M4 25-03-2003 Copy of the 12 ( 3 ) Settlement regarding Recruitment and Promotion Rules .

Ex.M5 08-12-2005 Copy of the 10th Long Term Settlement with the minutes 04-02-2005

Ex.M6

Copy of the Officer Order by the Respondent and the Petitioner .

नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2279.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 'का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार लोर्ड कृष्णा बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , अरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 217/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-12012/210/2004 - आईआर ( बी- I ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th July , 2011

S.O. 2279.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 217/ 2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court- Emakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Lord Krishana Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/210/ 2004 - IR ( B - I ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURI , ERNAKULAM PRESENT : Shri. D. SREEVALLABHAN , BGA L Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 28th day of June , 2011 / 7th Asadla .

I.D. 217/2006

[ PART 11

KUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

Union

: The General Secretary, Lord Krishna Bank Employees Nair Samajam Building, Chendamangalam - 683 512 .

By Adv. Shru. H. B. N Management The Chairman ,

M/ s . Lord Krishna Bank Limitera Express Tower, Kaloor .

By Adv. Shri . Saji May This case coming up for final hearing on 20-10 and this Tribunal- cum - Labour Court on 28-06-2011 the following .

AWARD

This reference is at the instance of the Lor L Bank Employees ' Union represented by its Ger Secretary about the dismissal from service of the so Sri . N. Ramachandran Nair under Section 10 ( 1) Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

The reference is :

" Whether the dismissal of service ef Ramachandran Nair by the management of M Krishna Bank Limited is legal , justified and c If not what are the relief entitled Ramachandran Nair?"

2. The workman , while working as Cashier Mangalore Branch of the Lord Krishna Bank Limita suspended from service on 7-5-2003 for the al.. misappropriation of an amount of Rs . 3217 pursuar complaint made by one Amit Singhal about the note : of the amount remitted by him in the S.B. account Manipal Academy of Higher Education ( MAR After receipt of the complaint it was found that the worke was the only cashier in that branch on 23-01-200 amount of Rs . 321 " remitted by Amit Singhal onde was not accounted and was misappropriated by h amount was remitted by him on 27-3-2003 , disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him b the Chief Manager ( Admn . ) . the Disciplinary Aut . and after conducting enquiry he was dismissed service on 28-11-2003 . The order of dismiss .. challenged by him by preferring an appeal bet Appellate Authority and the same was dismissal endorsing the findings of the Disciplmary Autiet .

3. Challenge is made by the union as to the ofthe enquiry as well as the imposition of penalty to the claim statement in this case . Accordingto the was a farce and name sake enquiry based on a vapor cryptic charge sheet and the same was condu : violation of the primeiples of natural sustice a affording sufficient opportunity to cross c witnesses and for adducing evidence t खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ocence . The imposition of penalty is stated to be proportionate , highly excessive , illegal , unjust , vindictive , woitrary and based on erroneous and perverse findings . The alleged misconduct for which he was found guilty at the most amounts to a minor misconduct as defined in lause 19.7 ( d ) and 19.7 ( J ) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 for which the punishment cannot be isunissal from service .

4. During the pendency of the proceedings before Tribunal Lord Krishna Bank Limited was amalgamated Fili Centurion Bank of Punjab in accordance with S.44 A the Banking Regulation Act with the sanction of Reserve Bank of India . The reply statement was filed by that bank Menying all the allegations in the claim statement and hallenging the validity of the enquiry and imposition of senalty. It is further contended that the workman had nisappropriated an amount of Rs.3217 received from Amit Singhal on 23-01-2003 for remitting the said amount to the SB Account No. 27936 of the MAHE Hostel maintained with the branch without making entries in the books of secount of the bank . The enquiry was validly conducted fter serving a comprehensive charge - sheet to the workman nd also by affording reasonable opportunity to him to bstantiate his case without any violation of the principles natural justice . The imposed penalty is neither harsh , sproportionate and excessive nor in violation of Clause 19.12 ( c ) of the First Bipartite Settlement . It is a case of ross misconluct of doing act prejudicial to the interest of Bank ' as per Clause 50 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 04-2002 justifying the punishment imposed on the orkmar . There is also a prayer in the written statement to int opportunity to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate he charge in the event of invalidation of the enquiry by his tribunal for any reason.

5.Union did not care to file any rejoinder in spite of recific posting and granting several adjournments after Sing written statement .

6. Since challenge is made with regard to the legality id validity of the enquiry it was considered by my learned redecessor in office treating it as a preliminary issue . For that purpose the Enquiry Officer was examined as MW 1 and the Enquiry File was marked as Ext.Ml. After hearing both sides the enquiry was found to be invalid for violation ofprinciples of natural justice vide order dated 9-12-2009. The case was posted for further evidence in view of the equest made by the management .

7. After that MWs . 2 and 3 were examined and sts .Ml ( a ) to Ml ( f) & M - 2 to M - 12 were marked on the side the management . After adducing evidence by the management the workman was examined as WWI on the side of the union . No exhibit was got marked.

8. The points for determination are:

6131

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

1. Whether the workman Sri . N.Ramachandran Nair was working as the Cashier in the Mangalore Branch of the Lord Krishna Bank Limited on 23-01-2003 ?

2. Whether an amount of Rs . 3217 was received by him on that day from Amit Singhal and issued Ext. M5 ?

3. Whether the amount was misappropriated by him without accounting it ?

4. Whether he committed gross misconduct coming within the purview of Clause 5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 ?

5. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him is legal , justified and correct and if not what is the penalty to be imposed on him ?

9. Point No.1 :- Admittedly the workman Shri . N Ramachandran Nair was employed as Clerk in M/ s . Lord Krishna Bank Limited . MW2 who was working as the Chief Manager of the Mangalore Branch of the Bank from December , 2001 to June , 2004 has given evidence to prove thatthe workman was holding the charge of Cashier of that branch from 1-1-2003 and he was the only Cashier in that branch on 23-1-2003 . There is no serious challenge with regard to it during his cross examination . The workman when examined as WW1 has also admitted during his cross- examination that he was the only Cashier in the Mangalore Branch of the Bank on 23-01-2003 . There is no case for the union that he was not working as cashier in that branch of the bank at that time . There is ample evidence in this case to prove that he was the only Cashier working on 23-1-2003 in the Mangalore Branch of the management bank. Hence without any hesitation it can be held that he was the only Cashier in that branch on 23-1-2003 .

10. Point Nos.2 & 3 : - MW2 would swear that he had received Ext.M2 complaint dated 21-3-2003 from Amit Singhal stating that an amount of Rs.3217 remitted by him in that branch on 23-1-2003 in the account of the MAHE Hostel towards payment of Mess Bill was not given credit to in that account . On receipt of the complaint he had verified the records and was satisfied that the amount remitted was not accounted by the workman who was working as the cashier on that day . When the workinan was asked about it , it was admitted by him the heatcepted the money and he was prepared remit it . Dent was remitted by him on 27-3 He hatter was formed to the Deputy General Manape next day by sending Ext.M4.

11. After place ander suspension copy of the charge sheet dated 19-9-2003 marked as Ext.Ml ( a ) was issued to him by the disciplinary authority . The change levelled against him is that he had misappropτίω τα 6132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHAORAS, S

amount of Rs.3217 remitted by Amit Singhal on 23-1-2003 in the Mangalore Branch of the bank for crediting it to the SB Account No. 27936 of the MAHE Hostel maintained with the branch without accounting the same in the books of account of the bank on that day . In the reply to the Charge marked as Ext.Ml (b ) the allegations as such are stated to be false and concocted after denying the same. MWI who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and found him guilty of the alleged misconduct and thereby he was imposed with the penalty. Since the enquiry was found to be invalid by this Tribunal it is to be independently considered whether the management has succeeded in proving the charge of misappropriation by unaccounting the money stated to have been remitted by Amit Singhal based on the evidence adduced before this Tribunal .

12. Ext.M3 is the xerox copy of the remittance slip produced along with the complaint by Amit Singhal and Ext.M5 is the original which was handed over to MW2 by him later after the receipt of the complaint . MW2 has stated that it was initialed by the workman . The workman when examined as WW1 has stated during his chief examination that it was issued with the seal cash received . It was further stated by him that it was issued without receipt of any amount due to heavy rush for remittance . It is not disputed that Ext.M5 was initiated by him and was issued with the seal cash received . It is pertinent to note that the stand taken by him in the reply to the charge- sheet submitted before the Enquiry Officer is one of total denial . Even in the claim statement there is no plea as to non receipt of the amount . Such a case was put forward by him only at the time of his examination as WW1. He has not even cared to file any rejoinder denying the case as to the misappropriation made in the written statement .

13. The procedure to be followed as to remittance by the customers was brought out during the cross examination of MW2 . It was stated by him that when money along with remittance slip is given to the cashier the latter would count the money and seal and initial the slip and return counter foil of the slip to the remitter . With regardto the accounting it was stated by him that then the cashier makes necessary entry in the computer and after entering the details of remittance in computer the remittance slip is forwarded to the cash officer who authenticates and initials the slip and after that the counter foil of slip is given by the cashier to the party as soon as money is verified and found correct The counter fol will not bear the initial of the cash officer as it is not being sent to him . The remittance slip is in quadruplicate of which one is given to party, one is sent to the MAHE Hostel and two are retained by the back .

14. The counter foil of the slip is given by the Cashier after verification by the cash officer and only if the computer scroll of cashier and that of the cash officer are tails ing . It

stout a beibe ther end of the d is difficult to acept de ca counter foud as phen money. It is possible or shortage sash at whether the amount of in this case it is to be p of cash on 21 200 counter for up with the the workman cannot was not recessed by verification the teenne the congraties entry on th also to be here it the workman Be by MWPorn ceipt sol that rem !n: made me do ofcash 1. alles watla ties was be sand specially shp by the wi

he IS I argued that A the mar an to the band would adun , the ise ca initial and seal and s issued by the castes are wale aten cash officer it can be held that the mas discharged the burd of promethe the workman . Het De beiden is on th disprove the case of the management as to th the amount trom Amar Soghal MW has pe whereabouts of Annt Shopthal examined as a winess at the time of chess.: examination of Numphalus a whe Tribunal by the managerte at cannot se reason to discard the other exudepce in th leads to a reasonable conta doll as to the amount by the workman frene hant

ne 16. In order to prove that the ans erat AmitSinghal was not acounteds MS wa the management bank. There is no entry with : receipt of the amount from Amit Singhal na goto show that the amoun Aas not a canie :

the

and

「い

111 17 Based on the admissions Blade his cross - evammation that there were one of excess or shortage of cash during bus tezon in Mangalore Branch and there were mistar.. workman had reported the receipt of c remitted the same at sande ; deposit acc by the learned counsel for the unser les have instances of exress of shortoped instances with respect to small amouzas not cases relating to the reetshof anmar : a customen talone tomthout भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 ,

6133 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 19.3.3

13. By relymg on Exts . M10 and M - 11 it was argued - the learned counsel for the management that there was Ther anstances of misappropriation of amounts by the arktuan WWI has admitted that there was a criminal ast . No. 296/2003 before the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class II ( Mobile ) , Kottayam for the alleged offfences panashable under Sections 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal ade and in that case he was acquitted after finding him tan gualty vide judgement dated 18-07-2007 , certified copy di which is marked as Ext . W1 . Copy of Ext.M - 10 charge mane was served on him for initiating disciplinary proceedings but the same was kept pending due to the endency of the criminal case . Not much relevance can be woven to Exts.M - 10 and M - 11 to hold that there was any poettous instance of misappropriation of money by him . the most it can be said that there was a previous instance instiation of disciplmary proceedings against him based a allegations as to misappropriation of money.

19 From the available evidence in this case it can rewell be held that the workman had misappropriated an anovunt of Rs 3217 remitted by Amit Singal in the Mangalore Deaned in of the bank on 23-01-2003 without accounting it.

20 Point No.4 : Now it is to be considered whether the above said act of the workman amounts to gross Hausconduct coming within the purview of Clause 5 (j ) of the Bapartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 . Accordingto the union cannot be a gross inisconduct but only a " minor tuisconduct coming within the purview of Clause 19.7 ( d) and 19.7 (1 ) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 . Lise Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 was superseded by the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-2002 in which the management bank was also a party. The above said act of the workman amounts to a gross misconduct of " doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank " as per Clause 5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 inviting penalty for gross misconduct .

21. Point No.5:-- According to the union the penalty imposed on the workman is disproportionate , highly excessive and in anyway not commensurate with the commission of the act of misconduct. As it is a case of ausappropriation of the amount remitted by a customer of the bank without accounting the same it deserves severe punishment . But there is no proportionality for the quantum of punishment to the misconduct . According to the newly developed principle of proportionality any action should be proportional to the cause occasioning such action . An action by a public authority should be balanced. An excessive action is against the doctrine of proportionality. This applies to awards of punishment also . Punishment should be commensurate with the guilt . Such punishment should be reasonably inflicted in proportion to the guilt . Clause 6 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 provides the various penalties for gross misconduct and it is extracted below:

may " 6. An employee found guilty of pross misconduct (a ) be dismissed without notice , or

(b ) be removed from service with superannustion benefits i.e. Pension and. or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from futue employment ; or

(c) be compulsorily retired with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/ or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment ; or

( d) be discharged from service with superannuation benefits i.c. Pension and / or Provident Fund and. Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment : or

(e) be brought down to lower stage in the scale of pay up to a maximum of two stages ; or ( f) have his increment/ s stopped with or withou cumulative effect ; or

( g) have his special pay withdrawn; or

(h) be warned or censured , or have an advers " remark entered against him: or

(i ) be fined" .

Dismissal without notice is the penalty imposed on the workman . That is the extreme penalty that can be awarded . Before the imposition of the penalty it is necessary to consider whether there are extenuating circumstances to be considered in the matter of imposition of penalty 22. IHere in this case the workman joined in the service ofthe bank as Clerk on 24-12-1972 . There is no case as to any earlier instance of imposition of penalty on him for any misconduct . He was in service of the management bank for more than 30 years . There were instances of reporting of excess cash by him . MW2 has stated that there were instances of shortage of cash for which no action was taken by the bank against certain other employees . He 15 due to retire in December 2011. In view of those facts the punishment of dismissal from service without notice is disproportionate . In the event of dismissal from service he would be deprived of nearly all financial benefits arising out of his long service with the bank . It is too harshto impose such a penalty. It is a case of misappropriation of a small sum. Taking into consideration of all the relevant aspects penalty can be imposed on him under Clause 6 ( b ) .

PA THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 2011 /BERAR

Mi(1)

Prazeedings of the hearin the Appeile Authority of pomishment impos .

is imposed with the penalty of removal from service th superannuation benefits i.e. Pension , Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment .

Letter105 2003 Singhal the Tanager, fo . 11 Mangalve

The award will come into force one month after its ublication in the official gazette.

chotocopy of the twempt 23-01-2003 dana Krishna Bank i immited Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the , 28th uav of June , 2011

D. SREEVALLABHAN , Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Union

euer Cad 28-3-2001 . of the Mangalore Brancis General Manay Kodungallur. Lord Kresis WWI

Sri. Ramachandran Nair , Workman .

Witnesses for the Management

Onginal wor of Mangalore Branch Bank I imited,

MWI

Sri . Poly K.P. , Enquiry Officer.

MW2

SBAccount Paymy a shp M f Mangalore Bot Bank Limited .

Sri . B.Madhav Rao , Ex - Chief Manager of Mangalore Branch of Lord Krishna Bank Limited.

#1W3

Sri . Pradeep , Deputy Vice President ( IIR ) , HDFC Bank Limited.

Photocopy as No.91 ) dued 25 1.20 Maist of the I ord Krishna Ba Exhibit for the Union

Photocopy of statements veriod from 20-01-200 Mangalore Branch of th . Limited.

Photocopy of the Judgment in Calendar Case No.296 of 2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.II , ( Mobile ) Kottayam .

xhibits for the Management

Photocopy of cash receip 27-3-2005 of Mangalne .. Kushna Bank ! nted Mi

Enquiry file .

M-10

M1 (a)

Photocopy of the citat 28-1-1997 sued by the Assistant General Mu Jisciplinary Authocty Letter No.AO/PER/A-5/DA-251/1401/2003 dated 19-06-2003 of Deputy General Manager (Admn . ) ( Disciplinary Authority ) of Lord Krishna Bank Limited , Kaloor , Kochi .

M- J1

M 1(b) Letter dated 28-7-2003 sent by workman to the Enquiry Officer.

Photocopy of the FIR the Judic ... Fist Clas Kottayam dated 25-017 (c)

M-12

Letter dated 1-10-2003 sent by workman to the Deputy General Manager (Admn . ) Disciplinary Authority of I.ord Krishna Bank Ltd. , Kaloor .

Savings Bank withdus at Branch of the Lord Kre signed by Asha Guptant : 2. नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई M1 (d)

का 14 ) 17

Letter dated 3-11-2003 sent by T.J.Joseph , Clerk , Lord Krishna Bank Ltd , Thalayolaparambu to the Deputy General Manager ( Admn . ) , Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. , Kaloor.

Ml( e)

अनुबंध में अधिकार 2280. बड़ौदा के प्रत्र के संक औधोगिक विवाद में क Minutes of personal hearing given to the workman.

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6135

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A ) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide their letter No.L- 12012/ 81/ 2003 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 31-7-2003.

[सं. एल -12012/ 81/ 2003 आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The dispute as referred to has been mentioned in the schedule of the letter of reference which is reproduced below:----

New Delhi , the 28th July, 2011

S.O. 2280 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 31/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 21-7-2011.

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in relation to their Main Branch Bapujinagar , Bhubaneswar in terminating the service of Shri Sarat Routwith effect from 25-2-2002 without following due process of law as required under section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and payment of wages less than the minimum wages since 1-1-1989 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to? "

[No - L - 12012 / 81 / 2003 - IR ( B - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri J. Srivastava ,

Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar .

Industrial Dispute Case No. 31/2003

Date ofPassing Award - 8th June , 2011

The Management of the Regional Manager , Bank of Baroda . Regional Office , Masjid Building , Unit - IV. Sachivalaya Marg , Bhubaneswar , Orissa.

... 1st Party -Management

(And)

Their workman Shri Sarat Rout , Plot No. B - 20 , Rasulgarh Industrial Estate , P.O. Bomikhal , Bhubaneswar , Orissa

..2nd Party Workman

APPEARANCES

A.K. Das & ssociates , Advocate,

For the 1st Party Management.

Sarat Rout & his vocate.

For the 2nd Party- Workman

AWARD

3. The 2nd Party - workman filed his statement of claim and stated that he was employed as Watchmanby the Bank ofBaroda , Main Branch , Bapujinagar, Bhubaneswar from 1st November 1989. His duty was to watch the premises standing on Plot No. B - 20 , Rasulgarh , Bhubaneswar . He was being paid wages at the rate of Rs . 240 per month which was less than the minimum wages fixed from time to time . He lodged protests with the bank managers but nothing was done . He was supplied with torch , batteries and other materials to perform his duties as watchman . He was also being paid bonus every year by Puja vacation like other employees of the Bank. His wages from July , 2001 were not paid, so he raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar . During the re- conciliation proceedings the Bank made payment of wages from 1-7-2001 to 25-2-2002 through a cheque for Rs . 1894. He did not en - cash the cheque under protest as he was not paid minimum wages . The reconciliation of the dispute failed and the Bank asked the 2nd Party - workman to vacate the premises . He than again raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Cental ) , Bhubaneswar alleging threat of retrenchment and non - payment of wages atthe prescribed rate . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) sent a report after hearing both the sides to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour who issued the order of reference to this Tribunal/ Court for adjudication . The 2nd Party - workman has also filed LD . Misc . Case No. 10/ 2003 for payment of differential amount of wages from November , 1989 under the Minimum Wages Act with calculation sheet which is alleged to be pending before this Court . He has annexed calculation sheet with his statement of claim showing the amount due , amount paid and the balance to be paid by the Bank with interest for delayed payment . By asking the 2nd Party - workman to vacate the premises which was being watched by him as watchman , the Bank indirectly intended to retrench the 2nd Party- workman from employment without following the prescribed procedure under law which is an arbitrary and illegal act of the Management. Hence prayer for issuing direction to the An Industrialdispute existing between the employers melation to the Management of Bank of Baroda and their orkman has been referred to this Tribunal - cum- Labour wart For adjudication by the Government of India in the "inistry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA

& te payment of arrear of wages , not to retrench ( vin vice and to regularize his services has been

present case the wordman was empayed as Chart

the Branch Manager to guard the premises

under the custody of the Baak tot tazamon of ba .

from M / s . R.D. Precipuses , if thesest of the item

connection with any transaction of the Bank 16 15

5. In his teader the 2nd Part ) reiterated that neither my order of the coast p Branch Manager mcheating that he is wintập as an officer of the court was ever under banking Bachons and the workman deemed to have been encaged at business of the Bond When time akan wa the conciliation porabe hathesong required and feind vacate de pretuses fpup' the dispute under threef Wallet He has worked f out of the emplnent m d settled that after sorking entitled for regudanzaton and wages .

6. On the basis of the pleadings at following issues arte frameri

ISSUES

1. Whethesefrience is ridhi

2. Wheat She Sava Tandber within the des under the LD19179

3. Whed and if so, whicsurt a wisegedit 10? 4. Ifnot hat tenet freewald www .

7. The Pre Party- winen, St : S Matte himself as We land proved three Jogatos Ext - 1 to 3. The ist l'aus Mat A.K Patmark as Ni.Welcosed marked as

Issues Ne

are co -telemati maintana Party-wel the Bank and po existed bertem de Ast Party-Works . das por Ja Branch Meri Bam Bat ww Bhubaneswmiem receiver

1st Party - Management in its written statement imat the present reference is misconceived and enantainable as the dispute raised by the adhan workite is not an industrial dispute . The 2nd en las raised a dispute for regularization of and payment of minimani wages and clamed projection asamst arbitrary and illegal retrenclunent . He Ens already tied ID . Misc . Case No. 10/2003 for the same wiset . Hence the present reference is also bad in law. The Manager of Bank of Baroda , Bhubaneswar Main Branch sas appointed as a receiver by the sub Judge , Bhubaneswar vade order dated 4-2-1978 passed in Mise. 411 1997 arising out of O.S. No. 98/1997 in respect of Ms RD Enterprises at Shed No. B - 20 , Rasulgarh Indusmal state . Bhubaneswar. The 2nd party- workman dsdagar das watchman by the Branch Manager of Bank of Beords . Bhubaneswar Main Branch in the capacity of anvitons of the Court being appointed as receiver . The And Pads wordman was no way connected with the affairs ts and no " employer and employee " relationship Jood between them. The 2nd Party - workman was engaged in Sovember December , 1989 to notionally guard the femises on consolidated sum of Rs . 100 per month which subsequently enhanced to Rs . 240 per month since Ad 1990 And the payment was made through debit ofP / awthapes A/ ec . of Mis . R.D. Enterprises . The provisions fsimmum wages Act , in 1948 are not applicable to him . Panng conciliation meeting held on 25-2-2002 in the Camber of Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) it was conditared by the 2nd Party- workman that there was no tenaterial as ailable in the godown and he was also occupying down without any written authority . Accordingly the and Party workman was informed that his services are no eet required and he was instructed in the presence of Her Assistant I abour Commissioner ( C ) to vacate the pyerauses within 24 hours . He was again instructed to vacate pretuses and handover the keys of the premises to the thar hatef Manager of the Bank while making payment areststo hum vide Cheque No. 048961 dated 10-4-2002 1804 At no point of time the 2nd Patty -workman performed any work connected with the Bank. Since anand Party workman was engaged by the Manager of The Bhubaneswar Main Branch of Bank of Baroda in his Lapachy as a receiver , the 2nd Party - workman cannot be considered as a " workman " under section 2( s ) of the Industual Disputes Act , 1947. He was never paid bonusat par with the Bank employees . The 2nd Party- workman has st vacated the premises of Plot No. B - 20 , Industrial Estate , Kasufgarh, which belongs to IDCO and has no material asardable of Ms. R.D. Enterprises despite clear instructions , Therefore his occupation is unwarranted and unauthorized . There is no question of regularization of his service and he is not entitled for any wages as claimed .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

shed No. B - 20 , Rasulgarh Industrial Estate , Bhubaneswar by virtue of order passed by sub - Judge , Bhubaneswar on 4-2-1978 in Misc . Case No. 411/77 . The only duty of the 2ndParty -workman was to watch and safeguard the articles and machinery kept in the above building . When the articles and machinery stored in the above building were taken away, he had to surrender his employment as his services were no longer required . During conciliation meeting held on 25-2-2002 in the chamber of the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar the 2nd Party- workman himself informed that there was no material available in the godown. He was then asked by the Management to vacate the premises and handover the keys to the acting Chief Manager of the Bank .

6137

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

watching the safe custody of articles or materials stored in a premises say, by a single man cannot be called an industry and certainly this act of watching is not connected , in any way, with the Banking business . All the more the 2nd Party- workman was engaged as a watchman by the receiver appointed by the Court acting as such and not in the capacity of Manager of the Bank . The wages of the 2ndParty -workman were paid from P.I .. 1.aw Charge Account charged to M / s . R.D. Enterprises . The Management witness Shri A.K. Pattnaik has stated in his evidence " that the workman was paid his wages in cash by the receiver and in tokenthereof the workman had to sign on the back of such voucher" . The ruling of " Indian Overseas Bank versus IOB Staff Canteen Workers Union " ( AIR 2000 SC 1508 ) has no application in the present case as the facts are different. Therefore , the 2nd Party - workman cannot be said to be a "workman" of the 1st Party - Management and there exists no relationship of " master and servant " or " employer and employee " between the two.

12. In view of the discussions made above , Shri S.C. Rout does not come within the definition of the "workman" under the 1st Party- Management as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the reference is not maintainable before this Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . Both the issues are accordingly decided in the negative and against the 2nd Party-workman.

Issue No. 3

10. The contention of the 1st Party -Management is that the 2nd Party - workman was engaged by the receiver ofthe property stored in the above premises as watchman to look- after and safeguard them . He had nothing to do with the business of the Bank . As such he cannot be termed as " workman " engaged in any industry having no relationship of " employee and employer" with the 1st Party- Management. The photostat copy of the order of the Sub- Judge, Bhubaneswar passed in Misc . Case No. 411/77 on 4-2-1978 is available on record as Ext . - A which shows that the petitioner i.e. the Senior Manager , Bhubaneswar Branch of Bank of Baroda was appointed as receiver for safe custody of the properties stored in the premises detailed above as an interim measure and he in turn engaged the 2nd Party-workman as watchman in pursuance of that order for safe custody of the articles . It is not clear as to when the matter was disposed of finally, but it is gathered from the record of the present case that the 1st Party- Management disengaged the 2nd Party- workman from the services of watchman with effect from 25-2-2002.

13. The 2nd Party- workman was disengaged from service as watchman which was purely temporary and given by the Bank Manager acting in the capacity of a receiver when the work had ceased. His disengagement cannot be termed as " retrenchment " as defined under clause ( oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act entitling him to the benefit of Section -25 - F of the aforesaid Act. Since he was not a workman working under the 1st Party- Management hisdisengagement or termination cannot be looked into in the perspective of legality or illegality for the purpose of giving him any protection or benefit under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. However, he has no right te claim any benefit. Hence this issue is decided accordingly.

Issue No. 4

11. Referringto Section - 6 of the Banking Regulation Act which defines the " Banking business " it has been contended on behalf of the 2nd Party - workman that the 1st Party- Management was holding the property of M/ s . R.D. Enterprises in its custody as security or part of the security for loan taken by them and keeping possession over the property in satisfaction or part satisfaction of its claim. This exercise does come under the definition of term "Banking business ". May it be that , but the 2nd Party- workman had no role in this exercise ofBanking business as he may not be holding or looking after the properties of M/s . R.D. Enterprises in his individual capacity as workman of the 1st Party -Management . He was only a watchman kept by the 1st Party - Management for watching and safeguarding of the properties on its behalf. The Senior Manager of the concerned branch of the Bank can only be fastened with the task of Banking business , not the watchman kept for watching goods or articles stored in the premises . A" workman " has been defined under Clause- (s ) ofSection 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act as a person employed in any industry, and an individual enterprise of 3125 GI /117

14. Since the reference is held not maintainable before thisIndustrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court the 2nd Party- workman is not entitled to any relief from this Court/ Tribunal.

15. The Award is accordingly answered.

Dictated and Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer 6138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 29 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2281.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसराण 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 , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/65/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार का 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/199/1992- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th July, 2011

S.O. 2281. 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/ 65.2003 ) of the Central Government Industmal Tribunal/ Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the maanagement ofBank of Maharashtra and their workmen , which vas tected by the Central Government on 21-7-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/ 199 / 1992 - IR ( B - II ) ]

RAMESH SINGH . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIJ.P . CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGFT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case Ne . GT /NGP / 65/ 2003

Date: 08-07-201 L.

Party No.1

The Regional Manager , Bank of , Maharashtra , Khandesh Mills , Shopping Complex, Nehru Chowk , Jalgaon

Versus

The General Secretary, Bank of Maharashtra Karamachari Sangh , IRS , Shaniwar Peth , Near Police Gate, Pune , Maharashtra

c . Ad : July, 2011 )

we of the powers conferred by clause (d) of i) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of section 10 of indusnial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute to CGJT - Cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur between the employers , in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman . Shri P.G. Kaskhedikar , clerk for adjudication to CGIT- cum - Labour , Court Jabalpur vide letter No.1. - 12012 / 199 / 92 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 12-10-1992 , with the following schedule:

[PART II - S

SCHEDULE

1." Whether the action of the management of dank ofMaharashtra, Regional Office , Jalgaon in awsdiag the punishment of withdrawal of cashier allots те permanently from the wages of Shri P.G. Kaskhedar, clerk , w.e.f. 26-03-1991 , is legal and justified to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

After establishment of the CGIT - cum- Labour suri Nagpur , the case was transferred from Jabalpur to gyair fordisposal according to law.

2.After receipt of the reference , notices were med to the parties to file their respective statement of claims and written statement , in response to which, the workman , Shri P.G. Kaskhedikar ( " the workman " in short ) though the Union, Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh the union " in short ) filed his statement of claim as the management of the Bank of Maharashtra ( " Party short) filed their written statement .

The case of the workman as projected by the western in the statement of claim is that the workman while sing at Jalgaon city branch as the cashier - in - charg . , was suspended w.e.f. 15-06-1981 , for alleged shortage of Rs . 1,00,000 in the cash and on the complaint of the bank . a criminal case for commission of an alleged offence iuder section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the police in the court of Judicial Magistrate , First Class , Jalgaon against him and the workman was acquitted from anc charges in the said case on 22-12-83 , so , the party no withdrew the order of the suspension and reinstated.c workman in service w.e.f. 10-02-84 , but the party no ! decided to initiate disciplinary action against him on tac same set of facts and issued charge sheet dated 06-09-1985 against him under clause (j ) of para 19.5 of Bipartime settlement of 1966 ile for doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank which is an act of gross misconduct involving the bank in serious loss and subsequently m 10-11-86 another charge under clause ( d ) of para 19.7 of the said Bipartite settlement was added to the original charge for breach of any rule of business of the bank or insuru bons for running of any department , which is act of micor misconduct and the departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 30-09-47 holding the charges to have been proved against the workman and on 26-3-91 , the Disciplinary Authonty awarded the punishment of withdrawal of cashier's allowance permanently and warning against the workman , as a result of which , an allowance of Rs . 189 per month came to be withdrawn from the salary of the workinan and the appeal preferred by the workman against the award of punishment before the Appellate Authority was rejected, without application of mind and as such , an industrial Dispute was raised before the conciliation offi but as no settlement could be reached , the conciliatus vifcer submitted the failure report to the Central Govermentid 6139 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

the Central Government in its turn referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:

It is further pleaded by the union that during the course of enquiry, two important documents , i.e. fact finding report of the officer, who visited Jalgaon City Branch immediately after 19-05-81 , i.e. the date of incidence and insurance claim submitted by the bank in respect of the loss of rupees one lakh , as well as decision of the insurance company over the claim were not produced by the management , which were in their possession , inspite of their demand and due to non- production of the said documents , the workman was deprived of from reasonable opportunity of defence and on that ground alone , the findings of the enquiry officer are vitiated and punishment awarded on such findings tentamounts to a total illegality and in this case , charge- sheet was issued after a lapse of more than 5 years from the date of incidence and 3 years after the date of order of acquittal and the action was therefore , prima facie belated and on the said ground , the initiation of departmental enquiry cannot be permitted and the bank also failed to follow the provision of para 19.11 of the Bipartite Settlement , which provide that when it is decided to take any disciplinary action against an employee , such decision shall be communicated to him within 3 days there of and therefore the bank was debarred to proceed in the departmental enquiry and as the workman was acquitted honourably by the court , initiation of the departmental enquiry based on the similar set of facts amounted to put the workman on trial twice , which is impermissible under the law and before awarding punishment , bank failed to observe procedure envisaged in paragraphs 19.3 ( a ) to 19.3 ( d ) and 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement and the alleged misconduct/ incidence did not constitute misconduct defined in clause ( j ) of para 19.5 and the materials on record are insufficient to even justify a lurking doubt , much less conviction and even if, for argument , it is admitted that materials on record create a shadow of reasonable doubt . the benefit should go to the workman and as such , the order impugned is unsustainable in law.

the cash on that day was responsible for the shortage , so on 21-5-81 , the Branch Manager, Jalgaon city branch lodged a complaint against the workman in the police station and police registered a criminal case against the workman under section 409 of the Indian penal code and the workman was acquitted in the criminal case on 22-12-83 by the trial court and against the said order of acquittal , the state preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court , but the said appeal was dismissed on 16-9-85 and during the pendency of the criminal case , the workman was suspended from service w.e.f. 15-6-81 and due to his acquittal by the trial court , the suspension order was revoked on 10-2-84 and he was reinstated in service and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the workman by issuing the charge sheet dated 6-9-86 and in the enquiry , the workman was given every opportunity to defend his case and on conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report and on receipt of the findings of the enquiry officer , the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order on 26-03-91 and imposed the punishment of withdrawal of cashier's allowance permanently and warning and the workman preferred an appeal on 6-5-91 to the Appellate Authority and considering the record of the case , the Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment by his order dated 31-10-91 and the action of the bank in awarding the punishment is legal , justified and according to the provisions of Bipartite Settlement . It is further pleaded by the party no . 1 that the two documents demanded by the workman during the departmental enquiry were not relevant to the enquiry proceedings and as such , the enquiry officer rightly rejected the request of the defense for production ofthe documents by giving proper reasoning for the same and there was no intentional delay on the part of the management in initiating the departmental inquiry and the bank followed the procedure laid down in the Bipartite Settlement while mitrating the disciplinary action against the workman and the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court , which has been cited by the union is not applicable to this reference and the enquiry officer has properly evaluated the facts brought before him during the course of enquiry and his findings are based on documentary evidence and evidence of witness examined during the course of enquiry and the disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority applied their mind properly while awarding the punishment and the enquiry conducted against the workman is fair and impartial and as such , the workman is not entitled for any rehef.

It is also pleaded by the union that the findings are perversed due to non - application of mind and wrong appreciation of the evidence on record and as the same are based on no evidence and the Disciplinary Authority also did not consider the evidence in record , the previous record of the employee and the submission made on behalf of the workman in the written notes of arguments , before accepting the findings of the enquiry officer and therefore , the order is liable to be quashed . The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 23-03-91 passed by the disciplinary authority and also subsequent recovery of shortage or cash instituted by the bank .

4. As in this case , there was a departmental enquiry before awarding of the punishment , the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken for consideration as a preliminary issue . Taking into consideraton the materials available on record and the pursis filed on behalf of the workman , that " the workman does not callen , e the validity of the enquiry " , vide order dated 21 10-2010 , the departmental enquiry held against the corsanan was held to be valid , proper and in accordance with the pumelecom natural justice .

3. The Party no.l. in its written statement has pleaded inter- alia that the workman working as a cashier in charge at Jalgaon city branch and on 19-5-81 at the closure of the day, a shortage of cash of rupees one lakh was noticed and the shortage of cash occurred during the working hours of the day , so the workman , who was holding the charge of 6140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

5. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned Advocate for the workman that during the enquiry, the workman had requested for supply of two documents , i.e. the fact finding report of the officer , who visited the branch of the bank in question immediately after 19-5-1981 and the insurance claim submitted by the bank in respect of the loss of Rs . One lakh as well as decision of the insurance company over the claim , but management refused to produce those documents and due to non - production of the said documents , the workman was deprived of reasonable opportunity of defence and on that ground the findings of the enquiry officer are vitiated and the punishment awarded is illegal .

Admittedly, in the course of enquiry the workman had asked for the documents mentioned above , but the enquiry officer rejected the request of the workman on the ground that those documents were not relevant for the enquiry

Itis weil settle by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions that non - supply of documents which neither form part of the charge nor relied on by prosecution is not prejudicial so as to violate of principles of natural justice and even if non - supply of relevant documents , the workman has to show how the non- supply of the alleged documents caused prejudiced to him and in absence of showing how alleged non - supply of documents caused prejudiced to the workman , the same cannot by itself vitiate the enquiry . In this case on perusal of the documents , it is found that the documents demanded by the workman did not form part of the charge and the same was also not relied on by the management and as such , for non- supply of the said documents , it cannot be said that the enquiry was vitiated and the punishment awarded was illegal .

6. It was further contented by the learned Advocate for the workman that the workman was acquitted in the criminal case , instituted against him , basing on the complaint lodged by the manager of the branch , and such acquittal was an honourable acquittal , and as such, the management was not entitled to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the workman on the same set of facts . However , I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned advocate of the workman . It is well settled that even if an employee is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged in the criminal court , the management can initiate disciplinary proceedings against him , in respect of the same matter with the difference that, if he is found guilty in those proceedings , he cannot be dismissed but can only be terminated with three months ' pay and allowances it is also well settled that an acquittal of an employee by criminal court , even on merits , doesn't bar disciplinary proceedings against the employee on the same facts , and the standard of proof required for holding an employee guiity in a domestic enquiry is lower than that required to hold a person guilty in a criminal trial . An act or omission which may not technically constitute an offence may constitute misconduct and these are the reasons why

[PART II-- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] disciplinary action can be taken against an employee even after his acquittal in the criminal case .

7. The next contention raised by the learned Advocate for the workman was that the findings of the enquiry officer are perversed due to non - application of mind and wrong appreciation of the evidence on record and as the same are based on no evidence and the disciplinary authority also accepted the findings of the enquiry officer without any application of mind , and as such , the punishment awarded against the workman is required to be quashed and set aside .

On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for party no ! that the action of the bank in awarding the punishment is legal , justified and according to the provisions of the Boartite Settlement and the enquiry officer had evaluated the facts brought before him during the course of the enquiry and his findings are based on documentary evidence and evidence of witness examined during the course of enquiry and Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority applied there mind properly , while awarding the puntshimer and the punishments imposed against the workman either harsh nor disproportionate to the proved miscomfurt the workman in a fair and leagl enquiry.

8. Perused the materials on record . Admittedly there was shortage cash of Rs . One lakh on 19-5-1981 and the workman was the cashier in - charge of the branch on that day. It is also found from the evidence on record that the shortage of cash occurred during the working hours of the day and the workman was holding the charge of the cash on that day. The evidence on record shows that the workman was responsible for shortage of the cash. The findings of the enquiry officer are based on the materials on record and reasons have been assigned by him in support of his findings . The punishment imposed against the workman cannot to be said to be harsh or shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct against him and therefore , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment . Hence , it is ordered :

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra , Regional Office , Jalgaon in awarding the punishment ofwithdrawal of cashier allowance permanently from the wages of Shri P.G. Kaskhedikar , clerk , w.e.f. 26-3-91 . is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 2282.-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 , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/ 77/ 03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकोर को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -12012/172/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th July, 2011

S.O. 2282. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. CGIT/ LC / R/ 77 / 03 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/ 172/ 2002 - IR (B - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT / LC/ R/ 77/ 03

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Pawan Kumar Saxena ,

S / o Govind Prasad ,

H.No. 14 , Near Shahjahanabad ,

.... Workman Bhopal(MP)

Versus

The Regional Manager,

UCO Bank ,

Management Regional Office , E - 5 , Arera Colony , Bhopal(MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of June , 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012 / 172 / 2002 - IR ( B - II ) dated 17-3-03 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : ----

"Whether the action of the management of Assistant General Manager , UCO Bank in voluntarily relinquishing the services of Shri Pawan Kumar Saxena w.e. f. 24-8-2000 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was appointed as a clerk- cum - cashier in the management Bank on 29-5-84 . He was arrested in a criminal case on 9-6-98 and was in custody . In the said criminal case , he was finally acquitted on 21-7-01 . While he released on bail on 21-1-99 , he informed the management Bank and the reason for his absence . There was neither any reason nor any intention to leave the

6141

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

service . The workman submitted his joining report alongwith medical certificates and order of the court on 24-8-2000 . It is stated that the management Bank without service rules treated the workman that he has voluntarily relinquished his job and voluntarily resigned from the Bank Service . On these grounds , it is submitted that the management be directed to allow the workmarto resume his duties with back wages.

3. The management filed Written Statement in the case. The case of the management , inter alia , is that the workman remained absent from 6-2-94 to 24-8-2000 i.e. about 6 years without any leave and without any information of sickness . The workman was frequently changing his last known address . It is stated that the management was forced to treat the workman as deemed voluntary relinquishment of employment and deemed resignation from job . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management Bank .

4. The workman died during the pendency of the proceeding. The legal heir substituted at his place .

5. The legal heir Smt . Saxena filed an application that her husband filed a petition before the Hon ' ble High Court one week before his death and the same is numbered as W.P.No. 3310/05 . The said writ is pending before the Hon'ble Court , regarding the same dispute and as such she does not want to raise the dispute in the Tribunal and wants to withdraw the same . The management Bank has also submitted to dispose off the application of the legal heir as has been prayed .

6. Considering the above aspect of the case , it is clear that the legal heir does not want to raise the dispute in the Tribunal in view of the writ application pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Thus this is a case of no dispute.

7. In the result , no dispute award is passed without any order to costs .

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 2283.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दि कॉस मॉस को. ऑफ बैंक लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -12012/96/2004 आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी $ 142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

New Delhi , the 29th July, 2011

S.O. 2283. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 27/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cosmos Co - op . Bank Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on21-7-2011.

[No. L - 12012 / 96 /2004 - IR (B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAHARASHTRAAT PUNE

Reference ( IT ) No. 27 of 2004

The Chairman & Managing Director, The Cosmos Co - op . Bank Ltd. ,

269/270 , Shaniwar Peth , Pune - 30.

PAR ! 11

that this reference is referred by the Central Gone Tribunal . In view of the order of the Hon'ble Bomba : ... Court in W.P. No. 171 08 ( copy enclosed) the pie reference is not mamtainable . According to the first p the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay Highs is fully applicable to this matter and requested to reper reference as not maintainable .

The second party in his written say contenica : the reference is made on 14-6-04 and the judgment ofBl Co - op . Bank was delivered in 2007. According to the se .. party, every judgment of Supreme Court has a prospe effect , unless the Supreme Court so specifically ind It is further contended by the second party that , enquss held as per Central rules and the misconduct is pro according to the first party as per central rules requested to rejected the application.

... First Party

AND

3.My Ld . Predecesser has already framed the ise s at Exh.07 in the matter, as such the Issue no . 1 is arising my determination as preliminary issue

(1) Whether present reference is maintainabi (2) What award?

My findings to above issues for the reasons res below are as under ---

Second Party

The General Secretary, Bank Karmchari Sangh , 1340 - B Sadashiv Peth , Chimanya Ganpati Chowk , Pune -30 .

In the matter of reinstatement .

CORAM:

M.G. Choudhary , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

Shri J.B. Shaligram , Advocate for first party

Shri N.A. Kulkarni , Advocate for second party

AWARD

(30-4-2011)

The Government of India through Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred under Sec - 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) R/ w . Sub . Sec - 2 ( A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the industrial dispute between above named parties which is mentioned in the schedule to the reference order which reads as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Cosmos Co - op . Bank Ltd. , ( Multistate Schedule Bank ) in demoting Shri A.M. Kusurkar to the post of senior clerk on the alleged charges of misconduct vide charge sheet dtd. 20-8-2001 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

2. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal . both the parties appeared in the matter and filed the statement of claim and written statement . During the pendency of present dispute the first party employer by filing the application Exh.C -26 and also by raising the preliminary objection in the written statement contended (1) No.

(2) Reference stands rejected , as per order bel

REASONS

6. With the help of material on record I have is the arguments of Advocates for both the parties at and both of them have submitted their case as per mast on record . In addition to that the Advocate for the hus party in support of argument relied on the judgment ... Hon'ble Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 171 08 wh dtd. 11-3-2008 , the copy of same is annexed to Exh in which the Hon'ble High Court has laid dow . .c following ratio --

" Insofar as the question as to whethe appropriate Government in relation to los Cooperative Banks carrying on business in more than one State , is the Central Government or the stat Government , that is no more res integra The S Court in the case of Bharat Bank case ( suprad analysed the relevant provisions of the conc enactment to conclude that the appropт . Government in relation to a Multi State Cooperas bank carrying on business in more than one would be the concerned State Government 7. Admittedly the present reference is made Central Government to this Tribunal and not by th Government and as per the ratio laid down in the ar [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

case law the appropriate Government in relation to the first party is the State Government . I do not find any substance in the objections raised by the second party in his written say, as such relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case law, I hold that the present reference is not maintainable as appropriate Government for the first party is not Central Government and is the State Government , hence I answer issue No.1 in the negative .

AWARD

1. The Reference stands rejected as not maintainable .

2. No order as to costs .

3. Copies of this award be sent to Government for necessary action .

Pune:

M.G. CHOUDHARY, Presiding Officer Date : 30-4-2011

नई दिल्ली , 29 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2284.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32 ( c ) /2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [ सं. एल -12012 / 51/2007 - आईआर ( बी- I ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th July , 2011

S.O. 2284.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 32 ( c ) of 2007) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Patna as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between Employers in relation to the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 27-7-2011 .

[No. L - 12012 / 51 / 2007 - IR ( 13-1 ) ]

RAMESH SINGII , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Reference Case No. 32 ( c ) of 2007 .

Between the management of the Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office , Bhagat Singh Chowk , Munger, Bihar and their workiman , Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, represented by the Deputy Secretary , Bihar Provincial Bank Employees '

6143

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

Association , 203. HariomCommercial Complex , new Dakbunglow Road , Patna ( Bihar) .

For the Management Sri Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate ,

B.N. Tiwari and B.B. Sharan , Advocates .

For the Workman : Sri Devi Kant Jha , Advocate & Sri Birendra Kumar Jha , Advocate .

AWARD

Patna . dated the 19th July , 2011

By adjudication order No.L - 12012 51 / 2007 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 17-9-2007 , the Govt . of India . Ministry of Labour . New Delhi under clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( hereinafter called ' the act for brevity ) has referred the following dispute between the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Head Office , Bhagat Singh Chowk . Munger , Bihar and their workman Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav. represented by the Deputy Secretary. Bihar Provincial Bank Employees Association , 203 , Hariom Commercial Complex. New Dakbunglow Road , Patna - 1 ( Bihar ) for adjudication to his Tribunal on following:

"Whether the action of the managment of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the service of Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav by issuing circular to the concerned Branch Manager without complying Section 25-1 and not maintaining status quo as per Section 33 ( 1 ) of I.D. Act and not regularising and reinstating and not giving him permanent status in a regular post of messenger - cum - sweeper is legal and justified? If not, what relief Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav is entitled to ? "

2.On notice parties appeared . On behalf of workman . Bihar Provincial Employees ' Association appeared and filed Statement of claim. It has been pleaded in the statement of claim that the workman Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the workman ) was appointed at Bhagalpur Branch of Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a sabordinate staff w.e.f. 19-9-94 in a proper manner and on the instructions of Head Office of the Bank at Bhagalpur . Intially he was paid @ Rs . 10 per day which was later on increased to Rs . 40 per day and then again to 53.60 in the year 2000 and to Rs . 88.66 in the year 2003. He was engaged for full day work . He required the Bank for regularisation . Detailed particulars were called for from the Head Quater of the Bank which were sent in Oct. 2002.by that time he had worked for 2346 days . Branch Manager . Bhagalpur issued a certificate dated 1-7-2006 which state that the workman worked for 265 days between 16-8-2005 to 30-6-2006 .

The management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramın Bank . Head Office Munger issued a circular proposing termination ofservices of the workman from 16-9-2006 who were not appointed in terms of circulars of the Bank . The workman apprehending termination of his services in violation of [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) | 6144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

and regulation and article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is nullity and any person appointed without following rules and regulation will not be protected under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act so much so under Sec.25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act . The appointment ofany employee without advertisement or without calling names from Employment Exchange , without following procedure for appointment and without adhering to rule of reservation is nullity and are treated as back door employment and will not give any right to such employee under any law. Ministry of Finance Department ofbanking issued a circular vide D.O.No.F.O- 27 /75 - SC 26th November . 1975 , whereby and whereunder decided the class and strength of officers and Employees to be appointed by Regional Rural Banks viz - Branch Manager . Field officer Accountant, Clerk, Junior Clerk and this circular also provides for their emoluments . This circular specifically says that no peon or his equavalent by any designation wouldbe employed by Regional Rural Banks . Services of those who are reported to have been appointed already may be dispenced with immediatley.

Sec.25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act made a representation on 11-9-2006 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Patna , who took steps by issuing notice to the Chairman , Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank, HeadOffice ,Munger fixing 15-9-2006 and simultaniously attention of the management was drawn towards Sec.33 ( 1 ) ofthe J.D. Act during the pendency of Industrial Dispute . On 15-9-2006 both the parties appeared before A.L.C. The representative of the management asked for adjournment . in the course of proceeding the representative of the unanagement agreed to maintain status quo as per Sec . 33 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the proceeding was adjounred to 3-11-2006 . In course of conciliation proceeding on next date Bihar Provisional Employees ' Association . Patna espoused an Industrial Dispute for regularisation of service of the workman and subsequently on 16-10-2006 served a notice threating to launch egitation programme including strike if the workman was retrenched and not regularised. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Patna vide his letter dated 20-9-2006 intimated result of the proceeding held in his office on 15-9-2006 , in which the management's representative had agreed to maintain status quo as per Sec . 33 of the I.D. Act . However the management terminated the services of the workman wief 15-9-2006 in violationof Sec.25 - F and Sec.33 ( 1 ) ofthe coustrial Disputes Act . The approval of conciliation officer was not taken for termination of services of the workman , After failure report from Assistant Labour Commissioner ais Industrial disputes has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . In a nut shall the case of the workman is that he had put in more than 240 days of continuous service withia 12 months proceeding the date of his termination. liis services were terminated without any notice an notice pay and without retrenchment compensation . Status quo as required under Sec.33 of the. Industrial Disputes Act was not maintained . the action of the management in Terminating the services of the workman is retrenchment and the management did not follow the rules 77 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules and did not display the name of the workman in the category of the workman in accorandance with their seniority. Further the case of the workman is that the management committed an unfair labour practice by keeping on tenterhooks without absorbing him as permanent . Further the case of the workman is that he was working against a permanent post in Bhagalpur Branch the Bank since 19-9-94.

4. Bhagalpur -Banka Kshetriya Grmain Bank was amalgamated with Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank . Branch Managers of Kshetriya Gramin Bank beyond needs and against the rules and regulations had employed number of persons in each Branch on daily wages . They were engaged on daily wages without any advertisement , without calling the name from the Employment Exchange and without following the rule and regualtion of employment in violation of article14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Service Regulation made by Bihar Kshetriya Gramin bank is not applicable to any person engaged temporarily on daily wages and as such they are not treated as employees of the Bank . Having considered the problem of part ume messenger - cum - sweeper employed by Kshetriya Gramin Bank all over India , NABARD issued a circular to treat as regular employee of R.R.B. all such messenger- cum- sweeper who were in service as on 22-2-1991 and who had completed 240 days of continuous service . It was one time regularisation . It is the case of the Bank that in a Branch where there was already full time messenger any person engaged after 22-2-1991 as sweeper or on any other designation on daily wages was against the circular of the Central Govt. as well as the NABARD and all engagement of those class of persons are illegal , nullity and such person is not entitled to protection U/ s.25 -F of Industrial Disputes Act . With the general pleadings as aforesaid , it has been specifically pleaded that the workmen concerned in this reference was engaged on daily wages without following the rules of appointment, without ady ertisement, without calling the names from the Employment Exchange, without following process of selection and without following rules of reservation . The workman was not given any appointment letter and it was verbal engagement on part time basis . Further the case of the Bank is that the workman Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav was not member of the Umon . Therefore Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees 3. Management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger have filed their written statement . Their case is that Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger ( hereinafter referred to as bank has been created under Regional Rural Banks Act , 1976 with 50 % share belonging to the Central Govi . 15% share belonging to the state Govt . 15% and 35% share belonging to the sponsoring Bank. The Bank is guidedby the circulars of the Govt . of India , Reserve Bank of India and Nabard , Bank is state within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India and as such the appointment and the employment in the Bank against rule भाग खण्ड 3 ( ti ) ]

Asociation has no right to represent the workman in this wase, la reply to specific pleading of the statement of claim regarding employment of the workman and his working continuously since 19-9-94 , there is no specific denial . It has been repeatedly said in the pleading of the Bank that Set 25 i of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable in tus case and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

5. On the basis of the terms of reference and pleadings the parties following question are required to be decided Inis telerence

(i) Whether workman Pradeep Kumar Yadav has proved that he worked for 240 days or more continuously within 12 months immediately preceding termination on of his service ?

(a) Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav without complying with Section 25 - F of Industrial Disputes Act is legal and justified?

Po Whether the action of the Management in not montaining status quo as per Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is legal and justified ?

( iv ) Whether the action of the inanagement in not regularising and reinstating and not giving Pradeep Kumar Yadav permanent status on a regular post of messenger- cum- sweeper is legal and justified?.

) lo what relief Pradeep Kumar Yadav is entitled to?

Question No. ( i ) : The case of the workman is that he sas apponted engaged w.c.f. 19-9-94 . He has put in a total mr - 23-46 days of servicebyOct. , 2002. He has completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each year paticularily within 12 months immediately proceeding his rennivation from 16-9-2006 . This claim of the workman has not been demed specifically by the Bank in written statement . Keaner the waness examined on behalf of the Bank M.W.1 Sri Sad Kumar who is a Senior Manager ( Personnel ) of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger stated in his cross- сханетаным ( раaragraph 21 ) that Sri Pradeep Kumar was ng- eged byBhagalpur Branch in the year 1994 and he worked apie 2006 He was removed in Sept. 2006. He was removed Gom work without notice . No pay in liue of notice was given to workman and no compensation was given to the workman. Thisis statement by a Senior Manager of Personnel Department The Bank in the witness Box is can did admission of the case the workman that he worked for the Bank from 1994 to 2006 md he was removed /terminated without any notice and compensation . Besides this admission by the management the workman examined as W.W.1 has also stated that he worked from 19-9-94 within 12 months preceding the date of hts termination he had completed 240 days of continuous seruce. He has produced documentary evidence also . Most slancion evidence as Ext W/ 1 read with Ext. W/ 16 and W/ 11. I is a certificate granted by the Branch Manager of Bhagalpur Branch that Pradeep Kumar Yadav worked for 265

6145

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 /भाद्र 5 , 1933

days between 16-8-2005 to 30-6-2006 . Ext .W/ 16 is regarding payment ofRs . 1717 to the workman was daily wages for the month of July and Ext .W/ 17 is regarding payment ofRs . 2613 to Pradeep Kumar Yadav as daily wages for August , 2006 and Septernber, 2006. There three documents are sufficient to prove that Pradeep Kumar Yadav worked continuously for more than 240 days , with 12 months immediately preceding termination of his services .

7. Question No. ( ii ) : The main defence put forward by the Bank is that Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger has been created under the Regional Rural Bank Act , 1976 . It is guided by the direction and circulars issued by the Central Govt./Reserve Bank of India /NABARD . The workman was earlier illegally engaged by local Management of a Branch of Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank without advertising the vacancy, without calling for the names from the Employment Exchange and without following any procedure of appointment . Later on Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank merged with Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank . In 1991 by a circular part time messenger- cum- sweeper who had completed 240 days of continuous service were ordered to be treated as regular employee of R.R.Bs. In the same circular there was complete ban or further employment of part itme or full time sweeper ofmessenger . The workman was engaged on 19-9-94 and as stated above without any notification of vacancy . without any advertisement , without calling for names from employment Exchange and without following any procedure . Such an employment is illegal and the person appointed has no legal right. His engagement was nullity and he will not get the protection of Sec.25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management argued this aspect of the case vehemently. In this regard reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the management on Constitution Bench decision on of Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others AIR - 2006 - SC - 1806 :

" Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons , the same would not confer any right on the appointee . If it is a contractual appointment , the appointment comes to an and at the end of the contract , if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis , the same would come to an end when it is discontinued . Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his terms of appointment , It has also to clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment , he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules . It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance temporary employees whose period of employmen has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

[PAR

spot le 2010 the workman was entitled. Uma Devis case ( Supra acase under Industrial Disputes Act . It was heid b Supreme Court Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Eng AIR SCW 1862 (paragraph 12) that decision in Ulevi's case relates to regularisation in public employeest and basis no relevance to an award under Section Industrial Disputes Act . of the

ade, a abour mustrial Pama -2006 10. Question No. ( iii ) : The case of the woman is that having sensed the termination of his servers inthe basis of so called circular of NABARD representation on 11-9-2006 to the Assistal Commissioner(Central ) , Patna to intervene in the Disputes for amicable settlement of the matter A issued notice to the Chairman of the Bank, fixin for conciliation . On 15-9-2006 parties appearhetore A.L.C. , Paina , representative of the managen , sought for an adjournment for a month . However erse of procedding the management's represntative greed to maintain status quo as per Sec.33 ( 1 ) of the usural Disputes Act during the pendency of ansirial Disputes, But the management terminated the of theworkmanw.e.f. 16-9-2006 .

the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right . High Courts acting under Art . 226 of the Constitution of India , should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption , regularization , or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularily and in term constitutional scheme . Merely because , an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court , which isdescribed as litigious employment , he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service . In fact , in such cases , the High Court may not be justified in issuing interm in directions , since , after all , ifultimatley the employee approaching it is found entilted to relief. It may be possible for it to would the relief in such a manner that ultimately noprejudice will be caused to him , whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the state the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The Courts must be careful is ensuring that they do not in therefore unduly with the economic arrangement of this affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instrument to facilitate the by passing of the constitutional and statutory mandates "

8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman argued that the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Uma Devi was not a case under Industrial Disputes Act. The case before the Hon'ble Apex Court was only limited on the question of regularisation . The Industrial Disputes Act has provisions for protection of interest of the workman and any retrenchment or termination of service without complying with the required provisions in illegal and the workman so retrenched or dismissed deserves relief of reinstatement with full back Wars . The learned counsel further argued that it is not parkman in this case was engaged by the local ahhout approval of the Head Office of the Bank. a letter dated 3-10-1994from Head Office of Magalpur- Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank asist then was , tega Jag employment of the workman and on the basis of etter he was appointed . This letter was received from ther Titae Office of the Bank in response to letter Ext . W/ 3 wettens the Branch on 22-9-94 asking for engagement ofa mmsstiges en daily wages . Exts . W/ 5 , W/ 6 , W/ 7 and W/ 9 Howepayincat ofwages , Bonus , D.A. etc. to daily wagers .

for the 4.3( 1 ) The the 11. The learned Counsel for the workmar a that when an industrial disputes was pending fortation before the Conciliation Officer , it was mand management to comply with the provisions and Sec.33 ( 2 ) of the Industrial Dispune : management did not obtain the permiss Conciliation Officer to terminate the service of draman , The managment did not even apply for suchenission The learned Counsel for the workman arguedarder of termination of service of the workmanfer such circumstances in nullity in eye of law and nort. Under such circumstances the workman should be healed as in employment without any break of his services In thas regard the learned Counsel for the workman relied upon Jaipur, Zila Sahakari Bhumi Vikash Bank Ltd. , Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that proviso to Sec.33 (2 ) ( b ) are mandatory and its complianc . is mustto make an order of discharge or dismissal passed under Sec. 33 ( 2 ) (b ) operative . The proviso can not be shiuted are dispensed by the employer . He can not disobey the mandatory provision and then say that the order or discharge or dismissal made in contravention S. 33 ( 2 ) (b ) is not void or inoperative . The protection added to a workman under the said provision can not ly den away. Itwas held by the Hon'ble Apex Court .

is is a case under Industrial Disputes Act . whale termination of service of the workman was Hasee a circular of NABARD requiring R.R.Bs , to E anunue with the services of persons engaged as sweeper or messenger on daily wages basis or on part time hasis. Admitedly no notice was given to the workman . No pay was given to the workman . No compensation was given to him. Non - compliance of provisions of Sec.25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act is thus admitted .There is no dispute that provisions of Sec . 25 - F of the Industrial disputes Act were not complied with to which in my option,

" 1. Where an application is made ander 'section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) proviso , the authority before which the procedding is pending for approval the action taken by the employer, has to examine whether the order ofdismissal or discharge is bona fare: whether it was by way of victimization or utair labour practice; whether the conditions came in the proviso were complied with or authority refuses to grant approval follows that the employee continues 1. If the usly it service भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

as if the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed . The order of dismissal or dismissal passed invoking Sections 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship ofthe employer and employee from the date of dismissal or discharge but that order remains incompleted and inchoate as it is subject to approval of the authority under the said provision . In other words , this relationship comes to an end dejure only when the authority grants approval . If approval is not given , nothing more is requied to be done by the employee , as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed. " Itwas further held that ...

" The view that when no application is made or the one made is withdrawn , there is no order of refusal of such application on merits and as such the order of dismissal or discharge does not become void or inoperative unless set aside under Section 33 - A, can not be accepted . Not making an application under Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) seeking approval or withdrawing an application once made before any order is made thereon , is a clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) . "

12. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the magement argued that no Industrial Disputes was pending for conciliation before Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Patna on the date of dismissal or termination of service of the workman . Since there was no Industrial Disputes pending for conciliation , there is no question of application of Sec.33 or proviso to Sec.33 ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Industrial Disputes Act . The learned Counsel argued that the workman apprehending termination his services filed a petition before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Patna . But it was not an industrial disputes . The Industrial Disputes was not espoused on that date by the Union or substantial number of workman or workmen as class .

13. In order to appreciate the aforesaid argument by the parties it is necessary to have a look on the provisions of Sec.3.3 of the Industrial Disputes Act , which reads as follows:

33. Conditions of service , etc. , to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings .

( 1 ) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before ( an arbitrator or ) a Labour Court or a Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an Industrial Disputes , no employer shall (a) In regard to any matter connected with the dispute , alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute , the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding ; or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispur. discharge or punish , whether by dismissal or

6147

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

otherwise , any workman concerned in such dispute . save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending .

(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute , the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute ( or where there are no such standing orders , in accordance with the terms of the contract , whether express or implied, between him and the workman ) "

(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute the conditions of service applicable to thatworkınan immediately before the commencement of such proceedings ; or

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute , discharge or punish , whether by dismissal orotherwise , that workman:

Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed , unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer .

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section ( 2 ) , no employer shall during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute , take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute ----

(a) by alerting , to the prejudice of such protected workman , the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings ; or

(b) by discharging or punishing whether by dismissal or otherwise , such protected workman ,

save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending .

Explanation - For the purpose of this sub - section , a "protected workman . " in relation to an establishment , means a workman who being ( member of the executive or other office bearer ) of a registered trade union connected with the establishment , is recognised as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf.

(4 ) In every establishment , the number of workmen to be recognised as prete . nt the purposes of sub - sectio..! the total number of a .. subject to workmen: protected the appro rules prov arta al for the

workmen anton Vath

connected with the establ 01.18

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011/BHADES

emplosnetes Sa which the workman may be chosen and recognised as protected workmen.

emplove.tor persorgs

It is clear p

( 5 ) Where an employer makes an application to a con.alration officer , Board [ an arbitrator , a Labour Court Iribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub - section ( 2 ) for approval of the action taken by hum , the authority concerned shall , without delay, hear such application and pass ( within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application) , such order in relation thereto as it deems

the terms "Indin al Dise the are involved a workman the earacter effects the ripi . Dispute at casa me menacting.co . he

It was situ

envisaged in S which reads

( Provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do , it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing , extend such period by such further period as it may think fit:

deemed to ad

Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any period specified in this sub - section aad- expired without such proceedings being completed. " )

retrenche.. individual workmen of, such diese shall be deen standing, tivu te is a party te

It appears from plain reading of Sec . 33 that pendency of any conciliation proceeding or any proceeding with respect to an industrial dispute is condition precedent for implication of that Section . The Section starts with the Aords during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding...... in respect of any " industrial dispute " . The provisions u s . 33 become applicable only when a conciliation proceeding or any proceeding referred to in that Section is pending before any authority mentioned herein with respect to an " Industrial Dispute " . Pendency fand industrial dispute is sine qua non " for enforcing the Bar u s . 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Two Conditions must be fulfilled to attract the bar us . 33 of the Act

(1 ) There must be an industrial dispute and

It is obs 2A may ariseoni or otherwi workncan . Disc termination individuald 2A. Untes Ji retrenched , raise an industr :. not include ground to deen.

In the cas

(in) There must be a conciliation proceeding or any other proceeding mentioned in the Section pending before any of the authorities mentioned in the Section .

Patna was d service" . This led disease... s !. can not be an daratal Industrial Disp . Аст

It was at

14. Now let us examine whether any industrial dispute as pending on the date of termination service of the orkman . The case of the workman is that he appreliending rmination of his service in the light of or on the basis cular of NABARD filed a petition before Asstt . Labour ..nmissioner ( Central ) Patna who issued notice to the nagement fixing 15-9-2006 a date for conciliation . But it 35 Dot any industrial dispute . It was not a dispute between pinyer and workman . It was a petition by an individual kman apprehending termination of his services . 1 fore it was not an industrial dispute . " Industrial ... has been defined in Section 2 ( k ) of the Industrial de Ast

Union espouses the cause on ! 16-10-2006 . Even if this aega industrial dispute darts from took up the case but net espousal of mdusitol despate las a later date can make the Ind ... from back dareenang prospe am of the view fee no gadusand dispus as such no concration proceeding relating was pending betors Asstt . In Patna on 15-9 and assto luthe ofthe workmanis ctly le Act.

2 ( k ) Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , between employers and workmen , or between workman and workmen , which is connected with the

14. Questio : Native workman argut adetur in this car was discriminated against . cendar of NABALD part - timemessenger- farlywayer we had completed 240 days ce on that Cate were treated as regular 142 : sith offert trom 22-2-1991 . But the d treated as regalar employee . His reques : This services war tot considered and of in this cate the Circular to which the wiset to the workesan made reference is of the A was on time decision for one time here ver prohibition against future daily waget is that circular . The workman Lisa engaged against that circular is the fam benefit of regulatisation under that CPVorden in hus case is a daily wager. agente ainsi ay post . He did not work Therefore there is BO No. ( e ) there already held that the orike Her store than 240 days with in the termination of his at te was not paid any the artustrial Disputes Act with. lactose monation of services of the - case pameiya Pradeep Kumar Yadav is noidaan sasnied . Now the seded to . The I earned akban radha when the termination da werktmaninagal and not instified for Sec. 78.1 of pe noustrial Disputes Act .

manes behalf of the new that eve of services Gound is be legal toistani wall Pe appropuls monetary and oldest the Heerble Ares Cout suppet the pure advanced.n Plagement Reinetonly one decision crdother decisions of the Horor Apex Court elfinest to wall anser Sus questen in Senior lent Telegraph Faiha Bhopal Vs. Santosh 2athasiswen held ears it has been consistently held by tt that reinet by we ofretustatement winb tess is not dum sematic excitif ternateation of ample.ce is found to be silegal or is i 4. ventom of the prescabei procedure and that sompensatten in itchel remstatement and Waves in cases of such nature may be erase, Seel P. State Barassware Corpn . I td.. Uday Narain Pandey ( 2006 ) 1 SCC 479 ; 1. Ballerest Development Corpn . V.M.C. Joshi ONCO 353; State of ALP . & Ors . V Lalit Kumar 2007 ) | SCC 575: Madhya Pradesh Safety saraton Vs Tribhuban (2007 ) 9 SCC48 : Sita

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 20 ! / भाद्र 5, 193

Ram & Ors . V. Moti Lal Nehre Farmers frais Inshtate (2008 ) 5 SCC 75 : Japan Developrasa Authoirty V. Ramsahai & Aur . 6 ) SCCOSA Ghaziabad Development Authority & Aar Vs As Kumar & Anr. ( 2008 ) 4 SCC 261 ; Mahboob Deepai Vs. Nagar Panchayat , Gajrsula & Ant . (2008 375:

In a recent judgement authorried by onefuse 3M Ledha , J. ) in the case of Jaghir Singh V Rayne Seve Agriculture Markeung Board and Anm . 90200911552 the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated It is true thatthe earlier view of thiscontarticularsd in many decisions reflected the leg positoin C The terminationofan employee we. Samdiabe the reliet of remstatement with full back wapeswong ordurardy follows. However, ia recent past , the been a shiti m the legal peration med ma long lume . cases , this Court has consisterely taken the that teherby way of terast echent wehback is not automabernd may is wholes approt hate a given fact situation even though the terminate an employee is in contravention to the precfgd procedure. Compensation imsicad of trustaka- ti has been held to meet the ends et power ין In would be des seco that by acetons of decisatar in recent time is Court has el ardy led down the an order of retrenchment расей Sec.. 5 -Faltsough may be et declarawa teinstatemen should not , how th full si posed. The of tem Ages mase the wor 240 direa of wat pen the date terminatu 4. parucularis , das a fumi topper i ded Maste compensation has been randed Bus CORE distuspelend between a daily wazer who does Budapest and a permanenі спрі .

by tits case wetkacm Sea Prakep is a Yada dards waren. Having road to the fatemisiaselt discussed pisovy at of the view that a KS75000 ( R . Sommy Tse thousandyourmet eads ofjustice and as suslaPradeep Kumar Vis a cosmpensation of Rs . 75,000 ( Rs.Seventy onis.

The Management is directed to make bepage compensaten to the workman Pradeep is mat olsa the 30 days of publication of the Asse !

16 And thus is may ward .

HARISHCHADNRA SING नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाट

का.आ. 2285 . का ।।। की भाग बैंक का कद THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5.1933

अधिकाणाश्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-7-2011 [ सं. एल -12011 /27/2007- आईआर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th July, 2011

s.O. 2285.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the ustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central -vernment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 7/2008 ) he Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - 1.abour art-2 . Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dsgate between the employers in relation to the manage nent of State Bank of India and their workman , recewed by the Central Government on 14-7-2011.

[ No. L - 12011/ 27/ 2007 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 2 / 7 of 2008

Fanployers in relation to the Management of State Bank of India

Assistant General Manager ,

Engran institute of Technology ( Powai Branch ) ate Back of India 1 pehtode 100

Harrkmen

int General Secretary state Bank of India Staff Union ( Mumbai Circle Synergy .Plot No. C - 6 -Block, Ground Floor Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (1) , Mumbai - 400051 .

APPEARANCES :

Fathe Employer Mr. M.G. Nadkarni , Advocate Eater Workman Mr. Abhay Kulkarni , Advocate

Mumbar, dated the 6th June , 2011

AWARD

Ts . Gasernment of India . Ministay of 1 aborw & rployment by its Order No. 1.- 12011 27 200 - R (13-1 ) . Jated 7 1-2007 im exercise of the powers conferred bs clause 3)of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the Following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for nimdication

Whether the action of the management of SBI n helding departmental enquiry and terminating the

PART 1

services of Mr. M. 1. Jassani , workman after acq ... from the Count of Law , is right , proper and justie If not, what privileges and statutory benefits is workman entitled to ? "

2. Ater receipt of the reference , notices were, to both the parties . Second party union filed their stats 19 of claim at Ex - 6 making out case in respect of die dismissal from service of one of its members Mi Jassani i.e. the workinan concerned . First party managers . resisted the statement of claim by its written statemetr Ex- 7. Issue are framed at Ex - 10 and the matter was fixed filing ofdocuments and list of witness by both the part 3. Today , the second party union tiled an apphean Ex - 11 through their advocate for withdrawing the referes .. stating that the workman is not interested in pursuing case further . Hence the order :

ORDER

Reference is dismissed as drawn .

Date: 6-6-2011

Κ.Ε. ΚΑΤΑΚE , Preading Ofice . नः दिल्ली , 29 जुलाई 20 : 1

का.आ. 2286 . औद्यागिक दिन अधिनियम , १७.० का 14 ) की धारा के अनुसरण अन्द्रीय सर चाणक्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजक कम बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कद्रावकार अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. मुम्बई के पद सीजीआईटी 2/30 आफ 2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है सरकार को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ व

132012.03 0.0 32

New Delln , the 29th July , 2011

: . S.O. 2286. -In pursuance of Section Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the ter Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. N 2:30 of 2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Price : cum - Labour Court No. 2. Mumbai as shownin the Mare in the Industrial Dispute between the management.et : Chanakya , and their workmen , rezerved by the te Government on 21 2011

RAMESTE SINGH

ANNENE RE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNME INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 ,

PRESENT : AB KALAKI

Reference No. ( GT - 2.3 2016

Employers in relation to the managento . Ship "Chanakya [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Capt. Superintendent, Training Ship Chanakya AtVillage Karve , Nerul , Navi Mumbai -400 706 .

AND Their Workmen Shri Hemant S. Bhoir AtKarve PostDharave , Opp . T. S. Chanakya Navi Mumbai -400 706 .

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer Mr. M. B. Anchan , Advocate For the Workmen No appearance . Muinbai , dated the 8th June , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment by its Order No. L - 31012 / 03 / 2010 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 1-4-2010 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 Shri Hemant S. Bhoir , Ex . - Mali with effect from 1-6-2007 is legal , just and proper ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? " 2. After receipt of the reference both the parties were served with notices . Workman appeared in this matter in person . He took number of dates for filing statement of claim . Advocate J. II . Sawant also appeared for workman . However vakalatnama was not filed . At the request of workman , few more dates were given for filing the statement of claim . As statement of claim is not filed , no statement of claim order was passed . As workman has not filed statement of claim , the reference could not be heard and decided on merit. Thus the same is dismissed for default. Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference is dismissed for default with no order as to cost.

Date : 8-6-2011

Κ . Β . ΚAΤAKE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2287.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

6151

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011 /09 /260 % ( रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th July, 2011

S.O. 2287. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 24/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the (Central Governinent on 21-7-2011 ..

[No. 1-12011 69 /2008 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESII SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 24 of 2008

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Bank ofBaroda AND Their workmen .

Present: Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar. Presiding (Officer APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Mr. S. R. Das . Manager of the Bank. Management

Onbehalf of the Workmen State:West Bengal .

Mr. K. Bhattacharya , General Secretary of the workmen union . Industry : Banking .

Dated : 28th June , 2011

AWARD

By Order No. 1. - 12011 / 69 2008 - IR ( B - 11) dated 18-9-2008 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section EP BEd ) and (2Arof the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudicators

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda , Kolkata Metro Region in abolishing 24 regular posts of Computer Operators and not filling ofthe posts carrying special pay like Head Cahier. Head Peon , Daftary etc , in violation of Clause 9.4 of the bank level settlement dated 18-3-2001 is justified? W'hat relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?" beballot de tank of

Parties Colop copy to the other t

presentreferener since :

APPER tled outside the

yot ne claim of d

On beh of the managet.chasho

State is a praves for withdra

ts male

syed store the presenetlen Futot lade but howe...

The workeren union ,

Mwaited that the Mortir men kes

wred wah da presoal efters

dispue :

of the Adala

ỰNG THỂ HI

1OSE

the Co Shri Pna..

Rabumes www Delhi , the 29th Fay St

meara 8. In pursuance Sectof the A pies Act , 1947 ( 14F 1947 ) , the Central Mercev polishes the Award (Rei No G2006 )

Jakemanent indusundabour Thasbad as shown in de Vawre to the nepie beween the hetegszd UCO

w workmer teren

the ser man Summ

represer

as ter RAMESH SINGH Ms. licen

WYNEXURE

telere LOK ADALATA CENT DATENMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIPA ALINo . 2 ), DHANBAD

Sau Kisberi Ram. Pres

dan Industrial Disputes under

: D Act , 1947 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6153

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5. 1933

APPEARANCE :

नई दिल्ली , । अगस्त, 201 !

For the Ist Party

Petitioner Union

Sri G. Gopal , Authorized Representative

Ms. T.S. Gopalan & Co. Advocates.

For the 2nd Party Management

AWARD

का.आ. 2289.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12011 6 / 2011 - IR ( B - II ) dated 06-06-2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication .

[सं. एल-12011/6/2011- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

New Delhi , the 1st August , 2011

S.O. 2289.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court. Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen . received by the Central Government on 01-8-2011 .

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank , Chennar in uumposing the pumshment of "Reduction to a lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect for a period of one year for Charge No.1 " and " Reduction to a lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect for a period of one year for Charge No.2 " on Sri M. Srinivasan vide order dated 21-08-2008 is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ? "

[ No. L- 12011 /6/2011 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 18th July, 2011

Present : A.N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as 50/2011 and issued notices to both sides . The Respondent entered appearance through Counsel , petitioner through his legal representative filed a letter to the effect that the employee whose cause was espoused in the ID has been promoted to the Officer cadre and that the present dispute being no longer pursued the same may be treated as withdrawn and that it is not proposed to file any Claim Statement . No Counter Statement was filed .

3. Points for consideration are:

Industrial Dispute No. 50/2011

(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 Bank and their Workman)

BETWEEN

(i) Whether the reduction to the lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages cumulatively for 1 year for Charge No.1 and the same reductionby 2 stages cumulatively for 1 year for Charge No.2 on Sri M. Srinivasan by the Management of Indian Bank is legal and justified?

The General Secretary

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

Points ( i ) & ( ii )

Indian Bank Employees Association No. 250 ( Old No. 197 ) . Linght Street Chennai - 600001

IstParty/ Petitioner Union

V's

The Chief Personnel Officer. Indian Bank, Head Office ,

4. The ID has not been proceeded with an enquiry and the petitioner, his representative reported in writing that the employee has gone on promotion to the Officer cadre and the present dispute is not being pursued by filing any Claim Statement and the same is sought to be withdrawn .

Rajaji Salai . Chennai - 600001

2nd Party Respondent

5. Accordingly, the ID is dismissed as withdrawn without any adjudication .

3125 GI /11-9 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

de PA . , transcribed and typed by him , cdnd pronounced by me in the open court on this 1000 2011 )

AN JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

None Party. Petitioner Union :

None Jod Patiy/Management :

Marked :

ur's side

Date

[PARI I S Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 1447 ), between the Management of Chennai Port Trusts Heir Workmen)

BETWEEN

1st Party Peисг Sri N. Rajan ( Deceased)

1. Sunt . N. Indhirani

2. Smt . R. Vasantha

3. Smt . R. Jayanthi

4. Smt. K. Jayavel

Description

Nil

hageport's side

Date

AND

2nd Party Respondent The Chairman Chennai Port Trust , Rajaji Salai , Chennai - 600001

Description

Nil

नई दिल्ली, । अगस्त , 2011

290, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट 5 संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक गायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2008 ) है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-8-2011 को प्राप्त [सं. एल-33012/1/ 2007- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st August , 2011

2290 , In pursuance of Section 17 of the isputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central hetsby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 3/2008 ) alGoverment Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour ica as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial en the management of Chennai Port Trust men, received by the Central Government

No. L- 33012 1 2007 - IR ( B - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer MANEXURE

AMB CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, (HENNAI

Thursday , the 21st July, 2011

Present. A.N. Janardanan . Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 3/2008

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under ise ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - sectten 20 A) of APPEARANCE :

Sri D. Muthu Kumar For the 1st Prty/ Petitioner :

: Sri M.R Dharankander For the 2nd Party/

Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour ende its Order No. 1. - 33012 / 1 / 2007 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 17-12 2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this chural foradjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is

"Whether the action of the management of hennar Port Trust in dismissing the services of Sri Rajan is legal and justified ? If not , to what reler is the workman entitled ?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute ibas Tribunal has numbered it as ID 3 2008 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim and Counter staterent as the case may be . Pending enquiry petitioner expired and thereupon supplemental petitioners from 21 were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased petemer on whose behalf amended Claim Statement was the where after Additional Counter Statement was also fined by the Respondent .

3. The averments in the Amended ( lase tement under the caption " Petition under Section 20A1 and 2 of the ID Act " are as follows :

The ist petitioner Sri N. Rajan died on 28 2009 .

He was appointed as Mazdoor under the Re - pondent in 1980 , where after was posted as Gang Mazdoor on 01-07-1982 and after wards promoted as Mistry on 28-12 1998. He was dismissed from service ontol 10 1999 for the misconduct of unauthorized absense being charge sheeted for unauthorized absence fie [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6155

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

question of Compassionate Appointment arises in the case of the deceased who died after dismissal from service . The dismissed employee is not entitled to any Gratuity or any other terminal benefits . The claim is to be dismissed 5. Points for consideration are :

( ii) Whether the dismissal from service of Sri N. Rajan is legal and justified?

(ii) If not , what benefits the legal heirs or any of them are entitled?

6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1 and Ex.W1 to Ex . W4 on the petitioner's side and the testimony of MW ! and Ex.M1 to Ex.M25 on the Respondent's side .

Points ( i ) and ( ii )

to 28-09-1998 . He had been afflicted with depression and was under treatment with Dr. M. Thirunavukarasu since July 1996. It was during the period that the enquiry was held against him . The 1st petitioner had not been in a sound state of mind due to mental depression . He could not attend work . He had stated that his absence was only due to mental depression , which did not weigh consideration with the authorities . On recovery when he approached for reinstatement it was refused . Enquiry held was not valid which was not held in a fair and proper manner . Principles of natural justice were not followed .He was not served with the copy of enquiry proceedings or finding . His absence from duty was due to reason beyond his control and is therefore not to be blamed . His appeal was also not considered in proper perspective . He should have been referred to medical test . These facts are not disputed by the Respondent . A heir of the deceased is to be given employment under compassionate appointment scheme and death- cum- terminal benefits have to be disbursed to the heir.

4. The allegations in the Counter and Additional Counter Statement are briefly as follows:

The ID raised after more than 9 years of the dismissal shows lack of interest in work of the workman and that the dismissal is justified . Deceased petitioner on 28-12-1998 stated in his explanation that due to family circumstances and depression he was unable to attend duty. Being not satisfied enquiry notice dated 10-02-1999 was issued and enquiry was started on 19-05-1999 in which he participated and admitted his inability to attend duty dueto family problems and disturbed mind . Enquiry Report dated 09-06-1999 held the charges proved . To the second show cause notice dated 27-07-1999 he submitted explanation on 19-08-1999 stating that he was suffering from jaundice and family problems . He was removed from service w.e.f. 04-10-1999 . For similar charges he had already been given 3 punishments . After the present charge also he absented himself from work from 07-01-1999 to 20-04-1999 and from 09-08-1999 to 17-08-1999 . After rejection of 1 st appeal on 26-11-1999 he submitted another appeal only after 7 years on 24-4-2006 which was rejected on 15-07-2006. The attendance details of the deceased from 1980 till dismissal in 1999 scheduled in the counter statement show that he is a habitual absentee . It shows that he is not interested in his work leaving no option other than to dismiss him. He has stated that he had separated from his family. Hedid not produce any Medical Certificate . Depression would be only for short period and not continuing for a long period . The deceased had a sound mind . If deceased petitioner was under depressed mind he could not be anncipated to rejoin till recovery because productivity is more important to run the organization in the competition field . It is for fum to disprove charge by producing Medical Certificate and not by the Respondent Compassionate Appointment is given only in dying in harness . No 7. Heard both sides . Perused the documents . records and written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner . Petitioner has had made clear dang coquiry that due to his mental depression and donks Roblem he was not able to attend duty which at all considered by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry according to petitioner should not have been held unde : his that state of mind . Actually be should have bee referred for medical check - up to obtain a repent regarding his fitness to withstand the enquiry He has not been provided with an opportunity to comment on the enqua report . The charges are not proved in the above background of the case and the charges being not proved past record of misconduct could not have been referred to . The fact disclosed by the petitioner as to his sickness was brushed aside by the Enquiry Officer in proceeding with the enquiry. Both Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority failed to consider the merits of the enquiry with due application of mind but acted in a mechanical manner. The petitioner has had his promotion in 1982 as well as ins 1998. He being illiterate he was being slowed down r every stage at which action was to emanate from him of his bad state of mind which is not deliberate . Her .. delay in raising the ID is not material . Only a case wher the ongoing charge is proved question of previou conduct arises for consideration . He also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in:

Chairman - cum - Managing De

I.td. and Anothe . Choudhury and wherein it is heki abs be considers reason fi cay nhay the pr

and At

Cou THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

Aringer Anna Primary Agriculture Co- operative Bank Vs. 1 , Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pondicherry , 2 , Arangasamy ( 2010-4- ILN - 476 ) wherein Madras High Court held "the delay or laches cannot be assessed solely on account of physical running of time . This has to be appreciated considering the facts available on record . To throw out a matter on the question of delay, it should be established that there has been a supine indifference on the part of the persons approaching the Court/ forum or a deliberate inaction . In the case on hand the second respondent being a low wage carner, cannot be faulted for having repeatedly represented to the petitioner for reinstatement and thereafter invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . Hence , I am not able to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner in this regard ' .

In the judgment of High Court of Madras dated 12-4-2006 in WP No. 3265/2005 his Lordship Justice P. Jyothimani held as follows : "therefore , in my considered view, the past conduct which has been from 1994 onwards need not be given much importance for the purpose of inflicting a major punishment of dismissal from service " .

In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ( Madurai ) Ltd. Formerly known as the Managemant of Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. , Tirunelveli Vs. Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Madras and Another ( 2005-4 - CTC - 390 ) wherein High Court ofMadras held as follows " it is well settled that the punishment should not be disproportionate to the delinquency . In the present case , no doubt the second respondent workman had not filed his medical certificate earlier but he filed the same before the Tribunal . Be that as it may , on the facts and circumstances of the case , we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge , which is eminently just " .

In V. Senthurvelan Vs. High Court of Judicature , Madras Represented by Registrar (2009-7- MLJ - 1213 ) wherein it was held: "therefore , considering the fact that in spite ofsubmission of the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer admitting the guilt and submitting the medical certificate to prove the fact that he was ill during the period , which forced him to abstain from duty , the same was not at all taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority, resulting in imposing the

[ PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

punishment of removal from service , which was confirmed both by the Appellate Authority and this Court in the writ petition , we have no hesitation to hold that the above 'said major punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge . The Disciplinary Authority or at least the Appellate Authority should have considered this aspect that the punishment inflicted on the delinquent is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges and would have imposed a lesser punishment , taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner toelf has admitted the guilt . who has no bad antecedents " .

The General Manager , Home Department , Chennai . 1. nd Fan Others Vs. The Registrar , Central.move Tribunal , Chennai - 104 and 2 am 132-4- CTC - 476 ) wherein Mad Court held: " there does not 4ything suggestive of ....d and consideration of the petitioner " appear applicat

8. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent are that the petitioner has not has completed the period of probation . There has been 9 years delay for raising the ID . He has not produced any medicalmed certificate before the authority but has produced it only before this forum for the first time which cannot go into evidence whatever without examining the Doctor who issued the same. He having not left 20 years of service is not eligible for pension. Section - 11A of the I.D. Act is not to be applied on misplaced sympathy or leniency invoking power under the same by the Tribunal . He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in:

L& T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udaya Kumar (2008-1 - SCC - 224 ) .

G. Vijayan Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour t'ourt , Salem ( 2008 - LLR - 48 ) of Madras High Court wherein it is held as follows : " granting reinstatement without back wages by I abour Court to the workman whose habitual absence has been proved in the enquiry , amounted to misplaced sympathy ".

A.P. Motors Ltd. Vs. Harshadbhat Harishbhai Khatri and Another ( 2008 - L.I.R - 52 ) of Gujarat High Court .

Anna Transport Corporation , Salem , I abom Court , Salem and Another ( 1908-11 N - 710 ) wherein the High Court of Madras held that " discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not mestut to be equated to charity " 6157 -खण्ड 3 ( n) }

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

R.M. Duraisamy Vs. Labour Court , Salem (1998-1 - LLN -712 )

Krishnan . O. Vs. Management of Dheeran Chinnanalai Transport Corporation Ltd. Thiruchirapalii and Another of High Court of Madras W.P. No 1952/1998 dated 13-06-2005 .

4. On an anxious consideration of rival contentions astrae perspective am not able to agree with the Trements advanced on behalf of the Respondent . Rulings wed on behalf of the Respondent are not relevant to the ds of the present case to support its contentions . While find much force in the contentions on behalf of the peationer who is now no more . He was initially ppointed as Mazdoor in 1980. was posted as Gang Moor on 01-07-1982 and was again promoted as Maistry 28-12-1998 . For alleged misconduct of unauthorized nce he was dismissed from service on 04-10-1999 . hing charge sheeted for unauthorized absence from 1998 to 28-09-1998 and after an enquiry he was Pussed. The enquiry is challenged as being not fair and per since it was held at a time when the deceased was suder a state of depression of mind which had been put in ng to the notice of the authority but it did not find Lavour with them in the absence of a medical certificate produced by the deceased petitioner . Though the pondent had craved for an opportunity of giving further vidence in the event of the enquiry being found not fair and proper since the workman died as early on 28-09-2009 cending this ID in this forum that question cannot be epicred into and decided with the required efficacy. thacore , leaving that issue open the matter is under xploration . The deceased had not been served with enquiry proceedings or the finding . The violation of principles of natural justice is alleged by the petitioner .

10. The case of the Respondent that there is 9 years aclay in raising the ID and that the deceased workman acked interest in work cannot be approved for the reason tha petitioner though did not produce medical certificate 2.4 Fained in writing that he is suffering from disturbed state ofmind and family problem and that he is not able to stond duty. The same is not to be disbelieved. Really the Disciplinary Authority should have had postponed the enquiry until a stage is reached at which the workman would have been in a fit state of mind to withstand the enquiry. Therefore , the enquiry held cannot be found to be fair and proper. The fact that the Respondent has not been considerate enough to enquire whether the deceased was in a disturbed state of mind with problems as explained v han in his explanation shows that it has not applied its mind to a cardinal issue in relation to the workman . The Management was proceeding with the enquiry as though everything was normal and ideal at a time when actually the petitioner might not have been in a proper state of mond to meet the enquiry adequately in defence . In the

culmination of the enquiry following a report finding the workman guilty of unauthorized absence the capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed w.e. f. 04-10-1999 . In the matter of imposition of the said punishment it is seen that 3 punishments imposed on him for similar charges previously had also been taken into account which is not fair and proper . 'Together with the instances of previous absence of the workman with the present spells of absence are not to be considered as unauthorized. The previous similar instances of misconduct cannot be read in conjunction with the present misconduct not so proved in the due enquiry . The workman had been suffering from depression of mind the disturbed condition of which does not enable him to do his ordinary pursuits in life in the normal sequence and in quick succession in the expected manner . The fact that he has not had produced medical certificate then and there instantaneously is also attributable to the same state of his disturbed mind as the reason which cannot be taken serious note of by any authority . In spite of petitioner's submission before the authority that he was in a disturbed state of mind and domestic problems the stand of the authority as revealed from their pleading in the Counter Statement saying that the deceased had a sound mind and that depression would be only for short period and not continue for a long period shows either non - application of mind or the total unawareness of the authority to the affliction with which the workman had been affected . Though Ex . W2 medical certificate was produced by the petitioner only before this Tribunal and not at the time of domestic enquiry still the medical certificate is not to be discarded as a document relating to an ex - post fact event . The reason is that the factum of the workman having had been affected with such a disease was only got certified at a later point of time . What Ex . W2 medical certificate as on a date in 2001 is a fact consistent with the statement of the workman in his explanation given in 1998 which is not apt to the untrue . It is also pertinent to note that nobody absents himself from his duty which is his sole bread earner without any valid reason . No one also attributes to oneself of being self - afflicted with mental depression when it is not so really. When there is a case of such a situation of being with depressed state of mind alleged it is also for the Management Authority to have him referred for medical check - up rather than silently insisting on himself to produce any medical record touching the complaint . According to the Respondent/ Management even if the workman was under the depressed mind he could not be anticipated to rejoin till recovery because to it productivity is more important to run the organization in the competition field . The stand of the Management shows the reckless conduct of the authority regarding the health condition of a workman indicted of a misconduct and the same has been too an inhuman , improper , uncharitable , unethical and unkind attitude of the Management towards a workman. Though the workman was yet to complete his 6158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

period of probation in the post in which he was borne during the enquiry that facts assumes no significance for the reason that it is not for that ground that he was being thrown out of employment. This conduct of the Management deserves to be deprecated . The enquiry held has to be found as not fair and proper. The finding also cannot be held as legal and justified . The punishment is also not legal , fair, proper or justified. Therefore , the enquiry, the finding as well as the punishment are to be set aside and it is so ordered . The petitioner is entitled to be given apaper reinstatement into service forthwith with 50% back wages , continuity of service and all attendant benefits till his date of superannuation ifthe date of his death viz . 28- 09-2009 supervenes only after the date of his actual superannuation with terminal benefits and family pension receivable at the hands of his wife/heir .

11. In that view of the matter an eligible legal heir under him is also entitled to employment under the compassionate employment scheme and his wife is entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits in accordance with the regulations of the Respondent Company. Ordered accordingly.

12. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 21st July, 2011 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :-

WWI , Smt . R. Vasantha For the 1st Party/ Petitioner

MW1 , Sri R. Prabhakar For the 2nd Party/ : Management

Documents Marked : On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex.W1 18-04-1999 Copyof certificate of physical fitness

Fx.W2 23-08-2001 Medical Certificate issued by Dr. M. Thirunavukarasu Ex.W3 24-04-2006 Appeal by petitioner to Chairman , Port Trust Ex.W4 28-08-2007 Reply by Management On theManagement's side

Ex .No. Date

Description

Ex.M1

Memo issued by the Traffic Manager

07-07-1998 -do-

Ex.M2

[PART II S Ex.M3 27-07-1998 Letter from the petitioner the Respondent

Ex.M4 28-11-1998 Letter from the Traffic Man to the Petitioner

Ex.M5 28-12-1998 Letter from the Petitioner 1 tie Respondent

Ex.M6

Absentism particulars of the petitioner

Ex.M7 10-02-1999 EnquiryNotice

Ex.M8 10-02-1999 Appointing Inquiry Office and Presenting Authority Ex.M9 09-06-1999 EnquiryReport

Ex.M10 27-07-1999 Memo issued by the traits Manager

Ex.M11 04-10-1999 Memo issued by the Trattic Manager

Ex.M12 20-10-1999 Letter from the petitioner the Respondent

Ex.M13 26-11-1999 Memo issued by the Respondent

Ex.M14 27-12-1999 Letter from the Union to the Respondent

Ex.M15 03-10-2000 Letter from the Responder the Union

Ex.M16 24-04-2006 Letter from the petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.M17 13-07-2006 Memo issued by the Traffic Manager

Ex.M18 24-09-2006 Letter from the Fraffic Manager to the Petitioner

Ex.M19 12-12-2006 Application filed by Petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of labour ( Central ) Ex.M20 28-02-2007 Counter filed by the Respondent before the Assistant Commissioner of labour ( Central) Ex.M21 21-03-2007 Reply Statement filed by the Petitioner

Ex.M22

Attendance Register ( Muster Roll)

Ex.M23

Service Sheet

Ex. M24

Scheme for appointment compassionate grounds in Chennai Port Trust

Ex . M25

Copy of Madras Port trest (Pension Regulations ) , 198 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 1 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2291.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार देना बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/ 19/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011 /278/2000- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st August , 2011

S.O. 2291.- 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/ 19 /2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-8-2011 .

[No. L- 12011 /278 /2000 - IR (B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 19 / 2001

6159

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

adjudication , as per letter No.L - 12011 / 278 / 2000 - IR ( B - II ) dated 22-3-2001 , with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank in not giving the pay scale and post of regular sub- staff to Shri Jeedhan Kumar Yadav in the Gudiyari Branch of the Bank is legal or valid? If not , then for what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and with what details ? "

2.Being noticed , the workman , Shri Jeedhan Kumar Yadav(" the workman " in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of Dena Bank ( " the Party No. 1 " in short) filed their written statelment .

The case of the workman is that he was recruited and engaged by the Party No.1 at Gudiyari branch as a full time cleaner - cum- sepoy on 15-7-1993 temporarily and worked continuously for more than eight years till the end of September 2001 and during the period of service , he was not paid the prescribed wages and other benefits to which , he was entitled as per the Bipartite Settlement and the party no.1 engaged him for the entire period on temporary basis with the intention to deprive him of the status and privileges of permanent employee , which is an unfair labour practice and during his continuous employment , party no. 1 did not pay him wages for Sundays and Gazetted holidays with the intention to effect illegal breaks and he is entitled for the wages for the period of illegal breaks . The workman has prayed for payment of full wages and other benefits as per the Bipartite Settlement from the date ofhis initial engagement .

Date : 15-7-2011

Party No.1 : The Regional Manager , Dena Bank , Rukmani Bhawan , Behind Jai Ram Complex, Raipur -492001

Versus

: The President ,

Party No. 2

Madhya Pradesh Dena Bank Staff Union , Central Office , Rukmani Bhawan , Behind Jairam Complex , Raipur.

AWARD

(Dated: 15th July, 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 has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the Regional Manager , Dena Bank , Raipur and their workman , Shri Jeedhan Kumar Yadav for 3. The Party no . 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter - alia that the workman was initially appointed as a part time casual worker on daily wages basis without following the relevant Rules for recruitment of subordinate cadre and as such , he is not entitled for the benefits as per Bipartite Settlement , which he has claimed and as he was not included in the approved panel of the Bank and did not fall under the category of permanent part time or full time worker and his relationship with the bank came to an end as soon as the job was over and therefore , he was not entitled to receive wages for Sundays and gazetted holidays and the claim of the workman is totally illegal and contrary to law and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In support ofhis claim , the workman has examined himself as a witness . It is necessary to mention here that party no.1 had filed the affidavit of witness , Santosh Prakash in its behalf, in support of its claim , but as the said witness was not produced for cross - examination , and his evidence was expunged .

The workman in his examination- in- chief, which is on affidavit , has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and his rejoinder . However , in his cross- examination he has stated that he did not receive any appointment order and he was working as a Badli Sepoy and was getting wages on the days , on which he was 6160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADR

working and he was not sponsor by the employment exchange and he did not receive any written order terminating his services .

Party No. 2 : San Viver Jtam Bhasan ambie: Vigar , Suryamuner Shaderot Chomaspur (M

This is a retretenet usa, y de con for adjudicate , f the radestra state o employers in lation to ne menagement o Ministry of Dete andiser sorgiran . She was . Bhasarkar with following schepe Except the oral evidence of the workman , there is no other evidence on record in support of his claim . Though the workman has referred to some documents in his examination - in- chief, such documents have not been filed. The workman has also not filed any document or authority to show that his entitled to get wages and other facilities as per the Bipartite Settlement . On the other hand , he has admitted that he was getting wages on the days on which he was working . Hence it is found that the workman is not entitled to receive the wages and other benefits as claimed by him . Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

"Whether sepon of the Fransen 、 Quality Auffer, Chandrapa compass.apponent te Ste Ver Bhasarkar and justif entitled to def the w.. The action of the management of Dena Bank in not giving the pay scale and post of regular sub - staff to Shri Jeedhan Kumar Yadav in the Gudiyari Branch of the Bank is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

2. This of the party no.1102100 the preliminars be maintainability t

नई दिल्ली , 2 अगस्त, 2011

3. The fac can be stated as

का. आ. 2292.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धाग 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर क्वालिटी एश्यूरेंस ऑफिसर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी /एनजीपी / 02 / 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल -14012 / 28 / 2006 - आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 2nd August , 2011

The clam short ) filed the party no . 1 い appointment o with the party father died on 2 his mother , broth ofhis deceased 150k filed by him for cutpassa considered by pl appointment , he was give period , and after his last ditemenon is days , the party red and his case 1: : compassionate appeari

S.O. 2292. 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/ 02 / 2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - 1.abour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Senior Quality Assurance Officer and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 2-8-2011 .

[No. L - 14012 / 28 / 2006 - IR ( DU ) | JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secу.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR

No. CGIT NGP: 02/2007

Date: 20-7-2011

Party No. 1 : The Senior Quality Assurance Officer.

DGQA , Ministry of Defence . PO : Chanda , Ordnance Factory,

Chandrapur ( M.S. )

4. The party raising preliminars the reference and no . I the referenceis has no jurisdiethote party no . 2 is fi workman givene 1947 ( the Net an party no . 2 is not an : is regarding grant of party no . 2 has not be Servant relationship be reference is to be anst.. by party no . I that as pea the case of the parts । भाग 11 -खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

reconsideration , but the same had been turned down the screening committee at Headquarters DOUA . New Delhi , but his name was not included in the stor basis and accordingly, his case was closed and eve closure of the case , application received from the wid were entertained and forwarded to the Headquarters sa on the merit of the case and as such , the party ич, 7 15 най entitled for any relief.

5. On 26-10-2007, the party no . 1 filed the petre decide the reference on the preliminary objecten rasad by it, stating therein that the party no . 2 is not workman and the dispute raised by him is not an industood disput and as such , the reference is liable to be

necessary to mention here that in spite of taking sumi ir of adjournments to file objection , the partye 2 dudut file any objection ( say ) to the petition and also did not take part in the hearing of the petition .

6. Admittedly, the party no . 2 has filed de stau ofclaim for compassionate appointment . Section ( 5 ) af the Act defines ' workman ' and Section 2 ( Kiot da AC defines "Industrial Dispute" . According to sector ), " Industrial Dispute" means any dispute officer 14 between employers and employers , or between amplasury 5.1933

११ में संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों को बी ष्टि औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यां पुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजी आईटी/एला काशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28 | सं. एल -40012/36/2004- आई.आर. (डी.यू. )।

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सथितः New Delhi, the 2nd August , 2011

42293. -in pursuance of Section 17 of the Jeep Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Centr tamment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No C Satyof the Central Government Industrial bun e Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annesurei the stal Dispute between the management of Descricet of Post and their workman , which was receiven bythe Government on 2-8-2011 .

[No. L-40012/36/2004- IR ( DU JOHAN TOPNO , Under Sty

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN ININ STRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABODECODE JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/K/85/ 04

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

hra Pavura Singh,

Singh ,

plony, Sanchar Nagar. a, Mandi . 111Road.

Jabaja

him is also not a industrial dispute as per the and as such , the reference cannot be adjudiuat and workmen , or between workmen and workrien , whe is connected with the employment or non - employment on the terms of the employment or with the conuons of labour , of any person . According to sention "Workman" means any person ( including any apprentiou ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled. skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supersisty for hire or rewards , whether the terms of employme express or implied, and for the purposes of apar Jing under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute qark any such person who has been dismissed , dischargin retrench in connection with , or as a consequent, th dispute , of whose dismissal , discharge or reprodmant has led to the dispute . The party no . 2 is not coming toodes the definition of the workman and the dispute 1ersed Tribunal .

Hence it is ordered:

The petition filed by party no. 1 is allered reference is answered in negative on the grou dispute is not an Industrial Dispute and the

be adjudicated by the Tribunal .

Send a copy of the order to the Central των fornotification.

J. P. CHAND , Pres

नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2293.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार

3125 G1/11--10

Workman

Versus

The .

07.General .

Manapemera sed on this ith day of foly 2011 Nemtsent o, India, Munstry ofLabour vic has referred the attown disputat adjud , by this tribu

etthe acts nof the management of Em vices , Indor in imposing the puristineh rra by live stages in time scale for en tod wef.251 2001 cumurmese cha 6162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

and further enhancing the punishment by removing the services of Shri Ravinder Singh , S / o Govind Singh w.e.f.6-8-2002 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman was appointed as Postal Assistant in the management of Postal Services at Ujjain . He was served with a charge - sheet dated 27-7-99 . He gave reply denying the charges . The management initiated departmental enquiry . After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report which was not based on record and was perverse . The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of reduction in pay by five stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect . The Director of Postal. Services disagreed with the punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and enhanced by imposing the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect after giving him show cause notice . The workman preferred an appeal to Chief Post Master General , Bhopal but the same was rejected vide order dated 31-7-2003 . It is alleged that reasonable opportunity was not given to defend himself and the principle of natural justice was violated . It is alleged that more employees were involved in the incidence but joint enquiry under rules was not conducted. The charges were vague and ambiguous and it did not contain any misconduct . The report of the Hand Writing Expert was not genuine as it was not based on scientific data and reasons . It is stated that the punishment was extremely harsh , excessive and disproportionate . On these grounds , it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workman .

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the reference case . The case of the management , inter alia is that the workman Shri Ravinder Singh was admittedly Postal Assistant at Khachroud Post Office . He was on leave on 6-5-1996 but planned a conspiracy with a malice intention and opened a fictitious Saving Bank Account in the imaginary name of Shri Vijay Kumar . S - o Shri Ram Gopal , Station Road , Khachroud with a balance of Rs . 46,250 by manipulating document . IHe instigated the then Sub Post Master Shri Ram Lal Maida to consume Alcohol who became almost unconscious after consuming the same . The said account was opened on the said date also with the help of One Kumari Samta Sharma, Do Raghunandan Sharma . Postman of Khachroud Post Office who filled up the forms and documents for opening imagmary account . It is alleged that Kamal Singh Bhati , GDSMC Khachroud Post office also assisted by filling up some of the entries of the post office to open the alleged account . The workman is alleged to have also withdrawn the amount of Rs . 20,000 on 18-5-96 after forging the signature of the depositor . Thereafter he arranged the transfer of the said account from Khachroud Post Office to Shujalpur City Post Office in collaboration with Kumari Samta Sharma where he was transferred . There

[ PART II - SFC. 3 ( ii ) ] also on different dates , the workman withdrew the amounts to the total of Rs . 26,230 after forging the signature of the depositor.

4. The further case of the management is that on the same day i.e. on 6-5-96 , when he was on leave , the workman withdrew Rs . 24,000from RD Account No. 32733 and Rs . 24,000 from R.D. Account No. 32738 after forging the signature of the holders of account causing loss to the management. The management served a chargesheet under rules . Thereafter disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted enquiry report dated 18-5-2001 after enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the representation of the workman awarded punishment of reduction of pay by five stages in time scale for a period of two years vide order dated 25-11-2001 . The Reviewing Authority i.e. Director Postal Services considering the seriousness of the misconduct enhanced the punishment after giving showcause to the workman and passed the order of removal from service vide order dated 6-8-2002 . The workman preferred an appeal before the Chief Post Master General , Bhopal but the same was rejected on 31-7-2003 . It is stated that the punishment awarded to the workman after considering the gravity of offence committed by him . On these grounds , it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

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

1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is just and proper ?

Π. Ifnot , whether the management is entitled to prove the misconduct of the workman and to adduce evidence on this issue ?

To what relief, if any , is the workman entitled?

6. Issue No. I

This issue is taken up as Preliminary issue . The then Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is not just and proper and therefore the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is vitiated vide order dated 21-5 2008. It is further observed that the management may adduce evidence for proving the misconduct of the workman . Thus this issue is already decided earlier.

7. Issue No. II

It is not out of place to say that the then Tribunal has already directed at the time of deciding the Issue No. I that the management may adduce evidence for proving the misconduct of the workman Now the important question is as to whether the management is able to prove the charges of misconduct against the workman ' Before [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

discussing the evidence , it appears that the following facts are admitted facts-

1. The workman Shri Ravinder Singh was Postal Assistant at Khachroud Post Office on 6-5-1996 and Shri Ramlal Maida was then Sub PostMaster.

2. He was charge sheeted on 27-7-99 regarding five charges .

3. Afterdepartmental enquiry , he was punished by the Disciplinary Authority on 7-11-2001 and the pay was reduced by five stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect .

4. His punishment was enhanced by the order of removal from Services by the Director , Postal Services on 6-8-2002 .

5. The Chief Post Master General , Bhopal also rejected the revision of the workman .

6. The Departmental Enquiry held was declared not just and proper by the Tribunal vide order dated 21-5-08 .

7. The workman was subsequently transferred to Shujalpur City Post Office .

8. The Saving Account No. 602820 was transferred from Khachroud Post Office to Shujalpur Post Office on 14-9-96 and its new no . is 823149 .

9. The workman was on leave on 6-5-1996 .

8. Now the burden is on the management to prove misconduct committed by the workman . To prove the case , the management has examined oral and documentary evidence . The evidence of six witnesses are filed by the management by affidavit . Out of these witnesses , Shri R.N.L. Sharma did not turn up for cross - examination who was Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding . His evidence is of no use to the management as he has not been cross - examined .

9. Another management witness Shri R.S.Mehra is Retired Sub - Post Master , Shujalpur Mandi . He has stated that he had deposed before the Enquiry Officer and that is his statement . The said statement is not filed in the Tribunal . He has not given any statement in his affidavit before the Tribunal regarding misconduct and has based his earlier statement given before the Enquiry Officer . However that statement can only be used as previous statement for corroboration or contradiction . Moreover the said previous statement is also not filed . This shows that he has not stated anything on the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the workman . In cross- examination , he has denied that he had given any statement in the enquiry. He has accepted the withdrawal of Rs.26,230

6163

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

by him which is corroborated by Exhibit M/ 13 . This document shows that from Saving A/ c No.602820 the amount of Rs . 26,230 was withdrawn on 4-6-1996 and the sanction was accorded by him . He has not taken the name of the workman Ravinder Singh in withdrawal of the said amount from the account . This clearly shows that he has not supported any misconduct of the workman .

10.Another management witness Shri Kamal Singh was also employee of the postal department . He has similarly stated that he had deposed before the Enquiry Officer and the copy of the said statement is filed but there is no such statement on the record . In cross- examination he has stated that he had simply signed over the affidavit . This shows that there is no evidence to support misconduct of the workman as has been alleged by the management .

11. Another management witness Kumari Samta Sharma is a very important witness of the alleged occurrence . Her father Shri Raghunandan Sharma was postman of the said Post Office and he was also suspended. According to the management , on the instigation of the workman Ravinder Singh , Kumari Samta , a minor girl , filled up the alleged form for opening a fake and imaginary Saving Account in the name of one imaginary Vijay Kumar and filled up other documents as well . Her evidence is also similar to other witnesses of the management . The previous statement is not a substantive piece of evidence and the alleged previous statement is also not filed . In cross- examination , she has denied signature and writing on any paper and documents of the management . She has further stated that she had deposed in the departmental enquiry on coercion or duress as her father was suspended and the assurance was given to exonerate him , in case she supported the management . She is also not declared hostile by the management . Her evidence does not prove any of the charges against the workman.

12. Another witness Shri Ghanshyam Sagotra is also employee of the Postal Department at Khachroud. He has also deposed like other witnesses which is no evidence in the eye of law. However his previous statement is not filed by the management . He has stated that he has signed the affidavitwithout reading the same . It cannot be said that it is his evidence . His evidence is not reliable . Moreover there is no evidence on the facts of the alleged occurrence .

13. The last witness of the management is Shri A.S. Tuteja . He is a Private Handwriting Expert . The management has relied this witness the most and it appears that the management has based his evidence mainly for punishment to the workman . It is a settled principle and law that the evidence of the Handwriting Expert is only ar opinion and it cannot be taken as substantive exider co unless corroborated by some other evidence it h lowest order of the evidence or of the most aresta character . The methods and tests gut whatng and sigrat

BAR. PATLUon , alien

Lother witness wher

as mther catedr

we disputed doc...

in hied wich

tus findings Th

ofthe settled principle

pendence of Sis .

eptal- dance of the reason

counser be the wh Jomrept din 1950888 Fia : A

und the

find... m . Avetate ha W

to the

thich Good :.. enor of purple in taking a No. 22 & hitara evis.nce of UP Malik was here apported by any cheonstances of this case the Hig notpadang reltake up a

Thus it is clear tien opm Lant care cara be the basis to pr gost th kanan as his opiniones te

15. The mangerent hasais

the

い

1 tha Ma is the ond

master Great Bhagat Websho

ted. 1 xhibit M/ 5 is the pilotocy

15.1933

PARI Il

1 da who had deposed before than tress is not exammed in the im s statement is of no use whil Poration or contradiction This sufficient to prove miscondu the ordersheets of the dep acted by the Enquiry Office vitiated vide order dated 21 s do not prove any charge dan. Exhibit MIt is the phot Handwating Expert . The twice it is already discussed earlie : slips how by Rs . 26,230 was dep dispus Ishon

SAC No.6023 Mehra las stated ar as filled up b 11

posttel 4-96 he ho ed the a Apient that 11 Hans Jocument : 小 orkine !

6.961

30 to the e ASWH from ment , the state ob md signed as Kaman Samra St . delinquent workman its al Txpert Shn A.S. Luteja had exan:: ang of Kumari Sharma. Kumza management witness has deme . ne had not signed and flled ever the opimon of Handwritime !

She

Sharma On Shrt RSA ! in lus vejen. and hasa D of the badama

as has been discussed above we the writing and signature of Komm other hand , the management wis ho was Sub Post Master there has stated athe did sanction of the said withdeal say the writing of the withdrawal th there is no evidence of the myolscent . These all documents filed the Lestablish that the delinquent workman esconduct as has been alleged.

which

selated

mapina

the relate :

foteimg "

out of place to say that the docon... ats amined by the Handwriting Expert andthe Ms OFS B. Ac No 602820 , wheretes n established that the account was !ike Kumar , are not tiled . It is also cleve that Parents of RD AC No. 32733 and RDC as alleged of wrongful withdrawal alter ure are not filed by the management . has given no explanation as to whs these been with held . This is nothing but there on the part of the management and t helps them at workman . The orders of the mance that repeatedly it was directed to file भाग ।। खण्ड

original Departamental Enquiry papers and the documents but the management had not filed by a simple reason that the documents are missing which reflects the working Creation of the management and its negligence . It is also cicar that the holders ofRD Necounts are also not examined the case to establish that it was fake and false withdrawal . Aduttedly the Pass Books were in their possessions but the samme were also not called for from them. This shows that competent witnesses are also not examined by the management for reason best known to him .

17. On the other hand , the delinquent workman has also examined oral and documentary evidence Shri Ravinder Singh is only witness who is delinquent workman He has demed all charges . He was admittedly on leave when the alleged SB Account in the name of Vijay Kumar was opened . He has stated that the then Sub Post Master had opened the account . He has also dented aay withdrawal by hun from alleged RP Accounts . It appears that the management is unable to take any advantage in ress examination to prove misconduct against him .

Is . The workman has also fifed mostly similar protocopies of documents in the case. The relevancy has already been discussed All documents are admitted by de management . Exhibit W1 is meme dated 27-7-09 alongwith charges whereby the departmental proceeding was initiated. Lixhabn W 2 as the prosecution details with statements of witnesses of preloummary enquiry . Exhibit W. 3 is a letter with enquiry report and the departmental proceedings. I- xlubu W4 is the impugned order dated 25-11-2001 of the Disciphnars Authority , lxhibit W. 5 is showcause dated 22 24-4-2002 to the delinquent workman by the Director , Postal Services for differing the punishment of the Discipimary Authonty and proposal for dismissal from services .

19 Exhibit Wi6 is the impugned order dated 6-8-2002 of the Director , Postal Services , Indore whereby the punishment was enhanced to dismissal from services . Exhibit W' 7 is the impugned order dated 31-7-2003 of the Chief Postmaster General , Bhopal whereby the revision of the delinquent workman was rejected. Exhibit W: 6 to W It are orders of the enquiry officer of day to day departmental proceedings . The said departmental proceeding has already been declared illegal by deciding a preliminary issue which is Issue No. I. Exhibit W/ 12 is the photocopy of the statement of the management witness Kumari Santa Sharma who has denied her evidence in Court and has alleged that the same was obtained on coercion or duress on the assurance to set - free her father . There is no other evidence to contradict the evidence of this witness of the management. Moreover the management has not prayed to declare her as hostile . Thus this previous statement of Kumari Samta Sharma is of no use.

20. 1: xlubit W/ 13 is the photocopy of the opinion of the Handwriting Expert . The relevancy has already been

6165

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 माद्र ९, ११२२

discussed. Fahibit WIE is the application dated 14-9-96 for transfer of SBA e No. 602820 to Shujalpur city post whose new A'e No. was registered as 823149. According to the management the said application was written by Kumari Santa Sharma at the instance of the delinquent workman but Kumarı Samta Sharma has completely denied her writing and forged signature in her evidence . The evidence of landwriting Expert is also not reliable and therefore there is no evidence on the record to prove that it was filled up by Samta Sharma at the mstance of the workman . Exhibit W- 5 is a letter by the management to Shri FLS . Futeja . Private Handwriting Expert for giving opinion on the disputed documents narrating the story of forgery comunitted by the delinquent workman on the documents referred to the'l xpert for option . It is urged by the learned counsel for the workman on two folds . Firstly as to why the management had sought Handwriting 1xpert Opmion from the private agency when the government agencies are available . Secondly by stating the story of the alleged documents , the management had especially prejudiced the mind of the private Handwriting Expert before submitting his opimon . On perusal of the letter of the management to Handing Expert . it appears that before giving oparonby the Expert . it was known to hun what was the allegation on whom which was relevant to the management. Moreover to seek epinion from Private Agerex msacad el the Govt body creates a definte doubt to save some one . However the evidence of both the parties clearly shows that the management has tatied to prove charges against the delinquent workman by reason of pancry of evidence . This issue is decided in fas our of the workman and against the management ,

21 Issue No. III

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the action of the manag zament by imposing punishment of reduction of pas vode order dated 25-11-2001 and further by enthaneing punishment of removal from services to the workman Shri Ravinder Singh vide order dated 6-8-2002 are not justified . Accordingly the order dated 25 11 2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 6-8-2002 passedby the Appellate Authority are , hereby , set- aside . The management is directed to reinstate the workman Shri Ravinder Singh forthwith with all back wages . Accordingly the reference is answered 22. In the result the award is passed without any order to costs .

23. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India . Ministry off abour & I mploecnient as per rules

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer 6166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 2 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2294.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर 3/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/68/ 89 - आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd August , 2011

S.O. 2294.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 3 / 90 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-8-2011 .

[No. L-40012/ 68 / 89 - IR ( DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT /LC/R/3 / 90

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

...Workman Shri Bhagwan Das Sisodiya , S / o Shri Kashiram Sisodiya , Tabla Maker , Patel Wali Galli , Behind Kabir Mandir , House No.5 , Barkhedi , Bhopal

Versus

...Management Telecom District Manager , Bhopal . Assistant Engineer , Electrical& Telex . Bhopal

AWARD

Passed on this 11 th day of July 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 40012 / 68 / 89 - IR ( DU ) dated 15-1-1990 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : ....

PART II STO "Whether the termination of Shri Bhagwan Das Sisodya , Casual Labour by the Asstt . Engineer. electrical& Telex vide letter dated 1-8-87 is justified or not ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. The case of the workman , in short , is that he was engaged as Casual Labour by the management wet. 1-1-1986 and worked continuously till 31-8-87 . Thereafter he was terminated after giving him one month notice by order dated 1-8-87 . It is stated that there were other similar employees , who were junior to him and were retained in service against the principle of last come first go . It is stated that earlier his name appeared in the Muster Roll but it was removed and the payment was subsequently paid through vouchers . It is stated that the workman had completed more than 240 days and he was not paid retrenchment compensation under the provision of Section 25-1 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( in short the Act, 1947 ) Un these grounds , it is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

3. The management appeared and filed Wroten Statement in the case . The case of the management , inter alia , is that the casual labours were engaged on exigency ofworks for short period and they were removed when the work was over . It is stated that the casual labours who were engaged after 30-3-85 were terminated after giving notice as per instructions of the department issued vide letter dated 30-3-85 . On these grounds the reference is tit to be dismissed .

4. Onthe pleadings of the parties the following issues are for adjudication--

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating Shri Bhagwan Das Sisodya , Casual Labour vide letter 1-8-87 is justified?

II . To what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. Issue No. I

According to the workman , he was engaged as casual labour on 1-1-8610 31-8-87 and was removed without payment of compensation and in violation of the principle of first come last go where as the management contended that he was engaged as casual labour on exigency for short period and when the work was over , he was terminated .

6. The important point for consideration is that the workman is to be treated as retrenched employee as defined in Section 2 ( 00 ) of the Act , 1947 or he comes unde . Sechon 2( oo ) ( bb ) of the Act , 1947. To prove the case , the workman Shri Bhagwan Das Sisodiya is examined in the case He has stated that he was appointed as casual worker on 86 and worked till 31-8-87 IHe has further stated that termination notice was given on 31-7-87 a month stuch is ExhibitW/ 1 . IHe has further stated that the juniors te kam were subsequently appointed . He has stated that [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

compensation was not paid . He has been suggested that the department had no work and therefore he had been terminated. He is unable to say as to where the juniors are presently working or not . This shows that he has not corroborated the fact that his juniors are still working. He has further stated that when there was work and then he was employed . This itself shows that he was not employed continuously rather he was engaged intermittently. Exhibit W/2 shows that he worked all the days of the month which appears to be contradicted from his evidence .

7. On the other hand , the management has examined one witness Shri P.N.Singh who is Divisional Engineer. Ha has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the workman was not continuously employed and he was engaged for extra work load and on completion of the said work load , he was discontinued . This shows that he was engaged on contract of employment and when the work load was over , his contract was not renewed and was discontinued . His evidence is unrebutted . The workman did not appear to cross - examine the said witness . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . His evidence clearly shows that his engagement was on contract of employment which was subsequently not renewed . This shows that he is attracted under the provision of section 2 ( oo ) (bb ) of the Act . This shows that he was not a retrenched employee and there is no violation of the Act and the action of the management appears to be justified . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman .

8. Issue No. II

On the discussion made above , it is clear that the provision of the Act, 1947 is not violated and therefore he is not entitled to any relief . Accordingly the reference is answered .

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

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 अगस्त, 2011

का. आ. 2295.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटीए- 597/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012 / 82/ 2006- आई आर ( डी.यू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

6167

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

New Delhi , the 2nd August , 2011

S.O. 2295. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGITA- 597/2004) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Posts and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 2-8-2011 .

[No. L -40012/ 82/ 2006- IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

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

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha , Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 28th July, 2011

Reference : CGITA of 18 of 2007 New 1. The Superintendent of Post Office , Department of Posts , Kachchh Division , Bhuj -370001

2. S.D.I ( P) , Bachau , Sub Division ,

District- Kutch

... First Party

And

their workman

Shri FakirGulabsha Hasambhai , PostSamkhiyari , Tal. Bachau , Kutch .

... Second Party

Shri P.M. Rami , Advocate For the first party:

For the second party workman : None

AWARD

An Industrial dispute arose between the employer in relation to Management of Department of Posts and their workman Shri Fakir Gulabsha Hasambhai and on failure of conciliation efforts , and on sending failure of conciliation report , the appropriate Government , the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment/ Shram Shakti Bhavan , considering an Industrial Dispute existing between employer and their workman sent this reference in exercise THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHALIS

clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section A of sechon 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, No L - 40012 / 82/ 2006 IR ( DU ) New Delhi dated adjudication by this Tribunal in terms of der the schedule as follows : elen.

SCHEDULE

dre action of the management of SD1 ( P ) , Bhreat . Sub Division and Superintendent of Post Office . Kutch Division , Bhuj in terminating the serves of their workman Shri Fakir Gulabsha Hasarobhat with effect from 1-6-2005 , is legal and jus ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? "

were sent to both parties to this reference . Cemmeque apon issuing notices , the first party Superinten of Post Offices Bhuj , appeared and filed pewa dadarnana ) in favour of Shri P.M. Rama . Assistant Common leader , Labour Industrial Court , Ahmedabad for her the interest of the first party . But in spite of wees sent to the second party workman for and for filing statement of claim with papers .. claim in this case did not appear and file on the twoord, it appears that on 7-10-2008 an aaten we filed on behalf of the second party workman for grant adjournment to file the statement of clans without 1 any vakalatnama in favour of any lawyer or any &snority letter permitting the representative of union to Leresent hic in this case . Thereafter the second party adnan did not appear . Again reminder notices were sent Is the Starc Tribunal Court where this record was peuting. I astly , on transfer of this record to this tribunal . freak notice to both sides were issued vide Fxt . 13 . Set P.M. Ramı holding power for the first party management u. superintendent of Post Office appeared and filed pursis ording stopping the evidence of the second party on lates vide Ext . 14, 15. Lastly by filing such pursis 7011 vide Ext. 16. On calling out the case repeatedly napeared on behalf of the second party. Su , this nas reason to believe that the second party Beas lost interest to contest this reference . In the tour stances the following award is passed.

ORDER

hus reference is dismissed for non -prosecution .

PA सीजीआईटी का स्काशित करती है , ज को 2-8-201: जान हउ थी ।

N. Delta the 2nd August , 20 S.O. 26. pursat of Neohor Industrial Dis, les not 64741947 ) Governments pabitshes the Award ( Ret 982/2004 ) of Central Governani ay Indust cum - Labour Ahmabad as shown with in the Industr.... insputetetten ere employers to the manag repatment of Taeca workman , wit was recentem .

on 2-8-2011

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERM INDUSTILA TRIBUNAL- CUMULABO Present:

BinayKum

CGIT- cum- Last Cown .

Presiding Offi . Ahmedabad , Dated 25th Je

Referers. 98.2004 Nev Reference : ITC 50/1995 ( Ola ) 1. The Generapan Phone ) 、 Department ... cortation . Rajkot 2. Assistant Egaker ( de) Telecom Depалили . Rajkot.

they work oran

Shri Shiv sings shvate ,

Jayaprakashgar , Micro ",

Dictated

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली. 2 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2296 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 .: ।। भी धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग हे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या Bhagawatip

Rajkot. For the fir hans krov For the separty woochan Rastre Advocate , Railor,

WARD

Adispute arose het ver the complover Management General Manager (Phee A [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Telecommunication Rajkot , and their workman Shri Shivjanamsingh N. Kushvaha and on failure of conciliation efforts , the conciliation officer sent failure report , followed by sending this Reference by the appropriate Government , the Government of India , Ministry of Labour& Employment/ Shram Shakti Bhavan , New Delhi , by its order No. L- 40012/ 197 /93 - IR (DU) dated 5-9-1995 in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 , for adjudication under the schedule as follows .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager ( Phones) Department ofTelecommunication Rajkot/ Asstt . Engineer ( Cable) , Rajkot in terminating the services of Shri Shivjanamsingh N. Kushwaha isproper, legal and justified? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? "

2. In response to notices to the parties , the second party workman and the first party management appeared in this case and filed respective statement of claim and written statement .

3. The case of the second party workman as per his statement of claim at Ext. 2 is that he was employed as casual labour under the department of first party fromApril- 83 and worked up toApril - 84 and the details of his service particulars are as under-April - 83 to May- 83 for 58 days , June-83 to August- 83 for 92 days , September - 83 to November - 83 for 79 days December - 83 , January- 84 for 62 days , February- 84 to April - 84 for 66 days total 357 days of work and so he worked continuously for more than 240 days in the last preceeding 12 months prior to his termination of services onApril - 84 . His service was terminated orally, without any written order and without serving one month notice or notice pay in lieu of the notice or without paying the retrenchment compensation in utter disregard to and violation of Section 25 (F) of I.D. Act , 1947. Further case is that his juniors and fresh persons were continued/inducted in services which is in violation Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and Section 25( G) and 25 (H) of I.D. Act, 1947. Further ground taken is that the other workman similarly situated like him and with subsequent date of engagement are allowed to work by opponents by inducting them in the department as casual labour due to the JudgmentAward of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad and Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad and so this workman has also right to be reinstated with consequential benefits . The names of the workman have been incorporated who have been inducted/reinstated as casual labour owing to order/ Judgment passed by CAT or by Industrial Court , Ahmedabad. On these grounds prayer has been made for his reinstatement with full backwages after quashing his oral termination order .

4. The first party through its written statement at Ext. 10 pleaded inter -alia raising the limitation points that the 3125 GI/11-11

6169

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

dispute has heen raised at belated stage in 1995. It is not true anddenied that the second party workman is terminated orally in May 1984. The reference is not maintainable and the second party workman has no cause of action and that the Department of Telecommunication is not an Industry and so provision of I.D. Act is not applicable . Stand ofthe management of first party is that workman was engaged as casual labourer for purely casual nature of work thereafter he left the work w.e.f. May- 84 at his own accord and without any information/intimation to the department. Perhaps the workman left the work for better wages in other sector as the labour rates of the department were poorer, at that time compare to other sectors . The workman has raised the dispute seeing the Judicial trend that those who have completed 240 days in a year are regularized , but in the present case the workman has raised the dispute after lapse of more than 9 years . In reply to para 4 ofthe statement ofclaim , it has been submitted that the cases of Shri Dabhi , N.B Baraiya , and A. B. Baraiya cited by the applicant are of Jamnagar Telecom District having their own jurisdiction and separate establishment and the case of Mohmed Arif H. Belim in ITC 40/89 is decided by Industrial Tribunal Court , Ahmedabad at its own merit and so such Judgment/ Award is not applicable in the instant case of the workman . Further stand is that the direction have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest decision that daily wages employee cannot claim to have acquired right to hold civil post and on post of department of telecom followed under the category of civil post governed by the Article 309 of the Constitution of India . On these ground prayer has been made to reject the reference.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties , the followings issues are taken for consideration and determination in this case .

ISSUES

(1) Whether the reference is maintainable ?

(II ) Whether the workman has got valid cause of action ?

(III) Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches ?

(IV) Whether the second party workman has completed 240 days of work in a calendar year during his tenure of work as casual labourer in the department of the first party ?

(V) Whether the second party workman is entitled forreinstatement with full backwages and other relief as prayed for ?

(VI) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of workman Shri Shivjanamsingh N. Kushwaha ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to in this case ?

HII : GAZETE OF

FINDINGS

omplet

JWV & VI

Priy

these issues are taken up toge and considecotton . Both sides also peddy in supper their respective case . ile Shojanamsingh is , Kushwaha in his outi es 2 supported his stand that he worked pra eding calendar year continuously and 20. i castel us termaation order the management ofthe 8-1 requred to give one month notice or one in tajny of notice under the provision of ID Ace and des pay orally swiminated him without any tracom cross exaremation by the first party lawyer the workman did not remain conemployed 7.04 1984 rather maintaining his family by doing shasti 25 the Xepe : copy of service certificat cockman by Assistant Engineer ( Phone ) 04 06 1984 , it is proved that the word sne Narm Shivphawsotgh N. Kushwaha world 54 357 precesinee sear during April 8310 lobom the ghodivision GP COSE , soll . " the second puty workroad man 500 days during the yen 1933 Labourer daily rated labourer. There is no authecovice history of the second party workinen that be aiso corded for the subsequent calendar year for any minder of wood nig days .On behalfof first party management witness - Brajlal Gokulbhan deposed at Ext. 35 in support then the workman has no case for reinstatement and for detrandung back wages sine , he left casual labour job at frown... ecord but M.W. could not discredit this fact that the worlanan had ompleted240 days of work in preceding calendar year .

for n

the

Kuste .

compl

depar

compan

2004

( 7 ) From the evidence both oral and documentary discussed above it is proved that only for one calendar year the second party workman completed 240 days of work vide Ext. 25. The second party workman has relied upon the judginent passed by Member of Hon'ble CAT in OA No. 283-94 dated 12-7-1995 where by the Hon'bel CAT quasring the order Annexure - A -4 dated 31-1-1994 and direct the concern authority to referred the ladustuial uspute raised by the applicants to the appropriate andustrial Tribunal. It is fact that the aperoptère authority had eather rejected for sending the terence for adjudicanon . But as conder of the was reconsidered and consuetung tin the management and the caвоето треба.renCE was sent for adjudication ende these creewwed above The second party las filed the conflped migrert dated 5-5-1995 passed in conaretion with the of Mohammad Arif Hasanbhai Belim Vs. Loleadand others passed in OA No. 2031 wh discussedby the Hon'ble CAT that the ib has not allowed reinstatement CAT matter craedientier . So , this issue is answered in man has pot valid cause of action and Lagi , bas relevance is allowesi im p2m . The angemer is directed to pay Rs . 10,100 to the Mapraeteph N Kushwaha by way of Pat sunth of this award, failing which mapensation will carry interest @ 9 % 1 PINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding hom नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्त , 2011

2297, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों क निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अपवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटीए को नाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2011

सं. एल-40012/6/94- आई आर ( डी.यू) । जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd August , 2011

1. A297 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Deputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central mott hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGITA- 4st the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation nagement of Department of Telecom and their bich was received by the Central Government

[No. L -40012 /6 / 94 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEUORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

RESENT

effet, I about Court ,

Jetz 2011

6171

भारत की राजपत्र अगस्त 27 2011 / भाद्र ६ , 19.1

TA of 597 of 2004 New Reference:

Reference: 0.3 / 1995 ( Old )

Assistant Engineer ( MIN )

O/o . Gencial Manager telecola ) .

District, Rajkor 560001

First Party

And

then workinan

Shri Harstad D. Veghela .

Shiv Shakti Colony

Black No. 103 .

Revo Road, Sastashua Uni sity Kood

Rajkot- 360001

Second Party 1or the first pany Shri Garis Advocate , Rajkot For the second party walkman Shri Parag M. Vora . Advocate , Rajkot

AWARD

Adispute arose between the employer in relation to Assistant Engineer , Telecom Department and their workman Shri Harshad D. Veghela, and on failure of conciliation efforts , the conciliation ofheer sent failure report , followed by sending this Reference by the appropriate Government , the Government of India , Ministry of labour & Employment/ Shram Shaku Bhavan , New Delhi , by its order No. L- 40012/ 6 / 94 IR. ( DU ) dated 19-1-1995 in exercise of power conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 , for adjudication under the schedule as follows .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Assistant Engineer ( Adm) In the office of General Manager , Telecom . Dist , Rajkot in terminating the services of Shri Harshad D. Veghela , is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. In response to notices to the parties , the second party workman and the first party management appeared in this case and filed respective statement of claim and written statement .

3. The case of the second party workinan per his statement of claims at Ft 2 is that he waskamas casual labour for the last 4 years and wa has daily rated wage of Rs . 15 His work wary and no any memo was stadd i Lan; showing dissatisfaction trend rked for 2-40 days in every calendar a 10 porn ision of section 25 (1 ) of the ID Acanthoing ang a -tice or one month notice pas he kaninated with sits disregard to and violanon of desto unde . ID Act. Fether case is that he wis removed from the sewiewkateache ( PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 6172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

the stated policy , he may claim damages for breach of contract . The quantum of damages be a fair compensation which ordinarily would be one months wages or compensation , as may be recognized by law . On these grounds prayer has been made to reject the reference .

5. The following issues are taken for consideration and determination in this case in view of the pleadings of the parties .

ISSUES

juniors were allowed to continue to work as casual workers . He approached the management through officers of the first party on several occasion requesting for keeping him in the job. But his all efforts went in vain and he was removed from the service from 1984. He raised dispute before the ALC ( Central ) the Management of Telecom was also noticed and the efforts of conciliation Failed and so, failure report was sent resulting in sending this reference case for adjudication . The workman has prayed for the relief of his reinstatement with full backwages and other consequential benefits and also for cost of this case.

(I ) Whether the reference is maintainable ?

(II ) Whether the workanan has got valid cause of action ?

( III ) Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches ?

( IV) Whether the second party workman has completed 240 days of work in every calendar year during his tenure of work as casual labourer in the department of the party ?

(V) Whether these and party workman is entitled for reinstatement backwages and other relief as prayed for ?

(VI ) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of workman Shri Harshad D. Vaghela ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to in this case ?

FINDINGS

(6) ISSUE Nos . IV. V & VI

These issues are taken up together for discussion and consideration . Both sides also adduced oral evidence to support their respective case . The workman Harshad D. Vaghela in his oral evidence at Ext . 13 supported his stand that he worked for 240 days in calendar year and without paying retrenchment compensation by way of notice or one month pay in lieu of notice , he was removed from the work without assigning any reason . During cross -examination by the lawyer of the first party Shri G.. K. Bhatt , he admitted that after removing from the service of the first party he tried for job in the Rajkot Municipal Corporation and that he worked for 2 months in Himalay Guest House and thereafter, he also worked in a canteen for 50 days . He also stated that when he entered into the job he was 18 years of age and he admitted that presently his age is about 45 years and his family expanses is of Rs . 500 per month and by doing labour job he earns and is maintaining family expenses .

4. The first party through its written statement at Ext . 9 pleaded inter - alia raising the limitation points that the dispute has been raised at belated stage in 1995 whereas the second party workman is terminated in February 1983 and that the reference is not maintainable and the second party workman has no cause of action . Further stand taken as per para 9 of written statement is that the second party workman was working as part time casual labourer and he worked in that capacity from July- 79 to April - 80 at S.D.O. ( Telecom) Rajkot for 203 days , he worked from May - 81 to June - 1982 for 264 days in the office of A. E. MIS % D.M.T. Rajkot and he further worked from July - 82 to February - 83 of 176 days in the office A.E.MIS% D.M.T. Rajkot , thereafter the second party has not worked from March - 83 to September - 83 and left the work at his own accord . Subsequently he has worked on Muster Roll for 75 days during October - 83 to December- 83 under A.E.X. bar exchange , Rajkot . Further case is that the second -party workman was engaged as casual labourer by different unit officers as above on daily rated wages for specified and casual nature of work, and from January- 84 onwards he has left the work at his own accord and during the period of his work mentioned above he remained absent from work from May - 80 to April - 81 and from March- 83 to September - 83 , Further stand taken is that the job of the second party workman was temporary in nature and he was digging land for lying cable connection by the technical staff of the department . The workman has no where mentioned his whereabouts and source of income . He might be having his family , parents , brother and sisters and other dependants too. Without any earning he cannot discharge his responsibilities towards his family members , in this regard the workman has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the actual facts . Further stand taken is that the casual labourer is only an employee by contract of engagement and not a civil servant holding a temporary post (much less a permanent post) with any right of continuity . The principle of a civil servant getting backwages on illegal termination of his service on presumptive continuity of his service cannot apply to a casual labourer. His right flow from policy, not from rules . Abreach ofpolicy entitles him to a relief only to the extent

(7) On the other hand on behalf of the first party management , a management witness namely Anukant Popatlal Doshi was examined and cross - examined at Ext. 30. According to this Management witness the workman the policy authorizes and besides relief admissible under 6173 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

25 (F) or to pay one month wages in lieu of notice . Certainly the first party workman has not complied with the provision and has violated the provision of section 25 ( F ) . Even it is proved that the first party had violated the provision of the I.D. Act in not giving notice or notice pay to the workman, but the question remains whether on such violation the second party workman is entitled for his reinstatement as casual labourer with full backwages . It is admitted position that the second party workman was working in temporary capacity as daily rated wages on casual basis , as per requirement of the department of the first party. The second party workman had not even been granted status of temporary staff to the department of the first party.

( 10) It has been argued by Shri G.K. Bhatt , Advocate , that even though the second party workman completed 240 days of work in one calendar year , he is not entitle for his reinstatement because he was working purely in the capacity of casual labourer and so , he cannot be reinstated to the work and he cannot claim backwages . His such argument is based upon the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph ( Traffic Bhopal Vis Santosh Kumar Seal ) reported in 2010 JX ( SC ) 219 and also reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 wherein it has been held by Their Lordship that the workman where engaged as daily wages about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 and 3 years , relief of reinstatement and backwages to them cannot said to be justified and instead of monetary compensation would subserve ends of justice . As per given case law where the order passed by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the workman and the Hon'ble High Court also confirm the award , but in the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the management of Telegraph , the award regarding reinstatement of the workman was set aside and instead of compensation of Rs . 40.000 to each of the workman ( respondent ) was directed mentioning that this will meet the ends ofjustice .

never work for 240 days in any calendar year . He was also cross - examined to discredit his testimony though the management witness remained firm , on such stand taken that the workman never completed 240 days in any calendar year during tenure ofhis work as casual labourer . Butfrom the perusal of para 9 of the written statement of the first party at Ext. 9 , it is obvious that for the calendar year from May - 81 to June - 82 he completed 264 days of work that means in one year he had completed 240 days of work as casual labourer . Besides such admission made by the first party in written statement , from the documents at Ext . 32/1 , 32/2 and 32/3 , 32/4 , 33/5 it is proved as per Ext. 32/3 and Ext . 32/4 both are the same documents that the workman Shri Harshad D. Vaghela has worked as part time casual labourer for 264 days during the year w.e.f. May - 81 to June - 82 for 264 days of works having breakup of 10 days of work in May - 81 , 6 days work in July- 81 , 26 days in August - 81 , 24 days in September - 81 , 23 days in October- 81, 23 days in November - 81 , 22 days in December- 81, 24 days in January - 82 , 26 days in February - 82 , 28 days in March - 82 , 25 days in April - 82 , 26 days in May - 82 , 1 day in June - 82 ,from going through other documents as per Ext . 32 series that in the year July - 82 to Feb - 83 he worked for 176 days as per Ext . 32/5 . As per Ext . 32/2 the workman worked 14 days in July - 79 , 21 days in August - 79 , 23 days in September - 79 , 22 days in October - 79 , 24 days in November - 79 , 23 days in December - 79 , 23 days in January - 80 , 23 days in February - 80 , 22 days in March- 80 , 8 days in April - 80 total 203 days not completed 240 days in calendar year 79-80 from Ext . 32/1 it appears that the workman work for 75 days in the office of the Assistant Engineer NCC Tax Building , Rajkot having breakup of 50 days of work in October - 83 , 13 days work in November- 83 , 30 days work in December - 83 since thereafter , there is no any evidence of work done by the second party workman . According to the first party the workman him self at his own accord left the work since January - 84 and not approached for getting casual works . But according to the second party workman he was terminated from his work by oral order without complying with the provisions of the ID Act of without giving any notice for his retrenchment .

( 8 ) From the evidence both oral and documentary discussed above it is proved that only for one calendar year the second party workman completed 240 days of work, but in other calendar years during his tenure of works of 4 years he did not complete 240 days of work as per Ext . 32 series .

( 9) From the evidence it appears that though the workman has not completed 240 days of work in every calendar year during his tenure of work but since in one calendar year he had completed 240 days of work so , in that view of the matter management of the first party intending to retrench the second party workman was required to be given one month notice under section

( 11 ) In the case in hands , the status of the second party workman is also of a temporary casual worker getting daily rated wages and he only worked for about 4 years and so in view of the aforesaid case law discussed above , the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and backwages . But since the action of the first party Management in terminating the service of the workman Shri Harshad D. Vaghela is held not justified and legal because of non compliance of the provision of Section 25 ( F ) of the ID Act , 1947. So , the second party workman is found entitle for a lumpsum compensation. In this case , considering tenure of work of 4 years not in continuity in the department of the management of first party an amount compensation of Rs . 10,000 will meet ends of justice in this case . Issue No. IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above .

Date

Part N...

sin

is allo ately this ichk

gement is drown to patis

mpensation ulicany sa

SUMAR SI

बन्द्रीय सरकार

क

છે ? છે , ????? ???

1201200

3

Deite the soud Ab

HERSE

United

(14 of 19 :

short in

127

ward( h

kistoala .

the

No. Tr :

Between the emplo

Duda artal :

08.08 ted Western B

fem of co ibe the Centu

customers of

detned un

1.1.2012 13

RAMESH SING

cine a andatory NEXURE

ARE SHRUSBAND , PRI OGIECTULARER COL

accountabie bars ant NOMADE / NGP/ 2 : गुज

d approaches th

aile has

the the bests

617 2011/946

the inds of age , it was submitted by thr learn- e advocate for the Party No. 2 that the commissing paid to the Pony was a wages , is dt fuerd ande quam of the Actomi

file bank

e any notices illegit

Do the other hand , it was submitted by the icarped adverts of the Party No I that the Party No 7, was an ogen and Le cannot be said to be a cordman and the M.SD scherac a as closed we.f. 27.05 1096 amplas such , the ostract bences the parties came to an end and the Leestoneterinerting the services of Party No. 2. does mot ta ise at all and the serumate great her veert the principal and the operatest he coacirmed as cetrenchment of twen

le hspa

the

Is whone , it cannot be

spes atitled for ans matores la ó oral dence, bestes placing larry evetree . The Pariv No ?.

mu reiterated the tacts A stelemeve his axamination - n 1. inasematted that he ses supointed as a :. : tots sprut saур ассоциnt and in tus thang was mentio..ed about salary . tured and gratitity and he wis pad comorission sana collected by hum and bothng was regarding the daty hours in the appointment has not filed any order showing that he was as per recruitment rules of the management .

At Razz chandra i othe was examined as a mar , betelt ofthe Parts No. 1. He also rederated written statement , u bis * Poutsed the mairrois o co thing into consoleraton , the phra Sing , of de partes , the cadence, motherpestres and male statement o banul a for the claim i git asabiosa. Cat het as speat for under the a scheme lo by 31.105 190 nisstond had the Party recorded as, an epiployee of det after entering inivanagsecteerd with the Mar i was appondco as an agent mal was authorized to si a deposits thuva the custoста the Party ! and to depos colicctoratora with Paty No workinghountere peisenbod for the Party No.7 bar the Party No , was not concerned with the other nu ftons and activities of th Party So.So , and he was net nader the direct control of the Party J 1. las siso foual das he was worl rug as an agent en commis sen basis and there was relationship of principal and agem beseen him and Pauy . 1. Ifalse cantrst be said that the commissions as reced by the Farty No. 2 was a wages linked to the product Parts No. ? was a workatanas defined in the two... me the als lear from the matmals de record drn de Hosted by the Pany No. 1 , was chord wet. 17-451 and as such , the agreement between the pr an end aulematis alls and as such there we of serving and chastice at No.7 Party No.2 was not a word man and there was no question of termusation of bis satree, there was to question of compliance of the proviseus of wetion 25- Fand Gof d'a Act. Hence it is ordered .

The action of managementalented Western Bani : 1.td. In terminatime the services of sim on Raghumatis 6176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

Thakre , M.S.D. Agent , w.e.f. 31-5-1996 is justified. The disputant is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2299. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37 ( सी ) /2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -12012 / 61 / 2007- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2299.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 37 ( C ) of2007) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Patna as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bihar Ksheriya Gramin Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-8-2011 .

[No. L - 12012/ 61 / 2007 - IR ( B - I ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Reference Case No. 37 ( C ) of 2007 Between the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Head Office , Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger ( Bihar ) and their workman Shri Munna Jha , represented by the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Provincial Bank Employee's Association , 203 , Hariom Commercial Complex , New Dakbunglow Road , Patna - 1 ( Bihar. )

For the Management : Sri Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate , B. T. Tiwari , and Shri B. B.

Sharan , Advocates For the Workman : Sri Devi Kant Jha , Advocates & Sri Birendra Kumar Jha,

Advocates

AWARD

Patna, dated the 27th July 2011

By adjudication order No. L - 12012 / 61 / 2007 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 10-10-2007 , the Government of India , Ministry of

[PART 11 St 3 ( 1 ) Labour , New Delhi under clause ( d ) of Sub - Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section ( 2A) of Section - 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called ' the Act ' for brevity ) has referred the following dispute between the management of BiharKshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office , Bhagat Singh Chowk , Munger , Bihar and their workman Munna Jha, represented by the Deputy Secretary , Bihar Provincial Bank Employees ' Association , 203 , Hariom Commercial Complex . New Dakbunglow Road , Patna - 1 ( Bihar ) for adjudication to this Tribunal on following:

" Whether the action of the Management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the service of Shri Munna Jha , without complying Section 25 ( 1 ) of I.D. Act and not reinstating and regularising in the service is justified , legal and expedient ? If not , what relief Shri Munna Jha is entitled to ??"

2.On notice parties appeared . On behalf of workman . Bihar Provincial Bank Employees ' Association , appeared and filed Statement of Claim . It has been pleaded m the statement of claim that the workman Munna Jha ( heremafter referred to as the workman ) was appointed at Samukhia Branch of Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank as an employee w.e.f. 14-3-1990 in a proper manner and on the instructions of Head Office of the Bank at Bhagalpur. Initially up to 18-6-90 he was paid @ Rs . 21.75 per day. He was transferred to Sarvoday Nagar Branch . He was paid Rs . 35 and @ Rs . 40 per day. For the period from 14-5-95 to 30-11-96 his wages were reduced to Rs . 10 per day . Then again from 1-12-96 to 23-4-2001 he was paid @ Rs . 35 per day. He again worked at Extension Counter at Sarvoday- Nagar and thereafter Banka Branch where he was paid ( 4 Rs . 77 per day. From 25-9-2003 was paid @ Rs . 81.67 per day.He was also paid Bouns for 2001-2002 to 2004-2005 . He was not given any appointment letter . He was not given any letter regarding termination of his services . The Bank did not maintain any Muster Roll on his request for regularisation of his services . Bank called for detailed particulars from the Branch Manager who furnished details on 20-11-2002 indicating that till 31-10-2002 the workman was engaged for 1329 days . But the workman was not regularised . The workman had completed more than 240 days continuous service with in twelve calendar months immediately proceeding the termination of his services . Later on the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office , Munger issued a circular proposing termination of services of the workman from 16-9-2006 who were not appointed in terms of circular of the Bank . Apprehending termination of his services in violation of Sec- 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act the workman got an industrial dispute as per espoused by union on 20-11-2006 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Patna , who took steps by issuing notice to the Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Head Office , Munger fixing 6-12-2006 . After failure report from Assistant Labour Commissioner this Industrial Dispute has been referred to 6177 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

thisTribunal for adjudication. In a nut shell the case ofthe workman is that he had put in more than 240 days of continuous service within 12 month proceeding the date of his termination . His services were terminated without any notice and notice pay and without retenchment compenation . The action of the management in terminating the service of the workman is retrenchment and the management did not follow the rules 77 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules and did not display the name of the workman in the category of the workman in accordance with their seniority. Further the case of the workman is that the management commited an unfair labour practice by keeping on tenterhooks without absorbing him as permanent . Further the case of the workman is that he was working against a permanent post in the Bank.

Employment Exchange and without following the rules and regulations of employment in violation ofarticles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India . Service Regulation made by Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , is not applicable to any person engaged temporarily on daily wages and as such they are not treated as employees of the Bank . Having considered the problem of part time messengar- cum- sweeper employed by Kshetriya Gramin Bank all over India , NABARD issued a Circular to treat as regular employee of R.R.B. all such messenger- cum- sweeper who were in service as on 22-2-1991 and who had completed 240 days of continuous service . It was one time regularisation. It is the case of the Bank that in a Branch where there was already full time messenger any person engaged after 22-2-1991 as sweeper or on any other designation on daily wages was against the circular of the Central Government as well as the NABARD and all engagement of those class of persons are illegal , nullity and such person is not entitled to protection u/ s.25 - F of Industrial Disputes Act . With the general pleadings as aforesaid , it has been specifically pleaded that the workman concerned in this reference was engaged on daily wages without following the rules of appointment , without advertisement , without calling the names from the Employment Exchange , without following process of selection and without following rules of reservation . The workman was not given any appointment letter and it was verbal engagement on part time basis . Further the case of the Bank is that the workman Munna Jha was not member of the Union . Therefore Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees ' Association has no right to represent the workman in this case . In reply to specific pleading of the statement of claim regarding employment of the workman and his working continuously since 14-2-1990, there is no specific denial . It has been repeatedly said in the pleading of the Bank that Sec.25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable in this case and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

5.Onthe basis of terms of reference and pleading of the parties following questions are required to be decided inthis reference:-

(i) Whether workman Shri Munna Jha has proved that he worked for 240 days or more continuously within 12 months immediately preceding termination of his service ?

3. Management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger have filed their written statement . Their case is that Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger (hereinafter referred to as Bank) has been created under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 with 50 % share belonging to the Central Government , 15 % share belonging to the State Government, 15% and 35% share belonging to the Sponsoring Bank . The Bank is guided by the Circulars of the Government of India , Reserve Bank of India and NABARD . Bank is State within the meaning ofArticle 12 of Constitution of India and as such the appointment and the employment in the Bank against rules and regulations and articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is nullity and any person appointed without following rules and regulations will not be protected under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act so much so under Sec . 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appointment of any employee without advertisement or without calling name from Employment Exchange , without following procedure for appointment and without adhering to rules of reservation isnullity and are treated as back door employment and will not give any right to such employee under any law. Ministry of Finance Department of Banking issued a circular vide D.O. No. F.O. -27/75 -SC 26th November, 1975, where by and where under decided the class and strength of Officers and Employees to be appointed by Regional Rural Banks viz- Branch Manager, Field Officer/Accountant, Clerk , Junior Clerk and this circular also provide for their emoluments . This circular specifically says that no peon or his equavalent by any designation would be employed by Regional Rural Banks . Services of those who are reported to have been appointed already may be dispenced with immediately.

(ii) Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Munna Jha , without complying with Section 25 - F of Industrial Disputes Act is legal and justified ?

(iii) Whether the action of the management is not regularising and reinstating and not giving Shri Munna Jha permanent status on a regular post is legal and justified?

4. Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank , was amalgamated with Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Branch Managers of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, beyond needs and against the rules and regulations had employed number of persons in each Branch on daily wages . They were engaged on daily wages without any advertisement , without calling the name from the

3125 GI/ 11-12 [PART II S3 ( ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

6178

(iv) To what relief Sri Munna Jha is entitied to ?

preceding the date with reference to which calculation on is to be made , has actually worked under the employer 240 days within a period of one year, he will be deemed to be incontinuous service . The respondent claims he was employed in the yea 1985 as a Watchman and his services were retrenched in the year 1991 and during the period between 1985 to 1991 , he had worked for a period of more than 2:40 days . The burden of proof is on the respondent to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment . The law on this issue appears to be now well settled. This court in the case of R.M. Yellatty V Assistant Executive Engineer ( 2006 ) 1 SCC 106 : ( 2005 AIR SOW 6103 ) , has observed :

" However, applying general principles and on reading the aforesaid judgements , we find that hus Court , has repeatedly taken the view that the burden ofproof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year . This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping up in the witness box , This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence , both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earners , there will be no letter of appointment of termination . There will also be no receipt of proof of payment . Thus in most cases , the workman ( the claimant ) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominat muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment of termination , if any, the wage register, the attendance register , ete . Drawing of advance inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the facts of each case" .

6. Question No. ( i ) ; The case of the workman is that he was appointed/ engaged w.e.f. 14-3-1990 . As on 30-10-2002 he has put in a total number of 1239 days of service. He had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each year particularily within 12 months immediately preceding his termination from 16-9-2006 . This claim of the workman has not denied specifically by the Bank in written statement . Rather the witness examined on behalf of the Bank . M. W.1 Sri Anil Kumar , who is a Senior Manager ( Personnel ) of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger stated in his cross - examination ( Paragraph 25) that the workman was engaged for cleaning work since 1991 or 1992 and worked till 2006. But there was a break . He was removed from work without notice . No pay in lieu of notice was given to workman and no compensation was given to the workman . This statement by a Senior Manager ofPersonnel Department of the Bank in the witness Box is can did admission of the case of the workman that he was removed/ terminated without any notice and compensation . Besides this admission by the management the workman examined as W.W.1 has also stated that he worked from 14-3-1990 and within 12 months preceding the date of his termination he had completed 240 days of continuous service . He has produced documentary evidence also . Ext . W/2 is the letter from the Head Office of the Bank on the basis of which the workman was appointed . Letter dated 7-4-97、21-4-2001 and 22-4-2003 are Exts . W/ 3 , W/ 4 and W/ 5 respectively are regarding payment of wages . A report sent by Nathnagar Branch to the Head Office for regularisation is Ext . W/ 1 . This report shows that he had worked for more than 1239 days as on 31-10-2002 . This report indicate that the workman worked for the period 14-3-1990 to 15-6-90 and then 8-12-1994 . The workman filed a petition dated 13-2-2009 praying therein to call for certain documents which was allowed and the Tribunal vide order dated 13-2-2009 directed the Bank to produce the documents called for in that petition . In that petition , interalia , at serial no . 16 Master Roll for the period from 14-3-1990 to 16-9-2006 was called for and at serial no . 17 attendance Register for working of the workman from 14-5-90 to 16-9-2006 was called for an wages register was also called for. There two documents could have been evidence of the fact that the workman worked. It was argued on behalf of the workman that adverse inference shouldbe drawn against Bank for not producing these documents inspite of direction of the Tribunal dated 13-2-2009 .

In this regard law is well settled . In Director , Fisheries Terminal Division V. Bhkubhai Meghajibai Chavda AIR 2010 SC 1238 it was held:

In the case in hand there is no specific denial by the Bank that the workman was not engaged or he did not work for 240 days continuously in preceding twelve calendar months from the date of his termination . W.E.1 Munna Jha the workman himself has stated on oath in the witness box that he worked for more than 240 days within 12 months immediately before termination of his services . It is well settled that in such cases documents of appointment attendance and payment of wages may not be with the workman . These documents were called for from the management but inspite of direction by the Tribunal were not produced. Under such circumstances , this is a fit case where adverse inference should be drawn against the management . Having considered the pleadings and evidence as also the circumstance of non production of important documents by Bank inspite of calling anddirection of Tribunal , I hold that the workmen worked for more than 240 days contmironsis within twelve months immediately preceding termusen of his services .

"Section 25 - B of the Act defines continuous service " In terms of sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 25 - B that if a workman during a period of twelve calendar months 6179 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

the constitutional scheme . Merely because , an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which is described as litigious employment , he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed . or made permanent in the service . In fact in such cases the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions since after all if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief. It may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instrument to facilitate by passing of the constitutional and statutory madates .

7. Question No. ( ii ) : The main defence put forward by the Bank is that Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger has been created under the Regional Rural Bank Act , 1976 . it is guided by the direction and circulars issued by the Central Government/Reserve Bank of India/NABARD . The workman was earlier illegally engaged by local Management of a Branch of Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank , without advertising the vacancy without calling for the names from the Employment Exchange and without following any procedure of appointment . Later on Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank , merged with Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank . In 1991 by a circular part time messenger - cum- sweeper who had completed 240 days of continuous service were ordered to be treated as regular employee of R.R.Bs. In the same circular there was complete ban on further employment of part time or full time sweeper or messenger . The workman was engaged as stated above without any notification of vacancy , without any advertisement , without calling for names from Employment Exchange , and without following and procedure . Such an employment is illegal and the person appointed has no legal right . His engagement was nullity and he will not get the protection of Sec.25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management argued this aspect of the case vehemently . In this regard reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the management on Constitution Bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary , State of Karanataka Vs. Uma Devi and others AIR - 2006 SC 1806-

8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman argued that the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Uma Devi was not a case under Industrial Disputes Act . The case before the Hon'ble Apex Court was only limited on the question of regularisation . The Industrial Disputes Act has provisions for protection of interest of the workman and any retrenchment or termination of service without complying with the required provisions is illegal and the workman so retrenched or dismissed deserves relief of reinstatement with full back wages . The learned Counsel further argued that it is not that the workman in the case was engaged by the local manager without approval of the Head Office of the Bank. ExtW/ 2 is a letter from Head Office of Bhagalpur . Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank as it then was regarding employment of the workman and on the basis of that letter he was appointed.

9. This is a case under Industrial Disputes Act . Admittedly the termination of service of the workman was based on a circular of NABARD requiring R.R.Bs. to discontinue with the services of persons engaged as sweeper or messenger on daily wages basis or on part time basis . Admittedly no notice was given to the workman . No pay was given to the workman . No compensation was given to him . Non - compliance of provisions of Sec . 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act is thus admitted . There is no dispute that provisions of Sec..25-1 of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with to which in my opinion the workman was entitled. Uma Devi's case ( Supra ) was not a case under Industrial Dispute Act. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer 2010 AIR SUW INA ? ( Paragraph - 12 ) that decision in Uma Devi's cases to regularisation in public employment and has no relevance to an award under Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute A. !

"Unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons , the same would not confer any right on the appointee . If it is a contractual appointment the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract , if it were engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis , the same would come to an end when it is discontinued . Similarly , a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his terms of appointment . It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment , he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service of such continuance , if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules . It is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of adhoc employee who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right . High Courts acting under Art. 226 of the consititution of India , should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption , regularization , or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularily and in terms of 6180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

10. Question No. ( iii ) : The learned Counsel for the workman argued that in the matter of regularisation of service the workman in this case was discriminated against . In the light of a Circular of NABARD part - time messenger- cum- sweeper or daily wager who had completed 240 days of continuous service on that date were treated as regular employee R.R.B. w.e.f. 22-2-1991 . But the workman was not treated as regular employee . His request for regularisation of his services was not considered and no heed was paid. In this case the circular to which the learned counsel for the workman made reference is of the year 1993. This was one time decision for one time regularisation. There was prohibition against future employment of daily wager in that circular . The workman was employed/ engaged that circular in the year 1994. In 1990 he worked only for three months from 14-3-90 to 15-6-90 as per Ext. W/1 filed by workman. He can not claim benefit of regularisation under that circular . Moreover the workman in this case is a daily wager . He was not appointed against any post . Therefore there is no question of regularisation of his service .

11. Question No. ( iv) : I have already held that the workman in this case worked for more than 240 days within 12 months immediately proceeding the termination of his services . It is admitted case that he was not paid any compensation and Sec.25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with . Therefore termination of services ofthe workman in this case namely Sri Munna Jha is bad in the eye of law not legal and not justified . Now the question is to what relief he is entitled to . The learned Counsel for the workman argued that when the termination of services of the workman is not legal and not justified for non compliance of Sec.25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages .

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management argued that even if the termination services of the workman is found to be illegal reinstatement with back wages may not be appropriate relief and only monetary compensation will meet and ends ofjustice .

Recenttrend of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in such matters is in support of the argument advanced on behalf of the management . Reference to only one decision in which several other decision of the hon'ble Apex Court have been referred to will answer this question , In Senior Superintendent , Telegraph ( Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh and others AIR - 2010 , it has been held.......

" In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate ( See U. P. State Barasware Corporation Ltd. & Anr V. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479

[ PART II --- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn . V.M.C. Joshi ( 2007 ) 9 SCC 353 ; State of M.P. & Ors . V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute ( 2008 ) 5 SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority V. Ramsahai & Anr. ( 2206) 11 SCC 684 ; Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr . V. Ashok Kumar & Anr . ( 2008 ) 4 SCC 261 ; Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr . (2008 ) 1 SCC 575 :

In a recent judgement authorised by one of us (R.M. Lodha, J. ) in the case of Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr . 9 ( 2009 ) 15 SCC 327 , the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated ;

It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination an employee was found to be illegal the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However in recent post there has been a in the legal position and in a long line of cases thi Court has consistently taken the view that reliefhay of reinstatement with back wages is not auton and may be wholly inappropriate in a given act situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure . Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends ofjustice .

* *

* Itwould be thus seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25- F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not , however be automatically passed . The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination particularly daily wager has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee .

In this case workman Munna Jha is a daily wager . Having regard to fact of this case and law discussed above I am of the view that a compensation of Rs . 75,000 (Rs . seventy five thousand) only will meet the ends of justice and as such Munna Jha is awarded & compensation ofRs . 75,000 ( Rs . seventy five thousand) only .

The management is directed to make the payment of compensation to the workman Munna Jha within the 30 days of publication of the Award.

12. And this is my Award.

Dictated & Corrected by me .

HARISH CHANDRA SINGH , Presiding Officer.

[ भाग II , खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2300.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद नं. 2 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012 /128/2003- आईआर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2300.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 120/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No.2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s.E CL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/ 128 /2003 - IR ( C - I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT (NO . 2) , AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 120 of 2003

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management ofMugma Area of M/ s . E.C.Land their workman.

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalf of the workmen

On behalf of the employers

State : Jharkhand

Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate . Industry: Coal.

Dated , Dhanbad , the 20th July, 2011 .

ORDER

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 vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 128 / 2003 - IR ( C - I ) , dated , the 10th November , 2003 .

6181

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofMugma Area of M/ s . ECL in demoting S / Sri Bharat Chandra Paul , B.C. Mandal and Ganesh Mahato from Cat . VI to Cat. V is fair and justified ? If not , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ? "

2. None represented the Union/ workman . No WW produced on behalf of the Union . Mr.D.K. Verma , the Ld . Counsal for the management is present .

3.Onperusal of the case record it is evident that the present reference case is related to the question about the justification of the management's action of Mugma Area ofM/ s . E.C.L. in demotion of workman S / Shree Bharat Chandra Paul , B.C. Mandal and Ganesh Mahato from Cat . VI to Cat . V. It is observed that the case has been pending for the evidence of the workman since 25-8-06 , for which despite the notice dtd . 3-11-2010 and even after giving last chance no workman witness has been produced even to- day . The conduct of the Union/ workman clearly indicates their disinterestedness to proceed with the case. Under the circumstances , carrying on the present case for uncertainly due to lack lustreness of the Union of the workman stands unwarrented . Hence the case is closed and accordingly Order is passed .

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

का.आ. 2301.-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 94/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-20012/509/ 2000- आई आर ( सी. I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2301. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 94/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No.1 Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/509 /2000 - IR ( C - I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 6182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

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. 94 of 2001

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . BCCL .

AND

Their workmen .

Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer .

Present:

APPEARANCES :

: Shri S.N. Sinha , Advocate , For the Employers

For the workman

: Shri N. G. Arun , Organising Secretary , R.C.M.S. State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 19-7-2001

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012/ 509 / 2000- ( C - I ) dated 29-3-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of M / s . BCCL , in terminating the services of the workman Sri Sambhu Orang , P.R.U.G. Miner Loader of East Bhuggatdih Colliery , under Kustore Area , is justified, legal and proper ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled? "

2. The case of the concerned workman is that Rajoo Orang , Ex . H.E. Operator of East Bhuggatdih Colliery had been declared permanent ' unfit ' by the Medical Board held on 25-1-95 . When he was declared unfit his son , Sambhu Orang had applied for employment in place of his father under clause 9-4-3 of NCWA - IV. During course of fulfillment of all paraphernalias of the process of employment of Sambhu Orang , his father Rajoo Orang expired on 25th February, 1995. On the basis of proposal forwarded by the Project Officer of East Bhuggatdih Colliery to the General Manager of Bhalgora Area and simultaneously being satisfied the proposal , the General Manager forwarded the same to Headquarter of BCCL to accord administrative approval to provide employment to Sambhu Orang . The General Manager of Bholgora Area on this basis of administrative approval of Headquarter of BCCL , had issued an appointment letter dated 3 / 11-5-1996 to Sambhu Orang son of late Rajoo Orang for job of P.R. U / G. Miner / Loader . On the basis of office order of Personnel Officer , Bhalgora Area , Project Officer of Simlabahal colliery had

[ PART II St. 3 ( allowed him to join duty vide office order dated 25 / 28-5-96 As per Service Excerpt of his deceased father in the columus of " Permanent address " following informations were furnished :-

VIII . + P.S. + P.O. - Mirjapur ,

Distt . Bankura ( West Bengal ) .

Sambhu Orang son of late Rajoo Orang never visitost his native place . He has been dwelling at Qr. No. 174 , Sector VI , Block- D , P.O. Bhuli , P.S. Bhuli . Dist. Dhanbad along with his family members right from his childhood . Sambha Orang was not knowing that his father had committed mistake about the name of the place of Police Station of his native village . In fact " Kotulpur " should have been furnished in place of Mirjapur as Police Station. On the basis of the affidavit sworn by his mother , Smt . Rani Dev wife of late Rajoo Orang , and local verification , Sambhu Orang had been allowed to join duty . Later on , when the management sent letter to his native place which is under Police Superintendent of Bankura District ( W.B. ) the S.P Bankura had informed to the management that there is no Police Station named " Mirjapur " in Bankura District . After receiving the letter from the S.P. , Bankura , the management without providing fair opportunity and violating the principle of natural justice terminated Sambhu Orang from the services of the company vide letter dated 78-11-96 issued by Project Officer, Simlabahal colliery. The workeran and his mother had several time requested the management not to award capital punishment and to send any person his native village about verification of his genuinity . The Gram Pradhan of Mirjapur Gram Panchayat has also authenticated the genuineness of Sambhu Orang and also certified the relationship between late Rajoo Orang and Sambhu Orang as father and son . When the workman union had made a request to the A.L..C . ( C ) to advice the management for reverification , on the advice of the A1 (. (C) the management sent a letter to S.P. Bankura. This trave the S.P. Bankura after proper verification sent a report that Sambhu Orang son of Late Rajoo Orang is a genuine person and is a resident of Village Mirjapur , P.O. Mirjapur. PS . Kotulpur , Dist . Bankura . Inspite of getting positive report with respect to genuinity of Sambhu Orang the management has not allowed the workman to join duty.

Under such circumstances it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award setting aside the order of termination and directing the management to reinstate Sambhu Orang as P.R. Underground Miner Loader with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits .

3. The case of the management is that Sambh... Hang S/ o Late Rajoo Orang was provided employnich n the company and posted at Simlabahal colliery de lett : dated 3/ 11-5-96 as PR UG Miner Loader . At the time of application for employment he declared his permanent home adress as Vill Mirjapur , P.O. & P.S Mirjapur . Dist . Bankara [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

attestation form as well as in Identification Certificate . The management requested the district authorities , Bankura to sent the verification report in respect of genuinenesss of Sambhu Orang as per norms of the company . The S.P. , District Intellegence Branch , Bankura vide letter dt . 31-5-96 informed that there was no P.S. named ' Mirjapur'in the district of Bankura. It was clearly mentioned in the offer of appointment dated 8 / 16-1-96 that in case police verification reveals adverse report , candidate's service will be liable to be terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever . On the basis of adverse report received from Supdt . of Police , Dist . Bankura , the service of Sambhu Orangterminated vide letter dated 7 / 8-11-96 of the Project Officer/Agent , Simlabahal Colliery as decided by the General Manager and communicated vide letter dated 6-9-96 .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass the award holding that the action of the management is just , proper and the person concerned is not entitled to any relief .

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

5. The management has produced MW - 1 , S.S. Ray, who has proved documents as Exts . M - 1 to M - 7 and also proved one document in cross - examination as Ext . W- 1 .

The concerned workman produced himself as WW- 1 ( Sambhu Orang S / o Late Rajoo Orang ) and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 / 1 to W- 16 .

6. Main arguments advanced on behalf of the workman that he was removed from service without enquiry .

In this respect argued that he was removed from service because he got appointment fradulently because he does not belong to P.S. Mirjapur , Dist . Bankura .

In this respect it has been argued on behalf of the concerned workman that his P.S. is Kotulpur. He has mentioned Vill . & P.S. Mirjapur because Vill . & P.S. Mirjapur was mentioned in the service excerpt of his father on which basis he was appointed by the management on compassionate ground .

It has also been argued that the enquiry was conducted without verifying his present address as well as his native place . It is just possible that when the concerned workman was residing at the Quarter provided by the management is not possible that he may get correct P. S. from his native village where he was residing. It is possible that due to long time P.S. Mirjapur has been changed to Kotulpur ' . There is no P.S. ' Mirjapur ' P.S. and on that basis an employee cannot be terminated. It must be verified from the present address when he was living with his father and his name also finds place in service excerpt provided by his father. He has mentioned the name of Village & P.S. of his native place which has been mentioned by his late father.

6183

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

7. MW- 1 , S.S. Ray , has stated in cross - examination at page 2 that before termination there was no domestic enquiry against the concerned workman . The father ofthe concerned workman was an employee of Bhatdih colliery. I do not know if the address of the father of the concerned workman in his service book is the same as furnished by the concerned workman , I do not know if the mother of the concerned workman had sworn an affidavit before giving employment to the concerned workman . From a long time the concerned workman was residing in his local address , therefore , he was given employment after verification in local address . I do not know during conciliation proceeding the concerned workman has mentioned that the police station of the village is ' Kotulpur ' and then the matter was sent for verification and verification report was received . It has also been stated that the Dy . Chief Personnel Manager has written that genuineness of the concerned workman has been established by the verification from Kotulpur P. S. Thus , he cannot be terminated for giving false information regarding ' Kotulpur P.S. ' for which it has been verified from ' Mirjapur ' P. S. only because in his father's service record that address was given.

No domestic enquiry was held against the concerned workman . Paper filed by the management , Ext . M- 1 shows that his father was residing at Qr . No. 174 , Sector- VI , Block - D . Bhuli , Dhanbad and Village address Mirjapur , P.O. and P.S. Mirjapur, Dist . Bankura and the concerned workman's name finds place in service excerpt of the address . Ext . M - 6 shows that he was terminated without any domestic enquiry. As per Ext . W- 1 it has been mentioned vide letter written by District Magistrate , Bankura sent the verification report in which the genuineness has been established by the police . There is no ground to terminate the service of the concerned workman for false address . The concerned workman has filed Ext . W- 11 . Basic Training Cerificate , which shows ris address Vill . -Mirjapur , P.S. Kotulpur , P.O. Mirjapur , Dist. Bankura , which is public document.

Considering the above facts and circumstances , it shows that the management has illegally terminated the service of the concerned workman .

8. Accordingly, I hold that the action of the management of M / s . BCCL in terminating the services of the workman , Sri Sambhu Orang , P.R.U.G. Miner Loader , of East Bhagatdih Colliery, under Kustore Area , is not justified , legal and proper. Hence , the concerned workman is entitled for re - instatement with 50 % back wages from the date of termination of service till his reinstatement with all consequential benefits . The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award .

This is my Award .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer 6184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2302.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आटो वर्कशॉप केनवादीह ऑफ बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद न. 1 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -20012/452/1999- आईआर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2302. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 114/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Auto Workshop , Kenduadih of BCCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/452 / 1999 - IR ( C - I ) ] D.S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT (NO . I ) , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U /S . 10( 1 ) ( d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 114 of 2000

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Auto Wrokshop , Kenduadih of BCCL .

AND

Their Workmen .

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

None

For the Employers

None

For the Workmen

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

Dated , 15-7-2011 .

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 / 452 / 1999 - IR- ( C - 1 ) dated 18-2-2000 the Cental Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the demand of the Union before the management of Auto Wrokshop , Kenduadih of M / s . BCCL to give pay protection and to fix the wages of Sri Indradeo Ram at a higher point in line with other is justified and proper ? If yes , so what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. The reference case was received in this Tribunal on 28-2-2000 . Thereafter notices were sent to the parties . But none of the parties appeared to take any step . Neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union appeared nor written statement was filed on behalf of the workman.

award. 3. In such circumstances , I render a ' no dispute'

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

का.आ. 2303.-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 न. 1 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 189/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/ 63/2000- आईआर ( सी -1) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2303. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref No. 189 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2011 .

[No. L - 20012-63/ 2000 - IR ( C - 1 ) { D.S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U / s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A ) of L.D. Act , Reference No. 189 of 2000

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management ofBCCL AND

Their workmen .

Present: Shri H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

APPEARANCES :

None

For the Employees

For the Workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 14-7-2011 .

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/63/2000- IR(C-I) dated 29-6-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -sec. ( 1 ) and sub - sec . ( 2A) ofSection 10 of the I.D.Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

" क्या बी.सी.सी.एल. पी.वी. क्षेत्र के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा श्री जोगेन्द्र सिंह को बिना चिकित्सा बोर्ड/ आयु निर्धारण समिति के समक्ष भेजे बिना उनकी जन्म तिथि तारीख वर्ष 1938 मान लेना (तथा उसे वर्ष 1939 न मानना ) न्यायौचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र है । "

2. The reference case was received in this Tribunal on2-8-2000. But till now neither party appeared to take any step in spite of giving several adjournment . Registered notices were sent to the sponsoring union to file written statement on behalf of the concerned workman . But no written statement has been filed . It , therefore , appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .

In such circumstances , a ' no dispute award is passed in the present reference case.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Offficer नई दिल्ली , 3 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2304.-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 न. 2 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2011 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/90/2007- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2304.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61 / 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL, and their 31259077-13

6185

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

workman, which was received by the Central Government on03-08-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/90/2007- 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 Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 61 of 2007

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workmen

Mr. B.B. Pandey, Advocate. Onbehalf of the employers

Mr.D.K. Verma, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad , the 20th July, 2011 .

ORDER

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- 20012/90/2007- IR( CM- I) dated 5-10-07.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of East Katras Colliery under Katras of M/ s . BCCL, Dhanbad in dismissing the services of Sh . Jugal Kishore Rawani Miner Loader w.e. f. 24-10-2005 isjustified & legal ? Ifnot , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. Mr. B.B. Pandey, the Ld . Advocate filing his authorisation under the signature of Shri Arjun Singh , the General Secretary of the Union concerned along with a petition filed on behalf of the General Secretary submits the concerned workman ( Shri Jugal Kishore Rawani , the Miner/Loader ) has get the employment and this dispute stands resolved, as such there is no dipsute at all . A copy ofthe petition has also been served upon Mr. D.K. Verma , the Ld. Advocate for the management, who raised no objection to it .

3. From the perusal of the case record it is quite clear that the present reference case relates to the action ofthe management of East Katras Colliery under Katras Area , 6186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

BCCL , Dhanbad in dismissal of the workman Shri Jugal Kishore Rawani , the Miner /Loader w.e.f. 24-10-2005 . The case was running for filing Written Statement on behalf of the workman ab initio since 14-3-08 but dispite registered notices dt. 4-6-2008 , dt.23-11-2010 and registered show cause dt . 26-5-2011 the workman neither appeared nor filed his W.S. But meanwhile , as the workman has got his employment no longer the industrial dispute exists.

4. Under the circumstances , I find that the Industrial Dispute has been solved with the employment of the workman by the management , Hence , it is unnecessary to proceed with the reference as it has been solved . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly order is passed.

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

का.आ. 2305.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टी.आई.एस.सी. ओ. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद न. 2 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 02/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012 /166/2004- आईआर ( सी-I ) ] डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2305.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . TISCO , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/ 166/2004- 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 1.0 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 2 of 2005

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Tisco and their workman .

APPEARANCES:

Shri Ram Ratan Onbehalf of the workman

Ram , Advocate .

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Onbehalf of the employers

Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

Dated , Dhanbad , the 19th July , 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/ 166/ 2004-1.R . ( C - I) , dated , the 14th December , 2004.

SCHEDULE

"Kya messrs Tisco Key Pravandhtantra Dwara Karmkar Shri Dwarika Paswan Ko Dinank 1-4-2004 Sey Sewa Sey Barkhast Kiya jana Vidhivat , Uchit Evam Nayasangat Hain ? Yadi Nahi to karmkar Kis Rahat Key Patra Hain? "

2. The case of workman Dwarika Paswan is that he under personnel No. 214058 was Ex - Roof Bolter Mazdoor workman in Bhelatand ' A' Colliery of M/ s . Tisco . He had been performing his job regularly , punctually and sincerely since his appointment , always attempting to give high production for the company, but he never neglected his duty. He being the strong supporting member of the R.C.M.S opposed the unfairly settlement held between the Management of Tisco and the Office bearer of the R.C.M.S. for payment of arrear in Ref. Case No. 43/2002 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Dhanbad . He had submitted a petition on 23-12-2002 in that case before the Tribunal with a request not to pass an " Award " on the basis of the aforesaid unfair settlement , and again a petition jointly signed by 1663 workers of all callieries of Tisco on the same date to that effect . The management did not agree to pay the arrear , the workman called for the workers to oppose the unfair settlement . Meanwhile , the Management issued him an illegal chargesheet on 13-01- 2004 to which he satisfactorily replied . The management sent him a letter to participate on the enquiry proceeding but it was received by him after enquiry was unfairly and unjustly conducted ex - parte , as he was not given the opportunity for his defence . Thereafter , he was illegally and unjustly dismissed from the service w.e.f. 01-04-2004 without any ryhme or reason and any domestic enquiry . He belongs to the Scheduled Caste . On personally raising the Industriai dispute by the workman , the reference came for adjudication . He is entitled to reinstatement in his service with full back wages .

2. The workman with specific denials has stated in his rejoinder that the award was pronouned in the Ref. Case No. 43/2002 in which he had opposed the settlement of both the parties about the arrears payment . He has a [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

member of the R.C.M.S. had demanded from the Management to revoke the unfair settlement and to pay the workers of Tisco their arrears . The Management is jealous of the workman being an active member of the Union . He had filed the C.P.Case No. 266/04 against the Management on 08-01-2004 for calling his bad name by "Dusadh , Achut, Chhot Harijan" which is still pending in the Court of the J.M. 1st Class , Dhanbad . As he is schedule caste , he was vexed and harassed by the Authority of Tisco without any reason . The management refused to receive the reply of the chargesheet and also denied to set up an enquiry committee to conduct fair and proper enquiry. Neither the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice nor the charge was established .

3.Whereas , categorically denying the allegations of the workman , the case of the management is that the workman had committed a serious misconduct of riotous , disorderly and indecent behaviours with his superior on 8-1-2004 while he was on ' A' Shift duty and the said misconduct comes under the clause 19(5 ) of the Company's Certified Standing Order , though the workman was chargesheeted on 8-1-04 for his aforsaid misconduct yet he did not submit any reply to it; therefore , it was decided to conduct a domestic enquiry in to the charges levelled against him , in accordance with the principle of natural justice , for which the management appointed the Enquiry Officer. The workman was given ample opportunities to appear in the enquiry but he did not appear at the relevant time, so the Enquiry Officer had to proceed with the exparte enquiry, and after conducting the domestic enquiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice , the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding , holding the workman guilty ofthe charges levelled against him . Thereafter the workman was supplied with the copy of Enquiry report as per letter dt . 16-3-2004 before imposing any punishment, to which he had also submitted his representationdt. 22-3-04 , but finding it unsatisfactory, he was dismissed from the service ofthe company with effect from 1-4-2004 as per letter dt. 27-3-04 . The dismissal of workman was legal and justified . The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was also fair and proper and in accordance with the principle of naturaljustice .

4. The management has represented in his rejoinder that the management had taken the disciplinary action against the workman for his serious aforesaid misconduct . The settlement held between both the parties was submitted before the Hon'ble Tribunal concerned and it was accepted as fair and proper. So the issue was already settled and accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of which an Award was passed accordingly in Ref. No. 43 of 2002. Despite the ample opportunity the workman did not deliberately participate in the Enquiry ; as such the workman is not entitled to any relief.

3125 Gl /11-14

6187

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011/ भाद्र 5 , 1933

Finding with the Reasons

5.On the perusal of the case record , it stands evident that in course of the evidence of the management on preliminary point whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and accordance with the principle of natural justice , Mr. R.R. Ram , the representative of the workman by filling a petition has accepted the domestic enquiry fair and proper , urging for marking the relevent domestic of the enquiries Extt . for the management . Accordingly as per Order dt . 02-2-2011 of the Tribunal , the documents of the management namely , The Chargesheetdt . 8-1-04 , the copy ofthe notice of Enquirydt . 13-1-04 , the original application 15-01-04 and the original explanationdt. 12-01-04 of workman Dwarika Paswan , the Office copy of the letter dt . 19-1-04, 23 /24-01-04 along with the enquiry proceeding , the enquiry reportdt. 08-03-04 , the copy of the second show cause notice to the workman , the original application ofthe concerned workmandt . 22-03-04 , the Office copy of the Order of dismissal , and the photo copy of the Service Record of the workman Dwarika Paswan have been marked as Ext . M- 1 , M -2 , M -3 , M - 4, M -5 , M - 6 series , M - 7 to M - 11 respectively. In result , it came up for hearing argument on merit in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. In view of the admission of the workman concerned the domestic enquiry as fair and proper , it directly comes to the point of consideration over the quantum of punishment to the workman for the proved misconduct as alleged in the chargesheet. On the perusal ofthe materials of the domestic enquiry which have been marked as mentioned above for the management on the basis of the admission on behalf of the workman , I find that admittedly the workman was chargesheeted under clause 19(5) of the Company's Standing Order for his misconduct of his threatening to the authority concerned (Manager) of the consequences on 08-01-04 . Though the workman by his Registered letterdt . 12-1-2004 ( Ext . M - 4) submitted his explanation to the chargesheet yet despite the registered letters ( Ext . M - 5 , M - 6 and M - 6/ 1 ) , his non- participation appeared to be wilful evasion to face the enquiry, resulting in the domestic enquiry proceeding exparte . His aforsaid admission of the enquiry as fair and proper has also deprived himself to produce any witness onhis behalf. The Enquiry Report dated 8-3-04 ( Ext . M - 7) reveals the proof of the afroesaid charge of misconduct inthe light ofthe statement of Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh. the Management Representati management witness against t his representation 3. 27-3-04 show cause di 16-03-04 (EAL authority as fiinding him indecent behavio 1. Sinha, ereafter on 17-03-2004 PM of ristous , disorderly........ wwwvior ander the aforesaie clause of the Comp.dang Order, dismissed hieu w.e.f. - 1-04-04.

183

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

7. The submission of Mr. R.R. Ram , the Ld . Advocate for the workinan is that the workman was never previously chargesheeted for it and the workman who retired on 11-2008 was all along victim of victimisation at the hand > the managemen , ofTisco which in lack of any evidence or pleading appears to be not plausible rather inconsistent . Whereas Mr. D.k. Verma , the Ld . Advocate for the nanagement reh ing upon the authority : 2006 SSC ( L & S) 133 (DB) Home Gowda Educational Trust and Another.. Appellants- versus - State of Karnataka and others . Respon as held therein by the Apex Court , submit that 'A person when dismissed from service is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunitused.. maintenance of discipline of an Institution is equally important. (para- 20 ) " . In the back drop of the case , I find that the plea of the aforesaid Ld. Counsel of the management appears to be highly persuasive and plausible. In the instant case the punishment of dismissal of the workman for his aforesaid riotous , disorderly and indecent behaviour with his superior officer under the aforesaid clause of the Company's Standing Officer was just and propertionate , as the breach of discipline on the part of any employee like the concerned workman in the institution may atiect similar recognised institutions on a large scale which cannot be tolerated in the spirit of the law of the land

Inview of the aforesaid discussed facts , I find and hold that the action of the management of M/ s . Tisco for thedismissal of workman Dwarika Paswan from his service with effect from 1-4-2004 is quite legal and justified, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.

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

का. आ. 2306. 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 15/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ थाः

२. एल -12 /476-2001- आईआर (सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एल. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Dells the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 230Io pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 15/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. 2. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ S.BCCL,

[PART II--SEC. 3 ( );

and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2011 .

[No. L - 20012/476/2001 - 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 Inthematter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I. D. Act , 1947 .

Reference of 2002

PARTIES: Employer relation to the management ofBhan Coking , Coal Ltd's Katras Area and their

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalf of the W kan

Mr. U. N. Lal , Onbehalf of the Empire

State : Jharkhari

Advocate . Industry: Coal .

Dated, ambad , the 20th July . 2011 .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour. in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Secuon 10(1) (d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/476/ 2001 - IR . ( C - I ) , dated , the 20th February. 2002.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Ram Bilash from the services of the company we.f. 11-1-95 is justified ? If not , to what relief are the concerned workman entitled?"

1. The case of workman Ram Bilash as sponsored by the Union is that as per the Office Order No. KAPD / 585/3846 dt . 11-5-91 of the G.M. Katras Area and the Office OrderNo. RICC/PD/91 /308 dt . 27/30-5-91 of the Dy. C.M.E. Ramkanali Colliery the workman was appointed as Miner / Loader at Ram Kanali Colliery. He was allowed to resume his duty since 30-5-91 , and since then , he had been unblemishedly performing the work as Miner / Loaderto the satisfection of the Management . The workman like all the miner /loader in course ofworking underground mines suffered from disease of common nature , so he got irregular but not habitual . The chargesheet was issued without a preliminary enquiry . He was dismissal for a miner misconduct of absence from duty since 11-7-94 whichis severe punishment not permissible by the law though he had explained the reason of his absence before every forum 6189 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

etc. As the policy of holding a domestic enquiry, a preliminary enquiry depends upon the merit of the case . The workman had not submitted any documents in support of his statement in the enquiry. The competent authority was also the Disciplinary Authority had issued the punishment order on 11-1-95. The workman fully taking part in the enquiry had signed the Enquiry Proceeding on each page . The Enquiry Officer had invariably supplied the copies of the Enquiry Proceeding to the workman and the Presenting Officer also . The action of the management in the early years of 1995 was just , fair and reasonable . The habitual absentism of the workman was his grave misconduct as per the provision of Certified Standing Order ofthe Company .

FINDING WITH THE REASONS prior to awarding the punishment . Moreover , the dismissal order was not issued by the Punishing Authority. Neither the copies of all statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry as relied upon by the Enquiry Officer nor his finding was supplied to him by the Disciplinary Authority . So the perverse enquiry is vitiated for vindictive whimsical and malafide , and unproved charge , as well as for violation of the principle of reasonable opportunity no second show cause for representation about specified legal punishments . His dismissal punishment was not commensurate with any gravity of his miner misconduct . Even his mercy petition containing his difficulties was unconsidered rather forwarded by the General Manager to the Head Quarter , though he ( workman had properly replied the query of the H.Q. in that matter , yet he could not get any dicision about it . He was not paid his wages from 11-7-94 to 11-7-95 . So the action of the Management is illegal , arbitrary, unjustified and improper . When the Management failed to hear his reasonable demand of the Union the industrial dispute was referred for adjudication .

2. In rejonder , it pleaded on behalf of the workman that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry impartially and open mindedly, as all his materials put before him were unconsidered , so it is perverse . No rule of bipertite settlement persued to for the dismissal in view of his less attendence in a year which is incorrect .

5. On the perusal of the case record , I find that MW- 1 Sadanand Dubey as P.M. of Sijua Area was examined on preliminary point who was also cross -examined on behalf of the workman . But no witness was examined at the preliminary point on behalf of the workman. The aforesaid Management witness in course of his statement at the preliminary point has proved the copy of chargesheet , the attested copies of proceeding papers , the signatures of workman all along thereupon , the attested copies of his report , the note sheets , the approval of the G.M. & the dismissal order as Ext . M - 1 , M - 2 ( series after objection) , M -3 series , M - 4 ( all with objections) M - 5; M- 5/ 1 , and Ext . M - 6 respectively. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the management witness (MW- 1 ) , this Tribunal as per Order 12-1-2006 has held the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer MW - 1 Sadanand Dubey as fair , proper and in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice . Thereafter it directly came up for hearing at the point whether the quantum of punishment as dismissal imposed upon the workman for habitual unauthorised absentism was just and proper .

6. Mr. U. N. Lal , the Ld. Advocate for the management has submitted that the workman was though a Miner / Loader yet dismissed from his service as per the Competent Authority's letter dt . 16 / 11-1-95 ( Ext . M - 6 ) for his regular absentism as per the chargesheets dt. 8-8-94 ( Ext . M - 1 ) ; as such as per the Certified Standing Order of the Company his dismissal from the service of the Company was quite commensurate with his aforesaid grave misconduct .

3. On the other hand , the case of the Management categorically denying the aforesaid allegations is that workman Ram Bilash Bhuia unathorisedly absented from his duty since 11-7-94 , so he was issued chargesheet No. RKC / PD / 94 / 226 dt . 8-8-94 as per provisions of Certified Standing Order . A domestic enquiry was conducted wherein he had fully participated . The absentism of the workman unauthorisedly on many occasions such as from 9-3-93 to 12-3-93 , 2-9-93 to 17-9-93 , 11-9-93 to 10-10-93 , 11-11-93 to 23-11-93,8-2-94 to 18-2-94 , 1-3-94 to 9-3-94 and 2-5-94 to 11-5-94 was brought out in the chargesheet and in the enquiry proceeding . The Disciplinary Authority on the basis enquiry report had observed the proof of his habitual absence from his duty without any sufficient cause as per the Chargesheet , so the penalty of dismissal as per letter No. RKC / PERS / Dismissal / 95 / 2525 dt . 6-1-95 was imposed upon him . It is also alleged to have followed the principle of natural justice fully in course of the enquiry during the enquiry in which he was given full opportunity forhis defence . Besides that the absentism of the workman unauthorisedly was also observed according to his poor attendance in the earlier previous years such as 103 , 208 , and 123 days in the years 1991 to 1993. Thus the workman was rightly dismissal from the services of the company for his aforesaid misconduct .

7. On through going through the materials available in the case record it stands quite evident that the workman could not justify for his unauthorised absence from his duty w.e.f. 11-7-94 as his previous seven times absentism as described in the chargesheet itself and his such absentism amounted to misconduct under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company , as the dismissal of the workman as punishment for his habitual absentism was quite proportionate to his grave misconduct on the part of the workman .

4. The Management in its rejoinder has pleaded that the Written Statement of the workman is without any supertive proof of the Medical Officers treatment papers 6190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

In result , I find and hold that the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M / s . BCCL in dismissing workman Shri Ram Bilash ( Bhuia ) from the service of the company w.e.f. 11-1-95 is quite justified, in the eye of law as well as the facts of the instant case. Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

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

का.आ. 2307.-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 01/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -20012 /432/ 2001- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2011

S.O. 2307.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 01/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.2 , 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 3-8-2011 .

[No. L - 20012 / 432 / 2001 - 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. 1 of 2002

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Katras Kshetra of M / s . B.C.C.L.. and thierworkman .

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman

Mr. B.B. Pandey, Advocate .

On behalf of the Employers

Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal .

Dhanbad , Dated , the 11th July , 2011

PART 11 -- SEC . 3 ( 10) ]

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , ia 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 / 432 / 2001 - I.R. ( C - 1 ) , dated the 10-1-2002 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Salanpun Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in not providing employmen to Smt . Shanti Devi , W/ o Late Kishori Beldar under V para 9.3.2 of NCWA is justified ? If not, to what relief is Smt . Shanti Devi Wio Late Kishori Beldar entitled ? "

2. The case of the petitioner Smt . Shanti Devia sponsored by the Union concerned is that Late Kishort Beldar , a permanent employee of Salanpur Colliery working as Miner/ Loader , expired on 4-8-91 while remaining on roll ofthe company . His dependent wife Smt . Shanti Devt has submitted all the relevant paper to the Management for her employment in place of her deceased husband as per provision of NCWA. V Clause 9.3.2 . Having satisfied a th her claim , the Management concerned as well as the Kabas Area Authorities including the General Manager processed it for its approval from the H.Q. to provide her employment She also every time responded to several queries of the Management about its options . but she opted for employment . Again on the offer of option by the Management about making clay catridge etc. she immediately replied , opting for the job . But the Managem ... tum after the receipt of all queries from her remained silent and did not give her employment . Whenever discussed by her or her Panchayat , the Management though assured bat employment at the earliest , yet delayed not on her part la course of conciliation proceeding , the Management u her genuiness verified by the Superintendent of Police and found her genuine wife of late Kishori Beldar , Despite her application was under active consideration of the Management yet it was not considered. On the failure of the conciliation proceeding before the AL.C ( C ) Dhanbar ! the reference came for adjudication .

In its rejoinder , the Union pleaded that it 1 : the Management which caused inordinate delay every time concerning the matter . Smt . Shanti Devi is the real wife of the workman who had applied for employment in the very beginning.

3. Whereas the Management categorically denymg aforesaid allegations has alleged the presem Industrial Dispute on the ground of Smt Shanto Devi nor bea workman so no employer - emloyee relationslep as untenable. The Union raised the dispute after lapse Cutte decade . Her claim is for employment on compasste ground. The compassionate appomtment is not a tested right in a public authority exercisable at any time , rather n [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6191

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011/ भाद्र 5 , 1933

iskind of exception curved out in the interest ofjustice to meet certain contingency purely on humanitarian consideration having delayed reference indicates no existence of contingency, so providing employment is against the policy of the company and mandatory constitutional provision. Late Kishori Beldar, Ex -miner. loader of Salanpur Colliery expired on4-8-1991 . As per his Service except Smt . Talmati Devi is the wife of Late Kishori Beldar. But as per the verification report of the S. P. Dhanbad; Smt . Talmati Devi is not the wife of rather Bhabhi , ofaforesaid workman . Thereafter Smt. Shanti Devi applied for employment in place of late Kishori Beldar as per real wife, but the workman during his life did not declare her as his wife Smt . Shanti Devi has not submitted any authentic document to prove as the real wife of the workman . So the demand of the Union for her employment is neither legal norjusitfied.

FINDING WITH REASONING

to work as a Clay Cartridge manufacturer to which she had givenher consent as per her letter (dt . 27-1-1997 ) ( Ext . W- 4) . Despite it the management did not issue her any letter of appointment to work as a Clay Cartridge Manufacturer not provided her any employment . Hence she raised the industrial dispute . It is also evident from her statement/ deposition that during the pendency of this reference case the management as per its letter dt . 27-2-2003/1-3-2003 (Ext.W- 5) regretted her claim for her employment as a belated case, then she submitted to the management her application for her appointment/employment (the copy of which marked as Ext . W-6 ) . Though the application ( in prescribed form) apparently appears to bedt . 20-6-1995 appears to be her second application , for her employment , as she declared not to have committed any sort of mistake oranydelay in placing her option to work as a Clay Cartridge Manufacturer in view of the aforesaid offier by the management, so it was the management which caused delay inconsidering her employment, for which she should not beblamed; as such she claimed her for employment asjust .

4. In this case, WW- 1 Shanti Devi on behalf of the Union examined , in course of which she has proved her relevant documents as Ext . W- 1 to W -6 ; but despite ample opportunity from 14-6-2005 to 18-5-2011 though the Management could not produce or examine any witness on its behalf yet its relevant documents on no objection by Mr. B.B. Pandey, the representative of workman have been marked as Ext . M - 1 to M -9 as also Mr. D.K. Verma , the LearnedAdvocate for the Management declined to produce a Management witness . Therefore, it came up for hearing argument .

7. Further statement of the petitioner ( WW- 1 ) is that her husband , the concerned workman , had disclosed the name ofhis wife as Talmati Devi during his life time and afterdeath ofher husband , Talmati Devi who is the wife of his brother had submitted the application for her employment claiming herself as the wife of her husband (the workman) , but when the management after enquiry rejected the claim of Talmati Devi , she being the legally married wife submitted the application for employment . She has assertively denied the suggestion of management about the rejection of her application treating her not the widow oflate workman Kishori Beldar.

5.On perusal of the materials available on the case records , the following facts appear to be indisputable :

(i) Ex- workman Kishori Beldar was a permanent employee as Miner/Loader of Salanpur Colliery as per his appointment date 10-04-1990 but he expired on 4-8-1991 in course of his employment.

( ii) Petitioner Shanti Devi responded to the letter oftheManagement queries and along all opted for employment by being ready to perform the job of making soil capsule in place of her ex- miner/ loader husband who died in harness on 4-8-1991 .

8.On the perusal of the materials i.c. the documents namely the management's letterdt. 4-4-1992 enclosed with the papers in duplicate in respect of Smt . Talmate Devi wife ofaforesaid workman Late Kishori Beldar , another letter dt . 14/16-12-1993 to Sarpanch/ Mukhiya Gram Panchayat concerned for verification about the real wife of the workman whether Talmati Devi or Shanti Devi , as both were certified as the wife of deceased workman , again the letter dated 23 / 26-4-1994 to the Personnel Manager , Katras Area concerning the return of the letters of both the aforesaid claims as undelivered being " not known " , letter dt . 23/27-4-1994 to the Sarpanch concerned for the aforesaid clarification about the real wife of the workman , letter dt . 25/28-11-94 to the Personnel Manager enclosed with the representation of Smt . Shanti Devi ( petitioner) who had also filed her affidavitdt. 13-6-95 , the Service Excerpt of the workman, the management's letter dt . 12-2-2003 by the Personnel Manager to the G.M. and the regret letter dt . 27-2-2003/1-3-2003 on formal proof dispensed with have been marked as Ext. M - 1 to M - 9 respectively, it stands clear that the petitioner has all along been representing herselfas the real wife of late workman Kishori Beldar along with her mirner heirs Jintendar Kumar, (son) Chunmun Kumari 6. The statement of WW - 1 Shanti Devi ( the petitioner as the wife of late workman Kishori Beldar clearly reveals that since her husband suddenly died in 1991 after one year ofhis joining as a workman of Salanpur Colliery, she had submitted her application to the management for her employment . The management as per letter dt . 17-6-1996 (Ext . W- 1 ) asked her willingness to take compensation in lieu ofservice . But as per her letter (dt . 18-6-1996 - Ext . W- 2) she informed the management of her preference for service . Thereafter the management by its letterdt . 23 /27- 1-1997 ( Ext.W - 3 ) offered her the option if she was willing

3125 GI / 11-15 6192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

and Gauri Kumari , clearly stating that her jethani ( Talwati Devi ) was the wife of Mohan Beldar and since her husband being accustomed to taking wine was under influence of her aforesaid jethani , who had got her name entered into his service record despite her husband still alive ( Ext . M- 5) , and the petitioner has also clearly established as the real wife of the late workman not Talmati Devi who was the wife ofthe brother ( Mohan Beldar ) of her workman husband. There is no suspicion about the status of this petitioner Shanti Devi as the real wife of her deceased workman who died in harness .

9. Representing the aforesaid case of the petitioner Shanti Devi , the widow of late deceased workman Kishori Beldar, Mr. B. B. Pandey, the representative of the workman/ Union has submitted that despite the acceptance of the offer ofthe management by the petitioner , the management intentionally kept on negotiating with her for employment and ultimately it refused her employment , without any reasons . Whereas the contention of Mr. D.K. Verma , the Ld . Advocate for the management is that in view of the Service Excerpt of the workman the petitioner had not applied for her employment rather she had applied after the regret of the application of Talmati Devi and the petitioner had over delayed for it . But the contention of Mr. Verma in the light of admitted documents i.e. management's letter (Ext . W- 5 - Ext . W - 9 ) which is apparently addressed to the petitioner concerning her employment being belated case of 1991 appears to be not plausible .

10. Having considered the entire aforesaid discussed facts and circumstances , I find that the petitioner has merit in the case , being the real wife of late workman Kishori Beldar . Hence, it is held that the action of the management of Salanpur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in not providing employment to petitioner Shanti Devi , wife of late Kishori Beldar under para 9.3.2 of NCWA - V is absolutely illegal and unjustified . Hence , Smt . Shanti Devi wife of workman Kishori Beldar is entitled to employment as a Clay Cartridge Manufacturer in Cat.I from the management without any delay. The management is directed to implement the Award within one month from the date of its publication in the Gazette in India.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2308.-जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/ 11508 पश्चिम बंगाल क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स यू.एम.बी. सेल्स एण्ड सर्विसेज , कोलकाता (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गयी छूट को निरस्त करने के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

2. जबकि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में

PART II SEC ) अधिसूचना संख्या एस -35014 / ( 17/71 ) भ. नि. 11 दिनांक 11-11-1971 प्रकाशित की गयी थी ।

3. और जबकि अब सरकार की जानकारी में यह बात उगया है कि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान ने दिनांक 30-11-2001 से अपनी छूट समर्पित कर दी है और अब आगे इसमे कोई भी गतिविधि नहीं की जा रही है । 4. अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धाग । ? की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एनद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को दिनांक 1-12-2001 में रद्द करती है ।

[सं . एस -35017/2/2010 - एसध्म 11 |

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th August , 2011

S.O. 2308.- Whereas M/ s . U.M. B. Sales & Services . Kolkata [ under Code No. WB / 11508 West Bengal region (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as theAct) .

2. Whereas a Notification No. S - 35014 ( 17 ) 71 - PF.II dated 11-11-1971 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) (a) of the said Act to the said establishment was published in the Gazette of India .

3. And whereas now it has come to the notice to the Government that the establishment has surrendered its exemption with effect from the 30-11-2001 and it is no longer carrying on any activity .

4.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 17 of the said Act the Central Government hereby cancels the exemption granted to the said establishment with effect from the 1-12-2001 .

[No. S - 35017/ 2/ 2010- SS - II ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2309.--जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/ 118 कोलकाता क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स बौरिह काटन मिल्स लिमिटेड , हावड़ा ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत 1-11-1952 सेछूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में दिनांक 12-01-1963 की अधिसूचना संख्या ।11 ( 26 ) 62 - भ. नि. 11 प्रकाशित की गयी थी । 2. जबकि मैसर्स बौरिह काटन मिल्स लिमिटेड , ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 के पैरा 27 क के परिशिष्ट- क में वर्णित छूट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है और जिसके द्वारा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] :

अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट रद्द करने योग्य है ।

3. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 04-04-2011 को कारण बताओ नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिन के अंदर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया गया था । स्थापना से अभी तक कोई उत्तर प्राप्त नहीं हुआ ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को तत्काल प्रभाव से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस -35017/2/ 2011 - एसएस- II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2309. Whereas a notification No. 11 ( 26)/62- PF. II dated 12-01-1963 granting exemption w.e.f. 01-11-1952 under section 17 ( 1 ) ( a) of the Employees ' Privident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 to the M/ sBowreah Cotton Mills Limited , Howrah under code No. WB / 118 , Kolkata region ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India .

2. Whereas M/ s Bowreah Cotton Mills has violated the conditions of exemption delineated in Appendix -A of Para 27A of the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 and thereby deserves the cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause ( a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

3. Whereas the establishment was given an opportunity on 04-04-2011 to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice within 15 days of the receipt of the Notice . No reply has been received so far from the establishment .

4.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 17 of the EPF and MP Act , 1952 the Central Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect .

[No. S - 35017 / 2/ 2011 - SS - II ] S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2310.- जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/375 कोलकाता क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स गोन्डलपारा जूट मिल्स लिमिटेड , ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत से छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 01-11-1952 की अधिसूचना संख्या 11 ( 26 ) 62 - भ. नि. दिनांक 8-1-1963 प्रकाशित की गयी थी ।

6193

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

2. जबकि मैसर्स गोन्डलपारा जूट मिल्स लिमिटेड , ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 के पैरा 27 क के परिशिष्ट- क में वर्णित छूट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है और जिसके द्वारा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट रद्द करने योग्य है ।

3. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 13 सितम्बर , 2010 को कारण बताओ नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिन के अंदर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया गया था और केन्द्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्त के साथ परामर्श से दिनांक 26-10-2010 के उनके उत्तर ( 9-11-2010 को मंत्रालय में प्राप्त ) की जांच करने के पश्चात् पाया गया है कि यह संतोषजनक नहीं है ।

[सं. एस -35017/17/ 2010 - एसएस- II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2310. Whereas a notification No. 11 ( 26 ) / 62- PF. II dated 08-01-1963 granting exemption w.e.f. 01-11-1952 under section 17 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Employees ' PrividentFund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 to the M/ s . Gondalpara Jute Mills Limited under code No. WB/ 375 , Kolkata region ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India .

2. Whereas M / s Gondalpara Jute Mills has violated the conditions of exemption delineated in Appendix - A of Para 27A of the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 and thereby deserves the cancellation of exemption granted byGovernment of India under clause ( a ) of sub- section ( 1) of section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

3. Whereas the establishment was given an opportunity on 13th September , 2010 to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice within 15 days of the receipt of Notice and examining their reply dated 26-10-2010 ( received in the Ministry on 9-11-2010 ) in consultation with Central Provident Fund Commissioner , it has been found that the same is not satisfactory.

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of section 17 of the EPF and MP Act , 1952 the Central Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect .

[ No. S - 35017 /17/ 2010 - SS - II ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

6194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 /BHADRA 5 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2311.- जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/ 1129 , कोलकाता क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स हेनकल इंडिया लिमिटेड ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत से छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 17-12-1962 की अधिसूचना संख्या 11 ( 26 ) 62 - भ. नि. II प्रकाशित की गयी थी । 2. जबकि उक्त स्थापना को क.भ.नि. एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट प्रदान करते हुए अधिसूचना संख्या एस -35014/ 24/ 75 भ. नि. II दिनांक 1-11-75 को भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित की गई थी ।

3. और जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान ने अपनी छूट समर्पित कर दी है और आगे से कोई गतिविधि नहीं की जा रही है ।

4. अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार , कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को तत्काल प्रभाव से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस -35017/9/2010 - एसएस -11 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2311. Whereas a notification No. 11 ( 26 )/ 62- PF. II dated 7-12-1962 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Employees ' Privident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 to the M/ s . Henkel India Limited under code No. WB / 1129 , Kolkata region . (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India .

2. Whereas a notification No. S - 35014 / 24 / 75 - PF . II dated 1-11-1975 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the EPF & MP Act to the said establishment was published in the Gazette of India .

3. And whereas now the establishment has surrendered its and there is no longer carrying on any activity.

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of Section 17 of the said Act the Central Government hereby cancels the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect .

[ No. S - 35017 / 9 / 2010 - SS - II ]

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2312.- जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/ 32 के अंतर्गत मैसर्स हुकुमचंद जूट मिल्स , मैसर्स हुगली जूट मिल्स प्रोजेक्ट लिमिटेड , की एक इकाई ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत से छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 5-12-1962 की अधिसूचना संख्या 11 ( 26 ) / 62 - भ. नि. 11 में प्रकाशित की गयी थी ।

2. जबकि मैसर्स हुकुमचंद जूट मिल्स लिमिटेड , ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 के पैरा 27 क के परिशिष्ट- क में वर्णित छूट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है और जिसके द्वारा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट रद्द करने योग्य है ।

3. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 28 मई, 2010 को कारण बताओ नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिन के अंदर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया गया था और केन्द्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्त के साथ परामर्श उनके दिनांक 7-6-2010 के उत्तर (11-6-2010 को मंत्रालय में प्राप्त ) की जांच करने के पश्चात् यह पाया गया है कि यह संतोषजनक नहीं है ।

अतः अब , केन्द्र सरकार कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्धा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को तत्काल प्रभाव से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस-35017/ 13/ 2010 - एसएस-11 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

to the S.O. 2312. -Whereas a notification No. 11 ( 26 ) 62- PF. II dated 5-12-1962 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions . Act , 1952 M/ s . Hukumchand Jute Mills , a unit of M / s . Hoogly Jute Mills Project Limited code No. WB / 32 ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India.

2. Whereas M / s . Hukumchand Jute Mills 1.imited has violated the conditions of exemption delineated in Appendix- A of Para 27A of the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 and thereby deserves the cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause (a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act . 1952 (19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) .

3. Whereas the establishment was given an opportunity on 28th May , 2010 to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice within 15 days of the receipt of Notice and after examining their reply dated 7-6-2010 ( received in the Ministry on 11-6-2010 ) in consultation with Central Provident Fund Commissioner, it has been found that the same is not satisfactory.

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 17 of the EPF and MP Act , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1952 the Cenral Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect .

[ No. S - 35017 / 13 / 2010 - SS - II ]

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2313. जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/38 और 9952 कोलकाता क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स श्री गौरी शंकर जूट मिल्स लिमिटेड , कोलकाता ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 9 जुलाई , 1963 की अधिसूचना संख्या 11 ( 26 )/62 - भ. नि. II में प्रकाशित की गयी थी ।

2. जबकि मैसर्स श्री गौरी शंकर जूट मिल्स लिमिटेड ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 के पैरा 27 - क के परिशिष्ट- क में वर्णित छूट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है और जिसके द्वारा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट रद्द करने योग्य है ।

3. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 9-6-2010 को कारण बताओ नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिन के अंदर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया गया था और केन्द्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्त के साथ परामर्श से दिनांक 2-7-2010 के उनके उत्तर (मंत्रालय में 8-7-2010 को प्राप्त ) की जांच करने के पश्चात् यह पाया गया है कि यह संतोषजनक नहीं है ।

[सं. एस -35017/11/2010 - एसएस -11 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2313. Whereas a notification No. 11 ( 26 )/ 62- PF. II dated 9th July, 1963 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 to the M/ s . Shree Gauri Shankar Jute Mills Limited , Kolkata under Code No. WB/ 38 and 9952 , Kolkata region (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India .

2. Whereas M/ s Shree Gouri Shankar Jute Mills Limited has violated the conditions of exemption delineated in Appendix - A of Para 27A of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and thereby deserves the cancellation ofexemption granted by Government of India under clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees '

6195

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) ( hereinafter referred to as theAct) .

3. Whereas the establishment was given an opportunity on 9-6-2010 to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice within 15 days of the receipt of Notice and after examining their reply dated 2-7-2010 ( received in the Ministry on 8-7-2010 ) in consultation with Central Provident Fund Commissioner , it has been found that the same is not satisfactory.

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 17 of the EPF and MP Act , 1952 the Cenral Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect .

[ No. S - 35017/ 11 / 2010 - SS - II ]

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2314.- जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यूबी/2 , 27 और 40 कोलकाता क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स बारनगर जूट फैक्ट्री प्लास्टिक, कोलकाता ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 23-12-1961 की अधिसूचना प्रकाशित की गयी थी ।

2. जबकि मैसर्स बारनगर जूट फैक्ट्री प्लास्टिक, कोलकाता ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 के पैरा 27- क के परिशिष्ट - क में वर्णित छूट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है और जिसके द्वारा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट रद्द करने योग्य है ।

3. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 11 सितम्बर , 2009 को कारण बताओ नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 10 दिन के अंदर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया गया था और केन्द्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्त के साथ परामर्श से दिनांक 30-10-2009 के उनके उत्तर ( दिनांक 11-11-2009 को मंत्रालय में प्राप्त ) की जांच करने के पश्चात् यह पाया गया है कि यह संतोषजनक नहीं है । 4. अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार , कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्द्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को तत्काल प्रभाव से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस -35017/14/2009 - एसएस- II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2314.- Whereas a notification dated 23-12- 1961 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions 6196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 27 , 2011 / BHADRA 5 , 1933

Act , 1952 to the M / s . The Barnagore Jute Factory Pic , Kolkata under Code No. WB /2 , 27 & 40 , Kolkata region (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India .

2. Whereas M/ s . Barnagore Jute Factory Plc, Kolkata has violated the conditions of exemption delineated in Appendix - A of Para 27A of the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 and thereby deserves the cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause (a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

3. Whereas the establishment was given an opportunity on 11th September , 2009 to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice within 10 days of the receipt of Notice and after examining their reply dated 30-10-2009 ( received inthe Ministry on 11-11-2009 ) in consultation with Central Provident Fund Commissioner, it has been found that the same is not satisfactory .

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of section 17 of the EPF and MP Act , 1952 the Cenral Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect .

[No. S - 35017/ 14/ 2009 - SS - II ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2315.-जबकि मैसर्स इंडस्ट्रियल ज्वैल्स प्रा.लि. , मुम्बई [कोड संख्या एमएच/ बीएएन / 11258 , ब्रांद्रा क्षेत्र ] ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गयी छूट को निरस्त करने के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

2. जबकि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में अधिसूचना संख्या एस -35014/ ( 12 ) /7-भ.नि. II दिनांक 18 सितम्बर , 1976 प्रकाशित की गयी थी ।

3. और जबकि अब सरकार की जानकारी में यह बात आयी है कि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान ने दिनांक 1-04-2009 से अपनी छूट समर्पित कर दी है और अब आगे इसमें कोई भी गतिविधि नहीं की जा रही है ।

4. अतः अब , केन्द्र सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतदद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को दिनांक 1-04-2009 से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस-35017/1/2010 - एसएस- II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

PART 11 SIC 30 ) New Delhi . the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2315.- Whereas M/ s . Industrial Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai | under Code No. MH / BAN/ 11258 , Bandra region] ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause ( a) of sub - section ( 1 ) ef section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) .

2. Whereas a notification No. S - 35014/ 12 / 7 - PE.II dated 18th September , 1976 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a) of the said Act to the said establishment was published in the Gazette of India .

3. And whereas now it has come to the notice to the Government that the establishment has surrendered its exemption with effect from the 1-04-2009 and it is no longer carrying on any activity.

4.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act the Central Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with effect from the 1-04-2009 .

[ No. S - 35017 / 1 / 2010 - SS - II ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का. आ. 2316.- जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/ 5093. कोलकाता क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स केरिट मोरन एण्ड कम्पनी , लिमिटेड , कोलकाता ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 के पैरा 27 - क के अंतर्गत छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 21-10-1970 की अधिसूचना संख्या 11 ( 24 ) /67-भ.नि. 11 प्रकाशित की गयी थी;

2. जबकि मैसर्स केरिट मोरन एण्ड कम्पनी लिमिटेड ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 के पैरा 27 -क के परिशिष्ट- क में वर्णित छूट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है और जिसके द्वारा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधिएवं प्रकीण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट रद्द करने योग्य है ।

3. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 23 सितम्बर 2010 को कारण बताओ नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिन के अंदर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया गया था । स्थापना से अभी तक कोई उत्तर प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्र सरकार, कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 की उप धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतदद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को तत्काल प्रभाव से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस -35017/ 16/2010 - एसएस 11 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011 S.O. 2316. Whereas a notification No. 11 ( 24) 67 - PF. II dated 21-10-1970 granting exemption under para 27A of the Employees ' Provident Fund Scheme , 1952 to the M / s . Carrit Moran & Co. Limited , Kolkata under code No. WB / 5093 , Kolkata region ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India .

2. Whereas M / s . Carrit Moran & Co. Limited has violated the conditions of exemption delineated inAppendix -A of Para 27A of the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 and thereby deserves the cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause ( a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

3. Whereas the establishment was given an opportunity on 23rd September , 2010 to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice within 15 days of the receipt of Notice . No reply has been received so far from the establishment .

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 4) of section 17 of the EPF and MP Act , 1952 the Central Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect ,

[ No. S - 35017 /16/2010 - SS - II ] S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2317.-जबकि कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/ 5138 , कोलकाता क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत मैसर्स इनकेब इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , कोलकाता (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 29-04-1971 की अधिसूचना प्रकाशित की गयी थी;

2. जबकि मैसर्स इनकेब इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 के पैरा 27- क के परिशिष्ट- क में वर्णित छूट की शर्तों का उल्लंघन किया है और जिसके द्वारा कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट रद्द करने योग्य है ;

6197

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 27 , 2011 / भाद्र 5 , 1933

3. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 13 अक्तूबर , 2009 को कारण बताओ नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिन के अंदर अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत करने हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया गया था और केन्द्रीय भविष्य निधि आयुक्त के साथ परामर्श से दिनांक 18-11-2009 के उनक उत्तर ( मंत्रालय में 25-11-2009 को प्राप्त ) की जांच करने के पश्चात् यह पाया गया है कि यह संतोषजनक नहीं है । अतः अब , केन्द्र सरकार , कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्द्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को तत्काल प्रभाव से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस -35017/16/ 2010 - एसएस- II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011 S.O. 2317.- Whereas a notification dated 29-04-1971 granting exemption under Section 17 ( 1 ) ( a) of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to the M / s . Incab Industries Limited, under code No. WB / 5138 , Kolkata region ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) was published in the Gazette of India .

2. Whereas M / s . Incab Industries Limited has violated the conditions of exemption delineated in Appendix -A of Para 27A of the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 and thereby deserves the cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause ( a ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

3. Whereas the establishment was given an opportunity on 13-10-2009 to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice within 15 days of the receipt of Notice and after examining their reply dated 18-11-2009 ( received in the Ministry on 25-11-2009 ) in consultation with Central Provident Fund Commissioner , it has been found that the same is not satisfactory .

4. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of Section 17 of the EPF and MP Act , 1952 the Central Government hereby cancel the exemption granted to the said establishment with immediate effect .

[No. S - 35017 /16/2010 - SS - II ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi- 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .