This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

सत्यमेव भारत काराजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 42]

नई दिल्ली, अक्तूबर 9 अक्तूबर 15 , 2011 , शनिवार/आश्विन17-आश्विन 23 , 1933 NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 9 -OCTOBER 15, 2011 , SATURDAY/ ASVINA 17- ASVINA 23, 1933

No. 42]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

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

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

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

शुद्धि-पत्र

the words " 16 September, 2011 " in 5th line may be read as " 15th September, 2011 " and the sentence in the 6th line "Smt. Bhanwari Devi dharampatni Shri Amar Chand ke kathit apharan ke sambandh main " may be deleted. [E. No. 228/64/2011 - AVD - 11 RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक्तूबर , 2011

का. आ . 2847. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 , नई दिल्ली , 10 अक्तूबर , 2011 का.आ. 2846.-इस विभाग की अधिसूचना संख्या 228/64/2011 - ए.वी.डी- II दिनांक 29-9-2011 के हिन्दी रूपांतर की पांचवी पंक्ति में दृष्टिगोचर शब्द " 16 सितम्बर, 2011 " को " 15 सितम्बर , 2011 " पढ़ा जाए और छठी पंक्ति में दृष्टिगोचर वाक्य " श्रीमती भंवरी देवी धर्मपत्नी श्री अमर चन्द के कथित अपहरण के संबंध में " को हटा दिया जाए ।

[फा. सं. 228/64/2011 -ए.वी.डी.- II ]

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnal and Training)

CORRIGENDUM

(1934का 2 ) की धारा 8 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा, श्री यजदी हिरजी मालेगम को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तिथि से चार वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , जो भी पहले हो , श्री होमी फिरोज रानीना के स्थान पर भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 1/1/2010 बीओ ।। विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव ( बीओ 1 ) NewDelhi , the 10th October, 2011 S.O. 2846. In this Department's notification No. 228/64/2011 -AVD- II dated 29-9-2011 , in Hindi version,

(7423)

3708 G1/2011 [PART IISEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi, the 7th October, 2011

S.O. 2847. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause ( c) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of IndiaAct, 1934(2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Yezdi Hirji Malegam to be the Director ofthe Central Board of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders , whichever is earlier vice Shri Homi Phiroze Ranina .

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

[F. No. 1 /1 /2010-BO- I] VIJAYMALHOTRA, Under Secy. (BO-I) नई दिल्ली, 7 अक्तूबर, 2011

(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

का. आ. 2848, जीवन बीमा निगम अधिनियम , 1956 (1956का 31 ) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री अमरदीप सिंह चीमा, को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, जीवन बीमा निगम के निदेशक मंडल में गैर - सरकारी सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

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

[ फा. सं. ए-15011 /01 /2007 - बीमा- III ] एस. के. मोहन्ती, अवर सचिव

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

(ख) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त धनराशि का विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा New Delhi , the 7th October, 2011 S.O. 2848. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Amardeep Singh Cheema as Non- Official Member on the Board of the Life Insurance Corporation of India for a period of three years from the date of Notification or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

[F. No. A- 15011/01 /2007- Ins. - III] S. K. MOHANTY, Under Secy.

(राजस्व विभाग ) केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 10 अक्तूबर, 2011

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

[ अधिसूचना सं. 55/2011/फा.सं. 203/4/2011 - आ.क.नि.- II ] आर. के. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव ( आ.क.नि.- II )

(Department ofRevenue ) (Central Board of Direct Taxes) New Delhi, the 10th October, 2011 का.आ. 2849.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2011-2012 से आगे इंडियन इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ टैक्नोलोजी राजस्थान , जोधपुर को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है, अर्थात्: -

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

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

S.O. 2849. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Indian Institute of Technology Rajasthan , Jodhpur has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii) of sub-section ( 1) ofSection 35 ofthe Income- tax Act, 1961 (saidAct) , read with Rules SC and SF of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules ), from assessment year 2011-12 and onwards in the category of' Other Institution' , engaged inresearch activities subject to the following conditions, 7425 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

amely:

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

अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री ए.एस.टी. जयारामन को तत्काल प्रभाव से केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नै सलाहकारी पैनल से बर्खास्त करती है ।

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

[फा. सं. 806/1 /2011- एफ ( सी) ] के. रामाकृष्णन , उप- सचिव ( फिल्म )

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 19th August , 2011

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

S.O. 2850. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 10th December , 2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government hereby removes Shri A. S. T. Jayaraman from the Chennai advisory panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect.

[F. No. 806/1 /2011 - F (C ) ] K. RAMAKRISHNAN, Dy. Secy. (Films ) (iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

नई दिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2011

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in paraggraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or

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

का.आ. 2851. राष्ट्रपति, श्री अमिताभ शर्मा को इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 18-8-2011 के आदेश सं. 801/2/2008 - एफ ( सी ) के तहत सहायक क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के पद से उनकी पदोन्नति होने पर उन्हें केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड , कोलकाता में अपर क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी (पे बैंड -3 : 15600-39100 रु. और ग्रेड पे 6600 रु. ) के रूप में नियुक्तकरती है । उन्होंने दिनांक 23-8-2011 ( पूर्वाह्न ) से केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड , कोलकाता में अपर क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी का पदभार ग्रहण कर लिया है ।

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

[फा. सं. 801/2/2008- एफ ( सी) ] के. रामाकृष्णन, उप- सचिव (फिल्म) (d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or

New Delhi , the 29th September, 2011

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

[Notification No. 55/2011 /F. No. 203 /4/2011 /ITA- II ] R. K. GUPTA , Under Secy. ( ITA- II)

S.O. 2851. The president is pleased to appoint Shri Amitabh Sharma as Additional Regional Officer [Pay Band-3 :Rs . 15600-39100 and Grade Pay Rs . 6600 ] in Central Board of Film Certification , Kolkata on his promotion from the post ofAssistant Regional Officer , ( BFC vide Ministry's orderNo. 801 /2/2008-1 (C) dated 18-8-2011 . He has assumed the charge ofAdditional Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Kolkata w.e.f. 23-8-2011 ( FN) .

सूचना एवं प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 19 अगस्त , 2011

| E. No. 801 / 2/2008 - F (C ) ] K. RAMAKRISHNAN , Dy. Secy. ( Films ) का.आ. 2850.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10 दिसम्बर , 2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र 7426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )|

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2852.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मेटलर- टोलेडो ए जी , इम लांचचेर , 8606 , ग्रीफेंसी , स्विटजरलैंड द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " एम एल" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " मेटलर टोलेडो " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) जिसे भारत में मैसर्स मैटलर टोलेडो इंडिया प्राइवेट लि. , अमर हिल्स, साकी विहार रोड, पोवई, मुंबई-400072 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 09/532 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 4200 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 ग्रा. है और सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

REARVIEW

0000

LEAR AL

आकृति- 2 - मॉडल के इंडिकेटर को सीलिंग करने का प्रावधान

वेइंग मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । स्केल की बॉडी के पीछे ड्रिल किए गए होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टांपिंग प्लेट को जोड़ा गया है और स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील लगायी गई है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (309 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 2852.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (ApprovalofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the saidAct , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication ofHigh Accuracy ( Accuracy Class - II ) of series " ML " and with brand name " METTLER TOLEDO " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Mettler Toledo , AG Im Langacher , 8606 , Greifensee , Switzerland and marketed in India by M/s . Mettler Toledo India Pvt. 1.1d . , Amar Hills , Saki ViharRoad, Powai, Mumbai -400072 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/532;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of4200g and minimum capacity of5g. The verification scale interval (e) is 100mg. It has a tare divice with a 100 per cent subtractive retain tare effect . The liquid crystal diode ( LCD) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1Model

REAR VIEW

USAR MAL

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No.WM -21 (309)/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) |

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 2853.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मेटलर- टोलेडो ए जी, इम लांचचेर, 8606, ग्रीफेंसी, स्विटजरलैंड द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एम एस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " मेटलर टोलेडो " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) जिसे भारत में मैसर्स मैटलर टोलेडो इंडिया प्राइवेट लि. , अमर हिल्स , साकी विहार रोड, पोवई, मुंबई-400072, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/09/531 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है और सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

REAR VIEW

COM 00000

LEAD SEAL

2853

आकृति-2-- मॉडल के इंडिकेटर को सीलिंग करने का प्रावधान

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

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

| फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 309 )/2009 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 7429 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विनं 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 2853. Whereas the Central .Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (ApprovalofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub - sections (7) and (8 ) ofSection 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Taable top type ) with digital indication ofHigh Accuracy ( Accuracy Class - II ) of series " MS " and with brand name " METTLER TOLEDO" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufacturedby M/s . Mettler Toledo , AG Im Langacher , 8606 ,Greifensee , Switzerland and marketed in India by M/ s . Mettler Toledo India Pvt . Ltd. , Amar Hills , Saki Vihar Road, Powai , Mumbai -400072 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /09 / 531;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( lable top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare divice with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The liquid crystal diodes ( LCD ) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

REARVIEW

COM1

LEAD TREAL

2853

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10,2 × 10k or 5 × 10h , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle . design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM- 21 ( 309 )/ 2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15, 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

{PART II-SEC . 3( ii )]

नई दिल्ली , 12 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2854.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रिजोल्ट वेमेशन प्रा. लि. , ए- 1-2 , बेसमेंट , पोस्ट ऑफिस सुवर्धा फ्लैट को आप. हाउसिंग सोसायटी लि. के पीछे , जैन डरेसर लाइन के पास , नवरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " आरईटी-3 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " रिजोल्ट " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 09/ 392 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 0.2 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.01 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

2854

OTHER SIDESEALING

STAMMING ?AMPINGPLATE

SEALING

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए स्केल की बाडी में से लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर निकालकर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट जोड़ी गई है । मॉडल को सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 ( 220 )/2009] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7431 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 2854. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (ApprovalofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powersers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication ofHigh Accuracy ( Accuracy Class - II ) of series " RET- 3 " and with brand name " REZOLUT " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Rezolut Weighmation Pvt. Ltd. A- 1-2. Basement , B /h , Post Office Suvardha Flats Co - op . Housing Society Ltd. Nr Jain Derasar Lane , Navrangpura , Ahmedabad which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /09/392;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type ) with a maximum capacity of 300g and minimum capacity of 0.2g. The verification scale interval ( c ) is 0.01 g. It has a tare divice with a 100 percent subtained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) Display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

2854

STAMPING PLATE

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

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

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

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate ofapproval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with number of verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of5000to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k, or 5 × 10 *, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No.WM - 21 (220 )/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 3708 GI /2011-2A 7432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2855.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रिजोल्ट वेमेशन प्रा. लि. , ए- 1-2 , बेसमेंट , पोस्ट आफिस सुवर्धा फ्लेट को-आप. हाउसिंग सोसायटी लि. के पीछे , जैन डरेसर लाइन के पास , नवरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आरईपीएफ -7 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " रिजोल्ट " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 09 /393 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है । उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदत्त तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रात्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति

OTHERSIDE SEALING

SBALWITH STAMPING PLATE

PLATFORM

2855

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए स्केल की बाडी में से लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर निकालकर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट जोड़ी गई है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है । उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड /मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम् 21 (220 )/2009 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान

3708G7 / 11-2B [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 2855. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type) with digital indication ofmedium Accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III) of series " REPF - 7 " and with brand name " REZOLUT " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Rezolut Weighmation Pvt . Ltd. A- 1-2 , Basement , B /h , Post Office Suvardha Flats Co - op . Housing Society Ltd. Nr Jain Derasar Lane , Navrangpura , Ahmedabad which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 09/393 ;

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

Figure- 1 Model

OTHER SIDE SEALING

门

SEALWITH STAMPINGPLATE

GEKL

600

PLATFORM

2855

Figure - 2 Sealing provision of the indicator ofmodel

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

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

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

| F. No. WM - 21 ( 220 )/ 2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II SEC. 3( ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2856.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रिजोल्ट वेमेशन प्रा. लि. , ए-1-2 , बेसमेंट, पोस्ट आफिस सुवर्धा फ्लेट को- आप. हाउसिंग सोसायटी लि. के पीछे, जैन डरेसर लाइन के पास, नवरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आरसीएस -7 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " रिजोल्ट " है, ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 09 / 395 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है ( क्रेन टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 कि.ग्रा. हैं । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति

SEAL WITH STAMPING A

OTHER SIDE SEALING

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए स्केल की बाडी में से लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट जोड़ी गई है । मॉडल के सीलबंद प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है । उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 220 ) /2009 | बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1433 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 2856. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Crane type ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) of series " RCS - 7 " and with brand name " REZOLUT " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . Rezolut Weighmation Pvt . Ltd. A- 1-2, Basement , B / h , Post Office Suvardha Flats Co - op . Housing Society Ltd. Nr Jain Derasar lane , Navrangpura, Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09 /395;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Crane type ) with a maximum capacity of 10 tonne and minimum capacity of40kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 2kg. It has a tare divice with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230V olts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

SEAL WITI STAMPRIG A

OTHER SIDE SEALING

Figure - 2 sealing arrangement

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferredby sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similarmake . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 50 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10.or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 220 )/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2857.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और मांप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रेजोलॉट वेमेशन प्रा. लि. , ए- 1-2 , बेसमेंट , पोस्ट आफिस के पीछे सुवर्धा को आप . हाउसिंग सोसायटी लि. , जैन ड्रेसर, नवरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आरईटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टैंक वेइंग टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " आरईजैडओएलयूटी " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/394 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टैंक वेइंग टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यंकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति

STAMMIKIFLATS SIDESEALING

TAMPOCAT CATOR

888888

70-

SEALING

आकृति -2 मॉडल के इंडिकेटर को सीलिंग करने का प्रावधान

प्राधिकारी द्वारा स्टाम्पिंग और सत्यापन के बाद इंडीकेटर में दिए गए छेदों में से लीडिड वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 (220 )/2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7437 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 2857. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument with flameproof indicator (Tank Weighing type ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy ( Accuracy Class- III ) of series " RET " and with brand name " REZOLUT " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M's . Rezolut Weighmation Pvt . Ltd. A- 1-2 , Basement , B /h, Post Office Suvardha Flats Co - op . Housing Society Ltd. Nr . Jain Derasar Lane , Navrangpura , Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/09/ 394 :

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument with flomeproof indicator ( Tank Weighing type ) with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 200kg. The verification scale interval ( e ) is 10kg . It has a tare divice with a 100 percent subtratove retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V olts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

STAMPINGPLATE DHETYRESOLS

TANKINDICATOR

88888

70-

SIDESEALING

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

The sealing is done by passing a leaded wire through the holes made in the indicator after verification and stamping by the authorities . The instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub - section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacities in the range of 5tonne to 100tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10.or 5x10h , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

1. No. WM - 21 ( 220 ) 2009 |

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) |

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 2858.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) और उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मिडको लिमिटेड , मेट्रो एस्टेट, विद्यानगर मार्ग , कलिना सांताक्रुज ( ईस्ट ) , मुंबई -400098 द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग 0.5 वाले " एमएमएस " श्रृंखला के " पानी के अलावा अन्य द्रव्यों हेतु मीटर " ( फ्यूल डिस्पेंसर ) अंकक सूचन सहित जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " मिडको एमएमएस सीरिज " ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) के मॉडल और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 / 109 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है;

उक्त मॉडल पानी के अलावा अन्य द्रव्यों हेतु मीटर ( फ्यूल डिस्पेंसर ) है जो पोजीटिव डिस्पलेसमेंट मीटर के सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । इसकी अधिकतम फ्लो दर 80 लीटर प्रति मिनट और मापमान अंतराल 10 मि.ली. है.। इसमें मूल्य रुपए में 7 अंक सूचन के लिए , 6 अंक वाल्यूम सूचन के लिए, 6 अंक फ्यूल रेट के लिए, 6 अंक घनत्व के लिए और प्रतिवर्ती इलेक्ट्रोनिक/ इलेक्ट्रोमैकेनिकल टोटलाइजर के लिए न्यूनतम 7 अंक हैं । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज सिंगल फेस , 50 हर्ट्ज 3 फेज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । इसमें बहुप्रकार के ईंधन जैसे कि पेट्रोल , केरोसीन इत्यादि के वितरण करने की क्षमता है । इसमें सूचन एल सी डी प्रकार का है । आटोमेशन प्रोतोकाल को सुकर बनाने के लिए मॉडल में आर एस 485 पोर्ट है ।

आकृति

SEALING ARRADLIN

CRABRACKET

DALANIRATION LAND

SBALWIRE

SCALFU

CAFT ARSLY

(SCALINGOF CALLHBRATION CARD

MMS SERIES DISPENSING UNIT

आकृति 2 सीलिंग प्रावधान

उक्त माडल केवल इलेक्ट्रोनिक कैलिब्रेशन का होता है । इलेक्ट्रोनिक कैलिब्रेशन डिप स्विच फैब्रीकेटिड कवर से कवर्ड किया गया है और सिंगल वायर से सील किया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 14) /2011 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7439 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2011

S.O. 2858. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority along with the Model approval certificate issued by the NMI Netherland, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the third provis to sub - section ( 3 ) and sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby approves issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Measuring System For Liquids Other Than Water (Fuel Dispenser ) with digital indication of accuracy class 0.5 ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , of series " MMS " with brand name " MIDCO MMS SERIES " . manufactured by M/ s . Midco Limited, Metro Estate, Vidhyanagar Marg, Kalina Santacruz ( East ) , Mumbai -400098 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 109/;

The said model is a Meter for Liquid other than Water (Fuel Dispenser ) working on the principle of positive displacement meter . Its maximum flow rate range is 80 lpm . Its scale interval is 10ml . It has indication upto 7 digits for Price in Rupees , 6 digits for Volume indication, 6 digits for fuel rate, 6 digits for density, and non reversible electronic/ electromechanical totaliser of minimum 7 digits . It operates on 230V, 50 Hertz single phase , 50 hertz 3 phase alternate current power supply, It is capable of dispensing multiple variety of fuel that is Petrol . Diesel , Kerosene etc. The indication is of LCD type. The model has Rs . 485 port ot facilitate automation protocol .

Figure- 1Model

SEALING ARRA

ERA BRACKET

CALERATION CARD

SEALED

EMT ANSLS

(BEALING OF CALLIBRATION CARD)

MMS SERIES DISPENSING UNIT

Figure2- Sealing arrangement

The said model has electronic calibration only. Electronic calibration dip switch is covered by a fabricated cover and sealed by single wire .

[ E. No. WM - 21 ( 14)/2011 |

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 3708 GI /2011-3A THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

PART II SEC . 3( 1)

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2859.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) तथा विधिक माप विज्ञान (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( 6 ) और नियम 11 के उप - नियम ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वेल - टैक वेइंग सिस्टम , 85 , सारथी बंगला , राधे टेनामेंट के पास , हरी दर्शन चौकाडी, काठवाडा रोड, नया नरोदा , अहमदाबाद-30 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' डब्ल्यूडब्ल्यूएस- टीटी' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " वेल - टैक " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 11 / 172 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती ह :

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) है । जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रात्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति - 1

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIREL

0000

LEAD SQUARE SEAL Wel-Tech

SEAL WIRE

BOTTOM OF SCALE

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

2864

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( १ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10* या 5x10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 93 ) /2011 | बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान

37089 / 11-3B 7441 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2859. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act , 2009 ( 1 of 2010 ) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - rule (6) of rule 8 and sub - rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accurac Class - III ) of series " WWS- TT " and with brand name " WEL - TECH " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Wel- Tech Weighing Systems , 85 , Sarthi Bungalows , Nr . Radhe Tenament, Hari Darshan Chokadi , Kathvada Road, Nava Naroda , Ahmedabad-30 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 11 / 172 ;

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

Figure- 1 Model

SEALWILL

SEAL

BOTTOMOFSCALE

Wel-Tech

TOPBODYOFSCALE

0000

LEADSQUARE SEAL

LALWIRE

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - rule (9 ) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle . design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

E. No. WM- 21 (93) 20111

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) |

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2860.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आंकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स राजन स्केल ट्रेडर्स, जवाहर गेट, अमरावती , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " आरएसटी डब्ल्यूबी " 30टी-श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रानिक वेब्रिज टाईप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " राजन " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11/40 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति-2- मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है। कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 150 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10* , 2x10 या 5x10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्यहैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 28 )/2011 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7443 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 12th August, 2011

S.O. 2860. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy Class - III ) of Series " RSTWB- 30T" and with brand name " RAJAN " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M /s . Rajen Scale Traders , Jawahar Gate, Amrawati , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 11 /40 ;

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

Figure-1

RAJEN

OTHERS SKATING

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 150 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or above and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

1. No.WM - 21 (28 )/20111

B. N. DIXIT, Director of LegalMetrology 7444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II -SEC . 3(ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2861.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) तथा विधिक विज्ञान ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, विधिक माप विज्ञान ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( 6 ) और नियम 11 के उप -नियम ( 4 ) , द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वेल- टैक वेइंग सिस्टम , 85 , सारथी बंगला, राधे टेनामेंट के पास , हरी दर्शन चौकडी, काठवाडा रोड , नया नरोदा , अहमदाबाद -30 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' डब्ल्यूडब्ल्यूएस- पीएफ ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " वेल-टैक " है, ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 11 / 173 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1000 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति - 1

TOPOFSENGETUR

000

SEAL WIRE

BEAL

LEAD HUMAR

BATION OF INDICAT

आकृति- 2- मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार विधिक माप विज्ञान (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( १ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 % , 2x10 या 5x10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 93 )/2011 | बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 7445 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2861. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Legal Metrology Act , 2009 ( 1 of2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - rule (6) ofrule 8 and sub -rule (4) of rule 11 ofthe Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofthe model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " WWS- PF" and with brand name " WEL- TECH " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Wel - Tech Weighing Systems , 85 , Sarthi Bungalows , Nr. Radhe Tenament , Hari Darshan Chokadi , Kathvada Road, Nava Naroda, Ahmedabad- 30 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 11 / 173;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 300kg and minimum capacity of 1000g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED )/display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

TOP UF INDICE FOR

DEAL WIR

SAL WIRE

LEAD SUR

BOTTOM OF SH

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- rule (9) of rule 8 ofthe Legal Metrology ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 5000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10k or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM - 21 (93 )/2011 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

PART II SEX . 3 ( ii) |

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2862.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत्न रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स सफी स्केलस एंड कम्पोनेंट्स , ऊंचा गांव रोड , पंजाबी धर्मशला के पास , बल्लभगढ़ , फरीदाबाद -121004 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस एस डब्ल्यूबी-30 टी ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रानिक वेब्रिज ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एस ए एस आई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 /90 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

SchemadcDiagram of stamping and sealing forweighbridgeIndicator

Headholescrew

Leed seal

Safi Scales

Head hole screw

889888 kg

findicator of theWeighbridge- Front Side)

0000

Lead seal

Sealingwira

[Indicator of theWeighbridge -Lowerback Side)

आकृति-2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

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

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 ( 13 ) /2011 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7447 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 12th August, 2011

S.O. 2862. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge ) with digital indication ofmedium Accuracy (Accuracy Class - III ) of Series " SSW " andwith brand name " SAFI " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s . Sati Scales & Components . Uncha Gaon Road, Near Punjabi Dharmshala , Ballabgarh , Faridabad- 121004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 11/90;

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

Figure- 1

Schematic Diagram of stamping and sealing forweighbridge indicator

Headholescrew Safi Scales

Lead seal

888888

Headhole screw

Indicator oftheWeighbridge- Front Side)

0000

Lead sesi

Sealingwiru

(Indicator oftheWeighbridge--Lower back Side)

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

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

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

[ F. No. WM- 21- ( 13 )/20111

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 3708 GI/2011-4A 7448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2863.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 (2010 का । ) तथा विधिक माप विज्ञान (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप नियम ( 6 ) और नियम ।। के उप - नियम ( 4 ) के साथ पठित विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) की धारा 22 द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लुहार राजा गोवरधन एंड कंपनी , हवेली रोड , सावरकुण्डला , गुजरात , पिन-364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले ' एलआरजी-टीटी ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जेनिल टीएम " है, ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 /260 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति-1

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WINE JENIL

0000

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

SEAL WIRE

BOTTOM OF SCALE

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( १ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2× 10 * , 5 × 10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य कं समतुल्यहैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 152 )/2011 ]

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

3708 9 / 11-4B 7449 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 12th August, 2011

S.O. 2863. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Legal Metrology Act , 2009 ( 1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act , 2009 ( 1 of 2010 ) read with sub - rule (6 ) of rule 8 and sub - rule (4) ofrule 11 ofthe Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication ofMedium Accuracy (Accurac Class - III ) of series " LRG- TT " and with brand name " JENIL TM " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Luhar Raja Gordhan & Company, Haveli Road , Savarkundla , Gujarat, Pin -364515 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 11 /260;

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

Figure- 1

TOP Y OF SCALE

SEAL WIRE

JENIL

0000

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

SEAL WIRE

BOTTOM OF SCALE

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - rule (9) ofrule 8 of the Legal Metrology ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg to 2g and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10h , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle. design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 152 )/ 20111

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2864.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम, 2009( 2010 का । ) तथा विधिक विज्ञान ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम (6 ) और नियम ।। के उप -नियम ( 4 ) के साथ पठित विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) की धारा 22 द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लुहार राजा गोवरधन एंड कंपनी , हवेली रोड , सावरकुण्डला , गुजरात , पिन-364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' एलआरजीपी ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जेनिल टीएम " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 11 /261 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 100 ग्रा. है इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति -1

TOP OF INDICETOR

000

LEAD BOMARE SEAL

SEAL WIRE LEADBOLLAR SEAL

BOTTOM OF INDICATOR

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप- नियम ( 9 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10% , 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 152) /2011 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7451 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 12th August , 2011

S.O. 2864. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act , 2009 ( 1 of2010) and the Legal Metrology ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act 2009 ( 1 of 2010 ) read with sub - rule (6 ) of rule 8 and sub -rule (4) ofrule 11 ofthe Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " LRGP " and with brand name " JENIL TM " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Luhar Raja Gordhan & Company. Haveli Road, Savarkundla, Gujurat, Pin -364515 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 11-261;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 500kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect ..The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply. :

Figure- 1Model

TOP OF MEDICRYOR

000

SEALWIRE

BEAL WIRE

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

CAD SQUARE SCA

BOTTOM OF INDICATOR

2864

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of the sealing provision ofthe model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - rule (9 ) ofrule 8 of the Legal Metrology ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and upto 5000kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10k , or 5x10 %, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured.

| F. No. WM- 21 ( 152 ) 20111

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Tegal Metrology 7452

PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 16 अगस्त , 2011

का.आ. 2865.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) तथा विधिक विज्ञान ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 2011 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम , 8 के उप नियम ( 6 ) और नियम 11 के उप- नियम (4 ) के साथ पठित विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) की धारा 22 द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स महामाया इंस्टूमेंट्स , कुमकुम होटल के सामने , ब्रह्म रोड , अम्बिकापुर-497001 जिला- सरगुजा ( छत्तीसगढ ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " ईएसटी' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " इक्वलस्टार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 11 / 184 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरणं 230वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति - 1

Schenetic Diagram of stamping and sealing (Table top scale)

Lead seal

Stamping Plate

000

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप- नियम ( १ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा . से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 100,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 100,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) संहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 % , 5× 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 (75) /2011 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7453 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16th August, 2011

S.O. 2865. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Legal MetrologyAct , 2009 (1 of 2010 ) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 22 of the Legal Metrology Act 2009 ( 1 of 2010 ) read with sub - rule (6) of rule 8 and sub- rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class- II ) of series " EST ™ and with brand name " EQUALSTAR " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . Mahamaya Instruments , Opposite Kumkum Hotel , Bramh Road , Ambikapur - 497001 , District- Sarguja ( Chhattisgarh ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/184;

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

Figure- 1Model

Scheinatic Diagram of stamping and sealing ( Table top scaler

Lead seal

Stamping Plate

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

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

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

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub - rule (9 ) ofrule 8 of the !Legal Metrology ( Approval of Moders ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to 100,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg. or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10 or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

1. No. WM - 21 ( 75 )/2011 /

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)|

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2866.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का । ) तथा विधिक माप विज्ञान (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 2011 के नियम 8 के उप नियम ( 6 ) और नियम 11 के उप- नियम (4) के साथ पठित विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम, 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) की धारा 22 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स महामाया इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स, कुमकुम होटल के सामने , ब्रह्म रोड , अम्बिकापुर -497001 जिला -सरगुजा ( छत्तीसगढ ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ईएसपी ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " इक्वलस्टार " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 / 185 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रात्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति - 1

Stamping plate

kg 0000 Lond seal

(Indicator of the Platform Scale-Front Side)

Stamping Plate

Lead seal

Scaling wire

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार विधिक माप विज्ञान ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( १ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 75)/ 2011 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7455 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011 /आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16th August, 2011

S.O. 2866. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act , 2009 ( 1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act . 2009 ( 1 of 2010) read with sub - rule (6) of rule 8 and sub -rule (4) ofrule 11 of the Legal Metrology ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 2011 , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accurac class - III ) of series "ESP " and with brand name " EQUALSTAR " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Mahamaya Instruments , Opposite Kumkum Hotel , Bramh Road , Ambikapur - 497001 , District - Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 11/185;

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

Figure- 1Model

Stamping plate

Lead seal

0000

Indicator of the Platform Scale-Front Side)

Stamping Plato

Lead seal

Sealing wire

Indicator of the platform Scale Lower back Side)

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - rule (9) of rule 8 of the legal Metrology ( Approval of Models ) Rules, 2011 , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 5000kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k , or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Modelhas been manufactured.

E. No. WM - 21 ( 75 ) 20111

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 3708 Gl/2011-5 A 7456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) |

नई दिल्ली , 16 अगस्त, 2011

का.आ. 2867.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एस. के. इंटरप्राइज , 1 - सूर्या काम्पलैक्स , दवे शोपिंग सेंटर के सामने , वसना बैरेज रोड, वसना , अहमदाबाद 380007 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसकेएफडब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रानिक वेब्रिज ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " ईएसएसकेईई " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/11 / 141 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है;

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

आकृति- 1

BACKSIDE

TOPOFINDICATOR आकृति 2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

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

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

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

| फा. सं.

21 ( 07 ) / 2011 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक विधिक माप विज्ञान

3708 Ga /11-5B 7457 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 16th August , 2011

S.O. 2867. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " SKFW " and with brand name " ESSKEE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/ s . S. K. Enterprise , I - Surya Complex , Opp . Dave Shopping Centre , Vasna Barrage Road, Vasna , Ahmedabad - 380007 ( Gujuart ) and which is assigned theapproval mark IND/09/ 11 / 141 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge) with a maximum capacity of 40 tonne and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval ( c ) is 5kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

BACKSIDE

TOPOFINDICATOR

Figure 2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or above and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10k or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (07)/2011 |

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7458

[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

( खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर, 2011

का.आ. 2868. केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4) के अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग ) के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है:-

1. केन्द्रीय भण्डारण निगम , केन्द्रीय भंडारगृह, हापा , जामनगरं , पिनकोड-361006

2. केन्द्रीय भण्डारण निगम , केन्द्रीय भंडारगृह , राजकोट- 1 पिन कोड -360001

3. केन्द्रीय भण्डारण निगम , केन्द्रीय भंडारगृह , राजकोट- II पिनकोड-360003

[ सं. ई 11011/1/2008 हिंदी | गिरीश शंकर , संयुक्त सचिव

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi , the 7th September, 2011

S.O. 2868. In pursuance of sub - rule ( 4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union ) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry ofConsumer Affairs , Food & Public Distribution ( Deptt. of Food & Public Distribution ) , where of more than 80% of staff has acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:

1. Central Warehousing Corporation, Central Warehouse , Hapa, Jamnagar, PinCode-361006

2. Central Warehousing Corporation , Central Warehouse , Rajkot- 1 , PinCode-360001

3. Central Warehousing Corporation , Central Warehouse , Rajkot- II , PinCode-360003

[No. E - 11011 / 1 /2008-11indi ] GIRISEI SHANKAR , Jt . Secy.

7459 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली , 28 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2869.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और

तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(3)

(2)

(1)

23 9-2011

4, अगस्त 2011

आई एस 9283 : 1995 निमज्जन पम्पसेटों के लिए मोटरें-विशिष्टि (प्रथम पुनरीक्षण की संशोधन संख्या 3 )

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

| संदर्भ : ईटी 15 /टी -30] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

(Bureau of Indian Standards ) New Delhi , the 28th September, 2011

S.O. 2869.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the Amendment

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(3)

(2)

(1)

23-9-2011

4,August 2011

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for submersible pumpsets Specification (First Revision)

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

[Ref: ET 15/ 1-30| R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E ' & Head (Electro- technical ) 7460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2870.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

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

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 14930 ( Part 1 ) : 2001 की संशोधन संख्या 3

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(3)

(4)

3 , अगस्त 2011

23 9-2011 2, अगस्त 2011

2. आई एस 14930 ( Part 2 ) : 2001 की संशोधन संख्या 2

23 9 2011 इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 14/टी-84 , टी-19] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

New Delhi , the 28th September, 2011

S.O. 2870.-In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

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

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the

Amendment

(1)

(2)

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

3,August 2011

1. IS 14930 ( Part 1 ) : 2001 Conduit Systems for Electrical Installations Part 1 General Requirements

23-9-2011

2,August 2011

2. IS 14930 (Part 2): 2001 Conduit Systems for Electrical Installations Part 2 Particular Requirements for ConduitSystem Burried Underground Copy of this Amendment is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadur $hah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref : LET 14/T- 84, T- 19 ] R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E ' & Head (Electro-technical ) 7461

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2871.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) कं खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गये हैं :

क्रम रद्द किये गये मानक ( कों) की संख्या, संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

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

उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-1750 तिथि 07-06-1975

1. आई एस 1509: 1972 पशुधन आहार के रूप में टैपिओका ( कसावे ) की विशिष्टि (पहला पुनीरक्षण)

का.आ. संख्या-0770 तिथि 08-03-1975

2. आई एस 1705 : 1972 दुग्ध बोतल ढक्कन के लिए अल्युमिनियम फॉयल की विशिष्टि (पहला पुनीरक्षण)

प्रौद्योगिकी सुधार के मद्देनजर अब उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-3226 तिथि 27-10-1962

3. आई एस 2144: 1962 हाथ संचालित बोतल वॉशर की विशिष्टि

प्रौद्योगिकी सुधार के मद्देनजर अब उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-3226 तिथि- 27-10-1962

4. आई एस 2145 : 1962 हाथ संचालित बोतल वॉशर की विशिष्टि

उपयोग में नहीं है । प्रौद्योगिकी सुधार के मद्देनजर अब

का. आ. संख्या-3226 तिथि- 27-10-1962

आई एस 2146: 1962 दुग्ध बोतलों के लिए हाथ संचालित ढक्कन सीलर की विशिष्टि

प्रौद्योगिकी सुधार के मद्देनजर अब उपयोग में नहीं है ।

उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-0444 तिथि 12-02-1966

6. आई एस 3162: 1965 चना भूसी की विशिष्ट

उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-3278 तिथि 20 10-1984

7. आई एस 5064: 1980 पशुधन आहार के रूप में टैपिओका स्पैंट पल्प की विशिष्टि (पहला पुनीरक्षण)

उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-0182 तिथि- 10-01-1976

आई एस 7061 : 1973 पशुधन आहार अनुपूरक के रूप में कैल्साइन्ड हड्डी भोजन की विशिष्ट

का.आ. संख्या-0988 तिथि 06-03-1976

9. आई एस 7247 ( भाग 2 ) : 1974 कृषि उत्पाद के धूमन के लिए रिति संहिता भाग 2 : ईथीलीन डाइब्रोमाइड

ईथीलीन डाइब्रोमाइड का उपयोग एवं विपणन भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रतिबंधित कर दिया गया है

उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-3278 तिथि 20-10-1984

10. आई एस 9599: 1980 पशुधन आहार के रूप में रबड़ बीज के केक की विशिष्ट

का.आ. संख्या-0618 तिथि- 28-03-1998

11. आई एस 9967:1997/ आई एस ओ 4099 : 1984 चीज नाइट्रेट तथा नाइट्राइट अंश ज्ञात करना- केडमियम अपचयन तथा फोटोमिट्रि पद्धति द्वारा ( पहला पुनीरक्षण )

निम्नलिखित मानकों द्वारा अतिक्रमितः (क) आई एस 9967 ( भाग 1 ): 2008/आई एस ओ 14673 1 :2004 दुग्धएवं दुग्ध उत्पाद नाईट्रेड तथा नाइट्राइट का अंश निर्धारण भाग । कैडमियम अपचयन तथा स्पेक्ट्रोमंट्री पद्धति ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

(ख) आई एस 9967 ( भाग 2 ): 2008/आई एस ओ 14673 2 : 2004 दुग्ध एवं दुग्ध उत्पाद नाइट्रेट तथा नाईट्राइट का अंश निर्धारण 7462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) |

भाग 2 पृथक्कृत प्रवाह विश्लेषण पद्धति (सामान्य विधि ) ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

( ग) आई एस 9967 ( भाग 3 ) : 2008/आई एस ओ 14673-3 :2004 दुग्ध एवं दुग्ध उत्पाद नाईट्रेट तथा नाईट्राईट का अंश निर्धारण भाग -3 कैडमियम अपचयन तथा इन-लाइन डायलिसिस के साथ द्रव अंतः क्षेपण विशलेषण पद्धति (सामान्य विधि ) ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-3975 तिथि- 29-11-1986

12. आई एस 10670: 1983 पशुधन आहार के घटक के रूप में तंबाकू केक की विशिष्टि

का.आ. संख्या-0463 तिथि-14-02-1987

13. आई एस 11063:1984- मेटोक्सयूरोन पानी में डिस्परसिबल पाउडर की विशिष्टि

का.आ. संख्या-0701 तिथि- 14-03-1987

14. आई एस 11135:1984- मेटोक्सयूरोन तकनीकी कीविशिष्टि

का.आ. संख्या-1106 तिथि- 29-05-1993

15. आई एस 13574:1992- पशुधन आहार तथा भरण सामग्री- खनिज अनुपूरकों में कैल्शियम तथा मैगनिष्यिम ज्ञात करना

मेटोक्सयूरोन का उपयोग भारत सरकार द्वारा वापस ले लिया गया है । मेटोक्सयूरोन का उपयोग भारत सरकार द्वारा वापस ले लिया गया है । उपयोग में नहीं है ।

का.आ. संख्या-0371 तिथि- 06-02-1999

16. आई एस 14433 भाग 1: 1997 शिशु दुग्ध के वैकल्पिक आहार- विशिष्टि भाग 1 दुग्ध प्रोटीन सेबने

आई एस 14433 : 2007 शिशु दुग्ध के वैकल्पिक आहार विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) के द्वारा अतिक्रमित 17. आई एस 14825 :2000/ आई एस ओ 5983: 1997 का.आ. संख्या-2604 तिथि 02-12-2000 पशु आहार - नाईट्रोजन की मात्रा ज्ञात करना एवं क्रूड प्रोटीन की मात्रा की गणना- जैलडाल पद्धति

आई एस/ आई एस ओ 5983 ( भाग 1 ) :2005 पशु आहार सामग्री नाईट्रोजन की मात्रा निर्धारण एवं क्रूड प्रोटीन की मात्रा मापन भाग । जैलडाल पद्धति के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. संख्या-2604 तिथि 02-12-2000

18. आई एस 14830 :2000/आई एस ओ 6496: 1983 पशु आहार- नमी की मात्रा ज्ञात करना

आई एस/ आई एस ओ 6496:1999 पशु आहार सामग्री- आर्द्रता एवं वाष्पशील पदार्थ की मात्रा निर्धारण के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

| संदर्भ : एफएडी/जी-128 ] डॉ. आर. के. बजाज , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि)

NewDelhi , the 29th September, 2011

S. O. 2871. In pursuance of Clause (b ) of sub- rule (1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, it is , hereby notified that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule hereafter, have been cancelled and stand withdrawn : --

SI. No. & Year of the Indian

No. Standards Cancelled

3 1

SCHEDULE

Date of Established

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

No longer in use

S.O. No. 1750 Dated: 07-06-1975

IS 1509: 1972 Specification for tapioca aslivestock feed ( first revision) भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3 2

S.O. No. 0770 Dated: 08-03-1975

2. IS 1705: 1972 Specification for aluminum foilfor milk bottle caps (first revision)

S.O. No. 3226 Dated: 27-10-1962

3. IS 2144: 1962 Specification for hand operated bottle washer

S.O. No. 3226 Dated: 27-10-1962

4. IS 2145 : 1962 Specification for hand bottle filler

S.O. No. 3226 Dated: 27-10-1962

5. IS2146: 1962 Specification for hand operated cap sealer for milk bottles

S.O. No. 0444 Dated: 12-02-1966

6. IS 3162 : 1965 Specification for gram husk

S.O. No. 3278 Dated: 20-10-1984

7. IS 5064: 1980 Specification for tapioca spent pulp as livestock feed first revision

S.O. No. 0182 Dated: 10-01-1976

IS 7061 : 1973 Specification for calcined bone meal as livestock feed supplement 8.

S.O. No. 0988 Dated: 06-03-1976

9. IS 7247 (Part 2) : 1974 Code of practice for fumigation of agricultural produce- Part2: Ethylene dibromide

S.O. No. 3278 Dated: 20-10-1984

10. IS 9599 : 1980 Specification for rubber seed cake as livestock feed

S.O. No. 0618 Dated: 28-03-1998

11. IS 9967: 1997/ISO 4099 : 1984 Cheese- Determination of nitrate and nitrite content Method by cadmium reduction and photometry (first revision)

3708 GI /2011-6-

7463 No longer in use in view of technology improvements

No longer in use in view of technology improvements

No longer in use in view of technology improvements No longer in use in view of technology improvements No longer in use

No longer in use

The marketing and use of ethylene dibromide has been banned by Govt. of India No longer in use

Superseded by:

(i) IS 9967 (Part 1 ) : 2008 /ISO 14673-1: 2004 Milk and Milk products Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents : Part 1 Method using cadmium reduction and spectrometry (second revision)

( ii) IS 9967 ( Part 2 ) : 2008 ISO 14673-2: 2004 Milk and Milk products -Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents : Part 2 Method using segmented flow analysis (routine method ) ( second revision)

( iii ) IS 9967 ( part 3 ): 2008 /ISO 14673-3: 2004 Milk and Milk products -Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents : part 3 Method using cadmium reduction and flow injection analysis with in line dialysis (routine method ) ( second rivision) 7464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

S.O. No. 3975 Dated: 29-11-1986

12. IS 10670 : 1983 Specification for Virginia tobacoo seed cake as livestock feed ingredient

No longer inuse

S.O. No. 0463 Dated: 14-02-1987

13. IS 11063 : 1984 Specification for Metoxuron Water Dispersible Powders

Use of Metoxuron has been withdrawn by Govt . of India

S.O. No. 0701 Dated: 14-03-1987

14. IS 11135: 1984 Specification for Metoxuron, Technical

Use of Metoxuron has been withdrawn by Govt . of India

S.O. No. 1106 Dated: 29-05-1993

15. IS 13574 : 1992 Animal feeds and feeding stuffs - Determination ofcalcium and magnesium in mineral supplements

No longer in use

S.O. No. 0371 Dated: 06-02-1999

16. IS 14433 (Part 1 ) : 1997 Infant milk substitutes -Specification: Part 1 Milk protien based

Supersededby IS 14433 :2007 Infant milk substitutes- Specification

S.O. No. 2604 Dated: 02-12-2000

17. IS 14825: 2000 /ISO 5983 : 1997 Animal feeding stuffs-Determination of nitrogen content and calculation of crude protein content-Kjeldahl Method

Supersededby IS/ISO 5983-1 : 2005 Animal feeding stuffs- Determination of nitrogen content and calculation of crude protein content - Part 1 Kjeldahl Method

S.O. No. 2604 Dated: 02-12-2000

18. IS 14830: 2000/ISO 6496: 1983 Animal feeding stuff--Determination of moisture content

Supersededby IS/ ISO 6496:

1999 Animal feeding stuffs- Determination of moisture and other volatile matter content

[Ref : FAD/G - 128 ] Dr. R. K. BAJAJ , Scientist F and Head ( Food & Agri . )

नई दिल्ली, 3 अक्तूबर, 2011

का.आ. 2872.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 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 :-

पार्टी का नाम एवं पता क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1. 3754975 26-8-2011 मैसर्स फिनोलेक्स प्लास्सन इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लि. , प्लाट नं. 399 , उरसे तालुका मावल , जिला पुणे , महाराष्ट्र-410506 2 3721960 9-9-2011 मैसर्स दानवडे शिंदे ग्रुप ऑफ

इंडस्ट्रीज , गट संख्या 160 करनदोशी , पोस्टकारंदी , तालुका जवली , जिला सतारा , महाराष्ट्र-415514

अनुसूची

भा. मा. भाग अनुभाग वर्ष भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(5)

(6) (7) (8) (9 ) सिंचाई उपस्कर-

14151 02

2008 स्प्रिंकलर पाइप-

विशिष्टिः भाग 2 सहज संयोजी पालीएथिलीन पाइप और फिटिंग

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

14543

2004 ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक

मिनरल जल के अलावा )

3708 GJ/11-6B 7465 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

(7)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(8) (9) (1) (2)

(3)

14543

2004 3724562 19-9-2011

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

मैसर्स स्वास्तिक इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लॉट नं. ए-64 , पैठन एमआईडीसी , पैठन जिला औरंगाबाद, महाराष्ट्र-431107

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ]

बी. एम. हनीफ , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख New Delhi , the 3rd October, 2011

S.O. 2872. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

Sec . Year

IS No. Part

GrantDate

Title ofthe Standard

Sl . No.

Licence No.

Name and Address of theParty

(9) (4)

(6) (7) (8)

(2)

(5)

(3)

(1)

2008 3754975

26-8-2011

14151 02

M/ s . Finolex Plasson Industries Pvt. Ltd. , PlotNo. 399 , Urse Taluka Maval , District Pune,Maharashtra -410506

Irrigation equipment SprinklerPipes- Specification: Part 2 Quick coupled polyethylene pipes and fittings

2004 2.

3721960

9-9-2011

14543

M/s. Dhanawade Shinde

Packaged drinking water(Other than packaged natural mineral water)

Group of Industries , GatNo. 160, Karandoshi , PostKarandi , Taluka Jaoli , District Satara , Maharashtra - 415514

2004 3724562

19-9-2011

Packaged drinking 14543 water (Other than packaged natural mineralwater)

Swastik Industries , PlotNo. A-64 , PaithanMIDC , Paithan , DistrictAurangabad Maharashtra -431107

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

B. M. HANEEF, Scientist ' F' and Head

नई दिल्ली, 4 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 2873.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

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

(4)

(3)

(2).

(1)

310-2011

1 , सितम्बर , 2011

1. आई एस 15086 ( भाग 1 ): 2001 / आईईसी (1991) की संशोधन पंख्या 1 7466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] इन भारतीय संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , १ , 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 ।

| संदर्भ : ईटी 30 /टी 5 । आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

New Delhi , the 4th October , 2011

S.O. 2873. 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 amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :-

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

SCHEDULE

No. and Year ofthe

Amendments

(1)

(2)

Date from which the Amendments shall have effect (3)

(1)

3-10-2011

1. September 2011

1. IS 15086(Part1 ) : 2001 / IEC 60099-1-( 1991 ) Surge arresters , Part 1 : Non linear resistor type capped surge arrestors for a.c. systems

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

[ Ref: ET 30/1-5 ] R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E' & Head (Electro -technical )

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक्तूबर, 2011

का.आ. 2874.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अधिसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

क्रम सं

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

(2)

(1)

1. आई एस 648: 2006 अतप्त बेल्लित गैर -दिशात्मक विद्युत इस्पात की चद्दर एवं पत्ती पूर्ण प्रक्रमित प्ररूप विशिष्ट (पांचवा पुनरीक्षण)

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

(3)

(1)

संशोधन संख्या 4 अक्तूबर 2011

7 अक्तूबर , 2011 इस संशोधन की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 1100002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

| संदर्भ : एमटीडी 4/टी 23 पी. के. गम्भीर , वैज्ञानिक ' जी' एवं मुख्य अधिकारी ( मानकीकरण )

New Delhi , the 7th October , 2011

S.O. 2874.- 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;

7467 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

No. and Year ofthe

amendment

No. and title ofthe Standard (s)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

7-10-2011

Amendment No. 4

October 2011

1. IS 648 :2006 Cold rolled non - oriented electrical steel sheet and strip-Fully processed type-specification ( fifth revision)

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

[Ref: MTD 4/1-231

P. K. GAMBHIR , Scientist ' G ' & Chief ( Standardization)

नई दिल्ली, 10 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 2875.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 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 :-

अनुसूची

भाग अनुभाग वर्ष लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

भा. मा. संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि, वर्ष/माह

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं.

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(8 ) (9 )

(7)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2004

14543

L-9888323 2-9-2011

पैकेजबन्द पेय जल ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

मै. आर जी बिवरेजिज एण्ड कम्पनी, 12.5 के एम , वजीरपुर मोड , गांव ढोरका , जिला गुडगांवा हरियाणा

1999

14151

2. L-9883717 5-9-2011

सिचाई उपस्कर- स्प्रिंकलर पाइप भाग । पालीएथिलीन पाइप

मै. किरण पाइप इण्डस्ट्रीज , गांव सिसोद , महेन्द्रगढ़ , जिला महेन्द्रगढ़ -123029 हरियाणा

1980 3. L-9883919 5-9-2011

सीमेंट कंक्रीट की बनी हुई 1237 फर्श कीटाइलें

मै. दलाल टाइल्स इंडस्ट्रीज , बहादुरगढ़ खरखौदा रोड, निकट दादा बुद्धा मंदिर, असौढा, जिला झज्जर -124505 , हरियाणा

1993

13801

4. L-9884012 5-9-2011

चकोरदार सीमेंट कंक्रीट टाइलें

मै. दलाल टाइल्स इंडस्ट्रीज , बहादुरगढ़ खरखौदा रोड , निकट दादा बुद्धा मंदिर , असौढा , जिला झज्जर -124505 , हरियाणा

1994

5. L-9884618 7-9-2011

डाक्टरी थर्मामीटर भाग ! 3055 ठोस डंडी प्रकार

मै. लाइफलाइन थर्मामीटर इंडस्ट्रीज , 156 ( प्रथम तल) , फेस6 , जिला गुडगांव -122001 हरियाणा

2009 6. L-9887119 15-9-2011

सामान्य प्रयोजन के लिए 996 एक फेज़ी ए सी प्रेरण

मोटरें

मै. मित्तल ट्रेडस , 67 , ब्लॉक 8 , बादशाहपुर , जिला गुढगांव-122101 , हरियाणा

1999

3521

7. L-9887018 16-9-2011

औद्योगिक सुरक्षा पट्टे व सज्जा कवच

मै. कान्टीनेन्टल मैन्यूफैक्चरिंग कम्पनी , प्लॉट नं. 64 , सैक्टर-3 , एच एस आई आई डी सी,

जी सी बावल , जिला रेवाडी, हरियाणा

7468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 8. L-9886319 19-9-2011 मै. एस आर एम ज्वैल्स, (यूनिट ऑफ एस आर एस लि. ) , शाप नं. 21 , कामेटी चौक, देवी मन्दिर के पास , जिला पलवल , हरियाणा

9. L-9888222 28-9-2011 मै. मनाली मिनरल वाटर इन्टरप्राइसिज , गांव बढ़ा, डाकघर सिकन्दरपुर बढ़ा , जिला गुडगांवा , हरियाणा 10. L-9888525 28-9-2011 मै. सी एम आई लि. , प्लॉट नं. 71 व 82 , सेक्टर-6 , जिला फरीदाबाद -121006 हरियाणा

11 . L-9888828 28-9-2011 मै. इण्डो-ऐवन स्विचगेयर, ऋचा निट्स, खेड़ी- जसाना रोड , सी-2, कवरान गांव, नियर जिला फरीदाबाद -121007 हरियाणा

12. L-9888929 28-9-2011 मै. इण्डो-ऐवन स्विचगेयर, सी-2 , कवरान गांव, नियर ऋचा निट्स, खेड़ी-जसाना रोड, जिला फरीदाबाद-121007 हरियाणा

3 ( ii ) |

[ PART II -SEC. (5)

(6) (7) (8) (9 )

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

14543

2004 पैकेजबन्द पेय जल , (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा

9968

(01

1988 1100 वोल्ट तक तथा सहित की कार्यकारी वोलटेज के लिए इलैसटोमर विधुतरोधी केबल्स

1293

2005 250वोल्ट तक की रेटित वोल्टता वाले और 16 एम्पीयर तक की रेटित करंट वाले प्लग और सॉकेट निकास

3854

1997 घरेलू और समान कार्यों के लिएस्विच

| सं. सीएमडी 13:11 | एम. सदाशिवम, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एफडीओ )

New Delhi , the 10th October, 2011

S.O. 2875.-In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988, ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :--

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

SL No.

Licences No. CM/L-

Name and Address of the Licensee (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1. L-9888323 2-09-2011 M/ s. R. G. Beverages & Co. , 12.5 KM , WazirpurMode, Village Dhorka, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana

2. L-9883717 5-09-2011 M/s. Kiran Pipe Industries , Village SisothMahndergarh Distt . Mahendragarh- 123029 Haryana

3. L-9883919 5-09-2011 M/s. Dalal Tiles Industries , Bhadurgarh -Kharkhoda Road, Near Dada Buddha Mandir, Asaudha, Distt . Jhajjar- 124505 Haryana

ISNo. Part Sec . Year Title ofthe Standard

(5)

(6) (7) (8 ) (9)

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than packaged Natural MineralWater)

1999 Irrigation Equipment 14151 Sprinler Pipes Part 1 Polyethylene Pipes

1237

1980 Cement Concrete Flooring Tiles 7469 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

(2)

(6)

(9)

(5)

(1)

(3)

(7) (8 )

(4)

1993 4. L-9884012 5-09-2011

Chequered Cement 13801

M/s . Dalal Tiles Industries , Bhadurgarh-Kharkhoda Road, Concrete Tiles NearDadaBuddhaMandir, Asaudha, Distt . Jhajjar- 124505 Haryana

1994 L-9884618 7-09-2011

3055

Clinical Thermometers Part 1 SolidStem Type

M/s . Lifeline Thermometer Industries , 156 (First Floor) , Udyog Vihar, phase-VI, Distt. Gurgaon- 122001 Haryana

996 2009 6. L-9887119 15-09-2011

Single Phase ac . Induction Motors forGeneral Purpose

M/s . Mittal Traders , 67, Block -8 , Badshahpur, Distt.Gurgaon- 122101 Haryana

3521 1999 7. L-9887018 16-09-2011

Industrial Safety Belts and Harnesses

M/s: Continental Manufacturing Co. , PlotNo.64, Sector-3 , HSIIDC, G C. Bawal, Distt. Rewari , Haryana

1999 8. L-9886319 19-09-2011

1417

Gold&GoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/ s . SRS Jewells (Unit ofSRS Ltd. ), Shop No. 21 , Committee Chowk , Near Devi Mandir, Distt. Palwal Haryana

2004 9. L-9888222 28-09-2011

14543

Packaged Drinking Water ( Other Than PackagedNatural MineralWater)

M/ s . Manali Mineral Water Enterprises, Village-Badha, P.O. Sikanderpur Badha, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana

1998 10. L-9888525 28-09-2011 M/ s . CMI Ltd. , Plot No. 71 & 82, Sector- 6, Distt. Faridabad- 121006 Haryana

Elastomer Insulated 9968 CablesPart 1 for WorkingVoltage upto and including 1100Volts

1293 2005 11. L-9888828 28-09-2011 M/s . Indo-Avon Switchgear, C-2, KawranVillage,Near Richa Knits , Kheri - Jasana Road, Distt . Faridabad- 121007 Haryana

Plugs and Socket Outlets of rated voltage upto and including 16 Amperes

3854 1997 12. L-9888929 28-09-2011

Switches for Domestic and SimilarPurposes

M/ s . Indo-Avon Switchgear, C-2, KawranVillage, Near Richa Knits , Kheri - Jasana Road, Distt. Faridabad-121007 Haryana

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist F & Head ( FDO) 7470

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

(3)

(2)

.(1)

(4) (5) ( 6 ) पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

वडगाम मजादार

नाला

00 00 85 नई दिल्ली, 10 अक्तूबर , 2011

00 00

399

00 07

उमरदास नदी

00 11

उमरदास नदी

पालनपुर कानोदर

302

00 00

301

00 15 का.आ. 2876.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में सलाया से उत्तर- प्रदेश राज्य में मथुरा तक पैट्रोलियम क्रूड के परिवहन के लिए "सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन के अन्तर्गत डी- बॉटलनेकिंग परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

300

00 02

00 16 24

305

299

306

00 02

297

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

00 07

349

348

00 09

307

347

00 12

00 06

311

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

312

जगाना

182

पालनपुर

00 07

180

181/1

00 13

एस एच-41

कच्चा रास्ता

23 43

187

00 02

कच्चा रास्ता

189/2

00 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनसाधारण को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री एम जी परमार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ( गुजरात ) , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पलांट नं. 10 , पटेल सोसाइटी, ( आई. ओ. सी. कालोनी के पास ) विरमगाम ( जिला अहमदाबाद ) गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

00 17 54

189

अनुसूची

कच्चा रास्ता

00 02 जिला : बनासकांठा

राज्य : गुजरात

00 15 92

190

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नं./

तहसील गांव का नाम

00 02 01

कच्चा रास्ता

वर्ग

ब्लाक नं. हेक्टेयर एयर

214

00 15

मीटर

00 07 42

215

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

(1) (2)

220

00 13

221

00 11 38

वडगाम शेरपुरा

222

00 11

00 28 64

328

वडगाम मजादार

00 03 88

सड़क

00 09

329

229+230

00 42

00 07

330

226

00 06 15

331

00 07

228

00 08 73

00 03

कच्चा रास्ता

237

00 09 84

342

00 06 50

238

00 03

339

00 15

240

00 25

340

कच्चा रास्ता

00 01 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(6)

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

00 03

241

पालनपुर जगाना

पालनपुर

सड़क

00 12

265

00 24

264

00 11

269

00 10

268

270

कच्चा रास्ता

285+286/1

284

311

08 82

312

00 28

313

कच्चा रास्ता

गटामन

पालनपु

पालनपुर पुर

रास्ता

इसीबपुरा कच्चा

कच्चा रास्ता

42 95

4+5

34 07

26 28

1026

पालनपुर पालनपुर

कच्चा रास्ता

1021

1022

कच्चा रास्ता

00 22

905

898

00 04

900

00 02

904

00 16

902

00 02

सड़क

819

00 23

817

820

00 55

829

00 16

816

860

00 01

00 60

832

855

00 42

851

3708 GI/2011-7

7471

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

00 38

1333

पालनपुर

01 08 41

931

एन एच-14

00 07

59 कच्चा रास्ता

700

701

00 11

703

705

39 22

706

00 44 18

707

00 22

692

00 04

एन डी आर रोड

477

00 40

478

00 40

443

444

00 25

445

00 35 88

447

48 00

449

448

04 35

कच्चा रास्ता

435

00 05

सड़क

415

61 80

350

00 19

351

352

353

सड़क

346

00 43

347

00 36 39

333

00 05

सड़क

00 45

288

00 10

289

295

00 17

294

00 31

293

00 06

सड़क

00 14

302

00 22

304

305 7472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

(2)

(3) (4)

(6)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) ( 5) (6) 306

00 08

पालनपुर पालनपुर

20+21

पालनपुर

वरवादिया

18 75 307

00 11

00 02. 11 310

00 23

22+23

00 03

86 95

पालनपुर अकेसन

00 00

52+53

पालनपुर

खीमाना

264

09 94

00 32

66 पालनपुर मालाना 151+152+153

00 21

57 93

00 18 37

150

00 16 90 91

00 01

149

00 06 06 92

00 14

146+148

00 25

67 नाला

00 09

पालनपुर हिब्बतपुर

46 66

00 00

कच्चा रास्ता

00 02 00 67

00 08

16/1

00 07

99 70

00 14 33

00 28 19 71

00 02

कच्चा रास्ता

00 01

81 72

00 18

00 30

सड़क

कच्चा रास्ता

90 26

00 39

कच्चा रास्ता

01 23

4/4

05 25

00 23

00 05 72 रेलवे

00 05

00 04 68 24

00 19

4/2

00 03

37 12

पालनपुर सोहनगढ़

00 98

4/1

00 04

कच्चा रास्ता

7/2

00 00 43

10+11

चितरासैनी कच्चा रास्ता 00

पालनपुर

01 19 16

00 15

00 28

सड़क

101

00 06

68 17

00 15

कच्चा रास्ता

58 8+9

00 06 18

104

00 06 27 18

00 07 94

105

00 08 13 कच्चा रास्ता

00 00

106

00 01 91 19

00 17

108

00 10 06 20

सड़क

02 38 21+22

00 06

कच्चा रास्ता

00 01

73 30+31

00 30

140

00 20 48 34

00 11

139

00 12 78 28+29

00 11

148/1

00 00 10 36

00 03

148/2

00 10 60 37

00 10

150

00 05

27 38+45+49

00 05

151

00 29

89 39+40+41

00 12

67/2

पालनपुर

कोटड़ा

54 सरकारी भूमि

00 05 40

67/6

00 00 89 कच्चा रास्ता

00 05 48

सड़क 7473 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

( 6)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(5) ( 6 )

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

253

घोलिया

अमीरगढ़

00 00

63/3

कोटड़ा

पालनपुर

265

00 01

कच्चा रास्ता

264

30 92

03 51

263

00 02

नाला

00 10

266

54/1

272

कच्चा रास्ता

271

53/1

274

21 48

53/2- 00

276

03 69

नाला

277

22 12

283

00 02

00 09

282

06 51

82 9

00 09

279

अमीरगढ़ राजपुरिया

35 00 09

00 20

280

5/1

कालीमाटी

10 53

5/2

00 01

कच्चा रास्ता

जैथी

कच्चा रास्ता

100

207

00 10

24 82

203

00 02

नाला

00 01

कच्चा रास्ता

04 32

00 01

204

00 04

00 14

202

00 10

199

00 58

198

00 11

14 58

190

00 01

नाला

00 08

189

सरकारी भूमि

धनपुरा

188

00 06

00 04

56/1

नाला

100

इकबालगढ़

नाला

02 45

00 05

रेलवे

04 57

73 01 05

21/4

21/5

19 01

00 02

247

घोलिया

कच्चा रास्ता

00 10

249

00 02

00 10

250

00 11

40/1

251

40/2

00 09

252 7474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] (1)

(3)

(2)

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

(3) (4) ( 5) ( 6) 41

00 10

नाला

00 धनपुरा

अमीरगढ़

खुनिया

अमीरगढ़

00 12 05

कच्या रास्ता

00 24 46

00 14

कच्चा रास्ता

00 01

21 37/2

00 07

14 33

किडोतर

124

04 59 37/1

00 01

145

20 09

143

00 06 88 35

नाला

क़च्चा रास्ता

125

00 06 26

120

02 52 25

119

00 01 82

सड़क

127

00 02

22 18

नाला

88 19

00 16 34

117

00 12 81 नाला

00 19 34

जोरापुरा

107

05 29

नाला

102

00 06 84

100

00 21 14

00 05 83

00 09

26 13

00 05 10

नहर

03 85

अमीरगढ़

नाला

28/2

00 14 43 9

00 03

कच्चा रास्ता

00 96 19

कच्चा रास्ता

00 02

कच्चा रास्ता

00 01

88 13

खुनिया

कच्चा रास्ता

00 01

97 14

00 14

00 17 24

00 09

नहर

00 05

00 07

नहर

00 01

60 17

00 11

00 02

57 18

00 05 69

00 12

37 20/1

00 06

सड़क

डूंगरपुरा

00 03

00 49 80

00 07

00 13 46 56

00 07

00 13 46 57/1

00 12 94 74

00 19 11

00 13 21 नाला

00 09 60,

00 12 15 76

00 06

00 11

107

00 11 32

00 13 7475

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

00 89

कच्चा रास्ता

डूंगरपुरा

अमीरगढ़

06 73

therein or laying ofthe pipeline under the land, to Shri MG PARMAR, Competent Authority ' (Gujarat) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipeline Division) Plot No - 10, Patel Society (Near IOC - Colony) Viramgam ( District- Ahmadabad) Gujarat-382150.

SCHEDULE

State: Gujarat

District : Banaskantha

कच्चा रास्ता

Area Survey No./ Block No.

Tehsil Name of

Village

(1)

274

आवल

265

कच्चा रास्ता

266

नाला

238

236

239

00 22

240

226

[ फा. सं. आर-25011/20/2011- ओआर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi, the 10th October, 2011

S.O. 2876. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government , that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum crude a pipeline from Salaya in the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh, ( Under Salaya- Mathura Pipeline De- bottlenecking Project) should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date onwhich the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published inthe Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user

Are Square Metre

Hect- are

(5) (6)

(4)

(3)

(2)

Wadgam

328

Sherpura Majadar

00 09

329

330

00 07

331

03 18

Carttrack

342

00 03

339

00 25

340

Nala

00 00

399

Umardasi River

Palanpur Kanodar Umardasi

River

302

00 15

301

00 02 67

300

00 16

305

299

00 21

306

00 02

297

349

348

00 09

307

347

00 06

311

312

182

Jagana

00 07

180

00 13

181/1

00 05

SH-41

00 05 Carttrack

187

02 70

Carttrack 7476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

(3)

(5 )

(4)

( 6 )

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5) (6) 189/2

30 05

Palanpur Jagana

902

Palanpur Palanpur

00 16 89 189

00 17

00 02 14

Asphalted Road

Carttrack

00 02

819

00 08 190

00 15

817

00 23

36 Carttrack

00 02

820

11 214

00 15 56

829

00 55 87 215

00 07

816

00 16 06 220

00 13

860

00 01 48 221

00 11 76

832

00 60 21 222

00 11 02

855

00 04

63 Road

00 03 88

851

00 42 229+230

00 00 42 44

1333

00 38 226

00 06

931

228

00 08

08 41

NH-14

237

00 07 21 238

00 06

CartTrack

00 07 59 240

700

00 15

00 54 14 00

Carttrack

701

00 16

67 241

703

00 11 98 00 02

AsphaltedRoad

705

00 12

53 265

00 12

706

00 39

22 264

00 24

707

00 44 18 269

00 11 60

692

00 22 91 268

MDR Road

00 04

46 270

00 02 93

477

00 25 96 Carttrack

00 02

478

00 40 28 285+286/1

00 54 16

443

40 284

00 15 82

444

00 05 15 311

00 07 43

445

00 25 98 312

00 08

447

00 35 88 313

00 28

449

48 00 Gataman Cart track

00 02

448

00 00

13 00 15

Carttrack

00 04 35 00 06

Esbipura Cart track

435

00 45

62 14

00 13

Road

00 05

98 16

00 38

415

00 47

21 00

13 64

350

00 61

80 Carttrack

351

00 19

13 4+5

00 42

352

13 04

353

1026

00 26 28

00 03 35 Palanpur

Carttrack

Road

00 03 62

00 04

346

1021

00 05

24 00 12

347

1022

00 43 00 11 42

333

Carttrack

00 36 00 01

39 905

00 22

Road

00 05 45 898

288

00 45 13 900

00 04

289

00 10 28 904

00 02

295

00 27

46 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7477 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

(1) (2)

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5) ( 6 )

(4)

00 17

294

Palanpur Asphalted

00 02 11

Palanpur Varvadiya

293

22+23

03 86 Road

00 06 33

52+53

Khemana

26 00

302

14 87

00 21

Malana 151 +152+153

57 00

304

00 16

150

90 00

305

06 06

149

306

00 08 42

00 25 67

146+148

307

00 11

00 46

Hebathpur 58

310

00 23

Carttrack

00 00

Akesan

16/1

07 99 00

00 28 19 93

00 18

Carttrack

81 91

00 01

00 30

75 92

00 14 99

Carttrack

Nala

00 09

00 13

72 66

00 00

4/4

05 67

00 08

00 05

72 70

00 14 33

00 04 68 71

00 02

4/2

00 03

37 72

00 18 65

4/1

00 04 Road

00 02 57

7/2

00 01

Chitrasani Cart track

19 00

Carttrack

00 28 08 00

00 06

101

68 00 05

Railway

Carttrack

58 24

00 19 94

104

00 06 27 12

Songadh

105

00 08 13 Carttrack

00 01

106

00 01

91 10+11

00 18

108

00 10 06 00

Road

00 02

38 Road

00 01

Carttrack

00 01

73 17

00 15

140

00 20 48 8+9

00 06

139

12. 18

00 07

148/1

Carttrack

148/2

00 10 60 19

00 17

150

00 05 27 20

151

00 29 89 21+22

00 06

Kotada

67/2

00 03 30+31

00 30

67/6

89 34

00 11

Road

00 05 28+29

00 11

63/3

27 36

00 03 29

00 01 25

Carttrack

00 10 09

00 30

92 38+45+49

00 05

Nala

00 02 39+40+41

00 12 01

00 13

54/1

29 00 05

Govt. Land

Carttrack

00 01 38

Carttrack

53/1

20+21

00 18

Varvadiya

53/2

00 21

48 7478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II Sec . 3(ii) ] (2)

(3)

( 1)

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

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

00 03

Palanpur Kotada

00 01 56

Amirgadh Kalimati Cart track

00 22

00 28 68 48

Carttrack

99 9

00 06

00 22

56 Amirgadh Rajpuria

00 02 5/1

00 08

00 10 82

5/2

Nala

02 37 3

00 01

04 32 Jethi

00 18 39

00 04 62 99

00 10 93

00 10 55

00 43

100

00 00

207

00 11 79

00 24

203

Nala

01 83 Carttrack

00 01

Dhanpura Govt. land

00 01

204

56/1

00 14

202

Nala

00 00 99 199

00 21

00 06

198

Nala

02 17 190

00 14 58

00 02 45

00 08

189

00 04 57

00 06

188

04 73 95

02 94

00 12 28

00 06

00 19 01 12

00 12

Carttrack

00 43 Iqbalgadh

00 02 45

00 05

40/1

00 11 80 Railway

21/4

05 59

40/2

00 18

21/5

00 10 79

247

00 20 28 Dholiya

00 10

249

Carttrack

00 75 250

00 10

14 32

251

00 06

37/2

06 79

00 09

252

26 253

00 10

37/1

00 01 22

265

00 09

14 264

00 01

00 01 08 263

00 03

Carttrack

266

00 10

00 11

76 272

00 12

00 05 75 Dholiya

00 15

Road

271

00 01 82

00 05

274

00 22

18 276

00 10

00 16

00 04

277

Nala

00 19 34

Jorapura

00 01

283

34 35 26 25 20 19 29

282

00 09

00 05 60

00 09

279

00 07

00 20

280

00 05 83

00 04

Kalimati

00 05 10 7479 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

( 6 )

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

00 17

00 02 29 Amirgadh Amirgadh

Nala

Amirgadh Jorapura

00 05 70

Canal

Carttrack

02 57

00 12

Amirgadh Ghanghu

02 18

Road

Amirgadh Dungarpura

80 Amirgadh Khuniya

00 13

20/1

00 03

00.06

Carttrack

00 07

57/1

Nala

Carttrack

00 05

107

15 03

Nala

00 03

274

Amirgadh Awal

265

Carttrack

266

124

01 Amirgadh Kidotar

Nala

145

238

143

236

Nala

239

00 06

125

22 86

240

120

226

119

[F. No. R- 25011 /20/201 -OR-I]

127

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

00 88

Nala

CORRIGENDUM

117

New Delhi , the 10th October, 2011

107

00 11

Nala

00 06

102

00 21

100

Canal

Amirgadh Amirgadh

14 43

28/2

03 05

Carttrack

S.O. 2877. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas published vide S.O. 972 dated 06 April , 2011 published in the Gazette of India dated 09 April , 2011 as under, namely;

00 01

Carttrack

Inthe schedule at page no . 2890 against village Kiwarli, in 35th line , column no . 3 in place " 956" the figure "965 " shall be substituted.

Carttrack

[F. No. R-25011 /10/2011 -OR - I ]

Carttrack

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

3708 GI /2011-8 7480

नई दिल्ली , 13 अक्तूबर , 2011 का.आ. 2878.-भारत सरकार ने जनहित में कर्नाटक राज्य में मंगलूर पोर्ट से मंगलूर केवर्न पाइपलाइन द्वारा कच्चे तेल का परिवहन अवश्यक माना है । मंगलूर, डी. के. जिले के आइ.एस.पी. आर.एल. पाइपलाइन लैंड फॉल पॉइंट एन.एम.पी.टी. के करीब से मंगलौर केवर्न तक आइ. एस. पी . आर. एल. द्वारा मंगलूर तालुक तथा जिले डी. के. में प्रस्तावित भंडारण टर्मिनल के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाएगी ।

और , भारत सरकार का ऐसा मानना है कि उक्त कथित पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उद्देश्य के लिए इस अधिसूचना की संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि जिससे प्रस्तावित पाइपलाइन गुजरती है , उस भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार प्राप्त करना आवश्यक है । अतः अब , भारत सरकार पेट्रोलियम एवं पाइपलाइन ( भूमि के उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) के अनुसरन में कृत्यों के निर्वहन की घोषणा करता है । कोई भी व्यक्ति जो जिस अनुसूची में दर्शायी गई भूमि के बारे में आपत्ति दर्ज कराने में इच्छुक हो , धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत जारी अधिसूचना तथा भारत के राजपत्र में सामान्य जनता के लिए प्रकाशित तिथि के 21 दिन के अन्दर आइ. एस. पी. आर. एल. पाइपलाइन लैंड फॉल पॉइंट एन.एम.पी.टी. के करीब से मंगलूर केवर्न तक बिछाने के बारे में सक्षम प्राधिकारी के. आई.ए.डि.बी. , बाइकंपाडी मंगलूर -575001 कर्नाटक को लिखित में दर्ज करा दे ।

अनुसूची

क्र. जिला तहसील

ग्राम सर्वे संके स्स.

क्षेत्र एकड़ सेन्ट

( 1 ) ( 2 ) (3)

(4) (5)

(6) 1 दक्शिन मंगलूर

27/7A 00.00.32

कन्नडा

तन्निर बावी 27/7B 00.09.98

27/8B 00.25.18

27/9

00.14.41

27/6

00.39.63

31/ 15A 00.00.25

31/15B 00.00.49

31/8

00.02.37

31/7A 00.05.36

31/6A 00.23.45

31/13 00.03.43

31/12 00.03.43

31/ 1A 00.16.73

28/3

00.03.43

28/7

00.02.99

28/2A 00.02.64

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ ASVINA 23, 1933

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

(3)

(4) (5)

(6)

तन्निर बावी

1 दक्शिन

31/1B

मंगलूर

00.06.67

31/17 00.04.30

00.01.26

28/2B 00.03.41

28/20 00.06.69

60/2

01.70.94

28/19 00.01.56

60/1 00.26.04

00.09.02

कुल 3.83.98 एकड़ 2 दक्शिन

67/4

मंगलूर

0.27.53 कन्नडा

67/3

पदुकोडी

0.15.44

69/2

0.05.51

69/1

0.12.23

66/8

0.02.57

66/7

0.29.33

64/16

0.00.27

0.10.23

कुल 1.03.11 एकड़

2/1

मंगलूर

3 दक्शिन कन्नडा

बैकाम्पाडी 2/2

2/3

2/4

2/5P1

2/5P2

2/6P1

2/6P2

2/7P1

2/7P2

2/8

2/9

2.06.35

2/10

2/11P1

211P2

2/ 12P1

2/12P2

2/13

2/14

2/15

2/16A1

2/16A2

2/16B [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

(6)

(1) (2)

(4) (5)

(1) ( 2) (3)

3 दक्शिन

7481

(4)

(6) (3)

(5)

3 दक्शिन

मंगलूर 53 बैकाम्पाडी 2/ 17P1

2/17P2

2/17P3

2/18P1

2/18P2

2/19

2/20P1 2.06.35

2/20P2

2/21

2/23

2/24P1

2/24P2

3/1

3/2

3/3

3/4

3/5

3/6

3/7

3/8P1

3/8P2

3/9

3/10

3/11

01.31.43

3/12

3/13

3/14

3/15

3/16

3/17

3/18

3/19P1

3/19P2

3/20A

3/21P1

3/21P2

4/5

00.43.59

00.40.28

4/8

00.01.14

4/9

4/1

00.19.62 मंगलूर 53 बैकाम्पाडी 5/2P1

5/2P2

5/2P3 00.79.32

5/2P4

5/2P5

7/3A 00.10.75

7/7BP1

7/BP2 00.26.12

7/7BP3

}

7/11B 00.11.29

7/8AP1

0.08.55

7/8AP2 }

00.29.38

11/3P1

00.29.38

11/3P2

8AP00.05.96

11 /

11/8AP

}

10/2

00.20.78

10/1

02.79.17

00.34.27

108/ 1A3

कुल 11.48.00 एकड़ 62

56/P1

4 दक्शिन मंगलूर

56/P2

कन्नडा

} 0.33.04 तोकुर

1.24.12

141

0.44.58

121/ 1B

0.05.83

121 / 1A

0.00.25

121 /2A

0.0025

140/3AP2

121/ 1A

0.26.79

140/3AP }

0.01.88

140/3B

0.09.17

140/1B

0.03.88

53/14B

0.54.56

53/14A

0.40.40

53/6A1

0.0049

53/5

53/4

0.1381

0.28.00

26/6

0.39.61

26/4

0.40.60

26/2

1.94.69

27/1

0.02.20

27/11

0.00.99

27/3

0.09.24

27/2

0.32.20

23/5

23/3

0.09.39

0.00.84

23/2

0.38.89

20/2 [PART II-Sec. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

7482

New Delhi , the 13th October, 2011

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

0.30.02

20/3

62तोकुर

मंगलूर

4. दविशन

0.11.74

20/6P1

कन्नडा

20/6P2 0.11.74

S.O. 2878. Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of crude oil through land fall point near N.M.P.T. to Mangalore Cavern Pipe line with in the Territory ofKarnataka should be laid by ISPRL .

20/5BP:

0.04.42

}

20/5BP.

0.12.73

20/5A

0.08.72

18/ 1P1

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

0.08.72

18/1P2

0.13.27

18/1

0.26.64

18/2

0.00.37

18/3

0.02.59

16/2B

Now, therefore, in exerise of powers conferredby Sub-section( 1) ofSection 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right ofUser therein.

0.02.17

16/1

16/1P1

0.51.84

}

16/ 1P2

17/2P1

0.32.32

}

17/2P2

0.17.67

17/3

63/1

63/2

Anyperson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date ofwhich the copies of the notification issued under sub- section (1 ) of Section 3 ofthe saidAct, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public object in writing to the laying of the ISPRL pipeline from land fallpoint near NMPT to Mangalore Cavern under the land to Competent Authority, KIADB , Baikampady, Mangalore 575011 , Karnataka.

SCHEDULE

63/3P1

63/3P2

Tehsil Village

31. District

63/4AP

Survey Area No. Acre Cent

Jo.

0.01.48

63/4AP

63/4BP1

00.00.32

27/7A

1 Dakshina Mangalore

63/4BP1

00.09.98

27/7B

Taniru Bavi

Kannada

63/5P1

00.25.18

27/8B

63/5P2

27/9 00.14.41

63/11

27/6 00.39.63

0.12.65

64/1

00.00.25

31/15A

0.00.25

64/3P1

00.00.49

31/15B

0.13.07

17/4

31/8 00.02.37

0.16.18

17/5

00.05.36

31/7A

0.03.31

9/1

00.23.45

31/6A

8P10.11.76

10/

00.03.43

31/13

}

10/8P2

00.03.43

31/12

10/9P1

0.00.74

00.16.73

31 / 1A

10/9P2

00.03.43

28/3

0.03.46

10/10

00.02.99

28/7

10/3P1

0.35.58

00.02.64

10/3P2

28/2A

00.06.67

31/ 1B

10/3P3

}

00.04.30

31/17

कुल 10.68.68 एकड़

00.01.26

00.03.41

28/2B [सं. पी-25011/1/2009- आपूर्ति] जितेन्द्र कुमार सिंह , अवर सचिव भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

00.06.69

28/20

1 Dakshina Mangalore Taniru

01.70.94

60/2

Bavi

Kannada

00.01.56

28/19

00.26.04

60/1

00.09.02

3.83.98

Total

0.27.53

67/4

2 Dakshina Mangalore 57

0.15.44

67/3

Padukodi

Kannada

0.05.51

69/2

0.12.23

69/1

0.02.57

66/8

0.29.33

66/7

0.00.27

64/16

0.10.23

1.03.11

Total

3 Dakshina Mangalore 53 Baika- 2/1

2/2

mpady

Kannada

2/3

2/4

2/5P1

2/5P2

2/ 6P1

2/6P2

2/7P1

2/7P2

2/8

2/9

2/10

2/11P1

2.06.35

21/11P2

2/ 12P1

2/ 12P2

2/13

2/14

2/15

2/ 16A1

2/ 16A2

2/16B

2/ 17P1

2/17P2

2/17P3

2/18P1

2/18P2

7483

2/19

2/20P

2/21

2.06.35

2/23

2/24P

3/1

3/2

3/3

3/4

3/5

3/6

3/7

3/8P1

3/8P2

3/9

3/10

3/11

01.31.43

3/12

3/13

3/14

3/15

3/16

3/17

3/18

3/19P:

3/19P.

3/20A

3/21P

3/21P.

00.43.59

4/5

00.40.28

4/8

00.01.14

4/9

00.19.62

4/1

5/2P1

5/2P2

00.79.32

5/2P3

5/2P4

5/2P5

00.10.75

7/3A

00.26.12

7/7BP1 7484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ] 12

6 7/7BP2

4 Dakshina Mangalore 53

Dakshina Mangalore 62 Thokur 20/ 5BP1

00.26.12

0.04.42

Kannada

Baikan- 7/7BP3

20/ 5BP } 7/11B

pady

00.11.29

20/5A 0.12.73 7/8AP

18/ 1P1

0.08.55

0.08.72 7/8AP. {

18/1P2

} 11/3P1

18/1

0.13.27

00.29.38

11/3P2

}

18/2

0.26.64 11/ 8AP

18/3

0.00.37

00.05.96

11/8AP

}

16/2B 0.02.59 10/2 00.20.78

16/1

0.02.17 10/1

02.79.17

16/1P1

0.51.84 108/1A3 00.34.27

16/1P2 }

17/2P1

Total 11.48.00

0.32.32

}

17/2P2 62

56/P1

0.33.04

17/3

56/P2

Thokur

0.17.67

{

63/1

141

1.24.12

63/2

121/ 1B 0.44.58

63/3P1

121 / 1A 0.05.83

121/2A

63/3P2

0.00.25

63/4AP 140/3AP2 0.00.25

63/4AP:

121/ 1A

0.01.48

0.26.79

63/4BP1 140/ 3A }

140/3B

63/4BP2

0.01.88

{

63/5P1

140/1B 0.09.17

63/5P2

53/14B 0.03.88

63/11

53/14A 0.54.56

53/6A1

64/1

0.40.40

0.12.65 53/5

0.00.49

64/3P1 0.00.25 53/4

0.13.81

17/4

0.13.07 26/6

0.28.00

17/5

0.16.18 26/4

0.39.61

9/1

0.03.31 26/2

0.40.60

10/8P1

27/1

1.94.69

10/8P2 } 0.11.76 27/11

0.02.20

10/9P1

27/3

0.00.99

0.00.74

10/9P2

27/2

0.09.24

10/10

0.03.46 23/5

0.32.20

10/3P1

23/3

0.09.39

10/3P2 0.35.58 23/2

0.00.84

}

10/3P3

20/2

0.38.89

20/3

0.30.02

Total 10.68.68 20/6P1

[No.P-25011/1/2009-Sup. ]

0.11.74

20/6P2

}

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7485

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन23 , 1933

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2879.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , धनबाद नं. -1 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/21 /2008- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 15th September, 2011 S.O. 2879.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2008 ) 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 15-9-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/21/2008 - IR (C-I)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Reference No. 20 of 2008

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of E. JArea ofM/ s . BCCL .

And

Their Workmen

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate For the Workmen : Shri K. N. Singh , Vice- President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh .

State : Jharkhand :

Industry: Coal

Dated, 1-9-2011

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012 / 21 / 2008 - IR (CM- I) ) dated 28-4-2008 , the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - sec . ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (N) UG Mines of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sh. Sunil Bouri , M/ Loader from the services of the company w.e.f. 18-4-2008 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?" 2. In this reference case on 7-4-2011 a petition was filed on behalf of the concerned workman, Sunil Bouri , duly signed by him , stating therein that the claim has already been settled in between the management and the Union. In such circumstances , it has been prayed to pass anorder allowing to withdrew the claim made on behalf of the workman . It , threfore , appears that there exists no dispute between the parties .

3. Accordingly, I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2880.-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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण , धनबाद नं. -2, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/78/2007- आई आर ( सीएम -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 15th September, 2011 S.O. 2880.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2007) 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 workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2011 .

[No. L-20012/78/2007- IR (CM -I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD Present : Shri Kishri Ram , Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 43 of 2007

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

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

7486

New Delhi , the 15th September , 2011 APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workmen : None

Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate .

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st September, 2011

ORDER

S.O. 2881.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2007) 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 workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/77/2007 - IR (CM -I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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/ 78/2007 - IR (CM - I ) ) , dated the 9th August, 2007.

SCHEDULE

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 I.D. Act 1947

Reference No. 42 of 2007 "Whether the action of the Management of Kuya Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL in denying regularization as Magazine Clerk to Shri Rama Shankar Mahato , Spray Mazdoor, is justified and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?"

Parties: Employers' in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workmen.

2. The present reference relates to the issue if the actionofthe management of Kuya Colliery of M/s . BCCL in denying regularisation as Magazine Clerk to Shri Rama Shankar Mahato, Spray Mazdoor is justified and legal .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None

Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad , the 1st September , 2011

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in. exercise ofthe 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/ 77 / 2007 - IR ( CM - I ) ) , dated the 9th August, 2007.

3. Perusal of the case record clearly reveals that none represented the workmen by the Union concerned nor the Written Statement filed on behalf of the workman, despitethe registered noticesdt. 31-12-10 and show cause noticedt . 27-4-11 to the Union concerned , Whereas Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld . Advocate for the management remained all along present. It is also apparent from the conduct ofthe representative Union of the workmen that he is not interested to persue the case pending for filling Written Statement on behalf of the workmen ab initio i.e. since 9-1-2008 , though ample opportunities including the last chance was also given to the Union concerned. Under these circumstances , it is useless to proceed with the case for infinite . Hence , the case is closed and order is passed accordingly.

SCHEDULE

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2011

"Whether the action of the Management of Kuya Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in denying regularization as Valve Man to Shri Hemlal Roy, Fitter Helper , is justified and legal ? If not , to what relief is the workman concerned entitled and from which date ?"

2. Present reference relates to the issue if the action ofthe management ofKuya Colliery of M/ s . BCCL indenying regularisation as Valve Man to Shri Hemlal Roy, the Fitter Helper is justified.

का.आ. 2881.- 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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण , धनबाद नं. - 2, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/77/2007- आई आर ( सीएम -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

3. In this case , the record clearly reveals non- representation of the Union representative concerned as well as the workman nor any Written Statement has been 7487 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th September , 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- 20012/159/2000- IR ( C - I ) ) , dated , the 18th September,2000.

SCHEDULE

filed till to day inspite of registered notices dated 23-11-2010 and registered show cause notice dtd. 27-4-2011 to the Secretary of the Union concerned for it. Such disinterestedness of the Union/wokman clearly reflects from their conduct showing non - sensitive to the cause ofthe workman , though last chance for filling W. S. inbehalfof the workman was also given on 18-2-2011 , yet has not been filed on his behalf, which has been pending ab initio i.e. since 9-1-2008 . Under the circumstances , I find proceeding for the case for uncertainty is useless . Hence it is closed and accordingly the order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

"Whether the demand of the Union to regularise Sri Moazzama Alia Mahbuby as Sand Munshi is proper and justified ? If so , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ?" नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2011

2. None represented the workman nor any witness produced for the workman despite several registered notices / show cause to the Union representative concerned . Mr. B. M. Prasad , the Ld . Counsel for the management was present on 24-8-2011 .

का.आ. 2882,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , धनबाद नं. -2, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/159/2000- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2011

3. From the perusal of the case record , I find the case has been pending for the evidence of workman since 2-3-2005, and despite the registered notices dtd . 12-11-2010 , and show cause notice dtd. 31-3-2011 , not a single witness produced for evidence on behalf of the workman. This is the oldest case of the year 2000 relating to the demand of the Union for the regularisation of workman Shri Moazzam Ali Mahbuby as Sand Munshi . The conduct of the representative Union as well as the workman so far reveals their disinterestedness to proceed with the case . Under these circumstances , hence the case isclosed and accordingly order is passed.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 15 सितम्बर , 2011

S.O. 2882. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 107/ 2000) 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 workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 15-9-2011 .

[No. L-20012/ 159/2000- IR(C-I)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 2883 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , धनबाद नं. - 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD

[सं. एल-20012/41/1997- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी PRESENT: Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer .

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2011

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

Reference No. 107 of 2000

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

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalfof the workman :

S.O. 2883. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/1998) 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 workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2011 .

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. B. M. Prasad , Advocate

[No. L- 20012/41 / 1997- IR (C -I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer Industry: Coal

State : Jharkhand

3708 GI /2011-9 7488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

the circumstances , it is useless to proceed with it for uncertainty and moreover this is the oldest case. Hence, the case is closed and accordingly order is passed.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) , AT DHANBAD

KISHORI RAM, PresidingOfficer Present : Shri Kishori Ram , PresidingOfficer.

नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2011 In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 69 of 1998

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

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalfofthe workmen :

का.आ. 2884.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , धनबाद नं. -1 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 06/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Onbehalfofthe employers : Mr. B.M. Prasad, Advocate .

[सं. एल-20012/481/2001- आई आर (सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी State : Jharkhand

: Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad , the 5th September, 2011 .

New Delhi , the 15th September, 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- 20012/41 /97- IR(Coal-I) , dated the 10th March, 1998 .

SCHEDULE

S.O. 2884.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 06/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court- 1 , Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M/s . BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2011 .

[No. L-20012/481/2001 - IR(C- I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer "Whether the demand of the Union for the regularisation ofthe services ofS/Shri Khadu Charan Mahato and three others (As shown in a Annexure) below is justified ? If so , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"

ANNEXURE ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD 1. Khadu Charan Mahato working as Bill Clerk since Feb., 199.1

Inthe matter ofa reference U/ s 10( 1 )(d)(2A) of I.D. Act .

-do-

6-7-1991

Reference No. 6 of2002 2. Ajit Kumar Lala

3. Patia Mahato working as Leave Clerk since 14-6-1992

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Washery Zone , Sudamdih Area of M/s. BOCL

AND

4. Hiralal Mahato working as Bill Clerk since June 1992.

Their Workmen .

Present : Shri H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

: Shri S. N. Sinha, Advocate.

FortheEmployers

For the Workmen

: Shri D. Mukherjee, 2. The present reference relates to the demand of theUnion concerned for the regularisation of the services ofall Shri Khadu Charan Mahato and three others , namely, AjitKumar Lala, Patia Mahato and Hiralal Mahato workmen as Bill Clerk, Leave Clerk and Bill Clerk respectively with effect from the period as specified in its annexure .

Secretary, Bihar Colliery KamgarUnion.

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 6th September , 2011 .

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 /481 /2001 - IR (C- I) dated 10-1-2002 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

3. Perused the case record. I find that this is the eldest case of the year 1998 which has been pending for the evidence ofworkmen since 2-9-2005. Since then despite the registered notices and show cause to the Union and several times last chances for it , not a single witness on behalf of the workmen has been produced on 25-8-2011 , though Mr. B.M. Prasad, the Ld . Advocate for the management has all along been present in the case . Thus from the conduct of the representative Union concerned as well as the workmen , it appears that they are not interested to persue with the case for its finality. Under 7489 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन23, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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

"Whether General Manager, Sudamdih Area , Eastern Wasery Zone BCCL is justified in Denying regularisation of Smt. Minoti Deogharia as Clerk ? If not, towhat relief is the workman entitled and from what date ? "

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

5. The concerned workman has produced himself as WW- 1 and he has proved documents as Exts . W- 1 and W-4.

The management has produced MW- 1 , Surendra Prasad, who has proved documents as Exts . M - 1 andM-2.

2. The case of the concerned workman is that Smt.Minoti Deogharia is a permanent employee ofEastern Washery Zone, Sudamdih Area of BCCL and posted in Area Finance Deptt. She got her employment in place of herdeceased husband in the year 1985 and working with unblemished record ofservice . The concerned workman is a matriculate and she has been continuously working as Clerk, but her designation is Peon . She represented before the management for her regularisation as a clerk. Adepartmental note - sheet was made before her regarding this and also proceeds for the same.

Inspite of repeated representations the management did not regularise her as clerk. Ultimately the union raised an industrial dispute before the ALC (C) , Dhanbad but the same ended in failure due to the adament attitude of the management . The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour , referred the dispute for adjudication to this Hon'ble Tribunal. The action of the management of Sudamih Area ofM/ s . BCCL in not regularising the concerned workman as clerk was neither justified nor legal and proper.

6. Main argument on behalf of the concerned workman is that the concerned workman has been working continuously since 1985 and she has been appointed and posted in Finance Department . She was directed to work bythe competent authority. It has also been argued that a note- sheet was initiated that she should be regularised as clerk by the management because she has acquired matriculation certificate . The above document , note- sheet is Ext. W- 1 and that note -sheet is signed by Dy. C.F.M. (EJA) , Ext . W- 2. She has proved Ext . W- 3 regarding regularisation of PR/ TR employees engaged in clerical job . Letterhas beenwritten to G. M. (P), BCCL by Dy. C. Р. М. , Sudamdih Area, Ext. W-4 . But the management is not regularising and doing justice to her.

It has been prayed before this Tribunal to answer the reference in favour of the workman by directing the management to regularise her as clerk with retrospective effect.

The management has argued that the concerned workman can not be regularised as clerk as she is not matriculate . It has also been argued that a person appointed as Peon in Category- I cannot be regularised in the job of clerkwithout D.P.C.

Inthis respect the concerned workman has stated in cross-examination that in 1987. I passed Class - IX . At the time ofmy appointment I was 9th Pass , which may show that she passed 9th class examination on which basis she claims clerical cadre .

Inthis respect management's circular dated 12/ 13-2- 98 being No. BCCL/PA/V/ Circular 196 shows that it has been issued by the management's Headquarter that the Hindi BidhapitDeoghar examination certificate is not to be treated as equivalent of full fledged certificate . So , on this basis the concerned workman cannot claim that she has acquired minimum qualification for clerical job because as perCadre Scheme of the management matric or equivalent ofBoard examination is necessary. She has not filed any certificate ofHigh School Examination which may show thatshe acquired qualification to work as Clerk Grade- III . There is order of the management which has been filed that she has been ordered to work as Clerk in Finance Department . Only work was taken from him does not make any ground for regularisation as Clerk when she is Peon . Only on the basis of note - sheet she can not be regularised asClerkGrade- III .

3. The case ofthe management is that the concerned workman, Smt .Minoti Deogharia, is an employee ofEastern Washery Zone , Sudamdih and appointed in the year 1985 in lieu ofher deceased husband under provision of NCWA . At the time of initial appointment she was designated as Peon (Trainee) Category- I , subsequently designated as PeonGrade w.e.f. 1-12-88 . Her service record was opened and her qualification has been mentioned as road upto Class -Xth . She also put her signature an Service record. Inthe service excerpt she has indicated her qualification as Class-Xth. In service excerpt she did not raise any objecton asindicated in Column- 14 ofService Excerpt . As per norms inBCCL, there is no provision for divertion of PR/ TR and other employee to deploy in ministerial Grade . Subsequently she has submitted a certificate issued by Deoghar Bidhyapith which is not recognised in BCCL, as per Circular No. BCCL/PA - V/Circular 198 dated 12/ 13-2-98 issuedby Dy. C.P.M. (NEE) . As per Cadre Scheme the selection to workmen into clerical Cadre can only be made on the recommendation of Selection Committee duly constituted by the Cadre Controlling Authority. No local officer has been empoweredto put a time- rated worker into clerical cadre on the regular basis . The concerned workman has not been allowed to work as clerk and her allegation is baseless .

7490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

7. In the result, I hold that the action of management ofSudamdih Area , Eastern Washery Zone , BCCL in denying regularisation of Smt. Minoti Deogharia as Clerk is justified and hence the concerned workman is not entitled to get anyrelief.

This is my Award.

H. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer

"Whether the demand of Janta Shramik Sangh from the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s . BCCL that Sri Anand Mahato should be regularised as Punch Man/Munshi w.e.f. 6-11-91 is legal and justified? Ifso , what relief the workman is entitled?" नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2011 का.आ. 2885.-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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद नं. - 1 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 198/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/ 253/1998- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th September , 2011

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was initially appointed as Miner/Loader and posted at Lakshmi Project also known as OCF of Bararee Colliery. He was a matriculate and as such after some time he was directed to work as Punchman/Munshi as per requirement of the management . After issuance of Office Order dated 21-5-92, 3 persons including the concerned workmen were directed to make their respective attendance under H.T.K. ofBararee Colliery vide office order dated 25-5-92. After working continuously as Punchman/Munshi for three years putting in attendance respectively of 197 days , 271 days and 244 days during 1992, 1993 and 1994, he represented before the management for his regularisation as Punchman/Munshi but the management did not do so. Thereafter, the union on behalf of the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad which ended in failure . Ultimately, the dispute has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.

S.O. 2885.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 198/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court- 1, Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweenthe employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-9-2011 .

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as Punchman/Munshi w.e.f. 6-11-91 .

[No. L- 20012/253 / 1998- IR (C - I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I, AT DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act . Reference No. 198 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/ s . BCCL .

AND

Theirworkmen .

Present : Shri H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate .

Forthe Workman : Shri B. N. Singh , Advocate.

State : Jharkhand. : Industry: Coal .

Dated : 7-9-2011 .

AWARD

3. The Case ofthe management is that the concerned workman was appointed as a Machine Coal Loader (M.C.L.) on29-3-1988 from the quota of land looser and subsequently he was regularised as a General Mazdoor w.e.f. 15-1-96 in Category- 1 vide office order dated 3 /6-1-96 and was deployed to work at Laxmi Open Cast Project . When the Project was closed the man power were transferred to other Unit/ Project of Lodna Area . On the request of the workman he was detained at Bararee colliery and was deployed to take up the job in the underground. Later on he was regularised in the post of Pump Operator in Category - III vide office order dated 29-8-99 and since then he is working as a Pump Operator. There is no post available in Bararee Colliery as a Punch Man . The Union is demanding regularisation of the workman concerned as a Punch Man/ Munshi . The post of Munshi is a clerical post and the promotion of any workman in the Clerical Cadre is being done only on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee after approval of the Cadre Controlling Authority by giving equal opportunity to all eligible candidates . ifthe vacancy exists .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the demand of the union is neither legal norjustified and the concerned workman is not entitled forany relief.

ByOrder No.L-20012/253 /98- IR (C - I) dated 18-9-2001 theCentral Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - sec . ( 1 ) and sub - sec . (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D.

7491 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Accordingly, the concerned workman is not entitled to get anyrelief.

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.

This is my Award.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2011

5. The concerned workman has produced WW- 1 , Anand Mahato and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 and W-1/1 .

The management has produced MW- 1 , T.S.G. Rao , who has proved documents as Exts . M- 1 to M- 5.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he is doing the job of Punchman/ Munshi since 6-11-91 but the management is not regularising him.

का.आ. 2886.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद नं. -1 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 04/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/157/2005 - आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th September, 2011 Onbehalfofthe management it has been argued that there is no post of Punchman/Munshi in Bararee Colliery onwhich post the concerned workman canbe regularised. The concernedworkman was appointed. He was appointed under land looser Scheme as a Machine Coal Loader. Later onhe was regularised in Category- I as General Mazdoor and after that he was regularised in Pump Operator in Category- III , as per Ext. M - 3 . His demand is not justified.

7. In this respect the concerned workman has not filed any document to show that he was authorised to work as Punchman/Munshi and doing the same job.

S.O. 2886. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court- 1 , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of M/s . CCL, and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 15-9-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/ 157/2005 - IR (C-I) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ S . 10( 1 ) ( d)(2A) of I.D. Act. Refefence No. 4 of2005

Inthis respect the concerned workman in his cross- examination at page 2 stated that At Bararee Colliery . I am working as Pump Operator and I am getting the wages of Pump Operator in Category- III . I have been promoted from Category -I to Category - III . There is no designation in the Colliery as Punchman . There is designation of Tripman in the Colliery. It is true that in Open Case mine there is no post ofMunshi . It is true that in the Office order there is no mention that I had been appointed as Punchman/ Munshi .

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Religara Colliery ofM/ s . CCL . AND

Theirworkmen .

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

For the Employers : For the Workmen Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate . : Shri Dhaneshwar Turi Branch Secretary, BCKU, ReligaraBranch.

State: Jharkhand. Industry : Coal.

This statement shows that he was never appointed as Punchman/Munshi and there is no clerical post on which he canbe regularised. Moreover, the post is filled through D.P.C. after approval of the Cadre Controlling Authority. The statement of the concerned workman shows that he was never appointed as Punchman/Munshi , which is clerical post, on which post he can be regularised . he was regularised as a General Mazdoor in Category - I and thereafter he was regularised in Pump - Operator in Cat . - III and since then he is working as a Pump- Operator.

Dated: 5-9-2001 . AWARD

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances , I hold that the demand of Janta Shramik Sangh from the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s . BCCL that Sri Anand Mahato should be regularised as Punchman/ Munshi w.e.f. 6-11-1991 is not legal and not justified .

By Order No.L - 20012 / 157 / 2005 - IR ( C- I ) dated 15-12-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 7492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

(d) of sub -sec. (1) and sub- sec. (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the management of Religara Colliery of M/s . CCL for proper regularisation and fixation of wages in respect of S/Shri Nikunji Lal and 63 others (as per list) time rated workers taking into account the category in which they were working and the wages being paid to them before such regularisation islegal and justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled and from what date?"

2. On 3-2-2011 Shri Dhaneshwar Turi , Branch Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Religara Branch , appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen filed a petition stating therein that the concerned workmen are not interested to contest the case and desired to withdraw the dispute from this Tribunal .

In view of the prayer made on behalf of the concerned workmen , I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2887.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 288/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 124/2000- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 19th September, 2011 S.O. 2887. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 288/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Nagpur , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-9-2011.

[No. L- 22012/ 124/2000- IR (C - II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

CaseNo.CGIT /NGP/ 288/2000 Date:8-09-2011 Party No. 1 The Sub Area Manager , Hindustan Lalpeth Opencast Sub Area of WCL, PO: Lalpeth, Distt . Chandrapur. Versus

Party No. 2 The Secretary,

National Colliery Mazdoor Congress , Dr.AmbedkarNagar, Ballarpur, PO: Ballarpur , Distt. Chandrapur(MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 08th September, 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 Sub Area Manager , WCL and their 13 workmen as mentioned below, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/ 124/2000- IR (CM - II) dated 20/21-09-2000, with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management , namely, Sub AreaManager, Hindustan Lalpeth Underground Sub Area of WCL , PO Lalpeth , Distt . Chandrapur in not regularizing 13 workmen (List enclosed) as Security Guards, is legal , proper and justified? Ifnot, to what relief to the workmen are entitled and from which date?"

AList of the Workmen of this dispute

1. Roda Odel

2. Shri Tatepelli Raiyamallu

3. Shri Rajmal Pentaiyah

4. Shri Namdeo Maraskole

5. Shri Katwaru Dwarka

6. Shri Urkuda Pandurang Nimgade

7. Shri Nimal Mondel Jogendernath

8. Shri Chantala Pochem Chandraiya

9. Shri Durgaiyah Mallaiyah

10. Shri Dasarapu Pochem Ankus

11. Shri Sudhakar Ganpat Watekar

12. Shri Bhandari Rajaiyath Biraiyah [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

13. Shri Singareni Mundi .

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , parties were noticedto file their respective statement ofclaim and written statement, in response towhich , the union, National CollieryMazdoor Congress (" the Union " in short) filed the statement ofclaim and the management of W.C.L. ("party no . 1" in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workmen as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that the thirteen workmen are permanent workmen and they have put in continuous service as security guards for 10-12 years and the workman Singareni Mundi is also known as Komraya Komraya and all the thirteen workmen were appointed long back in different categories and the workmen namely Roda Odel , Rajmal Pentaiyah, Urkudu Pandurang Nimgade , Chantala Pochem Chandraiya , Wasarapu Pochem Ankus, Bhandari Rajaiyath Biraiyan and Singareni Mundi were appointed as coal filler / loaders in piece rated group VA, but they are being paid even less than their original group wages and their service conditions were arbitrarily changed, without following the provisions of Section 9A of the Act and the said seven workmen have been protesting to restore their basic as well as total emoluments with proper designation but party no . 1 is not paying any had to the same and in spite ofthe settlement between the management ofWCL and their workman on 2-11-1992 for protection of the wages of the piece rated workers, the party no. 1 did not protect the wages of the said seven workmen . It is further pleaded by the union that all the 13 workmen are working continuously as security guards for last 10-12 years but they have not been regularized as security guards and are also not being paid proper wages as N.C.W.A. , for the work performed by them and the attendance registers in regard to the 13 workmen working as security guards are with the management and in the charge sheet submitted against Chintala Pocham and warning letter given to Rajmak Penta, they have been described as "Acting Chowkidar " and workman, Roda Odel was charge sheeted for alleged negligence of duty as security guard vide reference no. 13 dated 12-11-1999 and as such , they are entitled to be regularized as security guard .

Prayer has been made by the union to regularize the 13 workmen as security guards with proper scale ofpay and grade pay w.e.f. 1-1-1992 with full back wages and consequential benefits .

3.The party no. 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the union is not a union of the workmen of Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery and as such, it is not authorized or competent to raise the industrial dispute . It is further pleaded by the party no . 1 that all the 13 workmen to the dispute, who were basically underground workers had/ have been either suffering from bad health or disabled due to injury and thereby become unfit for their original jobs in underground and though it had no legal obligation to

7493

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

provide them light jobs on the surface , yet considering the humanitarian aspect , the workmen have been accommodated on light surface duty on their request and since they are physically not fit, they have mostly been deployed as " chowkidars " and strictly speaking , there is no regular/standard designation of chowkidar in coal industry in the Security Cadre , yet the workmen have been accommodated to perform cowkidar's duty, mainly in residential areas , which is personal to them and as per the cadre scheme framed by JBCCI , none of the 13 workmen fits into the cadre either by their physical standards or age etc. and as such, the question of regularizing and placing them in the security cadre as security guards does not arise and since the said workmen were deployed as choukidars , which is not a standard job, nor is has any pay scale, they are allowed to draw their pay in their original posts and they have been regularly drawing their annual increments etc. and moreover, regularization is always subject to vacancy and selection by DPC and it cannot be done suo-motu and the said workmen had appeared before theDPC October 1997 , but not found suitable as security guard and if the workmen feel aggrieved by their deployment as chowkidars , it is still prepared to place them intheir regular jobs , to which they may have a better and rightful claim. It is also pleaded by the party no. 1 that the 13 workmen have not been working as security guards , but they have been deployed as choukidars , a non standard job,which is purely personal to them and assigned to them ontheir request on health grounds and there is no issue regarding the alleged less payment and change of service conditions , so they are not within the scope of reference and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.

4. In support of its claims , the union has examined three witnesses , namely, Shri Durgaiyah Mallaiyah , Shri Dasarapu Pochem Ankus and Shri Lomesh Maroti Khartad. The party no. 1 has also examined one Damerala Ramdeo Rao as a witness in support of its claims .

The three witnesses examined on behalf ofthe union have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim, in their examination - in - chief, which is on affidavit. Witness Durgaiyah Mallaiyah though in his examination- in-chiefhas stated that since the last 25 years, he isworking as a security guard in the railways siding , in his cross- examination, he has stated that he was working as a security guard for the last 20 years and before his appointment as security guard , he had been working in the underground and no letter was issued to him for his posting as security guard and he doesn't know reading and writing and he is illiterate and no request was made by him for his posting as security guard during the last 20 years and all the 13 workmen including himself were performing underground duties before their posting as security guard and for what reason they were posted as security guards is not known tohim.

7494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23, 1933

Shri Dasarapu Pochem Ankus in his examination- in- chief itself has stated that he was appointed as a loader in 1972 and on 20-07-1988 , he sustained injuries , while working in Mine no . 3 , so he was given surface duty and from 10-06-1990 he was given the duty of security guard. Inhis cross -examination, he has stated that on 20-07-1988 , while he was working underground as a loader, he sustained injuries and for that, from 10-06-1990 , surface duty was given to him and due to the injury sustained by him , he was declared medically unfit to work in the underground.

Shri Lomesh Kartad in his cross - examination has stated that the statement of claim has been filed on the basis ofthe information given by the workman.

5. The evidence of the witness examined on the behalf ofthe party no . 1 is in the same line of the stands takenby the party no . 1 in the written statement . In his cross- examination this witness has categoricaly stated that all the 13 workmen were working underground and as they were foundmedically unfit , they were deployed as general mazdoor in the security department and they were not appointed as security guards and they do not possess the required qualification for posting as security guards and for appointment as a security guard, it is necessary to have educational qualification of class 7th pass , below 38 years ofage and physically fit and the 13 workmen were neither physically fit nor they had passed class 7th standard and as such , they were not regularized as security guards .

6.At the time of argument it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workmen that as the workman are working as security guards for more than 20 years, they are entitled for regularization as security guards , but the party no.1, inspite of the demands of the workmen is not regularizing them.

7. Onthe other hand, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the workmen were working in the underground either as loader or coal filler and mazdoors and as they were found medically unfit to work underground , they were given light work on surface by party no . 1 and they were never appointed as security guards but they were engaged as chowkidars which was personal to them and for appointment as security guards, itis necessary to be physically fit, to be below 38 years of ageland to have educational qualification of passing class 7th standard and as the workmen do not have the said qualifications , they cannot be regularized as security guards.

8. Perused the record including the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by them . Admittedly, the 13 workmen were not appointed as security guards . Originally, theywere appointed either as coal filler; or loader, or general mazdoor and all of them were working underground. There is no pleading in the statement of claim as to why the 13 workmen were given surface duty or posted as security guards as per their claim . On the other

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] hand the party no . 1 has stated that as the said workmen sustained injuries during working underground, on humanitarian ground , they were provided work on surface and were engaged as chowkidars . Such claim of the party no. 1 amply finds support from the evidence of Dasarapu Pochem Ankus . It is also found from record that there is no document to show that the 13 workmen were posted as securityguards . Rather , according to the own claim ofthe union, the workmen were described as chowkidar in some documents, which also supports the claim of the party no.1. It is also found from record that for appointment of security guard, some qualifications are required and the 13 workmendo not have the required qualification. So taking into consideration the entire facts and the circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned advocates of the parties and the documents on record, it is found that the workmen are not entitled to be regularized as security guards . The other points regarding protection of wages and change of service conditions raised in the statement of claim cannot be adjudicated, as such issues have notbeen referred in the schedule of reference and it iswell settled that the Tribunal cannot go beyond the reference . Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management, namely, Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Underground Sub Area of WCL, PO Lalpeth , Distt . Chandrapur in not regularizing 13 workmen (as mentioned above) as Security Guards is legal , proper and justified . The workmen are not entitledtoany relief.

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 19 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2888.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पी.जी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 96/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/83/2004- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th September , 2011 S.O. 2888.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court - 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of PGI and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-9-2011 .

[No. L-42012/83/2004- IR (CM- II)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, DeskOfficer 7495 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

as per law. Hence he was not entitled to any benefit under Section 25 - F of the Act .

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

Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

In his rejoinder to the written statement of the management the workman has stated that he has completed 249 days service . So he is entitled to regularization.

Case No. I. D. 96/2005

Registered on - 30-6-2005

Workman for himself and Sh . Prem Chand, Assistant Engineer Civil for the management filed their affidavits and gave their statements . Management has filed the attested copies of the muster rolls also .

Sh. Satish Kumar, S/o Sh . Kedar Nath, H.No.2104 , Sector 15-C

Petitioner

I have perused evidence on record and the written arguments of the parties .

Versus

The Director, PGI , Sector 12, Chandigarh

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman - Sh . Rakesh Mohan Jain

For the Management- Sh . Yogesh Putney

AWARD

Passed on Aug. 29 , 2011

Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/83/ 2004 - IR(CM- II)) Dated 15-4-2005, by exercising its powers Under Section 10 sub -section (1 ) clause (d) and sub- section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

The contention of the workman is that his services were terminated from 1-7-2001 without any notice and without paying retrenchment compensation and he has served for 249 days . In his affidavit he has stated that he worked from 14-9-1998 to 8-5-1999 and from 29-1-2000 to 3-10-2000 as Beldar on daily basis. It is in contradictionto his statement in his claim that his last stint was from 1-1-2000 to June 2001. However from the statement ofthe management in its written statement that the workman had been engaged against specific sanction issued from time to time and last sanction expired in June , 2001 and from the details of the working days given in the written statement and from the copies of the muster roll provided bythe management, it appears that the workman actually workedupto 19-6-2001 in his last stint commencing from 9-2-2000. There is nothing on record to show that the services of the workman were terminated with effect from 1-7-2001 . From the details of the muster roll given in the affidavit of the management- witness it is clear that his service was not continuous .

"Whether the action of the management of PGI , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Satish Kumar, Beldar w.e.f 1-7-2001 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

As per claim statement filed on 1-11-2010 the workman was appointed as Beldar with the management w.e.f. 14-12-1998 to 8-5-1999 and thereafter from 1-1-2001 to June 2001. On 1st July, 2001 he was asked by the Executive Engineer not to attend his duties from 1-7-2001 . The workman served the management for more than 240 days in a year but he was turned out of the service without any notice and retrenchment compensation . Posts of Beldar are still lying vacant with the management. Workman has claimed his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service .

For the protection of Section 25 - F of the Act it is necessary that the workman must have completed continuous service for not less than one year. As per the definition clause contained in Section 25 - B of the Act a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service if he, during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination, has actually worked for not less than 240 days . Thus for the protection of Section 25 - F of theAct it is necessary for the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination . As it has been stated above the service of the workman as per muster roll was terminated on 19-6-2001 . Thus the relevant period for counting 240 days service is from 20-6-2000 to 19-6-2001. From the muster roll ofthe period 25-5-2000 to 26-6-2000 it appears that from 20-6-2000 to 30-6-2000 the workman worked only for five days . As per the details given in the affidavit of the witness the workman worked up to 19-6-2001 for 188 days only i.e. much less than required 240 days . He is therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 25 - F of the Act . Management committed no illegality in terminating the services of the workman without Claim was contested by the management. According to it the workman had been engaged on muster roll basis against specific sanction issued from time to time and the last sanction expired in June 2001. The workman had not been engaged in accordance with the recruitment rules and had been engaged only to cope with the additional temporary work . His engagement was not against sanctioned post and nor there is any sanctioned post. There is no relationship of master and servant . The workman has not completed 240 days continuous service

3708 GI/2011-10 7496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

AND

1. The General Manager ,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Sreerampur (Projects ) Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad district.

any notice and retrenchment compensation . The workman was not a regular employee . He had not been engaged according to rules and there is nothing to show that he had been appointed against a sanctioned post . He was a daily wager. He has no right to any post and therefore is not entitled to regularization or reinstatement.

2. The Superintendent ofMines , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , SRP-3 and 3A Incline , SrirampurArea , Srirampur, Adilabaddistrict.

.Respondents

APPEARANCES :

From the above going discussion it is clear that the services ofworkman Sh . Satish Kumar were not terminated w.e.f. 1-7-2001 but were terminated on 19-6-2001 and the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal and justified . Workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference is answered against the workman . Let two copies of the Award be send to the Central Government for further necessary action.

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

For the Respondent : Sri S.M. Subhani , Advocate AWARD

Thispetition under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has been filed by Sri Gampala Rajanna , ex -badli filler to set aside the termination order dated 28-11-1998 and to reinstate the Petitioner workman with full back wages .

का.आ. 2889.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एलसीआईडी संख्या 118/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22013 /1/2011- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2889.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad (CGIT/LCID No. 118/2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, whichwas received bythe Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L-22013/1/2011 -IR (C - II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 9th day of August, 2011

2. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler in the year 1994. He was regularto his duties but during the year 1996 the Petitioner suffered with fits, as such he could not be regular to his duties .He took treatment in various hospitals for better medication, however, after prolonged treatment Petitioner recovered to some extent . While so, a charge sheet dated 29-8-1997 was issued alleging that the Petitioner remained absent during the year 1996 which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No. 25.25 . The Petitioner has submitted his explanation but the Respondents were not satisfied and ordered for departmental enquiry. The EnquiryOfficer conducted the enquiry with pre-determined notion . The enquiry was not valid in nature . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis ofwhich a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner against which Petitioner submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider the submission made by the Petitioner and passed dismissed Petitioner with immediate effect vide order dated 28-11-1998 . The Petitioner was absent due to ill-health and the same was stated by the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, no challenge was made from the side ofthe management as such , the submission made by the Petitioner would have been deemed to be correct but the Enquiry Officer has not considered the submission made INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 118/2007

Between:

Sri Gampala Rajanna,

C/ o Smt . A. Sarojana, Advocate ,

S/o Rajam, FlatNo.G7,Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp : Badruka Jr. College ForGirls , Kachiguda,

Hyderabad.

..... Petitioner

bythe Petitioner workman. He submitted his enquiry report with a predetermined notion as such, the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed. Proper opportunity was not given to the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding . The action of the Respondents in dismissing the Petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary, violative ofprinciples of natural justice and hence, be set aside directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits etc.

7497 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

health. He presented himself before the Enquiry Officer and stated before him that he was sick that was the reason that he could not attend to his duties . The Enquiry Officer has not considered this material aspect of the case nor has applied his mind to the fact of the case nor he gave any finding regarding the sickness of the workman, thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and the punishment based on such perverse finding is also illegal and invalid and deserves to be quashed . Against this argument of the counsel for the Petitioner , Learned Counsel for the Respondent management has argued that Petitioner couldnot produce any proof in support of his sickness nor he has produced any witness in his defence . Moreover, Petitioner has admitted his guilt stating that he remained absent on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet , as such, the enquiry held is neither perverse nor illegal .

8. In view of the arguments , this tribunal has to see ,

(1) Whether the action taken against the Petitioner dismissing him from the services of the Respondent company is legal and justified ?

(II) If not , to what relief the Petitioner is entitled to ?

3. Management has submitted his reply alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent for the year 1996 which hampered the working of the company, the absence ofthe Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company and dismissal is not bad in the light of the case law reported in 1996( 1 ) SCC . 302 State of U. P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrect. Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding . Three notices were acknowledged by the Petitioner, but he did not turned up . Another notice dated 9-3-98 was issued to him then , he submitted explanation to the charge sheet on the date of enquiry proceeding i.e. , 10-3-1998 and he participated in the enquiry proceeding. Petitioner did not availed the assistance of co-worker though he was given opportunity to take the help ofa co -worker. Petitioner did not produce any sickness proof, thus he failed to produce any documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner had put in 111 , 115, 47 and65 musters during the years 1994 , 1995, 1996 (Charge sheeted year ) and 1997 respectively. During the year 1996 he had put in 47 actual musters and remained absent rest ofthe days . This proves that the Petitioner was not sincere to his work . He intentionally absented himself without any reason or cause. The company has provided medical facilities by establishing hospitals to its employees , the Petitioner did not report to the company hospital for his treatment thus , his submission that he was absent due to ill-health is unfounded, Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placed before him by the management and no fault can be find in the enquiry report, itis based on evidence and Petitioner's dismissal order is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him since Petitioner was not regular to his duties company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalid. Hence , the petition be dismissed as devoid of merits .

4. Parties were directed to produce documentary evidence in support of their claims . Petitioner has filed charge sheet and dismissal order. However, the Respondent has filed charge sheet and acknowledgement , enquiry notices and acknowledgements , entire domestic enquiry proceedings file and enquiry report .

5. Coming to the point of the legality and validity of domestic enquiry held by the management it is pertinent to mention that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated 19-3-2010 conceding the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry as such, the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid.

6.Both parties submitted oral arguments and counsel for Petitioner submitted written arguments . I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the claim petition, counter statement and documents filed by the parties.

9. Point No. ( 1) : It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only47 musters during the year 1996 for which a charge sheet dated 29-8-1997 was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed his explanation stating therein that he remained absent due to ill - health . It is also admitted fact that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner has participated in the domestic enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner. Petitioner's statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and during the course of the enquiry he stated that he worked for 47days and remained absent for the rest of days due to health problem . But has not been able to provide any material or document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his allegations . In his reply dated 10-3-1998 he has not mentioned from what disease he suffered and where did he took treatment . He simply written that he could not perform his duty due to his suffering from ill- health. As against this , the management has produced Sri M.V. Tamma Rao , OS , and Sri Adapa Rambabu , Acting Paysheet Clerk, to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 1996. Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause . Petitioner was unable to prove that his absence during the year 1996 was due to sufficient reason. Though he stated that he was absent due to ill -health but he was not able to provide any evidence or proof in support ofhis illness or illness of any of his family members . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill -health why he did not inform his superiors regarding his illness , has not been explained by the Petitioner. Thus , the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the year 1996 was 7. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner was absent due to his ill- 7498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II Sac. 3( ))

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011 without reason and sufficient cause , is based on evidence and reasoning and no fault canbe find in the finding arrived atby the EnquiryOfficer.

10. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 1996, his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

का.आ. 2890.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उन‌के कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( सीजीआईटी/एलसीआईडी संख्या 112/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/1/2011-आईकार ( सी-1) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2890. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Contral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad ( CGIT/LCID No. 112/2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelationto the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

11. Point No. 2: So far as the question ofpunishment isconcerned the Petitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 1996, he has voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent during 1996 and could attend only 47 musters but the absence is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation ofthe familymembers , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such, the punishment was proper and interference is not required inthis case.

[No. L-22013/ 1 /2011 - IR(C-II)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA -CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 4th day ofAugust , 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 112/2007

Between:

12. I agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel fortheRespondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in favour ofthe Petitioner. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

Sri Chidipi Samson,

13. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded , no interference is required in this case . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to bedismissed and hence , this award .

S/o Ch. Reward, C/ o Smt. A. Sarojana , Advocate , Flat No. G 7 ,Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College For Girls , Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

.Petitioner

AND

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 9th day of August, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

1. The General Manager, M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Bellampally, Adilabad District.

Appendix of evidence

2. The Superintendent of Mines , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , MVK- 5 Incline , Bellampally, Adilabad District. Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Respondents NIL

NIL

APPEARANCES:

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates Documents marked for the Respondent

-NIL

Forthe Respondent : M/s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates 7499 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

Sri Chidipi Samson , ex - worker of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , challenged the order of his dismissal dated 22-7-1999 and to reinstate him in the services with full back wages through his claim petition filedunder Sec.2 A (2 ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.

2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler in 1991. Petitioner rendered his services sincerely till 1997 , but, during the year 1998 Petitioner suffered with ill-health and other family problems duetowhichhe could not attend regular duties . While so , aproceeding No.P. BPA129/ 1933 dated 22-7-1999 was issued to him alleging that charge sheet dated 7-7-1998 was issued under company Standing Orders No. 25.25 for habitual absenteeism from duty without leave or without sufficient cause during the year 1998. The proceeding also states that the charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner's house which was returned undelivered , as such , a paper advertisement was issued advising the Petitioner to attend for enquiry and as that Petitioner did not attend enquiry on the scheduled date , exparte enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 22-7-1999 .

`the company through dependant's employment. He was appointed as badli filler at MVK- 5 incline on 1-8-1992 . Petitioner did not attend duty due to ill-health is false as Petitioner did not avail treatment in company hospital . He was not regular to his duties . He did not put up required 190 actual musters in any year from his appointment till his termination. He had put in 144 musters in 1994, 125 in 1995, 113 in 1996 , 74 in 1997 and 34 musters in 1998. In view of his past record and actual attendances put in by him in 1997 he was issued with a charge sheet which was sentby Registered Post and Petitioner received the charge sheet on 14-10-1998 but did not submitted his explanation . Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrrect. Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding , but Petitioner refused to receive the same , as such , paper publication was issued intimating that enquiry into the case would be held on 16-1-1999 . Accordingly enquiry was held, Petitioner did not attend the enquiry. Hence, exparte enquiry was held wherein Petitioner was found guilty of the charges . Show cause notice enclosing enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner for his submissions or explanations if any against enquiry report . The same was published in the Vaartha daily newspaper on 6-5-99 , however , Petitioner did not submit any representation. After consideration of material on record Disciplinary Authority has terminated the services of Sri Chidipi Samsonw.e.f. 27-7-1999 vide Lr. No.P. BPA/ 129/1933 dated 22-7-1999. Respondent has not committed any mistake in dismissing the services of the Petitioner because the performance of the Petitioner was not satisfactory. It was effecting the production of the company. Petitioner has kept quite for 8 years after dismissal he did not raise industrial dispute during this period . Hence, the Petition suffers from delay and latches . Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that though the proceeding taken before the Enquiry Officer was challenged by the workman through his claim petition, but on 18-3-2009 Petitioner's counsel filed memo before this tribunal conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, thus , thedomestic enquiry has been held to be legal and valid .

6. Heard both parties and both parties have submitted their written arguments also under Sec.11 А. 3. Petitioner submitted that he was undergoing treatment in his native village , he was not aware of issuance of charge sheet or publication made by Respondent in the newspaper. If he is aware of all these things he would have certainly participated in the enquiry. He has not received any communication from the management . Petitioner submits that Respondent said to have published the notice of enquiry in Vaartha Telugu Newspaper dated 9-1-1999 but he had no knowledge and also he was staying at a remote village where circulation of Vaartha daily paper is very less . That the charge of absenteeism due to sickness ought not to have treated as serious misconduct and imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate as such , dismissal of Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violating principlesofnatural justice. After issuance of the order of dismissal , management has conducted interviews for workmen who were dismissed from service on account of absenteeism wherein though Petitioner has applied for the same, attended interview and assured to be regular to his duties, he was not given reappointment, though others were considered for appointment. As such the order of dismissal dated 22-7-1999 deserves to be set aside and Petitioner be reinstated with full back wages .

7. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that though Petitioner has conceded to the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, but he has every rightto challenge the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer , during the course of arguments under Sec.11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case though the Petitioner's absence is not challenged Petitioner submitted that due to family problems and ill - health he remained absent . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that Petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the notice of enquiry or publication of date of enquiry, he could not participate in the enquiry as he was bed ridden in a remote 4. Respondent has filed counter statement . Management has submitted his reply alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent for the year 1997 which hampered theworking ofthe company, the absence of the Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company and dismissal is not bad in the light of the case law reported in 1996( 1 ) SCC . 302 State ofU.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . Petitionerjoined the services of 7500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] village, none of his family members are literates as such , theycould not know the publication of notice in newspaper.

Against this argument , Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Enquiry Officer has considered all the material placed before him and it is established that the Petitioner has not taken treatment at company'shospital which was made known through letter ofhospital to the Respondent and Enquiry Officer's report isbased on evidence produced before him.

7A. I have considered the above arguments . This Tribunal has to consider the following points:

( 1) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 1997 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not ?

(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner ?

enquiry proceeding, his counsel filed memo conceding enquiry proceeding legal and valid before this Tribunal which implies enquiry has been validly and legally conducted by following principles of natural justice by the Respondent management and it further implies that the worker remained absent during 1997 and he attended for only 74 musters . This Tribunal has to see only point whether the punishment imposed is harsh or disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner. Though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent during the year 1995 and 1996 also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet . However, this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such, the previous absence can not be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 1997 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake inpassing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such, the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case.

11. I agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in his favour. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation ofhis family members, no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.

12. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded, no interference is required in this case . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 4th day of August, 2011 .

8. Point No.1 : It is undisputed fact that Petitioner remained absent under clause 25.25 . Habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause is a misconduct. In the present case the Petitioner did not appear before the EnquiryOfficer though enquiry notice has been published in Vaartha daily newspaper as he refused to receive the notice . The Petitioner has submitted that he remained ill during the year 1997 due to which he remained absent and put in74 musters during the year 1997, but has not been able to provide any single document before Enquiry Officer nor before this Tribunal to substantiate his allegations . The management has produced Sri M.S. Nagabhushana Rao, Clerk Gr.1 , and Sri V. Prabhakar, Clerk Grade- I to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 1997. Though he stated that he was absent due to ill - health but he is not able to provide any evidence or proof in support of his illness . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill - health why he did not informed his superiors regarding his illness has not been explained by the Petitioner atleast before this Tribunal by producing any document like medical prescriptions , fitness certificates etc. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the year 1997 was without reasonable and sufficient cause , is based on evidence and reasoning given by Enquiry Officer suffers no fault , finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is legal and valid.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL

NIL

9. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 1997, his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25/25 of the Standing Orders of the company. The report ofEnquiry Officer is based on legal grounds and material placed before him . Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

10. Point No. 2 : So far as the question of punishment isconcerned the Petitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 1997 , he remained absent during [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2891.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( सीजीआईटी /एलसीआईडी संख्या 109/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/1/2011- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011 S.O. 2891. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad (CGIT/LCID No. 109/2006) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011.

[No. L-22013 / 1 /2011 - IR (C - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : - SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 12th day ofAugust , 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 109/2006 Between:

Sri Vadala Satynarayana , S/ o Rajamallu , Ram Kish , C/ o Smt . A. Sarojana , Advocate , FlatNo.G7 , Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan , Opp : Badruka Jr. College ForGirls , Kachiguda, Hyderabad .

Petitioner AND

1. The General Manager , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam Area- IV, Ramagundam . 2. The Superintendent of Mines , M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Open cast Mine- I , Ramagundam.

.Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

Forthe Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya laxmi Panguluri , Advocates

7501

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 hasbeen filed by Sri Vadala Satyanarayana , ex -badli filler to set aside the termination order dated 17-10-2000 and to reinstate the Petitioner workman with full back wages .

2. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler on 7-3-1978 and he was promoted as General Mazdoor in the year 1982 and drill operator during 1991 and used to perform his duties up to the satisfaction of his superiors . While so , a charge sheet dated 22-4-2000 was issued alleging that the Petitioner was absent without leave or without sufficient cause on various dates to his duties during the year 1999 which amount to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No. 25.25 . The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with pre-determined notion . The enquiry was not valid in nature . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report , relying on the said report , Respondent No.1 issued impugned proceeding dated 17-10-2000 dismissing the Petitioner from service w.e.f. 19-10-2000. Petitioner was absent not only due to ill- health but also on account of enigma of his son's sad demise. Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report with a predetermined notion as such , the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed. Properopportunity was not given to the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding . Petitioner was not considered for reappointment under scheme of workmen who were dismissed from service on account of unauthorized absenteeism. The action of the Respondents in dismissing the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and hence , be set aside directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits etc.

3. Management has submitted counter statement alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent for the year 1999 which hampered the working of the company, the absence of the Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company and dismissal is not bad in the light ofthe case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC . 302 State ofU. P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proproper opportunity is incorrect . Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding . The notice was acknowledged by the Petitioner and he participated in the enquiry proceeding . Petitioner did not availed the assistance of co - worker though he was given the opportunity to take the help of a co - worker. Petitioner did not produce any sickness proof, thus he failed to produce any material before the Enquiry Officer. During the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 also the Petitioner was not regular to his duties. In the year 1995 he had put in 143 musters , in 1996-61 musters , in 1997 he had put in 107 musters and in the year 1998 he had put in 117 musters , in 1999 he had put in only 90 musters . This proves that the Petitioner was not 7502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

sincere to his work . He intentionally absented himself without any reason or cause . The company has provided medical facilities by establishing hospitals , the Petitioner did not report to the company hospital for his alleged sickness thus , his submission that he was absent due to ill -health is unfounded , Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placed before him by the management and no fault can be find in the enquiry report , itisbased on evidence and Petitioner's dismissal order is notdisproportionate to the misconduct committed by him since Petitioner was not regular to his duties company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalid. Moreover, Petitioner submitted applications for settlement ofterminal benefits and he was paid, Gratuity of Rs . 84,459, CMPF of Rs . 2,05,100 and FBIS Accumulations of Rs . 4,211-80 and further on his application an amount of Rs .503 per month is being paid to him towards Coal Mines Pension Scheme . The petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits .

4. Parties were directed to produce documentary evidence in support of their claims . The Respondent has filed charge sheet and acknowledgement , enquiry notice , explanation, corrigendum to charge sheet musters , entire domestic enquiry proceedings , show cause notice issued to him, his explanation against show cause notice , proposal for disciplinary action and dismissal order .

5. Coming to the point of the legality and validity of domestic enquiry held by the management it is pertinent to mention that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated 29-4-2009 not to challenge the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry as such , the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid.

6.Petitioner counsel filed written arguments . I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the claim petition, counter statement , documents and written arguments filed by the parties .

7. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only 90 musters during the year 1999 for which a charge sheet dated 18/ 22-4-2000 was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed his explanation stating therein that he could not be regular to his duties due to non-allotment of quarter at OCP - I , GDK he has to come and back from Mandamarri in total 100 Km . daily which caused ill -health as such , he remained absent . It is also admitted that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge . In this case this tribunal has to consider,

(1) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 1999 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report ofEnquiry Officer is based on evidence or not.

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] (2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed bythe Petitioner.

8. Point No.1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he remained ill during the year 1999 due to which he remained absent and put in 90 musters during the year 1999. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and during the course of the enquiry he stated that he worked for 90 days and remained absent for the rest of days due to health problem . But has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate allegations of sickness . In his reply dated 5-5-2000 he has notmentioned about the sad demise ofhis son. He simply written that he could not perform his duty due to his suffering from travelling to and fro from Mandamarri to work place OCP - I GDK and getting illness due tojourney of 100 Km . daily. As against this , the management has produced Sri N. Satyanrayana , Clerk and Sri M. Sadanandam , Clerk to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 1999. Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner toprove that his absence was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause . Petitioner was unable to prove thathis absence during the year 1999 was due to sufficient reason. Though he stated that he was absent due to ill- health but he is not able to provide any evidence or proof in support of his illness . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill-health why he did not inform his superiors regarding his illness , has not been explained by the Petitioner. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the year 1999 was without reason and sufficient cause, isbased on evidence and reasoning and no fault can be find in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. So far as the cause of absence due to death of son of workman is concerned he has not disclosed the date of death ofhis son as such , this cause is also unfounded .

9. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 1999 , his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

10. Point No. 2 : So far as the question ofpunishment isconcerned the Petitioner has not been able to justifyhis absence duringthe year 1999 , he has voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent during 1999 and could attend only 90 musters though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent during the year 1995 , 1996 , 1997 and 1998 also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet . However, this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such, the previous 7503 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2892. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad ( CGIT/LCID No. 104/2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011.

[No. L- 22013 /1 /2011 - IR (C - II) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer absence can not be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 1999 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible forthe starvation of the family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such , the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 5th day of September, 2011 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 104/2007 11. I agree with the argument ofthe Learned Counsel for the Respondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view, to be taken in favour ofthe Petitioner. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.

Between:

Sri Biyyani Ramchander ,

12. From the above discussion , this tribunal is ofthe considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded, no interference is required in this case . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and hence , this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

S/o Odelu , C/o Smt . A. Sarojana , Advocate , FlatNo. G 7 , Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp : Badruka Jr. College ForGirls , Kachiguda , Hyderabad.

...Petitioner Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 12th day of August, 2011 .

AND

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

1. The General Manager ,

Appendix of evidence

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri Area , Mandamarri , Adilabad District .

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

2. The Colliery Manager,

NIL

M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , RK- 1A Incline , Mandamarri , Adilabad District .

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Respondents NIL

APPEARANCES :

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

For the Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

Forthe Respondent : Sri S. M. Subhani , Advocate

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec . 2 A(2 ) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 has been filed by Sri Biyyani Ramchander, ex -badli filler to set aside the termination order dated 18-1-2000 and to reinstate the Petitioner workman with full back wages .

का.आ. 2892.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( सीजीआईटी/एलसीआईडी संख्या 104/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler on 9-5-1996 and used to perform his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors . In the year 1999 his father met with road accident , due to which his father got bed ridden for about 6 months and Petitioner [सं. एल-22013/1/2011-आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

3708 GI /2011-11 7504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II SBC. 3 (ii)] also suffered ill-health and other family problems, due to which he could not attended his duties . While so, a charge sheet dated 18-1-2000 was issued alleging that the Petitioner was absent without leave or without sufficient cause on various dates from his duties during the year 1999 which amount to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No. 25.25 . Charge sheet was sent to Petitioner's house which was returned undelivered, upon which a paper advertisement was issued advising the Petitioner to attend for enquiry. As the Petitioner did not attend enquiry on the scheduled date , an exparte enquiry wasconducted and Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 18-1-2000 .

during the years 1996, 1997 , 1998 and 1999 respectively. This proves that the Petitioner was not sincere to his work. He intentionally absented himself without any reason or cause. The company has provided medical facilities by establishing hospitals , the Petitioner did not report to the company hospital for his alleged sickness thus , his submission that he was absent due to ill-health is unfounded, Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placed before him by the management and no fault can be find in the enquiry report , it is based on evidence and Petitioner's dismissal order is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him since Petitioner was not regular to his duties company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalid. The petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits .

4. Parties were directed to produce documentary evidence in support of their claims . Petitioner has filed dismissal order. The Respondent has filed charge sheet , undelivered cover with acknowledgement returned by postal authorities , Telugu daily ' Andhra Jyothi ' dated 1-4-1999 , domestic enquiry proceedings , enquiry report, undelivered cover containing enquiry report and proceedings , Telugu daily 'Andhra Jyothi ' dated 2-12-1999 and dismissal order dated 18-1-2000.

3. Petitioner was undergoing treatment at his native village, as such , he was unaware of the charge sheet as well as enquiry notice and its paper publication. Thus , he could not participate in the enquiry. Petitioner was absent due to ill- health. Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report with a predetermined notion as such, the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed . Proper opportunity was not given to the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding . Petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice but without considering the same he was dismissed from service . The action of the Respondents in dismissing the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and hence , be set aside directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits etc.

5. The question of the legality and validity of domestic enquiry held by the management was taken up aspreliminary point, it is pertinent to mention that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated 20-2-2009 conceding the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry as such , the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid.

6. Petitioner counsel filed written arguments . I have heard counsels for the parties and also have gone through the claim petition , counter statement and documents .

7. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only60 musters during the year 1998 for which a charge sheet dated 1 / 10-2-1999 was sent to the Petitioner which was returned undelivered . Respondent has given paper advertisement charge sheet as well as enquiry notice in the Andhra Jyothi daily news paper. Petitioner did not attend enquiry as such, exparte enquiry was held where charge against the Petitioner was held proved . On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge . In this case this tribunal has to consider,

( 1) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 1998 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or notand the report ofEnquiry Officer is based on evidence or not ?

(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner.

3. Management has submitted counter statement alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent for the year 1998 which hampered the working of the company, the absence of the Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company and dismissal is not bad in the light of the case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 302 State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrect . Petitioner was initially appointed on 15-5-1996 as badli filler but not on 9-5-1996 as stated in the claim statement . He had put in 60 musters only during 1998 and remained absent on other days in the calendar year 1998 for which a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner. Charge sheet was sent to his last known address was returned undelivered by postal authorities and hence , the charge sheet cum- enquiry notices was published in the Telugu daily Andhra Jyothi dated 1-4-1999 advising the Petitioner to submit his written explanation within four days and also to attend for an enquiry on 12-4-1999 . As the Petitioner did not attend enquiry on the said date , Enquiry Officer was left with no option but to conduct ex-parte enquiry on 12-4-1999 .As per enquiry report charge levelled against Petitioner was established and he was held guilty of the charge . He did not inform his superiors abouthis ill -health. He had put in 79 , 102, 60 and 17 musters 7505 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

11. I agree with the argument ofthe Learned Counsel forthe Respondent and I am also ofthe considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in his favour. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation ofhis family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . He is not entitled for any relief. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.

12. From the above discussion , this tribunal is ofthe considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded, no interference is required in this case . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 5th day of September, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

8. Point No. 1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he remained ill during the year 1998 due to which he remained absent andput in60 musters during the year 1998. But has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate allegations of sickness. Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself through his claim petition it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause . Petitioner wasunable to prove that his absence during the year 1998 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that he was absent due to ill-health but he has not provided any material or proof in support of his illness . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill- health why he did not inform his superiors regarding his illness , has not been explained by the Petitioner . Petitioner did not attend enquiry, nor responded to the enquiry report , thus , exparte enquiry has become unavoidable in his case and the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence and reasoning that Petitioner's absence during the year 1998 was without reason and sufficient cause and no fault can be find in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Though Petitioner has alleged that the enquiry was held exparte , he should have submitted supporting material facts or documents whatever may be in support ofhis ill- health atleast before this Tribunal for consideration. But nothing was brought by him before this Tribunal as such , his contention that he suffered ill- health is unfounded and baseless .

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011

9. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 1998 , his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

का.आ. 2893.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( सीजीआईटी /एलसीआईडी संख्या 87/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22013/1 /2011- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2893. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad ( CGIT/LCID No. 87/2007 ) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L- 22013/1/2011 - IR (C- II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 10. Point No. 2 : So far as the question ofpunishment is concerned the Petitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 1998 and he attended only 60 musters though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent during the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet . However, this fact was brought before the Enquiry Officer . As such , the previous absence can not be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 1998 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such, the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case .

7506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ASVINA 23 , 1933

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 12th day ofAugust, 2011 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 87/2007 Between:

Sri Katla Laxman, S/o Lingaiah , C/ o Smt .A. Sarojana , Advocate , Flat No. G-7, Ground floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp. Badruka Junior College for Girls , Kachiguda , Hyderabad.

.Petitioner AND

1. The ChiefGeneral Manager,

M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramakrishnapur Area, Mandamarri . Adilabad District.

2.The CollieryManager , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , RK-5 Incline , Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri .. Adilabad District .

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] against the Petitioner as proved, basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer a show cause notice dated 20-5-1998 was issued to the Petitioner. Petitioner pleaded cause of his inability to perform the duties for not more than31 musters during 1997 during enquiry, he also pleaded that he will attend for duty without absence in future . He has submitted that without considering his submissions , he was dismissed from service vide office order dated 11-7-1998 which is illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice . Petitioner submitted that he is the sole bread winner in his family, consisting of octogenarian mother, wife and children and as a result of hisdismissal from services his family is left without any livelihood and the punishment awarded is too harsh , excessive and disproportionate to the charges alleged. He prayed to set aside the order of dismissal and direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with back wages and all consequential benefits .

4. Respondent has filed counter statement. It is submitted that Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler on 26-11-1996 . He remained absent in 1997 without leave , sufficient cause and he had put in only 31 musters , as such , he was issued with a charge sheet dated 13-2-1998 under the company's Standing Orders No. 25.25 which reads as under : " Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause ."

.Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma and Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec . 2A(2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 was filed by Sri Katla Laxman , ex . Employee of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , challenging dismissal order dated 11-7-98 for reinstatement into services with all consequential benefits .

2.Petitioner filed claim petition stating therein that he was appointed as badli filler in 1996. During the year 1997 Petitioner suffered with ill- health and other family problems . That he was issued with a charge sheet dated 13-2-1998 alleging that he worked only for 31 musters during the year 1997 which amounts to misconduct under Standing Orders of the company. He submitted his explanation explaining his inability to perform duties for not more than 31 days . Without considering his plea , enquiry was conducted with predetermined notion . He was not given proper opportunity during enquiry, basing on the lopsided enquiry , Enquiry Officer held charges 5. Charge sheet was received by him and acknowledged by him . On 19-3-1998 Petitioner fully participated in the enquiry, the enquiry was conducted complying principles of natural justice . Petitioner was explained with the procedure of enquiry, he did not take assistance of any co- worker or office bearer the proceedings were explained in Telugu language and after understanding the proceedings only the Petitioner affixed his signature .

6. Basing on verification of records and voluntary admission of Petitioner the charges against the Petitioner were found proved . Respondent issued show cause notice dated 12-5-1998 enclosing copy of enquiry proceeding and enquiry report by registered post with acknowledgement due for which Petitioner submitted his reply on 20-5-1998 . It issubmitted that Petitioner worked up to March, 1997 for oneday on 31-3-1997 . However, to give him fair opportunity and to improve his performance he was allowed for duty and was given two months time and kept under observation, but he absented habitually during observation period, as such, Respondent was constrained to dismiss him.

7. It has been submitted that the Petitioner failedto produce valid documentary evidence to substantiate his statement of sickness . He would have availed medical facilities provided by the Respondent company. If any workman absents without prior notice it will hamper the work schedule of the Respondent company. It compels the Respondent to take severe action against the unauthorized absentees , as it was taken in the present case ofthe Petitioner. It has been submitted by Respondent 7507 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

that the case laws reported in State of U. P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 302 and in Ashappa's case are relevant to the present case . Petition and claim statement deserves to be dismissed.

8. Both parties were directed to file their respective evidence. Petitioner filed dismissal order. Respondent filed charge sheet, acknowledgement, explanation to show cause notice , charge sheet , enquiry proceeding record , acknowledgement to show cause notice , enquiry report and dismissal order.

considered by the Enquiry Officer, if so , he could have filedthe same before this Tribunal in support ofhis claim , which shows that he has no document to show in support ofhis alleged sickness . No other material point has been raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. From the evidence on record it is proved that Petitioner workman has remained absent from January, 1997 to December, 1997, he put in only 31 musters during this entire period, as such , the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner workman was habitual absentee without any reason, is based on cogent evidence . This tribunal is also ofthe opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and action taken by Respondent against workman is fully justifiable based on finding of Enquiry Officer . Point No. ( I ) is decided accordingly.

9. Petitioner's counsel filed memo conceding validity and legality of the domestic enquiry held by Respondent on 17-3-2009 , hence the domestic enquiry was held legal and valid and arguments were heard under Sec . 11 Aofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of both parties counsels .

10. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner was absent due to his ill- health and he produced sick certificate during enquiry proceeding but those were not considered by the Enquiry Officer.He present himselfbefore the Enquiry Officer and stated before him that he was sick during absence period, that was the reason that he could not attend to his duties .The Enquiry Officer has not considered this material aspect of the case nor has applied his mind to the fact of the case and the documents produced by the Petitioner workman during course of enquiry nor he gave any finding regarding the sickness of the workman , thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and the punishment based on such perverse finding is also illegal and invalid and deserves to be quashed.

13. Point No. (II ) : Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the punishment in the present case is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the concerned workman. He should have been imposed with a lesser punishment mentioned in para 26 ( a ) to (f) of the Standing Orders . Against this argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner workman , the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the management has no other option but to dismiss the services of the Petitioner who is a unwilling and careless worker. I have considered this argument. Petitioner appears to be a careless and negligent workman because he remained absent for more than 30 days in a year without any valid reason as such , the punishment imposed upon him cannot be said to be disproportionate or shocking to the conscience of a prudent man, I have considered this argument, Petitioner has put in only 31 musters during entire period of 1997. His absence was without any reason as such, the punishment imposed upon workman is neither excessive nordisproportionate . Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. PointNo. II is decided accordingly.

11. Against this argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner , Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner has not filed neither sick certificate nor any other document during enquiry proceeding . He admitted his misconduct of absenteeism before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent due to frequent ill health as such, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse and Petitioner has been rightly dismissed from service .

14. From the above discussion , this court is of the opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Hence , this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

see, 11. In view of the arguments , this tribunal has to

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 12th day of August, 2011 .

(I) Whether the action taken against the Petitioner dismissing him from the services of the Respondent company is legal and justified ?

(II) Ifnot, towhat relief the Petitioner is entitled to ?

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner Witnesses examined for theRespondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

12. Point No. (I) : I have considered material aspect ofthe argument of the Learned Counsel for the workman and have gone through the enquiry report . The Enquiry Officer has given cogent reasons for not believing to the statement of the workman that he was sick as such, it can not be said that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the evidence of the Petitioner workman nor has applied his mind to the fact of sickness . Moreover , Petitioner alleged that the sick certificates produced were not 7508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

AWARD

This petition under Sec . 2 A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has been filed by Sri Inumula Prabhakar, ex -badli filler to set aside the termination order dated 17-4-2006 and to reinstate the Petitioner workman with fullbackwages.

का.आ. 2894.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एलसीआईडी संख्या 93/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/1/2011- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 20th September , 2011

S.O. 2894. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad (CGIT/LCID/93 /2007) as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of SCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-9-2011.

[No. L- 22013/ 1 /2011 - IR (C-II) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 12th day ofAugust , 2011 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 93/2007

Between:

Sri Inumula Prabhakar

2.Itis allegedby the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler in the year 2001. He was regular to his duties till2003. Duringthe year 2004 Petitioner suffered with illness and other family problems . He took treatment in various hospitals . A charge sheet dated 22-3-2005 was issued alleging that the Petitioner remained absent during 2004 which amount to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No. 25.25. Respondent management ordered for departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquirywithpre- determined notion . The enquiry was not valid in nature . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding charges proved. Proceeding dated 17-4-2006 also states that a show cause notice with a copy of enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner's house which returned undelivered , as such, a paper advertisement was issued in Andhra Jyothi newspaper , advising the Petitioner to make representation , if any, against findings of the EnquiryOfficer within 7 days . Subsequently, Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 21-4-2006 vide office order dated 17-4-2006. The Petitioner was absent due to ill-health and the same was stated by the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, no challenge was made from the side of the management as such, the submission made by the Petitioner would have been deemed to be correct but the Enquiry Officer has not considered the submission made by the Petitioner workman, Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report with a pre - determined notion as such , the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed. Proper opportunity was not given to the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding . Dismissal order based on that enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be treated as bad in law. Hence , it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the Respondent be directed to reinstate the Petitioner with back wages and all consequential benefits .

S/o Kondaiah, C/ o $mt . A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G7,Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan , Opp . Badruka Jr. College ForGirls , Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner

And

1.TheGeneral Manager, M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , RG-I Area,Godavarikhani , Karimnagar District

2. The Superintendent of Mines , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , GDK-2A Incline, Godavarikhani ,

KarimnagarDistrict

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva

Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijayalaxmi Panguluri , Advocates

3.Management has submitted his reply alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent during the year 2004 which hampered the working of the company, the absence ofthe Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 ofthe company and dismissal is not bad in the light of the case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 302 State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrect . Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding. The notice was acknowledged by the Petitioner and he participated in the enquiry proceeding . Petitioner did not avail the assistance of co - worker though he was given the opportunity to take the help of a co- worker. Petitioner did not produce any sickness proof, thus 7509

भारंत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not ?

(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committedby the Petitioner ?

he failed to produce any documentary evidence before the EnquiryOfficer. During the years 2001 to 2004 and in 2005 also the Petitioner was not regular to his duties and he has put in 98, 104 , 94, 72 and 69 musters respectively in the years 2001 to 2004 and in 2005. This prove that the Petitioner was not sincere to his work . Petitioner was counselled on 6.9.2005 wherein he submitted an undertaking assuring that hewill attend more than 20/22 musters and fill not less than 40 tubs per month in future but he attended only 36 days during observation period from 6-9-2005 to 31-12-2005 . He intentionally absented himself without any reason or cause. The Petitioner though cited ill health as the cause of his absenteeism , he did not specify the disease with which he wassuffering and did not substantiate the same with valid documentary evidence . The company has provided medical facilities by establishing hospitals , the Petitioner did not reported to the company hospital for his sickness thus , his submission that he was absent due to ill- health is unfounded, Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placed before him by the management and no fault canbe find in the enquiry report , it is based on evidence and Petitioner's dismissal order is not disproportionate to themisconduct committed by him since Petitioner was not regular to his duties company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalid.

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support oftheir claims . Petitioner has filed original dismissal order. However, the Respondent has filed charge sheet , acknowledgement of charge sheet , notice of enquiry, assurance submitted by the Petitioner , entire domestic enquiry proceedings , enquiry report , show cause notice issued to him along with enquiry report , paper publication and dismissal order.

8. Point No.1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he was sick due to which he remained absent during the year 2004 and put in 72 musters during the year 2004. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, during course of the enquiry he stated that he worked for 72 days and remained absent for the rest of days in 2004 due to health problems , but has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his allegations . The management has produced Sri R. Sanjeeva Rao , Office Superintendent and Sri S. Mareswara Rao, Paysheet Clerk to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 2004 from January to December. Since absence ofthe Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause . Petitioner was not able to prove that his absence during the year 2004 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that hewas absent due to ill- health but he is not able to provide any evidence or proof in support of his illness or treatment forill -health . Even , ifit is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill - health why he did not inform his superiors regarding the same has not been explained by the Petitioner. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the year 2004 was without any sufficient reason or valid cause is based on evidence and reasoning and no fault can be find in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer .

5.Question of the legality and validity of domestic enquiry conducted by the management was considered . It is pertinent to mention that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated 7-7-2009 conceding the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry as such , the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid .

9. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 2004 his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

6. I have gone through the claim petition , counter statement and documents filed by the parties and written arguments filed by both the parties .

7. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only 72 musters during the year 2004 for which a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed his assurance stating therein that he remained absent because of ill- health and he will be regular in future on the date of enquiry. It is also admitted fact that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner participated inthe domestic enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge . In this case this tribunal has to consider:--

10. Point No.2: So far as the question of punishment isconcerned the Petitioner has not been able tojustify his absence during the year 2004, he has voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent during 2004 and could attend only 72 musters though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent during the year 2001 to 2003 and in 2005 also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet . However, this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such, the previous absence can not be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 2004 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is (1) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 2004 was for any sufficient and reasonable 7510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]

inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L-22013/ 1 /2011 - IR (C- II) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , DeskOfficer starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the familymembers , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such, the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 6th day of August , 2011

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 17/2004

Between:

11. I agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in favour ofthe Petitioner. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

SriB.Rajaram,

12. From the above discussion , this tribunal is ofthe considered opinion that the clam petition is unfounded , no interference is required in this case . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Hence , this award.

S/ o Bheemaiah, C/ o Smt . A. Sarojana, Advocate, FlatNo.G7,Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan , Opp: Badruka Jr. College ForGirls , Kachiguda,

...Petitioner

Hyderabad.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

And

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 12thday ofAugust , 2011 .

1. The General Manager , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , RG- I Area, Godavarikhani , Karimnagar District VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

2.The Project Manager,

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Nil

M/ s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , CoalChemical Complex, Narsapur

Witnesses examined for the Respondent Nil

Adilabad District Respondents Documents marked for the Petitioner

APPEARANCES :

Nil

For the Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva . Reddy, Advocates Documents marked for the Respondent

For the Respondent : M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Nil

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011

Vijayalaxmi Panguluri , Advocates AWARD

Thispetition under Sec.2 A(2) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 has been filedby Sri B. Raja Ram, ex - badli filler to set aside the termination order dated 21-2-2003 and to reinstate the Petitioner workman with full backwages.

का.आ. 2895.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एलसीआईडी संख्या 17/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/ 1/2011- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2895.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad (CGIT/LCID/ 17/2004) as shown in the Annexure

2. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed asGeneral Mazdoor in R 1 company in November , 1976 and thereafter he was promoted as Jr. Operator. While so , a charge sheet dated 5-7-1991 was issued alleging unauthorized absenteeism from duties during the period from November, 1996 to July, 1997 which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25 . Management ordered for departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with pre-determined notion. The enquiry was not valid in nature . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report . On the basis of enquiry report Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 7511 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

21-12-2003 . The Petitioner was absent due to ill health of hismother during November, 1996 to July, 1997, as there was nobody else to look after his mother, he has to attend his mother at that time . Petitioner was a member ofMPTC, he was assaulted and beaten by the Naxalites , in view of the injuries caused by Naxalites , he submitted representations to Respondent to declare him medically unfit, but management kept his request pending and he wasdismissed. Petitioner was not aware of the procedure of the enquiry , he could not participate in the enquiry effectively, resulting in issuance of the impugned order of removal . Had the procedure of enquiry was explained, he could have established the factum of his continued absence. Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report with a predetermined notion as such , the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed. Proper opportunity was not given to the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding . Dismissal order based on that enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be treated as bad in law. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the Respondent be directed to reinstate the Petitioner with back wages and all consequential benefits .

any document or material before the Enquiry Officer . He intentionally absented himself without any reason of cause . Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void , at a time it is very difficult to fill - up the gap and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice which compelled the Respondent to take severe action against unauthorized absentees . The Petitioner though cited ill health as the cause of his absenteeism, he did not specify the disease with which he was suffering and did not substantiate the same with valid document . Petitioner stated that he was a member of M.P.T.C. and that he was assaulted and beaten by Naxalites , was admitted to hospital with serious injuries , was bed ridden for more than 2 years - all these were not made known to the Respondent . Petitioner's representations to declare him medically unfit and that he was assaulted, injured etc., are put to strict proof. More over, as per Respondent company's rules , any workman against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending cannot be declared as medically unfit . The company has provided medical facilities by establishing hospitals , but Petitioner did not report to the company hospital for his sickness thus , his submission that he was absent due to his and his mother's ill- health is unfounded, Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placed before him by the management and no fault can be find in the enquiry report , it is based on evidence and Petitioner's dismissal order is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him since Petitioner was not regular to his duties , company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalid .

3.Management has submitted reply alleging therein thatPetitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from 16-5-1992 to 27-9-1996 which hampered the working ofthe company, the absence of the Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company and dismissal is not bad in the light ofthe case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 302 State ofU.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh. Petitioner was appointed on 19-11-1976 in Respondent company and promoted as Junior Operator w.e.f. 1-10-1989 . He has put in musters as follows:

Actual musters

Year

NIL

1992( from 16-5-1992)

NIL

1993

NIL

1994

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their claims . Petitioner has filed xerox copy of dismissal orderdated 21-12-2003 . However, the Respondent has filed charge sheet , suspension letter, charge sheet , paper publication, appointment ofEnquiry Officer , notice of enquiry, entire domestic enquiry proceedings book , enquiry report , paper publication, explanation , show cause notice issued to him, his explanation against show cause notice and dismissal order .

NIL

1995

NIL

1996(upto 27-9-1996).

5.Onthe point ofthe legality and validity ofdomestic enquiry conducted by the management , order sheet transpires that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner conceded the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry on 2-8-2004 by way of memo as such , the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid .

6. I have gone through the claim petition , counter statement and documents filed by the parties and written arguments filed by both the parties .

7. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in nil musters during the period from November; 1996 to June, 1997 for which a charge sheet dated 3 /5-7-1997 was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner did not submit any explanation. It is also admitted that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner participated in the domestic He has not put in 190 musters which is minimum for a ground duty workman in any year. This prove that the Petitioner was not sincere to his work . Therefore , a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner dated 3 /5-7-1997 for unauthorized absence . Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrect. Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding. The notice was acknowledged by the Petitioner and he participated in the enquiry proceeding. Petitioner did not avail the assistance of co - worker though he was given the opportunity to take the help of a co- worker. Petitioner admitted during enquiry that he remained absent without sanctioned leave . Petitioner did not produce any sickness proof, thus he has failed to produce

3708 GI/2011-12 7512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge . In this case this tribunal has to consider:

(1) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the period from November, 1996 to June , 1997 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not?

(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner ?

10. Point No.2 : So far as the question ofpunishment isconcerned the Petitioner has not been able tojustify his absence during the period from November, 1996 to June, 1997, he has voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent during period from November, 1996 to June, 1997 and could not attend to duty on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet. Though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent and put in nil musters during the years 1992 to 1995 and in 1996. (Upto 27-9-1996) also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet. This fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such, the previous absence can not be taken into consideration but the absenceduring the period from November, 1996 to June , 1997 is surely a grave misconduct and his previous absence prove that Petitioner is not a willing and sincere worker as such, management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal ofthe Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling and negligent worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such, the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case.

11. I agree with the argument ofthe Learned Counsel fortheRespondent and I am also ofthe considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner does not deserve any leniency. The Petitioner himself is responsible forthe starvation ofhis family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Petitioner is not entitled forany relief. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.

12.From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded, no interference is required in this case. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Hence , this award .

Awardpassed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , PersonalAssistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 6th day of September, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence 8. Point No.1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he was sick due to which he remained absent during the period from November, 1996 to June , 1997. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, during course of the enquiry he stated that he remained absent due to ill -health and other family problems , but has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his allegations . As against this , the management has produced Sri Y. Laxma Reddy, Sp1.Gr.Clerk to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the period from November, 1996 to June , 1997. Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent or sufficient cause . Petitioner was not able to prove that his absence during the year period from November, 1996 to June, 1997 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that he was absent due to ill-health but he is not able to provide any evidence or proof in support ofhis illness or treatment for ill-health. Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill-health why hedid not inform his superiors regarding the same has not been explainedby the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner in his claim statement as well as in his arguments mentioned about his mother's sickness as cause ofhis absence but he said nothing before Enquiry Officer about his mother's sickness . He simply stated that , " I admit that due to my personal and family problems I have absented for duty" which was not supported by producing any valid material or evidence, thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the period from November, 1996 to June , 1997 was without any sufficient reason or valid cause is based on evidence and reasoning and no fault canbe find in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Nil

Witnesses examined for the Respondent NI

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil Documents marked for the Respondent Nil

9. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the period from November, 1996 to June, 1997, his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient causeand thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

7513 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

Thispetitionerunder Section 2 A (2) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947has been filed by Sri Mukala Srinivas , ex-badli filler to set aside the termination order dated 25-12-1999 and to reinstate the Petitioner workman with full back wages .

का.आ. 2896,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( सीजीआईटी/ एलसीआईडी संख्या 151/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/ 1 /2011- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th September , 2011

S.O. 2896.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad (CGIT/LCID No.151/ 2004) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011.

[No. L-22013/1/2011 - IR (C- II)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 11th day of August, 2011 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 151/2004

Between:

2. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler in the year 1997. He was regular to his duties butduring the year 1998 the Petitioner suffered with illness and other family problems , as such he could not be regular to his duties . While so , a charge sheet dated 6-8-1998 was issued alleging that the Petitioner was not regular to his duties during the year 1998 which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No. 25.25. The Petitioner has submitted his explanation but the Respondents were not satisfied and ordered for departmental enquiry. The EnquiryOfficer conducted the enquiry with pre- determined notion. The enquiry was not valid in nature . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis of which a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner against which Petitioner submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider the submission made by the Petitioner and passed dismissal order on Petitioner w.e.f. 30-12-1999 vide order dated 25-12-1999 . The Petitioner was absent due to ill-health and the same was stated by the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, no challenge was made from the side of the management as such, the submission made by the Petitioner would have been deemed to be correct but the Enquiry Officer has not considered the submission made by the Petitioner workman. He submitted his enquiry report with a predetermined notion as such , the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed. Proper opportunity was not given to the Petitioner inthe enquiry proceeding . The action of the Respondents indismissing the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary, violative ofprinciples of natural justice and hence, be set aside directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits etc.

...Petitioner

Sri Mulkala Srinivas , S/o Ellaiah, C/o Smt . A. Sarojana, Advocate, FlatNo.G-7,Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan , Opp: Badruka Jr. College ForGirls , Kachiguda, Hyderabad

AND

1. The General Manager , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri , Adilabad District.

2.The Colliery Manager/Dy. General Manager , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , KK 5 Incline , Mandamarri . Adilabad District

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

3.Management has submitted his reply alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent for the year 1997 which hampered the working of the company, the absence ofthe Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company anddismissal is not bad in the light of the case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 302 State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . Petitioner's contention that he was charge sheeted for absenteeism during the year 1998 is not correct . He was issued with charge sheet for his absenteeism during the year 1997 Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrect . Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding . The notice was acknowledged by the Petitioner, he submitted explanation to the charge sheet and he participated in the enquiry proceeding . Petitioner didnot availedthe assistance of co- worker though he was givenopportunity to take the help of a co - worker. Petitioner For the Respondent : M / s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijayalaxmi Panguluri , Advocates 7514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

and invalid and deserves to be quashed. Against this argument of the counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Counsel forthe Respondent management has argued that Petitioner could not produce any proof in support ofhis sickness nor he has produced any witness in his defence . Moreover , Petitioner has admitted his guilt stating that he remained absent on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet, as such, the enquiry held is neither perverse nor illegal.

8. Inview of the arguments , this tribunal has to see-

(1) Whether the action taken against the Petitioner dismissing him from the services of the Respondent company is legal and justified?

(II) If not, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?

did not produce any sickness proof, thus he failed to produce any material before the Enquiry Officer. During the year 1997 he had put in 72 actual musters and remained absent rest of the days . This proves that the Petitioner was not sincere to his work. He intentionally absented himself without any reason or cause . The company has provided medical facilities by establishing hospitals, the Petitioner did not reportedto the company hospital for his treatment thus, his submission that he was absent due to ill- health is unfounded , Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placedbefore him by the management and no fault canbe find in the enquiry report , it is based on evidence and Petitioner's dismissal order is not proportionate to the misconduct committed by him since Petitioner was not regular to his duties company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalid. On submission ofhis undertaking dated 28-7 1999 , assuring that he would put in 22 filling musters every month and fill 2 and more tubs per muster, he was given3 months observation period from Augustto October, 1999, but Petitioner had put in 34 musters against total working days of75. However, he was given one more opportunity for one month and in this month he worked for 15 days out of26 working days . Thus , his attendance during observation period of 4 months also was not satisfactory inspite of giving opportunity. Hence , the petition be dismissed as devoid of merits .

4. Parties were directed to produce documentary evidence in support of their claims . Petitioner has filedhis representation and dismissal order dated 25-12-1999. However, the Respondent has filed charge sheet and acknowledgement , explanation to charge sheet, entire domestic enquiry proceedings file , show cause notice issued to him, his explanation against show cause notice and dismissal order etc.

5. Coming to the point of the legality and validity of domestic enquiry held by the management it is pertinentto mention that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated6-7-2009 conceding the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry as such, the domestic enquiry was held tobe legal and valid .

6.Both parties submitted written arguments as well as oral arguments . I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the claim petition , counter statement and documents and written arguments filed by theparties .

9. Point No. (I) : It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only72 musters during the year 1997 for which a charge sheet dated 6-8-1998 was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed his explanation stating therein that he remained absent due to ill-health. It is also admitted fact that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner has participated in the domestic enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner. Petitioner's statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer during the course of the enquiry wherein he stated that he worked for 72 days and remained absent for the rest of days due to health problem . But he has not been able to provide single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his sickness . In his reply dated 30-10-1998 he has not mentioned from what sickness he suffered from and from where did he took treatment . He simply written that he could not perform his duty due to his suffering from ill - health . A's against this , the management has produced Sri N. Narsinga Rao , Clerk Gr. I and Sri V.K. Viswanadham , Clerk Grade I , to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 1997. Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent or sufficient cause . Petitioner was unable to prove that his absence during the year 1997 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that he was absent dueto ill-healthbut he was not able to provide any evidence orproof in support of his illness or illness of any of his family members . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill -health why he did not inform hissuperiors regarding his illness , has not been explained by the Petitioner. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer thatPetitioner's absence during the year 1997 was without reason and sufficient cause , is based on evidence and reasoning and no fault canbe find in the finding arrived at bythe EnquiryOfficer .

7. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner was absent due to his ill - health but,he could not produce any other documentary evidence insupport ofhis sickness . He presented himself before the Enquiry Officer and stated before him that he was sick that was the reason that he could not attend to his duties . The Enquiry Officer has not considered this material aspect of the case nor has applied his mind to the fact of the case nor he gave any finding regarding the sickness of the workman , thus, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and the punishment based on such perverse finding is also illegal

10. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 1997 , his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 7515 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

25.25 of the Standing Orders ofthe company. The action of management in terminating the services of Petitioner is legal and justified. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/51/1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2897. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L-22012/51 / 1999- IR (C- II)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

11. Point No. 2 : So far as the question ofpunishment is concerned the Petitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 1997, he has voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent during 1997 and could attend only 72 musters but the absence in the year 1997 which is first year ofhis employment thus his absence from duty is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment ofdismissal against the Petitioner . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal ofthe Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the family members, the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such , the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case .

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

Date: 6-9-2011 .

Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 11 / 1999

Party No. 1: The Sub Area Manager , WCL, Ballarpur Colliery, PO : Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur, (Maharashtra)

11. I agree with the argument ofthe Learned Counsel forthe Respondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in favour ofthe Petitioner. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.

Versus

PartyNo. 2: The Joint General Secretary, R.K.K.M.S. , 604, Giripeth, Opp . R.T.O. Office , Nagpur. AWARD

(Dated: 6th September , 2011 ) Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 11th day of August, 2011.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Nil

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent Nil

Documents marked for the Petitioner

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 Western Coalfields Limited and their workman Shri Laxman Kallepelli, for adjudication ; as per letter No. L- 22012/51 /99 /IR(CM - II) dated 30/31-8-1999, with the following schedule:-

Nil Documents marked for the Respondent

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2011

"Whether the action ofthe management namely Sub AreaManager, Wirur Sub Area ofWCL, PO: Wirur (Ballarpur Area of WCL) , Distt . Chandrapur in discontinuing the services ofShri Laxman Kallepellia, Ex-casual Mazdoor of Wirur Sub Area is legal and justified? Ifnot , what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter ?"

का.आ. 2897.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यूसी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , 7516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II SBC. 3 (ii) ] 2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , parties were noticedto file their respective statement ofclaim and written statement, inresponse to which, the union , R.K.K.M.S (" the Union" inshort) filedthe statement ofclaim and the management ofW.C.L. ("party No. 1" in short) filed the written statement.

The case ofthe workman as projected by the union inthe statement of claim is that the workman was engaged by partyNo. 1during the year 1993 and 1994 and he was paid@ Rs . 15/- per day as wages from January 1993 to May 1994 and he was continuously engaged by the party No. 1 and worked for 254 days in 1993 and 94 days in 1994 till10-5-1994 and in the month ofMay, 1994, the workman was stopped from employment, without any prior notice or payment ofnotice pay as required under the provisions of the Act and the certified Standing Orders of party No. 1 and the act of the party No. 1 in stopping the workman from work is illegal and bad in law and the union raised the demandby its letter RKKMS /NWR/ 12/ 106 dated 8-2-1999 totheGeneral Manager, WCL, Ballarpur Area demanding the absorption ofthe workman on the permanent rolls by reinstating in service with continuity and full back wages according to NCWA from May 1994 and the management byits letterdated13-3-1996, denied about the engagement of the workman in Wirur Sub Area from January 1993 to May 1994 and the union by its letter dated 17-4-1996 requested the management for verification of the cash record regarding payment of wages to the workman and to absorb the workman in work, but the management did not reply to the same, so an industrial dispute was raised by the union before the ALC (Central) , Chandrapur and the reference was made by the Government , on submission of failure report bythe ALC (Central ), Chandrapur. It is further pleadedby the union that one Shri B.P. Kesri was working as the Sub Area Manager of Wirur Sub Area and he was the imprest holder and was drawing cash in advance from theCGM's office and was clearing the imprest cash advance by submitting necessary bill/vouchers in the Accounts department and the said imprest holder was paying wages @Rs. 15/- per day to the workman through vouchers and the workman was not paid the minimum wages prescribed under NCWA- V, so the party No.1 committed unfair labour practice and the denial of the management of Ballarpur ArealofWCL to produce the cash vouchers and cash books relating the period of 1993-94, before the conciliation officer/ ALC ( Central ), Chandrapur indicates that management has beenhiding the facts of engaging the workman continuously from January, 1993 to May, 1994 and before wrongfully terminating the workman from services , the party No. 1 did not serve any notice and abruptly terminated his services and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service . Prayer has been made by the union for reinstatement ofthe workman in service with back wages and other consequential benefits .

3. The party No. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was not employed as a casual mazdoor at Wirur Sub Area from January, 1993 to May 1994 and according to the Rules of WCL, no person can be

appointed as casual mazdoor without following the recruitment procedure and approval of the competent authority and when the union took up the case of the workman directly with the General Manager, BallarpurArea in February 1996, all relevant records with regard to the appointment of casual workers and their payment ofwages were checked and it was found that the workman was not appointed as a casual worker at Wirur Sub Area and the union acted unilaterally and by by- passing the initial level of negotiation, directly went to the second higher level and the union also violated the agreed code of conduct and took up the matter directly with ALC (C) , withouttaking up and discussing the case at company level and unless all the agreed channels to negotiation were exhausted and the demand was finally rejected by the management at the highest level , no valid industrial dispute is deemedtohave arisen between the management and the union warranting reference to the Tribunal for adjudication. It is further pleaded by the part No. 1 that the union was all along stating that the workman was working as a casual labourer, but it was never stated by the union as to what work was being done by the workmen and the union was not sure as to whether the workman was engaged in the mine or in the Sub-Area office and on the basis of the pleadings at paras 18 and 19 of the statement of claim filed by the union, the miscellaneous vouchers of the relevant period at Ballarpur Area office were checked for the relevant period and on checking of the records , it was found that for sanitary cleaning oftransit guest house , which was situated outside the Mine'spremises ofSub-Area office ofWirur Sub-Area, the workman was engaged occasionally on part time basis for short periods from 26-6-1993 to May 1994 and was paid Rs . 15 per day and he was not engaged for any other work and there was no schedule rate of wages for this kind of part timejob and as such , a fixed amount of Rs . 15 per day was arrived atby keeping in view the type of work and time involvedand fully appreciating the job performed by him and the time involved in performing the same , the workman was accepting the payment without any protest and grievance and neither during the period in question nor thereafter, for nearly two years , the workman or any union raised any demand or made any protest about the alleged less payment and the records reveal that the workman was not engaged from January, 1993 to May 1994 (wrongly mentioned as 25-6-1993 in the written statement ) and he hadbeen deployed part time only for 121 days (70 days in 1993 and 51 days in 1994) during the entire period and he was never stopped by the management but he himself stopped coming to do the job , for the reasons best known to him and he was not an employee of the company and hence , there was no contractual obligation on either side to give work or demand work and there was no employer and employee relationship between the management and the workman and it was not under any legal obligation to give notice to the workman for discontinuance . It is also pleadedby the party No.1 that there was neither any, letter of appointment in favour of the workman nor payment of wages was made on the prescribed wage sheets and the 7517 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

representative on the decisions reported in 2011 LLR- 337 (Union of India and Others Vs. Vartak Labour Union), 2002 LAV I.C. 987 (Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani ) and 2005 II LLJ - 209 (KSRTC and another Vs. S. G. Kotturappa) .

name of the workman was not on the muster rolls i.e. statutory Form " B " register and he was not issued with any Identity card and he was neither interviewed and selected nor medically examined and it has not committed any breach of the Act or Rules made there under or the Certified Standing Orders and the workman is not entitled for any relief. The party No. 1 has given the details of the deployment ofthe workman in annexure - l attached to the written statement .

4. In support of his claims , the workman besides examining himself as a witness has examined Sattu Narsingh as a witness . Party No. 1 has also examined Vilas Bobate as a witness in support of its claim .

9. In this case , the workman has claimed that he worked for more than 240 days with party No.1 , but party no.1 has denied such claim . It is well settled by the Hon'bleApex Court in a number ofdecisions including the decision reported 2002 LAB I.C. (Supra ) and AIR 2005 SC 2179 (Manager Reserve Bank of India Vs. S.Mani ) that the initial burden of proof is on the workman that he had completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months of the date of the alleged termination of service and the onus ofproofdoesn't shift to the employer nor is the burden ofproof on the workman discharged , merely because employer fails to prove a defence and filing ofaffidavit of workman to the effect that he had worked for 240 days continuously or that he had made repeated representations or had raised demands for reinstatement, is not sufficient evidence that can discharge the said burden and filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and thatcannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court ofTribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, infact, worked for 240 days in a year.

5. The workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim in his examination- in- chief, which is on affidavit . However, in his cross - examination , he has admitted that he was not sponsored by employment exchange and he was appointed by Mr. Kesari and no appointment letter was given and he started working without appointment letter and he was not given office order and did various work as per oral instructions and was being paid Rs . 15 per day and he had not given any written representation for increase of wages and regular appointment and he cannot give the attendance particulars ofevery month and he has no written proof of attendance and one Shobha was also working and that is why he worked for 23 days in some months .

So far the evidence of Sattu Narsingh is concerned, no reliance can be placed on the as in his examination - in- chief itselfhe has stated he saw the workman working from 1994 to 1996, whereas , according to the claim petition and the evidence of the workman, the workman worked from January 1993 to May 1994.

6. The witness for the management, Vilas Bobate, whowas working as the clerk at Wirur Sub-Area from 20-8- 1992 to 21 5-1999, in his evidence has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement by the management . The evidence ofBobate that the workman was occasionally engaged on part time basis between 26-6-1993 to May 1994 has not been seriously challenged in the cross -examination.

In this case , the workman except filing of his affidavit in support of his claim has not filed any other evidence to substantiate his claim . Rather , the documents filedby the management show that the workman worked in between 26-6-1993 to 11-5-1994 and he had not completed 240 days of work during the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination of service. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment mentioned above to the present case, it is found that the workman has not able to discharge the burden to show that he worked for 240 days with party No. 1prior to the date ofhis alleged termination. In view of the failure of the workman to discharge the burden of proving that he worked for 240 days prior to the alleged date oftermination, the provisions of section 25 - F of the Act are not applicable . The workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management namely Sub Area Manager, Wirur Sub Area of WCL , PO: Wirur (Ballarpur Area of WCL) , Distt . Chandrapur in discontinuing the services of Shri Laxman Kallepellia, Ex- casual Mazdoor of Wirur Sub Area is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled for any relief.

7.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union representative that the workman was working from January 1993 to May 1994 and he had completed more than 240 days of attendance on payment of Rs . 15 per day and the oral evidence adduced by the workman clearly shows thatthe workman worked from January 1993 to May 1994 continuously and as such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2898.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पी.जी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध 8. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative ofthe management that the workman was engaged orally from 26-6-1993 to May 1994 occasionally as a part time worker on payment of Rs . 15 per day and he had not completed 240days of work during the year 1993 and 1994 and as such , he is not entitled for any relief. In support of such contentions reliance was placed by the management 7518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण संख्या 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 126/2004- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

workman submitted his joining report on 16-2-1999, hewas not allowed to join on one pretext or the other and subsequently his termination order dated 20-4-1999/27-4- 1999 was handed over to him . He has challenged his termination on the grounds that he was never conveyed the rejection of his leave application , proper procedure was not followed in terminating his services, he was not served with any charge sheet , he was not given any opportunity to defend, he was not informed about the enquiry and the punishment order is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and is discriminatory. To deprive himfrom the pension rights is also illegal. He has prayed for setting aside of the punishment order and for reinstatement with continuity in service and full backwages along with interest .

S.O. 2898. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofPGI , and their workman , received by the Central Government , on20-9-2011.

[No. L-42012/ 126/2004- IR( CM- II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

Case No.I.D.92/2005

Registered on 17-5-2005

Shri Gurcharan Singh , S/o Shri Mota Singh, R/ o House No. 1833 , Block-K, Burail Labour Colony No. 5 , Sector 45,Chandigarh ...Applicant

Versus

The Director, PGI , Sector- 12 Chandigarh ... Respondent

The claim was contested by the respondent and it was denied that the workman had applied for leave. It was submitted that the workman had been charge sheeted vide Memo No. E II (3) PGI - 98 /12260-61 dated 28-10-1998 for remaining willfully absent from the duty w.e.f. 20-5-1998 onwards.The workman did not submit any written statement inhis defence. Therefore the disciplinary authority ordered for regular enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. As per the rules a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman but the same was received back from the postal authority undelivered. The disciplinary authority afterconsidering the enquiry report and other facts ofthe case awarded the major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect . According to the respondent the termination order of the workman is legal and according to rules and regulations .

APPEARANCES :

Fortheworkman :

Shri D. R. Kaith , Advocate

Shri N.K.Zakhmi , Advocate

For the Management :

AWARD

Insupport ofhis case the workman filed his affidavit with a copy of leave application and of punishment order. While on behalf of the management the affidavit of Sh . H.R. Sharma Senior Administrative Officer of the respondent was filed.

(Passed on Dated: 6th September, 2011)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/ 126-2004- IR (CM - II) ) Dated 13-4-2005 by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub- Section ( 1) Clause ( d) and Sub- section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

I have heard learned counsel for the workman and perused the written arguments also filed on behalf of workman. No written arguments were submitted by the management despite opportunity given to his counsel on 7-12-2010 . However some case law submitted earlier, by the learned counsel for the management , is available on record.

"Whether the action of the management of PGI , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh.Gurcharan Singh , Guard w.e.f. 27-4-1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Annexure W2 of the affidavit of the management witness shows that the workman was removed from service on the charge of remaining willfully absent from duty. The disciplinary authority considered the charge proved against theworkman on the basis of the enquiry conducted against theworkman.

The workman was duly selected and appointed as Chowkidarunder the respondent working since 31-10-1981 . According to the claim statement the workman had applied for leavewithout pay w.e.f.19-5-1998 to 15-12-1999 . He had submitted his application to his immediate officer , the SecurityOfficer. After completion of leave period when the

The question is whether punishment was awarded to the workman after holding a proper and fair enquiry according to the principles of natural justice . As per law laid down in Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another 2000 ILLJ 7519 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1. Sh . NR Sajid Vs. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation 2007 LLR 1176 .

1630 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the essentials of the principles ofnatural justice are:-

2: UB . Gadhe and others Vs. GM . Gujarat Ambuja Cement Pvt. Ltd. 2007 LLR 1178 .

1.Workman should know the nature of the complaint oraccusation.

2. He must have a opportunity to state his case .

3. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishwarchand Tarachand Jain and another 2007 LLR 1216.

3. The management should act in good faithwhich means that the action of management should be fair, legal and just .

All thesedecisions are on the punishment or modification of the punishment. In the present case since the enquiry was not held properly and according to the principles of natural justice the punishment order passed on the basis of an invalid enquiry is invalid and non-est.

The enquiry report mentions that on his remaining absent the workman was asked to join duty vide Memo No. E II (3 ) PGI/98/4311-12 dated 16-7-1998 andMemoNo. E II (3 ) PGI/98 /5199 dated 31-7-1998 . These letters were sentunder registered cover but, received back undelivered .

Itwill not be out of place to mention here that none ofthe parties had ever pressed in this case that the issue of fairness of enquiry should be decided first , nor the respondent pleaded that in case the enquiry is not held proper and fair he must be given an opportunity to prove the charges levelled against the workman.

Since the enquiry on which the impugned punishment order is based has been held to be non-est , the workman is entitled to be treated in continuous service till he reached the age of superannuation . The period ofhis absence from duty should be treated as leave without pay.

Theworkman was charge sheeted vide Memo No. E II (3) PGI/98/ 12260-61 dated 28-10-1998 and he was informed that an enquiry would be held against him and he was directed to submit his written statement in defence within 10 days . But the charge sheet was also received back undelivered. Thereafter the workman was warned vide letter No. CTU/98/ 800/411 dated 23-12-1998 under registeredAD that if he tails to appear in the enquiry it will be held ex- parte against him. But that letter too was received back undelivered. Since the workman did not appear hence , the enquiry proceeded ex parte . The punishment orders also shows that a copy of enquiry report sent to the workman were also received back undelivered. It is thus clear that workman had no knowledge of the charges levelled against him nor he had any knowledge about the enquiry proceedings . Obviously, he did not have the opportunity to defend himself.

Herea question arises - what should be treated as the period of absence from duty . Admittedly, the workman absented from 20-5-1998 . He has stated in his claim statement as well as in his affidavit (Para 2 and 3) that he had submitted his joining report on 16-2-1999, but he was notallowed tojoin on one pretext or the other and ultimately was handed over the punishment order dated 20/27-4-1999.

Surprisingly the respondent did not controvert in its written statement or in the affidavit of its witness that the workman had submitted his joining report on 16-2-1999 and he had not been allowed to join . The workman was not cross-examined either on this point . It will therefore be proper and fair to treat the workman absent till 15-2-1999 . Thus his absence from duty was from 20-5-1998 to 15-2- 1999. It is to be treated on leave without pay for this period.

The learned counsel for workman has cited the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar AIR 1998 SC 2722 in which itwas held that if the registered cover containing charge sheet is returned with endorsement " not found" then the document cannot legally be treated to have been served on employee . Authorities should have made further effort to serve it . Actual service is essential since delinquent has to submit his reply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that since very initiation disciplinary proceedings was bad as charge sheet was not served , all subsequent steps including issuance of show cause notice would be bad.

I think order for payment of 50 per cent of back wages for the remaining period of his service will be proper under the circumstances .

In another case submitted by the learned counsel for the workman Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. Union of India 1996 ( 2 ) SCT 522 show cause notice sent to the delinquent bypost had returned unserved with the remark ' left without giving address ' , none of his family members had given his address and , no other effort had been made to serve notice . It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Enquiry Officer was not justified in proceeding ex parte . Enquiry suffered from procedural infirmity and order of dismissal passed on the basis of such an invalid enquiry is invalid and non -est .

From the above going discussion it is clear that the action of the management of PGI in terminating the service ofthe workman is not legal and justified and is non-est . Workman is entitled to be treated in continuous service till he reached the age of superannuation. The period of his absence from duty from 20-5-1998 to 15-2-1999 will be treated as leave without pay. He is entitled to receive 50 per cent of the back wages for the remaining period of his service . Reference is accordingly answered in favour of the workman . Let two copies of the Award be send to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer Onbehalfofmanagement the following case law has been submitted:-

3708 GI/2011-13 7520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Eastern Zone) , All India Radio and Televisions , Akashvani Bhawan, 4th Floor , Kolkata- 700001 in terminating the services of Sh. Subodh Mondal , S/o Shri Ajit Mondal, Ex - Casual Labour at Cossipore Godown is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned worknfan is entitled?" का.आ. 2899.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑल इंडिया रेडियो और टीवी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-09-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/212/2004- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th September , 2011

S.O. 2899. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of All India Radio & Televisions, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20-09-2011 .

[No. L-42012/212/2004- IR (CM - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 31 of 2005

2.As per written statement of claim , the workman wasworking as casual worker in the office ofthe Assistant Station Director, Cossipore under the ChiefEngineer (EZ), All India Radio and Television and he worked as such for 204days from1-1-1991 to 31-12-1991 , for 238 days from 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1992 and for 223 days from 1-1-1993 to 11-8-1993 . Subsequently the service of the workman was discontinued without serving any notice thereto nor any paywas paid in lieu of such notice . The workman filed one application before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Kolkata Bench which was registered as O.A. No. 236 of 1994 and which was subsequently disposed of with the observation that the application was filed in a wrong forum with further observation that it may be filed in the proper forum as per law and thereafter the present reference has come up. It is stated that the statutory obligation at the time of retrenchment by way of service of notice of termination or to make payment of pay in lieu thereof and payment ofcompensation have not been performed by the management and thereby the workman concerned claimed that his retrenchment was bad in law for non- compliance ofthe provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.1947.

Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofAll India Radio and Televisions And TheirWorkman

Present: MR . JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe Management

: Mr. Ashok Chakraborty , Ld .Advocate with Ms. T. Das , Ld . Advocate .

: Mrs. R. Basu , Ld . Advocate

Onbehalf ofthe Workmen

State: West Bengal Industry: Radio and Televisions .

Dated, 9th September , 2011

AWARD

By Order No.L - 42012/212/ 2004- IR( CM - II ) dated 4-8-2005 and corrigendum ofeven number dated 11-8-2011 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 ) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial

3. The management establishment being All India Radio and Television submitted its written reply stating thatthe workman concerned was an ex - casual labour under itand his service was not required after 11-8-1993 since the amount of work in the management was reduced so much that in the interest of public service and to reduce the Government exchequer, the service of the workman was discontinued. The management side has stated that there were 39 casual workers in the Cossipore Godown of the management and that was in gross excess of actual requirement which was sufficient with 20 such casual labourers on need basis for miscellaneous work against daily wage and, accordingly, keeping the first 20 persosn in engagement , the lower serial of 19 workers were disengaged and among those 19 workers , the workman was one them. The management side considered that the workman concerned was a daily wage or casual labourer and as such no provision , according to it, for observation ofthe mandatory provision under Section 25F of the Act . It is further stated that appointment letters are generally issued only to the employees selected and appointed in the regular post of the establishment following recruitment procedure and not to the casual workers . The 7521 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

management side also alleged that the classification oftheir establishment as an ' industry' and also the workman ofthe present reference as a ' workman ' are not in the strict sense ofthe statute. The management has further stated that after the amendment of 1971 Act , payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice is not mandatory in respect of the disengagement of the present workman nor there is any provision for payment of compensation to such worker as claimed. Management side has stated that the claim ofthe workman concerned is stale and also it was belated one and demanded dismissal ofthe reference .

4.A rejoinder , as usual has been filed on behalf of the workman concerned raising no new issue but it was in the style of reiteration of the story already made in the written statement of claim and so detail mention of the contents is not needed thereof.

5. In the present reference a simple question has been raised in the schedule of the reference to decide whether the termination of the workman , Shri Subhas Chatterjee , a casual under the management from his service was legal or justified. Admittedly, the workman concerned was a casual labour and there is no denial from the side of the management that he was so engaged as a casual labour 11-08-1993 on which date he was disengaged. Since the management felt that the amount of work became reduced to such a level that in the interest of public service , engagement of this worker was not needed to reduce the wastage ofmoney from the Government exchequer.

concerned actually worked for 240 days or more in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination. If thedescription of the number of days in the pleadings of the respective parties are taken up for such consideration, it is found that the workman concerned has claimed that heworked for 139 days up to 11-8-1993 as per description inthe pleading and if the ratio- wise counting is taken up inrespect ofthe number of days , the workman worked in the year 1992, it may be presumed whether the workman concerned worked for 240 days till before he was terminated or disengaged. Employer side stated that the workman concerned worked up to 11-08-1993 , though no material is forthcoming from the side of the employer about the dates of his engagement under the employer. Ratio- wise counting may be done in the present case with a presumption of ascertaining the number of days work of the workman concerned in preceding 12 calendar months ofthe date termination of his termination and in that case, ifthe admitted date of termination ofthe workman is taken up for consideration as 11-08-1993, then one - third portion of work done by the workman in the year 1992 just preceding start of 1993 up to 12th August, 1992 totalling 12calendar months up to 11-8-1993, it will be seen that the workman has worked for around 79 days in the ending part of 1992to form the period of 12 calendar months ending on 11-8-1993 . If the said number of days of work by this workman in year 1992 is taken up then it will be found that theworkman concerned has worked up to 218 (79 + 139) till before 11-8-1993 as description of the number ofdays , has been given by the workman himself in paragraph 1 of hiswritten statement of claim . Practically, the contents of paragraph 1 ofthe written statement of claim, has not been denied from the side of the employer. Acting upon such a situation of ascertaining the number ofdays the workman concerned has worked in the year 1992, it is found that the number of days till before his date of termination never comes to 240 days to qualify the present workman to call his terminationby the employer on 11-08-1993 to be illegal.

6. The workman claimed that he was engaged by the management from 1-1-1991 and he continued to work throughout the entire year of 1991 and 1992 ending on 11-8-1993 and thereby the workman claimed that he worked for more than 204 days which qualified him to claim his termination as being illegal as per provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since the mandatory provision before his retrenchment was not complied with by the management by way of issuing of notice of termination to him and paying him wages and compensation amount . I find, the management side, though did not disclose as to from which date the workman was engaged by it as a casual labour, ultimately admitted that he worked for the management as a casual labour till before he was terminated on 11-8-1993 .

9. The legislature has provided in Sections 25F and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 specific eligibility ofthe workman to claim notice , pay and compensation at the time of termination as 240 days work in the preceding 12calendar months just before the date of termination and not less . So , no- compliance of such service of notice or pay and compensation will not qualify the order of termination to give any redress to the workman concerned.

10. In such a position, in absence ofproper evidence thereto , I am unable to hold that the termination of the workman was illegal and unjustified on the part of the employer, All India Ratio and Televisions , Kolkata and so the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief in the present reference .

AnAward is passed accordingly.

7. Burden to prove the working for more tban 240 days , in view of the provision of Section 25F of the Act lies upon the workman who claimed to have worked for such number of days . But, when the management has not denied the engagement of the workman concerned under itas casual worker till before he was terminated on 11-08-1993 and has not specifically disputed the specific period of time of his working under the management as stated by the workman , such burden of proof of work for 240 days shifts upon the management to show that he worked for less than 240 days and is not qualified to get the benefits ofthe mandatory provision under Section 25F of the Act .

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata, the 9th September , 2011

8.Unfortunately no document is forthcoming from either side about the number of days this workman worked under the employer to ascertain whether the workman 7522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

AWARD

This is a reference under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

2. The reference is :

का.आ. 2900.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. एक्सपोर्ट इंस्पेक्शन एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अरनाकुलम , कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-09-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Export Inspection Agency in termination the services of their workman Smt . A. Subaida w.e.f. 15-02-2008 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

[सं. एल-42012/7/2009- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2900.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2009 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam , Cochin as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Export Inspection Agency and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-09-2011 .

[No. L-42012/7/2009 -IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri . D. Sreevallabhan , B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

Tuesday the 30th day ofAugust, 2011 / 8th Bhadrapada, 1933)

I.D. No. 19/2009

Workman : Smt. A.Subaida , Kattanganezhathu Parambu , Nambiapuram Road, Palluruthy, Kochi (Kerala) -6.

ByAdv. Shri T.A. Rajan .

Management : TheDirector, Export InspectionAgency, 3rd Floor, NDYMCA , Cultural CentreBuilding, 1st Jai Singh Road, New Delhi - 110001 .

By Adv. Shri T. Saji .

This case coming up for final hearing on 9-8-2011 andthis Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 30-8-2011 passed thefollowing.

3. The allegations in the claim statement , in brief, are thatthe workman Smt. Subaida was engaged as a Sweeper on 26-07-1988 for sweeping and washing works in the laboratory under the Deputy Director, Export Inspection Agency, Kochi and since then she has been in continuous service without any break. Initially she was given a consolidated pay of Rs . 200 per mensem and the same was increased from time to time to Rs . 750 per mensem . Sri Karunakaran and Smt . Kurumbakutty were working as permanent sweepers in the laboratory. Karunakaran died and Kurumbakutty was transferred from the laboratory. Hence she was doing the whole sweeping and washing works in the laboratory. Several representations were made byher for regularizing her service and also for enhancing the wages. Instead of regularizing her service the Deputy Director, Inspection Agency, Kochi made a threat of terminating her from service and hence she approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 1657/2008 challenging the proposed move to terminate her from service and also for a direction to regularize her in service . It was disposed of on 15-1-2008 by allowing her to make a fresh representation before the Deputy Director, Inspection Agency, Kochi and he was directed to forward the same along with his remarks to the Joint Director, Inspection Agency, Kochi . In pursuance of the direction she had submitted a representation . Immediately on receipt of the representacion she was terminated from service on 15-02-2008 and another person from a private agency was appointed in her place . Hence she filed Writ Petition (C) 6502/2008 challenging the termination of service and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 1-4-2008. directing the management to consider the termination of service while considering her claim for regularisation . Afterwards her representation for regularisation was rejected by the management by order dated 28-04-2008 . The termination of service ofthe worker is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and also in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Export Inspection Agency is an " industry" and the worker is a "workman" as per the provisions of the IndustrialDisputes Act. She was in continuous service without any break from 26-07-1988 to 15-02-2008 and hence the termination without compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal . She was terminated from service as a vengeance for 7523 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

Whether the termination of the services of the workman by the management is legal and justified and if not what relief she is entitled to ?

claiming regularisation by submitting representations . The engagement ofanother worker from a private agency for a much higher wages ofRs . 2500 per mensem in her place is against S.25 - H of the I.D. Act . The termination can only be by retrenchment under Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act. The termination as such is illegal and hence she prays for reinstating her with all consequential benefits including backwages and continuity of service.

8. The Point : In order to answer the reference it is mainly to be considered whether the worker comes within the purview ofthe definition of " workman " under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act . Even though there is the specific allegation in the claim statement that she was engaged as a Sweeper on 26-7-1988 and was in continuous service until termination on 15-2-2008 there is only an evasive denial of the same in the written statement without making any mention of the date of the engagement as a sweeper in the establishment of the management . From Ext.Wl it can be seen that request was made by her for regularisation on 13-8-1992 stating that she was working there as a temporary sweeper from 26th July, 1988. In the reply given to Ext .Wl on 7th October 1992 , copy ofwhich isExt .W2 , it is seen to have been informed that her case for regular appointment can be considered along with others as and when vacancy arises in future. She again made a representation for regularisation on 23-3-1998, copy of which was marked as Ext . W3 , stating that she was working as temporary sweeper from 26-7-1988 . Wage increase is seento have been sought for by her by making representations marked as Exts . W4 to W6 . From Exts.M 1 to M3 it can be seen that the sweeping charges were enhanced pursuant to her representations . From Ext.M4 series it can be seen that monthly wages was paid to her in a lump after deducting the proportionate wages for the days of non attendance of duty.

9. It is the case of the management that she was not appointed as Part Time Sweeper in a regular post and she was engaged as a causal labourer for two hours a day. It is falsified by Ext.M2 wherein she is stated to have been engaged in the morning session for sweeping and cleaning work and also through the other evidence in this case . Anyhow there cannot be any dispute as to the fact that she was engaged for sweeping work by the management by making payment of wages on monthly basis.

10. Whether such a worker is to be treated as a "workman" under section 2 ( s) of the I.D.Act requires consideration in view ofthe contention raised in the written statement . S.2 (s ) reads thus :

4.Management filed written statement denying the allegations in the claim statement and stating that it was filed without revealing the actual facts and also suppressing several material facts . It is contended that she was not working continuously as a sweeper under the management from 26-7-1988 without any break of service . She was engaged on day - to - day basis for cleaning as and when required and that too for two hours in a day by making payment on proportionate basis . She was not appointed in any regular vacancy. There is no regular vacancy of Sweeper in the establishment ofthe management . Since all the recruitment and other conditions etc. of the employees in Export Inspection Agency are governed by the provisions of statutory rules she isnot entitled to be regularized in service . No threat was made by the Deputy Director , Export Inspection Agency about her termination from service . She has not got 19 years of service. The establishement where she was working was shifted from Thoppumpady to Panampillynagar and thereafter her service was not required since an agency was entrusted with the sweeping work as per the policy decision of Government of India. There is no question of termination of service of the worker as she was never been appointed under the management . No other person was appointed in her place for cleaning the laboratory. She is not a workman as defined in the I.D. Act , 1947 and hence S.25 - F of the Act is not applicable in her case . As the management is a statutory body established under Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act 1963 and the recruitment and appointments are regulated by statutory rules, the concept of " industry " to that extent stands excluded . As she was only a temporary worker working on daily wages her disengagement from service cannot be construed to be retrenchment under the I.D. Act . The claim of the worker is not sustainable and hence she is not entitled to any relief.

5.After filing the written statement a rejoinder was filed by the workman denying the contentions put forward bythe management and reaffirming the allegations in the claim statement .

6. Evidence was adduced from both sides for the purpose of deciding this reference and it consists of the depositions of WW1 , MW1 , Exts . W1 to W- 10 and M1.to M4 series .

"Workman " means any person ( including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled , technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dismissed , discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute , but does not include any such person- 7. The point for determination is:

7524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of1950), or the ArmyAct, 1950 (46 of 1950) , orthe NavyAct, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) who , being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him , functions mainly of a managerial nature . "

11.A careful consideration of the definition of "Workman" shows that any person ( including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual ,unskilled, skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward falls within the scope ofthe definition of workman irrespective ofthe fact that there is no written contract of employment. The source off recruitment of the employee , nomenclature and status of the post on which he is appointed and the mode of payment of wages are not very much relevant for determining whether or not an employee falls within the definition of workman .

12. Every person employed in an industry to do manual , unskilled , skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward is covered by the definition of workman under S. 2( s) of the Act unless his case falls within any of the exceptions enumerated in that Section. It is not at all relevant that the employee is engaged against a regular/permanent/ temporary post or he is paid as a daily- wager or as a casual worker or is employed on part - time basis . Even if he is not appointed against a sanctioned post, the employee would be treated asa workman if the ingredients enumerated in S. 2( s ) are present in his employment .

13. In several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts it was held that Part-time , causal or seasonal labourer will all come within the purview of S. 2(s). ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v . Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments AIR 1974 S.C. 37 , L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway , AIR 1982 SC 854 , State ofV.P. v. Rajendra Singh Butola and another, 2000 (9) SCC 501 , Rajaram Rokde v. Shriram Chintaman Warkar, 1977 Lab I.C. 1594 , Govindbhai Kanabhai Maru v. N.K. Desai 1988 Lab . I.C. 505 , Yashwant Singh Yadav v . State of Rajasthan 1991-1 - LLJ - 501 , Municipal Board Partapgarh v. Labour Court , Bhilwara 2003 Lab . I.C. 528 , Simla Devi v . PresidingOfficer, Labour Court , Bhatinda 1997-1 - LLJ - 788 (P&H) are some of the decisions to which reference can be

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] madeto hold that a part time or casual labour is a workman coming under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act .

14. Here in this case the workman was engaged by the management bank as a part time sweeper for a very long time paying monthly wages and there is sufficient reason tohold that she will come within the purview ofthe definition of" workman " in Section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act .

15. Such a workman can be terminated from service onlyby complying with the mandatory requirements under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act . Management has no case that she was not in continuous service of 240 days within the period of one year before termination . From Ext . M4 series it can be clearly seen that she had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of termination .

16.Abare reading of S. 25 - F of the Act shows that retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) of the Act must satisfy the following requirements:

(i) that the workman has been given one month's notice: ( a) in writing , and (b ) indicating the reasons fort retrenchment ;

(ii) that the retrenchement must take effect after theexpiry ofperiod of notice i.e. one month or else the workman should be paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period ofthe notice;

(iii) that at the time of retrenchment the worker has been paid compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months ; and

(iv) that the notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or on the specified authority as notified.

17. In the decision reported in Pramod Jha and Others v. State of Bihar and Others ( 2003 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 619 itwas held that compliance with clauses (a) and (b ) of S.25- F is mandatory and compliance with clause ( c) is directory for which substantial compliance would be enough .

18. Section 25 - F of the Act is applicable in the case of the workman in this case . Neither any notice as contemplated under Section 25 - F of the Act was served to her nor she was paid compensation in lieu of the said notice . No ' retrenchment compensation was also paid . It cannot be said that the provisions of S. 25 - F of the Act were duly complied with . It has been time and again held by the Apex Court that the non compliance of the mandatory provisions of S. 25 - F of the Act would render the termination of service void ab nitio . In one amongst those decisions reported in Mohanlal v. M/ s . Bharat [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Electronics Ltd. , ( 1981 ) 3 SCC 225 the Apex Court has categorically held that the termination of service without compliance of the mandatory requirements of S. 25 -F cannot be treated as valid retrenchment for termination of service.

19.Afutile attempt was made by the learned counsel for the management to substantiate the contention that there are statutory rules for recruitment and as to conditions of service and hence the Export Inspection Agency cannot be treated as an industry to that extent . There is no specific contention in the written statement thatthe management is not an industry coming within the purview of the definition under Section 2(j ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Maintainability of the reference is also not challenged based on any such reason. No evidence was adduced to prove that the Export InspectionAgency is not an industry. Even in the proof affidavit filed by MW1 there is no whisper that Export Inspection Agency is not an industry even for any limited purpose . It has come out in evidence that the management is engaged in commercial activity. Hence it can be found that Export Inspection Agency is an industry coming within the purview of Section 2 (j ) of the said Act. It cannot be said that it is not an industry for certain purposes .

20. It is after submitting the original of Ext .W8 representation dated 11-2-2008 by the workman for regularisation pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in Ext .W7 judgment she was terminated from service w.e.f. 15-2-2008 without any compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act . The case put forward by the management that engagement of another agency for sweeping and cleaning work as per the policy decision of Government of India is not substantiated by adducing any reliable . evidence . No valid reason is made out for the sudden termination of service of the workman immediately after the submission of the representation for regularisation. For the reasons stated above it is found that the termination of service of the workman w.e.f. 15-2-2008 is unjust and illegal .

21.As it is found that the retrenchment is illegal it is tobe considered whether she is to be reinstated or monitory compensation would meet the ends of justice in lieu of reinstatement. Relief of reinstatement should not be automatically given in every case of retrenchment in violation of S. 25 - F. It is to be considered based on the facts and circumstances in each case . Sudden provocation for retrenchment appears to be the filing of the O.P. in Ext. W7 case and the submission of representation dated 11-2-2008 for regularisation. It is immediately after submitting the representation she was terminated from service . It has come out in evidence that there is existence of vacancy in sweeper post . MW1 has stated during his cross examination that Karunakaran and Kurumbakutty

7525

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

were working as permanent sweepers and Karunakaran died in the year 1988 while he was in service and Kurumbakutty was transferred before 1988. It was further statedby him that those posts were not filled up with any regular hand . When a suggestion was put to him during hiscross examination that the workman in this case was in continuous service from 26-7-1988 up to the date of termination of service on 15-2-2008 he pretended ignorance and stated that he is not aware whether she was in continuous service during that period . She is seen to have beenterminated from service without any valid reason . Taking into consideration of the entire facts and circumstances in this case it can be treated as a fit case for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and continuity of service . There is no case that she was having any employment after termination from service . Hence she is to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages @ Rs.750 per mensem .

In the result an award is passed finding that the termination of the workman Smt . A. Subaida w.e.f. 15-2-2008 is not legal and justifiable and directing the management to reinstate her with continuity of service and back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement .

The award will come into force one month after its publication inthe official gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typedby her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th day ofAugust , 2011 .

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman

WWI - A. Subaida , Workman .

Witness for the Management

MWI - E. Krishna Potti , Deputy Director , Export Inspection Agency, Kochi.

Exhibits for the Workman

WI Photocopy of the representation dated 13-8-1992 submitted by the worker to the Director ( I & Q/ C), Export Inspection Council of India , NewDelhi .

W2 - Photocopy of letter dated 7-10-1992 ofthe Joint Director, Export Inspection Agency, Cochin to theworkman.

W3- Photocopy of the representation dated 23-3-1998 submitted by the worker to the Director (I & Q/ C) , Export Inspection Council ofIndia , New Delhi .

W4 Photocopy of the representation dated 2-3-2005 submitted by the worker to the Director ( I & Q / C),Export Inspection Council of India , New Delhi .

7526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

W5 - Photocopy of the representation dated 7-2-2001submitted by the worker to the Joint Director, EIA, Cochin.

W6- Photocopy of the representation dated 1-5-2007 submitted by the worker to the Joint Director, EIA, Kochi .

W7 - Photocopy of the judgment dated 15-1-2008 in W.P. (C) No. 1657 of2008 (V) ofthe Hon'ble High Court ofKerala.

W8- Photocopy of the representation dated 11-2-2008 Submitted by the worker to the Deputy Director, EIA, Kochi .

W9 - Photocopy of the judgment dated 1-4-2008 in W.P. (C) No. 6502/2008 (Y) of the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala .

W10- Photocopy of the letter dated 28-4-2008 of the JointDirector, Export Inspection Agency, Kochi .

Exhibits for the Management

MI Photocopy of the Letter No.CN/ADMN/ III (21 )2001 dated 15-2-2001 addressed to the DeputyDirector-in-charge , EIA, Cochin by the DeputyDirector.

M2 Office note No. EIA: CN : TL: ADMN : 1 : 2001- 02/1157 dated 6-11-2001 regarding the enhancement of wages of Contingent Sweepers.

M3 Letter No.ADMN/ III ( 21 ) 2001-2002/10963- 10965 dated 22-3-2002 addressed to the Deputy Director/Assistant Director, Export Inspection Agency, Cochin by the Joint Director- in-charge .

M4 The wage slip/voucher dated 31-1-2004 for the receipt of Rs.575 as wages for the month of January, 2004.

M4(a) The wage slip/voucher dated 1-3-2004 for the receipt of Rs . 555 as wages for the month of February, 2004.

M4 (b) The wage slip/voucher dated 5-4-2004 for the receipt of Rs . 575 as wages for the month of March, 2004.

M4(c) The wage slip/voucher dated 1-7-2004 for the receipt of Rs . 625 as wages for the month of June, 2004 .

M4(d) Thewage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt of Rs . 625 as wages for the month of July, 2004.

M4(e) The wage slip/voucher dated 4-10-2004 for the receipt of Rs . 625 as sweeping charges for the month ofSeptember, 2004.

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] M4(f) The wage slip/voucher dated 30-11-2004 for the receipt of Rs . 625 as sweeping charges for the month of November, 2004.

M4(g) Thewage slip /voucher dated 3-1-2005 for the receipt of Rs . 625 as sweeping charges for themonth of December, 2004.

M4(h) Thewage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt ofRs.625 as sweeping charges for the month ofJanuary, 2005.

M4(i) The wage slip/voucher dated 1-3 . -005 for the receipt of Rs . 625 as sweeping charges for the month ofFebruary, 2005.

M4(j) The wage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt of Rs.625 as sweeping charges for the month ofMarch , 2005 .

M4(k) The wage slip/voucher dated 30-5-2005 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as sweeping charges for themonth ofMay, 2005 .

M4(1) The wage slip/voucher dated 1-7-2005 for the receipt ofRs.750 as sweeping charges for the month of June , 2005.

M4(m) Thewage slip/voucher dated 2-8-2005 for the receipt of Rs. 750 as sweeping charges forthe month of July, 2005 .

M4(n) The wage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt of Rs.750 as sweeping charges for the month ofAugust, 2005.

M4(0) The wage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt ofRs.750 as sweeping charges for the month ofSeptember , 2005.

M4(p) The wage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt ofRs.750 as sweeping charges for the month ofOctober , 2005.

M4(q) The wage slip/voucher dated 30-11-2005 for the receipt of Rs.750 as sweeping charges for the month of November, 2005.

M4(r) The wage slip/voucher dated 2-1-2005 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as sweeping charges for the month ofDecember, 2005.

M4(s) The wage slip/voucher dated 31-1-2006 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as sweeping charges for . the month of January, 2006 .

M4(t) The wage slip/voucher dated 3-4-2006 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as sweeping charges forthe month ofMarch , 2006.

M4(u) Thewage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt of Rs.750 as charges for cleaning the Lab premises for the month ofApril , 2006.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

M4(v) Thewage slip/ voucher dated 3-6-2006 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for sweeping the laboratorypremises for the month ofMay, 2006.

M4(w) The wage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt ofRs.750 as charges for sweeping the Lab premises for the month of June, 2006.

M4(x) Thewage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt of Rs . 726 as charges for cleaning the Lab premises for the month of July, 2006.

M4(y) The wage slip /voucher dated 3-8-2006 for the receipt of Rs.750 as charges for cleaning the Lab premises for the month ofAugust, 2006.

M4(z) The wage slip /voucher dated nil for the receipt ofRs.750 as sweeping charges for the month ofSeptember, 2006 .

M4(aa) Thewage slip/voucher dated nil for the receipt of Rs . 677 as sweeping charges for the month ofOctober, 2006.

M4(ab) Thewage slip/voucher dated 2-12-2006 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for cleaning the Laboratory premises for the month of November, 2006 .

M4(ac) The wage slip/voucher dated 1-1-2007 for the receipt ofRs . 750 as charges for sweeping the Laboratory premises for the month of December, 2006.

M4(ad) The wage slip/voucher dated 1-2-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for sweeping the Laboratory premises for the month of January, 2007.

M4(ae) The wage slip/voucher dated 3-7-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for sweeping the Laboratory premises for the month of February,2007.

M4(af) The wage slip/voucher dated 3-4-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for sweeping the Laboratory premises for the month of March, 2007.

M4(ag) The wage slip/voucher dated 3-5-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for sweeping the Laboratory premises for the month of April, 2007.

M4(ah) The wage slip/voucher dated 2-6-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for sweeping the Laboratory premises for the month of May, 2007.

M4(ai) The wage slip/voucher dated 3-7-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for cleaning the Laboratorypremises for the month ofJune , 2007.

3708 GI /2011-14

7527

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

M4(aj) The wage slip/voucher dated 3-8-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for cleaning the Laboratory premises for the month of July, 2007.

M4(ak) The wage slip/voucher dated 3-9-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for cleaning the Laboratory premises for the month ofAugust, 2007.

M4(al) The wage slip/voucher dated 4-10-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for cleaning the Laboratory premises for the month of September, 2007.

M4(am) The wage slip/voucher dated 2-11-2007 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as charges for cleaning the Laboratorypremises for the month ofOctober, 2007.

M4(an) The wage slip/voucher dated 30-11-2007 for the receipt ofRs . 750 as charges for sweeping the Laboratory premises for the month of November, 2007.

M4(ao) The wage slip /voucher dated 8-1-2008 for the receipt of Rs . 750 as sweeping charges for the month of December , 2007 . नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2901.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40011 /39/2007- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011 S.O. 2901.-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) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on20-9-2011 .

[No. L-40011/39/2007 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

7528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 12th day ofAugust , 2011 Industrial Dispute No. 61/2007 Between:

Sri T.V. RamanaMurthy,

District Secretary,

National Federation of Telecom Employees , 24-25-40, Durgapuram,

Vijayawada- 520 003.

.... Petitioner AND

TheGeneral Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ,

BSNL Bhawan, Chuttugunta,

Vijayawada - 520 002.

..Respondent Appearances:

Forthe Petitioner :

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Department ofTelecom who are covered by the One Time Bound Promotion Scheme may be allowed option to dray pay inbasic (original ) cadre , if it is advantageous to them. Such officials who opt for such OTBP scale of basic cadre will never, continue to work in the existing cadre such as Transmission Assistant, wireless operator etc. Petitioner further submitted that under OTBP scheme the persons who have completed 16 years of service are eligible to such promotion and Petitioner is eligible to such promotion in the year 1997 as he has completed 16 years of service, but he wasnot informed ofhis eligibility for the same. Petitioner is not aware of the rules thoroughly. Petitioner made representations to the Respondent after knowing about the circulars but he was informed after 41½ years that his request for promotion under OTBP scheme in the basic cadre is regretted due to belated submission ofthe option . Petitioner further states that one Sri J. Sanker Babu, Phone Inspector's case was considered for the same though he made belated option. Hence, he prays to direct that Respondent to consider the option exercised by the Petitioner and to grant pay and allowances from 1997 onwards .

M/s . V. Venkateswara Rao & U.

Kalyani , Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s . M. C. Jacob & K. Ajay Kumar,

Advocates

AWARD

TheGovernment of India , Ministry ofLabourby its orderNo. L-40011/39/2007- IR (DU) dated 1-11-2007 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workman. The term of reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ofthe management ofBSNL in denying one Time Bound promotion in daftry cadre to Shri N. Venkateswarlu w.e.f. 1997 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 61/2007 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. Petitioner has filed claim statement stating therein that he was appointed on 16-4-1981 as Group 'D' non-test category and was promoted to Group ' D ' in test category on22-10-1981 and further promoted to Deftry on 1-10-1986. As per the letter No. TA/STA/9-1 /Rigs /VI dated 18-4-1991 , officials who have been promoted daftries from cadre covered under the OTBP scheme may be allowed to opt for the OTBP scale in the basic cadre in the terms of the instructions issued by the DOT- New Delhi provided other conditions set out therein are satisfied . It is submitted that officials in higher cadres ofGroup ' C ' and ' D ' of the 3. Counter statement has been filed by the Respondent management . It is stated by the Respondent that Petitioner has been appointed initially as Group D in the non -Test category and he was promoted as Daftry in the pay scale ofRs . 775-1025 w.e.f. 1-10-1986. Department has introduced One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) scheme to certian cadres in Group C and D in the Department by proceedings dated 17-12-1983 to overcome the stagnation . It was communicated to the officials by proceedings dated 20-11-1990 and the option should be exercised within six months from the date of issue of orders or the date of eligibility for the same in the basic cadre which ever is later and the option once exercised shall be final . Later by proceedings dated 14-3-1991 the case of the employees promoted as Daftries was examined by the Department and intimated that the officials who have been promoted as daftries from the cadres covered under the OTBP scheme may be allowed to opt for the OTBP scale in basic cadre in terms of the instructions issued dated 20-11-1990 provided all other conditions set out therein are satisfied. It is submitted that the Petitioner is due for OTBP on 16-4-1997 taking the 16 years of service in the basic cadre from 16-4-1981 and six months period expires on 15-10-1997 , but the Petitioner made representation on 24-4-2001 which was replied on 6-8-2001 , intimating that the request for OTBP cannot be entertained as the option is belated as such , the dispute raised by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

4. Petitioner's evidence was closed due to his absence . Respondent filed chief examination affidavit of Sri M. Panakala Rao who marked documents Ex . Ml to M7. Neither Petitioner nor his counsel appeared to cross examine Respondent's witness MW1 as such cross examination ofMW1 forfeited .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5. Petitioner called absent on the date of argument. There is none to argue the case and there is nothing onthe record in support of claim of the Petitioner and in absence ofthe evidence a ' Nil Award ' is passed Transmit .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 12th day of August , 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for theRespondent

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

MW1 : Sri M. Panakala Rao Nil

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Nil

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.M1 : Copy of letter dated 6/7-1-1984 along with the Time Bound Promotion Scheme

Ex. M2: Copy of letter dated 31-1-91

Ex.M3: Copy of Lr. No. TA/ STA/9-1 /Rlgs / VI dtd . 18-4-1991

Ex. M4: Copy of Lr. No. TA/ EST/ 1-1 /V CPC/97 /VII dtd. 2-5-2001

Ex. M5: Copy of OM No.5/ 1 /98 - IC- I dtd. 12-2-2001 Ex. M6: Copy of Lr . 1 VT/ 8T- 23 -OTBP/Gr D.RM/II/ 121 dtd. 6-8-2001 .

Ex. M7: Copy of Lr . No. VT/ST- 23/OTBP/Gr . D-RM/ II / 130 dtd. 30-4-2004

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2902.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-09-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40011/43/2007- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011 S.O. 2902.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their

7529

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

workman, which was received by the Central Government on20-09-2011.

[No. L-40011/43/2007- IR (DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 12th day of August , 2011

Industrial Dispute No. 65/2007

Between:

Sri T.V. RamanaMurthy,

District Secretary,

....Petitioner National Federation ofTelecom Employees , 24-25-40 , Durgapuram, Vijayawada - 520 003 .

AND

The General Manager ,

.....Respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , BSNL Bhawan , Chuttugunta , Vijayawada - 520 002. APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/s . V. Venkateswara Rao & U. Kalyani , Advocates

Forthe Respondent : M/s . M. C. Jacob & K. Ajay Kumar , Advocates

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L-40011 /43 /2007 -IR (DU) dated 30-11-2007 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workman . The term of reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of BSNL in not considering the option for one Time Bound promotion inDaftry cadre w.e.f. 1992 made by Shri N. Premaiah is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 65/2007 and notices were issued to the parties.

2.Petitioner has filed claim statement stating therein thathe was appointed on 23-3-1965 as Peon and Group ' D ' employee in non- test category and was promoted to Group 'D' in test category on 3-8-1966 and further promoted to Deftry on 13-10-1976 . As per the letter No. TA/ STA/ 9-1 / Rigs/VI Dated 18-4-1991 , officials who have been promoted 7530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ]

4. Petitioner's evidence was closed due to his absence. Respondent filed chief examination affidavit of SriM. Panakala Rao who marked documents Ex. Ml to M7. Neither Petitioner nor his counsel appeared to cross examine Respondent's witness MWI as such cross examination of MW1 forfeited.

5. Petitioner called absent on the date of argument. There is none to argue the case and there is nothing on the record in support of claim ofthe Petitioner and in absence ofthe evidence a ' Nil Award' is passed Transmit .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 12th day of August, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for theRetitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Nil

MW1 : Sri M. Panakala Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil

daftriesfrom cadre covered under the OTBP scheme may be allowed to opt for the OTBP scale in the basic cadre in the terms ofthe instructions issued by the DOT- New Delhi provided other conditions set out therein are satisfied. It is submitted that officials in higher cadres of Group ' C ' and 'D' of the Department of Telecom who are covered by the OneTime Bound Promotion Scheme may be allowed option to draw pay in basic ( original ) cadre , if it is advantageous to them. Such officials who opt for such OTBP scale of Hasic cadre will never , continue to work in the existing cadre such as Transmission Assistant , Wireless Operator etc. Petitioner further submitted that under OTBP scheme the persons who have completed 16 years of service are eligible to such promotion and Petitioner is eligible to such promotion inthe year 1992 as he has completed 16 years of service , but he was not informed of his eligibility for the me. Petitioner is not aware of the rules thoroughly. Petitioner made representations to the Respondent after Showing about the circulars but he was informed after 4/2 years that his request for promotion under OTBP scheme in the basic cadre in regretted due to belated submission of the option. Petitioner further states that one Sri J. Sanker Babu , Phone Inspector's case was considered for the same though he made belated option. Hence , he prays to direct that Respondent to consider the option exercised by the Petitioner and to grant pay and allowances from 1992 onwards .

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Copy of letter dated 6/7-1-1984 along with the Time Bound Promotion Scheme

Ex.M2: Copy of letter dated 31-1-91

Ex.M3: Copy of Lr . No. TA/EST/9-1 /Rigs /VI dtd . 18-4-1991

Ex . M4: Copy of Lr. No. TA/EST / 1-1 / V CPC/ 97 / VII dtd. 2-5-2001

Ex . M5: Copy ofOM No.5 /1 /98 - IC- 1 dtd. 12-2-2001

Ex. M6: Copy of Lr . No. VT/ 8T- 23 - OTBP/Gr . D.RM/ II/ 121 dtd. 6-8-2001 .

Ex. M7: Copy of Lr. No. VT/ST- 23/OTBP/Gr . Di8м/11/ 130 dtd.30-4-2004

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2903.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद केन्द्रीय सरकार में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-09-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

3. Counter statement has been filed by the Respondent management . It is stated by the Respondent thatPetitioner has been appointed initially as Group D in the non- test category and he was promoted as Daftry in the pay scale ofRs . 200-250 w.e.f. 13-10-1976. Department has introduced One Time Bound Promotion ( OTBP ) scheme to certian cadres in Group C and D in the Department by proceedings dated 17-12-1983 to overcome the stagnation. It was communicated to the officials by proceedings dated 20-11-1990 and the option should be exercised within six months from the date of issue of orders or the date of eligibility for the sade in the basic cadre which ever is later and the option once exercised shall be final . Later by proceedings dated 14-3-1991 the case of the employees promoted as Daftries was examinedby the Department and intimated that the officials who have been promoted as daftries from the cadres covered under the OTBP scheme may be allowed to opt for the OTBP scale in basic cadre in terms of the instructions issued dated 20-11-1990 provided all other conditions set out therein are satisfied . It is submitted that the Petitioner is due for OTBP on1-6-1981 taking the 16 years of service in the basic cadre from 1-6-1965 ( leaving the boy peon service ) and six months period expires on 13-9-1991 , but the Petitioner made representation on 27-11-2003 which was replied on 30-4-2004, intimating that the request for OTBP can not be entertained as the option is belated as such, the dispute raised by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

[सं. एल-40011 /42/2007- आईआर ( डीयू) ] जोहम तोपनो , अवर सचिव 7531 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

Promotion in Daftry Cadre w.e.f. 1992 made by Shri J.R. Koteswara Rao is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 64/2007 and notices were issued to the parties .

S.O. 2903.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-09-2011 .

[No. L-40011/42/2007- IR (DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 12th day of August, 2011

Industrial Dispute No. 64/2007

Between:

Sri T.V. Ramana Murthy,

District Secretary,

National Federation of Telecom Employees ,

24-25-40 , Durgapuram ,

.... Petitioner

Vijayawada - 520 003 .

AND

The General Manager,

Bharat Sachar Nigam Ltd. ,

BSNL Bhawan , Chuttugunta ,

..Respondent

Vijayawada - 520 002 .

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/s . V. Venkateswara Rao and U. Kalyani , Advocates

2. Petitioner has filed claim statement stating therein thathewas appointed on 20-11-1965 as Peon and as Group 'D' non-test category on 18-9-1967 and was promoted to Group 'D' in test category on 1-8-1968 and further promoted toDaftry on 13-10-1976. As per the letter No. TA/STA/9-1 / Rlgs/VI Dated 18-4-1991 , officials who have been promoted daftries from cadre covered under the OTBP scheme may be allowed to opt for the OTBP scale in the basic cadre in the terms ofthe instructions issued by the DOT- New Delhi provided other conditions set out therein are satisfied. It is submitted that officials in higher cadres of Group ' C ' and 'D' ofthe Department of Telecom who are covered by the OneTime Bound Promotion Scheme may be allowed option to draw pay in basic ( original ) cadre , if it is advantageous to them. Such officials who opt for such OTBP scale of basic cadre will never, continue to work in the existing cadre such as Transmission Assistant, wireless operator etc. Petitioner further submitted that under OTBP scheme the persons who have completed 16 years of service are eligible to such promotion and Petitioner is eligibleto such promotion in the year 1992 as he has completed 16 years of service, but he was not informed of his eligibility for the same . Petitioner is not aware of the rules thoroughly. Petitioner made representations to the Respondent after knowing about the circulars but he was informed after 41/2 years that his request for promotion under OTBP scheme in the basic cadre is regretted due to belated submission ofthe option . Petitioner further states that one Sri J. Sanker Babu, Phone Inspector's case was considered for the same though he made belated option . Hence , he prays to direct thatRespondent to consider the option exercised by the Petitioner and to grant pay and allowances from 1992 onwards.

For the Respondent: M/ s . M. C. Jacob and K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40011 /42/ 2007 - IR (DU) dated 30-11-2007 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and their workmen . The term of reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Ex. M8 : Copy of Lr. No. VT/8T- 23-OTBP/Gr . D.RM/II/ 121 dt.6-8-2001

Ex . M9: Copy of Lr. No. VT/ ST-23 -OTBP/Gr. D.RM/ II/ 130 dt.30-4-2004

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2904.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल सिल्क बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद केन्द्रीय सरकार में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-09-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। final.Later by proceedings dated 14-3-1991 the case ofthe employees promoted as Daftries was examined by the Department and intimated that the officials who have been promoted as daftries from the cadres covered under the OTBP scheme maybe allowed to opt for the OTBP scale in basic cadre in terms of the instructions issued dated 20-11- 1990 provided all other conditions set out therein are satisfied. It is submitted that the Petitioner is due for OTBP on1-6-1982 taking the 16 years of service in the basic cadre from 1-6-1966 and six months period expires on 13-9-1991 , but the Petitioner made representation on 24-4-2001 which was replied on 6-8-2001 , intimating that the request for OTBP cannot be entertained as the option is belated as such, the dispute raised by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

[सं. एल -42025/6/2011- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011 4. Petitioner's evidence was closed due to his absence. Respondent filed chief examination affidavit of Sri . M. Panakala Rao who marked documents Ex. M1 to MO. Neither Petitioner nor his counsel appeared to cross- examine Respondent's witness MW1 as such cross examination of MW1 forfeited.

5.Petitioner called absent on the date of argument . There is none to argue the case and there is nothing on the redord in support of claim of the Petitioner and in absence ofthe evidence a ' Nil Award' is passed Transmit .

S.O. 2904. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-09-2011 .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

[No. L-42025/6/2011 -IR(DU)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 12th day of August, 2011 .

ANNEXURE

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Nil

MW1 : Sri M. Panakala Rao

Dated the 4th day of August, 2011 Documents marked for the Petitioner

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 47/2009 Nil

Between:

Documents marked for the Respondent

Sri M.Yesudas ,

Ex/M1 : Copy of letter dated 6/7-1-1984 along with Time Bound Promotion Scheme

S/o Late M. Prema Nandan, R/ o 1/118 , Tetacher's Colony,

.... Petitioner

Yadiki , Anantapur District.

ExM2: Copy of letter dated 31-1-91

AND

Ex.M3: Copy of Lr . No.TA/ STA/9-1 /R1gs /VI dt . 18-4-1991

1. Chief Executive Officer & the Member Ex. M4: Copy of Lr. No. TA/EST/ 1-1 /V CPC / 97 /VII dt. 2-5-2001

Secretary, Central Silk Board, Ministry ofTextiles , Government of India, BTM Layout , Madirala,

Ex M5: Copy of OM No.5 / 1 /98 - IC- I dt. 12-2-2001

Bangalore-560068

Ex.M6: Copy of representation of the Petitioner worker

Ex/M7: Copy of representation of the Petitioner worker

2. Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute , Sirampura, Manandavdi Road , Mysore , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3. The Joint Director , Regional Sericultural Research Station, Raptadu , Anantapur District.

..Respondents APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/ s . G. Ravi Mohan & Vikas Sharma, Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri . S.S. Varma, Advocates

AWARD

Thispetitionunder Sec . 2A(2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 was filed by Sri M. Yesudas , ex - employee of Respondents to set aside the impugned order of Respondent dated 11-9-2006 and to reinstate him in the service with full back wages and other service benefits .

2. Sri M. Yesudas has filed claim statement stating there in that he was appointed as Driver by the 2nd Respondent and was posted as 3rd Respondent in the year 1989. Petitioner's daughter in law gave a complaint against the Petitioner and her husband alleging that the Petitioner sought for additional dowry. On the said issue he was called by the Inspector of Police Mahila Police Station, Cuddapah on 1-8-2005 but on the same day he was arrested and detained till 4-8-2005 . On the said issue he was issued with suspension order dated 8-9-2005 alleging thatthe Petitioner was detained for more than 24 hours in a criminal offence and issued with a charge sheet for which Petitioner gave explanation . Without considering the explanation enquiry was conducted , basing on the enquiry report he was imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement by treating the suspension period as not on duty for all purposes which is illegal , arbitrary and unjust. ThePolice filed a final report in Cr. No. 42/05 U/s . 498 (A) 3 , 4 I.D. Act, stating that it is a false case and accordingly the case was closed. Petitioner prayed to set aside the order of punishment dated 11-9-2006 and Respondent be directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

3. Respondent has filed counter statement . It is submittedby the Respondent that the Petitioner was staff cardriver,Grade- II working at RSRS , Ananthapur, Onthe ground of his arrest by the police and detaining for 4 days at police station w.e.f. 1-8-2005 to 4-8-2005 he was placed under suspension by orders dated 8-9-2005 . On the issue he was charge sheeted , an enquiry was conducted as per rules and basing on the enquiry report hewas imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement. It issubmitted that the Petitioner was charge sheeted for hismisconduct committed by him under CCS CCA Rules , 1965. His appeal was also considered and rejected by upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority vide

7533

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

orders 16-1-2007 . Hence , the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Case is fixed for evidence of Petitioner worker. On 4-7-2011 both parties called absent . Workman is not attending to his case for last several dates as such , workman's evidence is closed , so is case of Respondent . Hence , a ' Nil ' Award is passed in absence ofevidence .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribedby her corrected by me on this the 4th day of August, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent Nil

Nil

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil

Documents marked for the Respondent Nil

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2905.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/ 340/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/275/1999- आई आर ( डी यू] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011 S.O. 2905. 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 / 340 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L-40012/275 /1999 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

7534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/340/99

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Ghasiram Bilala,

S/oGangaram Bilala,

R/ oVill . Nipania,

TehsilBadhodiya ,

...Workman ShajapurDistt.

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager

Deptt. ofTelecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, M.P.Circle , Bhopal(MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of September 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Noti fication No. L -40012/ 275 /99 - IR ( DU ) dated 19-11-1999 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :---

Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager Telecom and their workman Shri Ghasiram Bilala S/o Gangaram Bilala w.e. f. 26-3-99 is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was engaged as a casual labour in the month ofNovember 1987 and was working under Sub - Divisional Engineer , Telecom Shajapur and was terminated from the service on 31-3-1999 without any notice or without complying the provision of $ ection 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( in short The Act , 1947) . He had worked more than 240 days in a calendar year. It is alleged that he was paid less wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. The termination is illegal . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated withbackwages .

The management appeared and filed Written $tatement by way of reply. The case of the management , interalia, is that the applicant/ workman was never engaged by the management and therefore the question of regularization or reinstatement doesnot arise . Since he was never engaged, the question of termination doesnot arise and the provision of the Act, 1947 is not applicable in the dase . On these grounds , the reference be answered .

4.After filing statement of claim ,the workman became absent . As such the reference proceeded exparte against the workman on 17-1-2011 .

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are framed-

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 26-3-99 isjustified?

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled?

6. Issue No. I

To prove the case , the management has examined one witness . Management witness Shri Bhagchand Joshi issub - Divisional Engineer at Shajapur. He has stated that the applicant/ workman was never engaged by the management and the case is baseless . His evidence is unrebutted . There is no reason to disbel ieve this witness . Thus it is clear that the claim of the workman appears to be notjustified. Accordingly this issue is decided.

7. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above , the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered .

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

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2906.-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 जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/91 / 98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -40012/64/1997- आई आर ( डी यू ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2906. 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 / 91 / 98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of. Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L-40012/ 64/1997- IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

7535 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

ANNEXURE

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

4. The workman appeared and was represented through lawyer. But subsequently,he became absent. The then Tribunal issued notices and when it is satisfied that the workman did not appear inspite of proper notice , the Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the workman on 30-8-07 .

NO . CG IT/LC/R/ 91 / 198

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN

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

Shri Bhogilal,

S/o H.C.Rathore ,

1.Whether the action of the management in terminating Shri Bhogilal w.e. f. 14-2-1984 is justified?

R/ o Pashupathinathji Road , Mudhri Mohalla ,

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled ?

...Workman

Mandsour (MP)

6. Issue No. I

Versus

PostMaster,

Head Post Office , Mandsour Mandsour ( MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of September 2011

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-40012/64/97 - IR(DU) dated 17-4-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

To prove the case , the management has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The management witness Shri Abdul Halim Khan has supported the case of the management . He has stated that admittedly the workman was appointed on 11-12-1982 . He has further stated that the workman had furnished wrong . information in his application at the time of appointment . This Itself shows that his appointment was ab - initio illegal as he had concealed the facts In his application . It shows that since the appointment wss ab - initio illegal , the management is justified interminating his service . The management has filed the order dated 14-2-1984 of termination. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the management .

7. Issue No. II

Whether the action of the management of Post Master, Head Post Office , Mandsour in terminating Shri Bhogilal S /o Hukumchandji w.e.f. 14-2-84 is justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

Onthe basis of the discussion made above , there is no merit in the case of the workman and therefore he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

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

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

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was appointed on 11-12-82 as E.D.M.C by the Post Master Mandsour . A criminal case under Section 3241.P.C was pending before his appointment which was ended on acquittal on 24-9-1983 . It is stated that on the report of the District Magistrate , his service was terminated on 14-2-1984 without any enquiry which is unfair labour practice and illegal . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2907.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट अफिसेस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/68/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/ 220/1991- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव 3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia, is that admittedly the workman was appointed on the post of E.D.M.C on 11-12-1982 , by the Post Master , Main Post Office , Mandsour but at the time of appointment , a criminal case was pending which was ended on 24-9-1983 on the basis of compromise . It is stated that at the time of appointment , the workman had concealed the facts in his application that a criminal case was pending and he was arrested in the said case and as such he was not entitled to be reconsidered for his appointment. It is stated that the Post Master is justified in terminating his service and the reference be answered in favour of the management .

3708 GI / 2011-15 7536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] NewDelhi , the 20th September, 2011

2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which, the union , All India Postal Employees Union, Postmen & Class IV ( " the Union" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of Sr.Suptd. ofPost Office , Amravati (" party no . 1 " in short) filed the written statement.

S.O. 2907. 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/ 68 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sr. Supdt . ofPost Offices and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L-40012/220/ 1991 - IR (DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT /NGP/68/2003

Date: 14-9-2011

PartyNo. 1

The Sr. Suptd . of Post Offices , Amravati Division, Amravati Camp , Amravati - 444602

Versus

PartyNo. 2

Shri K.K. Bhagwat , Divisional President , All India Postal Employees Union , Postmen& Class IV, Amravati Division , Amravati- 444602

AWARD

(Dated: 14th September , 2011 )

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was appointed as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master ( " EDBPM " in short) , Dhanora Mogal in the district ofAmravati on 30-06-1990 and he worked as such , uninterruptedly upto 07-05-1991 and during the period of his service , the sub - divisional inspector of post offices , Amravati inspected the branch postoffice and did not observe any defect or fault in his work and there was also no complaint against him from any quarter and after taking over charge as EDBPM, he came to know from the sub divisional inspector , Mr. Sahade , that the management of postal department , Amravati had called for the list of candidates for the post of EDBPM , Dhanora Mogal from the employment exchange , Amravati twice and from the said lists , no candidate was found suitable for the job and Mr. Sahade asked him to apply for the said post for his regularization on permanent basis and accordingly, he submitted an application in August 1990 along with all the required documents through Mr. Sahade and thereafter worked continuously and on 07-05-1991 , all of a sudden, without any prior notice or intimation, he was instructed by Mr. Sahade to vacate the office , by making over charge to one Shri Ashok D. Gulhane , a resident of Dhanora Mogal and under pressure and compulsion, he made over the charge to the new incumbent by obeying the orders of Mr. Sahade and as per his information, the new incumbent was not at all sponsored by the employment exchange and he was a close relative of Mr. Sahade and he along with the union representatives called on the management and Mr. Sahade in May 1991 and June 1991 , regarding his re - appointment , but of no avail and the oral termination of his services by the management is illegal and arbitrary. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages .

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Sr. Suptd. of Post Office and their workman Shri Maroti Raghoji Kale to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur for adjudication , as per letter No.L -40012/ 220/ 91 - IR ( DU ) dated 25-06-1992 , with the following schedule:---

"Whether the action of the management of Sr.Suptd. of Post Offices , Amravati in terminating the services of Shri Maroti Raghoji Kale , Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Dhanora Mogal w.e.f. 9-5-1991 is justified ? If not , what relief he is entitled to?"

Subequently, the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication according to law .

3. The party no.1 in its written statement pleaded interalia that the workman was never appointed as EDBPM ofDhanora Mogal and his father was working as the EDBPM of Dhanora Mogal and he retired from service on superannuation , on completion of 65 years of age and on retirement of his father , the workman started working in the place ofhis father, without there being any appointment letter in his favour and the sub -divisional inspector (West) , Amravati inspected the office of branch post office , Dhanora Mogal in the normal course of annual inspection and that did not mean that the workman was required to 7537 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

for the management placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2006 (4 ) SCC page 1 (Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi ) and 2007 (3 ) Mh . L.J. 882 ( Prakash Vs. Punjab & Sindh Bank) .

6.Perused the record including the statement of claim and the written statement . In this case the workman has challenged the oral termination of his service as illegal . So, the burden of proof was on the workman to show that the termination of his services was illegal , by adducing evidence in support of the same . No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the workman . On the other hand , the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the management , which is on affidavit has remained unchallenged . In absence of any evidence to hold that the termination of the services of the workman is illegal , the workman is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Sr. Suptd . of Post Offices , Amravati in terminating the services of Shri Maroti Raghoji Kale, Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Dhanora Mogal w.e.f. 09-05-1991 is justified. Theworkman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 20 सितम्बर , 2011

be continued in the said post , for the reason that no fault was found in his working as EDBPM and the annual inspection had got no relevancy with the appointment of the workman in the said post. The further case ofthe party no. 1 is that nomination from employment exchange for the post of the EDBPM , Dhanora Mogal was called for by it and the names received from the employment exchange , Amravati were examined and upon examination , as it was found that none of the candidates was suitable , a notification dated 01-10-1991 was issued , calling for applications for the said post but however , the workman did not apply for the said post with reference to the notification, and his earlier application was considered for giving a reasonable opportunity to compete in the matter but as the workman was found of having no house/ residence at Dhanora Mogal , he was not found suitable for appointment to the said post and the documents put forth by the workman did not show that he was suitable for permanent appointment as EDBPM , Dhanora Mogal and as the workman was not found suitable , charge ofthe said post was taken from him and was handed over to the Shri A.D. Gulhane , who had applied for the said post in pursuance to the notification dated 01-10-1991 and was found suitable and the case of the workman was not at all a termination and as such, he was entitled to any prior intimation or notice and Shri Gulhane is not at all a close relative of Mr. Sahade and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4.Though the workman filed his affidavit in support ofhis claims , he did not appear for cross - examination and as such , his evidence on affidavit cannot be taken into consideration.

का.आ. 2908.-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 , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/22/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/ 257/2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ] Itisnecessary to mention here that the management filed the affidavit of witness . Rameshwar in support of its claim . As nobody appeared on behalf of the workman to cross - examine the witness , the cross - examination was closed. Hence the evidence of the witness for party no. 1 onaffidavit remained unchallenged.

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th September, 2011

S.O. 2908. 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/ 22 / 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of Department of Posts and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-9-2011 .

[No. L-40012/257/2001 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the leaned advocate for the management that as no evidence was adduced by the workman and the evidence of the witness for the management has remained unchallenged , the reference is to be dismissed and the appointment of the workman was a stop gap arrangement , due to the retirement of the father of the workman and the workman was not appointed as per recruitment rules and he was found not suitable for the job after verification of his application and Shri Gulhane was selected on the basis of the notification issued by the management and as such , the workman cannot claim any right for regularization in service as per settled law and he is not entitled for any relief. In support of such contentions , the learned advocate 7538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

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

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

Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 22/ 2002

Date: 14-9-2011

PartyNo. 1:

The Sub Post Master , Sub Post Office , AT/PO /Daryapur, Amravati .

no. 1 instead of regularizing his services , terminated his service w.e.f. 19-03-2001 and before such termination , the party no . 1 did not comply the mandatory provisions of section 25 - F of the Act and he was not paid the retrenchment compensation and notice pay, in lieu ofthe notice and no seniority list was published before termination of his service and therefore , the termination of his service is illegal, arbitrary and malafide and the work, which he was performing is still available with party no . 1. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity, back wages and other consequential reliefs.

Versus

Party No. 2:

Shri Jagdeo S/ o Shriram Dhunde, R/ o Bhimnagar, Ward No. 3 , Daryapur, Amravati (M.S. )

AWARD

(Dated: 14th September, 2011 )

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2( A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the Sub Post Master , Sub Post Office , AT/ PO/Daryapur, and their workman, Shri Jagdeo S/ o Shriram Dhunde for adjudication, as per letter No. 140012/ 257/2001- IR(DU) dated 24-01-2001 , with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of Sub- PostMaster, Daryapur , Distt . Amravati in terminating the services of Shri Jagdeo S/ o Shriram Dhunde as sweeper, w.e.f. 19-03-2001 vide their order dated 19-03-2001 is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to ? "

2.On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman , Shri Jagdeo S/ o Shriram Dhunde (" the, workman " in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the Sub-Post Office, Daryapur(" the Party No.1 " in short) filed the written statement .

3. The party no . 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter- alia that one Shri H.C. Patil was working as an extra - departmental delivery agent at sub - post office , Daryapur and as disciplinary action was started against Shri Patil on 24-05-99 , so he was placed under put offduty and therefore , one Shri R.C.Patil, who was working as part time Safaiwala was engaged provisionally in place of Shri H.C. Patil to work as the extra departmental delivery agent and as such , the post of part time Safaiwala fell vacant and hence , the workman was engaged provisionally in the post of Shri R.C. Patil and the said arrangement was made for a temporary period and the engagement of the workman was made purely as a stop gap arrangement and during such temporary engagement, the work man remained absent from duty for the period from 08-11-99 to 10-11-99, 18-04-2000 to 20-04-2000 and 22-08-2000 to 24-08-2000 and as such, the workman had never completed 240days of work in one calendar year . It is further pleaded by the party no. 1 that as the disciplinary proceeding against Shri H.C. Patil was finalized on 24-01-2002 and he was posted to his original post of E.D.D.A, Shri R.C. Patil , who had been engaged in place of Shri H.C. Patil was asked to work in his original post of part time Safaiwala on 19-03-2002 , as such , the services of the workman was . terminated w.e.f. 19-03-2002 and the termination of the workman was not illegal , arbitrary and malafide and as the engagement of the workman was provisional and on temporary basis , the question of maintenance of seniority list of such part time worker did not arise and therefore , no seniority list of such part time employees was displayed and the provisions of sections 25 - F and 25 -G of theAct are not applicable and there is no vacant post in the department at present and as such , there is no question of reinstatement of the workman in service and the workman isnot entitled to any relief.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was in the employment ofthe party no . 1 , w.e.f. 08-05-99 , as a sweeper and he was in continuous service till 19-03-2001 , with clean and excellent service record and as he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service , he had acquired the status of a permanent employee and the nature of work, which he was doing is a regular nature of work , butdespite the same, he was continued on daily rated basis , on a consolidated salary of Rs. 739 per month and the party

4. In support of his claim, the workman examined himself as a witness . In his examination - in- chief, which is onaffidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . In his cross - examination , the workman has admitted that H.C. Patil was working as the E.D.D.A. at Daryapur and there was departmental action against him and he was placed under put off duty and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

R.C. Patil was working as a sweeper at Daryapur and as H.C. Patil was placed under put off duty, R.C. Patil was working in his place and he was engaged by R.C.Patil to work in his place and no appointment order was given to him and he had never asked for appointment order and as R.C. Patil joined as safaiawala on 19-03-2002 , he was discontinued .

5. One Nagorao Domaji Shapekar was examined as a witness on behalf of the party no.1 and in his evidence , he has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement . However , in his cross - examination , he has stated thathe has no personal knowledge regarding for how many days and on what capacity, the workman had worked.

6.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was employed on 08-05-99 as a sweeper and he had completed more than 240 days of work and instead of regularizing his services , the party no.1 terminated his service w.e.f. 19-03-2001 and before such termination , mandatory provisions of section 25 - F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice nor one month's wages , in lieu of the notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman and seniority list was not displayed and therefore , the termination of the service of the workman is illegal and the same is to be set aside and the claim of the party no.1 that the engagement of the workman was a stop gap arrangement is quite false and the party no. 1 has not produced any document in support of the same and the workman is entitled for reinstatement .

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous work and he was appointed in a stop gap arrangement as a substitute of part time employee and the workman has admitted the same in his evidence and it is well settled that temporary stop gap arrangement employee has no right of appointment and as the workman was engaged as a substitute against temporary vacancy for a limited period , his engagement was discontinued , which is not a termination or retrenchment and as such sections 25 - F and 25 -G are not applicable to his case .

8.Onperusal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, both oral and documentary on record, it is found that the workman worked as a part time sweeper from 08-05-99 to 19-03-2001 continuously and his services were terminated on 19-03-2001 . According to the workman , the termination of his services amounts to retrenchment and as he had completed more than 240 days of continuous work in the preceding 12 months prior to his termination, the party no . 1 was bound by law to comply with the provisions of sections 25 - F and 25 -G of the Act and due to such non- compliance of the mandatory provisions , his termination is illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement.

7539

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

On the other hand the party no . 1 has claimed that the engagement of the workman was a stop gap arrangement and as such , the termination of his services is not a retrenchment and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Forbetter appreciation of the matter, I think it proper to mention the definition of retrenchment as provided in section 2 (oo) of the Act . According to the definition, " retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason what so ever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but doesn't include-

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman ; or (b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concern contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(c) Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concern on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation on that behalf contained therein; or

(d) Termination of the service of a workman on the ground ofcontinued ill health .

In this case, it is admitted by the workman in his cross - examination that Shri H.C. Patil was working as an E.D.D.A at Daryapur and there was departmental action against him and as such , he was placed under put offduty and R.C. Patil who was working as a sweeper at Daryapur , worked in place of Shri H.C. Patil as H.C. Patil was placed under put off duty and he was engaged by R.C. Patil to work in his place . He has also admitted that R.C. Patil joined as safaiwala on 19-3-2002 and as such, he was discontinued . It is clear from the above admission of the workmanthat he was engaged by R.C. Patil , the part time safaiwala on a contract basis . It can also be presumed that there was a stipulation that whenever R.C. Patil will join his original post , the engagement of the workman will be discontinued and accordingly when R.C. Patil joined his original duty on 19-3-2002 , the workman was disengaged.

It was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no . 1 did not produce any document in respect to the departmental action against Shri H.C. Patil and the engagement of R.C. Patil in place of H.C. Patil and the engagement of the workman by R.C. Patil and therefore the contentions of the party no.1 should not be believed . However, I find no force in the said contention , as it is well settled that admitted facts need not be proved. As in this case , the workman himself has admitted about the said facts , there was no need for the party no . I to produce the documents .

7540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23, 1933

As in this case , it is found that the workman was engaged under a contract and his contract was terminated under the stipulation on that behalf, the termination of his service cannot be said to be retrenchment and therefore , theprovisions of sections 25- F and 25 -G are not applicable. Hence it is ordered;

ORDER

The action of the management of Sub- Post Master , Daryapur, Distt . Amravati in terminating the services of Shri Jagdeo S /o . Shriram Dhunde as sweeper , w.e.f. 19-03-2001 videtheir order dated 19-03-2001 is proper, legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2909.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ एज्यूकेशन , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/18 / 2006- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September , 2011 S.O. 2909.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Ajmer as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the mahagement of Regional Institute of Education and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on20-9-2011 .

[No. L-42012/18/2006- IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

अनुबन्ध

श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री. मनोज कुमार व्यास , आर.एच.जे.एस. प्रकरण संख्या-सी.आई.टी.आर. 4/06 रेफरेंस संख्या एल-42012/ 18 /2006 दिनांक 15-9-2006 श्री पप्पू गहलोत पुत्र श्री हेमा जी माली निवासी गगवाना अजमेर

-प्रार्थी

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii)]

बनाम

अजमेर प्रिंसिपल, रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ एज्यूकेशन , पुष्कर रोड

-अप्रार्थी

उपस्थिति

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री एस. के. सक्सेना/श्री आशीष सक्सेना, अधिवक्ता

अप्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री कृष्णावतार , अधिवक्ता

अवार्ड

दिनांक 4-8-2011

श्रम विभाग , केन्द्र सरकार , द्वारा इस न्यायालय के अधिनिर्णयार्थ निम्न रेफरेंस प्रेषित किया गया है:-

"Whether the action of the Principal , Regional Institute of Education, Ajmer in terminating the services of their workman Shri Pappu. Gahlot S/ o Shri Hemaji Mali w.e.f. 11-1-2005 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "י

2. नोटिस के उपरांत उभयपक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में यह कहा गया है कि भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय के आदेश दिनांक 15-9-06 द्वारा औद्योगिक विवाद के निस्तारण हेतु रेफरेंस निम्न प्रकार से प्रेषित किया गया है:-" आया प्रिंसिपल , रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ एज्यूकेशन , अजमेर द्वारा श्रमिक पप्पूगहलोत पुत्र श्री हेमा जी माली को दिनांक 11-1-2005 से सेवा मुक्त किये जाने का आदेश वैध एवं उचित है ? यदि नहीं तो श्रमिक किस अनुतोष हेतु पात्रता रखता है ? " 3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक राजस्थान सरकार के यातायात विभाग द्वारा जारी ड्राइविंग लाइसेंस धारी ड्राईवर है तथा उसे लाइट मोटर व्हीकल चलाने का अनुभव प्राप्त है तथा पिछड़ा वर्ग का सदस्य है । सैकेंड्री परीक्षा में वर्ष 87-88 में अनुत्तीर्ण रहा है । प्रार्थी का पंजीयन रोजगार कार्यालय में 5-10-95 को किया गया था जिसका नवीनीकरण समय-समय पर किया गया है । प्रार्थी ने दैनिक वेतन भोगी ड्राईवर के रूप में अपनी सेवायें प्रतिवादी संस्था केअधीन 26-7-02 से 11-1-05 तक ईमानदारी एवं निष्ठा से की है । प्रार्थी ने इस प्रकार दैनिक वेतन भोगी ड्राईवर पद पर तीन वर्ष तक सेवायें दी थी और दिनांक 11-1-05 को सेवा से हटाये जाने से पूर्व एक वर्ष की अवधि में 240 दिन से अधिक अवधि तक कार्य किया है तथा श्रमिक की परिभाषा में आता है । प्रार्थी को दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में ड्राईवर के पद पर 150 रुपये प्रतिदिन भुगतान किये जाने के आधार पर नियोजित किया गया था और एक माह में लगभग 4500 रु. वेतन का भुगतान किया जाता था जो जरिये वाउचर किया जाता था । अप्रार्थी संस्था के यहां ड्राईवर का पद स्वीकृत एवं रिक्त होने के बावजूद प्रार्थी को ड्राईवर के पद पर स्थाई नहीं किया गया बल्कि किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को ड्राईवर के [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

पद पर नियुक्ति प्रदान कर औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 जी व एच के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन किया गया । प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाये जाने से पूर्व धारा 25 एफ की पालना नहीं की गयी न तो एक माह का नोटिस दिया न ही नोटिस के बदले एक माह के बदले वेतन का भुगतान किया गया । अब तक दी गयी सेवा अवधि के अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति राशि का भी भुगतान नहीं किया गया । अतः निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी सेवा पृथक्करण आदेश दिनांक 11-1-05 अवैध घोषित किया जाकर प्रार्थी की सेवा बहाली एवं सेवा बर्खास्तगी की दिनांक से प्रकरण के निर्णय तक वेतन मय समस्त परिलाभ एवं सेवा में नियमित किये जाने के आदेश पारित किया जावे ।

4. अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब में यह कहा है कि अप्रार्थी द्वारा किसी भी कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन अथवा उससे अधिक कार्य नहीं किया गया। दिनांक 11-1-05 को कथित रूप से सेवा से हटाने का आरोप भी गलत है । प्रार्थी श्रमिक की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है । प्रार्थी को कभी नियुक्तिपत्र जैसा कोई दस्तावेज अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा जारी नहीं किया गया । नियमित ड्राईवर के अवकाश पर जाने अथवा पद रिक्त होने के अंतराल के लिए यदि प्रार्थी को कार्य दिया गया तो उससे प्रार्थी के हक में कोई अधिकार उत्पन्न नहीं होता है । प्रार्थी को रोजगार कार्यालय से नाम प्राप्त होने पर नियुक्ति के लिए नही बल्कि टैस्ट व साक्षात्कार के लिए बुलाया गया था । नौ सदस्यीय कमेटी द्वारा सभी अभ्यर्थियों का टैस्ट व साक्षात्कार लिया गया जिसमें प्रार्थी भी सम्मिलित हुआ व असफल रहा तथा वरीयता क्रम में प्रथम स्थान प्राप्त श्री गुलाबचंद को नियमित रूप से नियुक्ति पत्र जारी किया गया । प्रार्थी द्वारा सिविल न्यायालय में जरिये वाद व अस्थायी निषेधाज्ञा चुनौती दी गयी थी । न्यायालय द्वारा प्रार्थी का अस्थायी निषेधाज्ञा का आवेदन पत्र निरस्त का दिया गया । उक्त प्रकरण में प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत अपील भी अपर जिला न्यायाधीश सं. 1 द्वारा निरस्त कर दी गयी है । इस प्रकार एक ही तथ्य के संबंध में दो न्यायालयों से प्रार्थी अनुतोष नहीं मांग सकता है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा जब भी प्रार्थी की सेवायें ली गयी , प्रार्थी को आदेश द्वारा यह स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेखित किया गया कि उक्त नियुक्ति पूर्णतया अस्थायी है जो नियमितड्राईवर के आने पर स्वतः ही समाप्त होती रही । अतः क्लेम निरस्त करने का निवेदन किया गया ।

5. साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी की ओर से ए.डब.। प्रार्थी पप्पू गहलोत तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से गवाह एन ए डब .। ईश्वरलाल के बयान कराये गये हैं । प्रार्थी की ओर से दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श ए-1 से 225 तक पेश किये गये हैं तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रदर्श एम. 1 से एम. 13 तक दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं ।

6. मैंने उभयपक्ष की बहस सुनी , पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । अप्रार्थी की ओर से निम्नलिखित न्यायिक दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किये गये जिनका भी मैंने ससम्मान् अवलोकन कियाः-

1. 2009 डी एन जे ( एससी) 294

2. 2007 लैब आई सी 764

3. 2008 लैब आई सी 4210

7. प्रार्थी की ओर से बहस में यह कहा गया है कि वह अप्रार्थी संस्थान में डाईवर के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में कार्यरत था तथा उसने 26-7-02 से 11-1-05 तक ईमानदारी व

7541

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

निष्ठा से अपनी सेवायें दी तथा सेवा से हटाये जाने के पूर्व एक वर्ष की अवधि में 240 दिन से अधिक अवधि तक सेवारत रहा है । अतः उसके द्वारा एक कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक अवधि तक अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य किया गया है पंरतु अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा उसे दिनांक 11-1-2005 को सेवा से हटा दिया गया है सेवा से हटाने से पूर्व धारा 25 एफ की पालना नहीं की गयी तथा उसके स्थान पर किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को ड्राईवर के पद पर नियुक्त कर दिया गया । इस प्रकार धारा 25 जी व एच के प्रावधानों का भी उल्लंघन किया गया है ।

8. अप्रार्थी की ओर से बहस में यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी ने किसी भी कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन अथवा उससे अधिक कार्य नहीं किया । प्रार्थी को नियमित ड्राईवर के अवकाश पर जाने अथवा पर रिक्त होने के अंतराल में आवश्यकता होने पर कार्य दिया गया था, जिसे नियमित नियुक्ति नहीं कहा जा सकता है । नियमित नियुक्ति के लिए रोजगार कार्यालय से नाम मंगवाये गये थे तथा नौ सदस्यीय कमेटी द्वारा सभी अभ्यर्थियों का टेस्ट व साक्षात्कार लिया गया था । इसमें प्रार्थी भी सम्मिलित हुआ था व असफल रहा । वरीयता क्रम में प्रथम स्थान प्राप्त अभ्यर्थी गुलाबचंद को नियमित रूप से नियुक्ति पत्र जारी किया गया तथा श्री गुलाबचंद ने ड्राईवर के पद पर कार्यभार ग्रहण कर लिया । प्रार्थी ने सिविल न्यायालय में भी वाद व अस्थायी निषेधाज्ञा के जरिये इसे चुनौती दी थी परंतु अधीनस्थ न्यायालय ने प्रार्थी के अस्थायी निषेधाज्ञा के प्रार्थना- पत्र को निरस्त कर दिया । प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गयी अपील भी अपर जिला न्यायाधीश सं.1 , अजमेर के आदेश दिनांक 5-12-05 द्वारा खारिज की गयी है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी को सिविल न्यायालय से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है । ड्राईवर के रिक्त पद पर नियुक्ति नियमों के अंतर्गत निर्धारित प्रक्रियां अपनाकर प्रथम वरीयता प्राप्त अभ्यर्थी को दी गयी है । अतः प्रार्थी का कोई क्लेम नहीं बनता है ।

9. साक्ष्य में गवाह ए. ढब.। प्रार्थी पप्पू गहलोत ने मुख्य परीक्षा में क्लेम के तथ्यों को दोहराते हुए प्रदर्श ए -1 से ए-225 प्रदर्शित कराये हैं । जिरह में इस गवाह ने कहा कि यह सही है कि रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट में नियुक्ति के लिए सर्विस रुल्स बने हुए हैं । यह सही है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान में वाहन चालक की नियुक्ति के लिए पूरी भर्ती प्रक्रिया बनी हुई है । मुझे दिनांक26-7-02 को पहली बार नियुक्त किया गया था । मुझे भर्ती के समय यह प्रक्रिया नही अपनायी थी । मैंने पार्श्वनाथ ट्रेवल्स में चार साल काम किया था । मैंने नियमित करने के लिए इसी कोर्ट में नगर परिषद के विरुद्ध भरी वाद पेश किया है उसमें मेरे बयान प्रदर्श एम-13 है , जिसके प्रत्येक पेज पर मेरे दस्तखत हैं । मैं कार्ड कर नवीनीकरण समय- समय पर करवाता रहता था । यह सही है कि कार्ड रिन्यूतभी करते हैं जब कार्ड ले जाने वाला उस समय बेरोजगार हो । यह सही है कि 2001-04 में जब मैंने कार्ड रिन्यूकराया तब मैं बेरोजगार था । इस ताह 2004-07 तक मैंने कार्ड रिन्यू करवाया तब तब मैं बेरोजगार था । यह कहना गलत है कि मुझे स्थाई चालक के छुट्टी जाने पर अस्थायी रूप से नौकरी पर रखा था ब्रल्किमुझे तो नियमित कार्य पर रखा था । यह सही है कि रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट में रेग्यूलर चालक की पोस्ट है । यहां पर नियमित चालक 7542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

का पद था और वह उस समय कार्यरत था । मुझे वर्ष 2000 की परीक्षा में चुन लिया गया था और प्रथम वरीयता उस परीक्षा में मिली थी उसी आधार पर नियुक्ति के लिए बुलाया था । मुझे वर्ष 2000 में टैस्ट में चुना था । नियुक्ति-पत्र वर्ष 2002 में दिया । दिनांक 26-7-02 से 11-1-05 तक अप्रार्थी के यहां नियमित कार्यरत रहा जिसका रिकॉर्ड मैंने न्यायालय में पेश किया है । यह भर्ती वर्ष 2000 के इंटरव्यू के आंधार पर थी । मुझे 2000 में सैलेक्ट कर 2002 में पत्र दिया था । यह सही है कि4-1-05 को चालक के पद के लिए इंटरव्यू हुए थे । मुझे वहां बुलाया था । यह सही है कि जितने लोगों को बुलाया था उन सभी को रोजगार कार्यालय के माध्यम से ही बुलाया था । यह सही है कि मेरे सहित बीस व्यक्ति उस इंटरव्यू में शामिल हुए थे कमेटी नौ मेंबर्स की थी उसमें इंटरव्यू व टैस्ट लिया था । उस परीक्षा में मुझे प्रक्षम वरीयता मिली थी । यह कहना गलत है कि गुलाबचंद को प्रथम वरीयता मिली हो । पेमेंट के बारे में मेरे कोई विवाद नही था । यह कहना गलत है कि मुझे नौ मेंबर की कमेटी में सैलेक्ट नहीं किया हो । गुलाबचंद को निजी स्वार्थ से नौकरी पर रखा था । यह सही है किमैंने इस केस के पूर्व म्युनिसपल्टी के खिलाफ भी केस पेश किया था जो खारिज हुआ था । उस केस में मेरे बयान हुए थे । मैंने सही लिखाया था । यह गलत है कि मैंने किसी भी कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन या उससे अधिक कार्य नहीं किया हो ।

10. अप्रार्थी की साक्ष्य में गवाह एन ए डब.1 ईश्वरलाल ने मुख्य परीक्षा में यह कहा है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा 11-1-05 से पूर्व एक कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन या इससे अधिक ड्राईवर के पद पर कार्य नहीं किया गया । नियमित ड्राईवर के अवकाश पर जाने पर विकल्प के रूप में आवश्यकतानुसार सीमित अवधि के लिए प्रार्थी को कार्य पर बुलाया गया तथा भुगतान किया गया । प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 2002 और 2003 के मध्य केवल 18 दिन काम किया तथा 2004 से 2005 में 89 दिन की अवधि में केवल 65 दिन कार्य किया जो नियमित ड्राईवर उपलब्ध नही होने अथवा अवकाश पर जाने के कारण वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था के रूप में बुलाया गया । वर्ष 2004 में ड्राईवर का पद रिक्त होने के कारण रोजगार कार्यालय के पद हेतु साक्षात्कार के लिए नाम मांगे गये । प्रार्थी का नाम भी रोजगार कार्यालय के माध्यम से प्राप्त हुआ । नौ सदस्यों की एक कमेटी का गठन कर टैस्ट व साक्षात्कार लिये गये । कमेटी ने इसमें सदस्य एवं तकनीकी विशेषज्ञ भी थे । चयनित ड्राईवर के पद हेतु सूची बनायी तथा श्री गुलाबचंद को चयनित किया गया जिसे नियुक्ति पत्र जारी किया गया और नियमानुसार उक्त पद भरा गया । अक्तूबर 2004 से जनवरी 2005 के मध्य प्रार्थी नेजितने दिन कार्य किया उसकी उपस्थिति पंजिका प्रति प्रदर्श एम -4 से एम -6 है । कमेटी की रिपोर्ट प्रदर्श एम-7 है । नियुक्ति पत्र प्रदर्श एर्म -8 व ड्राईवर गुलाबचंद द्वारा दी गयी उपस्थिति पत्र की प्रति प्रदर्श एम -9 है । प्रार्थी को निश्चित अवधि के लिए कार्य पर रखा गया था । उसका कोई भी हक नियमित पद के लिए कभी नही रहा । 11. जिरह में गवाह ने कहा कि यह सही है कि प्रदर्श ए-21 हमारे विभाग का जारी पत्र है जिस पर मेरे दस्तख्त हैं । प्रदर्श ए -21 से ए-191 में जो अवधि लिखी है उस अवधि में प्रार्थी ने कार्य किया है । रिकॉर्ड के आधार पर हो सकता है कि यह अवधि 2000 दिन से

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] अधिक हो । प्रदर्श ए-200 हमारे विभाग का जारी है जिस पर मेरे सुपीरियर के हस्ताक्षर है । प्रदर्श ए-207 मे जो योग्यता वर्णित है , वह प्रार्थी रखता है तो उसे देखने का काम कमेटी का होता है । प्रार्थी ने 1-1-05 से पूर्व किसी भी कैलेडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक काम नहीं किया । इस संबंध में रिकॉर्ड पेश है । यह कहना गलत है कि हमने गुलाबचंद को रखने के लिए उसका नाम निकाल दिया हो । प्रार्थी लीव वेकेंसी में कार्यरत था । इस वजह से नोटिस नहीं दिया । यह कहना गलत है कि प्रार्थी को लीव वेकेंसी के बजाय संस्थायी पर रखा हो ।

12. प्रार्थी ने अपने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम मे स्वयं को दैनिक वेतन भोगी ड्राईवर होना बताया है जबकि अप्रार्थी ने कहा कि प्रार्थी की सेवायें जब - जब आवश्यकता होती थी, नियमित ड्राईवर के अवकाश पर होने या पद रिक्त होने की अवधि के बीच में उससे काम लिया जाता था और उसी अवधि का भुगतान किया जाता था । प्रार्थी ने साक्ष्य में जिरह के दौरान यह कहा है कि मुझे नियमित कार्य पर रखा गया था परंतु आगे कहा है कि यह सही है कि रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट में रेग्यूलर चालक की पोस्ट है । वहां पर नियमित चालक का पद था और वह उस समय कार्यरत था । गवाह ने यह भी कहा हर्हा वर्ष 2000 में उसे परीक्षा में चुन लिया गया और प्रथम वरीयता परीक्षा में मिली थी, उसी आधार पर मुझे नियुक्ति के लिए बुलाया था तथा मैं 26-7-02 से 11-1-05 तक अप्रार्थी के यहां नियमित रूप से कार्यरत रहा जिसका रिकार्ड मैंने पेश किया है । यह भर्ती 2000 के इंटरव्यूके आधार पर थी । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने अपनी नियुक्ति वर्ष 2000 में हुई परीक्षा में प्रथम वरीयता प्राप्त होने के आधार पर होना कहा है परंतु इस संबंध में कोई दस्तावेज प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत नही किये गये हैं, जिससे यह साबित होता हो कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति नियमित पद पर वर्ष 2000 में हुई परीक्षा के आधार पर अप्रार्थी संस्थान में की गयी हो । जिरह के प्रारंभ में स्वयं प्रार्थी ने यह कहा है कि यह सही है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान में वाहन चालक की नियुक्तिके लिए पूरी भर्ती प्रक्रिया बनी हुई है । मुझे दिनांक26-7-02 को पहली बार नियुक्त किया था । मुझे भर्ती के समय यह प्रक्रिया नहीं अपनायी थी । इस प्रकार वर्ष 2002 में प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति भर्ती प्रक्रिया अपनाकर हुई हो यह साबित नही है । स्वयं प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में अपने आपकों दैनिक वेतन भोगी ड्राईवर के रूप में कार्यरत होना कहा है ।

13. अप्रार्थी का यह कथन है कि प्रार्थी को नियमित वाहन चालक के अवकाश पर होने अथवा अन्यथा उपलब्ध नही होने के समय कार्य पर बुलाया जाता था और जिस अवधि तक वह कार्य करता था उसका भुगतान कर दिया जाता था । अतः वह लीव वेकेंसी के आधार पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी के आधार पर कार्य करता था एवं उसका कार्य नियमित रूप से नहीं लिया जाता था बल्कि नियमित वाहन चालक के नहीं होने पर ही आवश्यकतानुसार लिया जाता था । नियमित वाहन चालक को भर्ती की प्रक्रिया नियमानुसार अपनायी गयी थी । वर्ष 2004 के अंत में ड्राईवर का पद रिक्त होने पर इस पद पर भर्ती होने हेतु टैस्ट व साक्षात्कार के लिए नाम मंगाये गये थे तथा प्रार्थी का नाम भी रोजगार कार्यालय के माध्यम से प्राप्त हुआ था । 7543 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011 /आश्विन 23 , 1933

16-9-04 तक इन दस्तावेजों के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कुल 179 दिन कार्य किया , यह प्रकट होता है तथा इस तथ्य की स्वीकृति जिरह में अप्रार्थी के गवाह ने भी की है । उक्त अवधि के अलावा अप्रार्थी की तरफ से दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत हुए है उनके अनुसार प्रदर्श एम -4 , 5 व 6 महत्वपूर्ण है । प्रदर्श एम-4 के अनुसार प्रार्थी को दिसंबर 2004 के 25 दिन तथा जनवरी 2005 के पांच दिन इस प्रकार कुल तीस दिन का भुगतान किया गया है । प्रदर्श एम -5 के अनुसार प्रार्थी को अक्तूबर 2004 माह के 14 दिन का भुगतान किया गया है तथा प्रदर्श एम -6 के. अनुसार प्रार्थी को नवंबर 2004 माह के 21 दिन का भुगतान किया गया है । ये दस्तावेज स्वयं अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत किये गये है , जिनके अनुसार माह अक्तूबर 2004 से जनवरी 2005 तक की अवधि में प्रार्थी द्वारा कुल 65 दिन कार्य किया जाना प्रमाणित होता है । इस प्रकार जनवरी 2005 से पूर्व एक कैलेंडर वर्ष में प्रार्थी द्वारा कुल 244 दिन कार्य किया जाना उक्त दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य से साबित होता है ।

नौ सदस्यों की कमेटी का गठन होकर दिनांक 4-1-05 को उक्त टेस्ट व साक्षात्कार कमेटी द्वारा लिये गये थे । चयनित ड्राईवर के पद हेतु सूची बनायी गयी थी जिसमें प्रथम स्थान पर श्री गुलाबचंद था, जिसका चयन किया गया । उक्त सूची कमेटी द्वारा बनायी गयी थी उक्तानुसार गुलाबचंद का चयनकर उसकी नियुक्ति रिक्त पद पर की गयी , जो निर्धारित प्रक्रिया अपनाकर की गयी । समिति के कार्यवाही विवरण की प्रति प्रदर्श एम -7 प्रस्तुत हुई । प्रार्थी ने जिरह में यह कथन किया है कि मेरे सहित बीस व्यक्ति इंटरव्यू में शामिल हुए थे । कमेटी नौ मैंबर्स की थी जिसने इंटरव्यू व टैस्ट लिया था । उस परीक्षा में मुझे प्रथम वरीयता मिली थी । यह कहना गलत है कि गुलाबचंद को प्रथम वरीयता. मिली हो । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने साक्ष्य में यह स्वीकार किया है किदिनांक4-1-05 को उसके सहित बीस व्यक्तियों के इंटरव्यू नौ सदस्यों की कमेटी ने लिये थे तथा इंटरव्यू व टैस्ट कमेटी द्वारा लिया गया था । अतः निर्धारित प्रक्रिया अप्रार्थी द्वारा अपनाये जाने की बात स्वयं प्रार्थी ने स्वीकार की है , परंतु उनका यह कहना है कि उस परीक्षा में उसे प्रथम वरीयता मिली थी । परंतु प्रार्थी के इस कथन की पुष्टि दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य से नही होती है । दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य के अनुसार चयन समिति ने गुलाबचंद पुत्र चिरंजीलाल को चयनित किया था ।

16. जहां तक इस बात का प्रश्न है कि क्या अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्ति किये जाने से पूर्व धारा 25 एफ की पालना की गयी, इस संबंध में स्वयं अप्रार्थी ने यह कहा है कि प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाये जाने से पहले धारा 25 एफ के अंतर्गत न तो नोटिस दिया गया और न ही एक माह के वेतन का भुगतान दिया गया । अतः अभिकथनों व साक्ष्य से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाने से पूर्व धारा 25 एफ के प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की गयी जबकि प्रार्थी द्वारा एक कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक की अवधि तक अप्रार्थी संस्थान मेंदैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य किया गया अतः धारा 25 एफ की पालना नहीं होने के कारण दिनांक 11-1-05 से प्रार्थी श्रमिक को सेवामुक्ति किये जाने का आदेश वैध एवं उचित नही है । 14. अतः उपरोक्त साक्ष्य के विश्लेषण से यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के बतौर ड्राईवर के पद पर कार्य करने हेतु अप्रार्थी संस्था द्वारा बुलाया जाता था । प्रार्थी द्वारा नियमित चालक के अनुपस्थित होने अथवा पद रिक्त होने की अवधि के दौरान कार्य किया जाता था । प्रार्थी को निर्धारित चयन प्रक्रिया अपनाये जाने के पश्चात् नियुक्ति नहीं दी गयी । वर्ष 2005 में अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा नियमानुसार रोजगार कार्यालय से सूची मंगायी जाकर ड्राईवर के चयन हेतु टैस्ट व साक्षात्कार की कार्यवाही की गयी जिसमें स्वयं प्रार्थी द्वारा भी भाग लिया गया परंतु वह असफल रहा तथा चयनित सूची में गुलाबचंद पुत्र चिरंजीलाल को प्रथम वरीयता के आधार पर नियुक्तिप्रदान की गयी । अतः प्रार्थी का यह कथन कि उसे नियमित चालक के पद पर नियुक्त किया गया था , साक्ष्य से साबित नहीं है तथा यह भली - भांति साबित है कि प्रार्थी को नियमानुसार चयन प्रक्रिया में शामिल होने का पूर्ण अवसर दिया गया, परंतु वह असफल रहा, अतः उसे नियमित चालक के पद पर नियुक्ति नही दी गयी ।

17. जहां तक इस बात का प्रश्न है कि प्रार्थी किस अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है , इस संबंध में साक्ष्य से जो निष्कर्ष आया है उसके अनुसार प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी संस्थान में दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य करता था उसकी सेवायें नियमित चालक के नहीं होमे, अवकाश पर होने आदि के समय अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा ली जाती थी । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति निर्धारित चयन प्रक्रिया से नियमानुसार नियमित पद पर नहीं हुई थी तथा प्रार्थी ने नियमानुसार आयोजित चयन प्रक्रिया में भाग भी लिया था । अतः इन तथ्यों को देखते हुए प्रार्थी दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्यरत था , उसकी सेवायें नियमित चालक के नहीं होने पर ही अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा ली जाती थी इन समस्ततथ्यों व परिस्थितियों में प्रार्थी सेवा में बहाली का अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है परंतु धारा 25 एफ की पालना अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा नहीं की गयी है । अतः प्रार्थी को एक मुश्त पच्चीस हजार रुपये क्षतिपूर्ति के बतौर दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित होगा । अतः अवार्ड निम्न प्रकार से पारित किया जाता है ।

आदेश-अवार्ड

फलतः केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि प्रिंसिपल , रीजनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ एज्यूकेशन , अजमेर द्वारा श्रमिक श्री पप्पू गहलोत पुत्र श्री हेमा जी माली को 15. अब प्रश्न यह है कि क्या प्रार्थी द्वारा किसी भी कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य अप्रार्थी संस्थान में किया गया । अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी ने किसी भी कैलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन या इससे अधिक कार्य नही किया जबकि प्रार्थी ने कहा है कि उसने 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है । गवाह एन ए डब.1 ने मुख्य परीक्षा में यह कहा है कि वर्ष 2002 व 2003 के बीच प्रार्थी ने 18 दिन तथा 2004-05 में 65 दिन कार्य किया । जिरह में इस गवाह द्वारा यह स्वीकार किया गया है कि प्रदर्श ए-21 से ए-199 में जोअवधि लिखी है उस अवधि में प्रार्थी ने कार्य किया है प्रदर्श ए-21 से ए-199 रिक्वीजिशन फार्म है । इस पर प्रार्थी के भी हस्ताक्षर होना बताया गया है । उक्त रिक्वीजिशन फॉर्मस द्वारा प्रार्थी को कार्य पर उक्त फॉर्म में अंकित दिनाकों को रखा गया था । उक्त प्रपत्र दिनांक 1-3-04 से 16-9-04 तक की अवधि के है । इस प्रकार 1-3-04 से

3708 GI/2011-16 7544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) )

AND

The ChiefGeneral Manager ( Personnel ) ,

State Bank of India , LHO ,

Bank Street,

Hyderabad.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

दिनांक 11-1-2005 से ( धारा 25 एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना किये बगैर ) सेवामुक्त किये जाने का आदेश अवैध एवं अनुचित है । प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी से क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप में एकमुश्त 25,000 रुपये ( अक्षर पच्चीस हजार रुपये मात्र ) प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा । अप्रार्थी उक्त रकम प्रार्थी को अवार्ड के प्रकाशन के एक माह में अदा करे ।

मनोज कुमार व्यास , न्यायाधीश

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . S. Prasada Rao , C. Bala Subrahmanyam , and K. Bharathi , Advocates

Forthe Respondent : Smt. B. Lalitha Kumari , Advocate नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2011

AWARD

This petition under Sec . 2 A(2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has been filed by Sri Budharaju Sowraswamy, Ex . Messenger of State Bank of India, challenging the order oftermination dated 31-3-1997 and for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and back wages .

का.आ. 2910.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 133/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12025/01/2011- आई आर( बी- I ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The Petitioner has stated that he is a member of scheduled caste and he joined in the services of the Respondent as Messenger on 2-7-1988 in State Bank of India , Kanchekacherla branch , Krishna District and he worked up to 31-3-1997 , thereafter he was disengaged and was ordered to stop the work.

New Delhi , the 21st September, 2011

S.O. 2910. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 133/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-09-2011 .

3. Petitioner made several representations and also filedWritPetition along with 200 others employees before theHon'ble High Court of A.P. , which was registered as WP. 4194/97 and other petitions Nos . 9206/97 , 5087/97 etc. , which were disposed off by a common order by Hon'ble Justice Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court against which management has filed Writ Appeal No.86/ 98 which was decided and ordered that Petitioner should approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal . Against the order of Writ Appeal SLP was filed by the Petitioner and other employees , which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Writ Appeal .

[No. L- 12025/01/2011 - IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD

Present : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of April , 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 133/2006

Between:

SriBudharaju Sowraswamy,

S/ o Bala Swamy,

R/o Kanchekacherla

Gottumukkala Village ,

...Petitioner

Krishna District .

4. There was agreement between the employees union and the management in which it was agreed that those employees who have completed minimum of30 days in any calendar month or 75 days in aggregate in 36 calendar months will be called for interview by virtue of settlement dated 17-8-1984, thereafter another settlement was also entered into between the employees and, management on 17-7-1989 , subsequent agreement dated 16-10-1988 , 27-10-1988 , followed by agreement dated 26-4-1994 was also entered into between parties , in all the settlements it was agreed that the employees who have put in a certain number of days will be considered for absorption and a panel will be prepared of those employees . The Petitioner's name find place in the list prepared by management but Petitioner was not absorbed, not only that Justice Sri Somasekhar ofHon'ble High Court ofA.P. , by order dated 1-1-1998 directed Respondent bank to absorb all the Petitioners which was not complied by the management. The management challenged that order which was quashed by Appellate Authority and order of 7545 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

the Appellate Authority amended by Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence , the Petitioner has filed this present petition.

5. Counter has been filed by the Respondent management . Management has also admitted that several agreements as mentioned by the Petitioner have been entered into between the management and the union and the employees were categorized into three categories : -

(A) Those , who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 1-7-1975

1997 for 75 days in total 275 days . On the basis of these documents the argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner has worked for 275 days altogether under the management of Respondent, thus , he is entitled for absorption in the bank's service as per the agreement entered into between the bank management and the employees union . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Petitioner has put in total number of 275 days though intermittently but under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees union and the management. Petitioner's case is covered under category ' C' of categorization of the employees as such, the Petitioner has become entitled for absorption.

(B) Those, who have completed 270days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975

(C) Those, who have completed minimum of30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

i 6. As per terms of the agreement dated February, 1997 the last date of the panel was to expire on 31-3-1997. The Petitioner was not found suitable in the order of seniority, he was not considered for absorption . Petitioner was engaged intermittently when the regular employees were not available for sweeping and cleaning of the office he was not regularly appointed employee nor he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as such , no legal right is vested in the Petitioner for being absorbed in the bank's services . Petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

9.Against the above argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that even if the Petitioner has put in 275 days service in total and he comes within the category 'C ' employees, it is not vested right of the Petitioner to be absorbed in the services of the bank unless other formalities and rules of the absorption has been fulfilled by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was called for interview as per his own document but whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by him . Moreover, there are other categories ' A & B ' of the employees , who put in 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months and who put in 270 days aggregate service in 36 calendar months , their case was to be considered on priority basis in comparison to those placed in category ' C' of the employees . It was the duty of the Petitioner to prove that anybody or any person junior to him or who has put in less number of working days in comparison to the Petitioner was absorbed by the bank. Secondly, the Petitioner has not been able to prove that what was the outcome of the result of the interview whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been provedby the Petitioner as such , the bank has not committed any illegality in disengaging the Petitioner who has worked intermittently when the work was available with the bank . Therefore, the action of the management is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative ofthe principles of natural justice and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

10. In light of the above argument of the Learned Counsel for the parties this Tribunal has to consider following points for adjudication:-

7. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Petitioner Sri Budharaju Sowraswamy has appeared, examined in chief and presented himself for cross- examination . He has filed xerox copies documents viz . , interview call letter dated 3-8-1989 Ex.Wl , Cetificate of temporary service allegedly issued by State Bank of India for 31 days Ex. W2 , Certificate of temporary service allegedly issued by State Bank of India for 275 days Ex .W3, community, nativity and date of birth certificate Ex .W4 , transfer certificate Ex . W5. Management has filed affidavit ofP. MadhuMohan Patro , Chief Manager( HR) , State Bank of India , Vijayawada who has marked 12 documents Ex . M1 to M12 . He appeared for cross - examination and has been cross examined at length .

(I ) Whether the action of the management in disengaging the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice?

(II ) To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled for?

11. Point No. ( I ) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner has worked in the bank when the work was available with the management. The Petitioner in his cross- 8. I have heard counsels for both the parties at length and I have gone through the evidence on record. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the workman that workman was engaged in the year 1988 and he has worked up to March , 1997. In proof of his claim he has filed particulars of temporary service Ex.W2 and W3 to show thatSri Budharaju Sowraswamy worked for 31 days in the year 1988 , like wise he worked in 1993 for 6 days , in 1994 for 45 days , in 1995 for 5 days , in 1996 for 111 days and in 7546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

arbitrary or against principles of natural justice. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed by him. Point No. (II) is decided accordingly.

13. Inview ofthe above discussion, this Tribunal is ofthe opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and it isdismissed, hence , this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April,2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the : Petitioner

WWI: Sri Budharaju Sowraswamy

Witnesses examined for the Respondent : MWI : Sri P. Madhu Mohan Patro

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Copy of call letter for interview

Ex.W2: Copy of certificate of temporary service

Ex.W3: Copy of certificate of temporary service

Ex.W4: Copy of community, nativity and date of birth certificate

Ex.W5: Copy of transfer certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt. 17-11-1987

Ex.M2 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 16-7-1988

Ex.M3: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI StaffFederation and SBIdt . 27-10-1988

Ex.M4: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI StaffFederation and SBI dt . 9-1-1991

Ex.M5: Copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings held before RLC( C ), Hyderabaddt. 9-6-95

Ex.M6: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI StaffFederation and SBI 30-7-1996

Ex.M7: Copy of memorandum of understanding. dt. 27-2-1997

Ex.M8: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Messsengerial panel

Ex.M9: Copy of statements giving the particulars of1989 Non-Messsengerial panel

Ex.M10: Copy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11 : Copy ofjudgement ofHon'ble High Court in WA No. 86/98 dt. 1-5-1998

examination has admitted that he worked for a period of 275 days intermittently. The Petitioner alleged to have filed xerox copy of the service certificate or number of working days he put in as temporary messenger with the bank management. These certificates have not been proved by the Petitioner workman . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner has worked for 275 days that itself does not confer any right on Petitioner for absorption in the bank's services . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon case law of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2005 ( I) LLJ page 126 in the matter of State Bank of India , Bangalore Vs. T. N. Jaya Ram wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that , " the claim of those employees who has not completed 30 days in one. calendar year are not entitled for regularization . " However, the Petitioner workman has not been able to place before this Tribunal any such rule , which authorizes for the regularization of those employees who has put in more than 200 days of the service in 36 calendar months . There is agreement between the parties under which employees were given option to apply for regularization and it was agreed between the union and the management that panel will be prepared on the basis of the interview and such panel will be remained enforced for a particular period and existing vacancies will be filled out of the candidates listed in the panel . Petitioner of this case has not placed any paper to prove that he was selected by the management or he was empanelled for absorption in the service . Unless , the Petitioner was empanelled for absorption he cannot claim right of absorption . The case law citedby Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reported in 2005 ( I ) LLJ page 126 is not applicable in the present case . In the same way the case law reported in 2003 ( I ) LLJ page 219 is also not applicable in the present case. The bank's service is a public utility service and there is procedure for recruitment to the banking services . Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was selected by the Empanelment Committee for absorption in the bank's service . He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well . As such , in view of the agreement of 1997 in which the empanelled candidates were to be absorbed by end of the March, 1997 , since name of the Petitioner does not find place in the empanelled list the disengagement of the Petitioner is neither bad in the eye of law nor against the terms of the agreement entered into by the bank employees and the bank management . Since Petitioner was not selected by the Empanelment Committee he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange he was engaged by the Manager when the work was available in the branch he has no right or authority for absorption as he was not appointed according to the recruitment rules of the public utility services as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka . Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Ex.M12: Copy ofjudgement in SLP No. 11866-11888 of 1998 dt. 10-8-98 .

12. Point No. ( II) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his disengagement from service was illegal , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर , 2011

का. आ. 2911.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 228/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12025/01/2011- आईआर ( बी- I ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st September , 2011 S.O. 2911. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 228/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-9-2011 .

[No. .L- 12025 / 01 / 2011 -IR (B-I) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 7th day ofApril , 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 228/2004

Between:

Sri D. Venkateswarlu ,

S/o D. Prasad, R/ o Karlampudi Post, Amravati Mandal , Guntur District.

Petitioner AND

1. The Asst . General Manager ,

StateBank of India ,

Personal Section, Zonal Office , Labbipet , Vijayawada.

2. The ChiefGeneral Manager,

PersonalDepartment , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Hyderabad. StateBank of India,

.Respondents

7547

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

Appearances:

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . Nurulla Baig & V. S. S. Narasimha Rao , Advocates

Forthe Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec.2 A (2) of the I. D. Act , 1947 has been filed by Sri D. Venkateswarlu , Ex . Messenger of State Bank of India , challenging the order of termination dated 31-3-1997 and for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and back wages .

2. The Petitioner has stated that he joined in the services of the Respondent as Messenger from 1986 in State Bank of India and he worked upto 31-3-1997 and thereafter he was disengaged and was ordered to stop the work.

3.Petitioner made several representations and also filedWritpetition along with 200 others employees before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , which was registered as WP.4194/97 and other petitions Nos .9206/97 , 5087/97 etc. , which were disposed of by a common order by Hon'ble Justice Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court against which management has filed Writ Appeal No. 86/98 which was decided and ordered that Petitioner should approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal . Against the order ofWrit appealSLP was filed by the Petitioner and other employees , which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Writ Appeal .

4. Petitioner is a member of scheduled caste and belongs to a poor family. There was agreement between the employees union and the management in which it was agreed that those employees who have completed minimum of30 days in any calendar month or 75 days in aggregate in36 calendar months will be called for interview by virtue ofsettlement dated 17-8-1984, thereafter another settlement was also entered into between the employees and management on 17-7-1989 , subsequent agreement dated 16-10-1988 , 27-10-1988 , followed by agreement dated 26-4-1994 was also entered into between parties , in all the settlements it was agreed that the employees who have put in a certain number of days will be considered for absorption and a panel will be prepared ofthose employees. The Petitioner's name find place in the list prepared by management but Petitioner was not absorbed , not only that Justice Sri Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , by order dated 1-1-1998 directed Respondent bank to absorb all the Petitioners which was not complied by the management. The management challenged that order which was quashed by Appellate Authority and order of the AppellateAuthority amended by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence , the Petitioner has filed this present petition.

5. Counter has been filed by the Respondent management . Management has also admitted that several 7548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

agreements as mentioned by the Petitioner have been entered into between the management and the union and the employees were categorised into three categories :-

(A) Those , who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 1-7-1975 .

(B) Those, who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

(C) Those, who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after1-7-1975 .

6. As per terms of the agreement dated February, 1997 the last date of the panel was to expire on 31-3-1997. The Petitioner was not found suitable in the order of seniority, he was not considered for absorption. Petitioner was engaged intermittently when the regular employees were not available for sweeping and cleaning of the office he was not regularly appointed employee nor he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as such , no legal right is vested in the Petitioner for being absorbed in the bank'sservices . Petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed .

7. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Petitioner Sri D. Venkateswarlu has appeared , examined in chiefand presented himself for cross - examination . He has filedixerox copies of paper notification Ex . Wl, panel list Ex .W2 , service certificates Ex.W3 and W4 dated 17-3-1986 and 6-2-1989 , circular regarding ban on appointment of temporary employees in subordinate cadre Ex .W5, paper notification Ex . W6 , second panel list Ex . W7 , transfer certificate Ex .W8 , employment registration card Ex.W9 and caste certificate Ex. W 10. Management has filed affidavit of Sri P. Madhumohan Patro, Chief Manager (HR) , State Bank of India , Vijayawada who has marked 12 documents Ex.Ml to M12 . He appeared for cross- examination and has been cross examined at length .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] but under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees union and the management. Petitioner's case is covered under category ' C' of categorization of the employees as such, the Petitioner has become entitled for absorption .

9.Against the above argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner , Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that even if the Petitioner has put in 153days service in total and he comes within the category ' C' employees , it is not vested right of the Petitioner to be absorbed in the services of the bank unless other formalities and rules of the absorption has been fulfilled by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was called for interview as per his own document but whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by him . More over, there is another categories ' A & B ' of the employees , who put in 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months and who put in 270 days aggregate service in 36 calendar months , their case was to be considered on priority basis in comparison to those placed in category ' C ' of the employees . It was the duty of the Petitioner to prove that anybody or any person junior to him or who has put in less number of working days in comparison to the Petitioner was absorbed by the bank. Secondly, the Petitioner has not been able to prove that whatwas the outcome of the result of the interview whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by the Petitioner as such , the bank has not committed any illegality in disengaging the Petitioner who has worked intermittently when the work was available with the bank. Therefore, the action of the management is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative of the principles of natural justice and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

10. In light of the above argument of the Learned Counsel for the parties this Tribunal has to consider following points for adjudication: -

( I) Whether the action of the management in disengaging the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice ?

for ? (II ) To what relief if any , the Petitioner is entitled 11. Point No. (I ) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner has worked in the bank when the work was available with the management . The Petitioner in his cross- examination has admitted that he worked for a period of 153 days intermittently and he was not sponsored by Employment Exchange . Though Petitioner states that he has worked for 153 days , but at the same time he has admitted that he worked with the bank whenever work was available and given by the Manager . The Petitioner alleged to have filed xerox copy of the service certificate or number of working days he put in as temporary messenger with the bank management . These certificates 7549

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

WWI: Sri D. Venkateswarlu

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

MWI: Sri P. Madhu Mohan Patro

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI: Copy of news paper advertisement

Ex.W2:

Copy of 1st panel list

Copy of service certificate Ex.W3 :

Ex.W4: Copy of service certificate

Ex.W5: Copy of circular regarding lapse ofpanel

Ex.W6: Copy ofpaper notification

Ex.W7:

Copy of 2nd panel list

Ex-W8: Copy of transfer certificate

Copy of employment registration card

Ex-W9:

Ex-W10: Copy of caste certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.Ml: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd-.17-11-1987

Ex.M2: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd . 16-7-1988

Ex.M3: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd. 27-10-1988

Ex.M4: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd. 9-1-1991

Ex.M5: Copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings held before RLC (C ) , Hyderabad dtd. 9-6-95

E.M6: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI 30-7-1996

Ex.M7: Copy of memorandum of understanding dtd. 27-2-1997

Ex.M8: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Messsengerial panel

have not been proved by the Petitioner workman . Even if itispresumed that Petitioner has worked for 153 days that itselfdoes not confer any right on Petitioner for absorption in the bank's services . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon case law of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2005 ( I ) LLJ page 126 in the matter of State Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. T. N. Jaya Ram wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has heldthat , "the claim ofthose employees who has not completed 30 days in one calendar year are not entitled for regularization . " However, the Petitioner workman has not been able to place before this Tribunal any such rule, which authorizes for the regularization of those employees who has put in more than 200 days of the service in 36 calendar months . There is agreement between the parties under which employees were given option to apply for regularization and it was agreed between the union and the management thatpanel will be prepared on the basis of the interview and such panel will be remained enforced for a particular period and existing vacancies will be filled out of the candidates listed in the panel. Petitioner of this case has not placed any paper to prove that he was selected by the management or he was empanelled for absorption in the service . Unless , the Petitioner was empanelled for absorption he can not claim right of absorption . The case law cited by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reported in 2005 ( 1 ) LLJ page 126 is not applicable in the present case. In the same way the case law reported in 2003 ( I ) LLJ page 219 is also not applicable in the present case . The bank's service is a public utility service and there is procedure for recruitment to the banking services . Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was selected bythe empanelment committee for absorption in the bank's service . He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well. As such , in view of the agreement of 1997 in which the empanelled candidates were to be absorbed by end of the March, 1997 , since name of the Petitioner does not find place in the empanelled list the disengagement of the Petitioner is neither bad in the eye of law nor against the terms of the agreement entered into by the bank employees and the bank management . Since Petitioner was not selected by the empanelment committee he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange he was engaged by the Manager when the work was available in the branch he has no right or authority for absorption as he was not appointed according to the recruitment rules ofthepublic utility services as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka . Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Ex.M9: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Non -Messsengerial panel

Copy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M10:

Ex.Mll:

12. Point No. (II) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his disengagement from service was illegal , arbitrary or against principles of natural justice . Petitioner isnot entitled for any relief claimed by him . Point No. (II) is decided accordingly.

Copy of judgement of Hon'ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dtd . 1-5-1998

Ex.MI2: Copy ofjudgement in SLP No.11866-11888 of 1998 dtd.10-8-98 .

13. In view ofthe above discussion , this Tribunal is ofthe opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and itisdismissed, hence , this award.

1550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2912.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12025/01 /2011- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ]

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ]

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec.2 A(2) of the I D. Act, 1947 has been filed by Sri O. Prabhakar , Ex . Messenger of State Bank of India , challenging the order of termination dated 31-3-1997 and for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and back wages .

2. The Petitioner has stated that he joined in the services of the Respondent as Messenger on 1-7-1981 in State Bank of India , Prakasam District where he worked upto 31-3-1997 and thereafter he was disengaged and was ordered to stop the work .

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st September, 2011 S.O. 2912. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.26/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour CourtHyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 19-9-2011 .

[No. L- 12025/01 /2011 -IR (B -I) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

Present : - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 7th day ofApril , 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 26/2006 Between:

$ri O. Prabhakar ,

$/o David, Ro Idamakallu Village , Via Rajupalem, Prakasam District .

...Petitioner AND

The ChiefGeneral Manager (Personnel) , $ tate Bank of India , LHO ,

Bank Street, Hyderabad.

3.Petitioner made several representations and also filed Writ petition along with 200 others employees before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , which was registered as WP.4194/97 and other petitions Nos.9206/97, 5087/97etc. , which were disposed off by a common order by Hon'ble Justice Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court against which management has filed Writ Appeal No.86/ 98 which was decided and ordered that Petitioner should approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal . Against the order ofWrit appealSLP was filed by the Petitioner and other employees , which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Writ Appeal .

4. Petitioner belongs to a poor family. There was agreement between the employees union and the management in which it was agreed that those employees whohave completed minimum of 30 days in any calendar month or 75 days in aggregate in 36 calendar months will be called for interview by virtue of settlement dated 17-8-1984 , thereafter another settlement was also entered into between the employees and management on 17-7-1989 , subsequent agreement dated 16-10-1988 , 27-10-1988 , followed by agreement dated 26-4-1994 was also entered into between parties , in all the settlements it was agreed that the employees who have put in a certain number of days will be considered for absorption and a panel will be prepared of those employees . The Petitioner's name find place in the list prepared by management but Petitioner was not absorbed , not only that Justice Sri Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , by order dated 1-1-1998 directed Respondent bank to absorb all the Petitioners which was not complied by the management. The management challenged that orderwhich was quashed by Appellate Authority and order of the AppellateAuthority amended by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence, the Petitioner has filed this present petition .

Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: M/ s . S. Prasada Rao , C. Bala Subrahmanyam , K. Jhansi Rani & K. Bharathi , Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & R V.

Chandra Sekhar, Advocates 5. Counter has been filed by the Respondent management . Management has also admitted that several agreements as mentioned by the Petitioner have been entered into between the management and the union and the employees were categorised into three categories: ---

(A) Those , who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 1-7-1975 .

7551 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

भाग ॥ खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(R) Those , who have completed 270 days aggregate emporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar Honths after1-7-1975 .

number of 463 days though intermittently but under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees union and the management . Petitioner's case is covered under category ' C ' of categorization of the employees as such, the Petitioner has become entitled for absorption.

(C) Those , who have completed minimum of30 days ggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 7-1975 or mirumum of 70 days aggregate temporary avice in any continuous block of 36 calendar months 7-1075.

6. As per terms of the agreement dated February, 1997 the last date of the panel was to expire on 31-3-1997 . The Petitioner was not found suitable in the order of enienty, he was not considered for absorption , Petitioner ... engaged intermittently when the regular employees remot available for sweeping and cleaning of the office was not regularly appointed employee nor he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as such , no legai is vested in the Petitioner for being absorbed in the Saul a services . J'etition is devoid of merit and deserves a dismissed .

7. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Perditioner Sri O. Prabhakar has appeared, examined in chief and presentedhimself for cross examination. He has filed xerox copies of service certificate allegedly issued by State Bank (l'India dated 6-8-1988 Ex . WI , statement of number days workedby him from 1981 to 1983 Ex . W2, representationto Chief General Manager Ex .W3 , and chart showing number of days he worked in Komaravolu branch ofSBI in the year 1991 , 1992 and 1993 Ex . W 4. Management has filed affidavit of Sri R. Venkateswara Rao , Chief Manager ( HR) , State Bank of India, Tirupathi who has mtked 12documents Ex . MI to M12 . He appeared for cross examination and has been cross examined at length:

9. Against the above argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner , Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that even if the Petitioner has put in 463 days service in total and he comes within the category ' C ' employees , it is not vested right of the Petitioner to be absorbed in the services of the bank unless other formalities and rules of the absorption has been fulfilled by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was called for interview as per his own docurnent but whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by him. Moreover , there is another categories ' A & B ' of the employees , who put in 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months and who put in 270 days aggregate service in 36 calendar months , their case was to be considered on priority basis in comparison to those placed in category ' C ' of the employees . It was the duty of the Petitioner to prove that anybody or any person juniorto him or who has put in less number of working days in comparison to the Petitioner was absorbed by the bank. Secondly, the Petitioner has not been able to prove that what was the outcome ofthe result ofthe interview whether hewas empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by the. Petitioner as such , the bank has not committed any illegality in disengaging the Petitioner who has worked intermittently when the work was available with the bank, Therefore , the action of the management is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative of the principles of natural justice and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief

10. In light of the above argument of the Learned Counsel for the parties this Tribunal has to consider following points for adjudication :-

1.18 ( 1 ) Whether the action of the management in disengaging the Petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary and violative ofprinciples of natural justice ?

for? (II ) To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled 8. I have heard counsels for both the parties at length and I have gone through the evidence on record. It has been arguedby the Learned Counsel for the workman that workman was engaged in the year 1981 and he has worked upto March. 1997. In proof of his claim he has filed carificate of temporary service Ex. Wł to show that SrrO. Pokar worked for 1 day on 19-1-1984, Ex: W2 to show That Sti O. Prabhakar had worked for 65 days from Julyto September, 1981 , like wise he worked in the months of Jah, October, November and December, 1982 for 62 days in the months of September , October and November, s fot 72 days in total 199 days and Ex . W 4to show that 1: 2worked for 69 days from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992, for 114 1.4.2003 to 31-3-1993 and for 81 days from 21-3-1994 in total for 264 days . On the basis of Pete documents tic argument of Learned Counsel for Petitoner is that Petitioner has worked for 199 days before interview and after interview he worked for 264 uader the management of Respondent , thus , he is for absorption the bank's service as per the

uent entered into between the bank management

ate the exaployees union. The Learned Counsel for the

11 Point No. ( I) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner has worked in the bank when the work was available with the management. Though Petitioner states that he has worked for 199 days in the years 1981 to 1983 and for 264 days in the years 1991 to 1993 , but at the same time he has admitted that he worked with the bank whenever work was available and given by the Manager . The Petitioner alleged to have filed xerox copy of the service certificate or number of working days he put in as temporary messenger with the bank management . These certificates have not been proved by the Petitioner Patitotier durther argued that the Petitioner has put in total

23 04:01-7 7552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23, 1933

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( i)]

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7thday of April, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

WW/l : Sri O. Prabhakar

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

MWI: Sri R. Venkateswara Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI: Copy of service certificate issued by Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Komarole dt. 6-8-1988 .

Ex.W2: Copy of statement showing particulars of temporary service between 1981-1983 .

Ex.W3 : Copy of WWl's representation to the managementdt. 12-1-1998.

Ex.W4: Copyofworking days chart while working under Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Komarole from 1991 to 1993 .

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.Ml: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt - .17-11-1987

Ex. M2: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt. 16-7-1988

Ex. M3: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 27-10-1988

Ex. M4: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt. 9-1-1991

Ex. M5: Copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings held before RLC ( C) , Hyderabad dt . 9-6-95

Ex. M6: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI 30-7-1996

Ex.M7 : Copy of memorandum of understanding dt. 27-2-1997

Ex .M8: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Messsengerial panel

Ex . M9: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Non-Messsengerial panel

Ex. M10: Copy of statement of 1992 panel workman. Even ifit is presumed that Petitioner has worked for 463 days that itself does not confer any right on Petitioner for absorption in the bank's services . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon case law of Hble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2005 (I ) LLJ page 126 in the matter of State Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. T. N. Jaya Rarn wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that, " the claim of those employees who has not completed 30 days in one calendar year are not entitled for regularization. " However, the Petitioner workman has not beenable toplace before this Tribunal any such rule , which jauthorizes for the regularization ofthose employees who has put in more than 200 days ofthe service in 36 calendar months . There is agreement between the parties under which employees were given option to apply for regularization and it was agreed between the union and the management that panel will be prepared on the basis ofthe interview and such panel will be remained enforced for a particular period and existing vacancies will be filled out ofthe candidates listed in the panel. Petitioner of this case has not placed any paper to prove that he was selected by the management or he was empanelled for absorption in the service . Unless , the Petitioner was empanelled for absorption he cannot claim right of absorption. The case law cited by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reported in 2005 ( I ) LLJ page 126 is not applicable in the present case . In the same way the case law reported in 2003 ( I ) LLJ page 219 is also not applicable inthe present case. The bank's service is a public utility service and there is procedure for recruitment to the banking services . Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was selected by the empanelment committee for absorption inthe bank's service . He was not sponsored bythe Employment Exchange as well . As such , in view of the agreement of 1997 in which the empanelled candidates were to be absorbed by end of the March , 1997 , since hame ofthePetitioner does not find place in the empanelled list the disengagement of the Petitioner is neither bad in the eye of law nor against the terms of the agreement entered into by the bank employees and the bank management. Since Petitioner was not selected by the empanelment committee he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange he was engaged by the Manager when the work was available in the branch he has no right or authority for absorption as he was not appointed according to the recruitment rules of the public utility services as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka . Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Ex .M11 : Copy of judgement of Hon'ble High Court in WA No. 86/98 dt . 1-5-1998

Ex.M12: Copy ofjudgement in SLP No. 11866-11888 of 1998 dt.10-8-98 .

12. Point No. ( II) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his disengagement from service was illegal , arbitrary or against principles of natural justice . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed by him . Point No. ( II) is decided accordingly.

नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर, 2011 13. In view of the above discussion , this Tribunal is ofthe opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed , hence , this award .

का.आ. 29.13 .-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी.

7553 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

OpenCast Sub Area , WCL is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter ?"

एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 245/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/29/ 2000- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st September , 2011

2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the union, Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union ( " the Union " in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of W.C.L. ("party no . 1" in short ) filed the written statement.

S.O. 2913.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 245/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 21-9-2011.

[No. L- 22012/ 29/2000- IR (C- II) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Date: 12-9-2011

Case No.CGIT /NGP / 245 /2000

Party No. 1: The Sub Area Manager , Hindustan Lalpeth Opencast Sub Area ofWCL PO : Lalpeth, Distt . Chandrapur, Maharashtra .

Versus

Party No. 2:

The case ofthe workman as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that he was appointed as a tripman in Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast Mine and his service record was clean and unblemished and while he was working as such , charge sheet dated 14-3-99 was issued against him , on the allegation of abusing the Mine Superintendent in filthy language after forcibly entering intohis office on 13-3-99 and he denied the charges levelled against him and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him , but reasonable opportunity was not given to himto defend himself and the enquiry was concluded ex- parteand copy ofproceedings of enquiry was not supplied to him and the enquiry offiger proceeded with the enquiry, inspite of intimating him in writing about his inability to attend the enquiry on genuine grounds and the entire enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles ofnatural justice and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order ofdismissal mechanically on 25-5-1999 and the order ofdismissal suffers from lack ofapplication ofmind and is arbitrary and illegal and the Sub Area Manager was totally biased against the workman and the entire disciplinaryproceedings which culminated in the dismissal ofthe workman is beset with malafides and arbitrariness and therefore, is illegal and unsustainable in law and is required to be set aside .

The President, Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union, Br. Bengali Camp , Mul Road, PO & Distt . Chandrapur .

Prayer has been made to set aside the order of dismissal dated 25-5-1999 and for reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity and full back wages .

AWARD

(Dated: 12th September, 2011)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Sub - Area Manager of WCL and their Shri K, V. Kharalkar, for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/ 29/2000 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 4-8-2007, with the following schedule:-

3. Refuting the allegations , the party no. 1 in their writtenstatement have pleaded inter- alia that the workman wasworking as a Tripman at Hindustan Lalpeth Mine, before his dismissal from service and on 13-3-1999 at about 6 PM, he forcibly entered into the office of the Supdt. of Mine/Manager, closed the door from inside, loudly abused him in very filthy language and threatened him of dire consequences and as his conduct was violative of the certified standing orders , charge sheet dated 14-3-1999 was issued against him and he was asked to submit his explanation within three days of the receipt or the charge sheet and he was also placed under suspension pending enquiry and as the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was ordered to enquire into charges and Shri K.R. Acharya , Personnel Manager , Rayawari Sub Area was appointed as the enquiry officer "Whether the action of the management namely Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast Sub Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing Shri K.V. Kharalkar, Ex -Tripman , Hindustan Lalpeth [PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 7554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23, 1933-

(wrongly memioned as 24-6-1999 in the written statement) , but the same was considered not satisfactory and consideringthe seriousness of the misconduct , the workman was disnussed from services with immediate effect, vide order of dismissal dated 25-5-1999 (wrongly mentioned as 25-2-1999 in the written statement) , after obtaining due approval from the Competent Authority. It is also pleaded by the party no. 1 that the enquiry held against the workman was just, fair and proper and his dismissal from service on proved charges of misconduct of a very serious nature is perfectly legal and justified and therefore , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. The legality of the departmental enquiry was taken for consideration as a preliminary issue , as the workman was dismissed from service , after holding ofa departmental enquiry and vide order dated 23-2-2007, the departmental enquiry was held to be legal and proper.

5. In the written notes of argument , it was submitted bythe learned advocate for workman that the charge sheet submitted against the workman was vague and clauses 26.4, 26.18 and 26.27 of the Certified Standing Orders do not attract in the facts and circumstances of the present case and omissions to mention about the evidence in the charge sheet was contrary to the principles of natural justiceand the wordings and expression made in the charge sheet clearly indicate the predetermined conciusion by the punishing authority and a departmental enquiry based on such illegal chargé is totally vitiated in law and in the enquiry, the workman was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry was conducted ex - parte . It was also submitted that the enquiry report subinitted by the enquiry officer is wholly perverse as the report was prepared basing on extraneous materials like prior action and memos etc , which did not have any connection with charges levelled against the workman and copies ofdocuments were not supplied either at the time ofsubmission of the charge sheet or during the enquiry, for which, the workman was prejudiced and the impugned order of dismissal in grossly disproportionate to the quantum of offence and the order in vindictive in nature and the same is not passed in good faith, but under colorable exercise ofright by the party no. 1 and hence not sustainable in law .

6. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that in the statement ofclaim , no challenge has been made regarding the perversity of the findings by the workman and the enquiry officer has analyzed the evidence adduced before him in an objective and dispassionate manner and the report is based on evidence on record and not on any other extraneous matter or consideration and according to judicial pronouncement, even if, any other authority could come to different conclusion on the same material , the report of the enquiry officer is not be set aside , unless it is shown that the and the enquiry officer, after due notice to the workman started the enquiry on 29-3-1999 and the workman appeared in the enquiry and submitted a letter expressing hisdesire to take the help of one Shri S. S. Beg, fitter as his co-worker and as such , the enquiry was adjourned to 30-3-1999 at 10.00 AM, which was noted by the workman and on 30-3-1999 the workman appeared at about 11.10 AM and filed any application for adjournment , so the enquirywas adjourned to 3-4-1999 by the enquiry officer and although the workman was present personally, he refused to sign the proceedings and on 3-4-1999 , the workman appeared with his co - worker , Shri S. S. Beg and prayed for adjournment of the enquiry on the ground of observance of 13th day's Ceremony of the death of his brother, so the enquiry was adjourned to 12-4-1999 and on 12-4-1999, the charges were explained to the workman in presence of his co - worker and the workman denied the charges and then the procedure of the enquiry was explained to the parties and then , witness O. P. Katare of the management was examined and he was cross - examined by the co- worker of the workman and thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned to 18-4-1999 with the consent of both the parties and on 18-4-1999 , though the workman was present, his co- worker was absent and as the workman did not agree to take part in the enquiry without his co- worker,the enquiry was adjourned to 21-4-1999 to give an opportunity to the workman for his defence and the workman noted the date and on 21-4-1999 , as neither the workman nor his co - worker attended the enquiry, the enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to 24-4-1999, in spite ofthe request made by the management representative to proceed with the enquiry ex - parte and as on 24-4-1999 the co-worker of the workman did not attend the enquiry, the same was adjourned to 2-5-1999 as per the demand of the workman and on 2-5-1999 , the workman and his co - worker appeared and witness no. 2 from the side of the management was examined and he was cross - examined by the co-worker and then the enquiry was adjourned to 8-5- 1999 and as on 8-5-1999 , the co- worker of the workman did not attend the enquiry, the enquiry was adjourned to 10-5-1999, which was duly noted by the workman , but on 10-5-1999, neither the workman nor his co - worker appeared, so, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiryex - parte against the workman and the remaining witnesses from the side of the management were examined and the enquiry was closed and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 14-5-1999 and the enquiry officer analyzed the evidence produced before him in an objective and dispassionate manner and gave a logical and rational report holding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him under clauses 26.4,26.18 and 26.27 of the Certified Standing Orders and a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to theworkman vide letter dated 21-5-1999 of the Sub Area Manager, asking him to submit his clarification if any, within three days of receipts of the letter and the workman submitted his explanation vide his letter dated 24-5-1999 7555

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Court in the decisions as mentioned above and relied on bythe party no. 1 , it is found that the punishment imposed against the workman is not at all disproportionate to the act of his misconduct and the same is also not otherwise arbitrary. Hence , there is no ground to interfere with the punishment . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

report is such , which no rational and reasonable man could have arrived at such conclusion and the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse and rules and law have been fully complied, while passing the order of dismissal , hence , the punishment inflicted against the workman cannot be held to be illegal and set aside on this ground and the charges levelled against the workman are very serious in nature and such charges have been proved in the departmental enquiry and for such rowdy, riotous , disorderly and violent behaviour, the only appropriate punishment was his dismissal from service and any lesser punishment would have created a bad precedent and led to encouragement of indiscipline .

The action of the management namely Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast Sub Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing Shri K. V. Kharalkar Ex-Tripman, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast Sub Area, WCL is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर , 2011 In support of such contentions , reliance was placed on the decisions reported in AIR 1972 SC 2182 (Power Co. Lid. Vs. The Labour Court II , Lucknow), AIR 1970 SC 1334 (M/ s. Perry and Co. Ltd. Vs. P.C. Pal ) , AIR 165 SC - 155 (TataOil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen) and 2001 LAB. I.C. -462 ( Syed Rahimuddin Vs. Director General ) , 1996 LAB . I.C. 462 (B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India), 2003 LAB.I.C.- 757 (Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs. Hoti lal) , 2005 LAB . I.C. 4158 (V.Ramana Vs. APSRTC) and 2005 LAB . I.C. 854 (BharatForge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate) .

का.आ. 2914.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , संख्या -2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/530/1995- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st September , 2011 7. Perused the record. Taking into consideration the pleadings of parties , the documents of the departmental proceedings , the enquiry report and the written notes of arguments , it is found that the charges levelled against the workman are not vague and the charges have been mentioned in detail and charges have been correctly framed under the relevant clauses of the Certified Standings Orders . It is also found that the workman had never demanded copy of any document and there is also nothing on record to show that due to non - supply of copy ofdocument , the workman was prejudiced. The workman has also not taken such plea in the statement of claim .

S.O. 2914. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 130/96) 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 FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-9-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/530/95 - IR (C- II) ] 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) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 130 of 1996 Admittedly, the workman has not challenged the perversity of the findings of the enquiry officer and the proportionality of the punishment in the statement of claim. However , on perusal of the enquiry report it is found that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the materials produced before him in the departmental enquiry and he has analyzed the evidence in a rational manner and he has also assigned reasonable and cogent reasons in support of his findings. Though the enquiry report shows that documents regarding the previous conduct of the workman were produced in the enquiry the report does not base on the same , but the same is based on the evidence produced before him . Hence , the findings ofthe enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse .

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of FCI , Patna and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfofthe workman : Mr. U. K. Dubey, Authorised Représentative of the Union .

So far the punishment is concerned , it is found that charges of very serious misconduct were leveled against the workman and it is found that the said charges have been proved in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 7556

On behalf of the employers : Mr. Laxman Chandra Das ,

Manager ( IR)

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal.

Dhanbad, dated the 8th September , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-22012/ 530/95 - IR (C -II) dated 6-11-96 .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna in not regularising the services of Sh . Ram Bilash Paswan and 9 others in the grade they are working is justified and legal ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled ? "

dt. 2-5-86 had decided henceforth net to engage any casual inthe Corporation . Then on the representation by their Union about the regularisation of the casual/daily rated employees on its roll as on or before 2-5-86 , the Headquarter Management as per its instructions D.O. Letter dt. 2-5-86 and accordingly all the subordinate Officers as per their D.O. lettersdtd. 2-5-86 and subsequent reminder letterNo. EP. 1 (4)/ 85 - Volume- I dtd. 11-9-86, the casual/daily rated employees as sponsored to the Headquarters were regularised but the Regional Management has neglected the case of the workmen in regularising their services , though they have completed more than three months work inthe Corporation continuously on or before 2-5-86 in view of the aforesaid Circular/Letter dtd . 6-5-87. So they are entitled for their regularisation with the similar jobs and all other benefits as the regular staff are gettirig since their engagement in the work of the Corporation. The Union has decided to represent this case without engaging an Advocate, therefore , the management may notbe allowed to engage any Advocate in it .

2. The case of the workmen as pleaded in their Written Statement by their Union concerned is that their services as Watchman, Peon, Messenger , Shifter, Sweeper , Stitcher and Dusting Operator etc. are being utilised by the management since their engagement on the specified date mentioned in the annexure by the management to perform the duties of Subordinate Cadre as Casual/Daily rated employee on priority of their works required at the Food Stopage Gulabbagh/Belauri (Purnea ) . Their attendances marked by the regular staff of the concerned department as ' A' and ' P ' for absence and presence respectively. Their salaries were/ are being paid to them through monthly bills and occasionally from its Contingency Fund. As per decision ofthe Board of Directors of the Food Corporation ofIndia (FCI) in its 176th meeting , it was held to regularise the services of all casual/daily rated employees on its rolls completing three months work on or before 2-5-86 against entry level category III and IV posts according to their qualifications . Accordingly as per the Headquarters Circular/letter No. EP - I (4)/ 86- Volume - IIdtd. 6-5-87 more than 100 casuals /daily rated employees have already been regularised in their services as Watchmen by the Regional Management, FCI Patna. The workmen though having full qualifications for it have not been regularised against the post of Class- IV staff, Watchman , Sweeper etc. on which their juniors have been regularised by the management. TheManagement's action for not regularising them is with a view to victimise them denying their due wages and other benefits such as lunch and medical allowances etc. ofClass IV employees for the similar duties their juniors are getting . The concerned workmen are getting their salaries since their engagement as for the Minimum Wages Act in clear violation of the Rule-' Equal pay for equal work' at the hends of the management .

4. The Union Representative in its rejoinder has pleaded that the entire claim of the workmen/Union being based on the actual work performed by them years together asper the records of the management is perfectly genuine and legal . Previously two depots were functioning one at Purnea Gulabbagh and other at Belauri but now only one depot at Gulabbagh is functioning . The workmen have worked directly under the control of the management only and not under the contractor. The Depot Incharge , and Officer of the Unit , is the authorised person of the management to take any decison for betterment of the Corporation, so he is all in all for that Unit. In fact, contracters are being appointed by the Depot Incharge to co-ordinate in the function of his controlled depot in respect oftransportationetc. As the work of Corporation increased as result of Storage Capacity came to 35 Million tonnes instead of 18.5 million tonnes , hence the workmen were employed as casual workmen as per work force more required than its sanctioned strength . The FCI is the big organisation and its offices and depots are functioning in various towns and districts and in all the States of the Country, so the staff of a particular unit cannot be debarred from their regularisation in service as the Surplus until it is declared by the Headquarters New Delhi . In addition to regular treatment for the safety of stocks the workmen performed the job as the Watchman, Sweeper to the job of stitching the bags during the period when there was no work of fumigation. In fact there is a lot of scope of the management to provide them regular job by regularising their services , for which the Headquarter Management has also relaxed the ban as mentioned above . Moreover , the workmen have put more than 240 days work so they cannot be treated as casual workers and their regularisation does not arise against the sanctioned post which is not required for its sanction, as they have completed work continuously 3. Further case of the workmen is that the Head Quarter of theManagement as per the Circular No. 28/1986 7557 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

for 240 days in each calendar year for several years . They are still working against the Subordinate cadre post in the Corporation.

the employment of the Corporation . The duty hours of casual workers is in exigency for one to six hours on any day, but they get one day wage for 1-2 hours work as per theMinimum Wages Act. Some work like fumigation as required takes few hours . Therefore, the workmen are not entitledto regularisation.

FINDING WITH REASONING

6. In this case, WW- 1 Ram Bilas Paswan, WW-2 Harendra Nath Biswas , both of the workmen in behalf of the Union, MW- 1 Shambhu Sharma , the Asstt . Manager (Depot), and MW- 2 M.L. Banerjee, the Dy. Manager (Per ) from the side of the Management have been examined.

The Statement ofWW- 1 Ram Bilas Paswan as one of the workmen deposing for self and other concerned workmen is that they worked for 24 to 25 days and drew their wages once in a month from the management according to the bills prepared by it . As a part of his duty he used to open the Godown, sweep it , collect the grains , stitch the bags and he was to spray over the foodgrains for preservation and also he used todo all such work as instructed by the Management on priority basis . The Management used to pay him daily wage but on monthly basis . The witness WW - 1 has proved the documents showing the attendance of the concerned workmen including the present one (photo copies of their working days and the payment amount - marked as Ext. W- 10 series) . The forwarding letter of the management to the District Manager , FCI concerned dtd. 15-7-94 as Ext. W. - 11 specifying the requisite qualifications of all the nine concernedworkmen as submitted, the Regional Manager's letter dtd . 13-2-95 concerning the matter of their regularisation of service as Ext . W - 12 . According to the witness though he has been working continuously under the management on daily wages basis for about 15/20 years and the services of other daily workmen have alreadybeen regularised by the management in the year 1988 but the management did not regularise their services , that Fulmati Devi , one workman died but the rest are still working , though he has admitted that they were engaged as casual labourers without any appointment letter , denying their regularisation by the management in lack of their requisite qualification and experience .

7. WW- 2Harendra Nath Biswas , as a workman has stated to have started working as a casual worker from February, 10, 1986 at FCI F.S.D. Gulabbagh Depot now working at Beluri Depot along with the other workmen corroborating the evidence of his colleague Ram Bilas Paswan , WW- 1 , he has stated they were not allowed to sign the Attendance Register rather their presence or absence was marked by the Management on the basis of which their wages were prepared and paid ; that his colleagues Banarsi Mandal, Subhash Thakur, M. K. Samiyar, casual worker have been regularised and that they (the concerned workmen) worked more than 240 days in each 5. Specifically refuting the aforesaid allegation of theworkmen as imaginary and baseless , the Management has stated in its pleading that the Management had two food Storage depots one its own at Beluri , Purnea , and other hired one at Gulabbagh under its control , out of them only the former continued to function in 1990 when the latterwas dehired. The Management awarded contracts to private parties time to time for the jobs of transportation, handling of food grain storage , and its incidental ones including issue of food grains from the food storage depot . It engaged the depot incharge for exercising supervision and control ofthe jobs under their own charges . The depot- incharge used to co - ordinate with the contractors in aforesaid jobs . The Management had deployed sufficient number ofClass III and IV workmen to effectively supervise the jobs connected with the depots . No vacancy existed for Class IV post nor any post of a messenger was sanctioned in the depot . The three casual workers engaged as Water Carriers used to bring water as well as to perform the job of a messengar. They were regularised in the year 1988-89 as per the Management's Circular dtd . 6-5-87 . Even thepremanent workmen after dehiring the Gulabbagh depot became surplus . None of the workmen held any post on permanent or regular basis , rather mostly of them were exigently engaged for fumigation work carried on at intervals of3-6 months during pick period of the transportation of more materials , for sweeping , collecting and filling the food grain in the bags . There is no fixed job for the workmen. None possess the requisites for regularisation as per the aforesaid circular. The Central Government has passed the order under the F. C. Act banning on employment of a person against creation of new post or any vacant post , the Circulardtd. 6-5-87 stands automatically withdrawn , so theworkmen claim for regularisation thereunder is baseless. Merely putting 240 days attendance in absence of sanctioned permanent post cannot be their claim for regularisation against the statutory ban upon the Management ; it cannot fill up vacant post through their regularisation . After existence of vacancies and proper sanction from the Central Govt. for filling up such vacancies the rule of regularisation has to be promulgated and the werkmen falling under the rules can be regularised but these workmen are not covered by the Circular. The casual workers are engaged in exgencies now and then . Mostly the workmen are illiterate to read or write books and registers etc. as watchmen, messenger . No attendance Register is maintained for cas sal workers rather their attendance sheets convert into their bills and vouchers through which they receive their payments for the nature ofthe jobs done. Moreover, the circular became defunct after the order of the Central Govt.'s Order banning recruitment , regularisation , absorption etc. ofworkmen into [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

7558

fumigation and salvaging the stock etc. The witness could not recall if the cause non - regularisation of the concerned workmen due to non - fulfilment of the aforesaid condition was intimated to him , though the papers ofthe management transpired the case of the workman concerned for his regularisation could not be considered for non - receipt of the particulars and the papers (produced on behalf ofthe workmen) have been marked as Ext. W- 13. The witness (MW- 2) has denied the regularisation of the workmen's service inspite of the fulfilment of the condition noted above...

year as a casual labour, and still working so he claimed their regularisation . He has also proved the copies ofthe Bill prepared by the Management for the payment of wages from March , 1993 to 1995 as Ext . W- 14 series , the copy of the seniority list of the watchmen and the copy of the order concerning vacancy position of Class IV staff of the FCI under Bihar Region as Ext . W- 15 and W- 16 respectively. The witness in his cross - examination could not ascertain the exact date ofjoining but working since 19th February, 1986 as casual worker . He used to serve drinking water to the staff and also swept the Godown and sprayed medicines over the food grains over the depot , though the management did not issue any appointment letter for his engagement as casual worker , and he heard ofthe formation ofa committee by the management in 1987 for regularisation of casual workers . The workmen are alleged to have submitted their qualifications certificates to the Management for consideration of their regularisation , expressing his ignorance about the qualification of one workman Kritya Nand Mallic . He (WW- 2) has denied that the concerned workmen did not work continuously for three months upto 2-5-86, in respect of which in fact the management prepared the bills showing them as casual labour, and Beluri Depot as a post of Messenger.

10. Mr. U. K. Dubey, the Union Representative for the workmen submits that these nine workmen having completed three months continuous service of or before 2-5-86 as well as having requisite qualifications of 7th class Pass have worked as a casual worker under the Management as apparent from the Exts. W- 10 series , W- 11, W- 13 and W- 14 series which prove their continuous service for more than 3 years even in lack of any qualification . So they are entitled to regularisation of their service as held in the case of Bhagwati Prasad -versus- Delhi State Mineral Corporation , AIR 1990 (page 371-373 ). Further plea of the Union representative is that manyjuniors such Jagdish Mahato (Sl . No. 60 ) who was engaged on 24-4-86 have been regularised by the management but the case of the workmen has been unequally treated by the management which is against the principles of equality to public employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution in respect of which , the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India - versus Tulsiram Patel , AIR 1985 at page 416 , has been pleaded to hold : "Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be crippled, cabine and confined " It has also been submitted by the Union representative that these workmen have completed 240 days work in each calendar year and they are still in the service of the FCI for 15. to 25 years.

8. Whereas the statement of MW- 1 Shambhu Sharan the retiredAssistant Manager (Depot ) reveals that during his tenure from 1996 to 1999 accordingly at FSD Beluri (Purnea) the concerned workmen as a casual labour in the depot used to sweep and fill up bags with grains in the depot in exigency. The concerned workmen was not given any appointment letter for it nor was ever allotted any shifting duty of the Watchman for eight hours rather I found them (the concerned workmen) working in each month in the depot ofBeluri during my tenure from 1996- 1999 during which as the Depot Incharge the witness used to prepare bills for the payment of their wages though he could not recall it the number of the days of the work ofthe workmen concerned at the relevant time .

11. Whereas the contention of the Management Representative is that none of the persons concerned regularly worked rather the casual workers have been engaged by the management in exigency; besides that the concerned persons did not possess the requisite qualification and did not fulfill the conditions for their regularisation as per Circular dtd . 6-5-1987 , which automatically stood withdrawn following the Central Government's rule banning the employment of any persons inthe terms of the provision of the Food CorporationAct, so the casual labourers can neither be regularised nor entitled to any relief. It is also contended on behalf ofthe management that out of the nine persons , Smt . Fulmati Devi has already expired long back and that the claim of these persons based on the photo copy of the fabricated and false documents cannot be sustainable in the eye of law, Admittedly, the casual worker who completed 90 days service on or before 2-5-86 against Class III and IV posts , 9. MW- 2 M.L.Banerjee , the Deputy Manager (Personnel ) the FCI , Regional Office , Patna has stated that on 29-4-88 while he was a member of the Committee for regularisation of casual employees , after consulting the particulars ofconcerned workman Ram Bilas Paswanthey (management ) could not get any scope to recommend his name for regularisation in service . As per some of the criterias fixed for it, namely, ( i) the person must be a casual employee, (ii ) he must have completed three months service as on 2-5-86 and he must have passed Class Seven examination but the concerned aforesaid workman had failed to fulfil the aforesaid conditions . According to the witness the casual employees and the casual labours have separate entity, as the casual employees perform the work as a Water Carrier and a messenger in the office but casual labours work sweeping the floor of the shade for collecting picked grains , and assisting quality control staff in 7559

का । अनुसूर 15 , 2011/ अश्विन 2.3.1933

Acaba es prescribed as dahae perdavised on the post Thửa tiêu tam, was lehom and the proseri Mai me coonderation of the maternals scord of the prosem reference, it

won bere that the case of Ref.

Lane kisel uncuttaneously along with come to thethedscessor Presiding Officer Advent fromthe Ordorsheets

care and the workmen for

Ast to the case of the wing the nine workmen ander

درموار were amared as or karamel proer dispensed with and πετιΓριά κργία some decuments of sell the encomment tumked as Exts.W-

ng the head office of the Concerning were rekend to the fies streng objection ) in the Lancer by de predecessor besiding Officer No. 2514-8-99 and Order espaneety All the documents as *. paritet csforence which has been disposed 104 daug det rome of the present nine nafed presentreference case are almost replica of Awatan Pikts .W- 10 herds to W- 16, in this wall 100 per only relevant decuments Dame Murosiry of Labour's letter wifi.chow did 9-12-1976 on its Bookmaster hew Delhi's letter atd.

Moto Cucata No 2 of 1999 ( Pxe . W-8 and

Konser reference Case Ne Abutmete the probabrinou of employerunt home to sugung , Cleaning , Dusting and A in Attaglite establishment concerned saorderation of the Central Goverment.

1. Onde consideration of the materials available самый as the relevant documents Adeo immer Reterone Case No. 115 / 4.500mg dicts ar indisputable alute me wakamsaincluding Sl . No. i Sn Ram As the liscannered with the order new trenworking us casual labourer tenagakis period of service of мелеп сокcerted as op 2-5-1986 as a factor town we by the management for their phá thẻ management of the ثورةالواصق Purasa has been making erotondence with the authorities concerned my letter S. 9-13-85 ( Ext.W 1 ) the letters of Regional Manager , Patna d . 25-9-87, and 31-5-94, 13-2-95 ( Ext . W- 2 series) same as Ext.W - 12 the Assistant Manager, FCI dt.31-2-94 and letter dt. 15-7-94 , Belouri (Purnea) Exts. W-3 and W- 11 respectively, District Purnea FCI letter di. 24-5-89 ( Ext . W - 4 ) and FCI Zonal Manager Calcutta's lerterdt . 23-1-1987 ( Ext.W- 5) . These ninc casual workers as per Ext . W- 1 series the statements preparedby the Management concerned of District Office Purnea as well as Belouri (Purnea ) are shown to have been initially engaged in the respective ars as under :

Date/year of

St... Naime of the werkoman

engagement.

1978

1. Shri Ram Bilas Paswan

1980

2. Shri. Han Bilas Paswan

1984

3 Sint. Daya Rani

1984

4. Smt . Sumitra Devi

1984

5 Shri Harendra Nath Biswas

28-1-86 6. Shri Ram Deo Das

October, 1984 7 Shri Mahadeo Paswan

Jan., 1980 8. Shri Krityanand Mallik

and

June, 1978 Smt. Fulmati Devi . Now dead

( ii) The papers of the management as admitted by MW- 2 ML . Banerjee , the Dy . Manager , Personnci , FCI Regional Office , Patna transpired the case of the concerned workmen for tegularisation could not be considered for non- receipt of the particulars which is apparent from the Management's paper Exts . W- 12, FCI Patna's letter of . 13-2-95 along with the acquittance rolls of the casual workmen concerned namely 1 . Sti Rata Bilas Paswan , 2. Sri Hari Bilas Paswan, 3 Smt . Daya Ram, 4. Sumitra Devi , 5. Harendra Nath Biswas , 6 Ramdeo Das and 7. Mahadeo Das as well as Ext. W- 13 . the District Office Purica list of the workmen whose particulars were not received.

14. The Seniority list ofwatchmen as on 31-12-98 in respect of Bihar Region (of the FCI marked as Ext .W- 15) as admitted by the management and the photo copy of the statements showing the vacancy status of Class IV staff of the FCI under the signature of Assistant Manager, Personnel FCI , Regional Office , Patna Bihar as Ext . W- 16 also remained unrcbutted by the Management.

15. In addition to the aforesaid facts , I also find from Ext. W-10 senes, the casual labour bill's (photo copies) which prove unvcburtably that out of the aforesaid nine 7560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2915.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-22012/152/2001- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st September, 2011

S.O. 2915. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 23/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 21-9-2011 .

workmen, the workmen as per the list annexed with the order of reference Sl.No.1 to 5 namely 1. Shri Ram Bilas Paswan, 2. Shri Haribilas Paswan, 3. Smt . Daya Rani , 4. Smt. Sumitra Devi and 5. Shri Harendra Nath Biswas have been working since 1984 to 1989 , 1992-1993 and Sl . No. 6 Ramdeo Das had served from April , 1992 to March, 1993 only and from December , 1993 to November, 1994. Sl . No. 7 Mahadeo Paswan had served from November , 1984 to March , 1985 , March, 1986 to 1987 , 1992 to 1993, Sl . No. 8 Krityanand Mallick as per Ext. W- 1 served the FCI up to 8-10-1985 since January, 1980 and thereafter from December , 1993 to November, 1994 so he has also completed three months of his service as casual labour on 2-5-86 but Sl . No. 9 Fulmati Devi (dead) served from December , 1993 to November , 1994 as apparent from- the Ext. W- 14 series , the casual labour's bills for the year 1993-94 , which proves the working of all the aforesaid workmen as Casual Labour for the period of December, 1993 to November, 1994. Both the aforesaid series of Casual Labour's Bills do not prove the case of Ramdeo Dasworking before the date as on 2-5-86 even thereafter regularly except in the letter years 1992 to 1994. Hence , I find that the case of the workmen at Sl . No. 1 to 5,7 and 8 as per the list of the workmen has been made out but the case of the workman Sl . No. 6 Ramdeo Das , and Sl . No. 9 Smt . Fulmati Devi (dead not made out) .

[No. L-22012/ 152/2001 - IR (C- II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT / NGP / 23/ 2002

Date: 14.09.2011

Party No. 1: The Dy. General Manager, Neeljay Sub Area of WCL , At Neeljay Post Bellora , Tah . Wani . Distt . Yavatmal Maharashtra .

Versus

Party No. 2 : The Jt . General Secretary,

16. Viewing the nature of the employment of the workmen aforesaid seven workmen as casual labour who had completed requisite qualifications i.e. the completion ofminimum three months their service as on 2-5-1986 are still working, had the management of the District Office furnished the Headquarters authorities with their particulars as required- regularly up to 1996, their services would have been regularised . Under these circumstances I hold that out ofthe nine workers Sl . No.1 Ram Bilas Paswan , Sl. No. 2 Sri Haribilas Paswan , Sl . No.3 Daya Rani , Sl . No.4 Sumitra Devi , Sl . No. 5 Shri Harendra Biswas , Sl . No.7 Shri Mahadeo Paswan and Sl. No.8 Krityanand Mallick are quite entitledto regularisation in the Group- D post . But the rest workmen namely Sl . No. 6 Ramdeo Das and Smt . Fulmati Devi are not entitled to it .

Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , 604 , Behind Giripeth Post Office, Opp: RTO Nagpur , Maharashtra - 440010 AWARD

(Dated: 14th September, 2011 )

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management ofNeeljay Sub Area ofWCL and their workman Shri Pandurang Chandankar, for adjudication , as pe . letter No. L - 22012/ 152/2001 - IR ( CM - II) dated 30-1-2001 , with the following schedule:-

Therefore, the action of the management of FCI , Patna not regularising the services of aforesaid Ram Bilas Paswan and others as mentioned above is held not justified and legal . But action of management not regularising the workmen Sl . No.6 Ramdeo Das and Sl . No.9 Smt . Fulmati Devi in their services was quite justified and legal . Thus only the aforesaid workmen namely Ram Bilas Paswan, Hari Bilas Paswan , Smt . Daya Rani , Smt . Sumitra Devi . Shri Harendra Nath Biswas and Mahadeo Paswan and Krityanand Mallick are entitled to regularisation of their services inGroup-D posts within two months from the date ofpublication of the Award .

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management ofthe Neeljay Sub Area of WCL Ltd. , Neeljay Post Bellora , Tah .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Wani , Distt . Yavatmal (Mah .) in dismissing Shri Pandurang Madhav Chandankar , Clerk Grade- I from services w.e.f. 11-10-1994 is legel and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled to ? "

2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which , the union , Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) ( " the Union " in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Pandurang Madhav Chandankar ( " the workman " in short) and the management of W.C.L. (" party no . 1 " in short) filed the written statement .

The case of the workman as presented by the union inthe statement of claim is that the workman was working atNeeljay- II open cast project at the time of his dismissal from service and he was a permanent workman and he was initially appointed as a general mazdoor on 16-4-1975 and on account of his efficient , able and devoted services , he wasselected as clerk grade - III and subsequently promoted asclerk grade - II and then as clerk grade- I and on 2-5-1993 , a charge sheet was submitted against him under Section 17 ( i) ( a) of the Standing Orders on the allegations of his tampering the entries in the attendance register in respect of one Shri J.V. Chalam , Shovel Operator, who had been marked as absent from 17-4-1993 to 27-4-1993 and that he scored out the old entries and entered attendance of Shri Chalam and signed the same himself and he was called upon to submit his reply to the said charge sheet and he submitted his reply but party no . 1 being not satisfied with the reply, initiated a departmental proceedings and Shri D. K. Chandok was appointed as the enquiry officer , who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to thedisciplinary authority and basing on the enquiry report, theDy. General Manager , WCL , Neeljay Sub Area imposed the punishment of dismissal from services against him on 8-10-1994 and though he filed an appeal to the management for his reinstatement , the same was not replied and the union also requested to the Chief General Manager, to communicate the decision on the appeal by letter dated 10/ 11 January, 1997 , but as no reply was received , the dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) , Chandrapur and as the conciliation failed, failure report was submitted to the Central Government by the ALC and in its turn , the Central Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal .

Itisfurther pleaded by the union that even though theCertified Standing Orders of WCL had already come into force w.e.f. 23-1-1993 , charge sheet was submitted against the workman on 2-5-1993 under the model standing orders and therefore , the charge sheet itself is illegal and copyofthe complaint received by the disciplinary authority against the workman was not supplied to the workman , so the workman was denied reasonable opportunity and on thatground also , the charge sheet is illegal and bad in law

7561

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

and the charges leveled against the workman are vague and not specific and the workman had been charge sheeted on false allegations , which is clear from the evidence of Shri S.M. Bobde, the attendance clerk and no charge sheet was submitted against the real culprit and the enquiry was not conducted in fairness , keeping in view the principles ofnaturaljustice, therefore the enquiry is bad in law and relevant documents were not supplied to the workman before the enquiry or during the course of the enquiry and the list of witnesses was also not supplied to the workman and thereby, the enquiry officer failed to offer reasonable opportunity to the workman and at the time of imposing the punishment, the past clean and unblemished service record of the workman was not taken into consideration andthe findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the punishment of dismissal of the workman from services is harsh , unfair, unjustified and bad in law.

The union has prayed for the reinstatement of the workman in services with continuity in service and full back wages .

3.The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was posted at Neeljay no . II open caste mine as Gr.I Clerk before being dismissed from services and hewas the in -charge of the attendance section andhis nature of duty was such that a very high degree of integrity and honesty was required from him, but it was alleged that one shri J.V. Chalam , Shovel Operator was on leave without pay from 17-4-1993 to 27-4-1993 and the workman unauthorisedly and without permission of the competent authority scored out the attendance of Shri Chalam in the attendance register of those days and by over writing marked Shri Chalam present on duty and he initialed and signed the said entries and the act of the workman amounted to dishonesty in connection with the employers ' property and business and as such , the workmanwas charge sheeted and placed under suspension and the charges were detailed in the charge sheet and the workman submitted his explanation to the charge sheet by denying the charges and as after examination of his explanation, the same was found not to be satisfactory, it was decided to conduct a departmental enquiry against him and accordingly Shri D.K. Chandok was appointed as the enquiry officer and the workman fully participated in the enquiry along with his co- worker and during the course of the enquiry, witnesses for the management were examined and documents were produced presence of the workman and his co - worker and the workman was allowed to cross -examine the witnesses and the workman examined himself in his defence and he was cross- examined by the management representative and the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry with the consent of both tas parties and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the Manager, Neeljay OCM - II holding the charges to have been proved against the workman and while writing the report , the enquiry officer made a detailed analysis of the evidence 7562

THE GAZET ILA SIENA OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASUNA 4,193 .

4. Asthis sacase of handssad of the wod non to ta services , after holding a departmental enquiry, the question the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a prolinainary issue and vide ord das 18-12-2006 , it was held that the enquiry was legal and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justustice.

It is no scary to mention here that while deciding the prelin cour tosine , the Tribunal constiered about the submission of de charge sheet against the workman ander the model standing orders and it was held that no wrong was commited in conducting the enquiry as per tnordel standing orders..

5. At the line of argument, u wes submitted in the union representhave thất thế enquiry officer in his report did not explain di reasons and circumstances for which, the Mine Manager was not examined in the departinental enquiry and the reasons and circumstances for not supplying the documents as well as the list of witnesses and therefore , the findings of the enquiry officer are defective and are perverse and the same are not based upon reasonable conclusions and submission of charge sheet against the workman alone amounts to victimization and as such, the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse . It was further submitted by the union representative that the workman was appointed on 16-4-1975 as a general mazdoor, but due to his efficient and loyal services for 18 years , he was selected as Clerk Gr. III and promoted as ClerkGr. Il and then to Clerk Gr. I and the alleged proved misconduct against the workmar was first in his service record and 13 such , the punishment of dismissal from services imposed upon him is very harsh . highly excessive , disproportionate , bias and colourful exercise ofpowers by themanagement , as the management did not take any action against Shri J.V Chalam , Shovel Operator and Shri Bobde , the clerk, who prepared the statement of sununery of attendance ofthe workman for the month ofApril, 1993 t was also subinitted by the union representative that the appellate authority ie. de Dy General Manager- Cum agent-Cum-Chief Mining Engineer, Neeljay mine passed thedismissal onder and though in the dismissal order, it was mentioned that approval of the competent authority was obtained, the copy of the approval order was not supplied to the woman and as such, the order of punishment is bad in las

6. On the other hand , it was subenued by tho management copresentative that the Dy . General Manager- cum-Agent, who passed the orda of panishnent was not the appellate authority and the order of punishnerit was passedby the Agat of the mine im vie vof clouse 19 of the Model Standing Order and while conveying the approval ofthe Chief Geremi Manager. the Dy CGeneral Manager and agent was specifically advised to take necessary action at his end and as such, the order of panushment was not adducedbefore him by the parties andoned at a rational , logical and objective finding and les did not bas his findings on any extraneous material or onsideration and the copyofthe enquiry report was supplied to the workman vide letter dated 28-6-1994 , for making opre colabon against the same, if any, but no represent on was made by hìn andthe manager, Neeljay OCM -11 after ber satisfied that the charges have been proved again the workman recommended for dismissal of the werken from services and after obtaining due approval of the competen authority, the workman was dismissed by the sub area Manager- cum-Deputy General Manager vide onder dated 8-10-1994 making the dismissal effective Bom 11-10-1994 and the departmental enquiry head against d . workman was just, fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice . It is further pleaded by the party no. 1 that no areal was filed by the workman before the appellate authority and as the period of ifing of appeal was over long back and the union had no lecen standi of filing any appeal under the rules against he dismissal of an employee , the management did not consider it necessary or desirable to reply to the union's letter dated 10/ 11th January, 1997 and the directive to follow the Certified Standing Orders of WCL were issued only on 15-9-1993 and therefore till 15-9-1993 , there was a transnion period, during which, model standing orders hard to be followed in cases of disciplinary action and the same could not have beenkept in abeyance and as such, action wastaken against the workman under the model standing orders and action by the management was taken on oral complaint in this case and the manager did not think it propuesto disclose the name of the person , who had given the verbal confidential report to him and therefore the charge sheet cannot be said to be illegal and charges leveled agamat the workman were not vague and the workman did not raise any objection in his explanation that due to vagueness in the charge sheet, he was not able to understand and answer the same and Shri Bobde in his evidence in the enquiry ba i clearly stated that the cutting and overwriting was done by the workman and therefore , he asked the workman to put bis initials and signature, which the workman did and the workman was not charge sheeted on false allegations and there was no question of any ill motive behind its action and as there was no evidence of involvement of Shri Ceam, therefore the question of issuing charge sheet agamat him did no arise and as the workman did not demand day document the question of supplying the documents did not arise and the workman went through the documents filed in the enquiry by the management and signed the ame in token of having seen the documents and as such , he did not suffer any prejudice in his defence and there is no provision ofsupplying the copies of the day to day proceedings of the enquiry and the punishment imposed against the workman isjust and proper and the workman is not entitled för anyrelief.

753

भारत की राजवत्र अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/ आश्विन 23 , 1953

भाग 11 खण्ड

passed by the appellate amhorny and there is no provision to supply copy of approvat allowed by the competent uthority and as such , there was question of supply of a copy of the same to the workman .

punishment is illegal and unjustified. in support of such contention , reliance has been placed by union representative on the decision of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court reported in 2009 1.AVI.C. ( NOC ) 829 ( J.Prasad Vs. Board of Directors of the Hindustan Steel Work Construction Ltd., Calcutta) In the said decision, the Hon'ble Court have been pleaded to hold that. "Constitution of India, Article 311- Dismissal from service -Order not passedby Disciplinary Authority but by Appellate Authority .Thus , delinquent is deprive of his righttoAppeal ---Order of Dismissal is illegal " .

Itwas further submitted that the past record of the orkman was taken into consideration while imposing the punishment, which is clear from the document , annexure -B and the misconduct i.e. fraud and dishonesty committed by the workman was very serious in nature and such misconduct was duly proved against him in a properly held departmental enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence produced in the enquiry and the same are not perverse and the punishment imposed against the workman is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges and therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the punishmen

In support of such submissions , rehance was placed by the party no. 1 on the decisions reported in 1996 AB.I.C. 462 ( SC) ( B.C. Chaturvedi V's . Union of India) , 2003 LAB.I. C( SC) (P.W.D. Karmachari Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan ) and 2005 LAB . ILC 854 ( S C. ) ( Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar)

With respect, I am ofthe view that the above decision has no application in the present case , on the own showing. of the workman , as because , accordingto the submission made on the behalf of the workman , the Chief General Manager is the notified Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has not passed the order of dismissal . Admittedly, there are provisions in the Standing Orders of WCL for taking approval of the competent Authority when an order ofdismissal , discharge and removal from service of workman is passed and when the Superintendent (Mines)/Manager is the dismissing/ discharging/removing authority, then the Sub Area Manager of the respective Sub Area is the approval giving authority.

7. Before delving in to the merit of the matter , I think it proper to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the above decisions . It is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the competent authority in imposition of punishment , unless the same suffers from illegality or procedural irregularity et materjal nature or punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the Tribunal has no Jurisdiction to sit over the findings reached by the enquiry authority in a disciplinary proceeding as the appellate authority.

In this case, the charge sheet was issuedby the Mines Manager and after submission ofthe enquiry report , the Mines Manager recommended to impose the punishment of dismissal against the workman and submitted to the Sub Area Manager for getting approval and the Sub Area Manager instead of giving approval himselfobtained the approval of the ChiefGeneral Manager and after obtaining approval , issued the order of dismissal against the workman and the issuance of the dismissal order by the Sub Area Manager can be held to be irregular but cannot be tenned as illegal , so as to hold the order as bad in law. Hence , there is no force in the contention raised by the union representative .

So keeping in view, the principles cour.ciated by the Hon'hle Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , now, the present case at hand is to be considered:

9. So far the submission regarding non - taking of action against Shri Chalam and Shri Bobde is concerned , it is found from the materials on record and pleadings of the parties that no action was taken against Shri Chalam and Bobde , as their involvement was not found in commission of the misconduct . As such , there is no force in the contention raised by the union representative that the workman was victimized and the party no. 1 imposed the punishment in colourful exercise of its right . There is also no provision for supply of the copy of the sanction order of the competent authority regarding imposition of the punishment to the workman and for that it cannot be said that the order is perverse .

10. Perused the record . Mr. Bobde has catagorily stated that the workman tampered the attendance register inrespectofthe attendance of Shri Chalam , who was absent from 17-4-1993 to 27-4-1993 by overwriting the same and 8. The first contention raised by the union representative is that the order of punishment of dismissal from services of the workman was passed by the Sub Area Manager , Neeljay Sub Area on 8-10-1994 , even though , the charge sheet was issued by the Mines Manager, Neeljay II OC Mine on 2-5-1993 and according to the Certified Standing Orders, ifthe Manager of a mine is the Disciplinary Authority, then , the Sub Area Manager is the dismissal approving authority and the Chie ! General Manager is the notified Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has accorded approval of imposition of the punishment and as such , the action and intention of the management in dismissing the workman from service amount to colourful exercise ofpowers and more so , when the management has not taken any disciplinary action against the other workmen, Shri Chalam and Shri Bobde and therefore , the 7564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

initialed and signed the same and he made the totaling. Nowhere in his evidence , Shri Bobde has stated that he himself made the overwriting , as claimed by the workman inthe statement of claim or by the union representative in hisargument.

11. Perused the record . Taking into consideration the pleading of the parties , the documents of the departmental proceedings , the enquiry report and the writtennotes of the arguments , it is found that the charges levelled against the workman were not vague and the charges were mentioned in detail and the workman had never demanded copy of any document and there is also nothing on record to show that due to non - supply of the copy ofdocuments and the list of witnesses the workman was prejudiced in any way.

Onperusal of the enquiry report , it is found that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on materials adduced before him in the departmental enquiry and he has analyzed the evidence in a rational manner and has assigned reasonable and cogent reasons in support of the findings . It is also found from the documents produced by the party no.1 that at the time of imposing the punishment, the past service records of the workman were taken into considerationby the authority. It is found from the materials onrecord that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse.

12. So far the punishment is concerned , it is found that charges of very serious misconduct were levelled against the workman and such charges have been proved against him in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions as mentioned above , it is found that thepunishment imposed against the workman is not at all disproportionate to the act of his misconduct and the same is neither harsh nor shockingly disproportionate . Hence , there is no reason to interfere with the punishment . Hence , itisordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of the Neeljay Sub Area of WCL Ltd. , Neeljay Post Bellora , Tah Wani , Distt. Yavatmal ( Mah) in dismissing Shri Pandurang Madhav Chandankar , Clerk Grade- I from services w.e.f. 11-10-1994 islegal and justified . The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2916.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 19/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22011/8 /2009- आईआर ( सी- H ) ]

डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st September , 2011 S.O. 2916.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-9-2011 .

[No. L- 22011/ 8/2009- IR (C - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 2nd day ofAugust , 2011

Industrial Dispute No. 19/2009

Between:

Sri T. Nagi Reddy, S/ o Veera Reddy, Subbarayudu Street, Tallamudunurupadu , ViaTadepalligudem , W.G. Distt .

...Petitioner AND

1. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , Regional Office , HACA Bhawan, Hyderabad-500 004.

2. The District Manager ,

Food Corporation of India , District Office, Tadepalligudem , WestGodavari district .

.Respondents APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/s . K. Ajay Kumar, Sudha & M. Govind , Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocates [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7565

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23, 1933

AWARD

TheGovemment of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22011 / 8 / 2009 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 13-4-2009 referred the following dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal . The term of reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of FCI , Tadepalligudem in terminating the services of Shri T. Nagi Reddy w.e.f. 9-12-1998 is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled for? "

The reference is numbered in this tribunal as I.D. 19/2009 and notices were issued to the concerned parties .

2. Petitioner filed claim statement wherein he has stated that he has worked in Food Corporation of India as head loader since 1982 , EPF subscriptions were also deducted from his wages . That he could not attend duty due to ill health for one year after 1999 but after recovery when he approached the Respondent authorities he was refused to resume duties . Hence , he prays this Tribunal for a direction to the Respondent management for his reinstatement .

3. Respondents filed counter statement stating therein that the Petitioner was inducted into direct payment system on no work no pay basis and he joined the employment on 17-12-1997 . It is submitted that Petitioner was absent w.e.f. 8-12-1998 and he never turned up for employment . The District Organiser and the Central Committee member of the Food Corporation of India workers union by his later dated 16-7-1999 informed the corporation that the Petitioner has left to Gulf country for better employment and insisted that all the vacancies that had origin due to the absence of such workers , should be filled up by the workers who are next in the seniority. Accordingly, vidc office order dated 8-10-1999 appointment of the workers who failed tojoin duty were cancelled. It is a case of abandonment of employment , hence , the industrial dispute is liable to be dismissed.

4. The case is fixed for evidence of parties . Both parties called absent and Petitioner was absent for previous dates also . In absence of parties their evidence is closed and in absence of any evidence the case is closed as such , NilAward is passed accordingly.

Award passed accordingly. Tran uit .

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for theRespondent NIL

thePetitioner NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2917.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 174/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/146/1997- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st September, 2011

S.O. 2917. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 174/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers în relation to the management of WCL and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 21-9-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/ 146/ 1997 - IR (C - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/ NGP / 174/2000

Date: 14-09-2011 :

PartyNo. 1

The Sub Area Manager, M/ s . WCLtd. , New Majri Underground Sub Area, PO Shivajinagar , Distt . Chandrapur .

Versus

Party No. 2

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Ciowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected by me on this the 2nd day of August, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer : The General Secretary , Koyla Shramik Sabha ( HMS ) , Branch Majri , Ward No. 20, PO & Tehsil Wani , Distt . Yavatmal .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

AWARD

Dated: 14th September , 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 Western Coalfields Ltd. and their Union Koyla Shramik Sabha ( HMS ) to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Bombay for adjudicaison , as per letter No L- 22012/ 146/97 - IR ( C - II ) dated 30-7-1998 , with the following schedule:-

and the management is also prohibited to employ contractors and as such, the claimants are liable to be treated as workmen of Party No.1 since 1989 and mud pellets are prepared according to the standard fixed by the Party No. 1 and there was supervision over the work of the claimants and as such , there was master and servant relationship between the parties , hence the claimants are to be treated as workmen of the Party No.1 and they are entitled to get daily wages as per the wages fixed by the National Wage Board and to get difference of arrears of wages since 1989 up till now and as per the different provisions of Labour Laws , Party No. 1 is precludedfrom continuing the claimants on daily wages for such a long period and they are entitled to be regularized . The union has prayed to declare the claimants as workmen of the Party No. 1 , to regularize them in service and for payment ofdifference of arrears of wages as fixed by the National Coal Wages Board.

"Whether the action of the management of Sub Area Mnager , M/ s WCL, New Majri U/G Sub Area. PO Shivajinagar, Distt. Chandrapur in not regularizing the female workmen namely Smt . Shobabai , Smt . Shantabai , Sit.. Laxmibai and , Sint . Anjanabat , (Mud Pellet Maker) and not paying wages as per the National Coal wage are legal , proper and justified? It not, to what relief the female workmen are entitled and from which date? What other directions are necessary in the matter?"

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

2.On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written siatement , in response to which , the union , Koyla Shramik Sabha ( IIMS ) , ( " the union " in short) filed a joint statement ofclaim on behalf of all the four female claimants ("the claimants" in short ) and the management of the WCI . ( " the Party No. 1 in short ) filed the written statement .

3. The Party No. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that. it is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and for recruitment of employees , it has a uniform recruitment policy and for recruitment in the Wage Board category, vacancies are notified with the local employment exchange and candidates sponsored by the local employment exchange are interviewed and selection is made out of the successful candidates by the committee and successful candidates are appointed by issuing appointment orders and after medical examination , the candidates are sent for vocational training and the employees are issued with CoalCard, Medical Card , and Identity Cardetc. and their service records are kept and the claimants were not appointedby it and they were never engaged for any work in the Mine and the engagement of the claimants was neither regular nor in conformity with the rules and regulations governing such engagement and they were not the employees of the Party No. 1 and there was no employer and employee - relationship between the parties and as such , their claim for regular employment is not maintainable .

The case of the claimants as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that the claimants were working for the Party No.1 as mud pellet supplier since 1989 and they are also working as such for the Party No. 1 and they were being paid Rs . 15 only for 1000 pellets and the workmen after performing more than cight hours ofduty. ured to prepare 1500 mud pellets per day and thus getting Rs. 22 per day as remuneration and the Party No.1 instead of making payment as per the National Coal Wages Agreement , only paying Rs . 15 for one thousand pellets are as such, the union took up the matter for conciliation het te the ALC ( C ) , Chandrapur and due to the failure of th conciliation , failure eport was submined to the Government and the Central Government refered the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal and before the Con aliation Officer, the Party No. contended that the Jainmants were engaged on contract basis and turneddown their claim and the process of mud pelict making is a ontinuous process , without any stoppage and the process s not a seasonal one and as per the provisis soffiontract Labour (Abolition) Act. 1970, the claimants cannot be construed as contractors or workmen of the contractor

It is also pleaded by Party No. 1 that the Government has made the reference assuming certain facts , which did not exist and the Government has referred the case of the claimants mentioning them as workmen, even though there was no employer and employee relationship between the parties and the reference was made mechanically without application of mind and without considering the relevant materials placed on record and for that the reference is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and the claimants were awarded a contract for supply of mud pellets to it , for use inthe Mines and the rate for supply of the pellets was also negotiated and settled and the claimants agreed to supply pellets at the rate of Rs . 15 per thousand pellets and they used to supply the pellets as per its requirement and they were being paid the cost of the pallets as per the contract and as such, they cannot be said to be workmen , as per 7567 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23, 1933

and she was not getting the facility of coal and medical treatment and they were given the contract for preparing mudpellets.

the provisions of the Act and there was no supervision or control over the claimants and they were making the pellets according to their own will , system and convenience and there is no prohibition under the Contract Labour Abolition Act, 1970, for purchase of mud pellets from the contractors and the claimants cannot be treated as workmen and the mud pellets were made according to the standard required by it or otherwise the same are of no use and there is no question of purchasing of the same and the claimants cannot be treated as workmen and the claimants are not entitled to any relief.

11. The two witnesses examined on behalf ofParty No.1 in their evidence have reiterated the facts mentioned inthe written statement . In his cross - examination, witness No. 1 , D.C. Gupta has stated that they do not pay any wages to the claimants and paying them Rs . 30 per thousand pellets from 2001 , which was Rs . 15 prior tothe same and the number ofpellets to be prepared by a labour has not been fixed . This witness has denied the suggestion given to him that the claimants are working under the supervision ofWCL and there is relationship of employer and employee and they are paying the wages of category no. 1 to the claimants .

4. In support of their respective claims , both the parties have adduced oral evidence , besides relying on documentary evidence . On behalf of the claimants , all the four claimants and Jai Narayan , the General Secretary of the union have been examined as witnesses . On behalf of the Party No.1 , D.C. Gupta, the Personnel Manager and Dada Zitru Jivtode , an employee of the Party No.1 have been examined as witnesses .

12. The witness no . 2 , Dada . Z. Jivtode for the Party No. 1, in his cross - examination has stated that the claimants make mud pellets as per supply orders and management pays them wages for the same .

5. In their examination - in - chief, the claimants and the Secretary of the union have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement ofclaim .

6. The Secretary of the union , Jai Narayan in his cross-examination has stated that payment was being made to the claimants on the basis of the number of the pellets made by them and a sum of Rs . 15 was being paid for making 1000 pellets .

7. Santabai in her cross - examination has stated that it is true to say that payment was being made to them on the basis of the number of pellets prepared by them. She has also stated that before her engagement , there was no medical examination and no written appointment order was givento her and neither coal was given to her for cooking nor she was given the facility of medical treatment . She has also stated that they were making the pellets near the mine and they use to go to make pellets and to return to their houses according to their convenience.

13.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the claimants that the claimants are working for more than 11 years as mud pellet workers and theyhad completed 240 days of work with Party No. 1 , but PartyNo.1 did not regularize their services and not paying them wages as fixed by National Coal Wages Board and exploiting them, which is an unfair labour practice and as the claimants are engaged directly by the Party No.1 , therefore , they are the employees of Party No.1 and there is clear cut evidence of employer and employee relationship betweenthe parties and in view of section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the claimants cannot be continued as contract workers for years together and mud pellets are required regularly or shot firing purpose in mining by Party No.1 and as such, they cannot employ the workers on contract basis for supply ofmud pellets and as the female workers are working for more than 19years with the Party No. 1 , they are employees ofParty No.1 and they are entitled for regularization in services and benefit of permanent employees .

8. Laxmibai in her cross - examination has stated that the more the pellets they were making , the more money they were getting and on the day when they were not making the pellets , they were not getting any thing and no appointment letter was given to her and she was also not medically examined and no medical card or identity card was issued to her.

9.Anjanabai in her cross - examination has statedthat no appointment order was issued to her and she was not medically examined and she was not getting the facility of getting coal and medical treatment in the hospitals ofWCL and they were going to prepare the pellets according to their convenience .

10. Shobhabai , in her cross - examination has stated that it is true to say that she was not appointed by WCL

14. On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the claimants werenot appointed by the management and they were not engaged in the Mine and they are not employees of the management and there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties and the claimants were awarded contracts to supply of mud pellets and they are contractors and not the employees and there was no supervision or control of the management over them and they have been paid cost of the pellets as per the quantum of supply of pellets and work of making mud pellets on contract basis is not prohibited under the provision of Contract Labour Abolition Act, 1970 and from the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants , it is clear that they were never employed by the management but they were 3708G1/2011-19 7568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

In view of the materials on record and the discussion made above itis found that the claimants are not entitled for any relief. Hence , it is ordered:-

ORDER

supplier of mud pellets and the claimants are not entitled to any relief. In support of such contentions , reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in 2002 (3 ) SCC- 25( Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Handimani ) , Secretary, State of Karnatak & others Vs. Umadevi & others , 2005(4) SCC -209 ( Binod Kumar Gupta & others Vs. Ram Ashray Mahato & others ), 1997 (4 ) LLN - 85 (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel ) , 1998 (2 ) LLN -47 ( Arun Kumar Rout Vs. State of Bihar ) and 1992 LAB . I.C. 2055 ( Director, Institute of Management Development , U.P. Vs. Smt . Puspa Srivastava) .

Theaction ofthe management of Sub Area Manager, M/s . WCL , New Majri U /G Sub Area , PO Shivajinagar , Distt. Chandrapur in not regularizing the female workmen namely Smt . Shobabai , Smt . Shantabai , Smt. Laxmibai and Smt .Anjanabai , (Mud Pellet Maker ) and not paying wages as per the National Coal Wage are legal , proper and justified . The workmen are not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 21 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2918.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 15. Perused the record including the pleadings of the parties ; evidence adduced by the parties and the written notes of argument. In the statement of claim itself, the claimants have mentioned that they were working as mud pellets supplier since 1989 and still they are working as such for WCL . In the prayer , it is prayed that the claimants be declared as workman ofWCL. Such pleadings and prayer clearly show that the claimants are not workmen ofParty No. 1. Therefore the dispute raised by the union onbehalf ofthe claimants cannot be said to be an industrial dispute. Hence , the reference made by the Central Government holding the claimants as workmen and the dispute as an industrial dispute is not proper.

[सं. एल-22012/348/1989- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st September , 2011 The claimant , Shobhabai has admitted that she was not appointedby WCL and she was not getting the facility of coal and medical treatment and they were given the contract for preparing mud pellets .

S.O. 2918.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-9-2011 .

Claimant, Santabai has admitted that payment was being made to them on the basis of the number ofpellets prepared by them and no written appointment order was given to her and they were making the pellets near the mine and they use go to make pellets and to return to their houses according to their convenience .

[No. L- 22012/ 348 / 1989 -IR (C- II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Claimant, Laxmibai has stated that the more pellets they were making, the more money they were getting and theday when they were not making the pellets , they were not getting any thing and no appointment order was given toher.

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

Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 55 /2003

Date: 14-09-2011 Anjanabai has also admitted the same thing and has also stated that they were going to make the pellets according to their convenience .

Party No.1 : The Sub Area Manager , Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery, WCL , PO Lalpeth , Distt. Chandrapur.

Versus

PartyNo. 2

Such admissions of the claimants and from the evidence of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the Party No.1 and the documentary evidence , it is clear that the claimants were not engaged by the Party No.1 as their employees but they were given contract for supply of mud pellets after making the same and there was never any relationship of employer and employee between the parties . As the claimants were not engaged as contract labours but given contract to supply pellets the provision of section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 is not attracted.

: TheGeneral Secretary, LalBawata Koyla Kamgar Union , NearNoorani Masjid, Bhiwapur Peth Ward, PostBabupeth, Distt. Chandrapur .

7569 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

Dated: 14th September, 2011

in the family of Mallayya and there was illegal acceptance of the resignation of Mallayya and soon after such acceptance , gratuity was also paid to him and as the workman was ill , he did not file any appeal and Mallayya expired on 2-12-87 and after his death , his widow approached the WCL authorities time and again begging for giving her appointment but the authorities did not pay any heed.

Prayer has been made to declare the acceptance of the resignation of deceased Mallayya as illegal and to direct the Party No.1 to give compassionate appointment to his widow, Smt , Mallubai .

Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act " in short), the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management ofWestern Coalfields Ltd. and the Union Lal Bawata Kamgar Union to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 22012/348/89 - IR (Coal- II) dated 25-4-90/02-5-90, with the following schedule:-

"Whether Smt . Mallubai wife of Late Sri Ailayya Mallayya Samaayya , Loader who expired on 2-12-87 is entitled to get the employment as a dependent from the Management of Sub Area Manager , M/sWCL, (Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery) , PO- Lalpeth, Distt. Chandrapur ( MS ) ? If yes , to what relief Smt. Mallubai is entitled?"

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

3. In the written statement , Party No.1 has pleaded inter-alia that the reference has been made at the instance of the union and the said union does not have any membership of following in the colliery and therefore the dispute, which has been raised by the minority union cannot be adjudicated and apart from the same , Smt . Mallubai was never an employee of coal mines and that being so , she could not be a member of the union and the union cannot take up the case of person , who is not its member and the reference is liable to be rejected on that ground.

2.On receipt of the notice ofthe reference, the union, LalBawata Kamgar Union ( " the union" in short) filed the statement ofclaim on behalf of the applicant, Smt . Mállubai (" the applicant" in short) and the management of WCL ("the Party No. 1" in short ) filed the written statement.

It isfurther pleaded by the Party No.1 that late Aillayya Mallayya Samayya was working as Loader in Lalpeth Mine No. 1 , since 8-2-66 and on 8-6-87 , he submitted his resignation duly witnessed by Shri P.K. Reddy and the resignation letter received from Mallayya was forwarded to the Sub Area Manager and after acceptance of the resignation , the management vide their letter No. WCL/HLC/ MGR/PER/ 933 dated 28/30-6-87 communicated the workman , Mallayya about the acceptance of his resignation w.e.f. 7-6-87 and he was advised to collect all his dues and after acceptance of the resignation, the workman submitted an application for payment of his gratuity and the gratuity amount of Rs. 17,461.71 was released and paid to him by cheque no . 7812 dated 26-8-87 and the workman also submitted his claim for payment of CMPF amount and an amount of Rs . 31,313 was paid to him toward , the same and he had never made any complaint either for withdrawal of the resignation or challenging the same and had the resignation letter been accepted under duress or pressure , the workman would have withdrawn the same or at least refused to accept the amount which were paid to him and the fact that the workman after acceptance of his resignation did not raise any complaint , objecting to the resignation and accepting all the monetary benefits is the proof of the fact that he gave the resignation of his own will, without any duress or pressure from any quarter and afterthe death of the workman in December, 1987, no claim was put forward and it was only in May, 1989 , the union contended that the resignation of the workman had been givenunder pressure and obtained by fraud and the same should not have been accepted and claim for treating the The case of the applicant as projected by the union inthe statement of claim is that Ailayya Mallayya Samayya, the deceased husband of the applicant was working as a loader since 1966 in Lalpeth Colliery No. 1 and in the course ofperforming his duty, as he fell ill, from 7-6-87 , he was admitted in Area Hospital and Shri P.R. Reddy, an employee ofthe said colliery and also the Secretary of INTUC Union came to meet Mallayya, so Mallayya told him about the misery ofhis family members and requested him to arrange some advance from the colliery for the maintenance of his family members , in presence of his wife and two other workmen and Shri Reddy assuring to give advance, took the L.T.Is of Mallayya on some blank paper and left the hospital and while Mallayya was still in the hospital, letter No. 133 dated 28/30-6-87 issued by Party No.1 was received by him , in which , it was intimated that his resignation dated 7-6-87 was accepted and it is clear from the said facts that fraud was committed by the Party No.1 with the connivance of Shri P.K. Reddy against the illiterate workman, Mallayya and when Mallayya had intimated about his illness , it was quite essential for the Party No.1 to make an inquiry in the matter and after receipt of the letter dated 28 /30-6-87 , Mallayya became mentally disturbed and was treated at Area Hospital , Chandrapur and he was admitted in the Hospital on 12-11-87 and discharged on 18-11-87 , with the advice to go to Medical College and hospital , Nagpur and there are ten members 7570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II SBC. 3 ( ii)) workman to be in duty and to employ his wife and the claim of the union cannot be sustained, because on the day of the death of the workman , he was neither in employment of the company nor there was anything to show that the resignation was not submittedby him willingly and the applicant is not entitled for appointment asbecause, the workman , who died in December, 1987 was not in employment at the time ofhis death and the benefits of appointment to the dependent as provided for in N.C.W.A. cannot be extended to her .

It is further averred by the Party No.1 that there is no industrial dispute , as the workman had never raised any dispute during his life time challenging his resignation and the applicant had also not raised any dispute with the management and as such, no relief can be granted to the applicant.

4. Insupport of the claim , the union examined three witnesses , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence. TheParty No. 1 did not adduce any oral evidence. However, reliance was placed on documents regarding the resignation of the workman and payment of gratuity and CMPF.

took the LTIs of the workman, Mallayya on blank papers and used the same as the resignation of the workman , no reliance canbe pleaded on their evidence , as their evidence is inconsistent and discrepant and not convincing. Moreover , though it is alleged that the workman was admitted in the Area hospital on 7-6-87 , not a scrap of paperhas been filed in respect of the same. In the statement ofclaim, it has been mentioned that the workman received theletter givenby the Party No.1 regarding the acceptance ofhis resignation. So , if the workman had actually not given any resignation, then he should have raised objection against the acceptance of the resignation and should have taken steps for withdrawal of his resignation. It is also found from the documents filed by the Party No.1 that the workman applied for payment of gratuity and CMPF and also received the amounts released in his favour. The workman till his death did not raise any objection or fileany complaint making allegation that in fact he had not submitted any resignation . The applicant also did not raise anyobjection not only during the life time ofher husband but also soon after the death of her husband and the said facts clearly indicate that the workman submitted his resignation on 7-6-87 voluntarily and the PartyNo.1 rightly accepted the same . As the workman was not in employment of WCL on the date of his death , the applicant is not entitled for appointment as dependent of the deceased workman,Mallayya . Hence , it is ordered.

5. The three witnesses , Smt . Mallubai , the widow of the deceased workman, Mallayya and two other employees ofWCL, namely, Ashada Gaddi and Ranika Buchayya Kodayya , examined on behalf of the union have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

ORDER

Smt. Mallubai wife of Late Sri Ailayya Mallayya Samaayya , Loader who expired on 2-12-87 is not entitled to get the employment as a dependent from the Management of Sub Area Manager , M/ s . WCL, (Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery), PO-Lalpeth, Distt . Chandrapur (MS) . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर , 2011 6. Before delving in to the merit of the matter, I think it proper to mention about the undisputed facts of the case. It is not disputed that Mallayya , the husband of Smt . Mallubai was working with Party No.1 and his resignation was accepted by Party No.1 w.e.f. 7-6-87 and gratuity and all other monetary benefits for which, the workman was entitled to were given to him. It is also not disputed that there is provision in N.C.W.A. for giving compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of aworkman in case ofhis death while he was in employment ofWCL.

का.आ. 2919.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बड़ोदा उत्तर प्रदेश ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/1992 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/21 /92- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st September , 2011 : In this case , the claim of the union is that while the workman was in the hospital , Shri P.K. Reddy took his L.T.I. on blank papers with the assurance to arrange some money for him from the company, but used the papers as resignation of the workman with the connivance of the Party No. 1. On the other hand, Party No.1 has pleaded that the workman gave his resignation voluntarily and also applied for payment of gratuity and CMPF and received the amount and he had never raised any objection about the resignation and as the workman was not in employment on the date of his death , the provisions of compassionate appointment as per N.C.W.A. cannot be extended to Smt . Mallubai .

7. Though the three witnesses have stated in their examination -in -chief, which is on affidavit that Shri Reddy

S.O. 2919. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/1992) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour 7571

अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

भारत का राजपत्र :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBaroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20-9- 2011.

[No. L- 12012/21 /92-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 73 of1992

Between:

Sri Kamlesh Kumar Sharma ,

Parsurampur,

Jahnaipur Sadar , Pratapgarh .

And

Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank,

HeadOffice, Rae Barely.

AWARD

1. Central Government , MoL, New Delhi vide notification No. L- 12012/ 21 /92- IR(B -3 ) dated 20-5-92 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

2.Whether the action of the management ofBaroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Head Office Rae Barely in terminating the services of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Sharma son of Lal Bahadur Shrama , daily wage workman at Mohanlalganj Branch of the bank with effect from 16-8-86 was legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?

3. Brief facts are-

ultimately he was again employed by the bank at its Dhingwas branch on 23-5-83 as daily wager where he was required to work for full hours in the category of subordinate staff. He worked there untill 10-7-83, when as per the instructions contained in banks head office letter so and so daťed 6-7-83 , copy enclosed as annexure- 1 , he was transferred to Mohanlal Ganj Branch of the bank, where he reported for the duty on 13-7-83 . Thus the applicant continuously worked at Mohanlal Ganj Branch ofthe bank up till 15-8-84. During the course ofemployment atGarhwara, Bhupiamau , Dhingwas and Mohan Lal Ganj Branch of the bank, he was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs . 07 , 08 , 09 and Rs . 10 per day respectively. While working at Mohan Lal ganj Branch of the bank an officer Sri S. J. Singh posted as Manager Accounts at Head Office ofthe Bank became interested in getting his relative Sri Ram Dayal Singh appointed in subordinate staff cadre . Thus for this reason he was relieved by the manager of Mohan Lal Ganj Branch on 15-8-84 with the advice that he has been transferred to another branch in which stating that the instructions are being issued. Thus he remained under this assurance but he did not get any transfer letter. Inhis place the manager appointed Sri Ram Dayal Singh a new candidate . His services were terminated without assigning any reason whereas he has put in an uninterrupted period of service more than 240 days in a calendar year. No. notice or retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice was paid to the applicant which was in breach of Section 25F of the Act . He was also not the junior most . Thus his termination is also violative of Section 25 G of the Act . Since a new person had been inducted in the service of the bank in his place , thus the bank has also breached the provisions of Section 25H of theAct. The applicant was belonging to a remote village sohe does not know what to do but he went on approaching the bank for his employment . He also gave another application for engaging him as a messenger at the new branch atAvsanganj Branch . The application is Annexure- 2. But his request was not considered . Later on he was advised to approach ALC Allahabad and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute . Thus the bank has exploited the claimant by entering into an unfair labour practice . Consequently it has been prayed that the action of the opposite party bank be set aside and he be directed to be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages , continuity of service and all other consequential benefits attached withthe post .

4. Itis allegedby the claimant that he was initially appointed bythe bank insubordinate cadre at the Garhwara branch of the opposite party on 29-12-81 on daily wages . But the applicant was required to work full time and requiredto perform all the duties which were assigned to subordinate staff. He was the only employee in the subordinate cadre . Subsequently vide Garhwara Branch letter No. so and so dated 19-2-82 he was relieved from Garhwara Branch and deputed to work at Bhupiamau branch ofthe bank where he reported for duty on 20-2-82. There the applicant worked up till 6-12-82 as daily wager when his services were terminated by the bank without assigning any reason with an assurance that he will be given further employment in the bank. Therefore under this assurance he frequently visited the branch . Thus

5.Opposite party has filed their reply vehemently denying the entire allegations of the claimant stating that he was never appointed against any regular and permanent post ofmessenger after following due recruitment process . He never completed 240 days of work in the bank in any calendar year. He was simply engaged from time to time as perexigency ofthe work of the bank as a daily rated worker. Therefore under the facts and circumstances of the case 7572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

in his evidence which make his statement un- believable . Witness has also stated on oath that the claimant ofhis own accord has left the job question of breach of the provisions of the Act does not arise. It is also alleged that the bank never retrenched the service of the claimant rather he of his own accord left the job . Therefore , he is not entitled to claim any benefit of the provisions of the Act and his claim is liable to be rejected. Bank has also denied the fact that it ever indulged itselfin unfair labour practice in the case of the claimant. Accordingly it is prayed that the claim of the claimant is liabletobe rejected out rightly being not having any merit .

16. I have also examined the statement W.W.1 ; therefore , there is no cogent evidence from the side of the claimant to prove that he had ever worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date ofhis termination. Therefore the evidence by the opposite party cannot be discarded.

6. The claimant has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has been stated therein.

17. Complainant has placed reliance upon a decision (1999) 6 SCC 182 Ajayab Singh Versus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing.

7.Both the parties filed the documentary as well as oral evidence .

8. Claimant has filed annexure along with the claim statement .

18.He has further placed reliance on the decision 1986 Lab IC 1998 SC workmen of American express International Banking Corporation services management ofAmerican Express .

9. Opposite has filed the photocopy of the payment vouchers of the last calendar year from Ext . 1 to 40. They have also filed a chart of the working days of the claimant showing the period he had worked from 16-8-83 to 15-8-84 which is Ext.M.41 .

19. I have given my anxious consideration tothe law cited by the claimant and find that the facts and circumstances of the cited case are entirely different from the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. Therefore , the law cited by the claimant is not applicable to the case ofthe present claimant .

W.W.l. 10. Claimant has produced himself in evidence as

11. Opposite party has produced one Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh Inspecting Officer of the bank as M.W.1.

12.Heard and perused the record.

20. I have also examined the pleadings of the workman regarding breach of the provisions of Section 25G and H. Although it was also pleaded by the workman that he was not the junior most and after his termination one Ram Dayal Singh was engaged in his place but there is no evidence either documentary or oral , therefore, it is concluded that the workman has palpably failed on this score also .

13. The short question to be decided in this case is whether the claimant has worked continuously for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding 12 months from the date ofhis termination of service .

21. Considering the overall findings recorded by me above , it is concluded that the claimant is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him and the reference is bound to be decided against him and in favour of opposite party management .

22.Reference is answered accordingly. RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर , 2011

14. It is a fact that the claimant was never appointed on any regular post after following the due process of recruitment on the post of messenger or any subordinate cadre post. As per claimant himself he was engaged as a daily rated casual worker on a payment of Rs . 7 to Rs . 10 per day. Ultimately he has worked at Mohanlalganj Branch ofthe bank. There is no appointment or termination letter infavour of the claimant . There is a specific statement of MW.I that the claimant had worked only for 212 days in the last calendar year .

का.आ. 2920.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ईरकान इन्टरनेशनल लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 219/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/01/2001- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2011 15. Witness has also specifically stated that the claimant had left the work of his own accord and after leaving the work he did not turn up . M. W.I has produced documentary evidence that is photocopies of the vouchers which is M.l to M.41 . They have also filed a calculation chart regarding the number of working days of the claimant which Ext.M.41 and according to that statement for the period 16-8-83 to 15-8-84 the claimant had simply worked for 212 days only . There is an endorsement also that he left work voluntarily of his own accord with effect from 16-8-84 . M.W. 1 has been cross - examined . Witness has been cross -examined at length but nothing has come out

S.O. 2920. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 219/ 7573 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IRCON International Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-9-2011 .

[No. L-41011 /01 /2001 - IR (B - I) ]

completed and handed over to respective clients , within the time limit stipulated in respective contracts . For completion ofconstruction work for the aforesaid projects , services of unskilled , semi - skilled and skilled employees were obtained on work charged , adhoc and contract basis . Services of such locally recruited adhoc , work charged and contract employees were made co - terminus with completion and closure of respective project establishments .

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 219/2011 .

Shri Gopal Singh

S/ o Sh. Khem Singh , H.No. 229/ 18 - D, Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi - 11 0092 and others

...Workmen

Versus

The General Manager,

IRCON International Ltd. , Palika Bhawan , Sector-XIII , R.K. Puram , New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

3. Sh . Gopal Singh , Jagan Nath , Raghunath Rai , Mohan Shyam , Mukand Lal Sharma, Liak Ram , Teju Lal , Lekh Raj , Mumtyaz Ali , Kishan Lal , K.P. Singh and Dhal Singh were engaged by the IRCON in aforesaid projects ondifferent dates on adhoc , work charged and contract basis. Services of Sh. Kishan Lal were dispensed with on 30-6-98 , while services of Sh. Jagan Nath , Raghunath Rai , Mohan Shyam , Liak Ram and Teju Lal were terminated on 5-2-98. Sh. Gopal Singh and Mukand Lal Sharma were made to go on 3-6-98 . Sh . Mumtyaz Ali , K.P. Singh and Dhal Singhwere also bade farewell on 3-6-98, while Sh. Lekh Raj wasgiven good bye on 31-5-98 . Feeling aggrieved bytheir termination orders , various writ petitions being C.W.P. No. 629/98 , 698/98 , 3207/98 , 3410/98 , 3921/98 , 4061/98 and 4062/98 were filed before High Court of Delhi , besides others which writ petitions were clubbed together and disposed off vide order dated 10th February, 2000, refraining hands to adjudicate issues raised therein on the count that such disputed issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Liberty was given to the petitioners to raise industrial dispute. The petitioners took the matter to the Apex Court by way of special leave petitions . The Apex Courtdisposed off those petitions vide order dated 6-11- 2000, announcing therein that if the applicants approach the Central Government , the latter shall make a reference to the Tribunal in the two months of making a written request for the reference . On a request being made in that regard, the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L-41011 / 1 /2001 - IR(B - I ) New Delhi , dated 6th of June 2001 , with followingterms:

Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. ( in short IRCON ) was incorporated in the year 1976 under IndianCompanies Act , 1956. It is a Government of India enterprise , being run under the aegis and control ofthe Ministry of Railways , Government of India , New Delhi . The main purpose of flotation of IRCON was for construction of railway tracks , roads , highways , bridges , maintenance of ways , buildings for the Government and other construction activities on commercial basis , in India and abroad. IRCON undertakes projects at various places in the country and foreign countries . It has a few engineers , other professionals and staff for the purpose of its administration . Depending upon volume of work undertaken by it and duration ofwork , IRCON engages various persons for employment , in its various projects .

"Whether the action of the Joint General Manager, IRCON International Limited, Palika Bhawan, Sector- 13 , R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066 was within its right in terminating the services of Shri Gopal Singh and eleven other workmen on respective dates as per details shown in the Annexure( I ). And whether the concerned workmen could claim to be permanent employees of the IRCON International Ltd. ? If not towhat benefits and reliefthe workmen are entitled to ?"

4. Claim statement was filed on behalf of all twelve claimants , pleading that they were appointed on different dates and in various capacities , as detailed below:

2. IRCON undertook work for widening ofNational Highway No. 2 at Delhi Mathura Road project against UttarPradesh/Haryana PWD contract , railway siding work in the establishment of National Thermal Power Corporation at Dadri , railway siding work at IOC Panipat and construction of administrative complex at ICAR Pusa, New Delhi .As per terms ofcontract for the projects , referred above, construction works for those projects were to be 7574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] Sl. Name of the claimant No.

Post on which appointed

Dateof

joining

08-11-88

Junior Assistant

14. Gopal Singh

2. Mukund Lal Sharma Driver

15-09-89

29-01-90

13. MumtyazAli

Messenger

4. K.P. Singh

16-02-85

Supervisor/ Junior Engineer

23-10-80

5. Dhal Singh

JuniorEngineer

establishment of NTPC at Dadri , railway siding work at IOC, Panipat and construction of administrative complex at ICAR Pusa , New Delhi . The claimants were engaged for the projects , referred above . On completion of work, projects were handed over to respective clients and work and place of work ceased to exist . As there was no work and services of the claimants were engaged for the project(s ) , it were dispensed with on payment of due compensation and other statutory benefits . There exists no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

Driver

23-12-88

6. Raghunath Rai

Driver

10-11-88

7. Jagan Nath

8. Teju Lal

13-03-89

Messenger/Khalasi

Khalasi

01-09-89

9. Mohan Shyam

10. Liak Ram

Driver

04-03-89

02-12-88

11. Lekh Raj

Typist

12. Kishan Lal

Safaiwala

11-09-89

8. IRCON pleads that on 5-2-98 a notice was published in leading daily news papers , id est , Danik Jagran, Punjab Kesri and Rastriya Sahara notifying to all concerned that Dadri project would be closed from afternoon of 5th February, 1998. It was notified in Danik Jagran , Punjab Kesri and Rastriya Sahara on 3rd June, 1998 that Delhi Mathura Road project would be closed from afternoon of 3rd June , 1998. Notice (s ) for closure of the project ( s ) alongwith names of employee , whose services were disengaged , were affixed on notice board of the project ( s ) . Copies of notice( s ) were sent to the appropriate Government and the employment exchange . The claimants were all individually advised in that regard . They were paid compensation in accordance with rules . Since the claimants were employees of project ( s ) , they cannot claim to be employees of IRCON . No right accrued in their favour for regular appointment .

5. They assert that their jobs were transferable from one place of posting to another, in view of specific stipulations in their appointment letters . IRCON has framed service rules in 1976, besides recruitment rules . Some of the claimants were even promoted to next grade in view of their fitment and suitability. Others were called upon to appear for selection test , which was later on cancelled and juniors to them were promoted under the grab of caderization . That action of IRCON is under challenge before High Court of Delhi by way of writ petition being CWP No. 847/1995 . Their services have been terminated by various project authorities on the pretext of closer of the project( s) . Their services were not for the project (s ) , but for the core cadre of IRCON . Unfair labour practice was resorted to by IRCON by way of terminating their services . Gap , created on account of termination of their services , was filled by way of induction of persons on deputation from railways and other public sector undertakings .

6. Itwas claimed that action of termination of their serviceswas illegal, arbitrary and unfair. Rule " last to come, first to go " was violated by IRCON. Project in charge(s) , who issued their termination orders , were not empowered to pass such orders . They were not their appointing authority. Hence their termination orders are null and void. Aprayer has been make that they may be reinstated in the employment of IRCON , in permanent capacity with all benefits of continuity in service , such as seniority, increment , promotion , corporation gift and other consequential benefits .

7. Claim was demurred pleading that IRCON undertook projects of widening of National Highway No. 2 atDelhi Mathura Road , railway siding work in the.

9. The management pleads that details relating to their employment , given by the claimants , are not authentic . Sh . Gopal Singh, Mohan Shyam , Mukand Lal Sharma and Kishan Lal were engaged on contract for specified period and for specified project . Despite the fact that they were given benefits of scale of pay , their services being co-terminus with the project (s) hence dispensed with after giving one month notice pay and compensation. Sh . Teju Lal and Dhal Singh were appointed on daily wage basis . Ongrant of benefits of scale of pay, they were treated as work charged daily rated employee ( s ) and their services were dispensed with on closure of project , after payment of compensation and statutory dues . The other claimants were engaged locally on daily wages work charged basis . Their services were also done away on payment of compensation and statutory dues , on closure of the project( s ) . It has been disputed that scheme for regularization was cancelled, after accommodating juniors to the claimants. Recruitment rules make provision for consideration of adhoc and work charged employees for regularization , subject to passing prescribed test depending on availability of vacancies of respective category. Except Gopal Singh , none was eligible and there was no vacancy in the category of drivers , khalasis and safaiwalas etc. for regularization . It has been denied that the management of IRCON has resorted to unfair labour practice, as claimed in the claim statement . The claim put 7575 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

forward is liable to be dismissed, being devoid ofmerits , presents the IRCON .

with stipulation contained in appointment letter Ex. MW 1/1. A sum of Rs.11423 was paid to him for gratuity and leave encashment, vide cheque No. 256798 dated 2-2-2009.

10. Vide order dated 28-7-2003 , case ofSh . K.P. Singh was separated from other claimants on his own request and adjudicated vide award dated 28-7-2003 .

11. Claimants have tendered their respective affidavits, as evidence in support oftheir claim . They were cross -examinedby the authorized representative of IRCON. Sh. Parmod Kumar, Manager (HRM) , tendered his affidavit as evidence on behalf of the management . He was cross- examined by the authorized representative of the Claimants . No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

12. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the IRCON on 8-7-2010 , while claimants filed their written arguments on 31-7-2010.

13. Case was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 , New Delhi , vide order dated 1-2-2008 , passed by the appropriate Government . It was re-transferredto this Tribunal on 6-7-2011 , vide order dated 13th March , 2010.

14. Since written arguments of the parties were already there in the record and vide order dated 6th of November , 2000, the Apex Court had commanded to dispose off the matter within six months if possible provided parties co - operate , it was thought expedient to proceed with adjudication of the matter, on consideration ofthe evidence and written submissions already available on the record. On being given an opportunity, Shri B. K. Prasad , authorised representative of the claimants , opted not to raise any oral submissions . I have gone through the pleadings , evidence adduced by the parties and carefully considered the contents of the written submissions . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

16.As creeps out of Ex . MW1 / 1 , Kishan Lal was appointed for a contractual period of six months , which periodwas extended from time to time . He was engaged from 1-11-96 to30-4-97 , as detailed in Ex . MWIl . He asserts that since he was granted pay in the scale ofRs. 650-905, he was a regular employee . It was claimed on his behalf that he was shown as a contractual employee with a view to evade permanency of his service. Contention revised on his behalf stands dispelled by contents ofappointment letter Ex . MWI/1 . Clause III ofEx . MW1 / 1 make it clear that his appointment was purely on contract basis for a period of six months from 1-11-96 to 30-4-97 (year is wrongly written in that document as 96) . These terms make it olear thathe was a contractual employee. IRCON Recruitment Rule 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Rulels ) make it clear that there was provision for engagement of employees onshort term appointment . Rule 6.4.1 authorises Managing Director to engage daily rated staff at the rates and candition to be decided by him . Rule 6.2.1 speaks ofdirect recruitment in cases where it is not possible to obtain staff on deputation. It has been further mentioned therein that for direct recruitment, the staff employed against short term vacancies or specific project on daily rate basis may also be considered. Out ofthese rules it emerge that IRCON may engage employee (s ) against short term vacancies on daily rate basis . Rule 8.1 speaks of appointment an direct basis through Employment Exchange or in the manner as permittedbytheprovisions ofthe Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies ) Act, 1959. Rule 8.5 and 8.7 detail procedure for appointment on direct basis . Rule 12.1 speaks of absorption of deputationists . Rule 12.2 speaks of confirmation of persons recruited directly or werking on daily rate basis . Therefore it is crystal clear that IRCON may appoint persons against short term vacancies on daily rate basis . There are provisions in the rules for their permanent absorption too. A

17. Whether grant of wages in regular pay scale is indicative ofthe fact that Sh. Kishan Lal was engaged on permanent basis ? Answer is given by Clause III of Ex. MW1 / 1 . As pointed out above , he was appointed purely oncontract basis for a period of six months . His period of contractual appointment was extendable at the discretion of IRCON and terminable during the contract period and extended period by giving one month notice , on either side or salary in lieu thereof. His contract was extended up to 30-6-98 and his services were terminated due to non - renewal of the contract .

18. Jagan Nath swears in his affidavit Ex .WW5 / A thathe joined IRCON on 10-11-88 as a daily wage driver . He was initially posted at Dadri , where a railway siding project was being executed for National Thermal Power 15. Kishan Lal swears in his affidavit Ex.WW 1/1 thathe joined IRCON as safaiwala on 11th of September, 1989, on regular pay scale of Rs . 196-232 . He presents that initially he was posted at New Delhi corporate office . On 30-6-98 his services were arbitrary terminated . Sh . Parmod Kumarunfolds in his affidavit that Kishan Lal was engaged as safaiwala on contract for a period of six months . Initially, he was appointed vide letter dated 11-9-89 , which is Ex. MW 1/2 . When perused , contents of Ex . MW1 /2 make it clear that Kishan Lal was appointed for a period of six months . His term of appointment was extendable at the discretion of IRCON . His appointment was terminable during contract period at any time without any notice and assigning any reason . His term of appointment was extended from time to time and came to an end on 30-6-96 , which fact emerges out of Ex . MW1/3 . He was further appointed on 1-11-96 up to 30-4-97 , purely on contract basis , which fact emerges out of appointment letter Ex . MWI / 1 . His services were dispensed with in accordance

3708 GI /2011-20 7576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

proforma basis, which order was not accepted by him. He was allowed to continue in service till closer of Panipat project. On 23-4-99, Panipat project was also closed.No dispute was made by Jagan Nath on factum of closer of Dadri project on 5-2-98 , and Panipat project on 23-4-99 . Ex . MWI/8 , makes it clear that one month notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other benefits were released in favour of Jagan Nath at that time.

Corporation. Consolidated pay was given to him from 1-8-89 and on 13-10-89 he was transferred to corporate office. On 18-5-90, pay in time scale of Rs . 260-400was granted to him , on being declared successful in trade test. On9-11-95, he was posted in Panipat Refinery project . On 5-2-98, he was not allowed to enter office premises , on the pretext that his service had come to end on closure of Dadri project . When his testimony was purified by an ordeal of cross - examination , he concedes that his appointment was made on contract . He remained in Dadri project till 1995 and thereafter transferred to Panipat project where he worked up to 1998. He opted to adopt an indifferent posture when he deposed that he was not aware whether he approached High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by way of writ petition and operation of order terminating his services was stayed. He denied that on account of closure of Dadri project , compensation was paid to him. He feigned ignorance as to whether his services were terminated on account of closure of Panipat project.

19. Shri . Parmod Kumar swears in his affidavit that JaganNath was engaged as a driver at Dadri project with effect from 18-5-1990 on daily wage basis . Dadri project was closed on 5-2-1998 . Shri Parmod Kumar proved document Ex . MW1/ 8 , which highlights that services of Shri JaganNathwere temporally placed at the disposal of Panipat project , in view of interim orders passedby High Court of Judicature at Allahabad . His services were terminated on proforma basis with effect from 5-2-1998 , which orders were not accepted by him . Panipat project was closed down on 23-4-1999 and services of Shri Jagan Nath were terminated . One month notice pay and retrenchment compensation , besides other dues amounting to Rs . 95280 were paid to him . He has also proved appointment letter Ex . MW- 1/ 6 which confirms facts testified by him to the effect that Jagan Nath was appointed on 18-5-1990 at Dadri project on adhoc basis . Histransfer order to Panipat porject has also been proved as Ex . MW- 1 /7 . Shri Parmod Kumar admits that IRCON had transferred workers from one project to another, as perexigencies of the projects .

21. A question for consideration comes as to whether Shri Jagan Nath was an employee of IRCON or an employee ofDadri project . At the cost of repetition, it is said that JaganNath admitted in his affidavit Ex . WW5/A, as well as in his cross - examination that he was appointed at Dadri project . Ex . MW1 / 6 , which has not been disputed by the claimant, makes it clear that Shri Jagan Nath was appointed as a driver on adhoc basis at Dadri project . It has also come on record that claimant worked at Dadri project till 1995, when his services were terminated in terms of stipulation contained in Ex. MW1/6 in that behalf. He approached High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and in compliance of interim orders passed by the High Court, he was adjusted at Panipat project . Therefore it is crystal clear that the claimant was appointed at Dadri project . His services wereterminated in terms ofstipulation contained in his letter of appointment, which is Ex . MW1/6 , He questioned that action before the High Court and in compliance of an interim order, he was adjusted at Panipat project by way of an order which has been proved as Ex . MW1/7 . Therefore it has emerged that the orders , passed bythe writ court, were complied with and the claimant was temporarily adjusted at Panipat project . It was made clear to the claimant that he will maintain his lien at the project where he was initially appointed , in terms of order Ex . MW1/ 7 . The claimant never raised his eyebrows on the contents of the said order. Consequently, it is apparent that there was no dispute on the proposition that the claimant was to maintain his lien at Dadri project . His adjustment/ transfer at Panipat project was not on account ofconscious choice of IRCON , but in compliance ofjudicial command, which was never made absolute . Hence no conclusion follows that Jagan Nath was given status of

regular employee of IRCON.

20. Out of facts unfolded by Shri Jagan Nath and Shri Parmod Kumar it came to light that Shri Jagan Nath was appointed as a daily wager employee at Dadri project on 10-11-1988 . He was given appointment on adhoc basis in the pay scale ofRs . 260-400 with effect from 18-5-1990 . Hisservices were liable tobe terminated without any notice or assigning any reasons . His services were terminated in 1995, without any reason as per stipulation contained in appointment letter Ex . MWI/6 . He approached High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad and in view of interim orders passed by the High Court, his lien was ordered to be maintained at Dadri project and order Ex . MW1 / 7 was passed transferring him to Panipat projet . Dadri project closed on 5-2-98 and his services were terminated on

22. Sh. Lekh Raj claims to have been appointed by IRCON as typist on 2-12-88 a daily wager. He was granted consolidated pay after 11-7-90 , and given regular scale of pay of Rs . 260-400 with effect from 15-11-94, on being declared successful in the type test. He claims to have been initially posted at Dadri project and transferred to corporate office on 15-3-93. According to him , he was declared successful for cadre of work contract but those benefits were not accorded to him . He alleges that his services were abruptly terminated on 31-5-98 , on pretext ofclosure of Dadri project . During the course of cross- examination, he reaffirms that he was initially appointed asDadri project.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

23. Sh. Pramod Kumar unfolds that Sh.Lekh Raj was initially engaged as a daily wager typist vide letter dated 15-11-94, which is Ex . MW1/ 32 . He was appointed on contract upto30-6-95 . Ex . MW1/32 makes it clear thatterm ofappointmentwas extendable as well as terminable during the contractperiod as well as extended period of contract on one months notice or pay in lieu thereof. His term of appointmentwas extended from time to time and it came to an end on 31-5-98 , on account of non renewal of the term of contract . Notice pay and retrenchment compensation was paid to him.

24. Though Sh.Lekh Raj claims to have been transferred to corporate office on 16-3-93 , but no proofof that fact was given. In the same mataner, no proof came on the record relating to his engagement as a daily wager from 2-12-88 to 11-7-90 and on consolidated pay up to 14-11-94. Letter of appointment which is Ex. MW1/32 is not a disputed document . This document brings it on the record that Sh . Lekh Raj was appointed on contract up to 30-6-95. Since his term of appointment was extendable it was extended from time to time and not extended any further, when it came to an end on 31-5-98 . Notice pay and retrenchment compensation was given, though termination of services of the claimant did not fell within the ambit of retrenchment , as detailed in subsequent sections .

25. Mohan Shyam claims to have been appointed as messenger on 1-9-89 on daily wages . According to him , he was given consolidated pay from 30-4-90 . He was initially posted at Dadri project . On his satisfactory completion of service, he was granted pay in regular scale of Rs . 196 232with effect from 1-11-93 . He was assigned job of driver on11-5-94 and transferred to Panipat refinery project . His services were abruptly terminated on 5-2-98 , on the pretext of closure of Dadri project . During the course of cross - examination , he admitted that notice of closure was posted at the site of the project. He further admits that his services were terminated on account of closure of the project.

26. Sh.Pramod Kumar presents that Sh.Mohan Shyam was engaged as driver for a period of one year on contract vide letter Ex . MW 1/34 . His contract was extendable and terminable on one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. As per the terms ofhis contract , he was liable tobe transferred to any project , while maintaining lien on Panipat refinery project . He went on to claim that Panipat refinery project was closed on 23-4-99 and services of Sh.Mohan Shyam were terminated on tendering notice pay and retrenchment compensation . He refused to accept notice pay and retrenchment compensation, which fact emerge out of the contents of Ex . MW1 /35.

27. Scrutiny of Ex . MW 1/35 , gives support to fact testified by Mohan Shyam to the effect that initially he was appointed at Dadri project on daily wages .

7577

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

Subsequently he was appointed on contract basis as a driverat Panipat refinery project with effect from 17-9-94 for a period of one year. His term of appointment was extendable and terminable on one months notice or pay in lieu thereof. His contract was terminated on 23-4-99 and notice pay and retrechment compensation amount of Rs . 103779 was tendered to him . He refused to accept notice pay and retrenchment compensation. On the other hand he admits that he was appointed at Panipat project, which was closed on 23-4-99 . Therefore case ofMohan Shyam is to be discarded on both standards , viz . on account of non- renewal of term of contract as well as on closure of Panipat project and tendering notice pay as well as retrenchment compensation , which standards are discussed below. Refusal to accept notice pay and retrenchment compensation would not provide any accolade to the claimant.

28. Whether termination of services of Shri Kishan Lal, Jagan Nath, Lekh Raj and Mohan Shyam amount to retrenchment? For an answer, definition of the term is to be construed. Clause ( oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) defines retrenchment . Forsake of convenience , the said definition is as extracted thus:

"( oo) " retrenchment " means the termination bythe employer ofthe services ofa workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way ofdisciplinary action , but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement ofthe workman ; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in thatbehalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a result of the non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation inthat behalf contained therein ; or

29. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in two parts . The first part is exhaustive , which lays down that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a workman by the employer " for any reason whatsoever" otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action . Thus main part of the definition itself excludes the termination of service , as a measure of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from the ambit of retrenchment . The second part further excludes ( i) voluntary retirement of the workman , or ( ii) retirement 7578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

(iv) that if the workman continues in service , the non- renewal ofthe contract can be deemed as mala fide and it may amount to be a fraud on statute;

ofworkman on reaching the age of superannuation , or ( iii) termination ofthe service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of contract of employment , or ( iv) termination of contract ofemployment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v) termination ofservice on the ground of continued ill health ofthe workman . Reference can be made to the precedents inAvon Services(Production Agencies ) ( Pvt .) Ltd. [ 1979 (I) LLJ 1 ) and Mahabir [ 1979 (II) LLJ 363 ] .

(v) that there would be wrong presumption of non- applicability of section 2( oo)(bb) where the work is of continuous nature and there is nothing on record that the work for which a workman has been appointed had come to an end" .

31. Whether provisions of retrenchment , enacted in theAct, provide for any security of tenure ? Answer lies in negative . Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service , falling within the ambit of definition ofretrenchment . On compliance ofthe requirements of Section 25F or 25N and 25G of the Act, it is open to the employer to retrench a workman.

32. Termination of service of an employee during the period of probation was held to be covered by the exception contained in sub - clause (bb ) of Section 2(00) of theAct, in C.M. Venugopal ( 1994 ( 1 ) LLJ 597 ) . As per fact of the case , Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee within the period of probation. The employee was put on probation for a period of one year, which was extended by another year. Since he could not achieve the target to earn confirmation, his service was terminated in terms of Regulation 14 as well as order or appointment . The Apex Court ruled that the case was covered by the exception contained in sub- clause ( bb ) , hence it was not .retrenchment .

30. Sub Clause (bb) purports to exclude from the ambitof the definition of retrenchment ( i) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned, on its expiry, or ( ii) termination ofthe contractofemployment in terms of a stipulation contained inthe contract of employment in that behalf. The first part relates to termination of service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry. Thus " non- renewal of contract of employment " pre- supposes an existing contract of employment , which is not renewed. When services of an employee is terminated on account of non- renewal of contract of employment, between the employer and the workman , it does not amount to retrenchment. The second part refers to " such contract" being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein . The cases contemplated, under this part too, would not amount to retrenchment . However this sub -clause, being in the nature of an exception to clause (oo) ofSection 2 ofthe Act, is ruled to be construed strictly when contractual agreement is used as modus operandi to frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or permanent against ajob . The adjudicator has to address himself to the question whether the period of employment was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment. See Shailendra Nath Shukla ( 1987 Lab . I.C. 1607), Dilip Hanumantrao Shrike (1990 Lab . I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh ( 1990 ( 1 ) LLJ . 443) . On review of law laid by theApex Court and various High Courts , a single Judge of theMadhya Pradesh High Court , in Madhya PradeshBank Karamchari Sangh ( 1996 Lab . I.C. 1161) has laid following principles of interpretation and application of sub -clause (bb) ofclause (oo) of section 2 of the Act:

33. In Morinda Co - operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ( 1996 Lab. I.C. 221 ) a sugar factory used to employ certain number ofworkmen during crushing season and at the end to the crushing season their employment used to cease . The Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the workmen worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation of their employment at the end of crushing season would not amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub- clause (bb) of section 2( 00) of the Act . It was observed as follows:

"(i) that the provisions of section 2(00 )(bb ) are to be construed benevolently in favour of the workman,

"4. It would thus be clear that the respondents were not working throughout the season . They worked during crushing seasons only. The respondents were taken into work for the season and consequent to closure of the season , they ceased to work .

(ii) thatifthe workman is allowed to continue in service by making periodic appointments from time to time, then it can be said that the case would not fall under section 2 (oo ) (bb ) ,

5. The question , is whether such a cessation would amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in sub -clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. Under these (iii) that the provisions of section 2 (oo )(bb) are not tobe interpreted in the manner which may stifle the main provision, 7579 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011 /आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

of service for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of retrenchment . Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held to be erroneous . It was also ruled that principles ofnatural justice are not applicable where termination takes place on expiry of contract of service .

circumstances , we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is illegal . However, the appellant is directed to maintain a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons enumerated herein before and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in which the respondents normally live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage them in accordarice with seniority and exigency of work" .

34. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex Court inAnilBapuro Kanase [ 1997 ( 10) S.C.C. 599] w/herein itwas noted as follows:

36. InBatala Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. [ 2005 (8 ) S.C.C. 481 ] an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily wages for specific work and for a specific period. He was engaged on 1-4-1986 and worked upto 12-2-94 . The Labour Court concluded that termination of his services was violative of provisions of section 25 - F of the Act, hence ordered for his reinstatement with 50 % back wages . Relying precedents in Morinda Coop . Sugar Mills (supra) andAnil Bapuro Kanase (supra) the Apex Court ruled that since his engagement was for a specific period and specific work, reliefgranted to him by the Labour Court can not be maintained.

37.TheApex Court dealt with such a situation again inDarbara Singh (2006 LLR 68 ) wherein an employee was appointed by the Punjab State Electricity Board as peon on daily wage basis from 8-1-88 to 29-2-88 . His services wereextend from time to time and finally dispensed with in June 1989. 'The Supreme Court ruled that engagement of Darbara Singh was for a specific period and conditional . His termination did not amount to retrenchment . His case was found to be covered under exception contained in sub - clause ( bb ) of Section 2 (00 ) of the Act . In Kishore Chand Samal (2006 LLR 65) , same view was maintainedby theApex Court . It was ruled therein that the precedent in S.M. Nilajkar [2003 ( II ) LLJ 359] has no application to the controversy since it was ruled therein that mere mention ab out the engagement being temporary without indication ofany period attracts Section 25 F of the Act ifit is proved that the concerned workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days . Case of Darbara Singh and Kishan Chand Samal were found to be relating to fixed term of appo intment.

38. In BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144 ) Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29-9-89 , initiallyy for a period of three months as a daily wager. His term of appointment was extended up to 20-9-90. No further extension was given and his services were dispensed with on 20-9-90. On consideration of facts and law High Court of Delh i has observed thus :

"3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that thejudgment of the High Court ofBomba y relied on in the impugned order dated 28-3-1995 in Writ Petition No.488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the appellant has worked for more than 180 days , he is to be treated as retrenched employee and if the procedure contemplated under : Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied , his retrenchment is illegal. We find no force in this contention. In Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan in para 3 , this Court has dealt with engagement ofthe seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing, in para 4 , it is stated that it was not a case ofretrenchment of the workman, but of closure of the factory after the crushing season was over. Accordingly, in para 5 , it was held that it is not 'retrenchment ' within the meaning of Section 2(00) of the Act . As a consequence the appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as per sub - clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Since the present work is seasonal business , the principles of the Act have no application .However, this Court has directed that the respondent management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees vwhose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who are already working , the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen . It would be incurabent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above" .

In the present case , the respondent was appointed as a copyist for totaling the accounts of ledger for the year 1986-87 and then for 1987-88 . His initial a'ppointment was for the period of three months . It was extended from time to time and no extension 'was given after 20th September, 1990. He was appointed without any regular process of appointment, purely casual and on temporary basis for specific work of totaling of ledger . When this work was over, no extension was given . I consider 35. InHarmohinder Singh [2001 ( 5 ) S.C.C. 540 ] an employee was appointed as a salesman by kharga canteen on 1-6-74 and subsequently as a cashier: on 9-8-75. The letter of appointment and Standing Orders , inter alia , provided that his service could be terminated by one month's notice by either party. He was served with a notice to the effect that his service would be relinquished with effect from 30-6-1989 . Relying precedent in Uptror India Ltd. [ 1998 (6) S.C.C. 538 ] the Apex Court ruled that contract 7580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ] that appointment as that of the respondent is squarely covered under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act. Giving of non extension did not amount to termination of service , it was not a case of retrenchment"

examination and/or interview in accordance with the norms given in rule 12.2.1 of the Rules . It is not the case of Shri Kishan Lal that either he was appointed in the manner asprovided by rule 8.1 or regularized in accordance with the norms contained in rule 12.2.1 of the Rules . Consequently he can not claim that he was a permanent employee of IRCON . As held above , he was appointed on contract basis and never acquired status of a permanent employee. His services were rightly dispensed with by themanagement.

39. Precedents , handed down by Allahabad High Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla ( supra) , Bombay High Court in Dilip Hariumantrao Shirke ( supra) , Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh (supra ) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari Sangh ( supra) castrate sub - clause (bb) of Section 2 (00 ) of the Act . Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates statutory provisions of sub - clause (bb ) of Section 2 (00) of the Act without even discussing the legality or constitutional validity of the clause . On the other hand the Apex Court in C.M. Venugopal (supra) , Morinda Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra) , Anil Bapurao Kanase (supra), Harmohinder Singh ( supra) , Batala Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra ) , Darbara Singh ( supra) and Kishore Chand Samal ( supra) and High Court of Delhi in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee , appointed for a specific period which was extendedfrom timeto time, would be covered by the exception contained insub - clause (bb) of Section 2( oo) of the Act , in case his services are dispensed with as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment between him and his employer, on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. The law, so laid , holds the water and would be applied to the case of Sh . Kishan Lal , Jagan Nath, Lekh Raj and Mohan Shyam .

42.As detailed above , services of Shri Jagan Nath were terminated in terms of stipulation contained in the contract of employment Ex . MW1 /6 , in that behalf. Termination of contract of employment , it terms of stipulation contained therein in that regard would not amount to retrenchment . He challenged termination of contract ofhis employment before High Court of Judicature atAllahabad . When a command was given , IRCON adjusted him at Panipat project and passed order Ex . MW1 / 7. Thus it is clear that his adjustment at Panipat project was in the manner of his re - employment , allowing him to maintain his lien at Dadri project . His services were terminated on proforma basis on closure of Dadri project on 5-2-98. Since he did not accept that order , his services were again terminated on 23-4-99 , on closure of Panipat project . Evidence brought over the record is deficient on the count that he was appointed on direct basis , following the procedure detailed above . No evidence was also adduced by Shri Jagan Nath to show that his services were absorbed permanently. Hence it does not lie in his mouth to claim that he was a permanent employee of IRCON.

40. Kishan Lal was appointed for a period of six months , as detailed in Ex . MWI /l . Period of contractual appointment was extended , from time to time up to 30-6-98 . No further extension was given and his services were terminated on 30-6-98 , due to non renewal of the contract.His termination does not amount to retrenchment . Terminal benefits were paid to Shri Kishan Lal , vide cheque Ex . MW1/5 . Thus it is evident that termination of services of Shri Kishan Lal does not amount to retrenchment . Provisions of Section 25F or 25FFF of the Act do not come into play. Action of IRCON cannot be faulted at all . Under these circumstances it is concluded that the action of IRCON was within rights available to it under the law.

43.Termination of contract of employment , in terms of stipulation contained in the contract of employment in thatregard, was not found to be illegal by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad . Initially an interim order was passed and in compliance of that order , he was adjusted at Panipat project . However he was to maintain his lien at Dadri project . On closure of Dadri project , his services were terminated on proforma basis , which orders were not accepted by him . His services were again dispensed with on 23-4-99 , on closure ofPanipat project . Closure of these two projects on 5-2-98 and 23-4-99 respectively has not been disputed . One month notice pay and retrenchment compensation was paid to him . These facts are sufficient to conclude that services of Shri Jagan Nath were terminated by IRCON at first instance in terms of stipulation in contract of employment and subsequently in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 - FFF read with 25-0 of the Act , principles contained therein are detailed in subsequent sections .

41.Rule 8.1 speaks that appointment on direct basis shallbe made through the Employment Exchange or in the manner as permitted by provisions of the Employment Exchange ( Compulsory Notification of Vacancies ) Act 1959. Applications , so received, will be subjected to a careful scrutiny in the Corporate Office , commands rule 8.5. Selection will be subject to written test and/or interview depending on demands of the post , provides rule 8.7 of the Rules . For regularization of persons appointed on short term basis , selection process shall comprise of written

44. As detailed above services of Shri Lakh Raj came to an end on 31-5-98 on account of non- renewal of terms ofhis contract . Termination of his services falls within 7581 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

the exception contained in clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of theAct anddoes not amount to retrenchment. Notice pay and retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs . 21756 was paid to him , vide Ex . MW1 /33 . His alleged transfer at Corporate Office on 16-3-93 would not change his status to an employee recruited/ appointed on direct basis , as discussed in subsequent sections . He is not entitled to any relief.

Road Project, vide appointment letter Ex. MW1/9 . This document makes it clear that initially he was appointed on contract for a period of three months , which contract was renewable by mutual consent. The contract was extended from time to time . Delhi Mathura Road Project was closed on3-6-98 . Factum of closure of Delhi Mathura Road Project was not at all disputed by Sh . Mukund Lal Sharma. On closure of Delhi Mathura Road Project , he was paid one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation as contemplated by clause (b) of Section 25F read with sub-section (2) of Section 25FFF ofthe Act . A sum of Rs . 49356 was paid to Sh. Sharma.

45. Mohan Shyam was initially employed at Dadri Project on daily wages . Subsequently, he was appointed on contract for a period of one year at Panipat Project . Appointment letter Ex . MW 1/34 unfolds that his services were liable to be terminated on one months notice or pay in lieu thereof. On closure of Panipat Project his services were terminated under the stipulation in that behalf, contained in Ex . MW1/34. Termination of his services does not amount to retrenchment . Notice pay and retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs . 103779 was tendered, which was not accepted by him . Even non - acceptance of noticepay and retrenchment compensation would not raise any eye - brow on the matter, which proposition is discussed in subsequent sections . In view of these facts Mohan Shyam is only entitled to notice pay and retrenchment compensation offered to him , amounting to Rs . 103779 .

49. Mumtyaz Ali swears in his affidavit Ex . WW9/ A that he joined services with IRCON on 29-1-90 as messenger . He worked on daily wage basis up to 3-9-90 and with effect from 4-9-90, he was given pay in scale of Rs . 196-232 . He claims that initially he was posted at corporateoffice, New Delhi . On 1-6-91 he was transferred to Delhi Mathura Road Project . On 3-6-98 his services were abruptly terminated . During the course of his cross -examination , he concedes that closure notice was pasted at the notice board in Faridabad office of the Project , besides notice board at the site of the Project. He denied that compensation amounting to Rs . 41007 was paid tohim.

50. Sh . Parmod Kumar swears in his affidavit that Mumtyaz Ali was initially engaged as messenger vide order dated 29-1-90 on casual basis . The said order has been proved by him as Ex . MW1 /25 . He went on to detail that subsequently, he was engaged for a period of six months on contract vide order which is Ex . MW 1/26 . He was engaged locally at Delhi Mathura Road Project . On closure of the Project, he was paid wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation vide letter Ex . MW1 / 27 . Compensationwas paid on the strength of demand draft No. 923260 dated 30-5-98 for on amount of Rs . 41007 .

46. Now I would address myself to the facts of cases of other claimants . In his affidavit Ex . WW8 /A , Sh . Mukund Lal Sharma Projects that hejoined IRCON as driver on 12-10-92 on daily wages . Subsequently he was granted consolidated pay and ultimately in the scale of Rs . 1050-1750 with effect from 1-1-97. He was posted at Dadri initially and transferred to Delhi Mathura Road Project on 6-10-93 . On 5-2-98 , he was restrained from entering into his office on the pretext that Dadri Project has come to an end. During the course of his cross- examination , he concedes that he was informed by his officers through a fax message that Dadri Project has been closed.

47. Sh. Parmod Kumar highlights in his affidavit thatMukund Lal Sharma was engaged as a driver at Delhi Mathura Road Project on 6-10-93 vide appointment letter Ex . MW1 /9 . He served Delhi Mathura Road Project till 3-6-98 . On closure of the said Project , his services were terminated on 3-6-98 after payment of one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation vide letter Ex . MW1 / 10 . During the course of his cross - examination , the claimant failed to dispute contents of Ex . MW 1/9 and MW 1/10.

51. When facts unfolded by the claimant and Sh. Parmod Kumar were closely perused it came to light that initially Mumtyaz Ali was engaged at the corporate office of IRCON on casual basis . Letter Ex . MW1 / 25 , unfolds that his services were liable to be terminated without any notice . Subsequently he was offered employment , on contract for a period of six months vide letter of appointment which is Ex . MW1 /26 . His term of appointment was extendable at the discretion of IRCON and terminable , during contract period and the extended period, by giving one month notice or salary in lieu thereof. Hisservices were extended from that to time and terminated with effect from 3rd June , 1998 , on closure of Delhi Mathura Road Project . As unfolded by the document Ex . MW1 /27 compensation amount of Rs . 41007 was paid through demand draft No. 923260 , which was sent by registered post at the residential address of the claimant . He was engaged at Delhi Mathura Road Project, closure ofwhich 48. When facts unfolded by Sh . Mukund Lal Sharma and Parmod Kumar are scanned and appreciated in the light of the documents proved, it emerged over the record that initially, the claimant was engaged as a driver at Dadri Project. He served at that Project for about one year , as a dailywager . Thereafter he was appointed at Delhi Mathura 7582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

Project is beyond dispute . Though the claimant disputes payment of compensation yet he opted not to dispel facts unfolded by Sh. Parmod Kumar, relating to payment of compensation through demand draft No. 923260. Thus it is clear that the claimant had not attempted to dislodge facts relating to payment of compensation amount .

52.InaffidavitEx . WW6/A, Raghunath Rai claims thathe joined IRCON as driver on 23-12-88 on daily wages in corporate office , New Delhi . Subsequently on 18-5-90 , he was appointed in pay scale of Rs . 260-400 on being declared successful in trade test. He announces that he was initially posted in Dadri Project and subsequently transferredto Canara Bank Housing Project on 4--3-94 and finally to ICAR Project at Pusa, New Delhi on 4-7-95 . His services were abruptly terminated on 5-2-98 , clairning that Dadri Project came to an end . During the course of his cross - examination he concedes that his services were terminated on account of closure of ICAR Project at Pusa , New Delhi .

53. Sh.Parmod Kumar announces that Sh. Raghunath Rai was engaged as a driver on 18-5-90 at Dadri Project, vide appointment letter which is Ex . MWI / 21. Contents of Ex . MW 1/21 highlights that his services were liable to be terminated without notice or assigning any reason . Sh . Kumar tells that when Dadri Project was at the verge of closure , Sh. Raghunath Rai was temporarily transferred to Canara Bank Housing Project and ICAR, Pusa Project . He was allowed to draw his wages from Dadri Project . On closure of Dadri Project, his services were terminated with effect from 5-2-98 , on payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation . Demand draft for a sum of Rs . 44571 was sent to him , claims Sh . Kumar.

54. Ex . MW1 /21 makes it clear that Shri Raghunath Rai was appointed as driver on adhoc basis at Dadri Project. His services were liable to be terminated without notice and assigning any reason . Ex . MW1 /22 makes it clear that the claimant was transferred to Canara Bank Housing Project , Noida and retransferred to ICAR Pusa Project, New Delhi . Ex . MW1 /23 , makes it clear that on closure of Dadri Project services of Sh. Rai were done away, on payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation . There is no dispute as to appointment of the claimant at Dadri Project and closure of that Project on 5-2-98 . Whether his transfer from Dadri Project , when it was on the verge of closure , created any right in his favour for continuation in service on closer of the aforesaid Project ? As detailed above notice of termination of his service , besides notice pay and retrenchment compensation were given to Shri Rai . Shri Kumar deposed successfully that when Dadri Project was at the verge of closure , services of Shri Rai were transferred to Canara Bank Housing Project and after sometime to ICAR Pusa Project , New Delhi . An employer has a right to close down an establishment by stages , as held by the Apex Court in

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i) ] StrawBoard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [ 1974 (1 ) LL5490] .. Speaking for the Court Justice Goswami , enunciatedthe principles in the following words:

" It may not always be possible to immediately shut down a mill or concern even though a decision to close the same may at any rate at the time have irrevocably been taken . There is , therefore , nothing wrong in the employer arranging closure of S. Mill in such a way as to guard against unnecessary inconvenience to both the management as well as to the labour and against possible avoidable wastage or loss to the concern , say, for not being able to complete some processes which have ultimately to be finished . Having decided to close down a unit on account ofnon - availability of raw material the supply of which had stopped, it was necessary to go on with the unused stock of raw material for some time for which a lesser number of workers would be necessary who would then naturally constitute the next batch or batches to go . We do not see anything wrong in law in electing such a step or mode in finally closing a unit or a concern . It may be in the nature of a business to take recourse to such a mode which cannot ordinarily and per se be considered as unfair or illegitimate" .

55.Whenwork of Dadri Project was near completion, it was competent for the authorities to close down the Project by stages . Services of the claimant , alongwith a few others would have been dispensed with to avoid wastage, till the work would have been completed there . However no decisions to close the Project by stages was taken . On the other hand , the authorities took a decisions to avail services of the claimant at Canara Bank Housing Project and lastely at ICAR Pusa , New Delhi . There is nothing wrong in electing such a method and to dispense with the services of the claimant on the date when Dadri Project was closed down . Therefore transfer of the claimant to these Projects no where create any right or status in his favour. No evidence is there on record to conclude that Shri Rai was absorbed by IRCON on the strength of its establishment. He was never given an employment as employee of IRCON . Mere grant of scale pay does not bring it over the record that IRCON ever took Sh . Rai on the strength of its establishment . Therefore closure ofDadri Project brings an end to his services .

56. Transfer of an employee is an implied condition of the contract of industrial employment . Even if transferability from one place to another in which employment has been secured , is not an express conditions of service , it can be read in to the contact as an implied term if there is some compulsion to read it into a contract ofservice by implication , having regard to the very nature ofthe employment and not otherwise . One must be able to say : what is obvious need not be explicitly stated and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) 」

7583 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

and lastly to ICAR Pusa Project would not accord him status of an employee of IRCON , recruited on direct basis.

59. Sh. Teju Lal claims to have been engaged as a messenger on 13-3-89 on daily wages . He was subsequently granted consolidated pay on 31-9-89 upto 31-1-93 . Pay in regular scale of pay of Rs . 196-232 was granted to him with effect from 1-11-93 . He asserts that initially. he was posted at Dadri Project and on 1-2-93 transferred to corporate office , New Delhi . His services were abruptly terminated on 5-2-98 . During the course of his cross - examination , he admits closure of Dadri Project and termination of his services on payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation.

may be taken to have been understood by both the sides . SeeAutomotive Manufactures Ltd. ( 1977 Lab . I.C. 1188 ) . Transfer of an employee from one department to another orfrom one place to another is , therefore in the discretion ofthe management provided the terms and conditions of his service are not adversely affected. Reference can be made to Hindustan Lever Ltd. ( 1974 (1 ) LLJ 94) . The employer is in the best position to judge how to distribute his employees between different jobs , departments or branches . He is entitled to decide on a consideration of the necessities or exigencies of his business whether transfer of an employee should be made from one particular job, department or branch to another. " Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on administrative grounds" and are " not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places " , pointed out the Apex Court in S.S. Kourav ( 1995 Lab . I.C. 1574) . Transfer being a part of managerial function, it is ordinarily for the management to determine the time and place of transfer having regard to the exigencies of business and where the workmen is transferred in bona fide exercise of such function , such transfer is not open to challenge in industrial adjudication. See National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (1952 Lab . I.C. 62) .

60.Outoffactunfolded by Sh . Teju Lal, it is evident that he was engaged at Dadri Project . He was temporarily posted at corporate office, on the strength of Ex . MW1 / 15. It is announced in Ex.MWI/ 15 that Sh . Teju Lal would remain on the rolls of Dadri Project . Ex. MWI/ 16 speaks of closure ofDadri Project and payment of wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation to Sh . Teju Lal . As admitted by the claimant , he was an employee of the Project. His temporary transfer to corporate office does not change his status , since to avoid wastage the employer may have work from him at a different station than one where he was engaged. Such method was adopted , to avoid closure of the Project by stage . Hence his transfer atcorporate office would not discount him from the status ofanemployee of the Project. He has not acquired a status of an employee recruited on direct basis .

57. Transfer order should not be passed as a measure ofpenalty or victimization or unfair labour practice . Transfer should not tantamount to " reduction in rank " viz . employee concerned loses emoluments , seniority, chances of promotion and other such discernible advantages attached to a post. However, the scale of a salary attached to the post may not be finally determinative of the question whether the transfer was mala fide or not . A reduction in status and change in duties attached to the post may also be relevant . See P. N. Bhulayan ( 1966 Lab . I.C. 1707). Except the safe-guards . referred above , transfer order cannot be questioned before an industrial adjudicator.

61. Sh. Gopal Singh claims to have joined services as junior assistant at corporate office of IRCON on 8-11-88. However in subsequent breath, he claims to have been initially posted at Dadri Project and thereafter transferred toDelhi Mathura Road Project on 11-5-94 . He asserts that onrestructure of cadre( s) , he was declared successful for engagement in the establishment of IRCON . But subsequently, he was not engaged in the cadre , on account ofpendency of writ petition before High Court ofDelhi , challenging scheme of caderization . On 5-2-98 his services wereabruptly terminated on the pretext of closure ofDadri Project. During the course of his cross - examination , he concedes that his initial appointment was on contract for a period of one year. He further admits that he worked at Dadri Project from 8-11-88 till 11-5-94, the date when he wastransferred to Delhi Mathura Road Project . He admits that his services were terminated on closure of Project, after payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation.

58. As the Rules unfold IRCON may employ staff against short term vacancies , against specific Project and ondirect basis . It may take employees on deputation too . Norms of appointment on direct basis and regularization of persons appointment on short term basis are there in the rules. Thus it is clear that four types of employees are there with the IRCON viz . ( i ) appointed against short term vacancies, ( ii) appointed against specific Project, ( iii ) employees employed by way of deputation , and ( iv) appointed on direct basis . When an employee is transferred from one department to another or one place to another, the transfer order does not change his status . Ifthe concerned employee is an employee of Project, his status , remains as such, despite his transfer. To avoid loss and evade closure of a Project by stages , transfer of a Project employee to another Project would answer standards ofbona fides . Hence transfer of Shri Raghunath Rai from Dadri Project to Canara Bank Housing Project

62. Parmod Kumar proves appointment letter of Shri Gopal Singh as Ex . MWI / 29 , transfer letter Ex. MW1/ 30 and letter of termination dated 30-5-98 as Ex . MWI/31. Out of facts unfolded by Sh . Gopal Singh and Parmod Kumar , besides those contained in documents referred above, it surfaced on the carpet that Gopal Singh 3708 GI/2011-21 7584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

nodispute as to the closure ofthe aforesaid Project. Notice pay and retrenchment compensation was paid, besides other dues, which fact emerge out ofEx . MW1 /20 . Thus it is evident that on closure of the aforesaid Project and payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation to Sh. Laik Ram, no industrial dispute came in existence.

was appointed as junior assistant for a period of one year forDadri Project. Ex. MW1/29 make it clear that his services weretransferable to any other Project in India. Using those contractual power his services were transferred to Delhi Mathura Road Project vide letter Ex.MW 1/30 . Whether thistransfer from one Project to another makes Gopal Singh an employee of IRCON? Answer lies in negative , in view ofreasons detailed in preceding sections . Such power of transfer from one Project to another was agreed upon betweenthe parties on the strength of appointment letter Ex. MW1/29 . Use of those powers by IRCON would not change status of the claimant tobe an employee of the former. Therefore it is concluded that Gopal Singh remained an employee of the Project all through out his service.

63.Gopal Singh attempts to claim himself to be an employee of IRCON , saying that he was declared successful for appointment in the establishment ofIRCON . However in his representation dated 16-2-96, which is Ex. MW1 / W3 , he concedes that he was not declared successful for his caderization in the establishment of IRCON.As detailed above , IRCON selects employees from amongst temporary or contractual employees for appointment on the strength of its establishment . Such process of appointment itself highlights that till a candidate is selected, he is not on the rolls of IRCON . Therefore it is obvious that when the claimant undertook test for his selection , he conceded himself to be an employee of Project . Now he cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate facts .He was an employee ofthe Project and remained as such till his services were dispensed with, on closure of the Project.

66.What obligations are to be dischargedby IRCON tobring its case within the ambit of Section 25FFF read with 25-0 of the Act? Closure of an undertaking entails termination of employment of many employees . The term "closure" has been defined by clause ( cc) of Section 2 of the Act to mean " the permanent closing down of a place of employment or a part thereof" . It is not necessary that the entire business of an industrial establishment should be closed down. The employer is free to close a part ofthe business. Partial closure must be of such a part of the undertaking as is distinct and independent . In a closure the employer not only merely closes down the place of employment , but closes down his business finally and irrevocably. But it does not mean that the business once closed can never be restarted or re-opened. Therefore closure may be once for all or may even be a temporary phase . Change of circumstances may encourage an employer to revive industrial activity which was really intended to be closed. See General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay (1985 Lab . I.C. 726) . However closure of business whether entire or partial must be real and genuine , that is to say, it should be a closure in fact and not a ploy adopted for carrying on the same business in a different manner. Reference can be made to Rajasthan Small Scale Industries Employees Union ( 1990 Lab . I.C. 1668 ) and Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. ( 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ . 253 ).

64. Laik Ram presents that he was engaged as a driver on 4-3-89 on daily wage basis . He concludes that initially he was posted at Dadri Project . He was given wages inscalepay ofRs . 260-400 with effect from 1-8-90. On 19-12-95, he was transferred to Panipat Project . On 5-2-98his services were abruptly terminated on the pretext ofclosure ofDadri Project. During the course ofhis cross- examination, he concedes that his services were terminated onclosure ofDadri Project.

67. Carrying on of a business is right and not an obligation . It is , therefore , as much the right of the businessman to close down the business as to carry it on. The industrial adjudication cannot interfere with the discretionexercised by the employer in such a matter. Once an industry is closed down and it is either admitted or found that the closure is real and bona fide in the sense that it is a closure in fact any dispute arising with reference thereto would fall outside the purview of the Act and that will , therefore , be so , if a dispute arises- if such can be conceived-after the closure of the business between the quondam employer and the employees , as the definition of an "industrial dispute " pre-supposes the continued existence of the industry. See Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. [1957( 1 ) LLJ 235] .

65. Sh.Pramod Kumar presents that Laik Ram was engaged as a driver at Dadri Project on 1-8-90 , vide appointment letter Ex. WI/18 . He was transferred to Panipat Refinery Project vide letter dated 19-12-95 which is Ex . MWI/ 19. On closure of Dadri Project on 5-2-98 , termination letter which was issued which was not acceptedby Sh . Laik Ram . On closure of Panipat Refinery Project his services were terminated on 23-4-99 , on payment ofnotice pay and retrenchment compensation. AdmittedlyLaikRam was initially engaged at Dadri Project, which was closed on 5-2-98 . Since he was transferred to Panipat Refinery Project vide letter Ex . MWI/ 19 , he was allowedto continue there till the closure of that Project . Panipat Refinery Project was closed on 23-4-99. There is

68. Section 25 - FFF of the Act lays down certain obligations on the employer to be fulfilled on closure of the business . His right to close down his "undertaking" has now been subjected to the requirement of 60 days ' noticebefore closure by Section 25 FF A ofthe Act, breach ofwhich entails penal consequences . In an "industrial establishment" where one hundred or more workmen are 7585 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

under sub-Section (1 ) ofSection 25- FFF of theAct. Proviso to sub-Section ( 1) ofSection 25-0 ofthe Act excludes the undertakings set up for construction ofbuildings , bridges, roads, canals, dames or for other construction work from the requirement ofmaking an application to the appropriate Government for permission to close down the establishment or undertaking .However provisions ofsub- Section (8) shall apply to such an employer to make payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days average pay of every completed year of continuous service oranypart thereof in excess of six months.

71. As detailed above , claimants , namely, Mukand Lal Sharma, MumtyazAli , Raghunath Rai , Teju Lal ,Gopal Singh,and Liak Ram do not dispute closure of the respective Projects in which they were employed . Notice. of closure of the Project (s) was given to them . It is also not a disputed fact that closure of the Project(s) was genuine and bona fide . Payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation was made to them. Thus it is crystal clear that on closure of Project(s) no industrial dispute came in existence . Consequently, the aforesaid claimants are not entitled to any relief.

employed, apart from 90 days' notice, closure has further beensubjected to the requirement of "previous approval" of the appropriate Government by Section 25-0 of the Act. A fiction has been introduced as like Section 25FF, thatin case ofclosure ofbusiness , the workmen concerned are entitled to compensation as if the termination oftheir services was retrenchment even though, in fact or in law, itisnot retrenchment . Therefore the workmen are entitled bothto notice or wages in lieu of notice and compensation inaccordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, subject of course , to the terms of the proviso to sub- Section ( 1 ) , limiting the amount of compensation. The quantumofcompensation under the provision is the same aspayable on retrenchment under Section 25- F of theAct. The use of expression " as if" in this provision shows almost conclusively that the meaning of " retrenchment " isrestrictive and does not in term apply to the case of a bona fide closure of business . In other words , Section 25-F imposes a prohibition against retrenchment untilthe condition prescribed in that Section are fulfilled, while provisions of Section 25 - FFFdo not prohibit termination ofemployment on closure of the undertaking and without payment of compensation and without service of notice or payment of wages in lieu of the notice . Payment of compensation and payment of wages for the period of notice are not , therefore, conditions precedent to closure . See Hathising Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [ 1960 (2) LLJ 1 ] . In order to entitle workmen to claim compensation, under this Section , twin conditions must exist , namely, ( i ) closure, and ( ii ) one year's continuous service by the concerned workmen.

69. Provisions of sub- Section (2 ) of Section 25 - FFF completely exempts an employer from paying any compensation on closure of the undertaking under sub- Section ( 1 ) or proviso there under , where:

(a) the undertaking is set up for the construction of buildings and bridges , roads , canals , dams or other construction work , or

72. Sh . Dhal Singh was initially offered appointment atKorba railway siding Project. He swears in his affidavit Ex . WW4 /A that subsequently he was transferred to Meerut Project on 10-1-90 . He was again transferred to Malaysia Project on 4-9-91 and re- transferred to Meerut Project on 28-7-93 . He was further transferred to Delhi Mathura Road Project on 12-8-97 . His services were abruptly terminated on 3-6-98 on the pretext that Delhi Mathura Road Project stood closed. During the course of his cross -examination , he concedes that at the time of termination of his services , he was working in Delhi Mathura Road Project . He also concedes that his services were terminated on account of closure of the Project . A compensation of Rs . 178181 was offered to him which he refused to accept. He admits that he was exercising managerial functions . Six khalasis and two fitters were working under his supervision . He used to maintain attendance of his subordinates , working under him . He was employed as a junior engineer.

(b) where the construction work is closed down on account of the completion of work within two years from the date on which the undertaking had been set up .

Plain and unambiguous language used in sub- Section (2 ) of the said Section makes it quite clear that in case of closure of categories of undertaking mentioned therein , no workman employed in those undertakings can claim compensation under clause (b) of Section 25 - F of theAct.

70. Provisions of sub- Section ( 8 ) of Section 25 - O of theAct correspond to sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 25 - FFF of the Act . The quantum of compensation payable to a workman where permission for closure of an undertaking is granted ordeemed to have been granted is the same as

73. Sh . Parmod Kumar unfolds in his affidavit that Sh . Dhal Singh was locally engaged as junior engineer at Delhi Mathura Road Project. However he has proved letter Ex. MWI /II , wherein it has been mentioned that Sh . Dhal Singh was interviewed by the General Manager and sent to the Project Manager at Korba for his adhoc appointment at local rates . Letter Ex . MWI/ 12 , has also been proved by Sh . Parmod Kumar which highlights that Sh . Dhal Singh was a surplus from Anpara Rihand Project and adjusted ontransfer to Delhi Mathura Road Project, when the earlier Project stood closed on 6-2-98.Delhi Mathura Road Project was closed on 3-6-98 and one month salary in lieu ofnotice besides retrenchment compensation was offered which was not accepted by the claimant .

7586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II Sac. 3(ii)]

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(1) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of1950), or the Army Act 1950 (46 of1950) or theNavy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

(ii) who.is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

( iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him , functions mainly of a managerial nature.

74. The claimant does not dispute his appointment at Anpara Rihand Project and its closure on 6-2-98 . His bald testimony relating to his transfer to Meerut Project, subsequent transfer to Malaysia Project and re - transfer to Meerut Project does not find any corroboration from some other piece of evidence . These facts were even not put to Shri Parmod Kumar during the course of his cross- examination . Hence it is clear that facts in that regard are in the form of self serving statement made by Shri Dhal Singh . These facts can not lead the Tribunal to reach the destination . His initial engagement at Korba Project on adhoc basis has come over the record . In early months of year 1990, he was appointed at Anpara Rihand Project, which Project closed down on 6-2-98 . He had not challenged the fact that he was adjusted at Delhi Mathura Road Project on closure of Anpara Rihand Project . His adjustment at Delhi Mathura Road Project was alternative employment given to him , as contemplated in sub - Section ( 1A) of Section 25FFF of the Act. This alternative employment satisfied all requirements contained in the said sub - Section . Alternative employment given to Shri Dhal Singh have an effect of continuity of his service on same remuneration and terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him at the time of closure of Anpara Rihand Project. However it does not clothe him with status of a permanent employee of IRCON . No hue and cry has been made by him in respect of closure of Delhi Mathura Road Project on 3-6-98 . He admits that notice pay and retrenchment compensation was offered to him which he refused to accept. As held above payment of wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation is not a condition precedent to closuer of an undertaking . Even otherwise it was offered but not accepted by the claimant. Every aspect relating to closure of Delhi Mathura Road Project has been brought over the record . In view ofthese facts claimant Dhal Singh is not entitled to relief of being declared a permanent employee of IRCON . Action of terminating his service is within the legal para- meters , enacted in Section 25FFF read with Section 25-0 of the Act. At the most amount of notice pay and retrenchment compensation would have been awarded to him , but for reasons detailed in subsequent Sections .

76. For an employee in an industry to be "workman" itismanifest that he must be employed to do (i ) manual work, ( ii) unskilled work , ( iii ) skilled work, ( iv) technical work, (v) operational work, (vi ) clerical work , (vii ) supervisory work. Merely performing some supervisory duties will not take the employee out of definition of workman. The word " supervision " means to oversee, to look after. Therefore supervision which is relevant in this connection is the supervision done by an employee in a higher position over the employees in the lower position. Aperson can be said to be supervisor if there are persons working under him , over whose work he has to keep a watch ..It is not his function to bring about innovation or to take any managerial decision , but it is his duty to see that the work in any industrial unit is done in accordance with the manual , if there is one , or in accordance with the usual procedure . The central concept of supervisor is the fact that there are certain persons working under him . It is supervision over man and not machines .

75. There is other facet of the coin . Dhal Singh claims that his functions and powers were managerial . There were six khalasi and two fitters , whose work he used to supervise . Ex . MW1 / 12 highlights that at the time of termination of his services , his wages were Rs . 7018 per month . Question would arise as to whether Dhal Singh answers ingredients of clause ( s) of Section 2 of the Act, which defines the term " workman " . For sake of convenience , said definition is extracted this:

" ( s) Workman means any person ( including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled, skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or

77.As admitted by Sh . Dhal Singh , there were six khalasi and two fitters working under him. He used to supervise their work . He used to maintain atfendance of subordinates working under him . He admits that his powers weremanagerial in nature . By these facts , Sh . Dhal Singh attempts to say that he used to supervise his subordinate and issue directions to then to perform the job on the site in given manner. He used to take decisions as to what work, with what material and of what quality wouldbe performed by his subordinates . Consequently from admission made by Sh. Dhal Singh it emerges on the record that he was employed in a supervisory capacity. Ex. MW 1/12brings it on the record that his wages exceeded one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem . These facts [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

7587 persuade me to conclude that he was excluded from the category of persons who fall within the definition of workman, as contained in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act. It takes his case out of the purview of an industrial dispute. In view of these facts neither the Tribunal is supposed to exercise jurisdiction over his case , nor he is entitled toany relief from this forum.

before the Apex Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. ( 1995 Lab . I.C. 1599) wherein the company was engaged in construction of industrial and engineering plants , both within the country and abroad. Forits Project at Hydrabad the Company employed about 230 employees . The Project was completed in January 1980 except for some very minor works . At the suggestion of theUnion, 130workers were transferred to Visakhapatnam but remaining 100 could not be absorbed at any place. The management retrenched them. When the matter reached the Apex Court, it was ruled that Hydrabad Unit was distinct from other Units hence demand for absorption ofremaining 100 workman in other units than Hydrabad was not justified. Speaking for the Court, Jeevan Reddy, J. observed thus:

" In our opinion , however the fact that the management reserved to itself the liberty of transferring the employees from one place to another did not mean that all the Units of the appellant constituted one single establishment . In the case of a construction company like the appellant which undertakes construction work wherever awarded, doesthat work and winds up its establishment there and particularly where a number of local persons have to be and are appointed for the purpose of a particular work, unity of ownership, management and control are not of much significance. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, the conclusion is inevitable that the Units at Hydrabad were distinct establishment . Once this is so, the workmen of the said unit had no right to demand absorption in other units on the Hydrabad units completing their job " .

80. Facts of the present controversy are similar to the facts ofabove precedent . Projects of IRCON, referred above , were distinct and different units than those where the management had undertaken other works either inthe country or abroad. When works at the aforesaid Projects came to an end , the claimants had no right to claim reinstatement and absorption in other units . They were never recruited on direct basis , hence cannot claim their reinstatement and absorption at corporate office of IRCON atNew Delhi too.

78. Can IRCON be commanded to adjust claimants at same other Project, on the assumption that works at various Projects are in progress? For an answer, it is tobe noted as to whether work at a Project is a part of whole industry, which is being run by IRCON. Answer to this proposition is to be traced out of the statute . The Act uses expression , " undertaking " , " establishment " and " industry" at various places . Section 25 - F uses the word " industry", while Sections 9B, 18(3 ) , 23 , 25C, 25D , 25F and 25G have used the expression , " industrial establishment" and Section 25FF , 25FF A , 25FFF and 25-0 have used the expression" undertaking ". The expression " undertaking " has no where been defined in the Act, while the expression " industrial establishment " has been defined in the explanation to Section 25A for the purposes of Sections 25A, 25C , 25D and 25E. The term industry " has been defined in Section 2(j ) ofthe Act. Undertaking is a concept narrower than industry. The industry is a whole of which an undertaking is part . The expression " undertaking " as used in the definition of " industry " was given a restricted meaning in Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case [1978 (2) SCC 213 ] . In the context of Section 25FFF, the expression " undertaking" has been used to connote "any work , enterprise, Project or business undertaking" . Itisnot intended to cover the entire industry or business ofthe employer . Even closer or stoppage of a part ofthe business or activity of the employer would seem in law to be covered by sub-ection ( 1 ) of Section 25FFF of theAct . Reference can be made to the precedent in Management ofHindustan Steel Ltd. ( 1973 Lab . IC 461 ) . Section 25 -G uses the phrase " undertaking of an industrial establishment " , which implies that an industrial establishment may have one or more undertakings . It is not intended to cover the entire industry or business of the employer. Therefore a Project undertaken by IRCON would be an " undertaking " different than other Project(s) or work being run by it as its construction business . An employee of one Project cannot claim that he may be adjusted against the work of a different Project , since on termination of his service , on account of closure of that undertaking there cannot be an industrial dispute within the purview of theAct.

81.In view of foregoing reasons, Gopal Singh and others, are not entitled to claim to be permanent employees of IRCON since they were employees ofrespective Projects. Project authorities / IRCON were well within their rights to terminate their services . Gopal Singh and others , except Mohan Shyam , do not have any benefit , which is to be granted in their favour. However Mohan Shyam is entitled to an amount of Rs . 103779 , which was tendered toward notice pay and retrenchment compensation, but not accepted by him . An award is accordingly passed. It be sent tothe appropriate Government for publication.

79.No dispute is there between the parties that Delhi Mathura Road Project , Dadri Project , Panipat Project and ICAR, Pusa Project stood closed. Works undertaken by IRCON at other Projects in the country and abroad are distinct and different then the Projects in which the claimants were engaged . Can they demand reinstatement and absorption in those Projects ? Such a question arose Dated: 12-8-2011 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

7588

For the Respondent

नई दिल्ली , 22 सितम्बर , 2011

M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy &B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec.2 A (2 ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has been filed by Sri Marella Edukondalu , Ex . Messenger ofStateBank of India , challenging the order of termination dated 31-3-1997 and for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and back wages .

का.आ. 2921.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 135/2006 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12025/01 /2011- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2011

2. The Petitioner has stated that he joined in the services ofthe Respondent as Messenger in October, 1986 inthe Respondent's Organization , Nellore District where he worked upto 31-3-1997 and thereafter he was disengaged and was ordered to stop the work.

S.O. 2921. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 135/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-9-2011.

[No. L- 12025/01 /2011 - IR (B -I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

3. Petitioner made several representations and also filedWritpetition along with 200 others employees before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , which was registered as WP.4194/97 and other petitions Nos . 9206/97, 5087/97 etc. , which were disposed off by a common order by Hon'ble Justice Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court against which management has filed Writ Appeal No.86/ 98 which was decided and ordered that Petitioner should approach Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal . Against the order ofWrit Appeal SLP was filed by the Petitioner and other employees , which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Writ Appeal .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

Present:- Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day ofApril , 2011 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 135/2006

Between:

Sri Marella Edukondalu,

..Petitioner

S/o Lingaiah, R/ Zirravaripalem , Kaligiri Mandalam, Nellore District

AND

The ChiefGeneral Manager (Personal ) ,

...Respondent

StateBank of India, LHO , Bank Street, Hyderabad

4. Petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and belongs to a poor family. There was agreement between the employees union and the management in which it was agreed that those employees who have completed minimum of30 days in any calendar month of 75 days in aggregate in 36 calendar months will be called for interview by virtue ofsettlement dated 17-8-1984, thereafter another settlement was also entered into between the employees and management on 17-7-1989 , subsequent agreement dated 16-10-1988, 27-10-1988 , followed by agreement dated 26-4-1994 was also entered into between parties , in all the settlements it was agreed that the employees who have put in a certain number of days will be considered for absorption and a panel will be prepared ofthose employees . The Petitioner's name find place in the list prepared by management but Petitioner was not absorbed, not only thatJustice Sri Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , by order dated 1-1-1998 directed Respondent bank to absorb all the Petitioners which was not complied by the management . The management challenged that order which was quashed by Appellate Authority and order of the AppellateAuthority amended by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence , the Petitioner has filed this present petition .

APPEARANCES:

: M/s . S. Prasada Rao , C. Bala

Forthe Petitioner

5. Counter has been filed by the Respondent management . Management has also admitted that several agreements as mentioned by the Petitioner have been entered into between the management and the Subrahmanyam, K. Jhansi Rani & K. Bharathi , Advocates [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7589

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

union and the employees were categories into three categories:

categorization of the employees as such , the Petitioner has become entitled for absorption.

(A) Those , who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 1-7-1975.

(B) Those,who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

(C)Those, who have completed minimum of30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

6. As per terms of the agreement dated February, 1997 the last date of the panel was to expire on 31-3-1997 . The Petitioner was not found suitable in the order of seniority, he was not considered for absorption. Petitioner was engaged intermittently when the regular employees were not available for sweeping and cleaning ofthe office he was not regularly appointed employee nor he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as such , no legal right is vested in the Petitioner for being absorbed in the bank's services . Petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

9.Against the above argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that even if the Petitioner has put in 446days service in total and he comes within the category ' C' employees , it is not vested right of the Petitioner to be absorbed in the services of the bank unless other formalities and rules of the absorption has been fulfilled . by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was called for interview asper his own document but whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by him. Moreover, there is another categories ' A and B' of the employees, who put in 240 days oftemporary service in 12 calendar months and who put in 270 days aggregate service in 36 calendar months , their case was to be considered onpriority basis in comparison to those placed in category ' C ' of the employees . It was the duty of the Petitioner to prove that anybody or any person junior to him or who has put in less number of working days in comparison to the Petitioner was absorbed by the bank . Secondly, the Petitioner has not been able to prove thatwhat was the outcome of the result of the interview whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by the Petitioner as such , the bank has notcommitted any illegality in disengaging the Petitioner whohas worked intermittently when the work was available withthe bank. Therefore , the action ofthe management is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative of the principles ofnatural justice and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

10. In light of the above argument of the Learned Counsel for the parties this Tribunal has to consider following points for adjudication:-

7. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Petitioner Sri Marella Edukondalu has appeared, examined in chiefand presented himself for cross examination . He has filed xerox copies of transfer certificate and service certificate allegedly issued by State Bank of India, Kaligiri branch . Management has filed affidavit of Sri R. Venkateshwar Rao , Chief Manager ( HR) , State Bank of India, Tirupathi who has marked 12 documents Ex . Ml to M12. He appeared for cross examination and has been cross examined at length.

( I) Whether the action of the management in disengaging the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice?

( II ) To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled for?

8. I have heard counsels for both the parties at length and I have gone through the evidence on record. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the workman that workman was engaged in the year 1986 and he has worked upto March , 1997. In proof of his claimhe has filed attendance statement Ex. W2 to show that Sri Marella Edukondalu worked for 446 days from 1986 to 1990. On the basis of this document the argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner has worked for 446 days altogether under the management of Respondent, thus , he is entitled for absorption in the bank's service as per the agreement entered into between the bank management and the employees union . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Petitioner has put in total number of446 days though intermittently but under theterms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees union and the management. Petitioner's case is covered under category ' C ' of

11. Point No. ( I) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner has worked in the bank when the work was available with the management . The Petitioner in his cross examination has admitted that he worked for a period of 446 days intermittently. Though Petitioner states that he has worked for 446 days , but at the same time he has admitted that he worked with the bank whenever work was available and given by the Manager. The Petitioner alleged to have filed xerox copy of the service certificate or number of working days he put in as temporary messenger with the bank management. This certificate has not been proved by the Petitioner workman . Even if it is presumed that Petitioner has worked for 446 days that 7590

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

WW 1 : Sri Marella Edukondalu

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

MW 1 : Sri R. Venkateshwar Rao

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI: Copy of transfer certificate

Ex.W2: Copy of service certificate issued by Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kaligiri

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 17-11-1987

Ex. M2: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 16-7-1988

Ex.M3: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 27-10-1988

Ex.M4: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt. 9-1-1991

Ex. M5 : Copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings held before RLC ( C) , Hyderabaddt . 9-6-95-

Ex. M6 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI 30-7-1996

Ex.M7: Copy of memorandum of understanding dt. 27-2-1997

Ex. M8: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Messsengerial panel

Ex. M9: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Non -Messsengerial panel

Ex.M10 : Copy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11 : Copy ofjudgement of Hon'ble High Court in WA No , 86/98 dt. 1-5-1998

itselfdoes not confer any right on Petitioner for absorption in the bank's services . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has reliedupon case law ofHon'ble High Court ofKarnataka reported in 2005 ( 1 ) LLJ page 126 in the matter of State Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. T. N. Jaya Ram wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that , " the claim of those employees who has not completed 30 days in one calendar year are not entitled for regularization . " However, the Petitioner workman has not been able to place before this Tribunal any such rule, which authorizes for the regularization of those employees who has put in more than 200 days of the service in 36 calendar months . There. isagreement between the parties under which employees were given option to apply for regularization and it was agreed between the union and the management that panel will be prepared on the basis of the interview and such panelwill be remained enforced for a particular period and existing vacancies will be filled out of the candidates listed in the panel . Petitioner of this case has not placed any paper to prove that he was selected by the management or he was empanelled for absorption in the service. Unless , the Petitioner was empanelled for absorption he cannot claim right of absorption . The case law cited by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reported in 2005 ( 1 ) LLJ page 126 isnot applicable in the present case . In the same way the case law reported in 2003 ( I ) LLJ page 219 is also not applicable in the present case. The bank's service is a public utility service and there is procedure for recruitment to the banking services . Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was selected by the empanelment committee for absorption in the bank's service . He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well. As such , in view of the agreement of 1997 in which the empanelled candidates were to be absorbed by end of the March , 1997 , since name ofthe Petitioner does not find place in the empanelled list the disengagement of the Petitioner is neither bad in the eye of law nor against the terms of the agreement entered into by the bank employees and the bank management . Since Petitioner was not selectedby the empanelment committee he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange he was engaged by the Manager whenthe work was available in the branch he has no right of authority for absorption as he was not appointed according to the recruitment rules of the public utility services as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Ex.M12: Copy ofjudgement in SLP No. 11866-11888 of 1998 dt. 10-8-98 .

नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर , 2011

12. Point No. ( II ) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his disengagement from service was illegal , arbitrary or against principles of natural justice . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed by him . Point No. ( II ) is decided accordingly .

का.आ. 2922. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 13. In view of the above discussion , this Tribunal is of the opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and it isdismissed, hence , this award.

7591 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23, 1933

अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12025/01/2011 - आई आर( बी-I ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The Petitioner has stated that he joined in the services ofthe Respondent as Messenger in July, 1975 in the Respondent's organization, Onipenta branch , CuddapahDistrict where he worked upto 31-3-1997 and thereafter he was disengaged and was ordered to stop the work.

New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2011

S.O. 2922. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-09-2011 .

[No. L- 12025/ 01/ 2011 - IR (B-I) ]

3.Petitioner made several representations and also filedWrit petition along with 200 others employees before theHon'ble High Court of A.P. , which was registered as WP-4194/97 and other petitions Nos.9206/97, 5087/97 etc. , whichwere disposed of by a common order by Hon'ble Justice Somasekhar ofHon'ble High Court against which management has filed Writ Appeal No. 86/98 which was decided and ordered that Petitioner should approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal .Against the order ofWrit appealSLP was filed by the Petitioner and other employees , which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the WritAppeal.

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated, the 7th day ofApril , 2011

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 11/2007

Between:

Sri Yannam Santhaiah ,

S/ o Ramaiah ,

R/ o Bonchapalli Village , Lekkalavari Palli Post ,

MydukurMandalam ,

...Petitioner

Cuddapah District

AND

4. Petitioner is a member of scheduled caste and belongs to a poor family. There was agreement between the employees union and the management in which it was agreed that those employees who have completed minimum of30days in any calendar month or 75 days in aggregate in36 calendar months will be called for interview by virtue ofsettlement dated 17-8-1984, thereafter another settlement was also entered into between the employees and management on 17-7-1989 , subsequent agreement dated 16-10-1988 , 27-10-1988 , followed by agreement dated 26-4-1994 was also entered into between parties , in all the settlements it was agreed that the employees who have put in a certain number of days will be considered for absorption and a panel will be prepared of those employees . The Petitioner's name find place in the list prepared by management but Petitioner was not absorbed, not only that Justice Sri Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , by order dated 1-1-1998 directed Respondentbank to absorb all the Petitioners which was not compliedby the management . The management challenged that order which was quashed by Appellate Authority and order of the Appellate Authority amended by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence , the Petitioner has filed this present petition.

The ChiefGeneral Manager (Personal) , State Bank of India , LHO , Bank Street , Hyderabad

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s . S. Prasada Rao & C. Bala Subrahmanyam , Advocates

5. Counter has been filed by the Respondent management . Management has also admitted that several agreements as mentionedby the Petitioner have been entered into between the management and the union and the employees were categories into three categories :-

For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy, Pasham Srinivasulu and Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocates

(A) Those , who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 1-7-1975.

AWARD

(B) Those, who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

This petition under Sec . 2A(2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has been filedby Sri Yannam Santhaiah , Ex . Messenger of State Bank of India , challenging the order of termination dated31-3-1997 and for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and back wages .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] after 1-7-1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendarmonths after 1-7-1975.

6.As per terms of the agreement dated February, 1997 the lastdate ofthe panel was to expire on 31-3-1997. The Petitioner was not found suitable in the order of seniority, he was not considered for absorption . Petitioner was engaged intermittently when the regular employees were not available for sweeping and cleaning ofthe office he was not regularly appointed employee nor he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as such , no legal right is vested in the Petitioner for being absorbed in the bank'sservices . Petition is devoid of merit and deserves tobe dismissed.

formalities and rules of the absorption has been fulfilled bythe Petitioner. The Petitioner was called for interview as per his own document but whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by him . Moreover, there is other categories' A & B' of the employees, who put in 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months and who put in 270 days aggregate service in 36 calendar months , their case was to be considered on priority basis in comparison to those placed in category 'C' of the employees . It was the duty ofthe Petitioner to prove that anybody or any person junior to him or who has put in less number of working days in comparison to the Petitioner was absorbed by the bank. Secondly, the Petitioner has not been able to prove that what was the outcome ofthe result of the interview whether hewas empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by the Petitioner as such , the bank has not committed any illegality in disengaging the Petitionerwho hasworked intermittently when the work was available with the bank . Therefore , the action of the management is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative of the principles of natural justice and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

10. In light of the above argument of the Learned Counsel for the parties this Tribunal has to consider following points for adjudication :-

7. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Petitioner Sri Yannam Santhaiah has appeared, examined inchiefand presented himself for cross examination . He has filed xerox copies of 7 documents call letter for interview. (allegedly original ) service certificate showing temporary service for 199 days allegedly issued by Branch Manager , Onipenta , SBI service certificate-cum- introduction letter for 199 days . (allegedly original ) service certificate for 181 days . (allegedly original) transfer certificate and SSC marks memo . Management has filed aftidavit of Sri R. Venkateswar Rao, Chief Manager (HR) , State Bank of India , Tirupathi who has marked 12 documents Ex.Ml to M12 . He appeared for cross examination and has been cross examined at length .

(1) Whether the action of the management in disengaging the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice ?

(11) To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled for?

8.I have heard counsels for both the parties at length and I have gone through the evidence on record. It has been arguedby the Learned Counsel for the workman that workman was engaged in the year 1975 and he has worked upto the year 1997. In proof ofhis claim he has filed service certificates Ex . W2 to W 4 to show that Sri Yannam Santhaiah worked for 380 days from 1988 to 1997. On the basis ofthese documents the argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner has worked for 380 days altogether under the management of Respondent , thus, he is entitled for absorption in the bank's service as per the agreement entered into between the bank management and the employees union. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Petitioner has put in total number of 380 days though intermittently but under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees union and the management . Petitioner's case is covered under category 'C' of categorization of the employees as such , the Petitioner has become entitled for absorption.

9.Against the above argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that even if the Petitioner has put in 380days service in total and he comes within the category 'C' employees . it is not vested right of the Petitioner to be absorbed in the services of the bank unless other

11. Point No. (I ) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner has worked in the bank when the work was available with the management . The Petitioner in his cross examination has admitted that he worked for a period of 380 days intermittently. Though Petitioner states that he has worked for 380 days , but at the same time he has admitted that he worked with the bank whenever work was available and given by the Manager . The Petitioner alleged to have filed xerox copy of the service certificate or number of working days he put in as temporary messenger with the bank management . These certificates have not been proved by the Petitioner workman. Even if itis presumed that Petitioner has worked for 380 days that itselfdoes not confer any right on Petitioner for absorption in the bank's services . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon case law of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2005 ( 1) LLJ page 126 in the matter of State Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. T. N. Jaya Ram whereinHon 'ble Karnataka High Court has held that, " the claim ofthose employees who has not completed 30days in one calendar year are not entitled for regularization. " However, the Petitioner workman has not been able to [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7593 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

Witnesses examined for the : MWI: Sri R. Venkateswar Respondent Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 : Copy of transfer certificate

Ex.W2 : Statement showing particulars of temporary service of Petitioner

Ex.W3 : Statement showing particulars of temporary service of Petitioner

Ex.W4: Statement showing particulars of temporary service of Petitioner

Ex.W5 : Transfer certificate

Ex.W6: SSC marks memo

Ex.W7 : Copy of caste certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd. 17-11-1987

Ex.M2: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd . 16-7-1988

Ex.M3 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd. 27-10-1988

Ex.M4: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dtd. 9-1-1991

Ex.M5: Copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings held before RLC(C) , Hyderabaddt. 9-6-95

Ex.M6: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI 30-7-1996

Ex.M7: Copy of memorandum of understanding dtd. 27-2-1997

place before this Tribunal any such rule , which authorizes for the regularization of those employees who has put in more than 200 days of the service in 36 calendar months . There is agreement between the parties under which employees were given option to apply for regularization and itwas agreed between the union and the management that panel will be prepared on the basis of the interview and such panel will be remained enforced for a particular period and existing vacancies will be filled out of the candidates listed in the panel . Petitioner of this case has not placed any paper to prove that he was selected by the management or he was empanelled for absorption in the service . Unless , the Petitioner was empanelled for absorption he can not claim right of absorption . The case law cited by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reported in 2005 ( I ) LLJ page 126 is not applicable in the present case.In the same way the case law reported in 2003 ( 1 ) LLJ page 219 is also not applicable in the present case . The bank's service is a public utility service and there is procedure for recruitment to the banking services . Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was selected bythe empanelment committee for absorption in the bank's service. He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well . As such, in view of the agreement of 1997 in which the empanelled candidates were to be absorbed by end of the March, 1997, since name of the Petitioner does not find place in the empanelled list the disengagement of the Petitioner is neither bad in the eye of law nor against the terms of the agreement entered into by the bank employees and the bank management. Since Petitioner was not selected by the empanelment committee he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange he was engaged by the Manager when the work was available in the branch he has no right or authority for absorption as he was not appointed according to the recruitment rules of the public utility services as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka . Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Ex.M8 : Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Messsengerial panel

Ex.M9: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Non-Messsengerial panel

Ex.M10: Copy of statement of 1992 panel

12. Point No. ( II) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his disengagement from service was illegal , arbitrary or against principles of natural justice . Petitioner isnot entitled for any relief claimed by him . Point No. ( II) isdecided accordingly.

Ex.M11 : Copy ofjudgement of Hon'ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt . 1-5-1998

13. Inview ofthe above discussion , this Tribunal is ofthe opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and itisdismissed, hence, this award.

Ex.M12: Copy ofjudgement in SLP No. 11866-11888 of1998 dtd. 10-8-98 .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर , 2011

Dictatedto Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofEvidence

Witnesses examined for the : WW 1 : Sri Yannam Santhaiah Petitioner

का.आ. 2923.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/2006) 7594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12025/ 01 /2011 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

[PART IISEC. 3 (ii)] reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and back wages .

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the22nd September , 2011 S.O. 2923. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 136/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-09-2011.

2. The Petitioner has stated that he joined in the services of the Respondent as Messenger in October , 1987 inthe Respondent's organization, Nellore District where he worked upto 31-3-1997 and thereafter he was disengaged and was ordered to stop the work.

[No. L - 12025/ 01/ 2011 -IR (B-I) ]

RAMESH SINGH, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Presenc: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, PresidingOfficer.

Dated the 7th day ofApril, 2011 .

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 136/2006 Between:

SriNandaMalyadri ,

S/oThirupal,

Gudipadu Post, A.S. Peta Mandalam,

R/o Abbasahabpeta Village, Nellore District.

...Petitioner AND

The ChiefGeneral Manager (Personal ) , StateBank of India, LHO , Bank Street, Hyderabad.

3.Petitioner made several representations and also filedWrit petition along with 200 others employees before. the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , which was registered as WP 4194/97 and other petitions Nos .9206/97 , 5087/97 etc. , which were disposed off by a common order by Hon'ble Justice Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court against which management has filed Writ Appeal No.86/ 98 which was decided and ordered that Petitioner should approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal . Against the order ofWrit appeal SLP was filed by the Petitioner and other employees , which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Writ Appeal.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/s. S. Prasada Rao , C. Bala 4. Petitioner is a member of scheduled caste and belongs to a poor family. There was agreement between the employees union and the management in which it was agreed that those employees who have completed minimum of30 days in any calendar month or 75 days in aggregate in36 calendar months will be called for interview by virtue ofsettlementdated 1'7-8-1984, thereafter another settlement was also entered into between the employees and management on 17-7-1989 , subsequent agreement dated 16-10-1988 , 27-10-1988 , followed by agreement dated 26-4-1994 was also entered into between parties , in all the settlements it was agreed that the employees who have put in a certain number of days will be considered for absorption and a panel will be prepared of those employees . The Petitioner's name find place in the list prepared by management but Petitioner was not absorbed , not only that Justice Sri Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , by order dated 1-1-1998 directed Respondent bank to absorb all the Petitioners which was not complied by the management . The management challenged that order which was quashed by Appellate Authority and order of the Appellate Authority amended by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence , the Petitioner has filed this present petition.

Subrahmanyam , K. Jhansi Rani

and K. Bharathi , Advocates

For the Respondent: M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

This petition under Sec.2 A (2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has been filed by Sri Nanda Malyadri , Ex . Messenger of State Bank of India , challenging the order of termination dated 31-3-1997 and for his 5. Counter has been filed by the Respondent management . Management has also admitted that several agreements as mentioned by the Petitioner have been entered into between the management and the union and the employees were categories into three categories :-

(A) Those , who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 1-7-1975

(B) Those , who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 7595 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

(C) Those, who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

6. As per terms of the agreement dated February, 1997 the last date of the panel was to expire on 31-3-1997. The Petitioner was not found suitable in the order of seniority, he was not considered for absorption . Petitioner was engaged intermittently when the regular employees were not available for sweeping and cleaning of the office he was not regularly appointed employee nor he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as such, no legal right is vested in the Petitioner for being absorbed in the bank's services . Petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was called for interview as per his own document but whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by him . More over, there is another categories ' A & B ' of the employees , who put in 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months and who put in 270 days aggregate service in 36 calendar months , their case was to be considered onpriority basis in comparison to those placed in category' C' of the employees . It was the duty of the Petitioner to prove that anybody or any person junior to him or who has put in less number of working days in comparison to the Petitioner was absorbed by the bank. Secondly, the Petitioner has not been able to prove that what was the outcome of the result of the interview whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by the Petitioner as such , the bank has not committed any illegality in disengaging the Petitioner who has worked intermittently when the work was available with the bank . Therefore , the action of the management is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative of the principles of natural justice and Petitioner is not entitled foranyrelief.

10. In light of the above argument of the Learned Counsel for the parties this Tribunal has to consider following points for adjudication :--

7. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Petitioner Sri Nanda Malyadri has appeared, examined in chiefandpresented himself for cross- examination . He has filed xerox copies of three documents transfer certificate , service certificate allegedly issued by State Bank of India, from 1987 to 1997 for 498 days and service certificate- cum- introduction letter. Management has filed affidavit of Sri R. Venkateshwar Rao , Chief Manager ( HR ) , State Bank of India, Tirupathi who has marked 12 documents Ex.MI to M12. He appeared for cross - examination and has been cross -examined at length .

(1 ) Whether the action of the management in disengaging the Petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice ?

(II) To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled for?

8. I have heard counsels for both the parties at length and I have gone through the evidence on record . It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the workman that workman was engaged in the year 1986 and he has worked upto March, 1997. In proof of his claim he has filed attendance statement Ex . W2 to show that Sri Nanda Malyadri worked for 498 days from 1987 to 1997. On the basis of this document the argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner has worked for 498 days altogether under the management of Respondent , thus , he is entitled for absorption in the bank's service as , per the agreement entered into between the bank management and the employees union . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Petitioner has put in total number of 498 days though intermittently but under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees union and the management . Petitioner's case is covered under category 'C' of categorization of the employees as such , the Petitioner has become entitled for absorption .

11. Point No. (I ) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner has worked in the bank when the work was available with the management . The Petitioner in his cross- examination has admitted that he worked for a period of 498 days intermittently. Though Petitioner states that he has worked for 498 days , but at the same time he has admitted that he worked with the bank whenever work was available and given by the Manager. The Petitioner alleged to have filed xerox copy of the service certificate or number of working days he put in as temporary messenger with the bank management. This certificate has not been proved by the Petitioner workman. Even if it is presumed that Petitioner has worked for 498 days that itself does not confer any right on Petitioner for absorption in the bank's services . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon case law of Hon'ble High Court ofKarnataka reported in 2005 ( 1 ) LLJ page 126 in the matter of State Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. T. N. Jaya Ram wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that , " the claim of those employees who has not completed 30 days in one calendar year are not entitled for regularization ." However, the Petitioner workman has not been able to place before this Tribunal any such rule , which authorizes for the 9. Against the above argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that even if the Petitioner has put in 498 days service in total and he comes within the category ' C ' employees , it is not vested right of the Petitioner to be absorbed in the services of the bank unless other formalities and rules of the absorption has been fulfilled 7596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ]

Witnesses examined for the : MW 1 : Sri R. Venkateshwar Respondent Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1 : Copy of transfer certificate

Ex. W2: Copy of statement showing particulars of temporary service of Petitioner

Ex.W3: Copy of service certificate issued by Branch Manager, State Bank of India , Kaligiri

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 17-11-1987

Ex. M2 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 16-7-1988

Ex. M3 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt. 27-10-1988

Ex.M4: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 9-1-1991

Ex .M5: Copy ofminutes of conciliation proceedings held before RLC ( C) , Hyderabaddt. 9-6-95

Ex. M6: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI 30-7-1996

Ex.M7 : Copy of memorandum of understanding dt. 27-2-1997

Ex.M8: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Messsengerial panel

Ex.M9: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Non-Messsengerial panel

regularization of those employees who has put in more than 200 days of the service in 36 calendar months . There is agreement between the parties under which employees were given option to apply for regularization and it was agreed between the union and the management that panel will be prepared on the basis of the interview and such panelwill be remained enforced for a particular period and existing vacancies will be filled out ofthe candidates listed in the panel. Petitioner of this case has not placed any paper to prove that he was selected by the management or he was empanelled for absorption in the service. Unless , the Petitioner was empanelled for absorption he can not claim right of absorption. The case law cited by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reported in 2005 ( 1 ) LLJ page 126 is not applicable in the present case . In the same way the case law reported in 2003 (I ) LLJ page 219 is also not applicable in the present case . The bank's service is a public utility service and there is procedure for recruitment to the banking services . Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was selected by the empanelment committee for absorption inthe bank's service . He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well . As such , in view of the agreement of 1997 in which the empanelled candidates were to be absorbed by end of the March , 1997 , since name ofthe Petitioner does not find place in the empanelled list the disengagement of the Petitioner is neither bad in the eye of law nor against the terms of the agreement entered into by the bank employees and the bank management . Since Petitioner was not selected by the empanelment committee he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange he was engaged by the Manager whenthe work was available in the branch he has no right or authority for absorption as he was not appointed according to the recruitment rules of the public utility services as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka . Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Ex.M10: Copy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11 : Copy ofjudgement ofHon'ble High Court in WA No.86/98dt . 1-5-1998

Ex. M12: Copy ofjudgement in SLP No.11866-11888 of 1998 dt. 10-8-98 .

12. Point No. ( II ) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his disengagement from service was illegal , arbitrary or against principles of natural justice . Petitioner is not entitled for any reliefclaimed by him . Point No. ( II ) is decided accordingly.

नई दिल्ली , 22 सितम्बर , 2011

13. In view of the above discussion , this Tribunal is of the opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and itisdismissed, hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

का.आ. 2924.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 134/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Appendix of evidence

[सं. एल -12025/01/2011- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] Witnesses examined for the : WWI : Sri Nanda Malyadri Petitioner

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7597 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2011

S.O. 2924.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 134/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 19-9-2011.

3. Petitioner made several representations and also filed Writ petition along with 200 others employees before the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , which was registeredas WP.4194/97 and other petitions Nos.9206/97 , 5087/97 etc. , whichwere disposed off by a common order by Hon'ble Justice Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court against which management has filed Writ Appeal No. 86/98 which was decided and ordered that Petitioner should approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal .Against the order ofWrit Appeal SLP was filed by the Petitioner and other employees, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Writ Appeal .

[No. L- 12025/01/2011 - IR (B- I) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day ofApril, 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 134/2006

Between:

Sri Avuladoddi Purnaiah , S/o Late Venkataiah , R/ o Kurravari Street , Kanchekacherla Krishna District .

... Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager (Personnel ) , State Bank of India , LHO , Bank Street , Hyderabad.

...Respondent

4. There was agreement between the employees union and the management in which it was agreed that those employees who have completed minimum of30 days in any calendar month or 75 days in aggregate in 36 calendar months will be called for interview by virtue of settlement dated 17-8-1984 , thereafter another settlement was also entered into between the employees and management on 17-7-1989 , subsequent agreement dated 16-10-1988 , 27-10-1988 , followed by agreement dated 26-4-1994 was also entered into between parties , in all the settlements it was agreed that the employees who have put in a certain number of days will be considered for absorption, and a panel will be prepared of those employees . The Petitioner's name find place in the list prepared by management but Petitioner was not absorbed, not only that Justice Sri Somasekhar of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , by order dated 1-1-1998 directed Respondent bank to absorb all the Petitioners which was not complied by the management . The management challenged that order which was quashed by Appellate Authority and order of the Appellate Authority amended by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence , the Petitioner has filed this present petition.

APPEARANCES:

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . S. Prasada Rao, C. Bala Subrahmanyam , & K. Bharathi , Advocates

5. Counter has been filedby the Respondent management . Management has also admitted that several agreements as mentionedby the Petitioner have been entered into between the management and the union and the employees were categorized into three categories:-

Forthe Respondent : Smt B. Lalitha Kumari , Advocate

AWARD

(A) Those, who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 1-7-1975.

(B) Those , who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

This petition under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has been filed by Sri Avuladoddi Purnaiah , Ex .Messenger ofStateBank of India, challenging the order of termination dated 31-3-1997 and for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits and back wages.

(C) Those , who have completed minimum of30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 .

2. The Petitioner has stated that he is a member of scheduled caste and he joined in the services of the Respondent as Messenger- cum- water boy in November, 1983 in State Bank of India, Krishna District and he worked up to 31-3-1997, thereafter he was disengaged and was ordered to stop the work .

6. As per terms of the agreement dated February, 1997 the last date of the panel was to expire on 31-3-1997.

1 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

7598

The Petitioner was not found suitable in the order of seniority, he was not considered for absorption. Petitioner was engaged intermittently when the regular employees were not available for sweeping and cleaning of the office he was not regularly appointed employee nor he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange as such , no legal right is vested in the Petitioner for being absorbed in the bank's services . Petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed .

absorbed in the services of the bank unless other formalities and rules of the absorption has been fulfilled by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was called for interview as per his own document but whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by him. Moreover , there is another categories A & B ' of the employees , who put in 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months and who put in 270 days aggregate service in 36 calendar months , their case was to be considered on priority basis in comparison to those placed in category 'C ' of the employees . It was the duty of the Petitioner to prove that anybody or any person junior to him or who has put in less number of working days in comparison to the Petitioner was absorbed by the bank . Secondly, the Petitioner has not been able to prove that what was the outcome of the result of the interview whether he was empanelled after the interview or not has not been proved by the Petitioner as such , the bank has not committed any illegality in disengaging the Petitioner who has worked intermittently when the work was available with the bank . Therefore, the action of the management is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor violative ofthe principles of natural justice and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

7. Parties were directed to file their evidence . Petitioner Sri Avuladoddi Purnaiah has appeared , examined in chief and presented himself for cross examination. He has filed xerox copies documents viz . , interview call letter dated 3-8-1989 Ex . Wl , Certificate of temporary service allegedly issued by State Bank of India for 99days Ex . W2 , Certificate of temporary service allegedly issued by State Bank of India for 646 days Ex.W3 , Certificate of temporary service allegedly issued by State Bank of India for 99 days Ex. W4, community certificate Ex:W5, record sheet Ex .W6 . Management has filed affidavit of P. Madhu Mohan Patro , Chief Manager(HR) , State Bank of India , Vijayawada who has marked 12documents Ex.Ml to M12 . He appeared for cross examination and has been cross examined at length .

10. In light of the above argument of the Learned Counsel for the parties this Tribunal has to consider following points for adjudication: -

(1) Whether the action of the management in disengaging the Petitioner from service is illegal , arbitrary and violative ofprinciples of natural justice?

(II) To what relief if any, the Petitioner is entitled for?

8. I have heard counsels for both the parties at length and I have gone through the evidence on record. It has been argued bythe Learned Counsel for the workman that workman was engaged in the year 1983 and he has worked upto March , 1997. In proof of his claim he has filed particulars of temporary service Ex . W2 and W3 to show that Sri Avuladoddi Purnaiah worked for 21 days in the year 1983, 36 days in the year 1984 and 42 days in the year 1985 in total for 99 days vide Ex .W2 , like wise vide Ex . W3 he worked for 24 days , 116 days , 182 days , 2 days , 158 days, 138 days and 26 days respectively in the years 1991 to 1997, in total 646 days . On the basis of these documents the argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner has worked for 745 days altogether under the management of Respondent , thus , he is entitled for absorption in the bank's service as per the agreement entered into between the bank management and the employees union. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Petitioner has put in total number of745 days though intermittently but under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the employees union and the management . Petitioner's case is covered under categoryegory 'C' of categorization of the employees as such, the Petitioner has become entitled for absorption.

11. Point No. ( I ) : It is undisputed fact that the Petitioner has worked in the bank when the work was available with the management . The Petitioner in his cross examination has admitted that he worked for a period of 745 days intermittently. The Petitioner alleged to have filed xerox copy of the service certificate or number of working days he put in as temporary messenger with the bank management . These certificates have not been proved by the Petitioner workman. Even if it is presumed that Petitioner has worked for 745 days that itselfdoes not confer any right on Petitioner for absorption in the bank's services . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon case law of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2005 ( I ) LLJ page 126 in the matter of State Bank of India , Bangalore Vs. T. N. Jaya Ram wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that, " the claim of those employees who has not completed 30 days in one calendar year are not entitled for regularization . " However , the Petitioner workman has not been able to place before this Tribunal any such rule , which authorizes for the regularization of those employees who has put in more than200 days of the service in 36 calendar months . There 9.Against the above argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner , Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that even if the Petitioner has put in 745 days service in total and he comes within the category 'C' employees , it is not vested right of the Petitioner to be 7599 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Witnesses examined for the : MW1 : Sri P. Madhu Mohan Patro Respondent

Documentsmarked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1: Copy of call letter for interview

Ex.W2: Copy ofcertificate oftemporary service

Ex.W3: Copy ofcertificate oftemporary service

Ex.W4: Copy of certificate of temporary service

Ex.W5: Copy of community certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 17-11-1987

Ex.M2: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt. 16-7-1988

Ex.M3 : Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt. 27-10-1988

Ex.M4: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI dt . 9-1-1991

Ex.M5: Copy ofminutes of conciliation proceedings held before RLC (C) , Hyderabaddt . 9-6-95

Ex.M6: Copy of settlement signed between All India SBI Staff Federation and SBI 30-7-1996

Ex.M7: Copy of memorandum of understanding dt. 27-2-1997

Ex.M8: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989. Messsengerial panel

Ex.M9: Copy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 Non-Messsengerial panel

is agreement between the parties under which employees were given option to apply for regularization and it was agreed between the union and the management that panel will be prepared on the basis of the interview and such panelwill be remained enforced for a particular period and existing vacancies will be filled out ofthe candidates listed in the panel . Petitioner of this case has not placed any paper to prove that he was selected by the management or he was empanelled for absorption in the service . Unless, the Petitioner was empanelled for absorption he can not claim right of absorption. The case law cited by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner reported in 2005 (I ) LLJ page 126 is not applicable in the present case . In the same way the case law reported in 2003 ( I ) LLJ page 219 is also not applicable in the present case. The bank's service is a public utility service and there is procedure for recruitment to the banking services . Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was selected by the empanelment committee for absorption in the bank's service . He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well. As such , in view of the agreement of 1997 in which the empanelled candidates were to be absorbed by end of the March, 1997 , since name ofthe Petitioner does not find place in the empanelled list the disengagement of the Petitioner is neither bad in the eye of law nor against the terms of the agreement entered into by the bank employees and the bank management . Since Petitioner was not selected by the empanelment committee he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange he was engaged by the Manager when the work was available in the branch he has no right or authority for absorption as he was not appointed according to the recruitment rules of the public utility. services as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

Ex.MIO: Copy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.MI1 : Copy ofjudgement ofHon'ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1-5-1998

12. Point No. ( II) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his disengagement from service was illegal , arbitrary or against principles of natural justice . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed by him . Point No. (11) is decided accordingly.

Ex.M12: Copy ofjudgement in SLP No. 11866-11888 of1998 dt. 10-8-98.

नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर , 2011

13. In view of the above discussion , this Tribunal is of the opinion that petition deserves to be dismissed and itisdismissed, hence , this award .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April, 2011.

का.आ. 2925.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार युको बैंक/मैं नाथ एंड कं. ( ठेकेदार ) मैं स्वपना इलेक्ट्रिक वर्कस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

[सं. एल-12011 /44/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी Witnesses examined for the WWI: Sri A vuladoddi Petitioner Purnaiah

3708GI/2011-23 7600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2011

S.O. 2925.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank M/s . Nath & Co. (Contractor)M/s . Swapna Electric Works and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-9-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/44/2004- IR (B- II)]

RAMESH SINGH, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

Whenthecase is called out today, Mr. Ashish . Kumar , law Officer of the Bank is present to represent the managementBank. None , however, is present on behalfof the workmen . This date was fixed for taking necessary step bythe workmen side as per order dated 11-04-2011 . Onthe lastdate also no one was present on behalfof the workmen nor any step to that effect was taken. In the order dated 11-04-2011 it is found that one Mr. Ashok Panigrahi , Assistant Secretary of the workmen union appeared on behalf of the workmen and submitted that the WW- 1 who was tobe cross -examined by the management expired and inhis place the workmen side wanted to examine some otherwitness not listed and he undertook to file application praying for leave to permit such witness together with an affidavit- in- chief of the said witness . But, since then none isappearing for the workman nor any step has been taken inhisbehalf.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 29 of2004

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofUCO Bank

AND

Theirworkmen

3.On scrutiny ofthe record it is found that practically theworkmen side was very much reluctant and on most of the dates none was present on behalf of the workmen besides oncepresence on 11-04-2011 . In that respect I am of the view that the workmen side is not interested to proceed with the present reference and thus the industrial dispute raised at the time ofreceipt ofthe reference,perhaps has faded out . So, this Tribunal presumes that there is no industrial dispute surviving at present . The present reference is thus disposed of with a " No Dispute Award" .

Present :Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE:

AnAward is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata, the 23rdAugust, 2011 .

Mr. Ashish Kumar , Law Officer ofthe Bank.

Onbehalfofthe Management

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Onbehalf of the Workmen

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi , Assistant Secretary ofthe workmen Union.

नई दिल्ली , 23 सितम्बर , 2011 State: WestBengal.

Industry: Banking.

Dated:23rdAugust, 2011 .

AWARD

का.आ. 2926. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का. 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार 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 1382/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

By Order No. L- 12011 /44/2004- IR(B - II) dated 19-07-2004 the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

[सं. एल-40012/221/2000-आई आर (डी यू) ]

जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2011 "Whether there is any relationship ofemployer and employee between the management of UCO Bank and Sh. S.K. Mubrak Ali , Swapan Chakraborty, IndrajitMondal , Dipen Mondal, Ashok Kumar Roy and Uttam Kumar Seal working under contractor M/ s. M. Nath & Co. and M/ s . Swapan Electric Works atUCO Bank, Head Office , Kolkata. If so , whether theyare entitled for regularization oftheir services in UCO Bank? If not , what relief they are entitled to?"

S.O. 2926. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGITA- 1382/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7601 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

For the first party : Shri N.K. Trivedi ,Advocate employers in relation to the management of Department ofTelecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23-09-2011.

Forthe Second Party workman : Shri R.C. Pathak,

Advocate

[No. L-40012/221 /2000- IR (DU) ]

AWARD

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 29-08-2011

Reference: CGITA of 1382 of 2004 New

Reference: ITC . 8/2002 (Old)

(1) The GeneralManager, Surat TelecomDistt. , BSNL, Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, KhandBazar, Surat-395003.

Adispute arose between the employer in relation to Management ofGeneral Manager Telecom, Surat and their workman Shri Manekalal Shyamlal Morya and on failure of efforts ofconciliation , the conciliation officer sent failure report to the appropriate authority which followed by sending this reference for adjudication by order of the appropriateGovernment, the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour & Employment/ Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg. New Delhi - 110001 , by- its order No. L- 40012/221 / 2000- IR (DU) dated 06-03-2002, in exercise of power conferredby clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the terms ofreferencewas sent for adjudication by the Industiral Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Subsequently by modified order dated 02-05-2002 the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid dispute pendingbefore the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad was withdrawn and transferred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal- cum Labour Court, Surat. Lastly the record was transferred to this Tribunal by the order dated 19-10-2010 of the Ministry ofLabour & Employment, New Delhi.

TheTerms ofReference as per Schedule is as Follows (2) Sub Divisional Officer (T) Valsad, BSNL, C/o.GMTDOffice , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar , Surat-395003. :

(3) SDE(T), (Bulsar) , BSNL, C/o. GMTD Office, Narayan Chambers, VarchaRoad, Khand Bazar, Surat.

"Whether the action of the management ofGeneral ManagerTelecom, Surat Distt. , and its other officers inallegedly terminating the service of the workman Manekalal Shyamlal Morya casual labour w.e.f. 3-5-1987 is legal, proper andjustified? Ifnot, towhat reliefs the workman is entitle and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

(2) In response to the notices to the party the second party workman and the first party management appeared in the case and filed respective statement of claim and written statement.

(4) A.E. (Phones Ext.)S- II, BSNL , C/ o.GMTD Office, Narayan Chambers , VarchaRoad, KhandBazar, Surat.

...First Party

And

theirworkman

Shri Manekalal Shyamlal Morya, Aaspas Nagar , Plot No. 185, Parvat Gam, Post-Godhara, Tal-Chorasi , Dist. - Surat C/o. Secretary, Association of Railway and Post, Employees , 15, Shashi Apartment, OppositeAunjali Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380007

...SecondParty.

(3)The case ofthe second party workman as per his statement of claim at Ext. 7 is that he was employed as a casual labour under the department offirst Party from 01-07-1985 and that since thenthe second party was doing all the duties as of a regular employee due to vacancy existing for the regular employment. The second party was bemg paid his salary/wages through vouchers as per his attendance in the muster roll. Further case is that though the second party was doing all theduties ofa regular employeebut he was removed from the work from 31-05-1987 without giving any rhyme and reason and without complying with the provision of Section 25(F) of the IDAct, [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

7602

workman was not send for any medical examination as they were not engaged as a regular employees . Thus the engagement of the second party with the first party was not according to the rules of appointment. The second party was not getting any benefits apart from wages as they were engaged on daily rated by the first party on the where and when requirement basis . Further stand taken is that the second party workman did not completed 240 days ofwork in any calendar years , there was no work of daily rated workers so the works of casual labour was stopped. It has been denied that the second partyworkman was doing all the works of a regular employees against any vacancy rather he was being paid for the days of works basis through vouchers . There was no need for giving notices under Section 25 (F) because the second party was a daily rated workman not completed 240 days work and there was no continuity in service of the second party workman rather the second party workman was called upon to do daily rated work whenever arising of temporary requirements of work and in any month the second party workman has not work for all the days rather as per requirement had worked only for 15days in a month . The first party have not violated either the provision of Section 25 (F) , 25 (G ), 25 (H) . The dispute raised at belated stage and so the reference is barred by delay and latches . On the above grounds it has been contended that there was no merit in the statement of claim of the second party workman and the reference is fit to be dismissed.

(5) Inview ofthe pleadings ofthe parties the following issues are taken for consideration and determination inthis case .

ISSUES

(I) Whether reference is maintainable ?

(II) Whether the workman has got valid cause of action ?

1947, whereas the workman had completed more than 240 days ofwork in each calendar year. Further case isthat the management of first party adopted unfair labour practice and also adopted pick and chose policyby not following the principle of last come firstgo. Further case is that the management of first party allowed to continue the work of the casual labour who were junior to him but he was removed from the work. No notice pay or in lieu of it one month pay was provided to him before taking recourse of retrenchment under Section 25 (F) ofthe IDAct. Further contention is that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 2342, it had been directed to regularize those casual labourers who had completed 360 days of works all along ina year but in order to escape from the liability ofabsorbing the casual labourers the management of first party was purposely directing breakage of the casual labours job so that casual labourer could not achieve the fruit as per aforesaid judgment and order ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court . The second party workman - tried his best to convince the officers of themanagement offirst party by meeting all ofthem for taking him back in the service but his all efforts went in vain. On this grounds it has been further contendedthatthe action of the management ofthe firstpartythrough its officers in removing the second partyworkman from his work is illegal, unwarranted and unjustified and is also in violation of the provisionofthe Section 25 (F) , 25 (G), 25 (H) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947, and the action of the first party is also against principle of natural justice. Through the statement of claim the second party has claimed for the reliefofdeclaring the action of the first party in terminating/removing the second party from 31-05-1987 is illegal, unjustified and also violative of theprovision ofID Act, 1947. Further sought for relief ofhis reinstatement in the job with full backwages and also for awarding cost of Rs . 5,000/- by way of compensation against the first party and for any other relief to which the second party is found entitle .

(III ) Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches ?

( IV) Whether the second party workman has completed240days of work in a calendar year during his tenure of work as a casual labourer in the department of the first party ?

(V) Whether second party workman is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs as prayed for ?

(VI) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of the workman Shri Manekalal Shyamlal Maurya ? If not to what relief the workman is entitle to in this case ?

(4)The first party through its written statement at Ext. 10 denying all the allegation ofthe second party workman as per his statement of claim and pleading inter-alliathat the first party is a Central Government undertaking engaged in the service of telecommunication and rendering the service through-out the nation and the first party engaged the casual/daily rated workman for the work like digging the strench for laying the cable and the said works are of temporary nature. The second party workman was not appointed as per rules . No any applications -were invited by the first party. No any applications was tendered by the workman to the first party for their engagement and second party 7603 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Findings

(6) ISSUE NO . IV, V & VI

appears that the management witness has verbally denied the claim of the workman that he completed 240days ofwork in a calendar year during his tenure ofwork. But such denial as to the claim ofthe workman is not substantiated by any paper of the department . Theworkman discharged his initial onus that he had completed 240days of work in preceding 12 months of the year and that he was engage for work on 1-07-1985 and worked up to 30-05-1987 . Thus first party has only met the assertion of the workman by mere denial and not supported by any documentary evidence . Whereas the subsequent onus to discredit the claim of the workman that he did not completed more than 240 days of work in any calendar year had shifted upon the first party to which the first party failed to discharge . By mere such explanation that more than 5 years old records viz , muster roll and vouchers etc. are not preserved as per rules and regulation. It has been also to be borne- in -mind that the first party is not denying that the workman had not work for any period in the department rather admitting that he workes as a casual labour but disputing that he did not completed 240days ofwork. The workman had demanded production of documents of muster roll and voucher etc. for supporting his claim but the first party did not comply with only such explanation that old records are not preserved. So , in such view of the matter adverse inference has to be drawn against the first party to this extent that during the tenure of the work from 1-07-1985 to 30-05-1987 the workman Manekalal Shyamlal Morya must have completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months since before his disengagement from the work.

(7) From the evidence discussed above it is proved that the second party workman during his tenure ofwork has completed 240 days of work in preceding calendar year as a casual labour/daily rated worker in the department of the first party. It is also proved that the status of the second party workman was of casual worker/ daily rated worker getting employment excluding the holidays and the Sundays and getting his wages according to days ofwork in a month , It is also proved that the second party workman had not completed 3 years of service as a casual worker during his span period from 1-07-1985 to 30-05-1987, it is also proved no temporary status was granted to the workman by any order of the department of the first party. So , from the evidence the status of the second party workman is only established as a casual labourer/daily rated worker who completed 240 days ofwork in a calendar year. So, considering such position it was the duty of the management ofthe first party intending to retrench These issues are taken up together for discussion and consideration . The second party workman as also the first party management of BSNL have adduced oral evidence to support their respective case. The workman in his oral evidence at Ext. 16 during cross - examination stated that he was not given any appointment letter for the job rather he was engaged as a daily wager and also admitted that duringthe engagement of his work no any order for regularisation was made. He also admitted that as perrequirement ofwork he was calledto performance. The workman in his evidence has remained firm that he completed 240days of work in preceding calendar year, though any certificate granted by the officer of the first party has not been brought on the record to show the total days of work from his date of engagement from 1-07-1985 till before his allegeddate of removal on 31-05-1987. However in order to support the period of his work and counting days of his work muster roll and vouchers were demanded fromthe firstparty for production ofthese documents towhich the tribunal order for production . The first party came up with such explanation that as per rules and regulation the muster rolls , voucher etc. are kept preserved only for 5 years and not more and so the documents demanded from the first party by the workman which is about20 years old is not expected tobe preserved by the department also considering thisaspect that the dispute was raised after 17 years at much belated stage after the so called removal from the casual work. On the other hand the management witness namely Mr. Narendra L. ChodhryAGM legal BSNL, Surat in his affidavit at Ext. 20 has stated that the workman was not engaged from 1-07-1985 but he was engaged from 1986 and thatthe concerned workman has not completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. But his such evidence is not based upon any muster roll and vouchers that the concern workmanhas not completed 240days of works in a calendar year. During the cross - examination the management witness admitted that he was show record of 10 to 12 reference cases and that he ha the office file up to the 5 years before and that he h regarding these files and the second party and he has not knowledge when the workman was working and for what period he was working. admitted that he has not produced showing won and presence of second party workman Manekalal Shyamlal Morya and the record regarding his wages. From examining the oral evidence of both sides it 7604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011/ ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman has completed 240 days of work, the workman has been found entitled for reinstatement with back wages .

the second party workman for giving retrenchment notice by complying with provision ofsection 25 (F) of ID Act by giving one month notice or to pay one month pay in lieu ofnotice . Certainly the first party has not complied with the provision and thus has violated theprovision of the section 25 (F) of the ID Act. Even it is proved that the first party had violated the provision of section 25 (F) ID Act . It does not mean Ipso facto that the second party workman will be entitled for his reinstatement as a casual labour with back wages or part of back wages . Because of its admitted position that the second party workman was working in temporary capacity as a daily rated worker on casual basis as per requirement of the department of the first party and that the second party workman had not been granted status of temporary staff to the department of the first party.

(8) The Learned Counsel for the second party argued that since the second partyarty workman had completed 240days of the work in a calendar year and since the first party has violated the provision of the section 25 (F) in not giving retrenchment notice or notice pay sơ , the workman is entitled for his reinstatement to the works of casual worker with full back wages from the date of his allege removal from 31-05-1987 till his reinstatement. In support ofhis such argument several case laws have been cited which are reported in M.C.D V/ s . Pravin Kumar Jain 1958 (2) LLJ page 674, State of UP V/ s. Rajendra Singh Butola and another 2000( 84) FLR page 869, Sharmishtha Dube V/ s . City Board Itava 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE page 655 , Narottam Chopra V/s . Labour Court 1989 SUPP1 . (2) Supreme Court Cases paoe 97, Vikramaditya Pande V/s . Industrial Tribunal 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 701 , Manorama V/s . State ofBihar 1995 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S 193 ) , Mohanbhai Ramjibhai V/s . Surendranagar Dist. Panchayat 2005 (3 ) LLJ page 1070, Harayana Roadways V/s . Rudhansingh 2005 LLJ2003(3) page4, State ofPunjab V/s . Babitakumari 2006SCC (L& S) 396, S.M. Nilangakar V/s . Telecom Department 2003 (3) SCALC page 533 , Surat Mahila Nagrik Bank V/s . Mamtaben Mahendrabhari Joshi 2001(1) LLR page 505, Executive Engineer CPWT IndorV/s. Madhukar Pursottam 2002 SCCL & S 1087 , Kolkatta Telephone V/ s . Rintu Bagji 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 951, Ramesh Kumar V/s . State ofHarayana 2010 ( 1 ) SCC 543 , Ritu Marbles V/s . Prabhakant Shukla 2010 (2) SCC 17 and Director Fisheries Terminal Division V/s . B.M. Chavda 2010 (1 ) SC 731. The Learned Counsel for the second party has also filed same copies of awarddelivered by the Industrial Tribunal , Labour Courts to support that on violation of the provision of section 25 (F) by the management and

(9) On the other hand Mr. N.K. Trivedi , the Learned Counsel appearing for the first party has relied upon authority in support of his such arguments that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement with back wages because he was not regularly appointed, no appointment letter was issued, no temporary status was granted, rather the second party workman was working merely as a casual worker/daily rated worker on purely temporary basis and was only called for work in the event of requirement. He has relied upon the case law of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V/s . Umadevi and others 2006 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S ) 753 , BSNL V/ s . Tejasingh CivilAppeal No. 292/2009 Supreme Court, Gangadhar Pillai V/s . Siemens Ltd 2007 LAB IC 590, State of Maharashtra V/s.DatatreDigambar Birajdar 2009 LLR 1132 Supreme Court, Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another V/s . S.C. Sharma 2005 LLR Supreme Court Cases . The Learned Counsel for the fist party has also relied upon a Division Bench case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/s . Santosh Kumar Seal 2010 GLHEL -SC48285 - Equivalent Citation 2010 JX (SC 219) . It has been held in the case law. of Gangadhar Pilloi V/ s . Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 SC " In the case an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee on that he had been employed for a number of years , the same by itself maynot be the conclusion that such appointment had been made with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege of the permanent employee " -- . "However it is not the law that on completion of240 days of continuous service in a year, concern employee becomes entitled for regularisation ofhis service and or permanent status . Under the Industrial Dispute Act a concept of 240 days was introduced as to so fasten statutory liability upon employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner as specified in section 25 (F) of the ID Act 1947, before he retrenched from service and not for any other purpose. In the event a violation ofthe said provision takes place, the termination of service of the employee maybe found to be illegal but only on that account , his service cannot be directed to be regularised ... " In the case law of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic ) Bhopal V/ s . Santosh Kumar Seal (2010 GLHEL SC) 48285 their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court have examined on the question whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to respondent No.1 to 14 is [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7605 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

the aforesaid case law, the case law relied upon by Mr. R.C .. Pathak Learned Advocate for the second party are not applicable in the instant case.

(10) In the case in hands the status of the second . party workman is of a temporary casual worker get dailyratedwages and he worked as a casual worker during the period from July 1985 to May 1987. Though the workman compléted 240 days of work butinview of the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic Bhopal V/s . Santosh Kumar Seal (supra) the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and back wages as argued by Shri R.C. Pathak, Learned Advocate for the second party workman. But since the action of the first party management in terminating/ removing by an oral order the service of the workman Manekalal Shyamlal Morya is held not justified and legal because ofnon compliance ofprovision of section 25 (F) of the ID Act1947, so second party workman is found entitled fora lumsum compensation . In this case considering tenure or work during intervening period of about 2 years in the department of management of first party as a daily rated worker, an amount ofcompensation ofRs . 10, 000 will meet ends ofjustice in this case. Issue No. IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above..

(11) ISSUENo. III

Though there is a delay caused in referring this dispute for adjudication considering that the workman was removed from casual works from 31-05-1987 , but such delay cannot be said to be latches onpart ofthe second party workman because itis the case of the second party workman, that he approached the officers of the first party for taking him injob . More so, delay was caused in referring the dispute by the appropriate government after directionoftheHon'ble High Court ofGujarat in its order of writ petition No. 4556/2001 . It is also incorporated in the order of the appropriate government referring the dispute . So, this issue is , therefore answered in negative .

(12) ISSUE No. I & II

The workman has got valid cause of action and the reference is maintainable . This reference is allowed inpart. The firstparty is directed to pay Rs . 10,000 to the workman Manekalal Shyamlal Morya by way of compensation within 3 months ofthis award. Failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @9% per annum.

justified. In the given case law the facts was that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year for merely 3 years and that their service were retrenched by an order dated February- 10-1987 without following Mandatory provision of section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act 1947, the Tribunal by its award directed the appellant to reinstate the workman and pay them back wages from date of tennination until date of reinstatement within 3 month of the publication of the award and upon appellant failure to comply with the award within stipulated period, it was directed that interest@ 8 % per annum shall be payable. The appellant (management) challengedthe said order before the High Court by filing writ petition itwas dismissed. Then the appellant filed the present appealbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the judgment by April- 26-2010 . After examining all this aspects it has been held vide para 6 " in the last few years it has been consistently held bythis court that the relief by way of reinstatement with backwages is not automatic even if termination: of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monitory compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate" . It has been held at para 7 in the case Jagbir Singh Haryana State Agriculture marketing board and another (200915 SCC) 327 -... " The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding date of termination particutarly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this court and instead compensation has been awarded. This court has distinguished between the daily wagers who does not hold post and permanent employee" . It has been held by their Lordship at para 8 of the judgment . " In view ofthe aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years , relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would subserve the ends ofjustice. Inour considered view the compensation of Rs . 40,000 to each of the workman ( respondent No.2to 14) shall meets the ends ofjustice " . The aforesaid case law reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 will certainly prevail upon the previous judgment of the Apex Court and also the High Court on the points that in case of violation of section 25 (F) of the ID Act, 1947 by the employer the remedy of the workman will not be for his reinstatement with back wages rather a lumsum of compensation according to facts ofthe case may be awarded. So , in view of

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

7606

नई दिल्ली , 23 सितम्बर, 2011 का.आ. 2927. 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 , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संख्या सीजीआईटीए- 1383/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-09-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/218/2000 - आई आर (डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2011 S.O. 2927. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGITA- 1383/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23-09-2011.

[No. L-40012/218 /2000- 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 29-8-2011

Reference: CGITA of 1383 of 2004 New Reference : ITC . 9/2002 (Old) (1) The General Manager , Surat Telecom Distt . BSNL , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, KhandBazar, Surat -395003.

(2) Sub Divisional Officer (T) Valsad, BSNL , C/o. GMTDOffice, Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar , Surat- 395003 .

( 3) SDE (T) , (Bulsar) , BSNL,

C/o. GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar , Surat.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (4) A.E. (Phones Ext . ) S- II ,

....First Party BSNL, C/o . GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat.

And

TheirWorkman

Shri Baleswar Lalmuni Pal ,

Ganeshnagar - I , Plot No. 65,

Godadara Cenal , Aaspas Road,

.... Second Party Post-Godadara , Tal- Chorasi , Distt- Surat, C /o . Secretary, Association of Railway and Post , Employees , 15, Shashi Apartment, Opposite Aunjali Cinema , Vasna Road , Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380007.

Forthe first party : Shri N.K. Trivedi ,Advocate

Forthe second party workman: Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

AWARD

Adispute arose between the employer in relation to Management ofGeneral Manager Telecom, Surat andtheir workman Shri Baleshwar Lalmuni Pal and on failure of efforts ofconciliation , the conciliation officer sent failure report to the appropriate authority which followed by sending this reference for adjudication by order of the appropriate Government , the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour and Employment/ Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 , by its order No. L-40012/ 218/2000- IR (DU) dated 6-3-2002 , in exercise of power conferredby clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputeAct, 1947, the term ofreference was sent for adjudication by the Industiral Tribunal , Ahmedabad. Subsequently by modified order dated 2-5-2002 the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad was withdrawn and transferred for adjudicationto the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court, Surat. Lastly the record was transferred to this Tribunal by the order dated 19-10-2010 of the Ministry ofLabour and Employment, New Delhi .

The Terms of Reference as per Schedule is as Follows "Whether the action of the management ofGeneral Manager, Telecom, Surat Distt . , Surat and its other Officers in allegedly tenninating the services of the workman Shri Baleshwar Lalmuni Pal, casual labour w.e.f. 31-10-1986 is legal, proper andjustified? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter ?" aDD

(2) Inresponse to the notices to the party the second party workman and the first party management [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

7607 appeared in the case and filed respective statement ofclaim and written statement .

party and for any other relief to which the second party is found entitle .

(4) The first parties through its written statement at Ext. 10 denying all the allegation ofthe second party workman as per his statement of claim and pleading inter-alia that the first party is a Central Government undertaking engaged in the service of telecommunication and rendering the service throughout the nation and the first party engaged the casual/daily rated workman for the work like digging the strench for laying the cable and the said works are of temporary nature. The second party workman was not appointed as per rules . No any applications were- invited by the first party. No any applications was tendered by the workman to the first party for their engagement and second party workman was not send for any medical examination as they were not engaged as a regular employees . Thus the engagement of the second party with the first party was not according to the rules of appointment . The second party was not getting any benefits apart from wages as they were engaged on daily rated by the first party on the where and when requirement basis . Further stand taken is that the second party workman did not completed 240 days ofwork in any calendar years , there was no work of daily rated workers so the works of casual labour was stopped . It has been denied that the second partyworkman was doing all the works of a regular employees against any vacancy rather he was being paid for the days of works basis through vouchers . There was no need for giving notices under section 25 (F) because the second party was a daily rated workman not completed 240 days work and there was no continuity in service of the second party workman rather the second party workman was calledupon todo daily rated work whenever arising oftemporary requirements of work and in any month the second party workman has not work for all the days rather as per requirement had worked only for 15days in a month . The first party have not violated either the provision of Section 25 (F) , 25 (G) , 25 (H ) . The dispute raised at belated stage and so the reference is barred by delay and latches . On the above grounds it has been contended that there was no merit in the statement ofclaim ofthe second party workman and the reference is fit to be dismissed.

(5) In view ofthe pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken for consideration and determination inthis case.

ISSUES

(1) Whether reference is maintainable?

(3) The case of the second party workman as per his statement of claim at Ext . 7. is that he was employed as a casual labour under the department of first Party from 1-6-1985 and that since then the second party was doing all the duties as of a regular employee dueto vacancy existing for the regular employment . The second party was being paid his salary/wages through vouchers as per his attendance in the muster roll . Further case is that though the second party was doing all the duties of a regular employee but he was removed from the work from 31-10-1986. without giving any rhyme and reason and without complying with the provision of Section 25 ( F) of the ID Act , 1947 , whereas the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each calendar year . Further case is that the management offirst party adopted unfair labour practice and also adopted pick and chose policy by not following the principle of last come first go. Further case is that the management of first party allowed to continue the work of the casual labour who were junior tohim but he was removed from the work . No notice pay or in lieu of it one month pay was provided to him beforetaking recourse of retrenchment under Section 25 (F) of the ID Act. Further contention is that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 2342, it hadbeen directed to regularizethose casual labourers who had completed 360 days of works all along in a year but in order to escape from the liability of absorbing the casual labourers the management of first party was purposely directing breakage of the casual labours job so that casual labourer could not achieve the fruit as per aforesaid judgment and order of the Hon'bleApex Court . The second party workman tried ' his best to convince the officers of the management or first party by meeting all ofthem for taking him back in the service but his all efforts went in vain . On this grounds it has been further contended that the action of the management of the first party through its officers in removing the second party workman from his work isillegal unwarranted and unjustified and is also in violation of the provision of the Section 25 (F) , 25 (G) , 25 (H) of the ID Act, 1947 , and the action of the first party is also against principle ofnaturaljustice. Through the statement of claim the second party hasclaimed for the relief of declaring the action of the first party in terminating/ removing the second party from 31-10-1986 is illegal , unjustified and also violative of the provision of I.D. Act 1947. Further sought for relief of his reinstatement in the job with full backwages and also for awarding cost of Rs . 5, 000 by way of compensation against the first (II) Whether the workman has got valid cause of action?

3708 GI/2011-24 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii)) 7608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23, 1933

(III) Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches ?

(IV) Whether the second party workman has completed 240days ofwork in a calendar year during his tenure of work as a casual labourer in the department of the first party?

(V) Whether second party workman is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs as prayed for?

(VI) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of the workman Shri Baleshwar Lalmuni Pal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitle to in this case ?

Findings

(6) ISSUES NO . IV, V and VI

1-6-1985 but he was engaged trom 1986 and that the concernedworkman has not completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. But his such evidence is not based upon any muster roll and vouchers that the concern workman has not completed 240 days ofworks in a calendar year. During the cross - examination the management witness admitted that he was shown the record of 10 to 12 reference cases and that he had seen the office file up to the 5 years before and that he has no memory regarding these files and the second party workman and he has not knowledge when the workman was working and for what period he was working . He admitted that he has not produced showing work and presence of second party workman Baleshwar Lalmuni Pal and the record regarding hiswages . From examining the oral evidence of both sides itappears that the management witness has verbally denied the claim of the workman that he completed 240 days of work in a calendar year during his tenure of work . But such denial as to the claim of the workman is not substantiated by any paper of the department . The workman discharged his initial onus that he had completed 240days ofwork in preceding 12 months of the year and that he was engage for work on 1-6-1985 and worked up to 31-10-1986 . Thus first party has only met the assertion ofthe workman by mere denial and not supported by any documentary evidence . Whereas the subsequent onus to discredit the claim of the workman that he did not completed more than 240 days of work in any calendar year had shifted upon the first party to which the first party failed to discharge . By mere such explanation that more than 5 years old records viz muster roll and vouchers etc. are not preserved as per rules and regulation . It has been also to be borne - in- mind that the first party is not denying that the workman had not work for any period in the department rather admitting that he works as a casual labour but disputing that he did not completed 240 days of work. The workman had demanded production of documents of muster roll and voucher etc. for supporting his claim but the first party did not comply with only such explanation that old records are not preserved. So, in such view of the matter adverse inference has to be drawn against the first party to this extent that during the tenure ofthe work from 1-6-1985 to 31-10-1986 the workman Baleshwar Lalmuni Pal must have completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months since before his disengagement from the work .

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

filed same copies of award delivered by the Industrial Tribunal , Labour Courts to support that on violation of the provision of section 25 (F) by the management and the workman has completed 240 days of work , the workman has beenfound entitled for reinstatement with back wages .

second party workman had not completed 3 years of service as a casual worker during his span period from 1-6-1985 to 31-10-1986 , it is also proved no temporary status was granted to the workman by any order of the department of the first party. So , from the evidence the status of the second party workman is only established as a casual labourer/daily rated worker who completed 240 days of work in a calendar year. So , considering such position it was the duty of the management of the first party intending to retrench the second party workman for giving retrenchment notice by complying with provision ofsection 25 (F ) of ID Act by giving one month notice or to pay one month pay in lieu of notice . Certainly the first party has not complied with the provision and thus has violated the provision of the section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act . Even it is proved that the first party had violated the provision of section 25 (F) I.D. Act . It does not mean Ipso facto that the second party workman will be entitled for his reinstatement as a casual labour with back wages or part ofback wages . Because of its admitted position that the second party workman was working in temporary capacity as a daily rated worker on casual basis as per requirement of the department of the first party and that the second party workman had not been granted status of temporary staff to the department of the first party.

(8) The Learned Counsel for the second party argued that since the second party workman had completed 240 days of the work in a calendar year and since the first party has violated the provision of the section 25 ( F) in not giving retrenchment notice or notice pay so , the workman is entitled for his reinstatement to the works of casual worker with full back wages from the date of his allege removal from 31-10-1986 till his reinstatement . In support of his such argument several case laws have been citedwhich are reported in M.C.D. V/s Pravin Kumar Jain 1958 (2 ) LLJ page 674 , State of UP V/ s Rajendra Singh Butola and another 2000 ( 84) FLR page 869 , Sharmishtha DubeV/ s City Board Itava 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE page 655 , Narottam Chopra V/ s Labour Court 1989 SUPPL . (2 ) Supreme Court Cases page- 97 , Vikramaditya - Pande V/ s Industrial Tribunal 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 701 , Manorama V/ s State of Bihar 1995 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S193 ) , Mohanbhai Ramjibhai V/s Surendranagar Dist . Panchayat 2005 (3 ) LLJ page 1070 , Harayana Roadways V/ s Rudhansingh 2005 LLJ 2003 ( 3 ) page 4, State of Punjab V/sBabitakumari 2006 SCC (L & S ) 396 , S.M. Nilangakar V/sTelecom Department 2003 ( 3 ) SCALC page 533 , Surat Mahila Nagrik Bank V/ s Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi 2001 ( 1 ) LLR page 505 , Executive Engineer CPWT Indor V/s Madhukar Pursottam 2002 SCC L & S 1087 , Kolkata Telephone V/ s Rintu Bagji 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 951 , Ramesh Kumar V/ s State ofHaryana 2010 ( 1 ) SCC 543 , Ritu Marbles V/s Prabhakant Shukla 2010 (2 ) SCC 17 and Director Fisheries Terminal Division V/s B.M. Chavda 2010 ( 1 ) SC 731. The Learned Counsel for the second party has also

(9) On the other hand Mr. N.K. Trivedi , the Learned Counsel appearing for the first party has relied upon authority in support of his such arguments that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement with backwagesges because he was not regularly appointed, no appointment letter was issued , no temporary status was granted, rather the second party workman was working merely as a casual worker/daily rated worker on purely temporary basis and was only called for work in the event of requirement . He has relied upon the case law of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V/ s Umadevi and others 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 753 , BSNL V / s Tejasingh Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 Supreme Court , Gangadhar Pillai V/ s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 , State of Maharashtra V/ s Datatre Digambar Birajdar 2009 LLR 1132 Supreme Court , Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another V/ s S.C. Sharma 2005 LLR Supreme Court Cases . The Learned Counsel for the first party has also relied upon a Division Bench case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) BhopalV/ s Santosh Kumar Seal 2010 GLHEL- SC 48285- Equivalent Citation 2010 JX ( SC 219) . It has been held the case law of Gangadhar Pillai V/ s Siemens Ltd. -2007 LAB IC 590 SC " In the case an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee on that he had been employed for a number of years , the same by itself may not be the conclusion that such appointment had been made with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege of the permanent employee "-. "However it is not the law that on completion of 240 days ofcontinuous service in a year, concern employee becomes entitled for regularisation ofhis service and /or permanent status . Under the Industrial Dispute Act a concept of 240 days was introduced as to so fasten statutory liability upon employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner as specified in section 25 ( F ) of the I.D. Act 1947, before he retrenched from service and not for any other purpose . In the event a violation of the said provision takes place , the termination of service of the employee may be found to be illegal but only on that account , his service cannot be directed to be regularised ... " In the case law of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) BhopalV/s Santosh Kumar Seal ( 2010 GLHEL SC ) 48285 their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court have examined on the question whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to respondent No.1 to 14 is justified. In the given case law the facts was that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year for merely 3 years and that their service were retrenched by an order dated February- 10-1987 without following Mandatory provision 7610

[PART II SBC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

Santosh Kumar Seal (supra) the second party workman is notentitled forhis reinstatement and back wages as argued by Shri R.C. Pathak, Learned Advocate for the second party workman. But since the action of the first party management in terminating/removing by- an oral order the service ofthe workman Baleshwar Lalmuni Pal is held not justifiedand legal because ofnon compliance ofprovision of section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act 1947, so second party workman is found entitled for a lumsum compensation. In this case considering tenure or work during intervening period ofabout 2 years in the department of management of first party as a daily rated worker , an amount of compensation, of Rs. 10, 000 will meet ends ofjustice in this case. Issue No. IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above .

(11) ISSUE No. III

Though there is a delay caused in referring this dispute for adjudication considering that the workman was removed from casual works from 31-10-1986, but such delay cannot be said to be latches on part of the second party workman because it is the case of the second party workman, that he approached the officers of the first party for taking him in Job . More so , delay was caused in referring the dispute by the appropriate government after direction of the Hon'ble High Court ofGujarat in its order ofwrit petition No. 4556/2001 . It is also incorporated in the order ofthe appropriate government referring the dispute. So , this issue is , therefore answered in negative.

(12) ISSUE No. I & II

The workman has got valid cause of action and the reference is maintainable.

This reference is allowed in part. The first party is directed to pay Rs . 10,000 to the workman Baleshwar Lalmuni Pal by way of compensation within 3 months of thisaward. Failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum .

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर , 2011 of section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act 1947, the Tribunal by its award directed the appellant to reinstate the workman and paythem back wages from date of termination untildate of reinstatement within 3 month of the publication of the award and upon appellant failure to comply with the award within stipulated period, it was directed that interest@ 8% per annum shall be payable . The appellant (management) challenged the said order before the High Court by filing writ petition it was dismissed. Then the appellant filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the judgment by April- 26-2010 . After examining all this aspects it has been held vide para 6 " in the last few years it has been consistently held by this court that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monitory compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate" . It has beenheld at para 7 in the case Jagbir Singh Haryana State Agriculture marketing board and another ( 200915 SCC) 327 " The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case whether the workrnan has completed 240 days of work in a year precedirig date of termination particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this court and instead compensation has been awarded . This court has distinguished between the daily wagers who does not hold post and permanent employee " , It has been held by their Lordship at para 8 of the judgment . " In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years , relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would sub serve the ends of justice . In our considered view the compensation of Rs . 40,000 to each of the workman (respondent No.2 to 14) shall meets the ends of justice" . The aforesaid case law reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 will certainly prevail upon the previous judgment ofthe Apex Court and also the High Court on the points that in case of violation of section 25 ( F) of the ID Act 1947 by the employer the remedy of the workman will not be for his reinstatement with back wages rather a lumsum of compensation according to facts of the case may be awarded . So , in view of the aforesaid case law, the case law relied upon by Mr. R.C. Pathak Learned Advocate for the second party are not applicable in the instant case .

का.आ. 2928.-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 , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी.- 1384/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/219/ 2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव (10) In the case in hands the status of the second party workman is of a temporary casual worker get daily rated wages and he worked as a casual worker during the period from June 1985 to October 1986. Though the workman completed 240 days of work but in view of the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic Bhopal V/ s [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7611

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2011

For the first party : Shri N.K. Trivedi , Advocate

Forthesecond party workman : Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

AWARD

S.O. 2928. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGITA- 1384/2004 ) of the Central Government 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 Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-09-2011 .

[No. L-40012/219/2000- 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 29-8-2011

Reference: CGITA of 1384 of 2004

New Reference : ITC . 10/2002 (Old)

Adispute arosebetween the employer in relationto Management of General Manager Telecom, Surat and their workman Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal and on failure of efforts of conciliation , the conciliation officer sent failure report to the appropriate authority which followed by sending this reference for adjudication by order of the appropriate Government , the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour and Employment/Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 1 10001 , by its orderNo. L-40012/ 219/2000- IR (DU) dated 6-3-2002, in exercise of power conferredby clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the term of reference was sent for adjudication by the Industiral Tribunal , Ahmedabad. Subsequently by modified order dated 2-5-2002 the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad was withdrawn and transferred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Surat. Lastly the record was transferred to this Tribunal by the order dated 19-10-2010 oftheMinistry of Labour and Employment , New Delhi .

The Terms of Reference as per Schedule is as Follows:

( 1 ) The General Manager , SuratTelecom Distt . BSNL , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar , Surat- 395 003 .

(2) Sub Divisional Officer ( Т)

Valsad , BSNL,

C/ o GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar, Surat-395 003 .

"Whether the action the management of General Manager, Telecom, Surat Distt . , Surat and its other Officers in allegedly terminating the services of the workman Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal , casual labour w.e.f. 31-10-1987 is legal , proper and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter ? "

(3) SDE ( T) , (Bulsar) , BSNL,

C/ o . GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar , Surat.

(2) In response to the notices to the party the second party workman and the first party management appeared in the case and filed respective statement ofclaim and written statement .

(4 ) A.E. ( Phones Ext . ) S- II,

BSNI. , C / o GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar, Surat.

...First Party

And their workman

Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal , Krishankunj Society, Plot No. 36,

Dindholi Three Roads , Post-Godadara , Tal -Chorasi , Distt- Surat , C/ o Secretary, Association of Railway and Post , Employees , 15 , Shashi Apartment , Opposite Aunjali Cinema , Vasna Road , Ahmedabad(Gujarat) - 380007.

.... Second Party

(3) The case of the second party workman as per his statement of claim at Ext. 7 is that he was employed as a casual labour under the department of first party from 2-7-1986 and that since then the second party was doing all the duties as of a regular employee due to vacancy existing for the regular employment . The second party was being paid his salary/wages through vouchers as per his attendance in the muster roll . Further case is that though the second party was doing all the duties of a regular employee buthe was removed from the work from 31-10-1987 without giving any rhyme and reason and without complying with the provision of section 25(F) of the I.D. Act , 1947 , whereas the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each calendar year .

G [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

7612

Thus the engagement of the second party with the first party was not according to the rules of appointment . The second party was not getting any benefits apart from wages as they were engaged on daily rated by the first party on the where and when requirement basis . Further stand taken is that the second party workman did not completed 240 days ofwork in any calendar years , there was no work of daily rated workers so the works of casual labour was stopped . It has been denied that the second partyworkman was doing all the works of a regular employees against any vacancy rather he was being paid for the days of works basis through vouchers . There was no need for giving notices under section 25(F) because the second party was a daily rated workman not completed 240 days work and there was no continuity in service of the second party workman rather the second party workman was calledupon todo daily rated work whenever arising oftemporary requirements ofwork and in any month the second party workman has not work for all the days rather as per requirement had worked only for 15days in a month . The first party have not violated either the provision of section 25 (F ) , 25 (G ) , 25 (H) . The dispute raised at belated stage and so the reference is barred by delay and latches . On the above grounds it has been contended that there was no merit in the statement of claim of the second party workman and the reference is fit to be dismissed.

(5) In view ofthe pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken for consideration and determination in this case .

ISSUES

(1) Whether reference is maintainable?

(II) Whether the workman has got valid cause of action?

(III) Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches?

Further case is that the management of first party adopted unfair labour practice and also adopted pick and chose policy by not following the principle of last come first go . Further case is that the management of first party allowed to continue the work ofthe casual labour who were junior to him but he was removed from the work . No notice pay or in lieu of it one month pay was provided to him before taking recourse of retrenchment under section 25 ( F ) of the I.D. Act . Further contention is that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 2342, it had been drected to regularize those casual labourers who had completed 360days ofworks all along in a year but in order to escape from the liability of absorbing the casual labourers the management of first party was purposely directingbreakage of the casual labours job so that casual labourer could not achieve the fruit as per aforesaid judgment and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The second party workman tried ' his best to convince the officers of the management or first party by meeting all of them for taking him back in the service but his all efforts went in vain . On this grounds it has been further contended that the action of the management of the first party through its officers in removing the second party workman from his work is illegal unwarranted and unjustified and is also in violation of the provision of the section 25 (F), 25 (G ), 25 (H ) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947, and the action ofthe first party is also against principle ofnatural justice. Through the statement of claim the second party has claimed for the reliefofdeclaring the action ofthe first party in terminating/ removing the second party from 31-10-1987 is illegal , unjustified and also violative of the provision of I.D. Act, 1947. Further sought for relief ofhis reinstatement in the job with full backwages and also for awarding cost of Rs . 5,000 by way of compensation against the first party and for any other relief to which the second party is found entitle .

(IV) Whether the second party workman has completed 240 days ofwork in a calendar year during his tenure ofwork as a casual labourer in the department ofthe firstparty?

(V) Whether second party workman is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs asprayed for?

(VI) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of the workman Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal ? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitle to in this case?

Findings

(6) ISSUE NO . IV, V and VI

These issues are taken up together for discussion and consideration . The second party workman as also the first party management of BSNL have (4) The first party through its written statement at Ext . 10 denying all the allegation of the second party workman as per his statement of claim and pleading inter- alia that the first party is a Central Government undertaking engaged in the service of telecommunication and rendering the service throughout the nation and the first party engaged the casual/daily rated workman for the work like digging the strench for laying the cable and the said works are of temporary nature. The second party workman was not appointed as per rules . No any applications were invited by the first party. No any applications was tendered by the workman to the first party for their engagement and second party workman was not send for any medical examination as they were not engaged as a regular employees.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

7613

was engage for work on 2-7-1986 and worked up 1 30-10-1987 . Thus first party has only met assertion of the workman by mere denial and supported by any documentary evidence. WI

the subsequent onus to discredit the claim of th workman that he did not completed more than 240 days ofwork in any calendar year had shifted upon the first party to which the first party failed to discharge. By mere such explanation that more than 5 years old records viz . muster roll and vouchers etc.are not preserved asper rules and regulation. It has been also to be bore- in- mind that the first party is not denying that the workman had not work for any period in the department rather admiting that he works as a casual labour but disputing that he didnot completed 240 days of work. The workman haddemanded production of documents of muster rolland voucher etc. for supporing his claim but the firstpartydidnot comply with only such explanation that old records are not preserved. So, in such view of the matter adverse inference has to be drawn against the first party to this extent that during the tenure ofthe work from 2-7-1986 to 30-10-1987 the workman Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal must have completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months since before his disengagement from the work.

adduced oral evidence to support their respective case. The workman in his oral evidence at Ext. 14 during cross -examination stated that he was not given any appointment letter for the job rather he was engaged as a daily wager and also admitted that during the engagement ofhis work no any order for regularisation was made. He also admitted that as per requirement of work he was called to performance. The workman in his evidence has remained firm that he completed 240 days ofwork in preceeding calendar year, though any certificate granted by the officer of the first party has not been brought on the record to show the total days of workfrom hisdate of engagement from 2-7-1986 till before his alleged date of removal on 31-10-1987. However in order to support the period of his work and counting days of his work muster roll and workers were demanded from the first party for production ofthese decuments to which the tribunal order for production. The first party came up with such explanation that as per rules and regulation the muster rolls, voucher etc. are kept preserved on for 5 years and not more and so the documents demandedfrom the first party by the workman which isabout 20 years old is not expected to be preserved by the department also considering this aspect that the dispute was raised after 17 years at much belated stage after the so called removal from the casual work. On the other hand the management witness namely Mr. Narendra L. Chodhry AGM legal BSNL, Surat in his affidavit at Ext. 20 has stated that the workman was not engaged from 2-7-1986 and that theconcernedworkman has not completed 240 days ofwork in any calendar year. But his such evidence is not based upon any muster roll and vouchers that the concern workman has not completed 240 days of works in a calendar year. During the cross- examination the management witness admitted that he was shown the record of 10 to 12 reference cases and that he had seen the office file up to the 5 years before and that he has no memory regarding these files and the second party workman and he has not knowledge when the workman was working and for whatperiod he was working. He admitted that he has not produced showing work and presence of second party workman Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal and the record regarding his wages. From examining the oral evdence of both sides it appears that the management witness has verbally denied the claim of the workman that he completed240days of work in a calendar year during his tenure of the work . But such denial as to the claim of the workman is not substantiated by any paper ofthe department. The workman discharged his initial onus that he had completed 240 days of work inpreceding 12 months of the year and that he

7614

Ipso facto that the second party workman will be entitled for his reinstatement as a casual labour with back wges or part of back wages . Because of its admitted position that the second party workman was working in temporary capacity as a daily rated worker on casual basis as per requirement of the department of the first party and that the second party workman had not been granted status of temporary staffto the department ofthe first party.

(8) The Learned Counsel for the second party argued that since the second party workman had completed 240days ofthework- in a calendar year and since the first partyhasviolated the provision of the section 25 (F ) in not giving retrenchment notice or notice pay so, the workman is entitled for his reinstatement to the works ofcasual worker with full back wages from the date ofhis allege removal from 31-10-1987 tillhis reinstatement. In support ofhis such argument several case laws have been cited which are reported inM.C.D. V/ s Pravin Kumar Jain 1958 (2) LLJ page 674, State of UP V/ s Rajendra Singh Butola and another 2000 (84) FLR page 869 , SharmishthaDube V/s City Board Itava 1991 (1 ) SCALE page 655 , Narottam ChopraV/s Labour Court 1989 SUPPI . ( 2) Supreme Court Cases pagę 97, Vikramaditya Pande V/s Industrial Tribunal 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 701 , Manorama V/s State ofBihar 1995 Supreme Court Cases ( L& S 193 ) , Mohanbhai Ramjibhai V /s Surendranagar Dist . Panchayat 2005 ( 3 ) LLJ page 1070 , Harayana Roadways V /s Rudhansingh 2005 LLJ 2003 (3 ) page 4, State ofPunjab V/ s Babitakumari 2006 SCC ( L & S ) 396, S.M.Nilangakar V/ s Telecom Department 2003 (3 ) SCALC page 533 , Surat Mahila Nagrik Bank V/s Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi 2001 (1 ) LLR page 505 , Executive Engineer CPWT Indor V/sMadhukar Pursottam 2002 SCC L & S 1087, KolkattaTelephone V/ s Rintu Bagji 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 951, Ramesh Kumar V/ s State ofHaryana 2010 ( 1) SCC 543 , Ritu Marbles V/ s Prabhakant Shukla 2010 (2) SCC 17 and Director Fisheries Terminal Division V/ s B.M. Chavda 2010 ( 1 ) SC 731. The Learned Counsel for the second party had also filed same copies ofaward delivered by the Industrial Tribunal , Labour Courts to support that on violation of the provision of section 25 (F ) by the management and the workman has completed 240 days of work, the workman has been found entitled for reinstatement withbackwages.

second party workman was working merely as a casual worker/daily rated worker on purelytemporary basis and was only called for work in the event of requirement. He has relied upon the case law of Secretary, State ofKarnataka and others V/ s Umadevi and others 2006 Supreme Courts Case (L& S) 753, BSNL V/s . Tejasingh Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 Supreme Court, Gangadhar Pilllai V/s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590, State of Maharashtra V/s Datatre DigambarBirajdar 2009 LLR 1132 Supreme Court, Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another V/s S.C. Sharma 2005 LLR Supreme Court Cases . The Learned Counsel for the first party has also relied upon a Division Bench case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/s Santosh Kumar Seal 2010GLHEL-SC 48285-Equivalent Citation 2010 JK (SC 219) . It has been held the case law ofGangadhar Pillai V/ s Siemeans Ltd 2007. LAB IC 590 SC " In the case an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee on that he had been employed for a number of years , the same by itselfmay not be the conclusion that such appointment had been made with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege of the permanent employee"-. "However it is not the law that on completion of240 days of continuous service in a year, concern employee becomes entitled for regularisation ofhis service and/or permanent status . Underthe Industrial DisputeAct a concept of 240 days was introduced as to so fasten statutory liability upon employer to paycompensation to be computed in the manner as specified in section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act , 1947, before he retrenched from service and not for any other purpose. In the event a violation of the said provision takes place , the termination of service of the employee may be found to be illegal but only on that account , his service cannot be directed to be regularised ... " In the case law of Senior Superintendent Telehraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal (2010 GLHEL SC) 48285 their Lordship ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court have examined on the question whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to respondent No. 1 to 14 is justified. In the given case law the facts was that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year for merely 3 years and that their service were retrenched by an order dated February 10-1987 without following Mandatory provision of section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act , 1947 , the Tribunal by its award directedthe appellant to reinstate the workman and paythem back wages from date of termination until date of reinstatement within 3 months of the publication ofthe award and upon appellant failure tocomplywiththe award within stipulated period, it was directed that interest @ 8 % per annum shall be (9) On the other hand Mr. N.K. Trivedi , the Learned Counsel appearing for the first party has relied upon authority in support of his such arguments that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement with back wages because he was not regularly appointed , no appointment letter was issued, no temporary status was granted , rather the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23, 1933

7615

Shri R.C. Pathak, Learned Advocate for the second partyworkman. But since the action ofthe first party management in terminating/removing by an oral order the service of the workman Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal is held not justified and legal because of non compliance of provision of section 25 (F) ofthe ID Act, 1947, so second partyworkman is found entitled for a lumsum compensation. In this case considering tenure or work during intervening period of about 2 years in the department ofmanagement of first party as a daily rated worker, an amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000 will meet ends ofjustice in this case. Issue No. IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above .

(11 ) ISSUE No. III

Though there is a delay caused in referring this dispute for adjudication considering that the workman was removed from casual works from 31-10-1987, but delay cannot be said to be latches onpart of the second party workman because it is the case of the second party workman, that he approached the officers of the first party for taking him in job. More so, delay was caused in referring the dispute by the appropriate Government after directionofthe Hon'ble High Court ofGujarat in its order of Writ Petition No. 4556/2001 . It is also incorporated in the order of the appropriate Government referring the dispute . So, this issue is, therefore answered in negative.

(12) ISSUE No. I and II

The workman has got valied cause of action and the reference is maintainable .

This reference is allowed in part. The first party is directed to pay Rs . 10,000 to the workman Shri Sureshchandra Satyanarayan Pal by way of compensation within 3 months of this award . Failing which the amount ofcompensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2011

payable. The appellant (management) challenged the said order before the High Court by filing writ petition it was dismissed. Then the appellant fied the present appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the judgment by April 26-2010. After examining all this aspects it has been held vide para 6 " in the last few years it has been consistently held bythis court that the relief by way of reinstatement withbackwages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monitory compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate" . It has been held at para 7 in the case Jagbir Singh Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another (2009 15 SCC) 327--... " The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding date of termination particulary, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this court and instead compensation has been awarded . This court has distinguished between the daily wagers who does not hold post and permanent employee " . It has been held by their Lordship at para 8 of the judgment. " In view of the aforsaid legal position and the fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years , relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In our considered view the compensation of Rs .40,000 to each of the workman (respondent No. 2 to 14) shall meets the ends of justice " . The aforesaidcase law reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 will certainly prevail upon the previous judgment of theApex Court an also the High Court on the points that in case of violation of section 25 (F) of the ID Act1947 by the employer the remedy of the workman will not be for his reinstatement with back wages rather a lumsum of compensation according to facts ofthe case may be awarded . So , in view of the aforesaid case law, the case law relied upon by Mr. R.C. Pathak Learned Advocate for the second party are not applicable in the instant case.

का.आ. 2929.-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 में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटीए- 1385/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-09-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

(10) In the case in hands the status of the second party workman is of a temporary casual worker get daily ratedwages and he worked as a casual worker during theperiod from July 1986 to October 1987. Though the workman completed 240 days of work but in view of the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic Bhopal V/s Santosh Kumar Seal (supra) the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and back wages as argued by.

[सं. एल-40012/220/2000- आई आर (डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव 3708GI/ 11-25 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

7616

NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2011

..Second Party

OppositeAunjali Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380007

Forthe first party: Shri N.K. Trivedi , Advocate

Forthe secondparty workman: Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

AWARD

S.O. 2929. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGITA- 1385/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on23-09-2011 .

[No. L-40012/ 220/2000- 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 29-8-2011

Reference: CGITA of 1385 of 2004 (New) Reference : ITC . 11/2002 (Old)

(1)

Adispute arose between the employer in relation to Management of General Manager Telecom , Surat and their workman Shri Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal and on failure ofefforts ofconciliation, the conciliation officer sent failure report to the appropriate authority which followed by sending this reference for adjudication by order of the appropriate Government, the Government of India , Ministry of Labour and Employment/ Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg , New Delhi - 110001 , by its order No. L- 40012/220/2000- IR (DU ) dated 6-3-2002, in exercise ofpower conferredby clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the term ofreference was sent for adjudication by the Industiral Tribunal , Ahmedabad. Subsequently by modified order dated 2-5-2002 the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid disputepending before the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad was withdrawn and transferred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , Surat . Lastly the record was transferred to this Tribunal by the order dated 19-10-2010 of the Ministry ofLabour and Employment, New Delhi .

The General Manager, SuratTelecom Distt . BSNL , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat-395003 .

The Terms of Reference as per Schedule is as Follows :

Sub Divisional Officer (T)

(2)

Valsad, BSNL,

C/o . GMTD Office, Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar, Surat- 395003.

"Whether the action the management of General Manager, Telecom , Surat Distt . , Surat and its other Officers in allegedly tenninating the services of the workman Shri Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal , casual labour w.e.f. 31-11-1987is legal, proper andjustified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

(2)

(3 ) SDE (T) , (Bulsar ) , BSNL , C/ o . GMTD Office,Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat.

(4)

In response to the notices to the party the second party workman and the first party management appeared in the case and filed respective statement ofclaim and written statement .

....First Party

A.E. (Phones Ext . ) S- II , BSNL, C/ o. GMTDOffice , NarayanChambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar , Surat.

And Their Workman

(3) The case of the second party workman as per his statement of claim at Ext. 7 is that he was employed as à casual labour under the department of first party from 7-7-1985 and that since then the second party was doing all the duties as of a regular employee due to vacancy existing for the regular employment . The second party was being paid his salary/wages through vouchers as per his attendance in the muster roll. Further case is that though the second party was doing all the duties of a regular employee but he was removed from the work from 31-11-1987 without giving any rhyme and reason and without complying with the provision of section 25 (F) of Shri Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal , Ganeshnagar - I Plot No. 120-121 Godadara Canal , Aaspas Road, Post-Godadara, Tal -Chorasi , Distt- Surat, C/o . Secretary, Association of Railway and Post, Employees , 15, Shashi Apartment, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7617 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

engagement of the second party with the first party was not according to the rules of appointment . The second party was not getting any benefits apart from wages as they were engaged on daily rated by the first party on the where and when requirement basis . Further stand taken is that the second party workman did not completed 240 days ofwork in any calendar years , there was no work of daily rated workers so theworks of casual labour was stopped. Ithas been denied that the second party workman was doing all the works of a regular employees against any vacancy rather he was being paid for the days of works basis through vouchers . There was no need for giving notices under section 25 (F) becausethe second party was a daily rated workman not completed 240 days work and there was no continuity in service of the second party workman rather the second party workman was called upon todo daily rated work whenever arising oftemporary requirements of work and in any month the second party workman has not work for all the days rather as per requirement had worked only for 15 days in a month . The first party have not violated either the provision ofsection 25 (F) , 25 (G ) , 25 (H ) . The dispute raised at belated stage and so the reference is barred by delay and latches . On the above grounds it has been contended that there was no merit in the statement of claim of the second party workman and the reference is fit to be dismissed .

(5) In view of the pleadings ofthe parties the following issues are taken for consideration and determination inthis case.

ISSUES

(1) Whether reference is maintainable ?

(II) Whether the workman has got valid cause of action?

(III) Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches?

the I.D. Act , 1947 , whereas the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each calendar year. Further case is that the management offirst party adopted unfair labour practice and also adopted pick and chose policy by not following the principle of last come first go. Further case is that the management of first party allowed to continue the work of the casual labour who were junior to him buthe was removed from the work . No notice pay or in lieu of it one month pay was provided to him before taking recourse of retrenchment under section 25(F) of the I.D. Act . Further contention is that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 2342, it had been directed to regularize those casual labourers who had completed 360 days of works all along in a year but in order to escape from the liability of absorbing the casual labourers the management of first party was purposely directing breakage of the casual labours job so that casual labourer could not achieve the fruit as per aforesaid judgment and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The second party workman tried this best to convince the officers of the management of first party by meeting all ofthem for taking him back in the service buthis all efforts went in vain. On this grounds it has been further contended that the action of the management of the first party through its officers in removing the second party workman from his work is illegal unwarranted and unjustified and is also in violation of the provision of the section 25 (F ) , 25 (G) , 25 (H) of the I.D. Act, 1947 , and the action of the first party is also against principle of natural justice. Through the statement of claim the second partyhas claimed for the relief ofdeclaring the action ofthe first party in terminating/removing the second party from 31-5-1987 is illegal , unjustified and also violative of the provision of I.D. Act , 1947. Further sought for relief of his reinstatement in the job with full backwages and also for awarding cost of Rs . 5,000 by way of compensation against the first party and for any other relief to which the second party is found entitle .

(IV) Whether the second party workman has completed 240days of work in a calendar year during his tenure ofwork as a casual labourer in the department of the firstparty?

(V) Whether second party workman is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs as prayed for?

(VI) Whether the management of first party wasjustified in terminating the service of the workman Shri Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitle to in this case ?

Findings

(6) ISSUE NO . IV, V and VI

These issues are taken up together for discussion and consideration. The second party workman as also the first party management of BSNL have adduced evidence to support their respective case .

3708 GI/2011-26 7618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

management witness has verbally denied the claim ofthe workman that he completed 240 days ofwork in a calendar year during his tenure of work. But such denial as to the claim of the workman is not substantiaed by any paper of the department. The workman discharged his initial onus that he had completed240days ofwork in preceding 12 months of the year and that he was engage for work on 7-5-1985 and worked up to 31-11-1987. Thus first party has only met the assertion ofthe workman by mere denial and not supported by any documentary evidence.Whereas the subsequent onus todiscredit the claim ofthe workman that he did not completed more than 240 days ofwork in any calendar year had shifted upon the first party to which the first party failed to discharge . By mere such explanation that more than 5 years old records viz muster roll and vouchers etc. are not preserved as per rules and regulation . It has been also to be borne-in - mind that the first party is not denying that the workman had not work for any period in the department rather admitting that he works as a casual labour but disputing that he did not completed 240 days of work. The workman had demanded production of documents of muster roll and voucher etc. for supporting his claim but the first party did not comply with only such explanation that old records are not preserved. So , in such view of the matter adverse inference has to be drawn against the first party to his extent that during the tenure of the work from 7-5-1985 to 31-11-1987 the workman Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal must have completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months since before his disengagement from the work.

(7) From the evidence discussed above it is proved that the second party workman during his tenure ofwork has completed 240 days of work in preceding calendar year as a casual labour/daily rated worker inthe department ofthe first party. It is also proved that the status of the second party workman was of casualworker/daily rated worker getting employment excludingthe holdings and the Sundays and getting hiswages according to days ofwork in a month. It is also proved that the second party workman had not completed 3 years of service as a casual worker during his spanperiod from 7-5-1985 to 31-11-1987, itisalso proved no temporary status was granted to the workman by any order of the department ofthe first party. So , from the evidence the status of the second party workman is only established as a casual labourer/daily rated worker who completed 240 day ofwork in a calendar year. So , considering such position it was the duty of the managementman of the firstparty intending to retrench the second party workman for giving retrenchment notice by complying with provision of section 25 (F) of I.D. Actby giving one month notice or to pay one month Theworkman in his oral evidence in examination-in- chiefat Ex . 14 and in his further examination in chief atExt . 23 in support of his case that he worked for 240days in everycalendar year. The workman in his cross -examination at Ext . 23 has admitted that he was not given any appointment letter for the job. Besides ofhis oral evidence documentary evidence havealsobeen filed as per list at Ext . 15, 15/1 , 15/2 and 15/3 are the three certificates granted by the Assistant Engineer, Udhna in Ext. 15/1 which is for the period 1-2-1986 to 28-2-1987 . It has been shown that the workman has performed the work for 263 days , Ext. 15/2 got to show that in April - 1987 and May-1987heworked for 61 days Ext. 15/3 further go to show that the workman worked for 151 days from July-1987toNovember- 1987. So , as per Ext. 15/1 to 15/3 couple with the oral evidence of the second partyworkman at Ext . 14 and 23 it is proved that the second party workman since from his date of engagement 7-5-1985 till before his removal on 30-11-1987 has worked for more than 240 days in calendar year. However in order to support the period ofhis work and counting days of his work muster roll and vouchers were demanded from the first party for production of these documents to which the tribunal order for production. The first party came up with such explanation that as per rules and regulation the muster rolls , voucher etc. are kept preserved only for 5 years and more and so the documents demanded from the first party by the workmanwhich is about 20 years old is not expected tobepreservedby the department also considering this aspect that the dispute was raised after 17 years at much belated stage after the so- called removal from the casual work . On the other hand, the management witness namely Mr. Narendra L.ChodhryAGM legal BSNL, Surat in his affidavit at Ext. 25 has stated that the workman was not engaged from 7-5-1985 but he was engaged from 1986 and that the concerned workman has not completed 240days of work in any calendar year. Buthis such evidence is not based upon any muster roll and vouchers that the concern workman has not completed 240 days of works in a calendar year. During the cross -examination the management witness admitted that he was shown the record of 10 to 12 reference cases and that he had seen the office fileuptothe 5 years before and that he has no memory regarding these files and the second party workman and he has not knowledge when the workmanwasworking and for what period he was working. He admitted that he has not produced showing work and presence of second party workman Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal and the record regarding his wages . From examining the oral evidence of both sides it appears that the [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7619

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

pay inlieuofnotice. Certainly the first party has not complied with the provision and thus has violated the provision of the section 25 ( F) of the ID Act . Evenit isproved that the first party had violated the provision of section 25 (F) ID Act. It does not mean Ipso facto that the second party workman will be entitled forhis reinstatement as a casual labour with back wages or party of back wages . Because of its admitted position that the second party workman was working in temporary capacity as a daily rated worker on casual basis as per requirement ofthe department of the first party and that the second party workman had not been granted status of temporary staff to the department of the first party.

(8) The Learned Counsel for the second party argued that since the second party workman had completed 240 days of the work in a calendar year and since the first partyhas violated the provision of the section 25 (F) in not giving retrenchment notice or notice pay so, the workman is entitled for his reinstatement tothe works of casual worker with full back wages from thedate ofhis allege removal from 31-11-1987 till his reinstatement. In support ofhis such argument several caselaws have been cited which are reported inM.C.D V/s Pravin Kumar Jain 1958 (2) LLJ page 674, State of UP V/s Rajendra Singh Butola and another 2000 (84) FLR page 869 , Sharmishtha Dube V/sCity Board Itava 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE page 655, Narottam ChopraV/s Labour Court 1989 SUPPL . (2) Supreme Court Cases page 97 , Vikramaditya Pande V/ s Industrial Tribunal 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 701 , Manorama V/ s State of Bihar 1995 Supreme Court Cases (L & S 193) , Mohanbhai Ramjibhai V/ s SurendranagerDistt. Panchayat 2005 (3) LLJ page 1070,HaryanaRoadways V/ s Rudhansingh 2005 LLJ 2003(3) page 4, State of Punjab V/ s Babitakumari 2006 SCC (L & S) 396 , S.M. Nilangakar V/s Telecom Department 2003 (3 ) SCALC page 533 , Surat Mahila Nagrik Bank V/ s Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi 2001 ( 1 ) LLR page 505, Executive Engineer CPWT IndorV/s Madhukar Pursottam 2002 SCC L & S 1087, KolkattaTelephone V/ s Rintu Bagji 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 951 , Ramesh Kumar V/ s State of Haryana 2010 ( 1) SCC 543 , Ritu Marbles V/s Prabhakant Shukla 2010 (2) SCC 17 andDirector Fisheries Triminal Divison V/sB.M. Chavda 2010 ( 1) SC 731. The learned Counsel for the second party has also filed same copiesofaward delivered by the Industrial Tribunal, Labour Courtsto support that on violation of the provision of section 25 (F) by the management and the workman has completed 240 days of work , the workman has been found entitled for reinstatement withbackwages .

(9) On the other hand Mr. N. K. Trivedi , the Learned Counsel appearing for the first party has relied upon

authority in support of his such arguments that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement with back wages because he was not regularly appointed, no appointment letter was issued , no temporary status was granted, rather the second party workman was working merely as a casualworker/daily rated worker on purelytemporary basis and was only called for work in the event of requirement. He has relied upon the case law of Secretary, State ofKarnataka and others V/ s Umadevi and others 2006 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S) 753 , BSNL V/ s Tejasingh Civil Apeal No. 292/2009 Supreme Court , Gangadhar Pillai V/s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590, State of Maharashtra V/s Datatre Digambar Birajdar 2009 LLR 1.132 Supreme Court , Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another V/s S.C. Sharma 2005 LLR Supreme Court Cases . The Learned Counsel for the first party has also relied upon a Division Bench case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal 2010 GLHEL- SC 48285- Equivalent Citation 2010 JX ( SC 219 ) . It has been held the case law of Gangadhar Pillai V/s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 SC " In the case an employee has been engaged as acasual or temporary employee on that he had been employed for a number of years , the same by itself may not be the conclusion that such appointment hadbeen made with the object ofdepriving him of the status and privilege of the permanent employee" - . " However it is not the law that on completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year, concern employee becomes entitled for regularisation of his service and/ or permanent status . Under the Industrial Dispute Act a concept of 240 days was introduced as to so fasten statutory liabilty upon employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner as specified in section 25( F) of the I.D. Act , 1947, before he retrenched from service and not for any other purpose . In the event a violation of the said provision takes place , the termination ofservice of the employee maybe found to be illegal but only on that account , his service cannot be directed to be regularised... " In the case law of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/ s . Santosh Kumar Seal ( 2010 GLHEL SC) 48285 their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court have examined on the question whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to respondent No. 1 to 14 is justified. In the given case law the facts was that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year for merely 3 years and thattheir service were retrenched by an order dated February - 10-1987 without following Mandatory provision of Section 25 (F) of the ID Act 1947 , the Tribunal by its award directed the appellant to [PART II-SBC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23, 1933

7620

Traffic Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal (supra) tne second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and back wages as argued by Shri R.C. Pathak, Learned Advocate for the second partyworkman. But since the action ofthe firstparty management in terminaing/removing by an oral order the service ofthe workman Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal is held not justifed and legal because of non compliance ofprovision of Section 25 (F) ofthe ID Act 1947, so second party workman is found entitled fora lumsum compensation. In this case considering tenure or work during intervening period ofabout 2 years in thedepartment of management offirstparty as adaily rated worker, an amount ofcompensation of Rs , 10,000 will meet ends ofjustice in this case. Issue No. IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above .

(11) ISSUE No. III

Though there is a delay caused in referring this dispute for adjudication considering that the workman was removed from casual works from 31-11-1987 , but such delay cannot be said to be latches onpart of the second party workman because itis the case of the second party workman, that he approached the officers of the first party for taking him injob . More so , delay was caused in referring the dispute by the appropriate government after directionof the Hon'ble High Court ofGujarat in its order of writ petition No. 4556/2001 . It is also incorporated in the order of the appropriate government referring the dispute. So , this issue is , therefore answered in negative .

(12) ISSUE No. I & II

The workman has got valid cause of action and the reference is maintainable .

This reference is allowed in part . The first party is directedto pay Rs . 10,000 to the workman Jayshankar Ramnarayan Pal by way of compensation within 3 months ofthis award . Failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर , 2011

reinstate the workman and pay them back wages from date oftermination until date of reinstatement within 3 month of the publication of the award and upon appellant failure to comply with the award withinstipulated period, it was directed that interest @ 8% per annum shall be payable. The appellant (management) challenged the said order before the High Court by filing writ petition it was dismissed. Then the appellant filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the judgment byApril- 26-2010. After examining all this aspects it has been held vide para 6 " in the last few years it has been consistently held by this court that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monitory compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate" . It has been held at para 7 in the case Jagbir Singh Haryana State Agriculture marketing board and another ( 2009 15 SCC ) 327-.... " The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding date of termination particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be properly this court and instead compensation has been awarded. This court has distinguished between the daily wagers who does not hold post and permanent employee" . It has been held by their Lordship at para 8 of the judgment. In view of the aforesaid legal position andthe fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years , relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would subserve the ends of justice . In our considered view the compensation of Rs . 40,000 to each of the workman (respondent No. 2 to 14) shall meets the ends of justice" . The aforesaid case law reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 will certainly prevail upon the previous judgment of the Apex Court and also the High Court on the points that in case ofviolation of section 25 (F ) of the ID Act 1947 by the employer the remedy of the workman will not be for his reinstatement with back wages rather a lumsum of compensation according to facts of the case may be awarded . So , in view of the aforesaid case law, the case law relied upon by Mr. R.C. Pathak Learned Advocate for the second party are not applicable in the instant case .

का.आ. 2930.-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 , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटीए- 1386/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/216/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव (10) In the case in hands the status of the second party workman is of a temporary casual worker get daily rated wages and he worked as a casual worker during the period fromMay 1985 to November 1987. Though the workman completed 240days of work but in view of the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7621 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2011

Forthe first party : Shri N.K. Trivedi , Advocate

Forthe secondparty workman: Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

AWARD

S.O. 2930. In pursuancersuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGITA- 1386/2004 ) of the Central Government 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 Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-9-2011 .

[No. L-40012/216/2000- 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 29-8-2011

Reference CGITA of 1386 of 2004 New

Reference : ITC . 12/2002 ( Old)

Adispute arose between the employer in relation to Management ofGeneral Manager Telecom, Surat and their workman Shri Ram Bishun Ram Pervase Bhagat and on failure of efforts of conciliation, the conciliation officer sent failure report to the appropriate authority which followed by sending this reference for adjudication by order of the appropriate Government, the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour & Employment/ Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 , by its order No. -L-40012/216/2000- IR(DU) dated 6-3-2002, in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act1947, the terms of reference was sent for adjudication by the Industiral Tribunal , Ahmedabad . Subsequently by modified order dated 2-5-2002 the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , " Ahmedabad was withdrawn and transferred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , Surat . Lastly the record was transferred to this Tribunal by the order dated 19-10-2010 ofthe Ministry of labour & Employment, New Delhi.

The Terms of Reference as per Schedule is as Follows :

( 1 ) The General Manager, SuratTelecom Distt . , BSNL, Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar , Surat - 395003 .

(2) Sub Divisional Officer (T) Valsad, BSNL, C/o . GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar, Surat-395003 .

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Surat Distt. , Surat and its other Officers in allegedly terminating the services of the workman Shri Ram Bishun Ram Pervase Bhagat , casual labour w.e.f. 31-10-1987 is legal , proper and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter? " (3) SDE (T) , (Bulsar) , BSNL, C/o . GMTD Office, Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khandbazar, Surat.

(2) In response to the notices to the party the second partyworkman and the first party management appeared in the case and filed respective statement of claim and written statement .

(4) A.E. (Phones Ext. ) S - II , BSNL , C /o.GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar, Surat.

....... FirstParty

And their workman

Shri Ram Bishun Ram Pervase Bhagat, Krishna Kunj Society, Dindholi three Road, Post- Godadara , Tal . - Chorasi , Dist- Surat, C/ o . Secretary, Association of Railway and Post, Employees , 15 , Shashi Apartment, Opposite Aunjali Cinema , Vasna Road , Ahmedabad ( Gujarat)-380007.

Second Party

(3) The case ofthe second party workman as per his statement of claim at Ext. 7 is that he was , employed as a casual labour under the department of first party from 1-11-1986 and that since then the second party was doing all the duties as of a regular employee due to vacancy existing for the regular employment . The second party was being paid his salary / wages through vouchers as per his attendance in the muster roll . Further case is that though the second party was doing all the duties of a regular employee but he was removed from the work from 31-10-1987 without giving any rhyme and reason and without complying with the provision of Section 25 (F ) of the I. D. Act 1947, whereas the workman had completed more than240 days of work in each calendar year . Further case is that the management of first party adopted unfair labour practice and also adopted pick and chose policy by not 3708 GI/ 2011-27 [PART II SBC . 3(ii)] 7622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23, 1933

casual labour was stopped. It has been denied that the second party workman was doing all the works ofa regular employees against any vacancy rather he was being paid for the days of works basis through vouchers . There was no need for giving notices under Section 25 (F) because the secondparty was a daily rated workman not completed 240 days work and there was no continuity in service of the second party workman rather the second party workman was called upon to do daily rated work whenever arising oftemporary requirements of work and in any month the second party workman has not work for all the days rather as per requirement had worked only for 15 days in a month. The first party have not violated either the provision of Section 25 (F) , 25 ( G ) , 25 (H ) . The dispute raised at belated stage and so the reference is barred by delay and latches. On the above grounds it has been contended that there was no merit in the statement of claim of the second party workman and the reference is fit to be dismissed.

(5) In view of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken for consideration and determination in this case .

ISSUES

(1) Whether reference is maintainable?

(II) Whether the workman has got valid cause of action?

(III) Whether the reference is barred by delay and latches?

following the principle of last come first go . Further case is that the management of first party allowed to continue the work of the casual labour who were junior to him but he was removed from the work. No notice pay or in lieu of it one month pay was provided to him before taking recourse ofretrenchment under Section 25 (F) ofthe I.D Act. Further contention is that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 2342 , it had been directed to regularize those casual labourers who had completed 360 days of works all along in a year but in order to escape from the liability of absorbing the casual labourers the management of first party was purposely directing breakage of the casual labours job so that casual labourer could not achieve the fruit as per aforesaid judgment and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The second party workman tried his best to convince the officers of the management of firstparty by meeting all of them for taking him back in the service but his all efforts went in vain . On this grounds it has been further contended that the action of the managementment of the first party through its officers in removing the second party workman from his work is illegal unwarranted and unjustified and is also in violation ofthe provision ofthe Section 25 (F ), 25 (G) , 25 (H) ofthe I.D Act 1947, and the action of the first party is also against principle ofnatural justice . Through the statement of claim the secondparty has claimed for the relief of declaring the action ofthe first party in terminating/removing the second party from 31-10-1987 is illegal , unjustified and also violative of the provision of I.D. Act . 1947. Further sought for relief of his reinstatement in the job with full back wages and also for awarding cost ofRs . 5,000/-by way ofcompensation against the first party and for any other reliefto which the second party is found entitle .

(IV) Whether the second party workman has completed 240days ofwork in a calendar year during his tenure of work as a casual labourer in the department of the first party?

(V) Whether second party workman is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs as prayed for?

(VI) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of the workman Shri Ram Bishun Ram Pervase Bhagat? If not to what relief the workman is entitle to in this case?

Findings

(6) ISSUE NO. IV, V and VI

7623

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

heworkes as a casual labour but disputing that he did not completed 240 days of work. The workman had demanded production of documents of muster roll and voucher etc. for supporting his claim but the first party did not comply with only such explanation that old records are not preserved . So , in such view of the matter adverse inference has to be drawn against the first party to this extent that during the tenure of the work from 1-11-1986 to 31-10-1987 the workman Shri Ram Bishun Ram Pervase Bhagat must have completed 240 days ofwork in preceding 12months since before his disengagement from the work.

requirement of work he was called to performance . The workman in his evidence has remained firm that he completed 240 days of work in preceding calendar year, though any certificate granted by the officer of the first partyhas not been brought on the record to show the total days of work from his date of engagement from 1-11-1986 till before his alleged date of removal on 31-10-1987. However in order to support the period of his work and countingdays of his work muster roll and vouchers were demanded from the first party for production of these documents to which the tribunal order for production. The first party came up with such explanation that as per rules and regulation the muster rolls , voucher etc. are kept preserved only for 5 years and not more and so the documents demanded from the first party by the workman which is about 20 years old is not expected to be preserved by the department also considering this aspect that the dispute was raised after 17 years at much belated stage after the so called removal from the casual work. On the otherhand the management witness namely Mr. Narendra L. Chodhry AGM legal BSNL, Surat in his affidavit ąt Ext. 18has stated that the workman was not engaged from 1-11-1986 and that the concerned workman has not completed240days of work in any calendar year.Buthis such evidence is not based upon any muster roll and vouchers that the concern workman has not completed 240 days of works in a calendar year. During the cross- examination the management witness admitted that he was shown the record of 10 to 12 reference cases and that he had seenthe office file up to the 5 years before and that he has no memory regarding these files and the second party workman and he has not knowledge when the workman was working and for what period he was working. He admitted that he has not produced showing work and presence of second party workman Shri Ram Bishun Ram PervaseBhagat and the record regarding his wages . From examining the oral evidence of both sides it appears that the management witness has verbally denied the claim of the workman that he completed 240 days of work in a calendar year during his tenure ofwork . But such denial as to the claim of the workman is not substantiated by any paper of the department. The workman discharged his initial onus that he had completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months of the year and that he was engage for work on 1-11-1986 and worked up to 30-10-1987. Thus first party has only met the assertion of the workman by mere denial and not supported by any documentary evidence. Whereas the subsequent onus to discredit the claimoftheworkman that he did not completed more than 240 days ofwork in any calendar year had shifted upon the first party to which the first party failed to discharge . By mere such explanation that more than 5 years old records viz.muster roll and vouchers etc. are not preserved as per rules and regulation . It has been also to be borne - in-mind thatthe first party is not denying that the workman had not work for anyperiod in the department rather admitting that

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

page 674 , State of UP V/ s . Rajendra Singh Butola and another 2000(84 ) FLR page 869 , Sharmishtha Dube V/ s . City Board Itava 1991 ( 1 ) S CALE page 655, Narottam Chopra V/s . Labour Court 1989 Suppl. (2) Supreme Court Cases page 97 , Vikramaditya Pande V/s . Industrial Tribunal 2001 ( 1) LLJ page 701 , Manorama V/s State of Bihar 1995 Supreme Court Cases (L & S 193 ) , Mohanbhai Ramjibhai V/s . Surendranagar Dist . Panchayat 2005 (3) LLJ page 1070 , Haryana Roadways V/s. Rudhansingh 2005 LLJ 2003 (3 ) page4, State ofPunjab V/s . Babitakumari 2006 SCC (L & S) 396, S.M. Nilangakar V /s Telecom Department 2003 ( 3 ) SCALC page 533 , Surat Mahila Nagrik Bank V/ s. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi 2001 ( 1 ) LLR page 505 , Executive Engineer CPWT Indore V/s . Madhukar Pursottam 2002 SCC L& S 1087 , Kolkatta Telephone V/s . Rintu Bagji 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 951 , Ramesh Kumar V/s . State of Haryana 2010 (1) SCC 543 , Ritu Marbles V/s . Prabhakant Shukla 2010 (2) SCC 17 and Director Fisheries Terminal Division V/s B.M. Chavda 2010 ( 1 ) SC 731. The Learned Counsel for the second party has also filed same copies of award delivered by the Industrial Tribunal , Labour Courts to support that on violation of the provision of section 25 (F ) by the management and the workman has completed 240 days of work, the workman has been found entitled for reinstatement with back wages .

year, concern employee becomes entitled for regularisation ofhisservice and/ or permanent status . Under the Industrial Dispute Act a concept of 240 days was introduced as to so fasten statutory liability upon employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner as specified in section 25 ( F) of the ID Act, 1947, before he retrenched from service and not for any other purpose . In the event a violation ofthe said provision takes place , the termination ofservice of the employee may be found to be illegal but only on that account , his service cannot be directed to be regularised.... " In the case Law of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic ) Bhopal V /s . Santosh Kumar Seal (2010 GLHEL SC) 48285 their Lordship ofthe Hon'ble Apex court have examined on the question whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to respondent No. 1 to 14 is justified . In the given case law the facts was that the workman had worked for more than 240 davs in a year formerely 3 years and that their service were retrenchedby an order dated February 10, 1987 without following Mandatory provision ofsection 25 (F) ofthe ID Act, 1947, the Tribunal by its award directed the appellant to reinstate the workman and pay them back wages from date of termination until date of reinstatement within 3 months of the publication of the award and upon appellant failure to comply with the award within stipulated period, it was directed that interest @ 8 % per arınum shall be payable . The appellant (management ) challenged the said order before the High Court by filing writ petition it was dismissed. Then the appellant filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the judgment by April 26, 2010. After examining all this aspects it has been held vide para 6 " in the last few years it has been consistently held by this court that the reliefby way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monitory compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate ". It has beenheld at para 7 in the case Jagbir Singh Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another (200915 SCC ) 327 ... "The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case whether the workman has corripleted 240 days of work in a year preceding date of term ination particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this court and instead compensation has been awarded. This court has distinguished between the daily wagers who does not hold post and permanent employee ". It has been held by their Lordship at para 8 of the judgment . " In view ofthe aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years , relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would subserve the ends ofjustice. In our considered view the compensation of Rs . 40,000 to each of the workman ( respondent No. 2 to 14) shall meets the ends ofjustice ". The aforesaid (9) On the other hand Mr, N.K. Trivedi , the Learned Counsel appearing for the first party has relied upon authority in support of his such arguments that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement with back wages because he was not regularly appointed, no appointment letter was issued, no temporary status was granted, rather the second party workman was working merely as a casual worker/daily rated worker on purely temporary basis and was only called for work in the event of requirement. He has relied upon the case law of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V /s . Umadevi and others 2006 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S ) 753 , BSNLV/s . Tejasingh CivilAppeal No. , 292/2009 Supreme Court , Gangadhar Pillai V/ s . Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 , State of Maharashtra V/ s . Datatre Digambar Birajdar 2009 LLR 1132 Supreme Court , Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another V/ s . S.C. Sharma 2005 LLR Supreme Court Cases . The Learned Counsel for the fist party has also relied upon a Division Bench case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph ( Traffic ) Bhopal V/ s . Santosh Kumar Seal (2010 GLHEL SC ) 48285- Equivalent Citation 2010 JX (SC 219 ) . It has been held the case law ofGangadhar Pillai V/s . Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 SC . " In the case an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee on that he had been employed for a number of years , the same by itselfmay not be the conclusion that such appointment had been made withthe object of depriving him of the status and privilege of the permanent employee ". " However, it is not the law thaton completion of 240 days or continuous service in a

1 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7625

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

नई दिल्ली. 23 सितम्बर, 2011

का.आ. 2931.-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 केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संख्या सीजीआईटीए -1387/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

caselaw reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 will certainly prevail upon the previous judgment of the Apex Court and also the High Court on the points that in case of violation of section 25 ( F) of the ID Act , 1947by the employer the remedy of the workman will not be for his reinstatement with back wages rather a lumsum of compensation according to facts of the case may be awarded . So , in view of the aforesaid case law, the case law relied upon by Mr. R.C. Pathak Learned Advocate for the second party are not applicable in the instant case .

[सं. एल -40012/ 217/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2011

S.O. 2931. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award(Ref. No. CGITA- 1387/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23-09-2011 .

[No. L-40012/217/2000- IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD (10) In the case in hands the status of the second party workman is of a temporary casual worker get daily rated wagesges and he worked as a casual worker during the period from November , 1986 to October, 1987. Though the workman completed 240. days of work but in view of the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic Bhopal V/sSantosh Kumar Seal ( supra) the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and back wages as argued by Shri R.C. Pathak , Learned Advocate for the second party workman. But since the action of the first partymanagement in terminating/ removing by an oral order the service of the workman Shri Ram Bishun Ram Pervase Bhagat is held not justified and legal because of non compliance of provision of section 25 ( F) of the ID Act , 1947, so second party workman is found entitled for a lurrısum compensation . In this case considering tenure or work during intervening period of about 2 years in the department of management of first party as a daily rated worker, an amount of compensation of Rs . 10,000 will meet ends of justice in this case . Issue Nos . IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above .

Present: Binay Kumar Sinha , Presiding Officer CGIT-cum Labour Court , Ahmedabad, Dated 29-8-2011

(11) ISSUE No. III

Reference : GCITA of 1387 of 2004 New Reference : ITC . 13/2002 (Old

(1) TheGeneral Manager , SuratTelecom Distt. , BSNL , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat - 395003 .

(2) SubDivisional Officer ( T) Valsad, BSNL, C/o . GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat-395003.

Though there is a delay caused in referring this dispute for adjudication considering that the workman was removed from casual works from 31-10-1987, but suchdelay cannot be said to be latches on part of the second party workman because it is the case of the second party workman, thathe approached the officers of the first party for taking hirn in job. More so, delay was caused in referring the dispute by the appropriate government after direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in its order of writ petition No. 4556/2001 . It is also incorporated in the order ofthe appropriate government referring the dispute. So , this issue is , therefore answered in negative .

( 12) ISSUE NO . I & II

The workman has got valid cause of action and the reference is maintainable .

(3) SDE (T) , ( Bulsar ) , BSNL, C/o . GMTD Office, Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar, Surat.

This reference is allowed in part . The first party is directed to payRs . 10,000 to the workman Shri Ram Bishun Ram P'ervase Bhagat by way of compensation within 3 months of this award. Failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum .

(4) A.E. (Phones Ext . ) S - II , BSNL , C/ o .GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat .

..... First Party BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

7626

And theirworkman

Shri Shivperson Pal Nandlal Pal ,

Krishna Kunj Society, Dindholi three Road,

Post-Godadara, Tal . - Chorasi ,

Dist- Surat C / o . Secretary, Association of Railway and Post ,

Employees , 15 , Shashi Apartment,

Opposite Aunjali Cinema ,Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) -380007 Second Party

For the first party : Shri N.K. Trivedi , Advocate

For the second party workman: Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

AWARD

Adispute arose between the employer in relation to Management ofGeneral Manager Telecom , Surat and their workman Shri Shivperson Pal Nandlal Pal and on failure of efforts of conciliation , the conciliation officer sent failure report to the appropriate authority which followed by sending this reference for adjudication by order of the appropriate Government , the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour & Employment/ Shrarn Shakti Bhavan , Rafi Marg New Delhi - 110001 , by its Order No. L - 40012/217 /2000- IR (DU) dated 6-3-2002 , in exercise of power conferred by clause (d ) of sub section ( 1 ) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 , the terms of reference was sent for adjudication by the Industiral Tribunal , Ahmedabad . Subsequently by modified order dated 1-05-2002 the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad was withdrawn and transferred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Surat . Lastly the record was transferred to this Tribunal by the order dated 19-10-2010 of the Ministry ofLabour & Employment , New Delhi .

The Terms of Reference as per Schedule is as Follows

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Surat Distt . , Surat and its other Officers in allegedly terminating the services of the workman Shri Shivperson Pal Nandlal Pal , casual labour w.e. f. 31-10-1987 is legal , proper and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter ? "

through vouchers as per his attendance in the muster roll. Further case is that though the second party was doing all the duties of a regular employee but he was removed from the work from 31-10-1987without giving any rhyme and reason and without complying with the provision of section 25 ( F) of the ID Act 1947, whereas the workman had completed more than 240 days ofwork in each calendar year. Further case is that the management of first party adopted unfair labour practice and also adopted pick and chose policy by not following the principle of last come first go. Further case is that the management of first party allowed to continue the work of the casual labour who were junior to him but he was removed from the work. No notice pay or in lieu of it one month pay was provided to him before taking recourse of retrenchment under section 25 (F ) ofthe IDAct . Further contention is that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987. SC 2342, it had been directed to regularize those casual labourers who had completed 360 days of works all along in a year but in order to escape from the liability ofabsorbing the casual labourers the management of first party was purposely directing breakage of the casual labours job so that casual labourer could not achieve the fruit as per aforesaid judgment and order ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court. The second party workman tried his best to convince the officers of the management of first party by meeting all ofthem for taking him back in the service but his all efforts went in vain . On this grounds it has been further contended that the action of the management ofthe first partythrough its officers in removing the second partyworkmanfrom his work is illegal unwarranted and unjustified and is also in violation of the provision ofthe Section 25 (F ) , 25 (G) , 25 (H) ofthe IDAct 1947, and the action of the first party is also against principle of natural justice . Through the statement of claim the second party has claimed for the reliefofdeclaring the action ofthe first party in terminating/removing the second party from 31-10-1987 is illegal, unjustified and also violative of theprovision of ID Act 1947. Further sought for relief ofhis reinstatement in the job with full backwages and also for awarding cost of Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation against the first party and for any other reliefto which the second party is found entitle .

(2) In response to the notices to the party the second party workman and the first party management appeared in the case and filed respective statement ofclaim and written statement .

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

7627

Shivperson Pal Nandlal Pal ? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitle to in this case ?

Findings

(6) ISSUE NO . IV, V and VI

strench for laying the cable and the said works are oftemporary nature . The second party workman was not appointed as per rules . No any applications were invited by the first party. No any applications was tenderedbythe workman to the first party for their engagement and second party workman was not send forany medical examination as they were not engaged as a regular employees . Thus the engagement ofthe second party with the first party was not according to the rules of appointment. The second party was not getting any benefits apart from wages as they were engaged on daily rated by the first party on the where and when requirement basis . Further stand taken is that the second party workman did not completed 240 days of work in any calendar years , therewas no work of daily rated workers so the works of casual labour was stopped. It has been denied that the second party workman was doing all the works ofa regular employees against any vacancy rather he was being paid for the days of works basis through vouchers . There was no need for giving notices under section 25 (F) because the second partywas a daily rated workman not completed 240 days work andthere was no continuity in service of the second party workman rather the second party workman was called upon todo daily rated work whenever arising of temporary requirements of work and in any month the second party workman has not work for all the days rather as per requirement had worked only for 15 days in a month . The first partyhave not violated either the provision ofSection 25 (F ) , 25 (G) , 25 (H) . The dispute raised at belated stage and so the reference is barred by delay and latches . On the above grounds it has been contended that there was no merit in the statement of claim of the second party workman and the reference is fitto be dismissed.

(5) In view of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken for consideration and determination inthis case.

ISSUES

(1) Whether 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 240days ofwork in a calendar year during his tenure ofwork as a casual labourer in the department ofthe firstparty?

(V) Whether second party workman is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs asprayed for?

(VI) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of the workman Shri

These issues are taken up together for discussion and consideration . The second party workman as also the first party management of BSNL have adduced oral evidence to support their respective case . The workman in hisoral evidence at Ext . 15 during cross - examination stated that he was not given any appointment letter for the job rather he was engaged as a daily wager and also admitted that during the engagement of his work no any order for regularisation was made . He also admitted that as per requirement of work he was called to performance . The workman in his evidence has remained firm that he completed 240 days of work in preceding calendar year , though any certificate granted by the officer of the first party has not been brought on the record to show the total days of work from his date of engagement from 01-11-1986 till before his alleged date of removal on 31-10-1987 . However in order to support the period of his work and counting days of his work muster roll and vouchers were demanded from the first part for production of these documents to which the tribunal order for production . The first party came up with such explanation that as per rules and regulation the muster rolls , voucher etc. are kept preserved only for 5 years and not more and so the documents demanded from the first party by the workman which is about 20 years old is not expected to be preserved by the department also considering this aspect that the dispute was raised after 17 years at much belated stage after the so called removal from the casual work . On the other hand the management witness namely Mr. Narendra L. Chodhry AGM legal BSNL , Surat in his affidavit at Ext . 19 has stated that the workman was not engaged from 1-11-1986 and that the concerned workman has not completed 240days of work in any calendar year . But his such evidence is not based upon any muster roll and vouchers that the concern workman has not completed 240 days of works in a calendar year . During the cross- examination the management witness admitted that he was shown the record of 10 to 12 reference cases and that he had seenthe office file up to the 5 years before and that he has no memory regarding these files and the second party workman and he has not knowledge when the workman was working and for what period he was working . He admitted that he has not produced showing work and presence of second party workman Shri Shivperson Pal Nandlal Pal and the record regarding his wages . From examining the oral evidence of both sides it appears that the management witness has verbally denied the claim of the workman that he completed 240 days of work in a calendar year during his tenure ofwork . But such denial as to the claim of the workman is not substantiated by any [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 7628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15, 2011 /ASVINA 23 , 1933

thatthe second party workman was working in temporary capacity as a daily rated worker on casual basis as per requirement of the department of the first party and that the second party workman had not been granted status of temporary staff to the department of the first party.

paper of the department . The workman discharged his initial onus that he had completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months of the year and that he was engaged for work on 1-11-1986 and worked up to 30-10-1987 . Thus first party has only met the assertion of the workman by mere denial and not supported by any documentary evidence. Whereas the subsequent onus to discredit the claim oftheworkman that he did not completed morethan 240days of work in any calendar year had shifted upon the first partyto which the first party failed to discharge . By mere such explanation that more than 5 years old records viz muster roll and vouchers etc. are not preserved as per rules and regulation. It has been also to be bome- in mind that the first party is not denying that the workman had not work for any period in the department rather admitting that he workes as a casual labour but disputing that he did not completed 240days of work. The workman had demanded production of documents of muster roll and voucher etc. for supporting his claim but the first party did not comply with only such explanation that old records are not preserved. So , in such view ofthe matter adverse inference has to be drawn against the first party to this extent that duringthe tenure of the work from 1-11-1986 to 31-10-1987 the workman Shri Shivperson Pal Nandlal Pal must have completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months since before his disengagement from the work .

(8) The Learned Counsel for the second party argued thatsince the second party workman had completed 240 days ofthe work in a calendar year and since the first party hasviolated the provision of the section 25 (F ) in not giving retrenchment notice or notice pay so , the workman is entitled for his reinstatement to the works of casual worker with full back wages from the date of his alleged removal from 31-10-1987 till his reinstatement. In support of his such argument several case laws have been cited which are reported in M.C.D V/s Pravin Kumar Jain 1958 (2) LLJ page 674, State of UP V/ s Rajendra Singh Butola and another 2000 ( 84 ) FLR page 869 , Sharmishtha Dube V/ s CityBoard Itava 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE page 655 , Narottam Chopra V/s Labour Court 1989 SUPPI . (2 ) Supreme Court Cases page 97 , Vikramaditya Pande V/ s Industrial Tribunal 2001 (1 ) LLJ page 701 , Manorama V/ s State of Bihar 1995 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S 193 ) , Mohanbhai Ramjibhai V/s Surendranagar Dist . Panchayat 2005 (3) LLJ page 1070, Harayana Roadways V/ s Rudhansingh 2005 LLJ 2003 ( 3 ) page4, State ofPunjab V/ s Babitakumari 2006 SCC ( L & S ) 396, S.M. Nilangakar V/ s Telecom Department 2003 (3 ) SCALC page 533 , Surat Mahila Nagrik Bank V/s Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi 2001 ( 1 ) LLR page 505 , Executive Engineer CPWT Indor V/s Madhukar Pursottam 2002 SCC L& S 1087 , Kolkatta Telephone V/ s Rintu Bagji 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 951 , Ramesh Kumar V/s State of Harayana 2010 (1) SCC 543 , Ritu Marbles V/s Prabhakant Shukla 2010 (2) SCC 17 and Director Fisheries Terminal Division V/ s B.M. Chavda 2010 ( 1 ) SC 731. The learned Counsel for the second party has also filed same copies of award delivered by the Industrial Tribunal , Labour Courts to support that on violation of the provision of section 25 ( F ) by the management and the workman has completed 240 days of work , the workman has been found entitled for reinstatement with back wages .

(9) On the other hand Mr. N.K. Trivedi , the Learned Counsel appearing for the first party has relied upon authority in support of his such arguments that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement with back wages because he was not regularly appointed, no appointment letter was issued, no temporary status was granted, rather the second party workman was working merely as a casual worker daily rated worker on purely temporary basis and was only called for work in the event of requirement . He has relied upon the case law of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V /s Umadevi and others 2006Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 753 , BSNL V/ s Tejasingh CivilAppeal No. 292/2009 Supreme Court , Gangadhar Pillai V/s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590, State of Maharashtra V/s Datatre Digambar Birajdar 2009 LLR 1132 Supreme (7) From the evidence discussed above it is proved that the second party workman during his tenure ofwork has completed 240 days of work in preceding calendar year as a casual labour /daily rated worker in the department ofthe first party. It is also proved that the status of the second party workman was of casual worker/daily rated worker getting employment excluding the holidays and the Sundays and getting his wages according to days of work in a month. It is also proved that the second party workman had not completed 3 years of service as a casual worker during his span period from 1-11-1986 to 30-10-1987 , it is also proved no temporary status was granted tothe workman by any order ofthe department or the first party. So , from the evidence the status of the second party workman is only established as a casual labourer/daily rated worker who completed 240 days of work in a calendar year. So , considering such position it was the duty ofthe management of the first party intending to retrench the second party workman for giving retrenchment notice by complying with provision of Section 25 ( F) of I.D Act by giving one month notice or to pay one month pay in lieu of notice . Certainly the first party has not complied with the provision and thus has violated the provision of the Section 25 (F ) of the ID Act . Even it is proved that the first party had violated the provision ofsection 25 ( F) I.D Act. It does not mean ofthe ipso facto that the second party workman will be entitled for his reinstatement as a casual labour with . back wages or part of back wages . Because of its admitted position [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7629 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15, 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

in a case whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding date of termination particularly, dailywagers has not been found to be proper by this court and instead compensation has been awarded. This court has distinguished between the daily wagers who does not hold post and permanent employee" . It has been held by their Lordship at para 8 of the judgment. " In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years , relief of reinstatement andback wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would subserve the ends ofjustice. In our considered view the compensation of Rs . 40,000 to each of the workman (respondent No.2 to 14) shall meets the ends of justice" . The aforesaid case law reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 will certainly prevail upon the previous judgment of the Apex Court and also the High Court on the points that in case of violation of section 25 (F) ofthe ID Act 1947 by the employer the remedy ofthe workman will not be for his reinstatement with back wages rather a lumsum of compensation according to facts of the case may be awarded. So , in view of the aforesaid case law, the case law relied upon by Mr. R.C. Pathak Learned Advocate for the second party are not applicable in the instant case .

(10) In the case in hands the status of the second party workman is of a temporary casual worker get daily rated wages and he worked as a casual worker during the period from November 1986 to October 1987. Though the workman completed 240 days of work but in view of the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal (supra) the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and back wages as argued by Shri R.C. Pathak, Learned Advocate for the second party workman.But since the action ofthe first party management interminating/removing by an oral order the service of the workman Shri Shivperson Pal Nandlal Pal is held not justified and legal because ofnon compliance ofprovision of section 25 (F) of the I.D Act 1947 , so second party workman is found entitled for a lumsum compensation. In this case considering tenure or work during intervening period of about 2 years in the department of management of first party as a daily rated worker , an amount of compensation ofRs . 10.000 will meet ends ofjustice in this case . Issue No. IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above .

( 11) ISSUE No. III

Court, Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another V/ s S.C. Sharma 2005 LLR Supreme Court Cases . The Learned Counsel for the first party has also relied upon a Division Bench case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal 2010 GLHEL- SC 48285 - Equivalent Citation 2010 JX (SC 219) . It has been held the case law of Gangadhar Pillei V/ s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 SC "In the case an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee on that he had been employed for a number of years , the same by itself may not be the conclusion that such appointment had been made with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege ofthe permanent employee . "However it is not the law that on completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year , concern employee becomes entitled for regularisation of hisservice and/or permanent status . Under the Industrial Dispute Act a concept of 240 days was introduced as to so fasten statutory liability upon employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner as specified insection 25 (F) ofthe ID Act 1947 , before he retrenched from service and not for any other purpose . In the event a violation of the said provision takes place , the termination of service of the employee may be found to be illegal but only on that account , his service cannot be directed to be regularised .. " In the case law of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic ) Bhopal V/s Santosh Kumar Seal (2010 GLHEL SC) 48285 their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court have examined on the question whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to respondent No.1 to 14 is justified. In the given case law the facts was that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year for merely 3 years and that their service were retrenched by an order dated February 10 , 1987 without following Mandatory provision of Section 25 (F) of the ID Act 1947, the Tribunal by its award directed the appellant to reinstate the workman and pay them back wages from date of termination until date of reinstatement within 3 month of the publication of the award and upon appellant failure to comply with the award within stipulated period, it was directed that interest @ 8% per annum shall be payable. The appellant (management) challenged the said order before the High Court by filing writ petition it was dismissed. Then the appellant filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the judgment by April 26, 2010. After examining all this aspects it has been held vide para 6 " in the last few years it has been consistently held by this court that the reliefby way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monitory compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate" . It has been held at para 7 in the case Jagbirsingh Haryana State Agriculture marketing board and another ( 200915 SCC) 327 -... " The award of reinstatement with full back wages

7630

The General Manager , SuratTelecom Distt . , BSNL, Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat-395003. (1)

Sub Divisional Officer (T) (2)

for taking him in job. More so, delay was caused in referring the dispute bythe appropriate Government after direction ofthe Hon'bleHigh Court ofGujarat in its order of writ opetition No. 4556/2001 . It is also incorporated in the order of the appropriate government referring the dispute . So , this issue is , therefore answered in negative .

(12) ISSUE Nos. I and II

The workman has got valid cause ofaction and the reference is maintainable .

Valsad, BSNL, C/o GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat-395003.

This reference is allowed in part . The first party is directedtopayRs . 10,000 to the workman Shri Shivperson PalNandlal Pal by way of compensation within 3 months ofthis award. Failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9 % per annum.

(3) SDE (T) , (Bulsar) , BSNL, C/o GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road , Khand Bazar, Surat.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर , 2011

FirstParty

(4) A.E. (Phones Ext. ) S- II , BSNL , C /o GMTD Office , Narayan Chambers , Varcha Road, Khand Bazar, Surat.

And theirworkman

का.आ. 2932.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, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संख्या सीजीआईटीए-1388 /2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-9-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012 /222/2000- आई आर (डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

Second Party

ShriHargovindram Shyamlal Ram, Astiknagar, B /h. Priyanka Town , Post-Godadara , Tal -Chorasi , Dist- Surat, C/o . Secretary, Association of Railway and Post , Employees, 15 , Shashi Apartment, Opposite Aunjali Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380007

NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2011

Forthe first party: Shri N.K. Trivedi ,Advocate

Forthesecondparty workman:- Shri R.C. Pathak, Advocate

AWARD 8.0.2932.In pursuance of Section 17 of the ladustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGITA- 1388/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Reus Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofDepartment of Telecom and their workman/whichwas received by the Central Government x239-2011 .

[No. L-40012/222/2000- IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

ERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL LOUM- LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

DinayKumar Sinha,

PresidingOfficer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 29-8-2011

Reference: CGITA of 1388 of2004

Adispute arose between the employer in relationto Management ofGeneral Manager Telecom, Surat and their workman Sari Hargovindram Shyamlal Ram and on failure ofefforts ofconciliation, the conciliation officer sent failure report to the appropriate authority which followed by sending this reference for adjudication by order of the appropriateGovernment, the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour& Employment Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg NewDelhi - 110001 , by its order No. L- 40012/222/ 2000- IR (DU) dated 6-3-2002 , in exercise of power conferred by clause(d) ofsub- section (I ) of section 10 of the Industrial DisputeAct 1947; the terms of reference was sent for adjudication by: the Industiral Tribunal , Ahmedabad. Subsequently by modified order dated 2-5-2002 the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad was withdrawn and transferred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer ; Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Surat. Lastly the record was transferred NewReference : ITC 14/2002 (OLD) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

763 to this Tribunal by the order dated 19-10-2010 of the Ministry ofLabour and Employment, New Delhi .

The Terms of Reference as per Schedule is as Follows :

Act, 1947 , and the action of the first partyin also against principleofnatural justice. Through the statement ofclaim.or the second partyhas claimed for the relief of deeleningaach action ofthe first party in terminating/ romoving the second partyfrom31-10-1987 is illegal, unjustified and also aiolati oftheprovision of I.D. Act, 1947.Further sought for relieft ofhis reinstatement in the job with full backwages and also for awarding cost ofRs. 5,000 by way ofcompensation against the first party and for any otherrelio to which the second party is found entitle.

"Whether the action of the management ofGeneral Manager, Telecom , Surat Distt . , Surat and its other Officers in allegedly terminating the services ofthe workman Shri Hargovindram Shyamlal Ram, casual labour w.e.f. 31-10-1987 is legal , proper and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary inthe matter?"

(2) In response to the notices to the party the second party workman and the first party management appeared in the case and filed respective statement of claim and writtenstatement .

(4) The first parties through its written statement at Ext. 10 denying all the allegation of the second party workman as perhis statement ofclaim and pleading inter- aliathat the first party is a Central Government undertaking engaged in the service of telecommunication and seadoring the service through out the nation and the first party engaged the casual/daily rated workman for the work like digging the strenoh for laying the cable and the said works are of temporary nature . The second party workman was not appointed as per rules. No any applications were invited by the first party. Nowany applications was tendered by the workman to the first party for their engagement and second party workman was not send for any medical examination as they were not engaged as a regular employees. Thus the engagement of the second party with the first party was not according to the rules ofappointment. The second party was not getting any benefits apart from wages as sey were engaged on daily ratedby the first party on the whese and when requirement: basis. Further stand taken is that the second party workman did not completed 240 days of work in anys calendar years , there was no work of daily rated workam so the works of casual labour was stopped. It has boon denied that the second party workman was doing all the works of a regular employees against any vacancy rather he was being paid for the days of works basis through vouchers. There was no need for giving notices under section 25 ( F) because the second party was a daily rated workman not completed 240 days worke there was no continuityinservice ofthe second party workman rather the second party workman was called upon to do daily rated work whenever arising of temporary requirements ofwork and in any month the second party workmanhas not work for all the days rather as per requirement had worked only for 15 days in a month . The first party have notviolated either the provision of section 25 ( F) , 25 (G), 25 (H) . The dispute raised at belated stage and so the reference is barred by delay and latches . On the above grounds it has been contended that there was no merit: in the statement of claim of the second party workman and the reference is fit to be dismissed.....

(5) In view of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken for consideration and determination in this case .

(3) The case of the second party workman as per his statement of claim at Ext. 7 is that he was employed as a casual labour under the department of first party from 1-4-1986 and that since then the second party was doing all the duties as of a regular employee due to vacancy existing for the regular employment. The second party was being paid his salary/ wages through vouchers as per his attendance in the muster roll . Further case is that though the second party was doing all the duties of a regular employee but he was removed from the work from 31-10-1987 without giving any rhyme and reason and without complying with the provision of section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act, 1947 , whereas the workman had completed more than 240 days of work in each calendar year. Further case is that the management of first party adopted unfair labour practice and also adopted pick and chose policy by not following the principle of last come first go . Further case is that the management of first party allowed to continue the work of the casual labour who were junior to himbuthewas removed from the work. No notice pay or in lieu of it one month pay was provided to him before taking recourse of retrenchment under section 25 ( F) of the I.D. Act. Further contention is that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 2342 , it had been directed to regularize those casual labourers who had completed 360 days of works all along in a year but in order to escape from the liability of absorbing the casual labourers the management of first party was purposely directingbreakage of the casual labours job so that casual labourer could not achieve the fruit as per aforesaid judgment and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The second partyworkman tried his best to convince the officers ofthe management of first party by meeting all of them for taking him back in the service but his all efforts went in vain . On thisgrounds it has been further contended that the action ofthe management of the first party through its officers in removing the second party workman from his work is illegal unwarranted and unjustified and is also in violation of the provision of the section 25 ( F) , 25 (G) , 25 (H) of the I.D.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 7632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23, 1933

ISSUES

(1) Whether 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 240days of work in a calendar year duringhis tenure of work as a casual labourer inthe department of the first party?

(V) Whether second party workman is entitle for reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs asprayed for?

(VI) Whether the management of first party was justified in terminating the service of the workman Shri Hargovindram Shyamlal Ram? If not to what relief the workman is entitle to in this case?

Findings

(6) ISSUE NO . IV, V and VI

thatthe concerned workman has not completed 240 days ofwork in any calendar year. But his such evidence is not based upon any muster roll and vouchers that the concern workmanhas not completed 240 days of works in a calendar year. During the cross - examination the management witness admitted that he was shown the record of 10 to 12 reference cases and that he had seen the office file up to the 5 years before and that he has no memory regarding these files and the second party workman and he has no knowledge when the workman was working and for what period he was working . He admitted that he has not produced showing work and presence of second party workman Hargovindram Shyamlal Ram and the record regarding his wages . From examining the oral evidence of both sides it appears that the management witness has verballydenied the claim ofthe workman that he completed 240 days of work in a calendar year during his tenure of work. But such denial as to the claim of the workman is not substantiated by any paper of the department. The workman discharged his initial onus that he had completed 240 days ofwork in preceding 12 months of the year and that he was engaged for work on 1-4-1986 and worked up to 30-10-1987 . Thus first party has only met the assertion ofthe workman by mere denial and not supported by any documentary evidence . Whereas the subsequent onus to discredit the claim of the workman that he did not completedmore than 240 days of work in any calendar year had shifted upon the first party to which the first party failed to discharge . By mere such explanation that more than 5 years old records viz . , muster roll and vouchers etc. are not preserved as per rules and regulation. It has been also to be borne - in - mind that the first party is not denying that the workman had not work for any period in the department rather admitting that he works as a casual labour but disputing that he did not completed 240 days of work . The workman had demanded production of documents of muster roll and voucher etc. for supporting his claim but the first party did not comply with only such explanation that old records are not preserved. So , in such view of the matter adverse inference has to be drawn against the first party to this extent that during the tenure of the work from 1-4-1986 to 31-10-1987 the workman Hargovindram Shyamlal Ram must have completed 240 days of work in preceding 12 months since before his disengagement from the work .

7633

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

on violation of the provision of Section 25 (F) by the management and the workman has completed 240 days of work , the workman has been found entitled for reinstatement with back wages .

worker during his span period from 1-4-1986 to 31-10-1987, it is also proved no temporary status was granted to the workman by any order ofthe department of the firstparty. So , from the evidence the status of the second party workman is only established as a casual labourer/daily rated worker who completed 240 days ofwork in a calendar year. So , considering such position it was the duty of the management of the first party intending to retrench the second party workman for giving retrenchment notice by complying with provision of section 25 (F ) of ID Act by giving one month notice or to pay one month pay in lieu of notice . Certainly the first party has not complied with the provision and thus has violated the provision of the section 25 ( F) of the ID Act . Even it is proved that the first partyhad violated the provision of section 25 (F) ID Act . It does not mean Ipso facto that the second party workman will be entitled for his reinstatement as a casual labour with back wages or part of back wages . Because of its admitted position that the second party workman was working in temporary capacity as a daily rated worker on casual basis as per requirement of the department of the first party and that the second party workman had not beengranted status of temporary staff to the department ofthe firstparty.

(8) The Learned Counsel for the second party argued that since the second party workman had completed 240 days ofthe work in a calendar year and since the first party has violated the provision ofthe section 25 (F) in not giving retrenchment notice or notice pay so , the workman is entitled for his reinstatement to the works of casual worker with full back wages from the date of his allege removal from 31-10-1987 till his reinstatement . In support of his such argument several case laws have been cited which are reported in M.C.D V/s Pravin Kumar Jain 1958 (2 ) LLJ page 674 , State of UP V/ s Rajendra Singh Butola and another 2000(84 ) FLR page 869 , Sharmishtha Dube V /s City Board Itava 1991 ( 1 ) SCALE page 655 , Narottam Chopra V/ s Labour Court 1989 SUPPI . (2) Supreme Court Cases page 97 , Vikramaditya Pande V/s Industrial Tribunal 2001(1 ) LLJ page 701 , Manorama V/s State of Bihar 1995 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S 193 ) , Mohanbhai Ramjibhai V/ s Surendranagar Dist . Panchayat 2005 (3 ) LLJ page 1070, Haryana Roadways V/ s Rudhansingh 2005 LLJ 2003 (3 ) page 4, State ofPunjab V/ s Babitakumari 2006 SCC ( L & S) 396, S.M. Nilangakar V/ s Telecom Department 2003 ( 3 ) SCALC page 533, Surat Mahila Nagrik Bank V/s Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi 2001 ( 1 ) LLR page 505 , Executive Engineer CPWT Indor V/ s Madhukar Pursottam 2002 SCC L & S 1087 , Kolkatta Telephone V/s Rintu Bagji 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ page 951 , Ramesh Kumar V/ s State ofHaryana 2010 (1 ) SCC 543 , Ritu Marbles V/ s Prabhakant Shukla 2010 (2) SCC 17 and Director Fisheries Terminal Division V/ s B.M. Chavda 2010 ( 1 ) SC 731. The Learned Counsel for the second party has also filed same copies of award delivered by the Industrial Tribunal , Labour Courts to support that

(9) On the other hand Mr. N.K. Trivedi , the Learned Counsel appearing for the first party has relied upon authority in support of his such arguments that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement with back wages because he was not regularly appointed , no appointment letter was issued, no temporary status was granted , rather the second party workman was working merely as a casual worker/ daily rated worker on purely temporary basis and was only called for work in the event of requirement . He has relied upon the case law ofSecretary, State of Karnataka and others V/ s Umadevi and others 2006 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S ) 753 , BSNL V/s Tejasingh CivilAppeal No. 292/2009 Supreme Court , Gangadhar Pillai V/ s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 , State of Maharashtra V/s Datatre Digambar Birajdar 2009 LLR 1132 Supreme Court , Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and another V/s S.C. Sharma 2005 LLR Supreme Court Cases . The Learned Counsel for the first party has also relied upon a Division Bench case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSenior Superintendent Telegraph ( Traffic) Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal 2010 GLHEL- SC 48285-Equivalent Citation 2010 JX (SC 219) . It has been held the case law of Gangadhar Pillai V/ s Siemens Ltd. 2007 LAB IC 590 SC " In the case an employee has been engaged as a casual or temporary employee on that he had been employed for a number of years , the same by itself may not be the conclusion that such appointment had been made with the object of depriving him of the status and privilege of the permanent employee " . "However it is not the law that oncompletionof240 days ofcontinuous service in a year, concern employee becomes entitled for regularisation of hisservice and/ or permanent status . Under the Industrial DisputeAct a concept of240 days was introduced as to so fasten statutory liability upon employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner as specified insection 25 ( F) of the I.DAct , 1947, before the retrenched from service and not for any other purpose . In the event a violation of the said provision takes place, the termination of service of the employee may be found to be illegal but only on that account , his service cannot be directed to be regularised ... " In the case law of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal (2010 GLHEL SC) 48285 their Lordship of the Hon ' bleApex Court have examined on the question whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to respondent No. 1 to 14 is justified . In the given case law the facts was that theworkman had worked for more than 240 days in a year formerely 3 years and that their service were retrenched by an order dated February, 10 , 1987 without following Mandatory provision of Section 25 ( F) of the I.D Act . 1947, the Tribunal by its award directed the appellant to 7634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 15 , 2011 / ASVINA 23 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

workman. But since the action of the first party management in terminating/ removing by an oral order the service ofthe workman Hargovindram Shyamlal Ram is held notjustified and legal because of non compliance of provision of Section 25 (F) ofthe ID Act, 1947, so second party workman is found entitled for a lumsum compensation. In this case considering tenure or work during intervening period of about 2 years in the department of management of first party as a daily rated worker, an amount of compensation ofRs . 10,000 will meet ends ofjustice in this case. Issue No. IV, V, VI are accordingly answered as per above.

( 11 ) ISSUE No. III

Though there is a delay caused in referring this dispute for adjudication considering that the workman was removed from casual works from 31-5-1987 , but such delay cannot be said to be latches on part of the second party workman because it is the case of the second party workman, that he approached the officers of the first party fortakinghim injob . More so, delay was caused in referring the dispute by the appropriate Government after direction ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in its order ofwrit Petition No. 4556/2001 . It is also incorporated in the order of theappropriate Government referring the dispute . So , this issue is therefore answered in negative.

(12) ISSUE No. I and II

The workman has got valid cause of action and the reference is maintainable .

This reference is allowed in part . The first party is directedto pay Rs . 10,000 to the workman Hargovindram Shyamlal Ram by way of compensation within 3 months of thisaward . Failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 सितम्बर , 2011

का.आ. 2933. केन्द्र सरकार, खान अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 35 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को खान निरीक्षक, खानों के मुख्य- निरीक्षक के सहायक के रूप में अगले आदेशों तक नियुक्त करता है :-

reinstate the workman and pay them back wages from date of termination until date of reinstatement within 3 months ofthe publication of the award and upon appellant failure to comply with the award within stipulated period, it was directed that interest @ 8 % per annum shall be payable . The appellant (management) challenged the said order before the High Court by filing writ petition it was dismissed. Then the appellant filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided by the judgment byApril , 26 , 2010. After examining all this aspects it has been held vide para 6 " in the last few years it has been consistently held by this court that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monitory compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate". It has beenheld at para 7 in the case Jagbir Singh Hariyana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another (200915 SCC) 327-... " The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding date of termination particularly, dailywagers has not been found to be proper by this court and instead compensation has been awarded. This court has distinguished between the daily wagers who does not hold post and permanent employee" . It has been held by their Lordship at para 8 of the judgment. " In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years , relief ofreinstatement andback wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monitory compensation would subserve the ends ofjustice . In our considered view the compensation of Rs . 40,000 to each of the workman (Respondent No.2 to 14) shall meets the ends ofjustice" . The aforesaid case law reported in 2010 GLHEL SC 48285 will certainly prevail upon the previous judgment of the Apex Court and also theHigh Court on the points that in case of violation of section 25 ( F ) ofthe I.DAct, 1947 by the employer the reme dy of the workman will not be for his reinstatement with backwages rather a lumsum of compensation according to facts ofthe case may be awarded . So , in view the aforesaid case law, the case law relied upon by Mr. R.C. Pathak LearnedAdvocate for the second party are not applicable in the instant case.

1. श्री अजय सिंह , उप निदेशक , खान सुरक्षा ( वैद्युत )

2. श्री थाम्मीसेट्टी श्रीनिवास , उप निदेशक , खान `सुरक्षा (वैद्युत)

3. श्री परमानन्द कुमार सिंह , उप निदेशक, खान सुरक्षा (यांत्रिकी)

[फा. सं. एस-29025/1/2008 - आई एस एच- II ]

वंदना शर्मा , निदेशक (10) In the case in hands the status of the second party workman is of a temporary casual worker get daily rated wages and he worked as a casual worker during the period from April 1986 to October 1987. Though the workman completed 240 days of work but in view of the aforesaid case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal (supra) the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and back wages as argued by Shri R.C. Pathak, Learned Advocate for the second party [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7635

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 15 , 2011/आश्विन 23 , 1933

New Delhi , the 27th September, 2011

Centre Area Comprising the Revenue Villages of

1.Pagalpatty

Pagalpatty Dharmapuri

District

[No. S-38013/ 67/2011 - SS- I] S.O. 2933.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) , the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers as Inspector of Mines , subordinate to the Chief Inspector of Mines , until further orders :-

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

1. Shri Ajay Singh , Deputy Director of Mines Safety(Electrical ) .

नई दिल्ली, 5 अक्तूबर, 2011 2. Shri Thammisetty Srinivas , Deputy Director of MinesSafety (Electrical) .

3. Shri Parmanand Kumar Singh, Deputy Director ofMines Safety (Mechanical) .

[F. No. S-29025/ 1/ 2008 - ISH - II] VANDANA SHARMA, Director

नई दिल्ली, 3 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 2935.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा1-11-2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय-5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

केन्द्र

निम्न क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले राजस्व गांव

पिराटियूर

1. पिराटियूर

श्रीरंगम तालुक

तिरूच्ची जिला

[सं. एस -38013/66/2011 - एस एस - Ⅰ ] नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव का.आ. 2934.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1-11-2011 कोउस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

New Delhi , the 5th October, 2011 केन्द्र

निम्न क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले राजस्व गांव

1. पागलपट्टी

पागलपट्टी धर्मपुरी जिला

[सं. एस-38013/67/2011 - एस एस-1 ]

नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd October , 2011

S.O. 2935. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st November, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter-V and VI [ except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamilnadu namely :---

Centre

Area Comprising the Revenue Villages of

Piratiyur

1.Piratiyur

SrirangamTaluk TrichyDistrict

[No. S- 38013/66/2011 -SS - I] S.O. 2934.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st November , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI [ except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State ofTamilnadu namely:--

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

Printedby the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .