रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
RÉGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04/0007/2003-05
भारतक राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 8]
नई दिल्ली, फरवरी19 फरवरी25, 2012 , शनिवार/माघ 30 फाल्गुन 6 , 1933 NEW DELHI , FEBRUARY 19- FEBRUARY 25, 2012 , SATURDAY / MAGHA 30- PHALGUNA 6, 1933 No. 81
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 ।।-खण्ड 3-उप - खण्ड (ii) PART II-Section 3 -Sub- section ( ii )
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2012
का. आ. 705. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए परीक्षण न्यायालयों तथा अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या विधि द्वारा स्थापित या अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों जो कि दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित किए गए हैं , स्थानीय क्षेत्र जिसमें संपूर्ण झारखंड राज्य सम्मिलित है , में अभियोजन मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नोक्त वकीलों को के.अ.ब्यूरो के लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्तकरती है :-
1. श्री मुकेश कुमार सिन्हा 2. सुश्री सरवत जाफरी
[सं. 202/5/2011 -एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training ) New Delhi , the 31st January, 2012
S.O. 705. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Jharkhand instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law
1. Shri Mukesh Kumar Sinha
2. Ms. Sarwat Jafri
[No. 202/5/2011 -AVD -II ]
RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.
(1575)
452G1/2012 1576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2012
New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2012
S.O. 707.-In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:-
(a) Offences punishable under the Foreign Contribution ( Regulation) Act, 2010 (Act No. 42 of 2010) and
का. आ. 706.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए परीक्षण न्यायालयों तथा अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या विधि द्वारा स्थापित या अपीलीय न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों जो कि दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित किए गए हैं , स्थानीय क्षेत्र जिसमें संपूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य सम्मिलित है , में अभियोजन मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नोक्त वकीलों को के.अ.ब्यूरो के लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :--
1. श्रीमती जी. निर्मला
2. श्री बी. एनि. गोवड़ा
3. श्री एस. एस. शिवाली
(b) Attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts . [F. No. 228 /68/2011 -AVD- II ]
RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.
[सं. 202/5/2011 - एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव
नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2012
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2012 S.O. 706. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the State of Karnataka instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established by law :
1. Smt . G. Nirmala
2. Shri B. Anne Gowda
3. Shri S. S. Shivalli
[No. 202/ 5 /2011 -AVD- II ]
RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2012
का. आ.708.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य सरकार , गृह ( राजनीतिक ) विभाग , गुप्त अनुभाग , कोलकाता की दिनांक 3-11-2011 की अधिसूचना सं. 1650- पी.एस. द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से पीईसी लिमिटेड, एक सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र उपक्रम के वेयरहाउसिंग गोडाउन से मै. प्रीमैक्स इम्पैक्स लिमिटेड, ' आजिमगंग हाउस' , 7 , कैमक स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -17 द्वारा कैनेडियन यलो पीज को कथित रूप में अप्राधिकृत रूप से हटाने के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45) की धारा 406, 420 ,380 और 120 बी के अधीन पुलिस स्टेशन-शैक्सपीयर सारनी में दर्ज अपराध सं. 98/2011 दिनांक 26-3-2011 तथा उपर्युक्त अपराधों के संबंध में या उससे संबद्ध प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरण तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किया गया अन्य कोई अपराध/अपराधों या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध / अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार संपूर्ण पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।
[फा. सं. 228/75/2011 - एवीडी-11 ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव का. आ. 707.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रर्योग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित अपराधों एवं अपराधों की श्रेणियों का दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के द्वारा अनुसंधान करने हेतु उल्लिखित करती है :
New Delhi , the 7th February , 2012 (क ) विदेशी अंशदान ( विनियमन ) विधेयक , 2010 (2010 की अधिनियम संख्या 42 ) के अंतर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध ।
(ख) उपर्युक्तअपराध/ अपराधों के संबंध में प्रयासों , दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्रों तथा उस संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अपराध/अपराधों या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत मामले ।
[फा. सं. 228/68/2011- एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव
S.O. 708. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of West Bengal , Home (Political ) Department , Secret Section , Kolkata vide Notification No. 1650-P.S . dated 03-11-2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police 1577 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , पुणे -1 के आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) पुणे, 13 जनवरी , 2012
सं. 01/2012-सी. शु. ( एन.टी. )
Establishment to the whole of the State of West Bengal for Inquiry/ investigation of Crime No. 98/2011 dated 26-03-2011 under Sections 406, 420 , 380 and 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860 ) registered at Police Station Shakespeare Sarani relating to alleged unauthorized removal of Canadian Yellow Peas by M/s . Primex Limited, Azimgang House' , 7 , Camac Street, Kolkata- 17 from the Warehousing godown of PEC Limited, a public sector undertaking and attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence/ offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.
का. आ.710. वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग नई दिल्ली , द्वारा दिनांक 1-7-1994 को जारी अधिसूचना संख्या-33/94-सी.शु. (एन.टी ) यथासंशोधित और दिनांक 30-6-2004 को जारी अधिसूचना संख्या-83/2004- सी.शु ( एन.टी) द्वारा प्रत्यायोजित , सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962की धारा 9 के अधीन मुझे प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैं एतद्वारा ग्राम- नेरे ( दत्तवाड़ी) , तालुका मुलशी , जिला पुणे , महाराष्ट्र को सीमा शल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अधीन , भारत सरकार की मान्यता प्राप्त शप- प्रतिशत निर्यात लक्ष्यी उपक्रम स्थापित करने के सीमित प्रयोजन के लिए वेअरहाऊसिंग स्टेशन घोषित कर रहा हूं ।
[फा. सं. वीजीएन ( 19 ) 196/ईओयू/तक. / 11 ] वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग )
मधु मोहन दामोधर, आयुक्त
( केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क के आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) तिरुनेलवेली , 31 जनवरी , 2012 सं. 01/2012-सीमा शुल्क ( एन.टी. )
(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE : PUNE - I ) Pune , the 13th January, 2012 No. 01 /2012 -Customs (NT)
का. आ. 709. सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 152 के खंड ( अ ) के तहत भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली के दिनांक 1-7-1994 की अधिसूचना सं. 33/94 सीमा शुल्क ( एन.टी. ) के तहत अधोहस्ताक्षरी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं , अधोहस्ताक्षरी एतद्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य में विरुदुनगर जिले, शिवकाशी ताल्लुक, पुदुकोट्टै गांव को 100% निर्यातोन्मुख यूनिट स्थापित करने के सीमित प्रयोजन के लिए सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अधीन भांडागार केन्द्र घोषित करता हूँ ।
[फा. सी. सं. IV/ 16/65/2011- तक. ]
S.O. 710. In exercise ofthe powers conferred under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 delegated by Notification No. 33/94 -Cus (NT) dated 1-7-1994 as amended andNo. 83/2004-CUS ( NT) dated 30-6-2004 issued by the Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi , I hereby declare Village - Nere ( Dattawadi ), Tal Mulshi , Dist . Pune , Maharashtra as a warehousing station under Section 9ofthe Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of100% Export Oriented Undertakings as approved by the Government of India .
एस. सुब्रमणियन , आयुक्त
[F. No. VGN ( 19) 196/EOU /Tech/ 11 ]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, Commissioner
(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी, 2012
(Department of Revenue ) (OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL , EXCISE) Tirunelveli . the 31st January, 2012 No. 01 /2012 -Customs (NT)
का. आ. 711.-बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ण ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , " स्वचालित टेलर मशीनों पर भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक , भारतीय प्रतिभूति विनिमय बोर्ड, बीमा विनियामक विकास प्राधिकरण और पेंशन निधि विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा तय की गई विनियामक संरचना के अनुरुप वित्तीय उत्पादों के प्रदर्शन " व्यवसाय के ऐसे रूप में विनिर्दिष्ट करती है जिसके अंतर्गत एक बैंककारी कंपनी के लिए इनका प्रयोग करना विधिसम्मत है ।
S.O. 709. -In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned vide Notification No. 33/94- Cus (N.T. ) dated 01-07-1994by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , New Delhi under clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act , 1962 , 1 , the undersigned , hereby declare Pudukottai village , Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District in the state of Tamil Nadu to be a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of 100 % ExportOriented Units .
[फा. सं.11 / 16/2011- एफआई ( पार्ट ) ] अरुण के. मिश्रा, अवर सचिव [ F. C.No. IV/ 16/65/2011 -Tech. ] S. SUBRAMANIAN , Commissioner 1578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii)]
नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2012 (Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012
का. आ. 713.-जीवन बीमा निगम अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 31 ) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री एस. सरकार , प्रबंध निदेशक , भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम को 17 फरवरी , 2012 से उनकी अधिवर्षिता की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , उक्त निगम के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
S.O. 711. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (o) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949), the Central Government hereby specifies" display of financial products conforming to the regulatory framework as provided by RBI , SEBI , IRDA and PFRDA , on the Automated Teller Machines" as a form of business in which it is lawful for a banking company to engage .
[फा. सं. ए-15011 /05 / 2011 - बीमा-1 ]
प्रिया कुमार, निदेशक ( बीमा ) [F. No. 11 / 16/2011 -FI ( Part) ] ARUN K. MISRA , Under Secy.
New Delhi , the 21st February, 2012 नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2012
S.O. 713. 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 S. Sarker, Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India as a Member of the said Corporation with effect from 17th February, 2012 till the date of his superannuation or till further orders , whichever is earlier.
[F. No. A- 15011 /05/2011 - Ins . [ ] PRIYA KUMAR, Director ( Insurance)
विदेश मंत्रालय
(सीपीवी प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012 का. आ. 712.-राष्ट्रीकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कम्पनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्द्वारा , इलाहाबाद बैंक के महाप्रबन्धक श्री दीपक नारंग ( जन्म तिथि 29-3-1955 ) को 1-3-2012 को या उसके बाद उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-3-2015 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , यूनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं. 4/5/2010- बीओ-11 विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचित
New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012
का. आ. 714.- राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री प्रवीण कुमार शर्मा , सहायक का 10-2-2012 से भारत के राजदूतावास , कुवैत में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
[सं. टी-4330/01 /2006 ]
आर. के. पेरिनडिया, अवर सचिव (कोंसल
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (CPV Division )
New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012 S.O. 712. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) ofsub-section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Deepak Narang (DoB : 29-03-1955) , General Manager, Allahabad Bank as Executive Director, United Bank of India, with effect from the date of his taking over charge ofthe post on or after 01-03-2012 till 31-03-2015, i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
S.O. 714. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948 ), the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Praveen Kumar Sharma , Assistant , Embassy of India , Kuwait to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 16th February, 2012.
[ F. No. 4/5/2010-BO- I ) ]
VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.
[No. T-4330/01 /2006]
R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. (Consular) 1579
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
योजना मंत्रालय (योजना आयोग ) नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2012
का. आ. 715. केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) के अनुसरण में , एतद्वारा योजना आयोग के सम्बद्ध कार्यालय भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण ( मुख्यालय ) , जिसके 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।
[सं. ई -12018/5/98- हिन्दी ] डॉ. नागेश सिंह , सलाहकार MINISTRY OF PLANNING (Planning Commission)
New Delhi , the 9th February, 2012
S.O. 715. In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4 ) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union ) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies Unique Identification Authority of India (Headquarters ), an attached office of Planning Comission , morethan 80% of the officers/ staff whereof have acquired theworking knowledge ofHindi .
[No. E- 12018 /5/98 -Hindi ] Dr. NAGESH SINGH , Adviser
स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय
(स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 23 नवम्बर , 2011
का. आ. 716. भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद , एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्ः-
उक्तअनुसूची में-
" डीवाई पाटील विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर , महाराष्ट्र " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्ः-
(2)
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( ऑथोपेडिक्स ) "
(3)
एम एस (ऑथोपेडिक्स)
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डी.वाई. पाटिल मेडिकल कॉलेज , कोल्हापुर , महाराष्ट्र, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में डी.वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर , महाराष्ट्र, द्वारा 1998 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
(ख) " शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर, महाराष्ट्र" के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( एनिस्थीसिया )
"डिप्लोमा इन एनिस्थीसिया "
एम डी ( एनिस्थीसिया)
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज , मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय, कोल्हापुर , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा 1993 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीए
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज, मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा 1992 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
1580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(2)
(3)
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( नेत्र विज्ञान ) "
एम एस (नेत्र विज्ञान ) (यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज , मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा 1983 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
" डिप्लोमा इन ऑफ्थैल्मोलोजी "
डीओ
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज , मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा 1981 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
" डिप्लोमा इन चाइल्ड हैल्थ"
डीसीएच
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज, मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा 1981 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
( ग ) " महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, नासिक " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा ,अर्थात्:---
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( एनिस्थीसिया) "
एम डी ( एनिस्थीसिया)
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज , मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा 1993 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
"डिप्लोमा इन एनिस्थीसिया "
डीए
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज , मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा 1992 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( नेत्र विज्ञान ) "
एम एस ( नेत्र विज्ञान )
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज , मिराज, महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा 1983 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
" नेत्र विज्ञान में डिप्लोमा "
डीओ
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज , मिराज , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा 1981 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
1581 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(3)
(2)
डीसीएच
" डिप्लोमा इन चाइल्ड हैल्थ "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज, मिराज , नासिक महाराष्ट्र, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा 1981 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीसीएच
" डिप्लोमा इन चाइल्ड हैल्थ "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वसंतराव पवार मेडिकल कॉलेज , अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र, नासिक , में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीओ
" नेत्र विज्ञान डिप्लोमा "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वसंतराव पवार मेडिकल कॉलेज , अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , नासिक, महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीजीओ
" स्त्री रोग विज्ञान एवं प्रसूति विज्ञान में डिप्लोमा"
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वसंतराव पवार मेडिकल कॉलेज , अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र, नासिक, महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, नासिक द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीडीवीएल
" त्वचा विज्ञान , रतिज रोग विज्ञान एवं कुष्ठ रोग में डिप्लोमा "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वसंतराव पवार मेडिकल कॉलेज , अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , नासिक , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जुलाई, 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीआर्थों.
" डिप्लोमा इन ऑर्थोपीडिक्स "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वसंतराव पवार मेडिकल कॉलेज , अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र, नासिक , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जून, 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीएमआरडी
" चिकित्सा विकिरण निदान में डिप्लोमा "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वसंतराव पवार मेडिकल कॉलेज , अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , नासिक , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
1582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(2)
(3)
" मनोवैज्ञानिक चिकित्सा में डिप्लोमा "
डीपीएम
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वसंतराव पवार मेडिकल कॉलेज , अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , नासिक , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( सामुदायिक चिकित्सा ) "
एमडी ( सामुदायिक चिकित्सा )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह महाराष्ट्र आयुर्विज्ञान एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , तालुर , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( विकिरण निदान ) "
एमडी (विकिरण निदान )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह एनीकेपी साल्वे आयुर्विज्ञान एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र, नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जुलाई , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
एमडी (डीवीएल)
" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( त्वचा विज्ञान , रतिज रोग विज्ञान एवं कुष्ठ रोग ) "
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह एनीकेपी साल्वे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र, नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
"डिप्लोमा इन ऑर्थोपीडिक्स "
डी. आर्थों.
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह एनीकेपी साल्वे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक द्वारा जुलाई , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
एमडी ( प्रतिरक्षा रूधिर विज्ञान एवं रक्ताधान )
" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( प्रतिरक्षा रूधिर विज्ञान एवं रक्ताधान ) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह आर्ड फोर्सेज मेडिकल कॉलेज , पुणे, महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, नासिक द्वारा जून , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी : । स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अवधि 5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
2. मान्यता को उप- खंड 4 की आवश्यकता के अनुसार समय पर नवीकरण न कराए जाने पर संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश निरपवाद रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे ।
[सं. यू. 12012/86/2011 -एमई- ( पी-11 ) ]
अनिता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव 1583 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare )
New Delhi , the 23rd November , 2011
S.O. 716. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act. 1956 ( 102 of 1956) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby, makes the Following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely:
to the said Schedule
(a) against " D.Y. Patil University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification (hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ) , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading' Abbreviation for Registration ( hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely : -
(3)
(2)
MS (Orthopaedics )
"Master of Surgery ( Orthopaedics ) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification whu granted by D. Y. Patil University. Kolhapur , Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur, Maharashtra on or after 1998. )
(b) against " Shivaji University , Kolhapur , Maharashtra " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualifica.ion (hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' ( hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-
MD ( Anaesthesia)
"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Shivaji University, Kolhapur , Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Govt. Medical College, Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1993 ) .
"Diploma in Anaesthesia "
DA (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Govt . Medical College , Miraj ,Maharashtra on or after 1992 ) .
MS (Ophthalmology)
"Master of Surgery ( Ophthalmology) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Shivaji University , Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Govt . Medical College , Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1983 ) .
DO
"Diploma in Ophthalmology' ?
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification wher granted by Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect ofstudents being trained at Govt . Medical College, Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1981 ) .
DCH
"Diploma in Child Health "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Shivaji University, Kolhapur , Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Govt . Medical College , Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1981 ) .
4231/2012--2 1584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
(c) against " Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely :-
"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia) "
MD (Anaesthesia)
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Govt . Medical College, Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1993 ) .
"Diploma in Anaesthesia"
DA
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Govt . Medical College, Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1992) .
"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology ) "
MS (Ophthalmology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Govt. Medical College, Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1983 ) .
"Diploma in Ophthalmology "
DO (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Govt . Medical College, Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1981 ) .
"Diploma in Child Health "
DCH
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Govt . MedicalCollege, Miraj , Maharashtra on or after 1981 ) .
"Diploma in Child Health "
DCH
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College , Hospital & Research Centre , Nashik , Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 ) .
"Diploma in Ophthalmology "
DO (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College . Hospital & Research Centre. Nashik , Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 ) .
DGO
"Diploma in Gynaecology & Obstetrics "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences . Nashik in respect of students being trained at Dr. Vasantrao PawarMedical College , Hospital & Research Centre . Nashik , Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 ) .
1585 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(3)
DDVL
"Diploma in Dermatology, Venrology & Leprosy "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital & Research Centre, Nashik, Maharashtra on or after July, 2011 ) .
D.Ortho.
"Diploma in Orthopaedics "
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Dr. Vasantrao PawarMedical College, Hospital & Research Centre , Nashik , Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 ) .
DMRD
"Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis "
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Dr. Vasantrao PawarMedical College, Hospital & Research Centre, Nashik, Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 ) .
DPM
"Diploma in Psychological Medicine"
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trained at Dr. Vasantrao PawarMedical College, Hospital & Research Centre , Nashik , Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 ) .
MD(Community Medicine)
"Doctor ofMedicine ( Community Medicine) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik in respect of students being trained at Maharashtra Institute of Medical Sciences & Research , Latur, Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 ) .
MD(Radio Diagnosis )
"Doctor of Medicine ( Radio Diagnosis ) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences . Nashik in respect of students being trained at NKP Salve Institute ofMedical Sciences & Research Centre , Nagpur, Maharashtra on or after July, 2011 ).
MD(DVL)
"Doctor of Medicine ( Dermatology, Venrology & Leprosy"
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences . Nashik in respect of students being trained at NKP Salve Institute ofMedical Sciences & Research Centre , Nagpur, Maharashtra on or after June . 2011 ) .
D. Ortho.
"Diploma in Orthopaedics"
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. Nashik in respect of students being trained at NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre . Nagpur, Maharashtra on or after July, 2011 ) .
1586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART 11 SEC. 3 (
(2)
(3)
MD( Immunohaematology & Blood Blood Transfusion) " "Doctor of Medicine ( Immunohaematology & Transfusion)"
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik in respect of students being trainedat Armed ForcesMedical College . Pune , Maharashtra on or after June , 2010) .
Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years , upon which itshall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub - clause - 4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. U.12012/86/2011 -ME ( P - II ) J ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy
नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2012
का. आ. 717. भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्र सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद , एतद्वारा अर्हता की नामपद्धति के बदलाव के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्ः-
( क) " उस्मानिया विश्वविद्यालय , आन्ध्र प्रदेश " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' [ इसके आगे कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्ः---
(2)
(3)
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडीसिन ( कार्डियोलोजी ) "
डीएम ( कार्डियोलोजी )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , हैदराबाद, आन्ध्र प्रदेश , में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में उस्मानिया विश्वविद्यालय , आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा वर्ष 1981 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ।
(ख ) " डॉ. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालप्स, विजयवाड़ा " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अन्र्तगत शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके आगे कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तः स्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( कार्डियोलोजी ) "
डीएम (कार्डियोलोजी )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज, हैदराबाद , आन्ध्र प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में डॉ. एनटीआर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा द्वारा वर्ष 1981 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
( ग ) " गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय , असम " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अन्तर्गत, शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके आगे कालम (3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
" डोक्टर ऑफ मेडीसिन ( न्यूरोलोजी ) "
डीएम (न्यूरोलोजी)
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गुवाहाटी मेडिकल कालेज, गुवाहाटी , असम में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय , असम द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
1587 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
एम. सीएच ( सीटीवीएस)
"भजिस्ट्रार ऑफ चिरूरजिया ( कार्डियो थोरासिस एंड बस्कुन्नर सर्जरी) "
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गुवाहाटी मेडिकल कालेज , गुवाहाटी , असम, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय , असम द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
(घ. ) " गुरुः गांविन्द सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में सदर्शित के अन्तर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके आगे कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अन्तर्गत ,अंतिम एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तः स्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:--
एमडी (पैथोलोजी)
"डॉक्टर ऑफ मंडीसिन ( पैथोलोजी) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , डा. आरएमएल अस्पताल , नई दिल्ली, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में गुरू गोविन्द सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय, नई दिल्ली द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
एमडी ( डीवीएल )
"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडीसिन ( डर्माटोलोजी नंनरोलोजी एंड लेप्रोजी) "
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , डा. आरएमएल अस्पताल, नई दिल्ली, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में गुरू गोविन्द सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसकं पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डीडीवीएल
" माटोलो , बनगन्नोजी एंड लेप्रोजी में डिप्लोमा"
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , डा. आरएमएल अस्पताल , नई दिल्ली, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में गुरू गोविन्द सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
(ड.) " सुमनदीप विद्यापीठ, वडोदरा, गुजरात " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके आगे कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षपण ' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तः म्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:
डीसीपी
"डिप्लोमा इन क्लिनिकल ( पथोला ) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह श्रीमती बी.के. शाह मेडिकल संस्थान एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , वडोदरा , गुजरात , में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में सुमनदीप विद्यापीठ, वडोदरा , गुजरात द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो) ।
डी. ओर्थो
" दिल्लामा इ ओर्थोपेडिक्स "
(यः एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह श्रीमती बी.के. शाह मेडिकल संस्थान एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , वडोदरा , गुजरात , में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में सुमनदीप विद्यापीठ , वडादर गुजरात द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गईहो) ।
1588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART 11---SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] " क्षय रोग व छाती रोग में डिप्लोमा "
डीटीसीडी
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह श्रीमती बी.के. साह मेडिकल इंस्टीटयूट एंड रिसर्च सेंटर , बडोदरा , गुजरात में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में सुमनदीप विद्यापीठ , बड़ोदरा , गुजरात द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
( च ) " केरल विश्वविद्यलाय , केरल " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टिके बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
एमडी/एमएस ( ओबीजी)
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन/ मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( प्रसूति एवं स्त्री रोग विज्ञान ) "
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह टीडी मेडिकल कालेज, अल्फापुझा , केरल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में केरल विश्वविद्यलाय , केरल द्वारा वर्ष 2003 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
( छ) " महात्मा गांधी विश्वविद्यालय , कोट्टायम " केरल के सामने शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( रेडियोथेरैपी ) "
एमडी ( रेडियोथेरैपी )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गवर्मेंट मेडिकल कालेज , कोटायम केरल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में महात्मा गांधी विश्वविद्यालय , कोट्टायम केरल द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
( ज ) " बंगलौर विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर " के सामने शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत प्रविष्टि अंतिम एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जनरल सर्जरी ) "
एमएस ( जनरल सर्जरी )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. बी.आर. अम्बेडकर मेडिकल कालेज , बंगलौर , कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में बंगलौर विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर , कर्नाटक द्वारा अप्रैल , 1995 से अगस्त, 1999 तक प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
( झ ) " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर " के सामने शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टिएवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जनरल सर्जरी ) "
एमएस ( जनरल सर्जरी )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. बी.आर. अम्बेडकर मेडिकल कालेज , बंगलौर , कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बंगलौर , द्वारा सितम्बर , 1999 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो) ।
1589 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
एमएस ( जनरल सर्जरी )
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जनरल सर्जरी ) "
यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह एमवीजे मेडिकल कालेज एंड रिसर्च अस्पताल बंगलौर , कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर , द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
(ञ ) " शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र" के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
एमएस ( आर्थो. )
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( आर्थोपेडिक्स ) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वी.एम. मेडिकल कॉलेज , सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र , में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र, द्वारा 1981 सेजून , 2000 तक प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
डी. आर्थो.
"डिप्लोमा इन आर्थोपेडिक्स "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वी.एम. मेडिकल कॉलेज , सोलापुर , महाराष्ट्र, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र, द्वारा वर्ष 1980 से जून , 2000 तक प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
(ट) " महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक महाराष्ट्र " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम (2) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
एमएस ( आर्थो. )
" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( आर्थोपेडिक्स ) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वी.एम. मेडिकल कॉलेज , सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, नासिक, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा वर्ष जून , 2000 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान कीगई हो ) ।
डी. आर्थो.
"डिप्लोमा इन आर्थोपेडिक्स "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह डॉ. वी.एम. मेडिकल कॉलेज , सोलापुर, महाराष्ट्र, में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा वर्ष जून , 2000 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान कीगई हो) ।
एमडी ( पेडियाट्रिक्स)
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( पेडियाट्रिक्स) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह एसीपीएम मेडिकल कालेज , धूले , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों केसम्बंध में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा वर्ष 2010 में अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
(ठ ) " राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर " के समक्ष शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] , के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
1590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
PART SH3( 6)
"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( कम्यूनिटी मेडिसिन ) "
एम. डी ( कम्यूनिटी मेडिसिन )
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह एस गी मेडिकल कालेज , बीकानेर , राजस्थान में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर द्वारा वर्ष 1981 में अथवा उसके पश्चात प्रदान की गई हो ।।
( ड ) " डॉ. आरएमएल अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश " के समक्ष शीर्षक 'मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अनंत इसक कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत , शीर्षक ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' ( इसके बाद कालम ( १ ) के रूप में मंदधित ) के अंतर्गत प्रविष्टिअंतिम एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात : -
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( जनरल मेडिसिन ) "
एम डी ( जनरल मेडिसिन) (यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह इग लखनऊ मेडिकल कालेज व अम्पताल, लखनऊ , उत्तर प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षिन किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के सम्बंध में डॉ. आरएमएल अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद, उनर प्रदेश द्वारा नये 2011 में अथवा उक पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो ) ।
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी : 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अभिवर्या लिए हाथी जिश्यक उप इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
2. उप- खंड 4 में यथा अपेक्षित मान्यता को समय पर नवीकरण करवाने में विफल होने के परिणामस्वरूप मं स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे ।
[सं. यू. 12012-104-2011 - एमई ( पी 1) ]
अनिता त्रिपान्नो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 3rd January. 2012
S.O.717.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of the Section 11 of the Indias Medical Coumal Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the follow further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely In the said Schedule
(a) against "Osmania University, Andhra Pradesh " under the heading Recognised Medical Qualification heremaito referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading Abbreviation for Registration (hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely :
(2)
(3)
"Doctor ofMedicine( Cardiology) "
DM(Cardiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when grantedbyOsmania University . Andhra Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Gandhi Medical College . Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh on or after 1981 ) .
(b) against " Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada " under the heading Recognised Medical Qualification [hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading Abbreviation for Registration' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely
"Doctor of Medicine ( Cardiology) "
DM(Cardiology )
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR university of Health Sciences . Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at Gandhi Medical College. Hyderabad . Andhra Pradesh on ot after 1981).
1591 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(c) against "Gauhati University, Assam " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading' Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-
DM (Neurology)
"Doctor of Medicine (Neurology ) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Gauhati University, Assam in respect of students being trained at Gauhati Medical College , Guwahati , Assam on or after 2011 ).
M.Ch. (CTVS)
"Magistrar of Chirurgiae ( Cardio Thoracic & Vascular Surgery ) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Gauhati University , Assam in respect of students being trained at Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati , Assam on or after 2011 ) .
(d ) against "Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University , New Delhi " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' ( hereinafter referred to as column (2) ) , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading "Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 )] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-
MD(Pathology)
"Doctor ofMedicine (Pathology ) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research , Dr.RML Hospital , New Delhi on or after 2011 ) .
MD(DVL)
"Doctor of Medicine ( Dermatology, Venerology & Leprosy) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Dr. RML Hospital , New Delhi on or after 2011 ) .
MD (DVL)
"Diploma in Dermatology, Venerology & Leprosy "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualitication when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research , Dr.RML Hospital , New Delhi on or after 2011 ) .
(e) against " Sumandeep Vidyapeeth , Vadodara, Gujarat " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (3 ), the following shall be inserted , namely:-
DCP
"Diploma in Clinical Pathology "
( This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sumandeep Vikiyapeeth , Vadodara , Gujarat in respect of students being iramed at Cont . B.K. Shah Medical Institute & Research Centre . Vadodara , Gujarat on or after 2011).
452G1/2012-3 1592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
"Diploma in Orthopaedics "
D.Ortho.
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sumandeep Vidyapeeth , Vadodara , Gujarat in respect of students being trained at Smt . B.K. Shah Medical Institute & Research Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat on or after 2011).
"Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases "
DTCD
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sumandeep Vidyapeeth , Vadodara, Gujarat in respect of students being trained at Smt . B.K. Shah Medical Institute& Research Centre , Vadodara , Gujarat on or after 2011.
(f) against " Kerala University, Kerala " under the heading ' Recognised. Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:--
MD/MS (OBG)
"Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery( Obstetrics & Gynaecology)"
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Kerala University, Kerala in respect of students being trained at T.D. Medical College , Alappuzha , Kerala onor after 2003 ).
(g) against "Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala" under the heading' Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-
"Doctor ofMedicine (Radiotherapy) "
MD (Radiotherapy )
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam , Kerala in respect of students being trained at Govt . Medical College, Kottayam , Kerala on or after 2011).
(h) against "Bangalore University, Bangalore " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' [hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) , the following shall be inserted, namely:-
"Master of Surgery ( General Surgery) "
MS(General Surgery)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Bangalore University, Bangalore , Karnataka in respect of students being trained at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore , Karnataka on or after April , 1995 to August , 1999 ) .
( i ) against " Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-
"Master of Surgery ( General Surgery) "
MS (General Surgery )
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Dr. B.R. AmbedkarMedical College , Bangalore , Karnataka on or afterSeptember, 1999) .
1593 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
MS (General Surgery )
"Master of Surgery ( General Surgery ) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore , Karnataka in respect of students being trained atM.V.J. Medical College & Research Hospital , Bangalore , Karnataka on or after 2011 .
(j) against "Shivaji University, Maharashtra " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ) , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ), the following shall be inserted , namely: -
MS(Ortho .)
"Master of Surgery ( Orthopaedics) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Shivaji University, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Dr. V.M. Medical College , Solapur , Maharashtra on or after 1981 to June , 2000.
D.Ortho .
"Diploma in Orthopaedics"
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Shivaji University, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Dr. V.M. Medical College , Solapur, Maharashtra on or after 1980 to June , 2000 .
k) against "Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik , Maharashtra " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2) ) , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading' Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely: ---
MS (Ortho .)
"Master of Surgery ( Orthopaedics ) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik , Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Dr. V.M. Medical College , Solapur , Maharashtra on or after June , 2000 .
D.Ortho .
"Diploma in Orthopaedics "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained atDr. V.M. Medical College , Solapur, Maharashtra on or after June , 2000.
MD(Paediatrics)
"Doctor ofMedicine ( Paediatrics) "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik , Maharashtra in respect of students being trained atA.C.P.M. Medical College , Dhule , Maharashtra on or after2010.
(1 ) against "Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ) , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-
1594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
"Doctor ofMedicine (Community Medicine) "
MD(Community Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur inrespect of students being trained at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan on or after 1981 .
(m) against "Dr. RML Avadh University, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' ( hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ), the following shall be inserted , namely: - "Doctor ofMedicine( General Medicine) "
MD( GeneralMedicine)
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML Avadh University, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Era's Lucknow Medical College & Hospital , Lucknow , Uttar Pradesh on or after 2011 .
Note to all : 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which itshall have to be renewed .
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub - clause (4 ) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. U.12012/104/2011 - ME (P - II)] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 10 जनवरी , 2012
का. आ.718.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद , अर्हता की नामावली में परिवर्तन हो जाने के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -
उक्त अनुसूची में
(क) " गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय , असम " के समक्ष " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत और " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अन्र्तगत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्: -
2
3
" मजिस्ट्रार आफ चिरुरगई ( प्लास्टिक सर्जरी ) " एमसीएच ( प्लास्टिक सर्जरी )
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह गुवाहाटी मेडिकल कॉलेज , गुवाहाटी, असम में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में गुवाहाटी विश्वविद्यालय , असम द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )
(ख ) " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर " के समक्ष " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में सदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
" स्त्री रोग विज्ञान और प्रसूति विज्ञान में डिप्लोमा " डीजीओ
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह नवोदय मंडिकल कॉलेज रायचूर कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर , कर्नाटक द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो।
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1595 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
( ग ) " डॉ. आर.एम.एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश " के समक्ष " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
"डिप्लोमा इन मेडिकल रेडियो डायग्नोसिस" डी.एम.आर.डी.
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह ईराज लखनऊ मेडिकल कॉलेज तथा अस्पताल लखनऊ , उत्तर प्रदेश में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में डॉ. आर. एम. एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा वर्ष 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अवधि 5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
2. मान्यता को उप- खंड ( 4 ) की आवश्यकता के अनुसार समय पर नवीकरण में विफल होने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठयक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे ।
[सं. यू. 12012/01/2012- एमई ( पी- II ) ]
अनिता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th January, 2012
S.O. 718. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely: - In the said Schedule-
(a) against "Gauhati University, Assam " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely :-
(2)
(β)
"Magistrar of Chirurgiae ( Plastic Surgery) "
M. Ch ( Plastic Surgery )
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted byGauhati University . Assam in respect of students being trained at Gauhati Medical College , Guwahati , Assam on or after 2011 .
(b ) against " Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore " under the heading Recognised Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:
DGO
"Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences . Bangalore , Karnataka in respect of students being trained at Navodaya Medical College, Raichur , Karnataka on or after2011 .
( c) against " Dr. RML Avadh University , Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' ( hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the . following shall be inserted , namely:-
1596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
DMRD
"Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis "
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML Avadh University, Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Era's Lucknow MedicalCollege & Hospital , Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on or after2011,
Note to all :
1. The re gnition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years , upon which it shall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub - clause (4 ) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course .
[No.U.12012/1/2012 - ME ( P. II ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.
संशोधन
नई दिल्ली , 10 जनवरी , 2012
का.आ. 719.-केन्द्र सरकार , इस विभाग के दिनांक 21-9-2011 की अधिसूचना सं. यू. 12012/57/2011 - एमई ( पी -2 ) के क्रम में और भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद उक्त अधिनियम की प्रभम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: - उक्त अनुसूची में, -
( क ) " केरल स्वाथ्स्य तथा संबद्ध विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , त्रिसूर , केरल " के समक्ष " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " ( कॉलम ( 2 ) और शीर्षक " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ कॉलम ( 3 ) ] के अंतर्गत एमबीबीएस अर्हता प्रदान कर रहे निम्नलिखित महाविद्यालयों/संस्थानों को निकाल दिया माना जाएगा :-
1. श्री नारायण आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , चलक्का, केरल।
2. के एम सी टी मेडिकल कॉलेज, मानाससेररी , मुक्काम , कोझीकोड़।
3. करुणा मेडिकल कॉलेज , पलक्कड , चित्तौर, केरल
4. मालाबार मेडिकल कॉलेज , कोझीकोड़ , केरल
5. अजीजिया आयुर्विज्ञान तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान , मीयानूर, कोल्लम, केरल।
6. त्रावणकोर मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोल्लम , केरल।
[सं. यू. 12012/57/2011 - एमई ( पी- II ) ]
अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi , the 10th January, 2012
S.O. 719. In continuation to this Department's Notification No.U. 12012/ 57 /2011 - ME ( P.II ) dated 21.9.2011 , and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) , the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely :-
In the said Schedule -
against "Kerala University of Health & Allied Sciences , Thrissur, Kerala " , under heading "Recognised Medical Qualifications" (column 2) and heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' ( column 3 ) , the names of the following medical colleges /institutes granting MBBS qualification shall be treated as deleted:
1. Sree Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences , Chalakka , Kerala
2. KMCT Medical College , Manasserry, Mukkam , Kozhikode
3. Karuna Medical College , Palakkad , Chittor, Kerala [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1597
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
4. Malabar Medical College , Kozhikode, Kerala
5. Azeezia Institute of Medical Sciences & Research , Meeyanoor, Kollam , Kerala
6. Travancore Medical College, Kollam , Kerala
[U.12012/57/2011 -ME (P- II )] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 10 जनवरी , 2012
का.आ. 720.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद संबद्ध विश्वविद्यालय के नाम में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-
उक्त अनुसूची में-
( क ) " महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक, महाराष्ट्र" के समक्ष " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
2
3
एमडी (डीवीएल)
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( चर्म, रजित तथा कुष्ठ रोग विज्ञान ) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह एन. के. पी. साल्वे आयुर्विज्ञान तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान , नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में महाराष्ट्र स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , नासिक , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा जून , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) सभी के लिए टिप्पणी:
1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अवधि 5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
2. मान्यता को उप- खंड 4 की आवश्यकता के अनुसार समय पर नवीकरण में विफल होने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे।
[सं. यू. 12012/ 106/2011 - एमई ( पी- II)
अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th January , 2012
S.O. 720. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956) , the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , due to change in name of affiliating University. namely:-
( a) against " Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik, Maharashtra " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:
(2)
(3)
"Doctor ofMedicine ( Dermatology, Venerology & Leprosy) " MD(DVL)
This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained atN.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences & Research , Nagpur, Maharashtra on or after June , 2011 .
Noteto all : 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years , upon which it shall have to be renewed.
1598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub - clause (4 ) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course .
[No. U. 12012/ 106/2011 - ME ( P - II ) ]
ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 10 जनवरी , 2012
का.आ. 721.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा ।। की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद अर्हता की नाम पद्धति में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:--
उक्त अनुसूची में-
(क) " गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली के समक्ष शीर्षक " ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत शीर्षक " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
2
3
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन एमडी ( जनरल मेडिसिन )
(जनरल मेडिसिन) "
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , डॉ आर. एम. एल . अस्पताल , नई दिल्ली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अप्रैल , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन
एमडी ( संवेदनाहरण )
(संवेदनाहरण ) "
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , डॉ आर. एम. एल. अस्पताल , नई दिल्ली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अप्रैल , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )
" डिप्लोमा इन चाइल्ड हैल्थ" डीसीएच
(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , डॉ आर. एम. एल. अस्पताल , नई दिल्ली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह इन्द्रप्रस्थ विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अप्रैल , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। )
( ख ) " सौराष्ट्र विश्वविद्यालय , राजकोट , गुजरात " के समक्ष शीर्षक " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत शीर्षक " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अतंर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , नामतः:-
" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( विकिरण निदान ) " एम डी ( विकिरण निदान )
( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह पंडित दीनदयाल मेडिकल कॉलेज , राजकोट, गुजरात में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में सौराष्ट्र विश्वविद्यालय , राजकोट , गुजरात द्वारा 2004 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )
(ग ) " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर " के समक्ष शीर्षक " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भिन ] प्रशीर्षक के अंतर्गत " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेप " [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , नामतः : - 1599 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
"डिप्लोमा ऑफ मेडिसिन ( सूक्ष्म जीव विज्ञान ) " एम डी ( सूक्ष्म जीव विज्ञान ) (यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी जब यह के.वी.जी. मेडिकल कॉलेज , सुल्लिया, कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बंगलौर द्वारा 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी : 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठयक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अवधि 5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा।
2. मान्यता को उप- खंड ( 4 ) की आवश्यकता के अनुसार समय पर नवीकरण न कराए जाने पर संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठयक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे।
[सं. यू. 12012 / 105/ 2012 - एमई (पी-11 )]
अनिता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th January, 2012
S.O. 721. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) , the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely :---
In the said Schedule
(a) against " Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under, the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely :-
(3)
MD(General Medicine )
"Doctor ofMedicine (General Medicine)"
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Dr. RML Hospital , New Delhi on or after April , 2011 .
MD (Anaesthesia )
"Doctor of Medicine ( Anaesthesia) "
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research , Dr. RML Hospital , New Delhi on or after April , 2011 .
DCH
-"Diploma in Child Health "
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi in respect of students being trained at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Dr.RML Hospital , New Delhi on or after April, 2011 .
(b) against "Saurashtra University, Rajkot , Gujarat " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as -column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading' Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-
452GI/2012-4 1600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
"Doctor ofMedicine ( Radio Diagnosis ) "
MD(Radio Diagnosis)
(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when grantedby Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat in respect ofstudents being trained at Pt. Deen Dayal Medical College, Rajkot, Gujarat on or after 2004.
(c) against " Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore " under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification ' (hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' ( hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-
"Doctor of Medicine( Microbiology) "
MD(Microbiology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore in respect of students being trained at K.V.G. Medical College, Sullia , Karnataka on or after 2011.
Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub - clause ( 4 ) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. U. 12012/105/2011 - ME( P- II )]
ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2012
का.आ. 722.-केन्द्र सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय की भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 430 , दिनांक 24 जनवरी , 1984 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -
2. उक्त अधिसूचना में शीर्षक " धारा 3 के परंतुक के साथ पठित खंड ( च ) के अंतर्गत नामांकित " के अधीन क्रम संख्या 6 एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के बाद निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-
" 6. " डॉ. प्राण नाथ कौल
नामांकित केन्द्र सरकार
17-1-2012 " विजयनगर , लेन-2 , मकान नं. 12 , कैम्प रोड, तालाब टिल्लो, जम्मू
[फा. सं. वी. 12013/2/2009 -डीई ]
अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 24th January, 2012
S.O. 722. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 , dated 24th January, 1984 , namely: -
Inthe said notification under head " Nominated under clause (f) read with proviso to Section 3 " for serial No.6 and the entries relating thereto , the following shall be substituted therein, namely :--
"6. Dr. Pran Nath Koul
Nominated Central Government
17-1-2012 " Vijay Nagar, Lane- 2
H.No.12 ,
Camp Road, Talab Tillo, Jammu
[F. No. V. 12013 /2/2009 -DE ]
ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.
1601 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 723.- 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 वनाए 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 मिकास इंजीनियरिंग्स , 9 ब्लाक के पीछे , भानपुरी , रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) पिन-493221 , छत्तीसगढ़ द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एमआईटीटी- II " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फोटांस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/463 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलय युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित अधेयतुलन 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 WILS
0000
LEAD SQUAF SEAL
SEALWIRE
BOTTOM OF SCALE
LEAD SQUARE
SEAL
आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम
डिस्प्लेकी बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की गई है। डिस्प्ले की बेस प्लेट और टाप कवर के छेद से सील को जोड़ा गया है, तब सील वायर इन दोनों छेदों में से निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है। मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।
उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 100,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 100,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2× 10% , 5× 10 के , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 282 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs )
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 723. 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 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) of series " MITT - II " and with brand name "PHOTONS" ( hereinafter referred toas the said model), manufactured by M/s . Micas Engineerings , Behind 9 Block, Bhanpuri , Raipur (CG ) Pin - 493221 , Chhattisgarh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/10/463;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with amaximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval (e ) is 2 g. 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 BODY OF SCALE
SEAL WILN
0000
LEAD SUNAI SEAL
SEALWIRE
BOTTOM OF SCALE
-LEAD SQUARE SEAL
Figure-2: Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model .
Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further, in exercise of the powers 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 sımılar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50 mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 100.000 for` e` value of 100 mg . or more 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 (282)/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1603 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 724.-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 ) वाट 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 को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मिकास इंजीनियरिंग्स , 9 ब्लाक के पीछे , भानपुरी , रायपुर ( छत्तीस गढ़ ) पिन-493221 , छत्तीसगढ़ द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एमआईटीटी- III " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फोटांस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/464 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( 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
SLAL WUS
0000
LEAD SQUA
SEAL
SEAL WIRE
BOTTOM OF SCALE
LEAD SQUARE
SEAL
आकृति-2 : मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम
डिस्प्लेकी बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की गई है । डिस्प्ले की बेस प्लेट और टाप कवर के छेद से सील को जोड़ा गया है, तब सील वायर इन दोनों छेदों में से निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्तदिया गया है।
उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 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 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 282 )/2010 ]
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011
S.O. 724. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " MITT - III " and with brand name "PHOTONS " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s. Micas Engineerings , Behind 9 Block , Bhanpuri , Raipur (CG ) Pin -493221 , Chhattisgarh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/ 464;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with amaximum capacity of30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval ( e ) is 5 g . 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 BODY OF SCALE
SEAL WIN
0000
LEAD SQUAR SEAL
SEALWIRE
BOTTOM OF SCALE
0
-LEAD SQUARE SEAL
Figure-2: Schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model .
Sealing is done on the displayby passing sealing wire from the body of the display . The seal is connectedby 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 . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card /mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 2 g and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 5000 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 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 ( 282)/ 2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1605
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 725.-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 मिकास इंजीनियरिंग्स , 9 ब्लाक के पीछे, भानपुरी , रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) पिन-493221 , छत्तीसगढ़ द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एमआईपीएफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फोटोंस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/465 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
आकृति - !
Max_1000 Kg
Min_02Kg
E_100 g
Class_III
Photons
आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम
डिस्प्लेकी बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की गई है। डिस्प्ले की बेस प्लेट और टाप कवर के छेद से सील को जोड़ा गया है, तब सील वायर इन दोनों छेदों में से निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है। मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्तदिया 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 भीदिया 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 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 , 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 282 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25, 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 725. 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 - section s (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issue 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 " MIPF " and with brand name " PHOTONS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s. Micas Engineerings , Behind 9Block, Bhanpuri , Raipur ( CG ) Pin -493221 , Chhatisgarh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/465;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 100 g . It has a tare device with a 100 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
Max_1000 Kg
Min_02 Kg
E_100 g
Class_III
Photons
Figure- 2: Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model .
Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by, sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 5000 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 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 (282)/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1607 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर, 2011
का.आ. 726.-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 मिकास इंजीनियरिंग्स, 9 ब्लाक के पीछे , भानपुरी , रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) पिन-493221 , छत्तीसगढ़ द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एम आई सी डत्ल्यू बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक कंवर्सन किट टाइप वेब्रिज ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फोटोंस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/466 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक कंवर्सन किट टाइप वेब्रिज ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 कि.गा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै 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
BACKSIDE
Photons
0000
TOPOFINDICATOR
आकृति-2 : मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम
डिस्प्ले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर 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 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 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 अधि कतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10 , 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 282 ) /2010 ] बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान
452Gl /2012-5 1608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011
S.O. 726. 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 Moders ) 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 issue and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Electronic: Conversion Kit Type Weighbridge) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) of series " MICWE! " and with brand name " PHOTONS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Micas Engineerings, Behind 9 Block, Bhanpuri , Raipur (CG ) Pin - 493221 , Chhatisgarh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 10/466;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Electronic Conversion KitType Weighbridge ) with a maximum capacity of 40 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 , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
BACK SIDE
0000
0000
Photons
P
0000
TOP OF INDICATOR
Figure2: Schematic diagram of 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, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further, in exercise of the 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 of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or above and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2×10k or 5x10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer inaccordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM -21 ( 282 )/ 2010]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1609 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 727. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मिकास इंजीनियरिंग्स , 9 ब्लाक के पीछे , भानपुरी , रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) पिन-493221, छत्तीसगढ़ द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एम आई एफ डब्ल्यू बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फोटोंस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/10/467 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 कि.ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलय युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यावकलनात्मक धारित अधेयतुलन 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
BACK SIDE
0000
0000
LEAD SQUARE
0
Photons
TOPOFINDICATOR
आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम
डिस्प्लेकी बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर डिस्पले के राइट/ बैंक साइड में सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर 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 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 , 5 × 10 के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 282 )/2010 ]
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]
New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011
S.O. 727. 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 issued and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge Type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series "MIFWB " and with brand name " PHOTONS" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Micas Engineerings , Behind 9 Block , Bhanpuri , Raipur (CG ) Pin -493221 , Chhatisgarh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/10/467;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge Type) with a maximum capacity of 40 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 , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
BACK SIDE
0000
Photons
TOPOFINDICATOR
Figure2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model .
Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or above and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 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 .
[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 282 )/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1611 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 728.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स आइडल, गोल घर चौराहा , शिव मंदिर के पीछे , पटना-1 ( बिहार ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आईटी-11 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आईडॉल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/559 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमे 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
B1564
MANS
STAMPING MATH SEALING LOAD SEN
ON
OFF
ON- OFF
888888
TARE
T
IDOL
ZERO
M2x. 30kg Mus. 100g 5g
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 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 अधिनिम 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 । 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 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 * , 5× 10* , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 318 ) /2010 ]
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 728. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " IT- 11 " and with brand name " IDOL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Ideal , Gol Ghar Chowraha , B /h. Shiv Mandir , Patna - 1 (Bihar) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/ 559 .
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top Type ) with a maximum capacity of30kg and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . 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 , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
B1564
MANS
STAMPING MAT SIDE SEALING
LOAD SEJ
ON- OFF
888888
TARE
IDOL
ON T Z
ZERO
Max . 30kg Min. 100g e.5g
Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model
Sealing is done on the display by passing the 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 power conferred by sub - rule ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of Img to 2g and with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 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 (318 )/2010]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1613 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 729.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स आइडल, गोल घर चौराहा , शिव मंदिर के पीछे , पटना-1 ( बिहार ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आईपी-6' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आईडॉल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ 560 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता । ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमे 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
B1565
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 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 कलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2× 10 * , 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 318 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 729. 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 ( PlatformType) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " IP - 6 " and with brand name " IDOL" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Ideal , Gol Ghar Chowraha , B /h . Shiv Mandir, Patna - 1 ( Bihar ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10 / 560 .
Thesaid model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type ) with a maximum capacity of 500 kg and minimum capacity of 1kg. 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 , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
81565
IDOL
Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model
Sealing is done on the displayby passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is 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 : libration . 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 declasres 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 aboe 50kg and up to 5000kg with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k 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 ( 318 )/ 2010]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1615 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 730.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स एशबी सिस्टम्स प्रा. लि. , सी -64 , ओखला इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया , फेज-1 , नई दिल्ली-110020 द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्यता वर्ग- । , एक्सल-लोड " एएसडब्ल्यूआईएम " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वचालित रोड व्हीकल इन मोशन और मेजरिंग एक्सल लोड ( टोटल व्हीकल वेइंग ) तोलन उपकरण के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एएसएचबीईई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 /32 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित स्वचालित रोड व्हीकल इन मोशन और मेजरिंग एक्सल लोड ( टोटल व्हीकल वेइंग ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता एक्सल 20 टन /एक्सल है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है । मापमान अंतराल ( डी) 20 कि.ग्रा. है । चलते हुए वाहन के एक्सल का भार जो सभी भार सैलों द्वारा महसूस किया जाता है , को जोड़ा जाता है और सड़क के एक किनारे पर फिट किया गया जंक्शन बाक्स/ कंट्रोलर के माध्यम से डिजिटल वेट इंडीकेटर में भरा जाता 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 । इसमें एक्सल संख्या 10 तक है और अधिकतम प्रचालन स्पीड 15 कि.मी. /घंटा और न्यूनतम प्रचालन स्पीड । कि.मी. /घंटा है ।
आकृति
SUPAWEIGH5000/5000C
20000Kg
1000Kg
20
MAXCAPACITY200
MINCAPACITY 10
ASHBEESYSTEMSPVTLTD.
आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम
डिस्पले की बाडी में छेदों से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।
उपकरण में बाहरी कलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/ डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तालन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " डी " मान के लिए 500 से 5000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 60 टन/एक्मल 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. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 181 )/2010 ) .
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान
452G1 /2012-6 1616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31 October, 2011
S.O. 730. 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 Standards ofWeights 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 Automatic Instrument for weighing Road Vehicles in motion and measuring Axle Loads (Total Vehicle Weighing ) with digital indication ofAccu- racy Class - 1 , of series " ASWIM " and with brand name " ASHBEE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufac- tured by M / s Ashbee Systems Pvt Ltd , C - 64, Okhla Industrial Area , Phase - I , New Delhi - ll 0020 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 11 / 32 .
Thesaid model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Instrument for weighing Road Vehicles in motion and measuring Axle Loads (Total Vehicle Weighing) with a maximum capacity/ axle of 20tonne / axle and minimum capac- ity of 1000kg . The scale interval ( d) is 20kg . The Weight of the axle of the vehicle in motion is sensed by all the load cells issummed up and fed to digital weight indicator through the junction box/controller fitted one side of the road. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. It is having number of axles upto 10 with maximum operating speed as 15km / hr and minimum operating speed is 1km /hr .
Figure- 1
021303
SUPAWEIGH5000/5000C
-20Ka
MAXCAPACITY-20000Kg MINCAPACITY 1000K
ASHBEESYSTEMSPVT. LTD.
Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model
Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body through holes . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration.
Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the said Act , the Central Govern- ment 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/ axle up to 60 tonne / axle with scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 to 5000 for ' d ' value of 5g or more and with ' d ' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 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 ( 181 )/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 1617 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 731. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स यूनिवर्सल कंस्ट्रेक्शन मशीनरी एंड इक्यूपमेंट लि. , यूनिवर्सल हाऊस , वाजें जकत नाका , कोथरूढ़ , पुणे -52 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता । वर्ग -2 , वाले " 12 एम '/ hr " श्रृंखला के डिस्कंटिन्युअस टोटलाइजिंग स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टोटलाइजिंग हुपर व्हीयर ) अंकक सूचन सहित के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बेचिंग प्लांट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/320 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित डिस्कंटिन्युअस टोटलाइजिंग स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टोटलाइजिंग हुपर व्हीयर ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 312 कि.ग्रा. , न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा. और 2 अधिकतम क्षामता 1250 कि.ग्रा. और 2 न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा . है । मापमान अंतराल ( डीटी ) कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । साइकिल स्पीड 20 साइकिल /घंटा है एलसीडी/ एलईडी तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
आकृति
steel Wire
Steel Clamp
आकृति-2 : मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।
स्कंल की बाडी में होल से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी याजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है ।
उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 1250 कि.ग्रा. के लिए ' डीटी ' 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. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 174) /2010 ]
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 731. 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 Discontinuous Totalizing Automaticweighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher ) with digital indication ofAccuracy class - 2 of series " 12M³ / hr" and with brand name " BATCHING PLAN " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Universal Construction Machinery & Equipment Ltd. " Universal House " , Warje Jakat Naka , Kothrud , Pune - 52 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10/320;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher ) with a maximum capacity of 312 kg , minimum capacity of 50kg , 2 Maximum Capacities of 1250 kg and 2. Minimum Capacities of 200 kg . The scale interval (dt ) is I kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The cycle speed is 20 cycles /hr. The LCD / LED display indicates the weighin results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
UNLYBABAL
steel Wire
Steel Clamp
Figure-2: Sealing diagram of the sealing provision of the model .
Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Govern- ment 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 up to 1250 kg for ' dt ' value of 5g or more and with 'e' value ' of 1 x 10k , 2 × 10k or 5x 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 ( 174)/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 1619
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 732.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स यूनिवर्सल कंस्ट्रेंक्शन मशीनरी एंड इक्यूपमेंट लि. , यूनिवर्सल हाऊस , वार्जे जकत नाका , कोथरूढ़ , पुणे -52 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग-2 , वाले " 15 एम³/hr " श्रृंखला के डिस्कंटिन्युअस टोटलाइजिंग स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टोटलाइजिंग हुपर व्हीयर ) अंकक सूचन सहित के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बेचिंग प्लांट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/321 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है;
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित डिस्कंटिन्युअस टोटलाइजिंग स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टोटलाइजिंग हुपर व्हीयर ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 412 कि.ग्रा . , न्यूनतम चमता 50 कि.ग्रा. और अधिकतम क्षमता 1650 कि.ग्रा . और 2 न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा. है । मापमान अंतराल ( डीटी ) 1 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । साइकिल स्पीड 20 साइकिल/ घंटा है एलसीडी/एलईडी तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
आकृति
ענויייייין
UNIVERSAL
steelWire
Steel Clamp
आकृति-2 : मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।
स्केल की बाडी में होल से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है ।
उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड /मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 1650 कि. ग्रा. के लिए ' डीटी ' 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. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 174 ) /2010 ]
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II- SEC . 3( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 732. 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 ) atid ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher) with digital indication of Accuracy class - 2 of series " 15M³ / hr" and with brand name " BATCHING PLANT " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Universal Construction Machinery & Equipment Ltd. " Universal House " , Warje Jakat Naka , Kothrud , Pune - 52 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10 /321 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher ) with a maximum capacity of 412 kg , minimum capacity of 50kg , 2 Maximum Capacities of 1650 kg and 2 Minimum Capacities of 50 kg . The scale interval ( d ) is 1 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The cycle speed is 20 cycles /hr . The LCD / LED display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
UNIVERSAL
steel Wire
Steel Clamp
Figure- 2: Sealing diagram of the sealing provision of the model .
Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Govern- ment 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 up to 1650 kg for' dt ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero mamifactured 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 ( 174)/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1621 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 733.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इलेक्ट्रोन मेगनेटिक्स , नं. 31/2 , पाचवां ' सी ' क्रास , शारदाम्बा नगर, जलहाली , बेंगलूर -560013 द्वारा विनिर्मित " ईएम -03 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित " टैक्सी/आटो मीटर " के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " ई- स्टार " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/10/442 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल " टैक्सी/ आटो मीटर " मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्री द्वारा देय भाड़े के दौरान किसी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा , तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम पर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है जो प्राधिकृत शुल्क के अनुसार अनुपूरक भाड़े से स्वतंत्र है । मीटर की रीडिंग प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) द्वारा दर्शायी जाती है । टैक्सी मीटर का' के' फेक्टर 2800 प्लसेस प्रति किलोमीटर पर चलता है । इंडीकेटर में 5 अंकों (3 तीन अंक रुपए के लिए और 2 अंक पैसे के लिए ) तक अधिकतम किराया सूचन , 4 अंकों ( 4 अंकों में एक दशमलव प्वाइंट शामिल ) में अधिकतम दूरी सूचन और 4 अंकों में ( 2 अंक मिनट के लिए और 2 अंक सेकेंड के लिए ) अधिकतम समय सूचन दर्शाता है ।
RearView
PowerSwitch
FARE
Rs
HIRED TOPAY
ELECTRON MAGNETICS
TO PAY
HIRED
KM
MountingBracket
SEALLED DISTANCE
FOR TVSAUTO
WANTING TIRAE
SEAL LED
SealWire
SEAL LED
आकृति- 2- मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का सीलिंग डायाग्राम
सील और स्टाम्प के सत्यापन के लिए दिए गए दो स्क्रू होल्ज वाले में से लीडिड वायर निकाल मीटर की रियर बाटम साइड में सीलिंग की जाती है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना मीटर को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 270 ) /2010] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 733. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of " Taxi/Auto Meter " with digital indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) of " EM -03 " series and with brand name " E- STAR " manufactured by M/ s. Electron Magnetics, No. 31/2 , 5th ' C ' Cross , Sharadamba Nagar , Jalahalli , Bangalore - 560013 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/442;
The said Model of " Taxi/Auto Meter " is a measuring instrument which totalizes continuously and indicates the fare at any moment of journey the charges payable by the passenger of a public vehicle as function of the distance traveled and below a certain speed , the fare is calculated as function of the time taken , This being independent of supplementary charges according to the auithorized tariffs . The reading of the meter is indicated by the Light Emitting Diode ( LED) . The ' k' factor of the Taxi Meter is 2800 pulses per kilometer. The indicator have 5 digits (3 digits for rupees and two digits for paise) for maximum fare indication , 4 digits (4 digits including one decimal point ) for maximum distance indication and 4 digits (two for minutes and two for seconds ) for maximum time indication.
Figure- 1
RearView
Power Switch
FARE
Hade
Ps
Rs
HIREDTOPAY
Ind by ELECTRON MAGNETICS 11
TO PAY
HIRED
KM
MountingBracket
DISTANCE
FOR TVS AUTO
SEAL LED
WANTING TIME
SEALLED
SealWire
SEALLED
Figure-2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model
Sealing is done on the rear bottam side of the meter, two screws with holes are provided through which the leaded wire will be passed to receive the verification seal and stamp. The meter cannot be opened without tamering the seal . A schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .
[ F.No. WM -21 (270)/ 2010 ] B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1623 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 734.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र के साथ 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 उपधारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स चाइना नेशनल एरो टैक्नोलॉजी इम्पोर्ट एंड एक्सपोर्ट कारपोरेशन केटिक झुहाल , गोंगडेनी , चाइना द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग I ) वाले " एसएबी-10 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " स्केल- टैक " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स स्केलटैक मैकाट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , एफ-1-106 , काशी विश्वेश्वर टावर - 3 - बी जेतलपुर रोड , अलकापुरी, वढोदरा -390005 द्वारा भारत में बिक्री से पूर्व अथवा बाद में बिना किसी परिवर्तन के बिक्रीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ 553 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रो मैगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पेनसेशन प्रिंसीपल पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । एलईडी/ एलसीडी प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
SUE SEATING
25
15
83
00
85
0
Γ
SPAMPING MA
25
500.00
BS
$1540
आकृति- 2- मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायाग्राम
स्केल की टापं कवर और बाटम में बनाए गए छेद में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।
उपकरण में बाहरी कलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/ डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के बैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. या इससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 या अधिक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा.तक की अधि कतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 , 5x10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 330 ) /2010 ]
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान
452GI/2012-7 1624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 734. 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 approves and issues the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type ) with digital indication of special accuracy (Accuracy class -1 ) of Series " SAB- 10 " and with brand name " SCALE - TEC " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . China National Aero Technology Import & Export Corporation Catic Zhuhal , Guangdeny, China and sold in India without any alteration before or after sale by M/ s . Scaletec Mechatronics Pvt . Ltd. , F- 1-106, Kashi Vishweswar Tower- 3 - B Jetalpur Road , Alkapuri , Vadodara- 390005 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/553 ;
The said model is an electro magnetic force compensation principle non - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000g . and minimum capacity of 1g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 10mg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The LED/ LCD display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1Model
OSE SEATIM ;
0
500.00 25
25
181549
Figure-2Sealing Diagram .
Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes in the top cover and bottam. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above .
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has been provided in A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said, Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 50,000 or above for ' e ' value of 1 mg . 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 materials with which the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F.No. WM-21 ( 330)/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1625 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 735.-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 उपधारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वालेओ कारपोरेशन , 4एफ-3 , नं. 161 , सुंग- तेह रोड , तैपई , ताइवान 110 द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग II वाले " ईक्यूडीटी " श्रृंखला के क्लीनिकल इलेक्ट्रीकल थर्मामीटर अधिकतम डिवाइस , अंकक सूचन सहित मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " ईक्यूयूआईएनओएक्स " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स इक्यूनॉक्स ओवरसीज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड आर 74 बी , दूसरा तल , साई बाबा मंदिर के पास , खिर्की एक्सटेंशन, मालवीय नगर , नई दिल्ली -110017 द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या पश्चात बिना किसी बदलाव के भारत में विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ 588 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त माडल हार्ड टिप टाइप क्लिनीकल इलेक्ट्रीकल थर्मामीटर है जो अधिकतम डिवाइस , एल सी डी ( लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ) टाइप अंकक सूचन सहित मापमान रेंज 32 °C से 42 °C में है और जिसका न्यूनतम स्केल अंतराल 0.1 °C है । यह 1.518 वी डीसी बैटरी सं परिचालित होता है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 283 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 735.-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 Clinical Electrical Thermometer withMaximum Device with digital indication ofAccuracy Class -II of Series " EQDT " and with brand name " EQUINOX" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufacturedby M/s . Valeo Corporation, 4F - 3 , No. 161 , Sung -Teh Road, Taipei , Taiwan 110 and marketed in India without any alteration before or after sale by M /s . Equinox Overseas Private Limited , R- 74B, IInd Floor , Near Sai Baba Mandir , Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar , New Delhi - 110017 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/588 ;
Figure- 1Model
The said model is a hard tip type Clinical Electrical Thermometer with Maximum Device , having measurement range of 32 ° C to 42 ° C with deigital indication of LCD ( Liquid Crystal Display) type and the smallest scale interval is 0.1 °C . It operates on 1.518V DC battery.
[ F. No. WM -21 (283 )/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1627 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 736.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स उषा स्केल एसोसिएट , सी -21 और 22 , सिकंदरा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , आगरा -282007 ( उ.प्र. ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " यूएसएसी ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " उषा " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 10/ 106 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 5,000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
आकृति-1
SER
USHA Usha Scale Associates
HEAD HOLE SCREW
आकृति-2 : मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।
लेफ्ट साइड के दोनों हैड होल्ज में से सीलिंग वायर निकाली जाती है । दूसरे दृष्टांत में साइड कवर और बाटम प्लेट के होल्स में से वायर निकाल कर लेफ्ट साइड में सील किया जाता 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 उक्तमॉडल 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 इससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 30 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 % , 5x10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 85 ) /2010 ]
बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 736. 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 ( Crane Type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " USAC " and with brand name " USHA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Usha Scale Associates , C- 21 & 22 , Sikandra Industrial Area , Agra - 282007 ( UP) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/106;
The said model is a strain gange type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Crane Type ) with a maximum capacity of 5000 kg and minimum capacity of 20 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 1kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
USHA
SEAL
Usha Scale Associates
HEND HOLE SCREW
Figure-2: Sealing arrangement
Seal wire passes through the two head holes in left side . In the second instance , wire is passed through the holes in the side cover and bottam plate and then sealed at left side . 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 .
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 range from 50 kg and up to 30tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for e value of 5 g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k , 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 ( 85 )/2010 ]
B. N. DIXIT. Director of Legal Metrology 1629 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 737.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स उषा स्केल एसोसिएट , सी -21 और 22 , सिकंदरा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , आगरा-282007 ( उ.प्र. ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " यूएसएएच' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( हैंगिंग स्केल टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " उषा " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ 107 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( हैंगिंग स्केल टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 400 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 20 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 ।
Hangingscale
SealWire
USHA
SEAL
USHA SCALES ASSOCIATES
Headhole screw
आकृति-2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम
लेफ्ट साइड के दोनों हैड होल्ज में से सीलिंग वायर निकाली जाती है । दूसरे दृष्टांत में साइड कवर और बाटम प्लेट के होल्स में से वायर निकाल कर लेफ्ट साइड में सील किया जाता 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 0.1 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 1000 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. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (85 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011
S.O. 737. 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 (Hanging Scale top type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of Series " USAH " andwith brand name " USHA " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Usha Scale Associates , C-21 & 22 , Sikandra Industrial Area , Agra - 282007 ( UP) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10/ 107;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Hanging Scale top type ) with a maximum capacity of 100kg . and minimum capacity of 400g . The verification scale interval (e) is 20g . 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 Model
SealWire
Hangingscale
USHA
SEAL
USHA SCALES ASSOCIATES
Headholescrew
Figure- 2Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model
Seal wire passes through the two head holes in left side . In the second instance , wire is passed through the holes inthe side cover and bottam plate and then sealed at left side. Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe Model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said , Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity range up to 1000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 0.1 g . to 2g. and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 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 (85)/2010]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1631 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011
का.आ. 738.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ट्रक वे सिस्टम इंडिया प्रा. लि. , #479बी, अविनाशी रोड , पीलामेडु, कोयम्बतूर -641004 ( तमिलनाडु ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " टी डब्ल्यू एस- डब्ल्यू बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रिोनिक वेब्रिज मल्टी लोड सैल टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एक्यूट्रज " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/507 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रिोनिक वेब्रिज मल्टी लोड सैल टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 80 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 400 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 20 कि.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 ।
A
LOABCEIL PS2 8257 USB PORTS
The Sesling Arrangement done thralgh this screw in such a way that t
Indicator.caonot be openedwithout broking the Seeling
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 हैं । सील के सार्थ 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 कम एक योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम्म उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।
उपकरण में बाहेसे कैलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए एसडी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।
और कोच्द्रीय सरकार भवत अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह षणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा सिद्धांत , डिजाइन अनुसार और आधी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल निम किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन आपकरण 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 5 टन से 200 टन तक की अधिकतम " ई " एस 1 × 1 , 2 × 10 % , 5 × 10 , के हैं धरनाक या ऋत्यक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
ए -21( 300 )/2010 ] [फा.नं.
केएर दीक्षित, लिये विधिक माप विज्ञान
452Gl /2012-8 1632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
ploma m
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011
S.O. 738. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge-Multi Load Cell Type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of Series " TWS- WB " and with brand name " ACUTUZ " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Truck Weigh System India Pvt . Ltd. , # 479B, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu , Coimbatore-641004 (Τ.Ν. ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/507;
ThesaidModel is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Electric Weighbridge- Multi Load Cell -Type ) with a maximum capacity of 80tonne and minimum capacity of400kg. The verification scale interval ) is 20kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained täre effect . The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) Display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure- 1
USB PORTS
LOADCELL RS232 232
The Seattletangersent done through this screwssuctie way that the sp Indicator cannot be spared without broking the sealing arrangement. net ofthe
Figure-2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model
Sealing is done on the right side /back side ofthe display by passing sealing wife from the body of the display. The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display, then seal wire is passedthrough these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above .
Theinstrument has external control to calibration Adip switch has also been provided in A /D card/ mother board: to disable acces 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 shalt also cover the weighing instruments ofsimilar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or above and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10 hor 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. desigr . an . same werials with which the said approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM -21 (300)/2010]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1633
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो)
नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी , 2012
का.आ. 739.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उप विनियम ( 6 ) 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:-
अनुसूबरीः
लाइसेंसधारी का माम्म एवं यता क्रम सं.
लाइसेंस संख्या तिथि/वर्ष/माह स्वीकृति करने की
(3)
(4) (1) (2)
13-08-2010
1. 3655064
मैसर्स डूरालाईन इंडियन प्रा. लि. , प्लॉट सं. 24-25, वेरना इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सीटी, फेस 11 ए, वेरना , सालसेट नॉर्थमोवा-403 722
2. 3657977 19-08-2010 मैसर्स अफेम रोलिंग प्रा. लि. , क्रम सं. 98/1/8 और 9 केएलजे प्लास्टीसाइजर के सामने विलेज : सिल्ली सिलवासा जिला : दादरा और नगर हवेली 396 230
3. 3658878 26-08-2010 मैसर्स बेडमुथा वायर कंपनीकिं, प्लान्ट- II , ए-70 , 71 , 72 , एसटीआयसीई , सिन्नर , जिला: नासिक-422 103 , महाराष्ट्र
4. 3658979 26-08-2010
वैसर्स बेडमुथा वायर कंपनी लि. , प्लान्ट-11 , ए-70 , 71 , 72 , एसटीआयसीई , सिन्नर , जिला : नासिक-422 103 , महाराष्ट्र
5. 3659072 26-08-2010
भाग खण्ड वर्ष भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
भामा संख्या
(6) (7) (8) (9 ) (5)
2001
14885
गैसीय फयूलों की आपूर्ति के लिए पॉलीथिलीन
2008
1786
कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सान्द्रथ' विरुपित इस्पात छड़े औरतार-विशिष्ट
1783
1983 पूर्व प्रतिबलित कंक्रिट के लिए सादे, कठोर कर्षित इस्पात के तार : भाग । अतप्त कषित प्रतिमल युक्त तार
6003
$983
पूर्व प्रतिबलित कंक्रिट के अतिदाब तार
1983
6006
पूर्व प्रतिबलित कंक्रिट के लिए बिना लेपित प्रतिकलं अवमुक्त लड़
मैसर्स बेडमुथा वायर कंपनी लि. , प्लान्ट-11 , ए -70 , 71 , 72 , एसटीआयसीई , सिन्नर, जिला : नासिक-422 103 , महारर्राष्ट्र
63659173 26-08-2010 मैसर्स बेडमुथा वायर कंपनी लि. , प्लान्ट-11 , ए-70 , 71 , 72 , एसटीआयसीई, सिन्नर, जिला: नासिक-422 103 , महाराष्ट्र
7. 3663770
मैसर्स साई बाबा वूड्स प्रोडक्टस् प्रा. लि. , गट सं. 92 , विलेज कोनसाई . वाड़ा, जिला थाने-43120
2
785
1983
पूर्व प्रतिबलित कंक्रिट कना सादे कठोर कर्षित इस्पात तार भाग : कर्ष चार की तरह
1
2202
1999
वुडन फलश डोः टर्स (ठोस कोर टाईप 1634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
(1) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
8. 3665572 22-09-2010
मैसर्स श्री सातपुडा तापी परिसर सहकारी साखर कारखाना लिमिटेड, बगासे बोर्ड डिविजन , पुरुषोत्तम नगर , शाहदा , जिला नंदूरबार -425424, महाराष्ट्र
9. 3665673 23-09-2010
मैसर्स न्यू भारत फायर प्रोटक्शन सिस्टम प्रा. लि. , गट सं. 214 , भाग-
विलेज : कोंडला , दिनकर पाडा,
तालुका: बाडा,
जिला: थाणे-432131
10: 3666978 30-09-201′ के. सी. इण्डस्ट्रीज , प्लॉट सं. 1/1 , ओक्सीलरी इण्ड; इस्टेट ऑफ एचओसी लि. ,
विलेज : तुराडे , पो ऑ. रसायनी , पनवेल जिला : रायगढ़ -410 207
11. 3667071 28-09-2010 के. सी. इण्डस्ट्रीज, प्लॉट सं. 1/1 , ओक्सीलरी इण्ड; इस्टेट ऑफ एचओसी लि. ,
विलेज : तुराडे , पो ऑ. रसायनी , पनवेल जिला : रायगढ़ -410 207
12. 3667172 28-09-2010 के. सी. इण्डस्ट्रीज ,
प्लॉट सं. 1/1 , ओक्सीलरी इण्ड; इस्टेट ऑफ एचओसी लि. , विलेज : तुराडे, पो ऑ. रसायनी , पनवेल जिला : रायगढ़-410 207
13. 3668477 04-10-2010 के. सी. इण्डस्ट्रीज , प्लॉट सं. 1/1 , ओक्सीलरी इण्ड; इस्टेट ऑफ एचओसी लि. , विलेज : तुराडे , पो ऑ. रसायनी , पनवेल जिला: रायगढ़ -410 207
3671769 15-10-2010 मैसर्स कायटेक इण्डस्ट्रीज (इंडिया) लि. ,
सर्वे सं. 99/2 , 8 मधुबन इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया मधुबन डैम रोड, विलेज : राखोली , सिलवासा , जिला : दादरा और न्नागर हवेली-396 2300
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(5)
(6)
( 8 ) ( 9 )
(7)
3087
2005 सामान्य प्रयोजनों के लिए लकड़ी के पार्टिकल बोर्ड (मध्यम घनत्व)
4947
2006 अग्नि शामकों में प्रयोग के लिए गैस के कारतूस
(कार्टिज)
13997
खुले मुंह वाले बड़े ड्रम
1994
1783
2
1988 डुस, बड़े , नियत सिरे भाग 2 श्रेणी ' बी' ड्रम
1783
1983 डुम , बड़े , नियत सिरा - विशिष्टि भाग । श्रेणी ' ए ' इम
3575
1993 बिटयुमिन ड्रम
4985
2000 पेय जल आपूर्ति के लिए विलायक सीमेंट जोड़ वाले सादे और सॉकेट सिरा सहित अप्लैस्टिकित पी वी सी पाईप-विशिष्टि [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1635 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
( 1) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
15. 3672973 20-10-2010
4923
1997
संरचना इस्पात के लिए खोखला इस्पात सेक्शन
मैसर्स झेनीथ स्टील ट्यूब एण्ड इण्डस्ट्रीज लि. , पो.आ. मादप , तालुका , खालापुर, जिला: रायगढ़ -410 202
महाराष्ट्र
16. 3673268 20-10-2010
3589
2001
जल और मलजल हेतु इस्पात पाईप ( 168.3 से 2540 मिमी बाहय व्यास) -विशिष्टि
मैसर्स विभोर स्टील टयूब्स प्रा. लि. , पाइप नगर ( विलेज सुकेली ) एन. एच. - 17 , बीकेजी रोड, वाया नागोठाणे , तालुका-लोहा , जिला : रायगढ़ -402 126
17. 3677680 02-11-2010
12709
1994 मैसर्स टाईम टेक्नोप्लास्ट लिमिटेड, सर्वे सं. 326/1/1 , धोधरपाडा, विलेज : वेलुगाम , सिलवासा , दादरा और नागर हवेली-396 230
ग्लास पेय जल आपूर्ति के लिएफाईबर प्रबलित प्लास्टिक (जीआरपी ) पाईप्स, जोड़ और फिटिंग्स-विशिष्टि
18. 3678480 02-11-2010
12823
1990
लकड़ी उत्पाद-प्रीलैमिनेटिड पार्टिकल बोर्डस- विशिष्टि
मैसर्स गोल्डन प्लाय एण्ड बोर्डस प्लॉट सं. 53 एवं 54 , मोरीवली एमआयडीसी , अंबरनाथ पश्चिम जिलो: थाणे-421 501
19. 3683574 03-12-2010
3589
2001
पानी और मलजल के लिए इस्पात पाईप ( 168.3 से 2540 मिमी बाहरी व्यास के) - विशिष्टि
मैसर्स टॉपवर्थ पाईप्स एवं टयूब्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, खोपाली पाली रौंड , विलेज : हेदावली सुधागढ़ , जिला : रायगढ़ -410 205
13849
1993 20. 3684071 08-12-2010
10 किग्रा धारिता के शुष्क पावडर किरमा सुवाहाय अग्नि शामक ( नियत दाब )
पद्मा इण्डस्ट्रीज, प्लॉट में. 390 -बी, दिनकर पाडा, कोंडले रोड, कुडुस , वाडा,
जिला : ठाणे-421 312
21. 3684475 09-12-2010
15778
2007
गर्म और शीत पेय जल वितरण पूर्ति के लिए क्लोरिनियत पीवीसी पाईप
द सुप्रिम इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, गंट संख्या 47 , 47/2 , 48 से 50, 55 से 66 ,69 , 70, 72 और 73 जलगांव- औरंगाबाद स्टेट हाईवे पोस्टगड़ेगाँव , तालुका जामनेर, जिला : जलगांव-425 114 महाराष्ट्र
22. 3685881 15-12-2010
2062
2006
तप्त वेल्लित अल्प , मध्यम एवं उच्च तन्यता के संरचना इस्त्रात-विशिष्टि
मैसर्स भारतीय अलॉय और स्टील कास्टलि. , प्लाट सं. 180 , 181 , 182 , 272 ए और बी और 274 भिवण्डी वाडा रोड , विलेज : घोंसाईं वाड़ा जिला: थाणे-421 303 1636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
23. 3687683 10-12-2010
[PART II--SEC. 3 (ii) ]
(6)
(8 ) ( 9 ) (5)
(7)
13592
1992
किशन मोल्डिंग लिमिटेड , सर्वे सं. 63/1 , 64, 1 , 70 , 71 , 72 विलेज : महागाँव , बोइसर , पालघर , जिला : थाणे-401 501
243688281 23-12-2010 मैसर्स ई- कॉन पैकेजिंग प्रा. लि. , सर्वे सं. 1/1/3/1 ,ऑफ चिंचपाड़ा विलेज , यूएम केबल्स के नज़दीक , सिलवासा , दादस और नागर हवेली -396230
25. 3688382 24-12-2010 मैसर्स ई -कॉन पैकेजिंग प्रा. लि. , सर्वे सं. 1/1/3/1 , ऑफ चिंचपाडी विलेज , युएम केबल्स के नजदीक , सिलाब्राइम , दादरा और नागर हवेली-396230
26. 3689889 21-12-2010 मैसर्स मोनाटोना टायर्स लिमिटेड , फैक्टरी संख्या 279 , 286 , 287 (पी) दाकीवली, भिवंडी-चौडा रोड, तानसा नदी के नजदीक, वाडा, जिला : थाणे-421 312
27. 3694074 13-01-2011 मैसर्स कृष्णा २ प्लायंसेस गाला सं. 7 और 8 , कुमावत इण्ड. इस्टेट बिलाल पाडा गोख्खीकरा , वसई ( पूर्व ) जिला: थारो प्री 20
28. 3694882 17-01-2011 मैसर्स टॉपवर्थ पाईप्स एवं टयूब्स प्रा. लिमिटेड खोपाली पाली रोड, विलेज : हेदावली सुधागढ़ , जिला : रायगढ़-401205
29. 3696684 25-01-2011
सेंवातन और वर्षाजल पद्धति सहित भवनों के अंदर मिट्टी और अपशिष्ट निकास के यूजींवीसी पाईपें
1783
2
1988 बंद सिरे वाले बड़े ड्रम भाग 2 , ग्रेड बी ड्रम
1
1783
1993 बंद सिरे वाले बड़े ड्रम भाग 1 , ग्रेड ए ड्रम.
15636
2005 स्वँचल वाहन- वाणिज्यिक वाहनों के लिए वायवीय टायर- विकों और
1660
1 1982 पिटवॉ एल्यूमिनियम के बर्तन (भाग 1 ) : भोजन पंकाने , परोसने , रखने और गर्म करने के बर्तन-विशिष्टि
1998
1161
संरचना प्रयोजनों के लिए इस्पात नलिकाएं
13997
1994 खुले मुंह वाले बड़े बड़े ड्रम
मैसर्स प्रीमियर होलोवेयर्स प्रा. लि. , सर्वे सं. 1/1/3/1 , ऑफ, चिंचपाडी, लिलेज, यू.एम. केबलम् के नजदीक सिलवासा, दादरा और नागर हवेली-396 230
30. 3696686 EAN-RAJIN भैसर्स मिहाल सेफ्टी जमा लि ई-15 , इंजीनियरिंग ओवा एमआयडीसी , तलोजा, जिला: रायगढ़-410208
2925
1984 सहमतिक सरथम, हेलमे [भाग.11 खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1637
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
(3)
(14) (1) (2)
31. 3703756 22-02-2011 मैसर्स प्रेस्ट्रेस वायर इण्डस्ट्रीज एसवाय सं. 101 / 1 /1 ए, तूरी फालिया उमेरकुई रोड, विलेज फालंदी सिलवासा, जिला : दादरा
और मागर होली-396 230
32 3703857 24-02-2011
(6) (7) (8 ) ( 9 ) (5)
12776
2002 भूसंपर्दन के लिए जस्तीकृत लडी
1991
13098
स्वबाचल वाहन- वायवीय
टायरों के लिए टयूब-
विशिष्टि
मैसर्स आर्ट रबर इण्डस्ट्रीजलिः, एच-1 , एमआयडीसी एरिया , अंबड,
जिला: नासिक-422010
33. 3704253 23-02-2011
13098
1991 स्वचल वाहन-वायवीय टायरों के लिए टयूब- विशिष्टि
त्रम्बक रबर इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, प्लॉट सं. ए-81 से ए-87 और ए-106 से ए-112, एसटीआयसीई , पोस्ट-मुसलगाँव , सिन्नर ,
जिला : नासिक-422112
54: 3705861 04-03-2011 मैसर्स आकाश पॉलीमर प्लॉट सं. एन -121 , एमआयडीसी, एमको के फजदीक,
जिला : जसमांक-425 003
35. 3708261 15-03-2011 मैसर्स एमआरएफ लिमिटेड, (यूनिट-II)
498fs
पेड़ जल आपूर्ति के लिए अलैस्टिकित पीवीसी पाईप-
13698
स्वचल वाहन-वायवीय
टायरों के लिए ट्यूब-
विशिष्टि
पी.बी. सं. 1 , सर्वे सं. 254/0 , 255/ 1 - ए, 255/2 , 255/3 और और 256/1 - ए, पोंडा
जिला : उत्तर गोवा,
गोवा-403401
36. 3713658 21-03-2011
स्ताचल वाहन वायवीय
टाथरों के लिए ट्यूबे
मैसर्स मोमाटोमा टायर्स लिमिटेड, फैक्टरी संख्या 279 , 286 , 287 (पी) कीवली , भिवंडी-वाडा रोड तानसा नदी के नजदीक, वाड़ा
जिला : थाणे-421 312
37. 3714963 31-03-2011
2878
2004
मैसर्सविंटेक्स फायर प्रोटक्शन प्रा. लि. , आर-363 , टीटीसी , इण्ड. एरिया रबाले , नवी मुंबई
जिला: ठाणे-400701 अग्निशामक , कार्बम डाईऑक्साईड टाइप (सुबाह्य और टॉली माउण्टेड)
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमार्णर्ने विग/13:11 ] डॉ. एस. एल. पालकर, वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( प्रमाणन II ) 1638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART I SEC. 3 (ii )]
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS )
New Delhi , the 25th January, 2012
S.O. 739. -In pursuance of sub - regulation (6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have grant effect from the date indicate against each :-
SCHEDULE
GOL Date
Sl . No. CML No.
Licensee Name and Address
(1)
(3)
(4)
(2)
3655064 13-08-2010
1.
IS Product
IS No. Part Sec . Year
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
14885
2001 Polyethyene Pipes for the Supply of Gaseous Fuels-Specification
Duraline India Pvt . Ltd. , Plot No. 24-25 , Verna Electronics City, Phase IIA , Verna, Salcete , Distt.: NorthGoa-403722
3657977
2.
19-08-2010
1786
2008 High Strength Deformed Steel Bars and Wires for Concrete Reinforcement
Affem Rolling Pvt . Ltd. Sr. No. 98/1/8 & 9 , Opp . KLJ Plasticizer, Village-Sili Silvassa Distt .: Dadra and NagarHaveli - 396230
26-08-2010
3. 3658878
1 1983
1783
PlainHard -drawn Steel Wire for Prestressed Concrete-Part I : Cold Drawn Stress - relieved
Bedmutha Wire Co. Ltd. , Plant- It A- 70 , 71 , 72 , STICE, Sinnar, Distt.: Nashik-422103 Maharashtra
4. 3658979 26-08-2010
6003
1983 Indented Wire for Prestressed Concrete
Bedmotha Wire Co. Ltd. , Plant- 11 A-70 , 71 , 72 , STICE , Sinar, Distt.: Nashik -422103 Maharashtra
S 36590722-08-2010
1983 Uncoated Stress Relieved 6006 Strand for Prosessed Concrete
Bedmutha Wire Co. Ltd. , Plant A-70, 71 , 72 , STICE , Sinnar , Distt.: Nashik-422103 Maharashtra
26-08-2010
6. 3659173
1785 2 1983 PlainHard -drawn Steel Wirefor Prestressed Concrete : Part 2 Asdrawn wire
Bedmutha Wire Co. Ltd. , Plant- 11 A-70 , 71 , 72 , STICE, Sinnar , Distt.: Nashik-422103 Maharashtra
7. 3663770 09-09-2010
2202 1 1999 Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Solid Core Type) : Part 1 Plywood Face Panels
Sai Baba Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., GutNo. 92, Village Konsai Wada, Distt .: Thane -421303 Maharashtra 1639
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(4) (1) (2)
(3)
22-09-2010
8. 3665572
(6)
(5)
(7) (8) (9)
3087
2005 Wood Particle Boards (Medium Density) for General Purposes
Shree Satapuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. , Bagasse Board Division , Purushottam Nagar Shahda , Distt.: Nandurbar-425424 Maharashtra
23-09-2010
9. 3665673
2006
4947
Gascartridges for use infire extinguishers
New Bharat Fire Protection System (Pvt. ) Ltd. , GutNo. 214 (Part) , Village Kondla, Dinkar Pada, Tal . Wada, Distt .: Thane -432131 Maharashtra
30-09-2010
10. 3666978
1994
13997
Drums Large Open Top
K. C. Industries Plot No. 1/1 , Auxilliary Indl . Estate ofHoc Ltd. , Village Turade, P.O. Rasayani Panvel , Distt.: Raigarh -410 207 Maharashtra
3667071 28-09-2010
11.
2
1988
1783
Drums , Large, Fixed Ends , Part2 Grade B Drums
K. C. Industries PlotNo. 1/1 , Auxilliary Indl . Estate OfHoc Ltd. , Village Turade, P.O. Rasayani Panvel , Distt.: Raigarh -410 207 Maharashtra
28-09-2010
12. 3667172
1
1993
1783
Drums , Large, Fixed Ends- Specification-Part 1 : GradeA Drums
K. C. Industries Plot No. 1/1 , Axuilliary Indl . Estate OfHoc Ltd. , Village Turade , P.O. Rasayani Panvel , Distt : Raigarh -410 207 Maharashtra
13. 3668477 04-10-2010
Bitumendrums
3575
1993
K. C. Industries Plot No. 1/1 , Axuilliary Indl . Estate of Hoc Ltd. , Village Turade , P.O. Rasayani Panvel , Distt.: Raigarlı -410207 , Maharashtra
15-10-2010
14. 3671769
2000
4985
Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable WaterSupplies- Specification
K... Industries ( India ) Ltd. , Survey No. 99/2 , 8, Madhuban Indl . Area , Madhuban Dam Road, Village: Rakholi Silvassa Distt.: Dadra and Nagar Haveli-396230
20-10-2010
15. 3672973
4923
1997 Hollow Steel Sections for Structural Use
Zenith Steel Tubes and Inds . Ltd. , P. O. Madap, Taluka Khalapur, Distt.: Raigarh -410202 Maharashtra
452GI/2012-9 1640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
16. 3673268 20-10-2010
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
3589
2001 and Sewage ( 168.3 to Steel Pipes for Water 2 540 mm Outside Diameter)-Specification
Vibhor Steel Tubes Pvt . Ltd. , PipeNagar, (Vill . -Sukeli ) NH- 17 , BKG Road, Via- Nagothane, Taluka-Roha, Distt.: Raigarh -402126 Maharashtra
17. 3677680 02-11-2010
Time Technoplast Limited, Survey No. 326/1/1 , Dhodharpada , Village- Velugam , Silvassa, Distt.: Dadra and Nagar Haveli-396230
18.
3678480 02-11-2010 Golden Ply & Boards , PlotNo. 53 & 54 , Morivali MIDC , Ambernath (W) Distt.: Thane-421501 Maharashtra
3683574
19.
03-12-2010
Topworth Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. , Khopoli -Pali Road, Village- Hedavali Sudhagad Distt.: Raigarh-410205 Maharashtra
20. 3684071 08-12-2010 Padma Industries Plot No. 390, Dinkarpada, Kondle , Village- Kudus , Wada Distt: Thane-421312 Maharashtra
21 . 3684475 09-12-2010
The Supreme Industries Limited, Unit No. III , Gat No. 47 , 47/2, 48 to 50 , 55 to 66, 69 , 70, 72 & 73 Jalgaon- Aurangabad State Highway, AtPost Gadegaon , Tal: Jamner, Distt.:Jalgaon-425114 Maharashtra
22. 3685881 15-12-2010
12709
1994 Glass- fibre reinforced plastic (GRP) pipes joints and fittings for use for potable water supply
12823
1990 Wood Products- Prelaminated Particle Boards-Specification
3589
2001 SteelPipes for Water and Sewage ( 168.3 to 2 540 mm Outside Diameter)- Specification
1993
13849
Portable Fire Extinguisher DryPowder Type (Constant Pressure)
15778
2007 Chlorinated PVC Pipes for Potable Hot and Cold Water Distribution Supplies.
2062
2006 Steel for General Structural Purposes- Specification
Bhartiya Alloys & Steel CastLtd., Plot No. 180 , 181 , 182 , 272 & 274 , Bhiwandi Wada Road , Wada, Distt .: Thane-421303 Maharashtra
23.
3687683 10-12-2010
KisanMouldings Limited Survey No. 63/ 1,64/ 1,71,72 VillageMahagaon , AtBoisar, Palghar Distt: Thane-401501 Maharashtra
13592
1992 UPVC pipes for soil and waste discharge systems inside buildings including ventilation and rainwater system 1641
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
23-12-2010
3688281
24.
(9)
(6) (7) (8) (5)
1998
2
1783
Drums , large, Fixed Ends- Specification-Part 1: GradeB Drums
E-Con Packaging Private Limited Survey No. 1/1/3/1 , Off Chinchpada Village , Near UM Cables Silvassa
Distt.: Dadra and Nagar Haveli- 396230
24-12-2010
25.
3688382
1993
1
1783
Drums , large, Fixed Ends- Specification-Part 1 : Grade ADrums
E-Con Packaging Private Limited Survey No. 1/1/3/1 , Off Chinchpada Village, Near UM Cables Silvassa
Distt : Dadra and Nagar Haveli-396230
21-12-2010
3689889
26.
Monotona Tyres Limited Factory No. 279, 286 , 287 (P) Dakivali , Bhiwandi -Wada Road , Near Tansa River, Wada, Distt: Thane - 421312 Maharashtra
13-01-2011
3694074
27 .
Krishna Appliances Gala No. 7 & 8 , Kumavat Indl . Estate, Bilal Pada, Gokhivra, Vasai (East ) , Distt: Thane-401208 Maharashtra
17-01-2011
3694882
28.
2005
15636
Automotive Vehicles- Pneumatic Tyres for Commercial Vehicles- Diagonal and Radial Ply
1982
1660 1
Wrought Aluminium Utensils-Part 1 : Cooking Table, Serving Storing and Baking Utensils
1998
1161
Steel Tubes for Structural Purposes-Specification
Topworth Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Khopoli - Pali Road, Village-Hedavali , Sudhagad, Distt:Raigarh -401205 Maharashtra
25-01-2011
3696684
29.
1994
13997
Drums , large open top
E-ConPackaging Private Ltd. Survey No. 1/1/3/1 , Off Chinchpada Village , Near UM Cables Silvassa Distt: Dadra and Nagar Haveli -396230
28-01-2011
3696785
30.
Midas Safety Pvt . Ltd. E- 15 , Engineering Zone , MIDC, Taloja Distt: Raigarh -410208 Maharashtra
22-02-2011
3703756
31.
Prestress Wire Industries Sy. No. 101/1/1 , Turi Falia Umercoil Road, Village Falandi Silvassa Distt: Dadra and Nagar Haveli -396230
1984
2925
Industrial Safety Helmets
2002
12776
Galvanized Strand for Earthing -Specification 1642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
(1) (2
(3)
(4)
32. 3703857 24-02-2011
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
13098
1991 Automotive Vehicles- Tubes for Pneumatic Tyres- Specification
ArtRubber Industries Ltd. , H- 1 , MIDC Area, Ambad , Distt:Nashik-422010 Maharashtra
33. 3704253 23-02-2011
13098
1991 Automotive Vehicles- Tubes for Pneumatic Tyres- Specification
Trambak Rubber Inds. Ltd. , PlotNo. A- 81 to A - 87 & A- 106 to A - 112 , STICE , At& Post : Musalgaon , Sinanr, Distt: Nashik -422112 Maharashtra
34. 3705861 04-03-2011 Aakash Ploymer , Plot No. N- 121 , MIDC , Near EMCO, Distt:Jalgaon-425003 Maharashtra
35. 3708261 15-03-2011
4985
2000 Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable Water Supplies- Specification
13098
1991 Automotive Vehicles- Tubes for Pneumatic Tyres- Specification
MRF Ltd. ( Unit 2) P.B. No. 1 P.B. No. 1 , Survey No. 254/0 , 255 /1 - A , 255/2 , 255/3 & 256/ 1 -A, Ponda , Distt: North Goa , Goa-403401
36. 3713658 21-03-2011
Monotona Tyres Ltd. , Factory No. 279 , 286 , 287 P, Dakivli , Bhiwandi Wada Road , Distt : Thane-421312 Maharashtra
37. 3714963 31-03-2011
13098
1991 Automotive Vehicles- Tubes for Pneumatic Tyres- Specification
2878
2004 Fire Extinguisher , Carbon Dioxide Type (Portable and Trolley Mounted)
Vintex Fire Protection Pvt. Ltd. , R-363 , TTC, Indl . Area , Rabale , Navi Mumbai , Distt: Mumbai -400701 Maharashtra
[No. CMD/13: 11]
Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Scientist ' E ' & Head ( Marks II )
नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 740.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
क्रम सं.
स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
स्थापित तिथि
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(1)
(2)
1 . आईएस 16101 : 2012 सामान्य प्रकाश व्यवस्था- एल ई डी और एल ई डी मौड्यूल- शब्दावली और परिभाषाएँ
(3)
(4)
07 फरवरी , 2012 1643 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
2.
07 फरवरी , 2012 आईएस 16102 ( भाग 1 ) : 2012 सामान्य प्रकाश सेवाओं के लिए स्वतः जलने वाले
एल ई डी लैम्प भाग 1 सुरक्षा अपेक्षाएँ
3.
07 फरवरी , 2012 आईएस 16102 ( भाग 2 ) : 2012 सामान्य प्रकाश सेवाओं के लिए स्वतः जलने वाले एल ई डी लैम्प भाग 2 कार्यकारिता अपेक्षाएँ
4.
07 फरवरी , 2012 आईएस 16103 ( भाग 1 ) : 2012 सामान्य प्रकाश व्यवस्था के लिए एल ई डी मॉड्यूल
सुरक्षा अपेक्षाएँ
07 फरवरी , 2012 5. आईएस 15885 ( भाग 2/अनुभाग 13 ) 2012 लैम्प कंट्रोलगियर भाग 2 : विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ अनुभाग 13 : एल ई डी मॉड्यूलों के लिए
डी सी या ए सी सप्लाई वाले इलैक्ट्रोनी कंट्रोलगियर
6.
07 फरवरी , 2012 आईएस 16104 : 2012 एल ई डी मौड्यूलों के लिए डी सी या ए सी सप्लाई वाले इलैक्ट्रोनी कंट्रोलगियर की कार्यकारिता अपेक्षाएँ
7.
07 फरवरी , 2012 आईएस 16105 : 2012 एल ई डी स्त्रोत की ल्युमिन देखरेख के लिए मापन पद्धतियों
8.
07 फरवरी , 2012 आईएस 16106 : 2012 सॉलिड स्टेट लाइटिंग एल ई डी उत्पादों के विद्युतीय एवं मीटरी मापन की पद्धति
9.
07 फरवरी , 2012 आईएस 16108 : 2012 लैम्पों और लैम्प प्रणाली कीफोटोबॉयोलोजिकल सुरक्षा
इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों :
नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ : ईटी 23 /टी-104 , टी-97 , टी-98 , टी -99 , टी-101 , टी-102 , टी-103 , टी-105 , टी-106 ] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)
NewDelhi , the 7th February, 2012
S.O. 740. 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 issued :-
SCHEDULE
Date of Established Sl . No.
No. & Year of the Indian
No. and Year of the Indian Standards
Standards , if any Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
1.
07 February, 2012 IS 16101 : 2012 General Lighting -Leds and Led modules -terms and definitions 1644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
07 February, 2012 2. IS 16102 ( Part 1 ) : 2012 Self- Ballasted Led-Lamps for General Lighting Services Part 1-Safety Requirements
07 February, 2012 3. IS 16102 ( Part 2) : 2012 Self- Ballasted Led-Lamps for General Lighting Services Part 2-Performance Requirements
07 February, 2012 4. IS16103 (Part 1 ): 2012 Led Modules for General Lighting-Safety Requirements
07 February, 2012 5. IS15885 (Part 2 /Sec 13 ) : 2012 Lamp Control gear Part 2 Particular Require- ments Section 13 d.c. or a.c. supplied Electronic Controlgear for Led Modules
07 February, 2012 6. IS 16104: 2012 d.c. or a.c. supplied Electronic Control Gear for Led Modules - Performance Requirements
07 February, 2012 7. IS 16105 : 2012 Method of measurement of Lumen maintenance of solid state light (led) sources
07 February, 2012 8. IS 16106: 2012 Method of electrical and photometric measurements of solid state lighting ( led) products
07 February, 2012 9. IS 16108 : 2012 Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems
Copiesof these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref: ET 23 /T- 104, T-97, T- 98 , T- 99, T- 101 , T- 102, T- 103 ,T- 105, T- 106] R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E ' & Head ( Electrotechnical )
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 741. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
भाग अनु वर्ष क्रम लाइसेंस सं. संख्या
स्वीकृति करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह
भा मा संख्या
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )
1. 3786180 02-01-2012
आईएस 1293
2005
250 वोल्ट और 16 एम्पीयर तक की रेटित करंट के लिए प्लग और सॉकेट निर्गम
अजंता मैन्युफैक्चरिंग लि. , ऑरपट नगर , 8 नेशनल हाईवे , पोस्टसामखियारी , तालुका भचाऊ , जिला-कच्छ, गुजरात -370150
2. 3786483 03-01-2012
1999
आईएस 1417
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
श्री राजेश्वरी ज्वेलर्स , खादी भंडार के सामने , हॉस्पीटल रोड, महुवा , जिला-भावनगर , गुजरात-364290 1645
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
(7) ( 8) ( 9)
(6)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
1999
आईएस 1417
03-01-2012
3. 3786584
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
व्रजेशज्वेलर्स, पिंजरापा , मोची बाजार , धोराजी , जिला- राजकोट , गुजरात -360410
1999
आईएस 1417
03-01-2012
4. 3786685
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
पटेलज्वेलर्स, कृष्णा कॉमप्लेक्स , बजरंगवाडी , स्ट्रीट नं. 2 , जामनगर रोड, राजकोट , गुजरात-360006
1999
आईएस 1417
03-01-2012
5. 3786786
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
पूजाज्वेलर्स , सरदार पटेल रोड, सतुवाव के समीप , केशोद , जिला-जूनागढ़ , गुजरात
1999
आईएस 1417
03-01-2012
6. 3786887
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
सोनी शांतिलाल सुंदरजी , ओल्ड सोनी बाजार , जामनगर , गुजरात-361001
1992 03-01-2012
आईएस 2830
7. 3787182
सामान्य संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वे ल्लन के लिये कार्बन ढलवाँ इस्पात बिलेट इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम और स्लैब कीविशिष्टि
कृष्णा कॉकास्ट प्रा. लि. , सर्वे नं. 213 , पैकी, मजोर सिमेंट के समीप , ग्राम शापर , तालुकाकोटदा- संगानी, जिला-राजकोट , गुजरात-360024
1992
आईएस 2830
8. 3787283 03-01-2012
सामान्य संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वेल्लन के लिये कार्बन ढलवाँ इस्पात बिलेट इंगट, बिलेट , ब्लूम और स्लैब कीविशिष्टि
समय एलॉयज ( इंडिया ) प्रा. लि. , सर्वे नं. 213 , शितलामाताजी मंदिर , मजोर सिमेंट के समीप , ग्राम शापर , तालुका कोटदा- संगानी , जिला- राजकोट , गुजरात-360024
1992 04-01-2012
आईएस 2830
9. 3787485
जे. आर. इस्पात प्रा. लि. , जीआइडीसी घंघाली रोड , सिहोर , जिला- भावनगर , गुजरात-364240
सामान्य संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वेल्लन के लिये कार्बन ढलवाँ इस्पात बिलेट इंगट , बिलेट, ब्लूम और स्लैब कीविशिष्टि
1988
आईएस 7098 1
10. 3787586 04-01-2012
क्रॉसलिंक्ड पॉलीथीन से रोधित पीवीसी के खोल चढ़ी केबल भाग 1 1100 वो. तक कार्यकारी वोल्टा के लिए
एटलस केबल एण्ड एसोसरिज प्रा. लि. , डी-2/बी , सेक्टर 12 , हिवी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , गांधीधाम , जिला-कच्छ, गुजरात-370201 1646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
( 1) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8 ) ( 9)
11. 3788083 06-01-2012
आईएस 2830
1992 सर्वे नं. 221 , ग्राम वादला , तालुका मुंदरा, जिला-कच्छ, गुजरात-360410 नीलकंठ कॉन्कास्ट प्रा. लि. , सामान्य संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वे ल्लन के लिये कार्बन ढलवाँ इस्पात बिलेट इंगट , बिलेट, ब्लूम और स्लैब कीविशिष्टि
12. 3788184 06-01-2012
1994
आईएस 14220
खुले कुएँ के लिए सबमर्सीबल पम्पसेट्स
किवी पम्प्स 10- सम्राट इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , एसटी वार्कशाप के समीप , गोण्डल रोड, राजकोट, गुजरात-360004
13. 3793480 18-01-2012
आईएस 14543
2004
बोतल बंद पानी ( प्राकृतिक खनिज पदार्थ के अतिरिक्त जल)
शिव इंडस्ट्रीज ग्राम मघरीखदा, तालुका चोटिला, जिला सुरेंद्रनगर, गुजरात
14. 3793278 18-01-2012
आईएस 4984
1995
पानी की आपूर्ति हेतु उच्च घनत्व पॉलीइथाइलीन पाइप
ग्रीन टेक पॉलीप्लास्ट जीआइडीसी प्लॉट जी-2110 , किशान गेट रोड, मेटोदा, तालुका लोधिका, जिला-राजकोट, गुजरात
15. 3793379 18-01-2012
आईएस 1417
1999
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
श्री हर्षद ज्वेलर्स मेन बाजार , लिम्डा चौक , मालिया हटिना, तालुका मालिया , जिला जूनागढ़ , गुजरात-362245
16. 3794886 19-01-2012
आईएस 1417
1999
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण /शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
शांतिलाल जमनादास एण्ड संस , राजदा रोड, हिन्द सेलेकशन के सामने , जामखम्भालिया , जिला जामनगर, गुजरात -361305
17. 3794987 19-01-2012
1999
आईएस 1417
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
बापा सीताराम ज्वेलर्स पोस्ट ऑफिस रोड , जामजोधपुर, जिला जामनगर , गुजरात-360530
18. 3795080 19-01-2012 राज ज्वेलर्स
आईएस 1417
1999
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
हाजीअली चेम्बर्स , जीनपारा मेन रोड, पुलिस लाईन , वांकानेर, जिला रोजकोट , गुजरात -363621 1647 [ भाग ।।--खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
(7
) (8 ) ( 9)
(6)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(1)
(4)
1994
आईएस 8423
19. 3793682 19-01-2012 श्रीजी इंडस्ट्रीज प्लॉट नं. 48/1 , जीआइडीसी , तालुका महुवा, जिला-भावनगर , गुजरात-364290
2002 फ्लॉवन पम्प्स
20. 3794381 20-01-2012
आईएस 8034
सबमर्सीबल पम्पसेट्स
श्री हरि एस्टेट, शेड नं. 6 , अशोक कास्टिक के समीप , विरानी आघत, ढेबर रोड , राजकोट, गुजरात-360003
1994 21. 3794482 20-01-2012
आईएस 14220
खुले कुएँ के लिए सबमर्सीबल
पम्पसेट्स
फ्लॉवन पम्प्स श्री हरि एस्टेट, शेड नं. 6 , अशोक कास्टिक के समीप , विरानी आघत , ढेबर रोड, राजकोट , गुजरात -360003
1994 22. 3794583 20-01-2012
आईएस 14220
खुले कुएँ के लिए सबमर्सीबल
पम्पसेट्स
लीडर इलेक्ट्रिक प्लॉट नं. 150 , सर्वे नं. 160 , 2 , दीन दयाल एस्टेट, एनएच 8 -बी, राजकोट, गुजरात-360004
1985
आईएस 11170
23. 3794785 20-01-2012
परफॉरमेंस रिक्वायरमेंट फॉर कॉन्सटेंट स्पीड कम्प्रसेन इंजि ( डिजल ) इंजिस फॉर एग्रीकल्चर परंपस ( अप टू 20 के डब्ल्यू)
टॉपलैंड इंजिस प्रा. लि. , प्लॉट नं. 213/214 , जीआइडीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , लोधिका, मेटोडा, कालावाड रोड, राजकोट, गुजरात -360021
1999 24. 3795989 23-01-2012
आईएस 14743
सिंचाई उपस्कर- हाइड्रोसाइक्लोन फिल्टर -विशिष्टि
शिवम् इंजिनियर्स सर्वे नं. 237 , प्लॉट नं. 4/बी, विकास स्टोव के पीछे, ग्राम वेरावल , तालुका कोटदा संगानी , जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-360024
वात्सल ज्वेलर्स
1999
आईएस 1417
25. 3798793 31-01-2012
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं ,
आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता
एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
काशी विश्वनाथ चेम्बर्स , माण्डवी टॉवर , चांदी बाजार , जामनगर, गुजरात -361001
1999
आईएस 1417
जेवर
31-01-2012
26. 3798894
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं ,
आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता
एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
कीर्ति मंदिर के सामने , सोनी बाजार, पोरबंदर , गुजरात-360575
452GI /2012-10 1648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) ( 8) ( 9 )
27. 3798995 31-01-2012
1999
आईएस 1417 ओमज्वेलर्स स्टेशन रोड , धासा भावनगर , गुजरात -364730
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
28. 3799088 31-01-2012
2008
आईएस 1786
कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात छड़ औरतार
सलासार स्टील इंडस्ट्रीज सर्वे नं. 147 , ग्राम नेसदा, तालुका सिहोर, जिला भावनगर , गुजरात-364240
2008
आईएस 1786 29. 3799189 31-01-2012
कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात छड़ और तार
केयूर इस्पात लि. , सर्वे नं. 225 , प्लॉट नं. 1 , जीआइडीसी IV , घंघाली रोड , घंघाली , तालुका सिहोर, जिला भावनगर , गुजरात-364240
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 11 ] एम. राधाकृष्ण , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi , the 9th February, 2012
S.O. 741. In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the following schedule :---
SCHEDULE
Licence Grant Date
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part Sec . Year SL. No. No.
Name and Address of theParty
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) (8 ) ( 9 )
1. 3786180 02-01-2012
IS 1293
2005
Plugs and socket outlets of250 volts and rated current up to 16 amperes
Ajanta manufacturing Ltd. , Orpatnagar, 8A , National Highway, Post: Samkhiyari, Talika-Bhachau , District Kachchh , Gujarat-370150
2. 3786483 03-01-2012
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts-- fineness and marking
Shree Rajeshwari Jewellers Opp. Khadi Bhandar, Hospital Road, Mahuva, District Bhavnagar , Gujarat-364290
3. 3786584 03-01-2012
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking
Vrajesh Jewellers Pinjara PA , Mochi Bazar, Dhoraji , District Rajkot , Gujarat-360410
4. 3786685 03-01-2012 Patel Jewellers
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking
Krishna Complex, Bajarang- wadi , Street No. 2, Jamnagar Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360006 1649
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
(4)
(5)
(1) (2)
(8) (9 ) (3)
1999
IS 1417
5. 3786786 03-01-2012
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking
Pooja Jewellers Sardar Patel Road , Near Sutavav, Keshod , District Junagadh , Gujarat
1999
IS 1417
6. 3786887 03-01-2012
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking
Soni Shantilal Sunderji Old Soni Bazar, Opp . JainDerasar, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001
1992
IS2830
7. 3787182 03-01-2012
Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes
Krishna Concast Pvt . Ltd. , Survey No. 213 , Paiki , NearMajor Cement, AtVillage Shapar , Taluka Kotda- Sangani , Shapar, District - Rajkot, Gujarat-360024
1992
IS 2830
03-01-2012
8. 3787283
Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re - rolling into steel for general structural purposes
SamayAlloys ( India) Pvt . Ltd. Survey No. 213 , B /H Sitala Mataji Mandir, Near Major Cement, At Village Shapar (Veraval), Shapar District-Rajkot, Gujarat-360024
1992
IS2830
9. 3787485 04-01-2012 J. R. Ispat Pvt . Ltd., GIDC Ghanghali Road , Sihor, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364240
Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re -rolling into steel for general structural purposes
1988 10. 3787586 04-01-2012
IS 7098 1
Cross- linked polyethylene insulated PVC sheathed cables: part 1 for working voltage upto and including 100 V
AtlasCable & Accessories Pvt. Ltd. , D-2/B , Sector 12 , Heavy Industrial Area , Gandhidham , District-Kachchh , Gujarat-370201
IS 2830
1992 11. 3788083 06-01-2012
Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re - rolling into steel for general structural purposes
Nilkanth Concast Pvt . Ltd. , Survey No. 221 , Village Vadala, Taluka : Mundra, District : Kachchh , Gujarat-360410
1994
IS 14220
12. 3788184 06-01-2012
Openwell submersible pumpsets
Kiwi Pumps 10-Samrat Industrial Area , Near S T Workshop , GondalRoad, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 1650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9 )
13. 3793480 18-01-2012
IS 14543
2004
Packageddrinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) -
Shiv Industries , AtMagharikhda, Village Magharikhda, Taluka Chotila, District Surendranagar , Gujarat
14. 3793278 18-01-2012
1995
IS4984
High density ployethylene pipes for potable water supplies
GreenTech Ployplast GIDC Plot No. G-2110, Kishan Gate Road,At Metoda , Taluka Lodhika, District Rajkot, Gujarat
15. 3793379 18-01-2012
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- finen'ss and marking
Shree Harsad Jewellers , MainBazar, Limda Chowk, Maliya Hatina, Taluka Maliya, District Junagadh, Gujarat-362245
16. 3794886 19-01-2012
IS 1417
1999.
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking
Shantilal Jamnadas and Sons , Rajda Road, Opp . Hind Selection, Jam Khambhalia, District Jamnagar, Gujarat-361305
17. 3794987 19-01-2012
IS1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking
Bapa Sitaram Jewellers , PostOffice Road, Jamjodhpur, District Jamnagar , Gujarat-360530
18. 3795080 19-01-2012
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts-- fineness and marking
Raj Jewellers, Hajiali Chambers, Jinpara Main Road, Police Line , Wankaner, District Rajkot, Gujarat-363 621
19. 3793682 19-01-2012
IS8423
1994
Controlled percolating , hose for fire fighting
Shreeji Industries , PlotNo. 48/1 , GIDC, Taluka Mahuva , District Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364290
20. 3794381 20-01-2012
IS 8034
2002
Submersible pumpsets
M/s. FlowonePumps , Shri Hari Estate , Shed No. 6 , Nr. Ashok Casting, Virani Aghat, Dhebar Road, Rajkot , Gujarat-360003 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1651
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
21. 3794482 20-01-2012
IS 14220
1994
Openwell submersible pumpsets
M/ sFlowone Pumps , Shri Hari Estate, Shed No. 6, Nr. Ashok Casting, Virani Aghat, Dhebar Road , Rajkot , Gujarat-360003
22. 3794583 20-01-2012
IS 14220
1994
Openwell submersible pumpsets
LeaderElectric , PlotNo. 150, Survey No. 160 , 2Dindayal Estate , N.H. 8/B , Rajkot, Gujarat-360004
23. 3794785 20-01-2012
1985
IS 11170
Topland Engines Pvt . Ltd. , Plot No. 213/214 , GIDC Industrial Estate, Lodhika , Methoda , Kalawad Road , District Rajkot, Gujarat-360021
Performance requirements for constant speed compression ignition (diesel) engines for agricultural purposes (up to20 kw)
24. 3795989 23-01-2012
IS 14743
1999
Irrigation equipment - hydrocyclone filters -
Shivam Engineers , Survey No. 237 , Plot No. 4/B , Behind Vikas Stove, Village Veraval , Taluka Kotda Sangani , District Rajkot, Gujarat-360024
25. 3798793 31-01-2012
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking
Vatsal Jewellers, Kashi Vishvanath Chambers , Mandavi Tower, Chandi Bazar, District Jamnagar, Gujarat-361 001
26. 3798894 31-01-2012
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking
Zevar, Opp. Kirtimandir, Soni Bazar, Porbandar, Gujarat-360575
27. 3798995 31-01-2012
IS 1417
1999
Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts-- fineness and marking
Om Jewellers, Station Road , Dhasa , District Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364730
28. 3799088 31-01-2012
IS 1786
2008
High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement
Salasar Steel Industries , SurveyNo. 147 , Village Nesda , Taluka Sihor, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364240
29. 3799189 31-01-2012
IS1786
2008
.ligh strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement
Keyur Ispat Limited , Survey No. 225 , Plot No. 1 , GIDC IV, Ghanghali Road , AtGhanghali , Talika Sihor , District Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364240
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
M. RADHAKRISHNA , Scientist ' F' & Head 1652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 742.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं को लाइसेंस रद्द किए गए हैं : -
अनुसूची
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता
लाइसेंस संख्या
रद्दीकरण तिथि क्रम सं.
लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
7550777
18-01-2012 ऐंकर इलेक्ट्रिकल्स प्रा. लि.
Firm request vide letter No. AEPL LQC/017 / 11 dated 28-11-2011
सर्वे नं. 234 , 235 , 236 , ग्राम लखोंड , पोस्ट कुकमा, तालुका भुज, जिला कच्छ, गुजरात-370105
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13:11 ] एम. राधाकृष्ण, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi , the 9th February, 2012
S.O. 742. In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled /suspended with effect from the date indicated against each: -
SCHEDULE
Name& Address of the Licensee
Sl . No. Licences No. CM/L-
Date of Cancell- ation
Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/suspension
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1. 7550777
18-01-2012
Firm request vide lettr No. AEPL/ LQC/ 017/ 11 dated 28-11-2011
Anchor Electricals Pvt . Ltd. , SurveyNo. 234, 235 , 236, Village- Lakhond P.O. Kukma, Taluka : Bhuj , District : Kachchh , Gujarat- 370105
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
M. RADHAKRISHNA , Scientist ' F ' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 743.-- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :
अनुसूची
क्रम सं.
स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1 . आई एस 2026 ( भाग 5 ) : 2011
10फरवरी , 2012
पॉवर ट्रांसफार्मर : भाग 5 शार्ट सर्किट को सहन करने की क्षमता (पहला पुनरीक्षण)
इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुरशाह 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 16/टी -33 ]
आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी) 1653 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012
S.O. 743 -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 to particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Dateof Established Sl . No. No. and Year of the Indian Standards
No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
10 February, 2012
1. IS 2026 ( Part 5) : 2011 Power Transformers : Part 5 Ability to withstand short circuit (FirstRevision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref: ET 16/T- 33 ]
R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E' & Head ( Electrotechnical )
नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 744. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं:-
अनुसूची
क्रम सं.
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
(3)
(4)
(2)
(1)
8-2-2012 1 . आईएस 13049: 1991
2, नवम्बर 2011
इस संशोधन की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110 002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ : सीईडी/राजपत्र ]
ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' जी ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )
New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012
S.O. 744 -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 :-
1654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
SCHEDULE
Si.No. No. and year of the Indian Standard
No. and Year of
the amendment
(2)
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(3)
IS 13049 : 1991
(4)
2, November , 2011
08 February, 2012
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref: CED/Gazette]
A. K. SAINI , Scientist ' G' & Head (Civil Engg. )
नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 745 -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
लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने लाइसेंसधारी का क्रम सं
कीतिथि
नाम व पता
संख्या सीएम/एल
(2)
(3)
(4)
L-99064971-1-2012
अनु. वर्ष
भा. मा. भाग संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9 )
2
302
30 2007
मैसर्स केबीएस फैन इण्डस्ट्रीज , 213/195 ए, ग्राउन्ड फ्लोर , ब्लॉक जी , राजेन्द्र पार्क , जिला गुडगांव-122101
(हरियाणा)
2. L-9904901 2-1-2012 मैसर्स यादव इण्टरप्राइसिस ,
अनंगपुर डेयरी , सेक्टर 37 ,
देवी सहाय मार्केट ,
निकट डी एस डोर ,
जिला फरीदाबाद
(हरियाणा)
3. L-9905495 3-1-2012 मैसर्स इण्डोमैनुफैक्चरिंग
कम्पनी , बी-19 ,
गांव बड़खल , एन आई टी
फरीदाबाद-121001
(हरियाणा)
4. L-9911187 6-1-2012
बिजली के घरेलू और समान साधित्रों की सुरक्षा- विवरणात्मक अपेक्षा-विद्युत रेडियेटर
4151
1993 मोटरसाईकिल चालकों के लिए संरक्षी हैल्मेट
निमज्जनीय पम्पससैट 8034
2002
स्टील बट हिंजिस 1341
मैसर्स विवेक सहगल इण्डस्ट्रीज ,
2213 , एम आई ई ,
भाग बी , बहादुरगढ़,
जिला झज्जर 124507
(हरियाणा)
1992 1655
भारत का राजपत्र : फरव्री 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
! भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
(3)
(4)
(2)
10-1-2012 मैसर्स एच. के. इंटरप्राइसिस , L-9906804
1725 , एम आई ई,
भाग बी, बहादुरगढ़
(7) (8) ( 9)
(6)
(5)
2006 पोर्टेबलफायर
15683
एक्सटिंगशर परफोर्मेसड
और कंसट्रक्सन
जिला झज्जर 124507 , ( हरियाणा )
10-1-2012
L-9907095
1979
374
बिजली के छत के
पंखे व रेगूलेटर
मैसर्स केबीएस फैन इण्डस्ट्रीज , 213/195 ए, ग्राउन्ड फ्लोर , ब्लॉक जी , राजेन्द्र पार्क , जिला गुडगांव-122101 , ( हरियाणा )
10-1-2012
7. L-9907297
मैसर्स केबीएस फैन इण्डस्ट्रीज , 213/195 ए, ग्राउन्ड फ्लोर , ब्लॉक जी, राजेन्द्र पार्क, जिला गुडगांव-122101 (हरियाणा)
11-1-2012
L-9906905
2007
3
302
2
बिजली के घरेलू और
समान साधित्रों की
सुरक्षा- विवरणात्मक
अपेक्षा -विद्युत इस्तरी
2009
996
सामान्य प्रयोजन के लिए एक फेजी लघु ए सी प्रेरण मोटरें
मैसर्स केबीएस फैन इण्डस्ट्रीज , 213/195 ए, ग्राउन्ड फ्लोर , ब्लॉक जी, राजेन्द्र पार्क, जिला गुडगांव -122101 ( हरियाणा )
L-9907196 17-1-2012
1991
366
विद्युत इस्तरी
मैसर्स केबीएस फैन इण्डस्ट्रीज , 213/195 ए , ग्राउन्ड फ्लोर , ब्लॉक जी , राजेन्द्र पार्क , जिला गुडगांव-122101 ( हरियाणा )
20-1-2012
10 L-9910286
मैसर्स एच. के. इंटरप्राइसिस , 1725, एम आई ई, भाग बी, बहादुरगढ़ जिला झज्जर 124507 (हरियाणा)
2002
9972
स्वचालित स्प्रींकलर हैडस फोर फायर प्रोटेक्सन सेवा
[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ]
एम. सदाशिवम , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एफ. डी. ओ )
New Delhi , the 15 February, 2012
S.O. 745 -In pursuance of sub -regulation ( 5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ertification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule :-
SCHEDULE
Grant Date
Sا Licences
No. CM
No.
Name and Address of the Licensee
(4)
(3)
(1) (2)
1-1-2012
L-9906497
i .
Part Sec . Year
IS No.
Title of the Standard
(7) (8) (9)
(6)
(5)
2007
302
2 30
Safety of
M/s. KBS Fan Industries ,
213/195 A, Ground Floor,Block -G Rajendra Park.
Distt . Gurgaon- 122101 Haryana
152 GI /2012-11
household and
similar electrical
appliance - Particular
-requirements -Electic radiators 1656
THE CAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
2
2-1-2012
L-9904901
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
(5)
(6)
(7) ( 8 ) (9)
4151
1993 Protective hekmets forscooter & motorcycle riders
M/ sYadav Enterprises , Anangpur Dairy, Sector-37 , Devi Sahai Market, Near D.S. Door , Dist. Faridabad , Haryana
3. L-9905495 3-1-2012
8034
2002 Submersible Pumpsets
M/sIndo Manufacturig Compay, B - 19 , Village Badkhal , N.I.T. , Faridabad, Haryana
4. L-9911187 6-1-2012
M/ sVivek Sehgal Industies, 2213 , Μ.Ι.Ε. , Part-B . Bahadurgarh , Distt. Jhajjar- 124507 Haryana
5. L-9906804 10-1-2012
M/sH. K Enterprises 1725 , Μ.Ι.Ε. , Part-B . Bahadurgarh , Distt. Jhajjar- 124507 Haryana
6. L-9907095 10-1-2012
M/s KBS Fan Industries , 213/195 A Ground Floor. Block-G Rajendar Park, Distt. Gurgaon - 122101 Haryana
7. 1-9907297 10-1-2012
M /s KBS Fan Industries , 213/195 A Ground Floor , Block-G Rajendar Park , Distt. Gurgaon- 122101 Haryana
8. 1.-9906905 11-1-2012
M/ s KBS Fan Industries , 213/195 A Ground Floor, Block -G RajendarPark, Distt. Gurgaon- 122101 Haryana
9 L-9907196 17-1-2012
M/s KBS Fan Industries , 213/195 A Ground Floor, Block- G Rajendar Park , Distt. Gurgaon -122101 Haryana
10. L-9910286 20-1-2012
M/ sH. K Enterprises 1725 , Μ.Ι.Ε. , Part -B . Bahadurgarh , Distt . Jhajjar- 124507 Haryana
1341
1992 SteelButt Hinges
15683
2006 Poatable Fire Extinguishers- Performance and Construction
374
1979 Electric ceiling type fans and regulators
302 2 3 2007 Safety of household and similar electrical appliance -Particular requirements -Electric iron
996 2009 Singlephase small ac and universal electric motors
Elecrtic iron
366 1991
9972
2002 Automatic SprinklerHeads for Fire Protection Service
[No. CMD/ 13: 11 ]
M. SADASIVAM , Scientist F & Head ( FDO) 1657 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6. 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 16 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 746 .- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसारेण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों) कीसंख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
31 दिसम्बर , 2011 1 .
आईएस 9121 :2005 गैस सिलिंडर वाल्व की 1/16 शुडांकार , टाइप 1 ( साइज 2 ) चूडियों की जाँच के लिए निरीक्षण गेज- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
आईएस 15894 :2011 ( आईएस 9121:2005 और आईएस 9687: 1980 का अतिक्रमण ) जाँच के लिए निरीक्षण गेज कीटाइप ।
आईएस 9687: 1980 गैस सिलिंडर वाल्व की 1/16 शुडांकार , टाइप । (साइज । ) चूडियों की जाँच के निरीक्षण गेज विशिष्टि
(साइज 1 , 2 एवं 3 ) गैस सिलिंडर वाल्व और वाल्व और सिलिंडर नैक्स की शुडांकार चूडियाँ शुडांकार व्यास पर 16 अर्धव्यास पर । विशिष्टि
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं । भारतीय मानकों को http:/www.standardsbis . in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[संदर्भ: एम.ई.डी/जी-2: 1 ]
जे. ए. सिद्दीकी, वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' निदेशक (यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )
New Delhi , the 16th February , 2012
S.O. 746 -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 indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Date of Establishment
No. and Year of
SL.No. No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established
Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standards
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
31 December , 2011
IS 9121 : 2005 Inspection
IS 15894: 2011 ( Superseding
IS 9121 : 2005 and IS 9687 : 1980 )
Inspection Gauges for
Checking Type
Gauges for Checking Type 1 ( Size 2) Taper Threads of GasCylinder Valves . Taper 1 in 16 - Specification (FirstRevision ) 1658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[ PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
(1)
(3)
(4)
1 ( Size 1,2 and 3 ) Taper Threads ofGasCylinder Valves and CylinderNecks - Tapar 1 in 16 on Diameter Specification
IS 9687 : 1980 Specification for Inspection Gauges for Checking Type 1 ( Size 1 ) Taper Threads of Gas Cylinder Valves, Taper 1 in 16
Copy ofthese Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata . Chandigarh . Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad . Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram . On - line purchase of Indian Standard can be made at : http: /www.standardsbis . in.
[Ref: MED G-2: 1 ]
J. A. SIDDIQUI , Scientist ' E ' Director ( Mechanical Engineering)
कोयला मंत्रालय
आदेश
नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 747 कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 27 नवम्बर, 2010 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2920 तारीख 19 नवम्बर , 2010 के प्रकाशन पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) और ऐसी भूमि में, या उस पर के सभी अधिकार. उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यांतिक रूप से कंन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, नागपुर ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् ' सरकारी कंपनी' कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शतों का, अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित भूमि और उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार , तारीख 27 नवम्बर , 2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाए , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात्:-
1. सरकारी कंपनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर , ब्याज , नुकसानियों और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;
2. उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , कम्पनी द्वारा को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा और ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किये जायेंगे और इसी प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी , सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किये जाएंगे ;
3. सरकारी कंपनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की , ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो;
4. सरकारी कंपनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहींहोगी : और
5. सरकारी कंपनी , ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का पालन करेगी , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित की जाएं ।
[फा. सं. 43015/29/2008-पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ]
ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव 1659
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012
S.O. 747 -Whereas , on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofCoal number S.O. 2920 , dated the 19th November , 2010 published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section -3 , Sub - section (ii ) dated the 27th November, 2010 , issued under sub - section (1 ) of Section 9 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the lands and all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said land ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act ;
And whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited , Nagpur ( hereinafter referred to as the Government Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and all rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from the 27th November, 2010 , instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , shall vest in the Government Company , subject to the following terms and conditions , namely :-
1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation , interest , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;
2. A Tribunal shali be constituted under Section 14 of the said Act , for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under conditions ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly , all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said lands , so vested , shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested ;
4. The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without the prior approval of the Central Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land , as and when necessary.
[ F. No. 43015 /29 /2008 - PRIW- I ] A. K. DAS , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 748 किए जाने की संभावना है ; .-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त
उक्त अनुसूची में विहित भूमि के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/ सीजीएम ( पीएलजी ) / भूमि/ 414 तारीख 26 सितम्बर , 2011 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;
उक्त अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-
( i ) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग के अर्जन या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों के प्रति आक्षेप कर सकेगा; या ( ii ) भूमि या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर किसी अधिकार के प्रतिकर में हित का दावा यदि कोई हो या कर सकेगा; या
( iii ) प्रभावहीन हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों, खनन पट्टों के अधीन अर्जित किये जाने पर अधिकारों के लिए प्रतिकर प्राप्त कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट भूमि के कोरों से संग्रहण या अन्य खनिज नमूनों तथा उनके सम्यक्विश्लेषण को तथा किसी अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेख या सामग्रियों की निर्मित से संबंधित सभी मानचित्र चार्ट और अन्य दस्तावेज 1660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
परिदत्त कर सकेगा ।
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे ।
अनुसूची
बुन्देली ब्लॉक
कोरबा क्षेत्र
जिला-कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ )
[रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/सीजीएम ( पीएलजी )/ भूमि/414 तारीख 26 सितम्बर , 2011 ]
तहसील-कोरबा
ग्राम
क्रम सं
ग्राम नम्बर
जिला-कोरबा
क्षेत्र ( हेक्टर में)
टिप्पणी
पटवारी हल्का
नम्बर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. बेलवाडीह अनसर्वेड 05 187.774 भाग 2. नकटीखार अनसर्वेड 05 102.873 भाग 3. पण्डरीपानी 247 05 553.755 संपूर्ण 4. रापाखर्रा अनसर्वेड 05 28.595 भाग 5. कुदरीडीह अनसर्वेड 05 72.359 भाग 6. बरबसपुर अनसर्वेड 06 234.362 भाग 7. कुरूडीह 546 05 357.766 भाग 8. करमन्दी 244 09 138.858 भाग 9. बेन्दरकोना 245 09 445.236 भाग 10. गोढी 248 05 587.881 संपूर्ण 11. बुन्देली अनसर्वेड 10 273.816 भाग 12. करूमहुआ अनसर्वेड 10 104.123 भाग 13. अच्छीमार अनसर्वेड 09 44.430 भाग
कुल:- 3131.828 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 7738.74 एकड़ ( लगभग )
सीमा वर्णन :
क-ख : रेखा ग्राम दादर - ढेलवाडीह के सम्मिलित सीमा पर " क " बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम ढेलवाडीह , नकटीखार , बुन्देली के मध्य भाग से साथ - साथ चलती हुई ग्राम बुन्देली- करूमहुआ के सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।
ख - ग : रेखा ग्राम करूमहुआ के मध्य भाग से चलती हुई ग्राम करूमहुआ- अच्छीमार के सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।
ग -घ : रेखा ग्राम अच्छीमार के उत्तरी भाग , ग्राम बेन्दरकोना , करमन्दी के पूर्वी भाग से साथ - साथ चलती हुई ग्राम करमन्दी के दक्षिणी सीमा पर " घ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।
घ-ड. : रेखा ग्राम करमन्दी के मध्य भाग , ग्राम कुरूडीह और बरबसपुर के दक्षिणी भाग से साथ- साथ चलती हुई ग्राम बरबसपुर कं दक्षिणी सीमा पर " ड. " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।
ड. च : रेखा ग्राम बरबसपुर के भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा से चलती हुई " च " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।
च-छ : रेखा ग्राम बरबसपुर के भागतः पश्चिमी सीमा से चलती हुई " छ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।
1661
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
छ- ज : रेखा ग्राम बरबसपुर के उत्तरी भाग , ग्राम कुदरीडीह , के मध्य भाग से साथ - साथ चलती हुई ग्राम कुदरीडीह - रापाखर्रा के सम्मिलित सीमा पर ' ज ' बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।
ज-क : रेखा ग्राम रापाखर्रा के पूर्वी भाग ग्राम ढेलवाडीह के पश्चिमी भाग से साथ- साथ चलती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/ 17/2011- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ]
ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012
S. O. 748. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas , the plan bearing number SECL / BSP/CGM (PLG ) / Land/414 , dated 26th September , 2011 containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, Korba (Chhattisgarh) or at the office of the Coal Controller , 1 Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section ) , Seepat Road , Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh ) ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the said schedule ;
Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedules may -
(i) Object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land , or of any rights in or over such land , or
(ii) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land , or
(iii) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining lease being acquired, and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land , collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials refcrred to in sub - section (7) of Section 13 of the saidAct.
to the Officer - in- Charge or Head of the Department ( (Revenue ) South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) ; within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
BUNDELI BLOCK
KORBA AREA
DISTRICT- KORBA ( Chhattisgarh )
[Plan bearing number : SECL/ BSP/CGM (PLG ) /Land/414 , dated 26th September ,, 2011 ]
TAHSIL- KORBA
DISTRICT- KORBA
Remarks
Area in hectares
Patwari Halka
Number
Village Number SI . No.
Nanie of Village
(3) (1) (2)
Dhelwadih
Unsurveyed
2.
Naktikhar
Unsurveyed
247 3. Pandripani
4.
Unsurveyed Kapakharra
5. Kudridih
Unsurveyed
Unsurveyed 6. Barbaspur
546 Kurrudih
7.
244 Karmandi
8.
(5)
(6) (4)
Part
187.774
05
Part
102.873
05
Full 05
553.755
28.595
Part 05
Part 05
72.359
Part 06
234.362
Part
357.766
05
Part
138.858
09 1662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(1) (2)
(4)
(3)
(5)
(6)
9. Bendarkona
245
09
445.236
Part
248
10. Godha
05
587.881
Full
11 . Bundeli
10
273.816
Part Unsurveyed
12. Karumahua
10
104.123
Part Unsurveyed
09
13. Anchhimar
44.430
Part Unsurveyed
TOTAL: 3131.823 hectares ( approximately) or 7738-74 acres ( approximately)
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :
A-B Line starts from point ' A' on the common boundary of villages Dadar - Dhelwadih and passes through middle part of village Dhelwadih , Naktikhar and Bundeli and meets at point "B " on the common boundary of villages Bundeli -Karumahua .
B-C Line passes through middle part of village Karumahua and meets at Point " C " on the common boundary of villages Karumahua - Anchhimar .
C-D Line passes along partly common boundary of villages Karumahua - Anchhimar then through northern part of village Anchhimar, eastern part of village Bendarkona and Karmandi and meets at Point " D " on the southern boundary of village Karmandi .
DE Line passes through middle part of village Karmandi , southern part of village Kurrudih and Barbaspur and meets at Point " E " on the southern boundary of village Barbaspur.
E-F Line passes along partly southern boundary of village Barbaspur and meets at Point " F "
F-G Line passes along partly western boundary of village Barbaspur and meets at Point " G " .
G-H Line passes through northern part of village Barbaspur, middle part of village Kudridih and meets at Point "H " on the common boundary of villages Kudridih- Rapakharra.
H-A Line passes through eastern part of village Rapakharra , western part of village Dhelwadih and meets at starting Point"A" .
[ F. No 43015/ 17/ 2011 - PRIW- ( ] A. K. DAS , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 749.-कंन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है :
और रेखांक, संख्या एसईसीएल /बीएसपी /जीएम ( पीएलजी ) /लैंड/400 तारीख 23 नवम्बर , 2010 को उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के क्षेत्र का अन्तर्विष्ट किया गया है, उनका निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , कांउसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता - 700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पुर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितेबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-
( i ) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उसके ऊपर किसी अधिकार के अर्जन पर आक्षेप कर सकेगा , या
( ii ) भूमि या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर किसी अधिकार के प्रतिकर में हित का यदि कोई दावा कर सकेगा; या
( iii ) खनन पट्टा अर्जित किये जाने के अधीन अधिकारों की पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्ति प्रभावहीन हो जाने और भूमि संबंधी सभी नक्शें , चारों तथा अन्य दस्तावेजों का परिदान , अयस्कों या अन्य खनिजों के नमूनों का संग्रहण और उनका सम्यक् विश्लेषण करने के लिए तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट कोई अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेखों या सामग्रियों की तैयारी के लिए प्रतिकर ,
इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे ।
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933 1663
अनुसूची
लटोरी और तुलसी ब्लॉक
भटगांव क्षेत्र
जिला-सरगुजा ( छत्तीसगढ़ )
में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण के लिए प्रस्तावित भूमि का वर्णन
(रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी ) /लैंड/400 , तारीख 23 नवम्बर , 2010 )
क. राजस्व भूमि:
क्रम ग्राम का नाम ग्राम
सं. नम्बर
( 1) (2) (3)
1 . तुलसी 175
2. जगतपुर 141
3. बृजनगर 298
4. गंगापुर 118
5. बिहारपुर 284
6. गजाधरपुर 104
7. अनुजनगर 11
8. हरीपुर 419
9. पाठकपुर 240
10. सुन्दरगंज 405
11. लटोरी 363
12. महेशपुर 326
13. कसलगिरी 52
14. जुडवानी 150
15. करवां 41
16. मजीरा 313
17. पीडिया 249
18. मोहनपुर 333
19. सोनगरा 114
20. झींगादोहर 33
21. श्यामनगर 97
22. सकलपुर 102
23. द्वारिकानगर 189
452GI / 2012-12
तहसील जिला क्षेत्र हेक्टर में टिप्पणी (4) (5) (6) (7) सुरजपुर सरगुजा 354.000 संपूर्ण सुरजपुर सरगुजा 190.000 संपूर्णा सुरजपुर सरगुजा 413.000 संपूर्ण सुरजपुर सरगुजा 298.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 361.000 संपूर्ण सुरजपुर सरगुजा 57.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 309.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 233.000 संपूर्ण सुरजपुर सरगुजा 205.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 32.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 84.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 240.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 6.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 188.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 433.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 431.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 51.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 43.000 भाग प्रतापपुर सरगुजा 81.000 भाग प्रतापपुर सरगुजा 38.000 भाग प्रतापपुर सरगुजा 33.000 भाग प्रतापपुर सरगुजा 296.000 भाग सुरजपुर सरगुजा 39.000 भाग
1664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
कुल:- 4415.000 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 10909.46 एकड़ ( लगभग )
ख. वन भूमिः-
रेंज
वन का प्रकार
डिविजन क्रम सं.
1
2
3
4
1 .
प्रोटेक्टेडफारेस्ट
सुरजपुर
टिप्पणी क्षेत्रफल ( हेक्टर में)
5
6
800.000
भाग
साउथ सरगुजा
कुल :- 800.000 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1976.80 एकड़ ( लगभग )
कुल योग ( क+ ख ) : 5215.000 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 12886.26 एकड़ ( लगभग )
लटोरी और तुलसी ब्लाक का सीमा वर्णन:
क-ख : रेखा ग्राम महेशपुर के पश्चिमी सीमा पर " क " बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है और उसी ग्राम के भागतः पश्चिमी सीमा से साथ - साथ चलती हुई ग्राम शिवसागर - कसलगिरी के सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।
ख - ग- ध - ड. च : रेखा ग्राम कसलगिरी , जुडवानी , कारवां , बिन्दु " ग " , ग्राम श्यामनगर, सकलपुर, झींगादोहर , बिन्दु ' घ ' ग्राम सोनगरा , बिन्दु ' ङ' ग्राम तुलसी , मोहनपुर , सुन्दरगंज से साथ- साथ चलती हुई ग्राम सुन्दरगंज - पाठकपुर के सम्मिलित सीमा पर " च " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।
च- छ - ज- झ- ञ : रेखा ग्राम पाठकपुर , पीडिया , बिन्दु ' छ ' , ' ज ' ग्राम मजीरा , द्वारिकानगर , बिन्दु ' झ ' ग्राम लटोरी , अनुजनगर , गजाधरपुर से साथ- साथ चलती हुई ग्राम गजाधरपुर में " अ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।
ञ-क : रेखा ग्राम गजाधरपुर , कारवां और महेशपुर से साथ- साथ चलती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।
[फा.सं. 43015/ 30/2010-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]
ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012
S. O. 749. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas , the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM ( PLG )/ Land/400 dated the 23rd November, 2010 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Collector , Surguja (Chhattisgarh ) or at the office of the CoalController, 1 Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section) , Seepat Road , Bilaspur-495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the said Schedule ;
Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedules may
(i) Object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land , or of any rights in or over such land , or (ii) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land , or
(iii) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining lease being acquired, and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land, collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub - section ( 7) of section 13 of the said Act ;
to the Office - in - charge or Head of the Department ( Revenue ) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road , Bilaspur- 495006 ( Chhattisgarh ), within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette .
SCHEDULE .
Brief description of the lands to prospect for coal in Latori and Tulsi Block , Bhatgaon Area, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh).
1665
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP /GM (PLG )/Land/400 dated the 23rd November , 2010 ]
A. REVENUE LAND :
Remarks
Tahsil
District
Name ofvillage
Area in hectares
Village Number
Sl. No.
6
4
5
7 3
2
1
Full
354.000
175
01. Tulsi
Surguja
Surajpur
Full 141
190.000
02 .
Surajpur
Surguja
Jagatpur
Full
413.000
298
Surguja
03. Brij Nagar
Surajpur
Part 118
298.000
Surguja
04. Gangapur
Surajpur
361.000
Full 284
Surguja
05. Biharpur
Surajpur
Part
57.000
104
Surajpur
06.
Surguja
Gajhadharpur
309.000
Part
11
Surajpur
Surguja
07. Anuj Nagar
233.000
Full 419
Surguja
Surajpur
08. Haripur
Part 240
205.000
09. Pathakpur
Surguja
Surajpur
Part
32.000
405
Surguja
10. Sunderganj
Surajpur
84.000
Part 363
11. Latori
Surguja
Surajpur
Part 326
240.000
Surguja
Surajpur
12. Maheshpur
Part
6.000
52
Surguja
13. Kasalgiri
Surajpur
Part
188.000
150
14. Judwani
Surajpur
Surguja
Part 41
433.000
15. Karwaa
Surajpur
Surguja
Part 313
431.000
Surguja
16. Majira
Surajpur
Part 249
51.000
17. Pidia
Surguja
Surajpur
43.000
Part 333
Surguja
Surajpur
18. Mohanpur
Part 114
81.000
Pratappur
19. Songara
Surguja
33
38.000
Part
Surguja
20. Jhingadohar
Pratappur
Part
33.000
97
Surguja
21. Shyam Nagar
Pratappur
Part
296.000
102
Pratappur
Surguja
22. Sakalpur
39.000
Part 189
Surajpur
Surguja
23. DwarikaNagar
Total: -4415.000 hectares ( approximately) or 10909.46 acres ( approximately)
B. FOREST LAND :
Remarks
Division
Range
Type of
Area in hectares
Sl . No. Forest
4
5
6 2
3
Part
800.000
01 . Protected Forest
Surajpur
South Surguja
Total:- 800.000 hectares ( approximately) or 1976.80 acres ( approximately)
GrantTotal (A+ B) = 5215.000 hectares ( approximately) or 12886.26 acres ( approximately)
Boundary Description of Latori and Tulsi Block:
A-B
Line starts from point ' A' on the western boundary of village Maheshpur and passes along partly western boundary of village Maheshpur and meets at point " B " on the common boundary of villages Shivsagar- Kasalgiri .
B-C- D- E - F
Line passes through village Kasalgiri , JUDWANI , Karwaa, point ' C ' , village Shyam Nagar, Sakalpur Jhingadohar, point ' D ' , village Songara , point ' E ' , village Tulsi , Mohanpur, Sunderganj and meets at Point " F " on the common boundary of villages Sunderganj- Pathakpur.
F-G- H - I -J
Line passes through village Pathakpur , Pidia, point ' G ' , ' H ' , village Majira , Dwarika Nagar , point' I' , 1666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II--- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
===
J -A village Latori , Anuj Nagar, Gajhadharpur , and meets at Point " J " in village Gajhadharpur . Line passes through village Gajhadharpur , Karwaa , Maheshpur and meets at starting Point " A " .
[ F. No. 43015/30/2010 - PRIW- 1 ] A. K. DAS , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 750.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि , इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;
उक्त अनुसूची में विहित भूमि के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी /जीएम ( पीएलजी ) /भूमि/407 तारीख 11 मई , 2011 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , शहडोल ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , कांउसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;
उक्त अनुसूची में विहित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-
( i ) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग के अर्जन या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्ही अधिकारों के प्रति आक्षेप कर सकेगा , या
( ii ) भूमि में उस पर किसी हित के प्रतिकर या ऐसी भूमि या उस पर किन्ही अधिकारों का दावा कर सकेगा; या
( iii ) प्रभावहीन हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों, खनन पट्टों के अधीन अर्जित किये जाने पर अधिकारों के लिए प्रतिकर प्राप्त कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट भूमि के कोरों से संग्रहण या अन्य खनिज नमूनों तथा उनके सम्यक् विश्लेषण को तथा किसी अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेख या सामग्रियों की निर्मित से संबंधित सभी मानचित्र , चार्ट और अन्य दस्तावेज परिदत्त कर सकेगा;
इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे ।
अनुसूची
नवगांव यू जी खदान
सोहागपुर क्षेत्र
जिला-शहडोल ( मध्य प्रदेश )
में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण के लिए प्रस्तावित भूमि का वर्णन
[रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी ) / भूमि/407 तारीख 11 मई , 2011 ]
ग्राम का नाम
पटवारी हल्का तहसील
जिला
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
टिप्पण क्रम सं.
बन्दोबस्त नम्बर
नम्बर
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.
खन्नाथ
171
99
22.895
शहडोल
भाग
सोहागपुर
कुल: - 22.895 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 56.57 एकड़ ( लगभग )
नवगांव यू जी खदान का सीमा वर्णन:
क-ख : रेखा ग्राम खन्नाथ छिरीहीटी के सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " क " बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम खन्नाथ से चलती हुई बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।
ख -ग : रेखा ग्राम खन्नाथ के दक्षिणी भाग से चलती हुई ग्राम खन्नाथ में बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।
1667 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ग- घ : रेखा ग्राम खन्नाथ के पूर्वी भाग से चलती हुई ग्राम खन्नाथ छिरीहीटी के सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।
घ-क : रेखा ग्राम खन्नाथ छिरीहीटी के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा से चलती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।
[फा.सं. 43015/09/2011- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ]
ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 23rd February, 2012
S. O. 750.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas , the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM / ( PLG ) / Land/407 , dated the 11th May, 2011 containingdetails of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, Shahdol Madhya Pradesh ) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata- 700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section ) , Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the said schedule ;
Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedule may -
(i) Object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land, or of any rights in or over such land , or
(ii ) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land, or
(iii) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining lease being acquired, and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land , collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub - section (7) of Section 13 of the saidAct;
to the Officer- In- Charge or Head of the Department ( ( Revenue ) , South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
Brief description of the lands to prospect for coal in Navagaon U /G Mine, Sohagpur Area, District - Shahdol , Madhya Pradesh
| Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP /GM ( PLG ) / Land/407 dated the 11th May, 2011 ]
Remarks
District
Tahsil
Name of village
Area in hectares
Bandobast Number
SI . No.
Patawari halka number
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Part
22.895
Shahdol
99
Sohagpur
171
01. Khannath
TOTAL : 22.895 hectares (approximately ) or 56.57 acres (approximately )
Boundary Description of Navagaon U/G Mine:
A-B Line starts from point ' A' on the common boundary of villages Khannath- Chhirhiti and passes through village Khannath and meets at point ' B ' .
B-C Line passes through southern part of villages Khannath and meets at point ' C '
C-D Line passes through eastern part of village Khannath and meets at point ' D ' on the common boundary of villages Khannath- Chhirihiti
D-A Line passes along partly common boundary of village Khannath - Chhirihiti and meets at starting point ' A'
[F. No. 43015/09/2011 -PRIW- I ] A. K. DAS , Under Secy.
1668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2012
का.आ. 751.- जबकि, पेट्रोलियम एवं खनिज पाइप लाईन ( भूमि में उपयोगकर्ता के अधिकार का अधिग्रहण ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 8-12-2010 के संख्या का.आ. 2465 ( अ ) के द्वारा पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार ने ओएनजीसी लिमिटेड की अंकलेश्वर परिसम्पत्ति द्वारा पादरा जीजीएस से कैम्बे गल्फ दबका जीजीएस , जम्मूसर जीजीएस , जीएनएक्यू जीजीएस, नाडा ईपीएस तक पाइपलाइन से होकर अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन ओ.एन.जी.सी. लिमिटेड की अंकलेश्वर परियोजना द्वारा बिछाई जानी है ।
और जबकि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने सरकार को रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत की थी;
और जबकि इसके आगे केन्द्र सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट भूमियों में उपयोगकर्ता के अधिकार के अधिग्रहण का निर्णय लिया है ।
अब, अतः उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची में निर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमियों में उपयोगकर्ता के अधिकार को पाइपलाइनों को बिछाने के लिए अधिगृहीत कर लिया गया है ।
और केन्द्र सरकार , उक्त धारा की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमियों में उपयोगकर्ता का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तिथि से केन्द्र सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, ऑयल एण्ड नेचुरल गैस कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा जोकि किसी भी ऋण भार से मुक्त होगा ।
अनुसूची
प्रस्तावित इफ्लुएन्ट लाइन पादरा जीजीएस से गोल्फ कैम्बे होते हुए दबका जीजीएस, जंबुसर जीजीएस, जीएनएक्यू, नाडा इपीएस
गांव कानाम
सर्वे संख्या
यदिकोई भाग हो
1
2
3
01. पादरा ( कस्बा)
आस्ओयू क्षेत्र
हैक्टर
क्षेत्र वर्ग मीटर
4
5
6
तहसील : पादरा
953/1
936/1
936/2
937/2
935
932
गाडा मार्ग
931/2
931/1
831
832/2
जिला: वडोदरा
00
13
27
00
00
16
00
04
76
00
10
36
00
04
20
00
11
31
00
00
84
00
04
54
00
01
19
00
06
39
00
08
67
लुना पादरा रोड
829/1
829/2
828पैकी
827/पैकी/ 1
753
00
02
66
00
12
00
00
00
25
00
06
00
05
00
06 1669
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3
2
1
753/1
01. पादरा ( कस्बा)
गाडा मार्ग
(जारी)
751/1
गाडा मार्ग
749
गाडा मार्ग
757/3
गाडा मार्ग
737
736
728
729
730
726
731
गाडा मार्ग
724/1
724/2
713/1
713/2
714
गाडा मार्ग
708
707
691/पैकी
नाला
रोड
6
4
5
43
06
00
53
00
00
75
13
00
81
00
00
32
06
00
63
00
00
21
00
08
00
40
00
05
50
00
98
12
00
74
04
00
27
18
00
55
05
00
43
03
00
12
43
00
00
85
00
24
07
00
25
07
00
00
01
00
08
10
00
19
17
00
39
00
00
00
15
12
38
00
18
00
01
83
00
00
00
02
जिला : वडोदरा
तहसील : पादरा
डभासा
02.
1415
1413
1424
गाडा मार्ग
सरकारी
1430
1431/पैकी/1
1429/पैकी/1
1427/पैकी/1
राष्ट्रीय मार्ग
1166/पैकी/ 1
1167/पैकी/1
गाडामार्ग
1183 /पैकी/ 1
1182/पैकी/ 1
00
10
09
00
16
26
17
00
00
55
00
00
20
03
48
00
03
07
96
00
09
33
00
56
00
01
00
79
03
08
20
00
00
59
00
00
07
50
00
61
08
00
47
15
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
1184
निगम लिमिटेड
1181 00 00 21 1180/पैकी/ 1 00 02 92 1188/पैकी/ 1 00 01 1202/पैकी/ 1 00 02 93
1670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
2
3
02.
1203/बी
डभासा (जारी)
1210
1209/पैकी/1
1204/पैकी/ 1
1208/पैकी/1
1207
गाडा मार्ग
1054
1055
1056
1077/पैकी/ 1
1082/पैकी/ 1
1080/पैकी/ 1
1081
1083/पैकी/1
1084
1085/पैकी/1
1088
1089/पैकी/1
गाडा मार्ग
697
696/पैकी/ 1
708
693
709/पैकी/ 1
685
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
5
6
00
14
37
00
14
00
00
10
90
00
03
81
00
89
11
00
14
89
00
00
72
00
00
62
11
00
60
00
01
43
00
14
60
00
18
61
00
00
17
00
05
99
00
08
15
00
00
13
00
15
43
00
00
48
00
10
42
00
01
30
06
00
34
00
13
82
00
01
10
00
02
99
00
09
37
00
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
02
06
निगम लिमिटेड
710/पैकी/1
711/पैकी/1
00
06
75
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
00
20
निगम लिमिटेड
714/पैकी/1
713/पैकी/1
गाडा मार्ग
640/अ/पैकी/1
637
00 06 54 00 06 22 00 00 96 00 26 35
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
00
06
62
निगम लिमिटेड
638/पैकी/ 1
636/पैकी/1
635/पैकी/1
गाडा मार्ग
332/पैकी/1
00
01
87
00
21
38
00
03
89
00
01
28
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
07
92
निगम लिमिटेड
333
335/पैकी/1
349/पैकी/1
00
07
15
00
53
11
00
14
30 1671
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3
2
1
348/पैकी/1
डभासा (जारी)
02.
347/पैकी/1
342/पैकी/1
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा निगम लिमिटेड
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
337
निगम लिमिटेड
341/पैकी/ 1
340
379/पैकी/ 1
378/पैकी/1
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
377/पैकी
निगम लिमिटेड
382/पैकी/1
383/पैकी/1
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
411
निगम लिमिटेड
गाडामार्ग
410
गाडा मार्ग
496/अ
497/पैकी/1
498
गाडा मार्ग
495/बी/पैकी/1
501/पैकी/1
520
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
503
निगम लिमिटेड
518
514
515
513/पैकी/1
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
512/पैकी/1
निगम लिमिटेड
रणु शाखा नहर
511/पैकी/1
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
510
निगम लिमिटेड
मार्ग
तहसील : पादरा
03.
रणु
135
गाडामार्ग
107
तहसील : पादरा
04.
महुवड
713/बी
174/अ
452GI/2012-13
6
5
4
36
05
00
67
11
00
61
00
16
25
00
00
25
00
11
00
05
00
05
88
00
06
00
08
42
04
00
45
06
00
63
07
00
10
18
00
00
01
00
22
04
00
01
52
00
54
12
00
31
14
00
04
03
00
23
01
00
91
12
00
17
25
00
42
00
00
15
73
00
06
14
00
14
71
00
00
10
00
17
52
00
23
59
00
36
00
00
02
12
00
66
00
00
72
00
02
जिला : वडोदरा
33
00
12
90
25
00
48
00
02
जिला: वडोदरा
54
00
00
59
00
02 1672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1
2
3
04.
175
महुवड
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
4
5
6
00
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
01
68
निगम लिमिटेड
गाडा मार्ग
176
00
01
18
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
00
18
97
निगम लिमिटेड
गाडा मार्ग 00 01 00
190/पैकी/ 1 00
13 15
191/पैकी/1 00 10 33
192
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
06
93
निगम लिमिटेड
195
00
07
03
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
196
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
05
09
निगम लिमिटेड
198
00
02
79
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
259
00
03
29
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
261
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
15
30
निगम लिमिटेड
265
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
06
44
निगम लिमिटेड
266/अ
266/ब
गाडा मार्ग
275/पैकी/ 1
276/पैकी/1
277/पैकी/1
278/पैकी/1
284/अ
285
00
06
44
00
12
53
00
00
54
00
07
25
00
05
79
00
11
54
00
09
12
00
01
86
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
01
26
निगम लिमिटेड
05.
भोज
तहसील : पादरा
356 347 345 344 343 342 341 340 339 337 329 336
जिला: वडोदरा
00 00 07 00 00 61 00 02 35 00 01 08 00 01 51 00 01 32 00 01 32 00 05 60 00 04 12 00 10 70 00 01 05 00 06 71
1673
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3 1
2
335
भोज
05.
334
333
मार्ग
321/अ
322
6
4
5
00
05
92
03
95
00
00
00
57
00
02
03
95
00
19
43
00
04
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
307
मार्ग
18
00
11
00
58
01
जिला : वडोदरा
तहसील : पादरा
06.
धोबीकुओं
224/अ/पैकी/1
223/पैकी/ 1
217/पैकी/ 1
24
02
00
08
00
60
00
08
67
00
47
00
भोज छोटी नहर
216/पैकी/1 00 08 47 218/पैकी/ 1 00 02 69 219/पैकी/1 00 04 45 220/पैकी/ 1 00 03 54 207/पैकी/ 1 00 03 20 206 00 00 22
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
208/पैकी/ 1
188
00
08
35
09
16
00
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
192
00
00
49
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
191/पैकी/1 00 01 87
190/पैकी/ 1 00 02 65
189/पैकी/ 1 00 02 36
177/पैकी/ 1 00 23 70
गाडामार्ग 00 34
123 00 08 64
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
गाडा मार्ग 00 02 08
126/पैकी/ 1 00 19 13
128/पैकी/ 1 00 33 40
143/पैकी/ 1 00 10 .55
146/अ 00 04 67
144/1 00 22 55
जिला : वडोदरा
तहसील : पादरा
07.
वडु
232
सरकारी
235/पैकी/1
231/अ/पैकी/ 1
07
00
38
13
18
00
00
88
00 1674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1
2
3
282/पैकी/2
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
4
6
5
00
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
283/पैकी/3
32
18
निगम लिमिटेड
मार्ग
छोटी नहर
282/पैकी/2
00
45
03
00
00
09
00
सरदारसरोवर नर्मद।
19
88
निगम लिमिटेड
283/पैकी/1
285/पैकी/ 1
284
गाडा मार्ग
337/पैकी/1
336
00 15 92 00 04 01 00 05 45 00 03 65 00 11 26
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
00
15
11
निगम लिमिटेड
335/पैकी/ 1 00 12 57
397/पैकी/ 1 00 09 Π
398/पैकी/ 1 00 11 96
399/पैकी/1 00 03 78
400 सरकारी 00 05 22
रास्ता 00 02 63
460 00 03 09
00 00 23
वडु छोटी नहर
471
470
00
10
67
00
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
12
96
निगम लिमिटेड
461/पैकी/1
468/पैकी/ 1
गाडा मार्ग
466/पैकी/1
गाडा मार्ग
542/पैकी/1
गाडा मार्ग
545
546/पैकी/1
547/पैकी/ 1
548/पैकी/ 1
549/पैकी/1
550
552
556
557
गाडा मार्ग
558
604
587/पैकी
588
590
586
00
05
67
00
07
14
00
00
78
00
26
62
00
02
15
00
20
89
00
00
64
00
12
07
00
17
49
00
01
82
00
04
67
00
05.
58
00
06
16
00
05
56
00
15
92
00
17
14
00
01
96
00
01
62
00
05
97
00
16
92
00
03
93
00
15
02
00
01
50 1675
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2
1
3
5
6
4
जिला : वडोदरा
तहसील : पादरा
08. विश्रामपुरा
308/3/1
17
00
24
10
08
00
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
309
निगम लिमिटेड
44
00
00
मोवल शाखा नहर-1
01
52
00
राष्ट्रीय मार्ग -6
314 00 22 90
315 00 05 98
316 00 01 48
317 00 01 82
318 00 01 39
319 00 02 05
320/पैकी/ 1 00 02 57
324/पैकी/ 1 00 06 86
332/पैकी/ 1 00 00 22
322/पैकी/1 00 09 78
326 00 08 83
रास्ता 00 00 87
272/पैकी/ 1 00 23 85
263/पैकी/ 1 00 14 09
242 00 06 14
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
245/पैकी/1 00 14 42 246/पैकी/ 1 00 00 39
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
08
59
00
निगम लिमिटेड
244
सरकारी
31
04
00
16
81
00
00
डब्ल्यूबी एम रोड
33/पैकी/ 1 00 09 47 32 00 00 03 35 00 02 09
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
36
37/पैकी/1
95
00
09
14
00
11
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
नहर
41
65
00
00
06
00
27
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
375/पैकी/2
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
04
38
00
निगम लिमिटेड
रास्ता
12
00
00
73
00
10
22
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
52/पैकी/ 1
56
08
76
00
86
00
00
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
53/पैकी/ 1
41
00
17 1676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1
2
3
09.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
4
5
6
तहसील : पादरा
मुवाल
538/अ
537/अ
537/ब
536/पैकी/1
535
रोड
10.
सांढा
जिला : वडोदरा
00
10
57
00
05
16
00
05
16
00
15
05
00
00
03
00
01
19
तहसील : पादरा
116/पैकी/1 .
125/पैकी/1
127/पैकी/1
128/पैकी/ 1
गाडा मार्ग
148/पैकी/1
149
151
152
153/पैकी/ 1
154/पैकी/1
लोला
11.
जिला : वडोदरा
00 13 18 00 19 36 00 10 06 00 12 86 00 00 67 00 06 92 00 05 23 00 06 29 00 06 60 00 12 07 00 02 22
तहसील : पादरा
215/पैकी/1
216
254
214/पैकी/1
205/पैकी/ 1
गाडा मार्ग
206
गाडा मार्ग जिला : वडोदरा
00
08
19
04
00
69
00
03
64
00
12
73
00
12
62
00
01
15
00
04
22
00
91
00
11111
183/पैकी/1
185/पैकी/ 1
182 सरकारी
186/पैकी/ 1
गाडा मार्ग
176/पैकी/ 1
175
174/पैकी/1
139
138
140/पैकी/1
137.
गाडा मार्ग
102/पैकी/1
103/पैकी/1
104
00 12 28 00 07 26 00 07 26 00 04 03 00 01 02 00 09 66 00 02 16 00 15 97 00 06 81 00 00 03 00 07 04 00 08 04 00 00 82 00 14 05 00 04 30
लोला गाँव पंचायत
98
99
00 00 12 00 14 07
लोला गाँव पंचायत
00
13
85 1677
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
3
2
1
6
5
4
जिला : वडोदरा
तहसील : पादरा
चित्राल
12.
15/पैकी/1
गाडामार्ग
17
53/पैकी/ 1
52/पैकी/ 1
48
51 /पैकी/1
00
32
00
10
01
00
95
11
00
00
07
88
94
10
00
00
03
44
04
00
00
29
05
00
सरदारसरोवर नर्मदा
50
निगम लिमिटेड
49/पैकी/ 1 00 16 14
00 09 38
45
गाडा मार्ग 00 01 57
00 27 16
82/पैकी/1
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
01
00
90
निगम लिमिटेड
81
00 08 99
85
सरकारी 00 14 49
86
87/पैकी/1 00 01 20
गाडामार्ग 00 01 35
जिला : वडोदरा
तहसील : पादा
गवासद
13.
347/पैकी/1
00
09
01
00
गवासदडीस्टीबुगटरी
1898 11
12
00
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
301/अ
निगम लिमिटेड
300/पैकी/1 00 16 31
299/पैकी/1 00 11 73
303 00 05
00 05 03
304
00 03 89
307
00 05 53
305
00 09 92
306
00 13 74
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
310/स
निगम लिमिटेड
गाडा मार्ग 00 02
00 09 26
262
00 09 22
260
00 25 01
259
00 10 Π
258
00 04 85
254
रास्ता 00 00 42
00 10 55
255
00 08 56
251
गाडा मार्ग 00 05 89
गाडामार्ग 00 14 81
151
गाडा मार्ग 00 01 66
00 00
152
00 22 64 384
153
1678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1
2
3
154
गवासद
155
156
157
1089
161/पैकी/1
161/पैकी/2
162
171
123/पैकी/ 1
डी/एस #28
172/पैकी/ 1
118
116
115
114
गवासद
13.(A)
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
4
5
6
00
03
55
00
07
12
00
10
64
00
01
08
00
12
13
00
11
74
00
11
74
00
00
27
00
17
41
00
07
40
00
02
15
00
00
98
00
13
05
00
00
38
00
11
16
00
00
59
तहसील : पादरा
दबका जीजीएस
145
143
142
153
14.
गामेठा
जिला : वडोदरा
00
01
09
37
03
79
05
23
8888 00 00 00 00
15
तहसील : पादरा
गाडामार्ग
228
227/A
226
229
233
रास्ता
234
सरकारी
222
जिला : वडोदरा
00
00
51
00
00
86
00
01
03
00
00
32
00
07
46
00
03
71
00
00
58
00
03
86
00
04
19
अभोर शाखा नहर
00 00 55
221/पैकी/ 1 00 04 65
235/पैकी/1 00 14 81
216 00
03 41
रास्ता 00 01 47
215 00 04
64
214 00
00 67
गाडा मार्ग 00 04 02
299
00 01 72
300
00 14 59
301
00 13 15
308
00 03 91
309
00 12 27
320
00 13 91
321 00
02 87
322 00
10 28
324
00 06 33
328
00 01 15
327 00 158
01 86
1679
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1 2 3
गामेठा गाडामार्ग
400
399
409
397
गाडामार्ग
411
396
416
417/ब
रास्ता
नाला
15. मासर तहसील : पादरा
81
80
78
91
90
96
95
112
121
122
127
126
130
129/पैकी/ 1
डब्ल्यूबीएम रोड
132
18
गाडा मार्ग
135
136
138
गाडा मार्ग
260 सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
निगम लिमिटेड
263
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
261 निगम लिमिटेड
262/अ
262/ब
मासर शाखा नहर
287
286/ब
गाडा मार्ग
335 गौचरण सरकारी , पादरा
338
337
गाडा मार्ग
550
452Gl /2012-14
4 5 6
00 01 51
00 08 52
00 01 76
00 00 04
00 12 21
00 00 69
00 07 15
00 10 35
00 14 31
00 07 40
00 03 55
00 01 33
जिला : वडोदरा
00- 05 21
00 02 71
00 33 63
00 15 75
00 16 93
00 00 03
00 27 87
00 33 79
00 15 70
00 10 44
00 08 45
00 13 67
00 11 61
00 15 28
00 00 91
00 16 15
00 03 46
00 01 75
00 12 02
00 05 40
00 12 91
00 02 90
00 08 70
00 14 06
00 09 00
00 06 65
00 10 87
00 00 74
00 07 18
00 15 14
00 01 52
00 00 06
00 37 51
00 04 14
00 02 88
00 00 82
1680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1
2
3
मासर
555
554
562
564
561
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
4
5
6
00
12
67
10
00
00
00
10
50
00
04
39
सरदार सरोवर नर्मदा
00
12
36
निगम लिमिटेड
565
00 14 81
गाडा मार्ग 00 01 25
685
00 07
686
00 09 81
684
00 05 23
689
00 08 28
682
00 13 26
692
00 10 75
693 सरकारी
00 00 45
691
00 11 66
695
00 20 00
696
00 07 62
गाडा मार्ग 00 03 51
786
00 11 44
784
00 07 50
785
00 12 07
781
00 22 13
863
00 05 16
गाडा मार्ग 00 02
52
847
00 16 10 .
862 00
08 14
11111
860
00 00 01
855
00 22 32
854
00 02 56
858
00 07 05
गाडा मार्ग 00 02
43
893
00 06 38
894
00 01 15
897
00 07 31
कणजट नहर 00 04 26
रास्ता 00
01 43
896
00 00 50
898
00 10 36
899/पैकी/2 00
08 23
900
00 09 92
902
20 09 18
914
00 10 19
915
00 10 93
929
00 02 24
917
00 07 52
918
00 08 20
919
00 07 63
920
00 13 33
921
00 03
922 31066
00 00 65
1681
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2
3
गजेरा
16.
6
5
4
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
1402 00 03 97
00 10 27
1398
00 03 37
1401
00 06 18
1400
1399 00 03 26
00 06 16
1403/अ
00 02 65
डी/एस ओएनजीसी
00 06 05
1391
00 00 07
1404
00 11 76
1390
00 00 69
पक्कारास्ता
00 03 34
1389
00 01 03
1407
00 09 25
1388
1409 00 01 97
00 10 51
1411
00 07 57
1412
00 01 13
1413
00 09 12
1384
1382 00 03 30
00 10 56
1383
00 01 84
1344
1381 00 05 17
1345 00 00 80
00 03 11
1380
00 00 27
1379
00 09 96
1340
00 07 56
1348
00 07 74
1349
गाडा मार्ग 00 02 49
00 10 60
1350
00 05 41
1351
गाडा मार्ग 00 03 96
1304 00 03 13
00 00 97
1303
00 09 65
1305
00 09 55
1297
00 13 74
1295
00 05 64
गौचरण ग्राम
1294
पंचायत , गजेरा
00 01
1249
रास्ता 00 00 59
00 01 26
रास्ता
00 02 30
1292
00 03 45
1252
00 00 28
1270
00 08 25
1254
00 09 34
गौचरण ग्राम पंचायत गजेरा
1269
54
00
00
शाखा नहर 3/1
1268
04
16
00 1682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1 2 3
गजेरा 1267
1266
नाला
1160
1163/अ
1173
1169
1170
1168
गाडा मार्ग
1177
गाडा मार्ग
972
960
961
962
963
964
965
गाडा मार्ग
864
852
851
शाखा नहर 3/1
866
868
869
870
871/अ
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
4 5 6 00 00 03 00 16 70 00 02 42 00 15 30 00 22 17 00 07 69 00 07 30 00 08 75 00 04 86 00 01 90 00 02 95 00 01 85 00 11 09 00 04 00 26 33 00 15 53 00 13 81 00 07 08 00 06 31 00 02 14 00 13 22 00 05 94 00 05 03 00 02 28 00 01 97 00 11 92 00 04 71 00 09 58 00 12 14 00 00
वावली शाखा नहर
872/अ
17.
58
00
08
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
997
शाखा नहर 2/1
1003
1005
शाखा नहर
1009
1008
गाडा मार्ग
1029
1030
शाखा नहर 4/1
1036
1035
1045
1047
गाडा मार्ग
1052
1051
C
00 32 00 00 00 17 00 26 00 00 00 13 51 00 04 88 00 39 00 12 26 00 07 73 00 00 46 00 09 86 00 10 78 00 25 37 00 00 34 00 02 85 00 17 31 00 18 19
1683
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3
2
1
1050/पैकी/1
डाभा
1150/पैकी/ 1
6
4
5
53
00
16
96
00
08
00
03
00
डाभा शाखा नहर-1
00 09 09
1153
00 09 60
1160
00 26 21
1172
00 01 68
1173
गाडा मार्ग 00 02 22
00 08 06
834
00 23 83
833/पैकी/1
00 22 55
833/पैकी/2
00 16 40
821
00 15 55
829
00 07 58
828
00 06 98
827
00 07 18
826
00 15 98
652
00 03 99
647
00 17 81
653
गाडा मार्ग 00 02 23
00 18 34
633/पैकी/2
00 18 19
670/पैकी/2
00 01 52
ओएनजीसी रोड
00 12 22
625
00 10 55
624
00 24 11
623
00 01 30
1111
गाडा मार्ग
00 08 49
571
00 08 68
570
00 04 79
569
गाडामार्ग 00 01 34
00 05 04
475
00 06 11
477
00 07 30
478
00 07 13
479
00 31 84
483/ब
00 12 98
484
00 09 32
490/अ
00 06 50
रास्ता
00 01 09
जंबुसर शाखा नहर
00 29 33
493/पैकी/1
00 01 25
494
गाडा मार्ग 00 06 73
00 06 08
408
00 07 99
410
00 07 80
411
00 13 96
407
00 00 90
399
00 18 22
398
00 12 55
397
1684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1
2
3
395
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
4
5
6
गौचरण ग्राम पंचायत
डाभा
396
00
08
17
गौचरण ग्राम पंचायत
डाभा
डाभा
17.(A)
00
12
20
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
00
04
36
जंबुसर जीजीएस
गाडामार्ग
493/पैकी/1
18.
उमरा
00
04
20
00
08
42
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
370
नाला
371
372
373
374
379
380
सरकारी
383
384/पैकी/1
395/पैकी/1
397
396
तालाब
गाडामार्ग
408/पैकी/ 1
409
411
414
422
421
420
ड्रेन
रास्ता
11
13
14/अ
15
16
19. जंबुसर
00
00
19
00
03
23
00
11
54
00
14
94
00
06
83
00
09
96
00
02
58
00
07
52
00
26
43
00
14
19
00
31
00
00
31
02
00
02
73
00
01
14
00
21
89
00
14
82
00
73
31
00
11
46
00
14
85
00
00
23
00
19
59
00
04
20
00
05
90
00
80
09
00
13
71
00
03
45
00
19
68
00
07
80
तहसील : जंबुसर
175
176
187+188
186
213
214
240
239
238
237
गाडा मार्ग
221
जिला : भरुच
00 05 53 00 12 86 00 02 42 00 17 68 00 08 22 00 07 31 00 05 86 00 06 99 00 13 27 00 06 67 00 02 30 00 00 03
1685
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
2
1
235
19.
जंबुसर
233
232/1+2
230
250+252
279/1/अ
गाडामार्ग
229
गाडा मार्ग
407
406/पैकी/1
405
403
402
6
5
4
00
10
00 67 861
00
12
70
00
10
13
00
69
00
01
10
96
04
00
27
00
02
68
11
00
46
00
00
19
73
00
49
00
00
73
00
11
64
07
00
94
00
12
60
00
00
कोटेमर शाखा नहर
गाडा मार्ग
418
419
रास्ता
छोटी नहर
509
512
513
526
515
525
03
34
00
20
74
00
28
09
00
04
16
00
06
01
00
09
00
83
12
74
00
09
00
06
06
24
00
06
98
00
07
12
00
05
00
99
एन.जी. रेलवे
छोटी नहर
छोटी नहर
524
523
517
520
519
00
00
25
06
00
00
05
16
00
06
00
00
34
17
00
01
00
98
08
06
00
45
08
00
गादोई खाडी
850
पक्का रास्ता
835
833/पैकी/ 1
834/पैकी/2
823
08
74
00
59
05
00
02
29
00
56
00
00
13
00
14
30
40
00
89
00
00
सरकारी तालाब
820
गौचरण
821
गौचरण
822
817
गौचरण
रास्ता
816/पैकी/2
00
41
10
48
10
00.
00
10
54
13
00
04
72
00
01
जंबुसर पीडब्ल्यूडी भूमि
1058 00 20 91
1057 00 11 63
सरकारी 00 09 96
1060
1686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1 2 3
जंबुसर 1061
1062
गाडा मार्ग
1102
1099
1097
1098 सरकारी
1095/1
1095/2
1120
1121
1122
1123
1125 सरकारी
1124
1139
छोटी नहर
1140
1138
1137
1136/अ
1174
1173
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
4 5 6 00 08 91 00 06 48 00 03 28 00 09 95 00 21 89 00 02 44 00 11 75 00 06 95 00 09 04 00 15 29 00 18 61 00 13 46 00 00 01 00 19 48 00 12 32 00 18 45 00 00 69 00 15 03 00 00 93 00 10 58 00 02 42 00 03 79 00 06 64 00 02 69
जंबुसर शाखा नहर
कलक शाखा नहर
1176/अ
1177/अ
लीमज
20.
00
02
10
00
06
27
88
00
03
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
224
126/पैकी/2
123
122/पैकी/ 1
कावा शाखा नहर-2
121/1/अ/पैकी/1
गाडामार्ग
129
165
164
161
154
155
159
158
157
कलक
21 .
00 11
00 12
00 12
00 08 28
00 03 80
00 00 12
00 03 01
00 04 86
00 07 74
00 10 19
00 06 54
00 00 06
00 08 17
00 08 57
00 11
00
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
838/ब
844
843
842
841
848
गाडामार्ग
00
10
08
09
11
01
00 00 888888 00 00
02
11
00
04
30 1687
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2 3
कलक 798
799/पैकी/1
799/पैकी/2
वांसेटा शाखा नहर
766/अ/ 1
गाडामार्ग
737
रास्ता
725
721/अ
724
728
22. वांसेटा तहसील : जंबुसर
86/पैकी/1
86/पैकी/2
43
44
শালা
16
11
10
12
गाडामार्ग
8
9 सरकारी गौचरण
1 सरकारी खाडी
5
3
2 सरकारी गौचरण
रास्ता
296/अ
297
छोटी महर
299
300
290/पैकी/1
274
289
रास्ता एवं ड्रेन
287
रास्ता
286 ( सरकारी गौचरण
452GI/2012-15
4 5 6
00 01 97
00 08 76
00 16 34
00 01 93
02 21 60
02
10
04
05
48
04
जिला : भरुच
24
09
88888 28
00 10
00 06
00 05
00 02
まさ
00 01
00 10 18
00 09 42
00 00 11
00 06 30
00 01 4888- 66
00 37 93
00 00 53
00 00 43
00 09 22
00 13 33
00 01 06
00 03 83
00 27 30
00 12
00 01 80
00 11 92
00 10 13
00 01 33
00 26 47
00 27 25
00 12 85
00 06 04
00 19 09
00 이 47
00 95 50
1688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1
2
3
23.
डोलिया
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
5
6
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
393
00
26
45
खराबो , ग्राम पंचायत
00
डोलिया
डोलिया खाडी
392
09
30
00
47
08
खराबो , ग्राम पंचायत
डोलिया
394/अ
65
00
72
खराबो , ग्राम पंचायत
डोलिया
रास्ता
377
376
00
80
02
04
00
40
सरकारी गौचरण ग्राम
00
00
09
पंचायतडोलिया
375
378
379
374
373 सरकारी
गाडा मार्ग
253
254
252
185
187
250 सरकारी
188
242
236
237
230
231
220
216
218
24.
टंकारी बंदर
00 17 36 00 03 96 00 00 01 00 11 35 00 08 73 00 01 78 00 10 25 00 02 91 00 06 78 00 00 44 00 03 30 00 03 53 00 08 37 00 20 87 00 09 29 00 25 79 00 11 56 00 04 00 46 11 00 12 78501337 00 08
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
1963 00 07 84 1961 OC 06 70 1964 00 07 44 1960 00 07 97 1949 00 19 67 1959 00 00 54 1950 00 28 22 1944 00 00 58 1935 00 00 42 1936 00 03 73 1943 00 04 93 1942 00 11 40 1945 00 13 57 1941/अ 00 00 05 1940 00 15 00 2011 00 20 13
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1689
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
1 2 3 4 6
5
24. टंकारी बंदर 2123 00 07
44
2122 गौचरण 00 07 11
2121 00 22 76
2140 00 19 63
2141 00 09 69
2142 00 01 48
2148/अ 00 26 93
2143 00 12 16
2144 00 07 34
2145 00 10 99
2147/अ 00 19 44
2158 00 12 51
2159 00 16 07
2164 00 23 66
2162 00 23 32
2168 00 15
2181 00 14 75
2180 00 19 27
2178 00 08 64
2177 00 02 53
00
नाला एवं गाडा मार्ग
09 90
1506/पैकी/1 00 03 73
1586 00 09 96
575 00 06 02
1760 00 04 24
1796 00 01 99
1795 00 00 18
672/ब 00 36 19
2335 00 12 05
2336 00 04 48
391 गौचरण 00 01 09
रास्ता 00 10 79
55 00 08 76
56 00 13 18
54 00 07 65
35 00 04 14
36 00 09 75
38/अ 00 07 13
39 00 07 24
40 00 11 32
43 00 00 06
गाडामार्ग 00 03 06
454 00 01 56
450 00 27 71
00 07 79
डब्ल्यूबीएम रोड
461 00 02 27
449 गौचरण 00 03 12
462 00 08 86
463 00 04 76
464 00 04 40
गाडा मार्ग 00 05 83
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1690
3
2
1
484
डंकारी बंदर
24.
485
(जारी )
486
487
489
6
4
5
79
07
00
02
46
00
00
96
09
07
08
00
28
00
86
32
19
गौचरण प्रशासन शंकर
490 00
सुरसंग
431 00 00 11
430 00 08 84
429 00 08 24
428 00 08 33
427 06 35
85 09
खरखाडी खराबो
1268
86
00
सरकारी बंजर
423
गाडामार्ग
25.
Π
00
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
खाडी'
06
51
00
23
82
खार नो खराबो
412/पैकी/8
कार्ट ट्रेक
गाडामार्ग
411
409
408
406
405
गाढामार्ग
368
328/अ
327
326
330/अ
325
26.
00 00 51
03 70
00 01 06
00 14 74
00 12 92
00 16 54
00 09 93
00 01 50
00 01 55
00 30 96
00 17 78
00 16 43
00 08 12
00 08 30
04
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
कपुरीया
128 14
৪৪
182 13
183 00 03
184 00 10
185 00 05
212 00 25 98
213 00 32 12
216 00 75 14
217 00 27 40
सरकारी गौचरण
06
00
52
सरकारी खराबो
215
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
726
75
03
31
सरकारी खाराबो
27, !
00
00
64
ओएनजीसीरोड
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1691
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
2
3 4
5
6
सरकारी पडतरे
27. आसरसा ( जारी)
724
गाडा मार्ग
566
00
17
51
02
00
62
00
10
86
00
03
रास्ताएवं ड्रेन
561
562
560
गाडा मार्ग
497
499
498
51
00 16 39 00 07 28 00 08 57 00 01 03 00 06 39 00 11 17 00 17 47
सरकारी पडतर
509 00 08 12 512 00 04 96 513 00 10 12 517 00 07 00 518 00 07 46
सरकारी पडतर
523 00 02 86 522/अ 00 02 78 522/ब 00 02 84
00
सरकारी पडतर
524 01 69
525 00 01 41
गाडा मार्ग 00 03 01
409 00 23 63
410 00 09 15
411 00 01
सरकारी पडतर
412 413 414 415 349 353
28.
नाडा
57
00 02 34 00 01 58 00 05 80 00 11 81 00 27 04 00 88 37 97
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
956 सरकारी 00 15 968 00 12 967 00 08 552000 966 00 02 80 965 00 03 42 948 सरकारी 00 13 33 1027 00 00 09 1028 00 07 1029 00 00 03 1030 00 05 65 1103 00 14 90 1104 00 02 45 1123 00 00 03 1105 00 01 76 1106 00 06 17 1107 00 04 69 1097 00 06 48 1096 00 04 17
1692
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
3
2
1
28.
1109
नाडा (जारी )
1118
1114
1113
1172
1173
1174
1175
1088
6
4
5
00
10
00
00
02
44
00
01
58
00
06
28
00
12
22
00
06
23
00
03
57
00
07
81
05
47
00
गौचरण ग्राम पंचायत नाडा
गाडा मार्ग
1242
00
00
51
05
00
61
00
02
89
ओएनजीसी रोड
1221 00 14 57 1240 00 04 12 1237 00 03 49 1222 00 24 03 1232 00 15 66 1231 00 07 53
सरकारी पडतर ग्राम
पंचायत नाडा
1456 00 01 82
1454/अ 00 00 31
1229 00 08 63
1463 00 05 04
1450 00 21 24
1519 00 04 08
1520/अ 00 14 65
1523 00 02 56
1526 00 02 26
1527 00 02 03
00 03 39
रास्ता एवं ड्रेन
1529 00 00 87 1530 00 18 49 1558 00 26 86 1557 00 11 97 1551 00 12 39 1640/पैकी/ 1 06
सरकारी खार खराबो
46
08
रास्तागौचरण
00 03 18
1684 00 08 97
गौचरण ग्राम पंचायत नाडा
रास्ता 00 02 30
1655 00 11 45
1653 00 01 84
1652 00 21
सरकारी पडतर ग्राम
पंचायत नाडा
13
सरकारी पडतर ग्राम
1651
36
00
01
पंचायत नाडा
1645
00
15
सरकारी पत्थर ग्राम
पंचायत नाडा
1650
तालाब गाँव
22
00
10
02
पंचायत नाडा
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1693
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
2
3 1
रास्ता 28. नाडा (जारी)
1647
4
6
5
00
01
07
24
00
08
सरकारी खार नो खराबो
रास्ता
खाडी
कैम्बे गल्फ
नाडा
28.(A)
00
04
81
34
07
00
94
68
06
जिला : भरुच
तहसील : जंबुसर
नाडा जीजीएस 00 04 12 1468 00 03 12 1467 00 02 15 1466 00 02 02 1465 00 02 55 1464 00 08 30 1463 00 03 23
[फा. सं. ओ-36011/14/2010- ओ.एन.जी.- II ]
आर. एस. सिकदर , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
NewDelhi , the 8th February, 2012
S.O. 751. Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. S.O. 2465 dated 8-12-2010 under sub - section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to that Notification for the purpose of laying PADRA GGS TO GULF OF CAMBAY VIA DABKA GGS . JAMBUSAR GGS . GNAQ GGS , NADA EPS OF ANKLESHWAR ASSET.
And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted to the Government.
And further whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification .
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification hereby acquired for laying the pipelines .
And further in exercise of power conferred by sub - section (4) of the Section , the Central Government directs that the Right of User in the lands shall instead of vesting in Central Government vests on this date of the publication of this declaration in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Proposed Effluent Line from Padra GGS to Gulf of Cambay VIA DABKA GGS , Jambusar GGS , GNAQ GGS, NADA EPS
ROU Area
Party if any
SurveyNo.
NameofVillage
3
2
1
TA.: PADRA 01 PADRA( KASBA )
953/1
93611
936/2
Area
Hq.
Sq. Mtr.
6
4
5
DIST.: VADODARA
27
00
13
00
00
16
76
04
00 1694
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1 2 3 4 5 6
937/2 00 10 36
PADRA( KASBA)
935 00 04 20
932 00 11 31
CartTrack 00 00 84
931/2 00 04 54
931/1 00 01 19
831 00 06 39
832/2 00 08 67
Luna Padra Road 00 02 66
829/1 00 12 00
829/2 00 00 25
828 00 06 62
827/P/ 1 00 05 20
753 00 06 90
753/1 00 06 43
Cart Tráck 00 00 53
751/1 00 13 75
CartTrack 00 00 81
749 00 06 32
Cart Track 00 00 63
757/3 00 08 21
Cart Track 00 00 40
737 00 05 50
736 00 12 98
728 00 04 74
729 00 18 27
730 00 05 55
726 00 03 43
731 00 12 43
CartTrack 00 00 85
724/1 00 07 24
724/2 00 07 25
713/1 00 01 00
713/2 00 10 08
714 00 17 19
Cart Track 00 00 39
708 00 15 Π
707 00 12 38
691 /P 00 18 01
Nala 00 00 83
Road 00 02 10
2. DABHASA TA.: PADRA DIST.: VADODARA
1415 00 10 78
1413 00 16 09
1424 00 26 17
CartTrack 00 00 55
1430 Govt. 00 03 20
1431/P/ 1 00 03 48
1429/P/ 1 00 07
1427/P/ 1 00 09 33
SH-6 Road m 01 56
1166/P/ 1 00 03 79
1167/P/ 1 00 08 20
CartTrack 00 00 59
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1695
भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
1 2 3
DABHASA 1183/P/ 1
1182/P/ 1
1184 Sardar Sarovar
NarmadaNigam Ltd;
1181
1180/P/1
1188/P/ 1
1202/P/1
1203/B
1210
1209/P/1
1204/P/1
1208/P/1
1207
CartTrack
1054
1055
1056
1077 /P/1
1082/P/ 1
1080/P/1
1081
1083 /P/ 1
1084
1085 /P/1
1088
1089/P/ 1
CartTrack
697
696/P/ 1
708
693
709/P/ 1
685 Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
710/P/1
711/P/ 1 Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
714/P/1
713 /P/ 1
Cart Track
640/A/P/ 1
Sardar Sarovar
637 Narmada Nigam Ltd.
638/P/ 1
636/P/ 1
635/P/ 1
CartTrack
332/P/ 1 Sardar Sarovar
NarmadaNigam Ltd.
333
335/P/ 1
349/P/ 1
452Gl/2012-16
4 5 6
00 07 50
00 08 61
00 15 47
00 00 21
00 02 92
00 01 63
00 02 93
00 14 37
00 00 14
00 10 90
00 03 81
00 11 89
00 14 89
00 00 72
00 00 62
00 11 60
00 01 43
00 14 60
00 18 61
00 00 17
00 05 99
00 08 15
00 00 13
00 15 43
00 00 48
00 10 42
00 30
00 06 34
00 13 82
00 01 10
00 02 .99
00 09 37
00 02 06
00 06 75
00 00 20
00 06 54
00 06 22
18
00 00 2835 96
00 26
00 06 62
00 01 87
00 21 38
00 03 89
00 01 28
00 07 92
00 07 15
00 11 53
00 14 30
1696
[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
3 1
2
DABHASA
348/P/ 1
347/P/ 1
342/P/ 1
Sardar Sarovar NarmadaNigam Ltd.
337
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
341/P/ 1
340
379/P/ 1
378/P/ 1
377/P
4
5
6
36
05
00
67
00
11
61
16
00
00
00
00
25
11
00
00
05
00
05
88
08
06
00
42
04
00
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
382/P/ 1
383/P/ 1
411
Sardar Sarovar
NarmadaNigam Ltd.
CartTrack
410
Cart Track
496/A
497/P/ 1
498
CartTrack
495/B/ P/ 1
501 /P/ 1
520
503
Sardar Sarovar
NarmadaNigam Ltd ..
518
514
515
513/P/ 1
512/P/ 1
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd. 00
45
06
00
07
63
00
10
18
00
00
01
04
00
22
01
00
52
00
12
54
00
14
31
00
04
03
00
01
23
12
00
91
00
25
17
42
00
00
73
00
15
00
06
14
00
14
71
00
10
00
17
00
52
00
23
59
00
00
36
Ranu Distributary
511/P/ 1
510
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
Road
RANU
03.
TA .: PADRA
135
CartTrack
107
04. MAHUWAD TA.:PADRA
713/B
174/A
Sardar Sarovar
175
NarmadaNigam Ltd..
CartTrack
176
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
CartTrack
190/P/ 1
00
02
12
66
00
00
00
72
02
DIST.: VADODARA
12
33
00
00
25
90
00
02
48
DIST.: VADODARA
00
00
54
00
02
59
00
01
68
00
01
18
00
18
97
00
01
00
00
13
15 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1697
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
2 3 4 5 6
191/P/ 1 00 10 33
192 Sardar Sarovar 00 06 93
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
195 Sardar Sarovar 00 07 03
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
196 Sardar Sarovar 00 05 09
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
Sardar Sarovar
198 Narmada Nigam ltd . 00 02 79
259 Sardar Sarovar 00 03 29
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
261 Sardar Sarovar 00 15 30.
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
265 Sardar Sarovar 00 06 44
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
266/A 00 06 44
266/8 00 12 53
Cart Track 00 00 54
275/P/ 1 00 07 25
276/P/ 1 00 05 79
277 /P/ 1 00 11 54
278/P/ 1 00 09 12
284/A 00 01 86
Sardar Sarovar
285 Narmada Nigam Ltd. 00 01 26
05. BHOJ TA .: PADRA DIST.: VADODARA
356 00 00 07
347 00 00 61
345 00 02 35
344 00 01 08
343 00 01 51
342 00 01 32
341 00 01 32
340 00 05 60
339 00 04 12
337 00 10 70
329 00 01 05
336 00 06 71
335 00 05 92
334 00 03 95
333 00 00 57
Road 00 03 02
321 /A 00 19 95
322 Sardar Sarovar 00 04 43
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
307 00 11 18
Road 00 01 58
06. DHOBIKUWA TA .: PADRA DIST.: VADODARA
224/A/ P/ 1 00 02 24
223/P/ 1 00 08 60
1698
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
3
2
1
217/P/ 1
06. DHOBIKUWA
4
5
6
00
67
08
00
00
47
Bhuj Minor
216/P/ 1 00 08 47
218/P/ 1 00 02 69
219/P/1 00 04 45
220/P/1 00 03 54
207/P/ 1 00 03 20
206 Sardar Sarovar 00 00 22
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
208/P/ 1 00 08 35
188 Sardar Sarovar 00 09 16
NarmadaNigam Ltd.
192 Sardar Sarovar 00 00 49
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
191/P/1 00 01
190/P/ 1 00 02
189/P/ 1 00 02
177/P/ 1 00 23
Cart Track 00 01
123 Sardar Sarovar 00 08
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
CartTrack 00 02 08
126/P1 00 19 13
128/P/ 1 00 33 40
143/P/ 1 88888 00 10 .55
146/A 00 04 67
144/1 00 22 55
07. VADU TA.: PADRA, DIST.: VADODARA .
232 Govt. 00 07 38
235/ P/ 1 00 13 18
231 /A/P/ 1 00 00 88
282/P/2 Sardar Sarovar 00 32 18
283/P/3 Narmada Nigam Ltd.
Road 00 03 45
00 00 09
FieldChannel
Sardar Sarovar
282/P/2
NarmadaNigam Ltd.
283/ P/ 1
285/ P/ 1
284
CartTrack
337/P/ 1
336
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
335/P/ 1
397/P/ 1
398/P/ 1
399/P/ 1
400
Govt.
Road
460
Vadu Minor
471
19
00
88
15
00
92
00
04
01
05
45
00
00
03
65
00
26
11
00
15
11
00
12
57
09
00
00
96
11
00
78
03
00
05
22
00
02
63
88
09
00
03
23
00
00
67
00
10 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1699
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
1 2 3 4 5 6
07. VADU 470 Sardar Sarovar 00 12 96
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
461/P/1 00 05 67
468/P/ 1 00 07 14
CartTrack 00 00 78
466/P/ 1 00 26 62
CartTrack 00 02 15
542/P/ 1 00 20 89
Cart Track 00 00 64
545 00 12 07
546/P/1 00 17 49
547/P/1 00 01 82
548/P/1 00 04 67
549/P/1 00 05 58
550 00 06 16
552 00 05 56
556 00 15 92
557 00 17 14
Cart Track 00 01 96
558 00 01 62
604 00 05 97
587/P 00 16 92
588 00 03 93
590 00 15 02
586 00 01 50
08. VISHRAMPURA TA.: PADRA DIST.: VADODARA
308/A/ 1 00 24 17
309 Sardar Sarovar . 00 10 08
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
Muval Branch 00 00 44
Minor- 1
SH-6 00 01
314 00 22 90
315 00 05
316 00 01 48
317 00 01 82
318 00 01 39
319 00 02 05
320/P/ 1 00 02 57
324/P/ 1 00 06 86
332/P/ 1 00 00 22
322/P/ 1 00 09 78
326 00 08 83
Cart Track 00 00 87
272/P/ 1 00 23 85
263/P/ 1 00 14 09
242 Sardar Sarovar 00 06 14
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
245/P/1 00 14 42
246/P/ 1 00 00 39
Sardar Sarovar
244 NarmadaNigam Ltd. 00 08 59
1700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
2
3
1
31
Govt.
WBM Road
33/P/ 1
32
35
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
36
37 /P/ 1
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
6
4
5
00
04
16
00
00
81
09
47
00
00
00
03
00
02
09
09
00
95
00
11
14
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
Canal
41
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
375/P/2
Sardar Sarovar NarmadaNigam Ltd.
Cart Track
12
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
52/P/1
56
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
53 /P/ 1
MUVAL
TA .: PADRA 09.
538/A
537/A
537/B
536/P/ 1
535
Road
10.
SANDHA
TA.: PADRA
116/P/1
125/P/ 1
127/P/ 1
128/P/ 1
CartTrack
148/P/ 1
149
151
152
153/P/ 1
154/P/ 1
11.
LOLA
TA .: PADRA
215/P/ 1
216
254
214/P/ 1
205/P/ 1
CartTrack
206
Cart Track
183/P/ 1
185/P/ 1
00
00
65
00
06
27
00
04
38
00
00
73
00
10
22
08
76
00
00
00
86
17
41
00
DIST.: VADODARA
00
57
10
00
05
16
05
00
16
00
15
05
00
00
03
00
01
19
DIST.: VADODARA
00
13
18
00
19
36
00
10
06
00
86
12
00
00
67
00
06
92
00
23
05
06
00
29
00
60
06
07
00
12
00
22
02
DIST.: VADODARA
00
08
19
00
04
69
00
03
64
00
12
73
00
12
00
15
01
00
04
22
00
00
91
00
12
28
00
07
26 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1701
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
2
1
3
11.
LOLA
182
Govt.
186/P/1
Cart Track
176/P/ 1
175
174/P/ 1
139
138
140/P/ 1
137
CartTrack
102/P/ 1
103/P/ 1
104
4
5
6
26
07
00
03
00
04
01
02
00
00
09
66
00
02
16
00
15
97
00
06
81
03
00
00
00
07
04
04
08
00
00
00
82
14
05
00
30
04
00
00
12
00
Lolavillage
Panchayat
98 00 14 07 99 00 13 85
Lola village
Panchayat
CHITRAL
TA .: PADRA 12 .
15/P/ 1
Cart Track
17
53/P/ 1
52/P/ 1
48
51/P/ 1
50
Sardar Sarovar
NarmadaNigam Ltd.
49/P/ 1
45
Cart-Track
82/P/ 1
81
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
85
86
Govt.
87 /P/ 1
CartTrack
TA .: PADRA GAVASAD
13.
347/P/ 1
DIST.: VADODARA
00
00
32
00
01
10
00
95
11
88
07
00
94
10
00
44
00
03
04
00
00
29
00
05
00
16
14
09
38
00
01
57
00
27
16
00
90
00
01
00
08
99
49
14
00
20
00
01
01
35
00
DIST.: VADODARA
09
11
00
01
89
00
Gavasad Distributory
301/A
Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
300/P/ 1
299/P/ 1
303
304
307
305
306
Sardar Sarovar
310/A
NarmadaNigam Ltd.
Cart Track
12
58
00
16
31
00
11
00
73
05
00
05
00
03
00
03
89
05
00
09
00
5274 53 92
13
00
28
02
00 1702
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
2 3 4 5 6
13. GAVASAD 262 00 09 26
(Contd.) 260 00 09 22
259 00 25 01
258 00 10
254 00 04 85
Road 00 00 42
255 00 10
251 00 08 56 558
Cart Track 00 05 89
151 Cattle Field 00 14 81
Cart Track 00 01 66
152 00 00 38
153 00 22 64
154 00 03 55
155 00 07 12
156 00 10 64
157 00 01 08
1089 00 12 13
161/P/1 00 11 74
161/P/2 00 11 74
162 00 00 27
171 00 17 41
123/P/ 1 00 07 40
D/S#28 00 02 15
172/P/ 1 00 00 98
118 00 13 05
116 00 00 38
115 00 11 16
114 00 00 59
13. ( A) GAVASAD TA.:PADRA DIST.: VADODARA
Dabka GGS 00 01 14
145 00 09 37
143 00 03 79
142 00 05 23
153 00 15 26
14. GAMETHA TA: PADRA DIST.: VADODARA
Cart Track 00 00 51
228 00 00 86
227/A 00 01 03
226 00 00 32
229 00 07 46
233 00 03 71
Road 00 00 58
234 Govt. 00 03 86
222 00 04 19
00 00 55
Abhor Distributory
221 /P/ 1
235/P/1
216
Road
215
214
CartTrack
65
00
04
81
00
14
00
03
41
47
00
01
00
64
04
00
67
00
02
00
04 1703
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2 3 4 5 6
1
GAMETHA 299 00 01 72
14.
300 00 14 59
(Contd.)
301 00 13 15
308 00 03 91
309 00 12 27
320 00 13 91
321 00 02 87
322 00 10 28
324 00 06 33
328 00 01 15
327 00 01 86
CartTrack 00 01 51
400 00 08 52
399 00 01 76
409 00 00 04
397 00 12 21
11
Cart Track
411
396
416
417/B
Road
Nala
15. MASAR TA.: PADRA
81
80
78
91
90
95
112
121
122
127
126
130
129/P/ 1
WBM Road
132
18
CartTrack
135
136
138
CartTrack
260 Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
263
261 Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Ltd.
262/A
262/B
MasarBranch Canal
452Gl/2012-17
00 00 69 00 07 15 00 10 35 00 14 31 00 07 40 00 03 55 00 01 533 DIST.: VADODARA 00 05 21 00 02 71 00 33 63 00 15 75 00 16 93 00 00 03 00 27 87 00 33 19 00 15 70 00 10 44 00 08 45 00 13 67 00 11 61 00 15 28 00 00 91 00 16 15 00 03 46 00 01 75 00 12 02 00 05 40 00 12 91 00 02 90 00 08 70 00 14 00 09 00 06 00 10 87 00 00 74
1704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1 2 3
15. MASAR 287
286/B
CartTrack
335 Cattle FieldGovt .
Padtar
338
337
CartTrack
550
555
554
562
564 SardarSarover
561 Narmada Nigam Ltd.
565
CartTrack
685
686
684
689
682
692
693 Govt.
691
695
696
CartTrack .
786
784
785
781
863
CartTrack
847
862
860
855
854
858
CartTrack
893
894
897
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 07 18 00 15 14 00 01 52 00 00 06 00 37 51 00 04 14 00 02 88 00 00 82 00 12 67 00 10 00 00 10 50 00 04 39 00 12 36 00 14 81 00 01 25 00 07 Π 00 09 81 00 05 23 00 08 28 00 13 26 00 10 75 00 00 45 00 11 66 00 20 00 00 07 62 00 03 51 00 11 44 00 07 50 00 12 07 00 22 13 00 05 16 00 02 52 00 16 10 00 08 14 00 00 00 22 32 00 02 56 00 07 05 00 02 43 00 06 38 00 01 15 00 07 31 00 04
KanjatMinor
26
Road 00 01 43
896 00
00 50
898 00 10 36
899/P/ 2
00 08 23
900 00
09 92
902 00 09 18
914
00 10 19
915 00 10 93
929 00
02 24
917 00
07 52
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1705
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012 /फाल्गुन6, 1933
1 2 3 4 5 6
15. MASAR 918 00 08 20
919 00 07 63
920 00 13 33
921 00 03 10
922 00 00 65
16. GAJERA TA.: JAMBUSAR DIST.: BHARUCH
1402 00 03 97
1398 00 10 27
1401 00 03 37
1400 00 90 18
1399 00 03 26
1403 /A 00 06 16
D/SONGC 00 02 65
1391 00 06. 05
1404 00 00 07
1390 00 11 76
MetalRoad 00 00 69
1389 00 03 34
1407 00 01 03
1388 00 09 25
1409 00 01 97
1411 00 10 51
1412 00 07 57
1413 00 01 13
1384 00 09 12
1382 00 03 30
1383 00 10 56
1344 00 01 84
1381 00 05 17
1345 00 00 80
1380 00 03 11
1379 00 00 27
1340 00 09 96
1348 00 07 56
1349 00 07 74
CartTrack 00 02 49
1350 00 10 60
1351 00 05 41
CartTrack 00 03 96
1304 00 03 13
1303 00 00 97
1305 00 09 65
1297 00 09 55
1295 00 13 74
1294 Cattle Field Gram 00 05 64
Panchayat Gajera
1249 00 01 53
Road 00 00 59
Road 00 01 26
1292 00 02 30
1252 00 03 45
1270 00 00 28
1254 00 08 25
1706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1
2
3
GAJERA
16.
1269
Cattle Field Gram
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
5
6
09
00
34
Panchayat Gajera
Sub Minor 3/1 00 00 54
1268 00 16 04
1267 00 00 03
1266 00 16 70
Nala 00 02 42
1160 00 15 30
1163 /A 00 22 17
1173 00 07 69
1169 00 07 30
1170 00 08 75
1168 00 04 86
CartTrack 00 01 90
1177 00 02 95
CartTrack 00 01 85
972 00 11 09
960 00 04
961 00 26 33
962 00 15 53
963 00 13 81
964 00 07 08
965 00 06 31
CartTrack 00 02 14
864 00 13 22
852 00 05 94
851 00 05 03
Sub Minor 3/1 00 02 28
866 00 01 97
868 00 11 92
869 00 04 71
870 00 09 58
871/A 00 12 14
00 00 58
VavliDistributory
872/A 00 08 42
17. DABHA TA.: JAMBUSAR DIST.: BHARUCH
997 00 32 99
Sub Minor 2/1 00 00 45
1003 00 17 63
1005 00 26 28
Sub Minor 00 00 60
1009 00 13 51
1008 00 04 88
CartTrack 00 39
1029 00 12 26
1030 00 07 73
Sub Minor 4/1 00 00 46
1036 00 09 86
1035 00 10 78
1045 00 25 37
1047 00 00 34
CartTrack 00 02 85
1052 00 17 31
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1707
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
1 2 3 4 5 6
17. DABHA 1051 00 18 19
1050/P/ 1 00 16 53
1150/P/ 1 00 08 96
Dabha Minor- 1 00 03 00
1153 00 09 09
1160 00 09 60
1172 00 26 21
1173 00 01 68
CartTrack 00 02 22
834 00 08 06
833/P/ 1 00 23 83
833/P/2 00 22 55
821 00 16 40
829 00 15 55
828 00 07 58
827 00 06 98
826 00 07 18
652 00 15 98
647 00 03 99
653 00 17 81
CartTrack 00 02 23
633/P/2 00 18 34
670/P/2 00 18 19
ONGC Road 00 01 52
625 00 12 22
624 00 10 55
623 00 24 11
ONGC Road 00 01 30
571 00 08 49
570 00 08 68
569 00 04 79
ONGC Road 00 01 34
475 00 05 04
477 00 06 11
478 00 07 30
479 00 07 13
483/B 00 31 84
484 00 12 98
490/A 00 09 32
Road 00 06 50
00 ΟΙ 09
Jambusar Minor
493/P/ 1
494
CartTrack
408
410
411
407
399
398
397
395 Cattle Field
Administrator of
00 29 33 00 01 25 00 06 73 00 06 08 00 07 99 00 07 80 00 13 96 00 00 90 00 18 22 00 12 55 00 08 157
1708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1
2
3
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
4
5
6
Gram Panchayat
Dabha
396
Cattle Field, 00
12
20
Administrator of
Gram Panchayat Dabha
17. (A) DABВНА
TA : JAMBUSAR
Jambusar GGS
CartTrack
493/P/1
18. UMARA
TA : JAMBUSAR
370
Nala
371
372
373
374
379
380
Govt.
383
384/P/ 1
395/P/ 1
397
396
Pond
CartTrack
408/P/1
409
411
414
422
421
420
Drain
Road
11
13
14/ A
15
16
19.
JAMBUSAR
TA : JAMBUSAR
175
176
187+188
186
213
214
240
239
238
237
CartTrack
221
235
233
DIST.: BHARUCH
00
36
04
00
04
20
00
42
08
BHARUCH
DIST.:
00
00
19
00
03
23.
00
11
54
00
14
94
06
00
83
00
09
96
00
02
58
00
07
52
00
26
43
00
14
19
00
31
00
00
02
31
00
02
73
00
01
14
00
21
89
00
14
82
00
31
73
00
46
11
00
14
85
00
00
23
00
19
59
00
04
20
00
05
90
00
09
80
00
13
71
00
03
45
00
19
68
00
07
80
BHARUCH
DIST.:
00
05
53
00
12
86
00
02
42
00
68
17
00
08
22
00
07
31
00
86
05
00
06
99
00
27
13
67
00
06
00
02
00
00
00
10
00
12
67 300000 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1709
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
2 3 4 5 6
232/1+ 2 00 10 70
230 00 13 69
250+252 00 01 10
279/ 1 / A 00 04 96
CartTrack 00 02 27
229 00 11 68
CartTrack 00 00 46
407 00 19 73
406/ P/ 1 00 00 49
405 00 11 73
403 00 07 64
402 00 12 94
Koteshwar Minor 00 00 60
CartTrack 00 03 34
418 00 20 74
419 00 09 28
Road 00 04 16
Field Channel 00 01 06
509 00 09 83
512 00 12 74
513 00 09 06
526 00 06 24
515 00 06 98
525 00 07 12
N.G.Railway 00 05 99
Field Channel 00 00 25
Field.Channel 00 00 06
524 00 05 16
523 00 00 06
517 00 17 34
520 00 01 98
519 00 06 08
Gadoi Khadi 00 08 45
00 08 74
MetalRoad 00 05 59
835 00 02 29
833/P/ 1 00 00 56
834/ P/2 00 14 13
823 00 40 30
820 Govt. Pond 00 00 89
821 Cattle Field 00 10 41
822 Cattle Field 00. 10 48
817 Cattle Field 00 10 54
Road 00 04 13
816/P/ 2 Jambusar P. W.D. 00 01 72
Land
1058 00 20 91
1057 00 11 63
1060 Govt. 00 09 96
1061 00 08 91
1062 00 06 48
CartTrack 00 03 28
1102 00 09 95
1099 00 21 89
1710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1 2 3
1097
1098 Govt.
1095/1
1095/2
1120
1121
1122
1123
1125 Govt.
1124
1139
[PART II SEC . 3(ii)]
4 5 6 00 02 44 00 11 75 00 06 95 00 09 04 00 15 29 00 18 61 00 13 46 00 00 01 00 19 48 00 12 32 00 18 45
00
Field Channel
00 69
1140 00 15 03
1138 00 00 93
1137 00 10 58
1136/A 00 02 42
1174 00 03 79
1173 00 06 64
Jambusar Minor 00 02 69
KalakMinor 00 02 10
1176/A 00 06 27
1177/A 00 03 30
20. LIMBAJ TA.: JAMBUSAR DIST.: BHARUCH
224 00 11 32
126/P/2 00 12 49
123 00 12 25
122/P/ 1 00 08 28
Kawa Minor- 2 00 03 80
121/ 1 /A/P/ 1 00 00 12
CartTrack 00 03 01
129 00 04 86
165 00 07 74
164 00 10 19
161 00 06 54
154 00 00 06
155 00 08 17
159 00 08 57
158 00 11 88
157 00 00 32
21. KALAK TA .: JAMBUSAR DIST.: BHARUCH
838/B 00 00 09
844 00 10 18
843 00 08 89
842 00 09 06
841 00 11 01
848 00 02 11
Cart Track 00 04 30
798 00 01 97
799/P/ 1 00 08 76
799/P/2 00 16 34
00 ΟΙ 93
Vanseta Distributary
766/A/ 1
CartTrack
737
21
02
60
00
02
60
00
10
39 1711
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
2
1
Road
725
721 /A
724
728
TA.: JAMBUSAR
22.
VANS ETA
86/P/ 1
86/P/2
37
40
42
43
44
Nala
16
11
10
12
CartTrack
8
9
Govt . Cattle Field
Govt. Khari
1
5
3
Govt. Cattle Field
2
Road
296/A
297
Field Channel
299
300
Nala
290/P/ 1
274
289
Road& Drain
287
Road
286
Govt. Cattle Field
TA.: JAMBUSAR DOLIYA
23.
393
Kharabo, Gram Panchayat Doliya
DoliyaKhadi
Kharabo , Gram
392
Panchayat Doliya
394/ A
Kharabo, Gram
Panchayat Doliya
Road
377
376
Govt . Cattle Field GramPanchayat
Doliya
452GI /2012-18
6
5
4
17
00
04
78
05
00
91
48
00
51
00
04
09
97
00
DIST.: BHARUCH
24
24
00
95
09
00
69
28
00
10
28
00
94
06
00
05
86
00
74
02
00
14
01
00
18
10
00
09
42
00
11
00
00
06
30
00
01
66
00
93
37
00
53
00
00
43
00
00
22
09
00
33
13
00
06
00
01
83
00
03
30
27
00
12
00
80
00
01
92
11
00
13
10
00
33
00
01
47
26
00
25
27
00
85
00
12
04
06
00
09
19
00
47
01
00
50
95
00
DIST.: BHARUCH
26
45
00
30
00
09
08
47
00
72
65
00
80
02
00
04
40 00
00
09
00 1712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1
2
3
DOLIYA
375
378
379
374
373
Govt.
CartTrack
253
254
252
185
187
250
Govt.
188
242
236
237
230
231
220
216
218
24.
TANKARI
TA.: JAMBUSAR
BANDAR
1963
1961
1964
1960
1949
1959
1950
1944
1935
1936
1943
1942
1945
1941/A
1940
2011
2123
2122
Cattle field
2121
2140
2141
2142
2148/A
2143
2144
2145
2147/A
2158
2159
2164
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
6
5
00
36
17
00
03
%
00
00
01
00
11
35
00
08
73
00
01
78
00
10
25
00
02
91
00
06
78
00
00
44
00
03
30
00
03
53
00
08
37
00
20
87
00
09
29
00
25
79
00
11
56
00
04
80
00
46
11
00
12
33
00
08
77
DIST.. BHARUCH
00
07
00
06
00
07
44 404 70
00
07
97
00
19
67
00
00
54
00
28
22
00
00
58
00
42
00
03
00
73
00
04
93
00
11
40
00
13
57
00
00
05
00
15
00
00
20
13
00
07
44
00
07
11
00
22
76
00
63
19
00
09
69
00
01
48
00
26
93
00
12
16
00
07
34
00
10
99
00
19
44
00
12
51
00
16
07
00
23
66 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1713
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
1 2 3 4 5 6
24. TANKARI 2162 00 23 32
BANDAR 2168 00 15
2181 00 14 75
2180 00 19 27
2178 00 08 64
2177 00 02 53
Nala& Cart Track 00 09 90
1506/P/ 1 00 03 73
1586 00 09 96
575 00 06 02
1760 00 04 24
1796 00 01 99
1795 00 00 18
672/B 00 36 19
2335 00 12 05
2336 00 04 48
391 Cattlefield 00 01 09
Road 00 10 79
55 00 08 76
56 00 13 18
54 00 07 65
35 00 04 14
36 00 09 75
38/A 00 07 13
39 00 07 24
40 00 11 32
43 00 00 06
Cart Track 00 03 06
454 00 01 56
450 00 27 71
WBM Road 00 07 79
461 00 02 27
449 Cattle field 00 03 12
462 00 08 86
463 00 04 76
464 00 04 40
CartTrack 00 05 83
484 00 07 79
485 00 02 46
486 00 09 96
487 00 07 08
489 00 28
Cattle field
490 Administator Shankar 00 19
Sursang
431 00 00 11
430 00 08 84
429 00 08 24
428 00 08 33
427 00 06 35
1268 Kharkhadis Kharabo 00 85 09
423 Govt. Padtar 00 00 86
Cart Track 00 00
1714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1
2
3
25. ISLAMPUR
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
6
4
5
TA .: JAMBUSAR
Khadi
412/P/8 Khar no Kharabo
CartTrack
Khadi
Cart Track
411
409
408
406
405
CartTrack
368
328/A
327
326
330/A
325
26. KAPURIYA TA .: JAMBUSAR
128
182
183
184
185
212
213
216
217 Govt. Cattle field
215 Govt . Kharabo
27. TA .: JAMBUSAR
726 Govt . Kharabo
ONGC Road
724 Govt . Waste Land
CartTrack
566
Road & Drain
561
562
560
CartTrack
497
499
498 Govt. Padtar
509
512
513
517
518
DIST.: BHARUCH
00 06 51 02 82 23 00 00 51 00 03 70 00 01 06 00 14 74 00 12 92 00 16 54 00 09 93 00 01 50 00 01 55 00 30 96 00 17 78 00 16 43 00 08 12 00 08 30 00 04 70 DIST.: BHARUCH 00 14 54 00 13 59 00 03 35 00 10 94 00 05 10 00 25 98 00 32 12 00 75 14 00 27 40 00 52 06 DIST.: BHARUCH 03 31 75 00 00 64 00 17 51 00 02 62 00 10 86 00 03 51 00 16 39 00 07 28 00 08 57 .00 01 03 00 06 39 00 11 17 00 17 47 00 08 12 00 04 96 00 10 12 00 07 00 00 07
Govt . Waste Land
523 522/A 522/B
46
00 02 86 00 02 78 00 02 84
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
1
2
3
27.
1715
4
5
6
TA.: JAMBUSAR
524
DIST.: BHARUCH
Govt. Padtar
00 01 69
525
00 01 41
CartTrack
00 03 01
409
00 23 63
410
00 09 15
411
Govt .Waste Land
00 01 57
412
00 02 34
413
00 01 58
414
00 05 80
415
00 11 81
349
00 27 04
353
00 37 97
28. NADA
TA.: JAMBUSAR
DIST.: BHARUCH
956 Govt.
00 15 86
968
00 12 45
967
00 08 20
966
00 02 80
965
00 03 42
948 Govt.
00 13 33
1027
00 00 09
1028
00 07 01
1029
00 00 03
1030
00 05 65
1103
00 14 90
1104
00 02 45
.1123
00 00 03
1105
00 01 76
1106
00 06 17
1107
00 04 69
1097
00 06 48
1096
00 04 17
1109
00 10 00
1118
00 02 44
1114
00 01 58
1113 00
06 28
1172
00 12 22
1173
00 06 23
1174
00 03 57
1175
00 07 81
Cattle Field Gram
1088
Panchayat Nada
00 05 47
CartTrack 00
00 51
1242
00 05 61
ONGC Road
1221
1240
1237
1222
1232
1231
00
02
89
00
14
57
00
04
12
00
03
49
00
24
03
00
15
66
Govt. Gram
00
07
65
53
Panchayat Nada
1456
00 01 82
1454/A
00 00 31
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1716
3
2
1
6
5
4
DIST.: BHARUCH
TA .: JAMBUSAR
28. NADA
00 08 63
1229
00 05 04
1463
00 21 24
1450
00 04 08
1519
00 14 65
1520/A
00 02 56
1523
00 02 26
1526
00 02 03
1527
00 03 39
Road& Drain
00 00 87
1529
00 18 49
1530
00 26 86
1558
00 11 97
1557
00 12 39
1551
06 08 46
Govt . Khar Kharabo
1640/A1
Road 00 03 18
00 08 97
1684
Cattle field village
Panchayat Nada
Road 00 02 30
00 11 45
1655
00 01 84
1653
00 21 13
1652
Govt. Padtar village
Panchayat Nada
1651
01
36
00
Govt . Padtar village
Panchayat Nada
1645
15
00
22
Govt . Padtar village
Panchayat Nada
1650
02
10
00
Pond village
07
01
00
Panchavat Nada
Road
Govt. Khar no 00 08 24
1647
Kharabo
Road 00 04 81
Khadi 00 07 34
06 94 68
GulfofCambay
TA.: JAMBUSAR NADA
28. (A)
Nada GGS
1468
1467
1466
1465
1464
1463
DIST.: BHARUCH
12
04
00
12
03
00
15
00
02
02
00
02
02
55
00
30
08
00
23
03
00
[F. No. O-36011/14/2010 -ONG - II ]
R.S. SIKDAR, Under Secy.
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
1717
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2012
1 2
3
4
5
6
1
अंतरवेदि
1156 भाग
00
01
62
(जारी) 1156 भाग
00
00
81 का.आ. 752. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य में आन्ध्र प्रदेश नवीकरण परियोजना माध्यम ऑइल एण्ड नेचुरल गैस कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जानी चाहिएं ।
1156 भाग
00
03
64
1156 भाग
00
02
02
1089 भाग
00
02
43 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
00
1089 भाग
02
43
1089 भाग
00
02
43
1089 भाग
00
02
43
1089 भाग
00
08
09 अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप लाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
1082 भाग
00
04
05
1082 भाग
00
ΟΙ
62
1082 भाग
00
02
43
1082भाग
00
04
45
1082 भाग
00
02
43
1082 भाग
00
04
45
1082 भाग
00
02
83
1082 भाग
00
02
43 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में उप आयुक्त और सक्षम प्राधिकारी , और स्पेशल उप जिला अधिकारी , आन्ध्र प्रदेश राजमंद्रि एसट/के.जी. बेसिन , ओ.एन.जी.सी. , गोदावरी भवन , पूर्व गोदावरी , आन्ध्र प्रदेश । पिन-533106 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
1081
00
01
21
1070भाग
00
08
90 अनुसूची आर.ओ.यु. पाइप लाइन : " डब्ल्यू.के. वि.ऐ.ऐ. से. जि. येस. 49 ऐ, डि"
1070भाग
00
04
86
राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश
1070 भाग
00
04
गांव: अंतरवेदि
05 मन्दल: सखिनेटि- पल्लि
जिला : पूर्व ( ईस्ट) गोदावरी
1070 भाग
00
02
43
क्षेत्रफल
1070 भाग
00
02
43
आर.एस. नं.
एर्स वर्ग
हेक्टेर्स
1070 भाग
00
04
05
(सर्वेका सम्क्या)
मीटर
1065
00
ΟΙ
21 नाम क्रम गांव का सं. अंतरवेदि
1055
00
11
2
33 3
4
5
6
1057/1 भाग
00
08
90
1. अन्तरवेदी 1150
00
03
24
1057/1 भाग
00
03
24
1152
00
39
25
1057/1 भाग
00
01
62
1154
00
02
43
1057/1 भाग
00
02
83
1156 भाग
00
01
62
1057/2 भाग
00
02
02
1156 भाग
00
01
62
1057/2 भाग
00
02
02
1156 भाग
00
03
64
1057/2 भाग
00
02
02
1156 भाग
00
03
64
1057/3
02
83
1156 भाग
00
08
50
1057/4
00
02
83
1156 भाग
00
1044/1 भाग
02
00
83
01
21 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1718
6
5
4
2
3
1
6
4
5
3
2
1
43
02
00
1154
21
01
00
1044/1 भाग
1
62
01
00
1156Part
1. Antarvedi (Contd.)
43
00
02
1044/1 भाग
अंतरवेदि (जारी)
62
00
01
1156 Part
21
01
00
1044/1 भाग
64
03
00
62
1156 Part
01
00
1044/1 भाग
64
08
50
00
03 00
1045/1
1156 Part
09
08
00
50
08 1045/2
00
1156 Part
67
05
00
1046 भाग
83
02
00
1156 Part
02
02
00
1046 भाग
62
01
00
1.156 Part
12
18
02
81
00 जोड़
00
1156 Part
64
03 [फा. सं. ओ-12026/6/2012- ओ.एन.जी.- III ]
00
1156 Part
राज सेखर सिकदार , अवर सचिव
02
02
00
1156 Part
43
00
02 NewDelhi, the 8th February, 2012
1089 Part
43
00
02
1089 Part
43
00
02
1089 Part
43
02
00
S.O. 752. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest to lay pipelines under the state of Andhra Pradesh by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.
1089 Part
08
09
00
1089 Part
00
04
05
1082Part
62
01
00
1082Part
43
02
00
1082Part
Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipelines , it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipelines are proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
45
00
04
1082Part
43
00
02
1082Part
45
04
00
1082Part
83 Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
00
02
1082Part
43
02
00
1082Part
21
01
00
1081
90
08
00
1070Part
86
04
00
1070Part
05
00
04
1070 Part
43
00
02
1070 Part
43
02
00
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Rajahmundry Asset/K.G , Basin ,Godavari Bhavan, Base Complex , Rajahmundry - 533106, Andhra Pradesh.
1070Part
SCHEDULE
05
04
00
1070Part
ROU Pipeline From WKVAA to GS49 AD
21
00
00
1065
District:
Mandal:
33 Village:
11
00
1055
East
Antarvedi
90
08
00
State Andhra Pradesh
Godavari
1057/1 Part
Sakhineti- palli
24
03
00
1057/1 Part
Area
62
01 Sl .. Name ofthe
00
1057/1 Part
Sq.mtr .
Hectare Are
Survey Number
No.
Village
83
02
00
1057/1 Part
6
4 5
3
2
1
02
00
02
1057/2 Part
24
03
00
1150
1. Antarvedi
02
02
00
1057/2 Part
25
39
00
1152 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1719 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
1 2
3
4
5
6
अनुसूची
आर.ओ.यू. पाइप लाईन : " जि.येम.डि. हेच से जि.एम.ए.ए. , जि.येम.
1. Antravedi
00
1057/2Part
02
02
00
1057/3
(Contd.)
02
83
डि.जे. से जि.एम.ए.ए. एण्ड जि. येम. डि.जि. से जि.एम.ए.ए. (3- पेयेप लैंस ) "
1057/4
मन्डल:
00
02
गांव:
83
राज्य :
उप्पलगुप्थम जिले
उप्पलगुप्थम
आन्ध्रप्रदेश 1044/1 Part
00
01
21
पूर्व (ईस्ट)
कुनवरम
1044/1 Part
00
01
21
चल्लपल्लि गोदावरी
1044/1 Part
00
02
43
गोपवरम
ARVEDI
क्षेत्रफल
00
1044/1 Part
01
21
सं
क्रम गांव का
नाम
वर्ग
आर.एस. नं. (सर्वे संख्या)
1044/1 Part
00
01
62
हेक्टेयर्स एर्स मीटर
1 2
3
1045/1
00
08
4
5
6
50
1045/2
00
08
09
1.
00
05
26
917/2
उप्पलगुप्थम
1046 Part
00
05
67
00
24
917/3 भाग
03
1046Part
00
02
02
00
02
917/3भाग
43
02
TOTAL
18
12
00
917/4 भाग
00
81
217/2सी2
00
04
86
[F. No. O- 12026/6/2012 -ONG - III ]
217/2बी2
00
02
83
R. S. SIKDAR, Under Secy.
06
88
219/2 बी2 जी.पी.ड्रैन 00
222/2बी
00
86
04
नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2012
222/ 1 बी
00
21
18
229/2बी2
86
00
04
00
229/22
03
64 का.आ. 753.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य में आन्ध्र प्रदेश नवीकरण परियोजना माध्यम ऑइल एण्ड नेचुरल गैस कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जानी चाहिएं ।
230/2सी2
00
62
01
00
230/2बी2
62
01
230/2डी2
00
02
02
2.
00
230/22
02
02
कुनवरम
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
00
01
230/12
21
230/ 1 बी2
00
05
67
209/2ई2
00
03
64
209/2जी2
00
04
05
208/2
00
11
33 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप लाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
208/3
00
01
21
00 27
92
207/1 ए जी.पी. ड्रैन
56
65
1/971 एजी.पी. ड्रैन 00
207/3 बी2
00
04
05
00
37
207/1बीछैन
64
पोरम्बोक्
00
197/ 1बीछैन
14
57
पोरम्बोक्
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में उप आयुक्त और सक्षम प्राधिकारी , और स्पेशल उप जिला अधिकारी , आन्ध्र प्रदेश राजमंद्रि एसट/के.जी. बेसिन , ओ.एन.जी.सी. , गोदावरी भवन , पूर्व गोदावरी , आन्ध्र प्रदेश । पिन-533106 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
452GI /2012-19 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1720
6
4
5
3
1 2
4
5
6
1 2
3
71
26
43
00
652/12
00
02
660/3सी
3. चल्लपल्लि
3. चल्लपल्लि
07
28
00
649/1बी
64
00
03
660/4सी
(जारी)
771/1
00
02
83
21
00
01
6603बी
12
00
10
776/1बी
71
00
09
664/5ए
06
07
00
771/2
02
02
664/5 बी2 पोरम्बोक 00
00
09 71
771/2बी
31
00
09
665/3पी
00
771/2बी
10
12
86
00
04
665/3पी
07
00
69
653/1
40
00
666जि.पि.
00
00
15
652/2
78
09
00
652/2
31
00
40
00
751जी.पी.
00
05
67
649/1 बी
81
00
00
667/2ए
86
00
04
649/3बी
00
02
02
4. गोपवरम
00
00
40
168/2ड्रैन पोरम्बोक
648/1 भाग
01
76
21
32 654/2बी
00
04
योग
654/3बी
00
02
43
[फा. सं. ओ -12026/3/2012- ओ.एन.जी.- III ]
00
00
654/2भाग
81
राज सेखर सिकदार , अवर सचिव
661/1बी
00
00
81
New Delhi , the 8th February, 2012
62
661/2
00
01
00
00
81
661/3ए
661/3सी
02
00
02
S.O. 753. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest to lay pipelines under the State of Andhra Pradesh by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited;
661/4बी
00
02
02
661/5बी
00
02
83
661/6बी
43
00
02
Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipelines , it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipelines are proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
43
661/7बी
00
02
00
43
661/8बी
02
00
01
62
659/2बी
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby de- clares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;
00
659/3बी
01
62
659/4बी
00
01
62
659/5बी
00
01
21
659/6बी
00
00
40
00
21
660/2पी
01
660/2बी
00
04
05
660/3सी
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Oil & Natural GasCorporation Ltd. , Rajahmundry Asset/K.G. , Basin , Godavari Bhavan , Base Complex , Rajahmundry- 533106, Andhra Pradesh .
00
01
62 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1721 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012 /फाल्गुन6, 1933
SCHEDULE
1 2
3
4
5
6
ROU PIPELINE FROM WKVAA TO GS 49 AD
3.
00
10
Challapalli 776/ 1B
12
00
06
07
771/2
(Contd.)
Mandal:
District:
State:
Village:
771/2B
00
09
71
Uppalaguptam Uppalagu- East-
tham
Godavari
771/2B
00
Andhra- Pradesh
10
12
Kunavara
653/1
00
07
69
Challapalli
652/2
00
15
78
Gopavaram
652/2
00
09
31
Area
649/ 1B
00
05
67
Are
Survey Number Hectare
649/3B
00
04
86 SI . No.
Name ofthe Village
Sq.mtr.
00
00
40
648/1pt
1 2
3
4
6
5
654/2B
00
01
21
1.
917/2
00
05
26
654/3B
00
43
02 Uppala- guptam
00
00
654/2pt
81
917/3 Pt.
00
03
24
661/ 1B
00
00
81
00
917/3 Pt.
02
43
661/2
00
01
62
661 /3A
00
917/4 Pt .
00
00
00
81
81
661/3C
217 /2C2
00
00
04
86
02
02
1 .
661/4B
00
217/2B2
02
02 00
02
Uppala-
83
661/5B
00
02
83 guptam ( Contd. )
661/6B
00
06
02
43 219/2B2GPDrain 00
88
661/7B
00
02 00
43 222/2B
04
86
661/8B
00
02
43
222/ 1B
00
18
21
659/2B
00
01
62
229/2B2
00
04
86
659/3B
00
01
62
229/2A2
00
03
64
659/4B
00
01
62
230/2C2
00
01
62
659/5B
00
01
21
230/2B2
00
01
62
659/6B
00
00
40
230/2D2
00
02
02
660/2P
00
01
21
230/ 2A2
00
02
02
660/2B
00
04
05
2.
Kunavaram 230/ 1A2
00
01
21
660/3C
00
62
01
230/ 1B2
00
05
67
660/3C
00
02
43
209/2E2
00
03
64
660/4C
00
03
64
209/2G2
00
04
660/3B
05
00
01
21
664/5A
208/2
00
00
09
11
33
71
664/5B2
00
00
02
208/3
02
01
21
Poramboke
27
92
207/ 1AGP( Drain ) 00
665/3P
00
09
31
56
65
197/ 1A(Drain) 00
665/3P
00
04
86
00
207/3B2
04
05
666GP
00
00
40
00
37
207/ 1B Drain
64
751GP
00
40
00
Poramboke
667/2A
00
00
81
00
197/ 1B Drain
14
57
4.
00
Gopavaram 168/2 Drain
02
02
Poramoboke
poramboke
3.
00
26
71
652/12
Challapalli
Total
76
04
32
649/ 1B
00
07
28
GMDG/GMDJ
[F. No. O- 12026/3 /2012-ONG - III ]
771/1
00
02
83
R. S. SIKDAR , Under Secy.
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2011 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1722
6
4
5
3
1
2
नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2012
02 83
604/3बी
00
1. अविडि
67
00
05
604/2बी
(जारी)
00
12 14
599/1बी
का.आ. 754.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य में आन्ध्र प्रदेश नवीकरण परियोजना माध्यम ऑइल एण्ड नेचुरल गैस कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जानी चाहिएं ।
45
00
04
599/2बी
00
05 26
599/2बी
00
02
596/5बी
83 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
00
02 02
596/2बी
00
02 43
596/4बी
00
03 24
596/ 1डी
00
64
596/1सी
03 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप- लाइन भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
00
02 83
596/1बी
00
24
03
589/4बी
02 83
00
589/3बी
00
83
02
589/5बी
00
24
589/2बी
03
00
00
40
588जि.पि.
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में उप आयुक्त और सक्षम प्राधिकारी , और स्पेशल उप जिला अधिकारी , आन्ध्र प्रदेश , राजमुंद्रि एसट/के.जी. बेसिन , ओ.एन.जी.सी. , गोदावारि भवन , पुर्व गोदावारि, आन्ध्र प्रदेश , पिन -533106 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
पुंत
05
00
04
549/4डी
अनुसूची
00
62
01
549/4सी
आर.ओ.यु. पाइप लाईन : " वि. जि.ऐ.ऐ. से मनड़पेट # 5 "
62
00
01 गांव:
549/4बी
जिले पूर्व
मन्डल : कोत्तपेट
(ईस्ट) गोदावरी
21
00
01
549/3डी
राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश
अविडि मोडेकुर्स
00
02
02
549/3सी
पलिवेल
03 24
00
549/3बी
क्षेत्रफल
05
04
00
550/7सी
हेक्टेर्स एर्स
ग्राम का
12
00
10
550/7बी
वर्ग मीटर
नाम
क्रम सं.
आर.एस. नं. (सर्वे का सम्क्या)
05
67
00
550/ 1बी
6
4
5
3
1 2
81
00
00
551/2 जी.पी. पुंत
00
00 81
1. अविडि
644जि.पि. पुंत
81
00
17
540/2बी
02
00
642/2
02
00
03 64
539/5बी
62
し
01
643/2बी
00
03 24
539/4बी
81
00
00
83
00
02
539/3सी
606/2जि.पि. फील्डकेनाल
43
00
539/3बी
02
04
05
00
604/9ई
00
02 83
04 05
539/3ए
00
604/9डी
05
00
04
21
539/2ए
00
01
604/9सी
00
21
01
86
04
539/ 1 ए
00
604/9बी 1723
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
(5) (6) (3)
(5) ( 6)
(4)
( 1) ( 2)
(4)
( 1) ( 2)
(3)
07
281/6बी
00 02 83
00 06 535/4ए
1. अविडि (जारी)
1. अविडि
(जारी...)
535/1 ए 00 03 24 125/7बी 00 07 69
533/6ए 00 03 24 125/6ए 40
533/5बी 00 01 62 125/2बी 00 04 86
533/5ए 00 02 43 125/1 ए 00 02 02
533/4बी भाग 00 03 24 126/2 00 10 93
24 128/5बी 00 07 28
533/4बी भाग 00 03
135/9बी 00 04 45
533/7बी 00 03 64
135/8सी 00 01 62
533/1बी 00 02 83
135/8बी 00 02 43
484/2 जि.पि. केनाल 00 02 02
135/7बी 00 05 26
482/3ए 00 00 40
86 133/2 00 01 62
00
2. मोडेकुर्रु
482/2बी 04
133/2 00 07 28
481/2 जि.पी. रोड 00 01 21
133/2 00 10 52
450/1बी 00 03 64
141/2जी.पी. 00 01 21
449/3सी 00 07 69
कार्ट ट्रेक
449/3बी 00 04 45
147/3 भाग
449/1बी 00 07 69
148/5 00 05 26
448/2जि.पी. केनाल 00 02 02 148/4 00 03 64
420/3बी 00 04 86 148/3 00 03 24
420/2बी 00 04 86 148/2 00 06 07
421/2 00 06 88 154/जी.पी. 00 00 81
438/1बी 00 08 90 161/7ए 00 03 64
439/3सी 00 07 28 161/6बी 00 03 64
439/3बी 00 10 12 161/2सी 00 08 50
439/2बी 00 03 64 161/1सी 00 05 67
439/1बी 00 04 45 161/1 बी 00 08 09
447जि.पी.केनाल 00 07 69 160/5 00 02 02
160/5 00 04 05
441 जि.पी.केनाल 00 09 71
160/5 00 05 26
440/1 जि.पी. रोड 00 01 62
160/4 00 01 62
286जी.पी.ड्रेन 00 01 21
160/3 00 02 43
287/2बी 00 02 02
160/2 00 08 09
284/2सी 00 04 05 164/2 जी.पी.सी.सी. रोड 00 00 81
284/2बी 00 04 86 62/5बी 00 04 45
284/1 बी 00 10 12 62/5ए 00 07 28
281/7बी 00 05 26 62/4ए 00 03 24
1724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2011/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
( 1) ( 2)
(3)
(4) ( 5) ( 6) (1) (2)
(3)
(4) (5) ( 6)
10/2
00 16 19 61/2ई
00 04 86
2. मोडेकुरु (जारी...)
2. मोडेकुर्रु (जारी... )
4/5बी
61/2डी
00 06 07
00 04 05
61/2सी
00 04 86
4/4ए
61/2बी
00 02 02
4/3सी
00 02 83
60/12बी
00 02 02
5/7
60/2बी 00 02 02 5/4 00 01 62
160/11 बी 00 02 43 5/3सी 00 05 26
60/3बी 00 03 24
4/3बी 00 00 81
59/2बी 00 12 95
5/38 00 02 83
55/2जि..पी.रोड 00 01 21
2जि.पि.सि.सि. रोड 00 00 81
45/2 00 04 45
789 00 05 67
45/2 00 02 43
790 भाग 00 03 64
00 04 45
46/8ए
790 भाग 00 09
46/6ए
784/5 00 02 83
46/5सी
784/3 00 02 83
46/6बी 00 00 81
784/2 00 05 67
46/5बी 00 02 02
783/8 00 01 62
47/3बी 00 03 64
3/8 00 03 24
48/2बी 00 04 45
783/3 00 05 26
48/2सी 00 01 62 781 00 07 28
48/3बी 00 01 21 780 00 06 88
779/2 00 08 90
48/4बी 00 02 43
779/1 भाग 00 02 43
48/5बी 00 02 83
779/1 भाग 00 03 64
41/1बी 00 35 21
13/9बी 779/1 भाग 00 03 24
00 03 64
13/8बी 690/4 00 05 26
00 04 05
690/5 00 04 05
13/6बी 00 06 07
14/3बी 3. पलिवेल 690/3 00 03 24
00 04 86
14/2डी 00 04 05 690/2भाग 00 02 43
14/2सी 81 690/2भाग 00 03 64
14/2बी 00 05 67 691/15 00 08 09
12/ 1डी 00 04 05 691/13 00 04 05
12/1बी 00 11 74 691/8 00 00 40
9/1डी 691/7 00 04 05
00 06 07
691/7 00 02 02
9/1सी 00 03 64
9/1बी 00 02 43 योग 07 95 19
1725
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
4
6
5
1 2
3
राज्य : आंध्र प्रदेश
मंडलः गांव : पुल्लेटिकुरु जिले:
पूर्व ( ईस्ट) गोदावरी
अम्बाजिपेट्
00 11 74
220/2बी
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम ग्राम का नाम
1. पुल्लेटिकुरु
(जारी...)
00 03 64
221/2जि.पि. केनाल्
सं.
वर्ग
आर.एस. नं.
हेक् एर्स
223/5बी
00 01 21
मीटर
टेयर
(सर्वे का सख्या
223/4बी
00 04 86
2
4 5 6
00 01 21 1
3
223/ 1 बी
00
225/2GP
01 62
1.
00 08 09
322/3ए
पुल्लेटिकुर्क
00 01 21
30/2बी
00 08 50 337/2जि.पि. पुंत
340/2बी
00 02 83
00 01 62
29/2जि.पि. केनाल्
340/1बी
00 07 69
28/5सी
00 02 83
28
28/5बी
00 07
00 02 83 341/2बी
28/4डी
00 03 64 341/3ए
342/7सी
00
00 03 64
28/4सी
02 02
00 04 86
342/7बी
00 02 43
28/4बी
342/4बी
00 04 45
00 06 88
28/1ए
342/3बी
00 03 64
00 02 83
27/8ए
00 00 81
00
351/8सी
02 02
27/7ए
00 07 69
00
351/8बी
02 02
27/6ए
21
00 01
00 00 81 351/7बी
27/5ए
00 12 55
00 03 24 351/4बी
27/4ए
00 03 64
352/3डी
01 95 05
योग
00 09 71
352/3सी
[फा. सं. ओ.- 12026/1/2012 -ओ.एन.जी.- III ]
00 02 83
352/3बी
राज सेखर सिकदार, अपर सचिव
00 02 43
211/3बी
New Delhi , the 8th February, 2012
00 02 83
211/2बी
00 03 64
210/4बी
00 04 05
210/ 1बी
S.O. 754. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest to lay pipelines under the state of Andhra Pradesh by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited;
00 01 62
208/2बीसीपी
कार्ट ट्रैक
00 02 02
205/2डी
00 06 07
205/2डी
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government thatfor the purpose of laying such pipelines , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipelines are proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;
205/2सी
00 01 62
205/2बी
00 02 83
00 17 40
206/2बी
00 01 21
206/1बी
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
200/2जि.पि. केनाल्
219/2जि.पि. केनाल्
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date 1726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(3)
(1) (2)
(4) (5) ( 6)
1. Avidi
550/7B
00 10 12
550/ 1B
00 05 67
(Contd..)
00 00 81
551/2 G..P. Puntha
540/2B
00 17 81
539/5B
00
64
03 on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. , Rajahmundry Asset/ K.G. , Basin , Godavari Bhavan , Base Complex , Rajahmundry - 533106 , Andhrapradesh .
539/4B
00 03 24
District: State:
Mandal:
539/3C
00 02 83 Village:
Avidi
East
Andhra
Kothapeta
539/3B
00 02 43
Modekurru
Pradesh
Godavari
539/3A
00 02 83
Palivela
539/2A
00 04 05
Area
Sl . Name of
539/ 1A
00 01 21 SurveyNo.
Are
535/4A
No. the Village
00 02 83
Hec. tare
Sq . mtr.
535/ 1A
00 03 24
533/6A
00 03 24 ( 1) (2)
(3)
(4) (5) (6)
00 01 62
533/5B
1. Avidi
644 GP Puntha
00 00 81
533/5A
00 02 43
642/2
02
00 02
00 03 24
533/4B pt .
00 01 62
643/2B
00 03 24
533/4B pt .
606/2GP
81
533/7B
00 03 64 Field channel
533/1B
00 02 83 604/9E
00 04 05
484/2GP. Canal
00 02 02 604/9D
00 04 05
482/3A
00 01 40 604/9C
00 01 21
482/2B
00 04 86
00
604/9B
04 86
481/2 GP. Road
00 01 21 604/3B
00 02 83
450/1B
00 03 64 604/2B
00 05 67
449/3C
00 07 69 599/ 1B
00 12 14
449/3B
00 04 45
599/2B
00 04 45
449/1B
00 07 69 599/2B
00 05 26
448/2 GP . Canal
00 02 02 596/5B
00 02 83
420/3B
00 04 86
596/2B
00 02 02
420/2B
00 04 86
596/4B
00 02 43
421/2
00 06 88 596/ 1D
00 03 24
438/ 1B
00 08 90 596/ 1C
00 03 64
439/3C
00 07 28
596/ 1B
00 02 83
439/3B
00 10 12
589/4B
00 03 24
439/2B
00 03 64 589/3B
00 02 83
439/ 1B
00 04 45 589/5B
00 02 83
00 07 69
447 G.P. Canal
589/2B
00 03 24
00 09 71
441 G.P. Canal
588 G.P. Puntha
440/1 GP. Road
00 01 62 549/4D
00 04 05
2. Modekurru 13 /9B
00 03 64 549/4C
00 01 62
13/8B
00 04 05 549/4B
00 01 62
13/6B
00 06 07
549/3D
00 01 21
00
14/3B
04 86
549/3C
00 02 02
14/2D
00 04 05 549/3B
00 03 24
14/2C
00 00 81 550/70
00 04 05 1727 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Avidi ( Contd ... ) 14/2B 00 05 67 2.Modekurru 160/5 00 04 05
12/ 1D 00 04 05 26
160/5 00 05
(Contd ...)
12/1B 00 11 74 160/4 00 01 62
9/1D 00 06 07
160/3 00 02 43
9/1C 00 03 64 160/2 00 08 09
9/1B 00 02 43 164/2GP 00 00 81
10/2 00 16 19 CC Road
4/5B 00 06 07 62/5B 00 04 45
4/4A 62/5A 00 07 28
4/3C 00 02 83 62/4A 00 03 24
5/7 61/2E 00 04 86
5/4 00 01 62 61/2D 00 04 05
5/3C 00 05 26 61/2C 00 04 86
4/3B 00 00 81 61/2B 00 02 02
5/3B 00 02 83 60/ 12A 00 02 02
2GPCC Road 00 00 81 60/2B 00 02 02
286GPDrain 00 01 21 60/11B 00 02 43
287/2B 00 02 02 60/3B 00 03 24
284/2C 00 04 05 59/2B 00 12 95
284/2B 00 04 86 55/2GP Road 00 01 21
284/1B 00 10 12 45/2 00 04 45
281/7B 00 05 26 45/2 00 02 43
281/6B 00 06 07 45/2 00 03 24
125/7B 00 07 69 46/8A 00 04 45
125/ 6A 40 46/6C 00 00 40
125/2B 00 04 86 46/5C 00 00 40
125/ 1A 00 02 02 46/6B 00 00 81
126/2 00 10 93 46/5B 00 02 02
128/5B 00 07 28 47/3B 00 03 64
135/9B 00 04 45 48/2B 00 04 45
135/8C 00 01 62 48/2C 00 01 62
135/8B 00 02 43 48/3B 00 01 21
135/7B 00 05 26 48/4B 00 02 43
133/2 00 01 62 48/5B 00 02 83
133/2 00 07 28 41/1B 00 35 21
133/2 00 10 52 789 00 05 67
141/2GP 00 01 21 790 pt 00 03 64
CartTrack 790pt 00 09 31
147/3 part 784/5 00 02 83
148/5 00 05 26 784/3 00 02 83
148/4 00 03 64 3. Palivela 784/2 00 05 67
148/3 00 03 24 783/8 00 01 62
148/2 00 06 07 783/8 00 03 24
154/2GP 00 00 81 783/3 00 05 26
161/7A 00 03 64 781 00 07 28
161/6B 00 03 64 780 00 06 88
161/2C 00 08 50 779/2 00 08 90
161/ 1C 00 05 67 779/ 1pt 00 02 43
161/1B 00 08 09 779/ 1pt 00 03 64
160/5 00 02 02 779/1pt 00 03 24
452GI /2012-20 1728
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2011 / PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
(4) (5) (6) (3)
(1) (2)
2. Modekurru 690/4
00 05 26
690/5
00 04 05
(Contd...)
690/3
00 03 24
00 02 43
690/2pt
00 03 64 690/2pt
691/15
00 08 09
691/13
00 04 05
00
691/8
00 40
00 04 05 691/7
691/7
00 02 02
Total
07 95 19
District: State Mandal: Village:
Ambajipeta Pulletikurru East Godavari
Andhrapradesh
Area
SI . Name of
Hectare Are Sq .
Survey
mtr.
No.
No. theVillage
(4) (5) (6)
(3)
(1) (2)
322/3A
1. Pulleti Kurru
00 08 09
337/2 G. P Puntha
00 01 21
00
340/2B
02 83
00 07 69 340/ 1B
00 07 28 341/2B
341 /3A
342/7C
00 03 64
86
00 04 342/7B
00 04 45 342/4B
00 03 64 342/3B
351/8C
00 00 81
00 07 69 351/8B
21 351/7B
00 01
00 12 55 351/4B
00
352/3D
03 64
00 09 352/3C
71
352/3B
00 02 83
211/3B
00 02 43
00 02 83 211 /2B
210/4B
00 03 64
210/1B
00 04 05
00 01 62 208/2BGP
Cart track
00
205/2D
02 02
00 06 07 205/2D
00 01 62 205/20
205/2B
00 02 83
206/2B
00 17 40
206/ 1B
00 01 21
200/2 GP Canal
219/2 GP Canal
74 220/2B
00 11
00
221/2 GP
03 64
Kowshika Drain
00 01 21 223/5B
00 04 86 223/4B
223/ 1B
00 01 21
00
225/2GP
01 62
Kowshika Drain
30/2B
08 50
00
01 62 29/2G.P. Drain
00
28/5C
00 02 83
28/5B
00 02 83
64
00 03 28/4D
28/4C
00 02 02
28/4B
00 02 43
00 06 88 28/1A
00 02 83 27/8A
00
27/7A
02 02
27/01
02 02
00
27 /5A
00 00 81
00 03 24 27/4A
05 Total
95
01
[F. No. O- 12026/ 1 /2012 -ONG - III]
R. S. SIKDAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 14 फरवरी , 2012
का. आ. 755.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) के अनुसरण में पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के उपक्रमों के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 या अधिक प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है :-
भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड
1. प्रादेशिक कार्यालय
बिजवासन ( रिटेल ) , दिल्ली
2. प्रादेशिक कार्यलय
(एलपीजी) प्लांट एवं टेरिटरी कार्यालय , लोनी , गाजियाबाद (उ.प्र. )
3. प्रादेशिक कार्यालय/संस्थापन , मथुरा ( रिटेल ) , उत्तर प्रदेश
4. प्रादेशिक कार्यालय , ( एलपीजी ) , प्लांट
पियाला , तहसील बल्लभगढ़ , पोस्ट- असावटी , जिला फरीदाबाद-121102
इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड
5. (विपणन प्रभाग ) , पाइपलाइन टर्मिनल , ( अंबाला टर्मिनल ) , जी.टी. रोड , अंबाला कैंट-133001 ( हरियाणा )
6. (विपणन प्रभाग ) , बल्क पेट्रोलियम डिपो , पोस्ट लाल कुआं ( नैनीताल ) -262402 ( उत्तराखंड ) [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1729
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
(1) (2)
(3)
(5) (6)
(4)
( विपणन प्रभाग ) , पंजाव राज्य कार्यालय , 3ए सेक्टर 19ए , मध्य मार्ग , चंडीगढ़ -160019
(विपणन प्रभाग ) , मदनपुर खादर , एलपीजी संयंत्र , कालिंदी कुंज के सामने , नई दिल्ली -110044
मंगलूर रिफाइनरी एण्ड पेट्रोकेमिकल्स लिमिटेड
1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तम्भ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति को उक्त अनुसूची के स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र की बाबत उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है अर्थात्: -
अनुसूची
क्षेत्र
प्राधिकारी का नाम
और पता
9. मंगलूर रिफाइनरी एण्ड पेट्रोकेमिकल्स लिमिटेड , एलजीएफ , मर्केन्टाइल हाऊस , 15 के.जी. मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110001
[सं. 11011/1/2011 (हिन्दी) ] जानकी आहूजा , उप निदेशक ( रा.भा. )
New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012 श्री एस. एम. सैयद ,
गुजरात राज्य के मेहसाना , पाटन तथा बनासकांठा जिला के लिए डिप्टी कलेक्टर गुजरातस्टेट पेट्रोनेट लिमिटेड , 5वीं मंजिल,
जीएसपीसी भवन ,
गांधीनगर-382010
S.O. 755. In pursuance of sub- rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Language ( Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby noti- fies the following offices of the Public Sector Undertak- ings under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , in which 80 or more percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi :-
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
1. TerritoryOffice Bijwasan(Retails ), Delhi
2. Territory Office
(LPG) Plant and Territory Office , Loni , Ghaziabad ( U. P. )
3. Territory Office Mathura ( Retail ) , Mathura , ( UP)
4. Territory Office , (LPG) Plant, Piyala Tehsil -Ballabhgarh , Post - Asawati , Distt. - Faridabad - 121102
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
5. (Marketing Division) , Pipeline Terminal , (Ambala Terminal) , G.T. Road , Ambala Cantt . - 133001 , (Haryana)
6. (Marketing Division) , Bulk Petroleum Depot, PostLal Kuan (Nainital) -262402 ( Uttarakhand)
7. (Marketing Division ) , Punjab State Office , 3A, Sector - 19A, Madhya Marg , Chandigarh - 160019 2. यह अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी ।
[फा. सं. एल-14014/39/2011-जी.पी. ]
ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012
S.O. 756. In pursuance of clause ( a) of Section 2 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby Authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act , in respect of the areas mentioned in column (2) of the said Schedule namely : ---
SCHEDULE
Area of Jurisdiction
Name and Address
ofthe Authority
8. (Marketing Division ) , Madanpur Khadar , LPG Plant , Opp . Kalindi Kunj , New Delhi - 110044
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
ForMehsana , Patan and Shri S. M. Saiyed ,
Banaskantha District of Dy. Collector, Gujarat
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, LGF Mercantile House , 15 K.G. Marg , New Delhi - 110001 9.
State Petronet Limited GujaratState.
5thFloor, GSPC Bhavan ,
Gandhinagar- 382010
[No. 11011/1/2011 (Hindi ) ] JANKI AHUJA , Dy. Director ( OL)
नई दिल्ली , 16 फरवरी , 2012
का.आ. 756.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज
पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 2. This notification will be effective from the date of
its issue .
[F. No. L- 14014/39/2011 -GP] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
1730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 757.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दी सुपरेन्डेट इन्जीनीयर, बंगला न०-6 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 सी०जी०आई०टी०/एन०जी० पी०/ 159 /2002/811 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को18-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-42011 /44/1993- आईआर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2012
S.O. 757. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 159 / 2002 /811 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between The Supdt. Engineer, C.P.W.D. , Bunglow No. - 6 and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18.01.2012 .
[No. L -42011/44/ 1933 - IR(DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NAGPUR.
No. 159/2002
DIARY
Date ExhibitNo.
Porgress
46/11-2-11 Both the parties are absent on calls . The petitioner is absent on calls . RPAD notice has already been issued to the petitioner but it has next back by the Postal Department .
P.O. is on official tour. Call on 17/5/11 for furtherorder.
47/18-5-11 As 17/5/11 is a holiday, case file is put up today i.e. on 18/5/11 .
Both the parties are absent on calls . P.O. is on leave .
Callon 22/7/11 for further orders .
48/22-7-2011 Parties are absent on calls . None appears
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
onbehalf of either of the parties . This as a case of the year 2002. Notice sent to the petitioner by RP with AD is back with out service, with endorsement that petitioner has left the address mentioned in the letter.
Perused the record . The petitioner has not appeared since the data of initiation of the reference . Since 14.7.2003 the management is not appearing . No statement of claim has been filed:
It appears from the record that parties are not interested to proceed with the case and no dispute between them is in existence. Hence it is order: -
The reference may be treated as a " no dispute order . "
Send a copy or the order to the Central Govt . for notification .
J.P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer
Order in case ivo . 159/2002
Parties are absent on calls . None appears on behalf of either of the parties . This is a case of the year 2002 . Notice sent to the petitioner by RP with AD is back with out service; with endorsement that petitioner has left the address mentioned in the letter.
Perused the record. The petitioner has not appeared since the date of initiation of the reference . Since 14.7.2003 the management is not appearing . No statement of claim has been filed.
It appears from the record that parties are not interested to proceed with the case and no dispute between them is in existence . Hence it is order:
The reference may be treated as a " no dispute order " .
Send a copy of the order to the Central Govt . for notification .
J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer Nagpur
नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2012
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रिंसिपल नवोदया विद्यालय , तिलवसनी जिला, जोधपुर प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/2008) का०आ० 758.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-01-2012 प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-42012/06/2008- आईआर ( डीयू) ]
रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1731
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2012
S.O. 758.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2008) ofthe Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between The Principal Navodaya Vidhyalya , Tilwasni Distt. Jodpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23.01.2012 .
[No. L-42012/06/2008 - IR(DU) RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
अनुबंध
औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर ।
इसके पश्चातृ अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी को पुनः बतौर ड्राईवर/ इलेक्ट्रीशियन के पद पर दिनांक 1.7.2004 को नियुक्त किया वहां प्रार्थी ने लगातार बिना किसी व्यवधान के अप्रार्थी संस्थान में दिनांक 9.5.2004 तक कार्य किया, लेकिन अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की दिनांक 9.5.2005 को सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी । प्रार्थी ने सेवा समाप्ति की तारीख के पूर्व के 12 माहों में 240 दिनों से अधिक दिनों तक कार्य किया है, लेकिन अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त करने में औद्योगिक विवाद, अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त करने के पूर्व न तो उसे इसके सम्बन्ध में कोई नोटिस दिया और न ही नोटिस वेतन तथा मुआवजा दिया । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी श्रमिक की सेवा समाप्त करने के पूर्व औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ की पालना नहीं कीहै ।
पीठासीन अधिकारीः श्री एच०आर० नागौरी, आर०एच०जे०एस० औद्योगिक विवाद् ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या: 01 सन्2008
श्री ओमप्रकाश पुत्र किशनाराम जी जाति विश्नोई निवासी गांव तिलवासनी जिला जोधुपर ।
.प्रार्थी
बनाम
प्रिंसीपल, नवोदय विद्यालय , तिलवासनी जिला जोधपुर ।
अप्रार्थी
3. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग-पत्र में यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त करने के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने श्री नेनाराम पुत्र सूरताराम माली को बतौर ड्राईवर के रूप में नियुक्त किया, लेकिन इसके पूर्व प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में स्थापित करने के संबंध में प्रार्थी को कोई सूचना नहीं दी गई । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि यह औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एच का उल्लंघन है । उक्त आधारों पर प्रार्थी ने यह प्रार्थना की है कि प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के आदेश दिनांक 9.5.2005 को निरस्तर किया जावे तथा प्रार्थी की सेवाओं को सेवापृथकता कीतारीख से लगातार मानते हुए सम्पूर्ण लाभों सेहत प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा में स्थापित करने का आदेश पारित किया जावे ।
उपस्थितिः-
( 1) प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि श्री खेमाराम चौधरी उपस्थित ।
( 2) अप्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि सुश्री कुसुम राव उपस्थित ।
अधिनिर्णय
दिनांक:-30.05.2011
1. भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमॉक एल० 42012/06/2008- आई०आर० ( डी०यू० ) नई दिल्ली दिनांक 20.03.2008 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद् अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया है :-
"Whether the action of the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya in terminating the services of their workman Shri Om Prakash w.e.f. 09.05.2005 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmans isentitled to?
प्रार्थी ने अपने मॉग- पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक को प्रारम्भ में सन् 1991 में चौकीदार के पद् परनियुक्त किया गया । एक साल की सेवाएं पूरी होने के बाद उस समय प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी गई, लेकिन प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने पुनः बतौर ड्राईवर/ इलेक्ट्रीशियन के पद पर दिनांक 1.4.2001 को नियुक्त किया । वहां प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 31.1.2002 तक निरन्तर बिना किसी व्यवधान के कार्य किया, लेकिन अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने अपने मौखिक आदेश दिनांक 1.2.2002 के द्वारा प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी।
4. अप्रार्थी ने अपने प्रत्युत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी ने दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य किया तथा वह केवल पम्प के वॉल को खोलने तथा बन्द करने का काम करता था । यह तथ्य गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी चौकीदार के पद पर कार्य करता था । यह तथ्य भी गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी की दिनांक 1.2.2002 को सेवा समाप्त की गई । प्रार्थी ने स्वयं अपनी इच्छा पर दिनांक 2.2.2002 तक कार्य किया था । वह स्कूल नहीं आता था । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि स्वयं प्रार्थी दिनांक 9.5.2005 को स्कूल छोड़कर चला गया और इसके सबंध में अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा दिनांक 10.5.2005 को प्रार्थी को एक पत्र इस आशय का जारी किया गया था कि वह वापस आ जाए तथा यदि उसने दिनांक 12.9.2005 तक डयूटी जोईन नहीं की तो उसकी सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी जायेगी । यह तथ्य भी गलत बताया है कि प्राथी इलेक्ट्रीशियन के रूप में कार्य करता था । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त नहीं की बल्कि प्रार्थी स्वयं अपनी इच्छा से स्कूल छोड़कर गया । प्रार्थी स्वयं स्कूल छोड़कर गया था और ऐसी स्थिति में औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ की पालना करने की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं थी । प्रार्थी को अपनी डयूटी पर उपस्थित होने के लिए सूचना - पत्र जारी किया गया था, लेकिन इसके उपरान्त भी प्रार्थी उपस्थित नहीं हुआ । इस तथ्य को भी गलत बताया है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने श्री नैनाराम को नियुक्ति दी हो । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने श्री नैनाराम को नियुक्तिनहीं दी है और इसके अलावा भी स्वयं प्रार्थी स्कूल छोड़कर गया । इस कारण उसे सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित करने के लिए कोई सूचना- पत्र देने की आवश्यकता नहीं थी । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
नहीं की है । प्रार्थी ने तथाकथित सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व के 12 महीनों में 240 दिन की सेवा नहीं की है । उक्त आधारों पर अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी केमांग - पत्र को निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की ।
साक्ष्य से यह तथ्य प्रमाणित है कि प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 1.7.2004 से 9.5.2005 तक निरन्तर कार्य किया है और अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 9.5.2005 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 -एफ केप्रावधानों की पालना किये बिना सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया है ।
5. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग- पत्र में उल्लेख किये गये तथ्यों की पुष्टि मेंस्वयं का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । प्रार्थी पी० डब्लु-1 श्री ओमप्रकाश से प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में रजिस्टर की फोटो प्रति प्रदर्श -1 तथा एक चैक की फोटो प्रति प्रदर्श -2 प्रस्तुत कर प्रदर्श करवाये गये । अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से श्री शिवानाथन का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया। डी० डब्लु-1 श्री शिवानाथन से प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में सूचना- पत्र की प्रतिलिपी प्रदर्शए -1 को प्रस्तुत कर प्रदर्श करवाया गया ।
7. बहस उभय- पक्ष सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य तथा विधि के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हमारा निष्कर्ष निम्नप्रकार है ।
8. अप्रार्थी के साक्षी डी० डब्लु-1 श्री शिवानाथन ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में इस तथ्य को सही बताया है कि प्रार्थी को दिनांक 1.4.2001 को सर्वप्रथम दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में रखा था । इस तथ्य को भी सही बताया है कि उसने इस समय दिनांक 31.1.2002 तक कार्य किया था । इस साक्षी ने आगे यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी कोपुनः दिनांक 1.7.2004 को नौकरी पर रखा था । इस साक्षी ने आगे यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 9.5.2005 को स्वेच्छा से काम पर आना बन्द कर दिया था । इस साक्षी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उनकी स्कूल से जारी पत्र प्रदर्शए-1 प्रार्थी ओमप्रकाश पर तामील नहीं हुआ । प्रार्थी पी० डब्लु-1 श्री ओम प्रकाश ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह स्वीकार किया है कि उसकी सेवा दिनांक 9.5.2005 को अप्रार्थी संस्थान के प्रिंसीपल साहब ने समाप्त की थी ।
11. हमने उक्त तर्कों पर उक्त साक्ष्य के परिप्रेक्ष्य में विचार किया । पत्र प्रदर्शए-1 अप्रार्थी संस्थान के दौरा दिनांक 10.5.2005 को जारी हुआ है और इसमें यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि 9.5.2005 से अपने कार्य से अनुपस्थिति है और प्रार्थी को दिनांक 12.5.2005 तक अपनी उपस्थितिदेने की अपेक्षा की गई थी तथा उपस्थिति नहीं देने पर प्रार्थी को सेवा से निष्कासित करने की सूचना दी गई थी । अप्राथी के साक्षी- डी० डब्लु-1 श्री शिवानाथन अप्रार्थी स्कूल के स्वयं प्रिंसीपल हैं । इन्होंने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में स्पष्ट रूप से यह स्वीकार किया है कि पत्र प्रदर्शए -1 प्रार्थी ओमप्रकाश पर तामील नहीं हुआ । ऐसी स्थिति में हमारी राय है कि इस पत्र में उल्लेख किये गये तथ्यों को स्वीकार किया जाना उचित नहीं होगा । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने यह तथ्य स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी को दिनांक 1.7.2004 क्रो नियुक्ति दी थी तथा प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 9.5.2005 तक कार्य किया था । हमारी राय में अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 9.5.2005 को सेवा से पृथक किया तथा प्रार्थी ने उसके पूर्व के 12 कलेण्डर माहों में 240 दिन से ज्यादा दिन अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्य किया अतः हमारी राय में प्रार्थी की औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25-बी के प्रावधानों के अनुसार नियमित सेवा प्रमाणित होती है । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ के प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की है और ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति अनुचित तथा अवैध प्रमाणित होती है । प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग - पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसकी सेवा समाप्ति के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने श्री नेनाराम पुत्र सुरताराम माली को पम्प ड्राईवर के रूप में नियुक्त कर लिया है तथा इस नियुक्ति के पूर्व प्रार्थी को कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने अपने प्रत्युत्तर में इस तथ्य कोअस्वीकार किया है, लेकिन अप्रार्थी के साक्षी डी. डब्लु-1 श्री शिवानाथन ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह उल्लेख किया है कि ओमप्रकाश के कार्य छोड़कर जाने के बाद उसने अलग - अलग व्यक्तियों को बुलाया था । इस साक्षी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि किस- किस व्यक्ति को रखा है वह रिकोर्ड देखकर बता सकता है । इस साक्षी ने अपने कथनों में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसने दूसरे व्यक्तियों को रखने के पूर्व प्रार्थी को कोई सूचना नहीं दी थी । ऐसी स्थिति में यह तथ्य प्रमाणित होता है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के पश्चात् प्रार्थी के पद पर किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नियुक्ति प्रदान की तथा इसके पूर्व प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित करने के लिए कोई अवसर नहीं दिया और इस प्रकार औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एच के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन भी प्रमाणित 9. विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी का यह तर्क है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त नहीं की, लेकिन प्रार्थी स्वयं अपनी इच्छा से दिनांक 9.5.2005 से कार्य छोड़कर चला गया । प्रार्थी को इसके संबंध में दिनांक 10.5.2010 को नोटिस प्रदर्शए-1 भी दिया गया था । उस नोटिस में स्पष्ट रूप से यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि प्रार्थी दिनांक 9.5.2005 से कार्य से अनुपस्थित है । प्रार्थी को यह सूचित किया गया कि प्रार्थी दिनांक 12.5.2005 तक अपनी उपस्थिति देवे अन्यथा उसे सेवा से निष्कासित कर दिया जाएगा । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी का इन आधारों पर यह मानना है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त नहीं की बल्कि प्रार्थी स्वयं अपनी इच्छा से अपना कार्य छोड़कर गया था । इन आधारों पर विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी का यह मानना है कि इस प्रकरण में औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं ।
होता है।
12. अब हमें यह देखना है कि प्रार्थी क्या अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ? बहस के दौरान विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी ने यह जाहिर किया है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक प्रार्थी को आज भी नौकरी पर रखने के लिएतैयार है । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी का केवल यह कहना है कि प्रार्थी को तथाकथित सेवा समाप्ति से सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित करने के मध्य की 10. उक्ततर्कों के विपरीति विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी का यह तर्क है कि स्वयं अप्रार्थी के साक्षी डी० डब्लु । श्री शिवानाथन ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह तथ्य स्वीकार किया है कि उनकी स्कूल से जारी पत्र प्रदर्शए -1 प्रार्थी को तामील नहीं हुआ । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी का यह तर्क है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने अपना बचाव तैयार करने के लिए यह पत्र प्रदर्शए -1 बाद में बनाया है । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी का यह तर्क है कि उपलब्ध [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1733 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
अवधि का वेतन नहीं दिलाया जाए । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी ने इसका विरोध किया ।
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में' औद्योगिक अधिकरण जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 02/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/01/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -14012/ 11/2009- आई आर ( डी यू) ]
रमेश सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 23rd January, 2012
S.O.759 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2010) ofthe Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between The 57 , FMCD through 56 APO Jodhpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23/01/2012.
[No. L- 14012/ 11 /2009 - IR(DU)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 13. हमने उक्त ताँ पर पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के परिप्रेक्ष्य में विचार किया । प्रार्थी को प्रारम्भ में सन् 1991 में चौकीदार के पद पर लगाया गया था । प्राथी ने उस समय एक वर्ष तक कार्य किया था । उसके बाद प्रार्थी को दिनांक 1.4.2001 को नियुक्त किया , उस समय प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 31.1.2002 तक कार्य किया । इसके बाद प्रार्थी की दिनांक 1.2.2002 को सेवा समाप्त कर दी । इसके पश्चात् प्रार्थी को पुनः दिनांक 1.7.2004 को नियुक्ति दी थी । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां लम्बे समय से कार्य कर रहा है । अप्रार्थी नियोजक प्रार्थी के इस लम्बे सेवाकाल में बार - बार ब्रेक देकर व्यवधान उपस्थित कर रहा था । अतः हमारी राय में प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित करने का आदेश दिया जाना समीचीन है । प्रार्थी स्वयं ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह तथ्य स्वीकार किया है कि वह वर्तमान में नरेगा में अपने परिवार सहित कार्य कर रहा है । ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की दिनांक से सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने की तिथि तक उसके वेतन की 25 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्वभृति के रूप में दिलाया जाना समीचीन है ।
अनुबंध
आदेश
औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर ।
14. अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि:-
पीठासीन अधिकारी:- श्री एच०आर० नागौरी , आर०एच०जे० एस० औद्योगिक विवाद् ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या:- 02 सन् 2010
( 1 ) प्रार्थी ओमप्रकाश पुत्र किशनाराम को अप्रार्थी नियोजक प्रिंसीपल नवोदय विद्यालय , तिलवासनी, जिला जोधपुर द्वारा दिनांक 9.5.2005 से सेवामुक्त किया जाना उचित तथा वैध नहीं है ।
श्रीरामचन्द्र पुत्र श्री मोहनलाल जरिये राजस्थान ट्रेड यूनियन केन्द्र सुरतसिंह जी की कोठी बाटा गोदाम के ऊपर सोजती गेट के बाहर , जोधपुर ।
प्रार्थी (2 ) अप्रार्थी नियोजक प्रार्थी को तुरन्त सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित करे । प्रार्थी की सेवाएं निरन्तर मानी जायेगी ।
बनाम
57 एफ० एम० सी०डी० , 57 एफ०एम० एस०डी० मार्फत 56 ए० पी०ओ० मिल्ट्री हॉस्पिटल के पास, उम्मेद भवन रोड, जोधपुर ।
अप्रार्थी
उपस्थितिः-
( 1) प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि श्री विजय मेहता उपस्थित ।
( 3) प्रार्थी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि दिनांक 9.5.2005 से सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित किये जाने तक की अवधि के वेतन की 25 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्वभृति के रूप में अप्रार्थी नियोजक से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है । यदि प्रार्थी को इस अधिनिर्णय के पारित होने की तिथि से दो माह की अवधि में सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित नहीं किया जाता है तो प्रार्थी इसके पश्चात् उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की दिनांक को देय पूरा वेतन प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा ।
(2 ) अप्रार्थीगण के प्रतिनिधि श्री मधुसूदन व्यास उपस्थित ।
अधिनिर्णय
15. इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय को प्रेषित किया जावे ।
दिनांक:- 20.09.2011 16. यह अधिनिर्णय मेरे द्वारा लिपिबद्ध करवाया जाकर आज दिनांक 30.5.2011 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर उद्घोषित किया गया।
एच. आर. नागौरी , न्यायाधीश
1. भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल० 14012 /11/2009- आई०आर० ( डी०यू० ) नई दिल्ली दिनांक 23.7.2009 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद् अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया है:-
नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी, 2012
का०आ० 759.ौद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार 57 , एफ० एम०सी०डी० द्वारा 56 APO, जोधपुर के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों
"Whether the action of the management of 57 FMSD C / o 56 APO in terminating the services of Shri Ramchandra w.e.f. 28/10/2006 is legal and justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to?
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1734
छंटनी किये जाने की अनुमति प्राप्त की गई । अप्रार्थी के अधीन सौ से अधिक श्रमिक तथा कर्मचारी हैं । प्रार्थी कनिष्ठतम श्रमिक नहीं था । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिकों को नियोजित रखा गया। प्रार्थी की सेवापृथकता के पश्चात् नई नियुक्तियां दी गई, लेकिन प्रार्थी को ऑफर नहीं दी गई । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि इस प्रकार उसकी सेवापृथकता औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ, 25- जी, 25 - एच तथा एन तथा नियम -77 तथा 78 के प्रतिकूल है ।
4. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग - पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता के पश्चात् प्रार्थी ने अपने को सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने के लिए अप्रार्थी से कई बार निवेदन किया, लेकिन आश्वासन के उपरान्त भी अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित नहीं किया । उक्त आधारों पर प्रार्थी ने यह प्रार्थना की है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता को निरस्त कर उसे उसकी सेवा की निरन्तरता में सम्पूर्ण वेतन सहित सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित किया जावे । देय वेतन पर 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज भी दिलाया जावे ।
2. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग- पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी ने मजदूर के पद पर नियुक्ति देने के लिए नियोजन कार्यालय से मजदूरों के नाम मंगवाये थे । नियोजन कार्यालय द्वारा प्रेषित मजदूरों के नामों पर विधिवत्विचार तथा मनन करने के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी का मजदूर केपद पर नियुक्ति हेतु चयन किया तथा प्रार्थी को 750/- रुपये प्रतिमाह वेतन, महंगाई भत्ता तथा अन्य भत्तों पर दिनांक 18.7.1994 के आदेश के द्वारा नियुक्त किया। कार्यभार ग्रहण करने के पूर्व प्रार्थी का पुलिस वेरीफिकेशन तथा मिलट्री हॉस्पीटल में मेडिकल भी. करवाया गया । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि इसके पश्चात् अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 18.7.1995 को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । इस आदेश को प्रार्थी ने केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर में चुनौती दी । अधिकरण ने प्राथी के प्रार्थना- पत्र को निरस्त कर दिया । इस पर प्रार्थी ने इसे माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय में चुनौती दी । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालयने आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2002 के द्वारा यह निर्णित किया कि अप्रार्थी ने प्राथी को कृत्रिम ब्रेक दिये । माननीय राजस्थान उच्चन्यायालय ने इस प्रकार दिये गये कृत्रिम ब्रेक को नजरअंदाज करते हुए यह माना किप्रार्थी ने अंप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां 240 दिन की सेवा पूर्ण कर ली थी । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी की सेवापृथकता को गैर कानूनी मानते हुए यह स्पष्ट किया कि इन परिस्थितियों में यह माना जायेगा कि प्रार्थी को कभी भीसेवा से पृथक नहीं किया गया । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने प्राथी की सेवापृथकता को निरस्त करते हुए प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवा की निरन्तरता में बकाया वेतन सहित दिनांक 31.3.2001 तक सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित होने का आदेश दिया । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने माननीय राजस्थान उच्चन्यायालय के आदेश को माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में चुनौती दी । सर्वोच्चन्यायालय ने दिनांक 6.10.2004 के आदेश के द्वारा प्रार्थी की अपील निरस्त करते हुए प्रार्थी को दैनिक वेतन भोगी माना ।
5. अप्रार्थी ने अपने प्रत्युत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी को मात्र दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में जरिये आदेश डब्ल्यू०ई०5043/ 1946/ 8 द्वारा मात्र 89 दिनों के लिए अस्थाई रूप से लगाया गया था । प्रार्थी की सेवाएं मात्र अस्थाई आधार पर आवश्यकता अनुसार समय - समय पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में दिनांक 18.7.1994 से 18.7.1995 के बीच प्राप्त की गई थी । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी द्वारा केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण में कार्यवाही किया जाना तथा माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2001 पारित होने का तथ्य स्वीकार किया है । माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 6.10.2004 पारित होना भी स्वीकार किया है । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी ने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष कन्टेम्पट पिटीशन पूर्व आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2001 के सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत की थी जो पिटीशन दिनांक 24.2.2006 को निरस्त की जाने पर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत एस.एल.पी. दिनांक 19.3.2007 के द्वारा निरस्त की गई।
6. अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी विभाग कार्य की आवश्यकता के अनुसार थोड़े समय अवधि के लिए दैनिक वेतन भोगी की नियुक्ति करने हेतु सक्षम है । कमान अधिकारी को निर्देशित किया गया कि 89 दिन से अधिक किसी भी श्रमिक को नियुक्त नहीं किया जावे और इसलिये पद में कृत्रिम ब्रेक देने सम्बन्धी तथ्य असत्य होने से अस्वीकार हैं । अस्थाई आवश्यकता की मॉग के अनसार समय-समय पर भिन्न- भिन्न आदेशों के जरिये दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूम में श्रमिक कीसेवाएँ प्राप्त की गई । नियमानुसार 89 दिन उपरात्न सेवाएँ समाप्त की जाती रही । प्रार्थी के नियुक्ति- पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से अंकित किया जाता रहा कि उसकी सेवाएँ बिना किसी अग्रिम नोटिस के समाप्त की जायेगी । अप्रार्थी विभाग में विभागीय आदेशानुसार अधिकतम मात्र 9 श्रमिकों की अस्थाई सेवाएँ ली जा सकती हैं एवं इसी अनुरूप सेवाएँ ली जाती रही हैं ।. इस प्रकरण में कोई नोटिस अथवा छंटनी मुआवजा देने की आवश्यकता नहीं है । वरियता सूची के प्रकाशन की अनुमति के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं । प्रार्थी श्रमिक को अस्थाई श्रमिकों के समानान्तर नहीं माना जा 3. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग पत्र में आगे यह उल्लेख किया है कि इसके पश्चात् अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 1.11.2004 के द्वारा प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित किया । प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 4.11.2004 कोकार्यभार ग्रहण किया । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के ऑब्जर्वेशन के बावजूद प्रार्थी को उसके सेवा में कृत्रिक ब्रेक देने का क्रम जारी रखा और इस प्रकार कृत्रिम ब्रेक देने का क्रम जारी रखते हुए अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 28.10.2006 को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसने उसकी सेवापृथकता के पूर्वके एक वर्ष में 240 दिन तक कार्य कर लिया था । माननीय राजस्थान उच्चन्यायालय ने भी यह स्पष्ट घोषित किया कि प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन कार्य कर लिया है । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया कि श्रमिक के सेवाकाल में एक बार एक वर्ष में 240 दिन की सेवा पूरी करना आवश्यक है । प्रत्येक वर्ष 240दिन कार्य करना आवश्यक नहीं है । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवापृथकता से सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने की अवधि को निरन्तर सेवा माना है । प्रार्थी ने प्रति वर्ष 240 दिन की सेवा पूरी कर ली थी । प्रार्थी ने सेवापृथकता के पूर्व 240 दिनों से अधिक दिनों तक कार्य कर लिया था। प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवा पृथकता के पूर्व न तो एक माह का नोटिस दिया गया और न ही छंटनी का मुआवजा दिया गया । प्रार्थी की सेवापृथकता के पूर्व नियमानुसार वरियता सूची भी प्रकाशित नहीं की गई । केन्द्रीय सरकार को इसकी सूचना नहीं दी गई और न ही [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1735 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
Rs . 750/ - plus usual allowances. The respondents shall reinstated the petitioners by 31.3.2001 and pay all the arrears by that time . "
माननीय उच्चन्यायालय ने अपने इस निर्णय में निम्न निष्कर्ष भी निकाला-
सकता। अप्रार्थी संस्थान में अस्थाई आवश्यकता अनुसार कार्यभार महसूस होने पर प्रार्थी की सेवाएँ दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में प्राप्त की गई । प्रार्थी की अस्थाई नियुक्ति विशुद्ध रूप से कार्य के आधार पर निर्भर करती है । प्रार्थी स्वंय का सिलाई का व्यवसाय करता है । प्रार्थी विशेष रूप से रक्षा क्रमियों की वेशभुषा के कार्य में दक्ष होने के कारण उपरोक्त व्यवसाय में जुटा हुआ है । उक्त आधारों पर अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी के मॉग-पत्र को निरस्तकरने की प्रार्थना की ।
"Theabove facts make it very clear that all throughout both the petitioners were given artificial break for a day of two in their services . It is clear that they had completed 240 working days in a calender year when their services were terminated last without following theprovisons of Sectin 25 - F and 25 -G of the Industrial DisputesAct. "
10. उक्त आदेश में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने सभी तथ्यों पर विचार करने के पश्चात् निम्न निष्कर्ष भी निकालेः-
"From the above mentioned facts , three things are verymuch clear :-
1. that both the petitioners were duly selected and appointed after their medical examination was done on a fixed salary of Rs . 750/ - per month with usual allowances .
7. प्रार्थी ने अपने मॉग- पत्र में उल्लेख किये गए तथ्यों की पुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । प्रार्थी पी. डब्लू-1 श्री रामचन्द्र से प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में नियोजन सेवा निदेशालय से प्राप्त पत्र प्रदर्श -1 , प्रमाण-पत्र प्रदर्श-2 , नियुक्ति- पत्र प्रदर्श-3 , नियुक्ति- पत्र प्रदर्श-4, माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय दिनांक 12.1.2001 प्रदर्श -5 तथा माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का आदेश दिनांक 6 अक्टूबर 2004 प्रदर्श-6 को पेश कर प्रदर्श करवाये गये । अप्रार्थी की ओर से कर्नल प्रशान्त राजोरिया का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया । डी. डब्लु-1 श्री प्रशान्त राजोरिया से प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में नोट प्रदर्शए-1, पत्र प्रदर्शए-2, सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्शए-3 , सेवामुक्तिआदेश प्रदर्शए-4, नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्शए-5, नियुक्तिआदेश प्रदर्शए -6 , नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्शए-7 , प्रमाण- पत्र प्रदर्शए-8 तथा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय का आदेश दिनांक 19.3.2007 प्रदर्शए-9 , को पेश कर प्रदर्श करवाया गया ।
2. Unilaterally, the respondents took the decision and changes the terms and conditions of their appointment and ordered that the petitioners shall be paid only Rs . 35 /- per day as wages .
8. बहस उभय - पक्ष सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य तथा विधि के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हमारा निष्कर्ष निम्नप्रकार है ।
3. Right from the day one of the joining of their services , they have continuously worked for more than 240 days or two by way of artificial breaks in their services .
From the order, it looks that their appointments were for a fixed period of 89 days but from the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that they were in continuous service except by way of artificial breaks . It was not expected from the Union of India to act in this manner . "
माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने निम्न ऑब्जर्वेशन का भी उल्लेख किया है:-
9. यहस्वीकृत तथ्य है कि प्रारम्भ में प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 18.7.1994 के द्वारा मजदूर के पद पर नियुक्त किया था । इसके बाद प्रार्थी को 89 कार्यदिवसों के पश्चात् एक अथवा दो दिन के बनावटी अथवा काल्पनिक ब्रेक देकर प्रार्थी को नई नियुक्ति दी गई। अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा ऐसा कई बार किया और अन्त में अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की दिनांक 18.7.1995 को सेवां समाप्त कर दी । इसके विरूद्ध प्रार्थी ने केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर में प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । उस प्रार्थना- पत्र को केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 28.4.2000 के द्वारा निरस्त कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने इस आदेश के विरूद्ध माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर में रिट याचिका प्रस्तुत की । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2001 प्रदर्श -5 के द्वारा प्रार्थी की रिट याचिका स्वीकार की तथा निम्न आदेश पारित कियाः
"We have noticed that this is a general tendency growing in the State and Union of Keeping poor labours and then terminating their services after taking work from them only because , they do not want to extend the legitimate benefits of services to them . "
11. अप्रार्थी ने अपने प्रत्युत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी को89दिनों के लिए अस्थाई रूप से लगाया गया था । अप्रार्थी ने मॉग- पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान कार्य की आवश्यकता के अनुरूप थोड़ी समय अवधि के लिए दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिकों की नियुक्तिकरने हेतु सक्षम है । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी के कमान अधिकारी को यह निर्देशित किया गया है कि उसके द्वारा 89 दिवसों से अधिक किसी भी श्रमिक को नियुक्त नहीं किया जावे । अप्रार्थी " In view of the above discussion , both these petitions are allowed, the original applications ofthe petitioners are granted , it is declared that their last termination orders were bad in law and illegal and their services were never terminated and they shall be treated as continuous in service and they shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits of the services . It is also declared that they shall be treated as appointed on the post having fixed pay scale of
452GI /2012-21 1736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अस्थाई आवश्यकता की मॉग के अनुसार समय- समय पर भिन्न-भिन्न आदेशों के जरिये दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में श्रमिक की सेवाएं प्राप्त की गई थी तथा नियमानुसार 89 दिवस उपरान्तसेवाएं समाप्त की जाती रही । यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि श्रमिक कोदिये गये नियुक्ति- पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से यह उल्लेख किया जाता रहा है कि उसकी सेवाएं बिना किसी अग्रिम नोटिस के समाप्त की जायेगी । अप्रार्थी संस्थान के साक्षी डी०डब्लु-1 कर्नल श्री प्रशांत राजोरिया ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उनके यहां नियुक्ति 89 दिन के लिए ही दी जाती थी । इस साक्षी ने कहा है कि 89 दिन की नियुक्ति देने का प्रावधान है तथा उसके आगे ब्रेक देकर फिर श्रमिक को रखा जाता था । इस साक्षी ने यह तथ्य स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी को भी 89 दिन के लिए रखा फिर ब्रेक दिया फिर 89 दिन के लिए रखा और इसी प्रकार उसे रखा गया। इस साक्षी ने कहा है कि वह यह नहीं बता सकता कि प्रार्थी ने ब्रेक सहित कुल कितने दिन काम कर लिया ।
12. उक्त तथ्यों तथा उक्त साक्ष्य पर विचार करने के पश्चात् हमें एक निश्चित निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचना है । प्रार्थी को पूर्व में भी सेवा से पृथक किया गया है । उसके लिए प्रार्थी को लम्बी कानूनी लड़ाई लड़नी पड़ी थी तथा लम्बी कानूनी लड़ाई के पश्चात् उसे अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने पुनः 1.9.2004 को नियुक्ति दी थी , लेकिन दुर्भाग्य से अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपना रवैया नहीं छोड़ा और उसे उसी प्रकार 89 दिन की नियुक्ति देते रहे तथा बीच- बीच में वही बनावटी तथा काल्पनिक ब्रेक देते रहे । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने उक्त आदेश प्रदर्श-5 में अप्रार्थी संस्थान की इस पद्धती के बारे में स्पष्ट रूप से यह उल्लेख किया था कि अप्रार्थी भारत सरकार से ऐसी कार्य पद्धती की अपेक्षा नहीं की जा सकती है । माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने भी इस आदेश के विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत अपील में पारित आदेश प्रदर्श -6 के द्वारा माननीय राजस्थान उच्चन्यायालय के इस आदेश की कुछ संशोधनों के साथ पुष्टि की थी । हमारी राय है कि माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय तथा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों के उपरान्त भी अप्रार्थी संस्थान का यह आचरण उक्त आदेशों की अवमानना की श्रेणी में आता है । इस आचरण की जितनी भी भर्त्सना की जाए उतनी कम है ।
13. माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने उक्त आदेश प्रदर्श-5 में यह माना था कि जब से प्रार्थी को नियुक्ति दी गई है तब से प्रार्थी ने 240दिनों से ज्यादा दिन तक निरन्तर कार्य किया है । यह भी माना है कि जिस केलेण्डर वर्ष में प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त की गई उस वर्ष में प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन से ज्यादा दिन कार्य किया था तथा उसकी सेवाएं औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ तथा 25 - जी के प्रावधानों की पालन किये बिना समाप्त की गई थी । हमारे समक्ष इस प्रकरण में भी अप्रार्थी ने मॉग- पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में इस तथ्य का खण्डन नहीं किया है कि प्रार्थी ने प्रतिवर्ष 240 दिन की सेवा पूर्ण कर ली है । अप्रार्थी ने मॉग - पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में इस तथ्य का भी खण्डन नहीं किया है कि प्रार्थी ने उसकी सेवापृथकता के पूर्व के 12 केलेण्डर माहों में 240 दिनों से अधिक दिनों तक कार्य किया था । अप्रार्थी ने मॉग- पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में प्रार्थी के कार्यदिवसों के सम्बन्ध में कोई तथ्य उल्लेख नहीं किया है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपनी साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी की दिनांक 1.11.2004 से
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
28.10.2006 की अवधि के सेवाकाल के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी का उपस्थिति विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की उक्त सेवा अवधिके सम्बन्ध में न तो कोई नियुक्ति- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया है और न ही कोई सेवामुक्तिआदेश प्रस्तुत किया है ।
14. अतः साक्ष्य के अभाव में तथा अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा मॉग -पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में किसी विशिष्ठ खण्डन के अभाव में यह प्रमाणित होता है कि प्रार्थी ने उसकी उक्त सेवा के दौरान प्रत्येक केलेण्डर वर्ष में तथा उसकी सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व के 12 केलेण्डर माहों में 240 दिन कार्य किया है । यदि अप्रार्थी ने इस अवधि में कोई ब्रेक दिये हैं तो हमारी राय है कि ऐसे ब्रेक बनावटी तथा काल्पनिक ही माने जायेगें । हमारी राय में प्रार्थी की औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - बी के प्रावधानों के अनुसार निरन्तर सेवा प्रमाणित होती है । पत्रावली पर यह साक्ष्य नहीं है किअप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व प्रार्थी को एक माह कानोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन तथा मुआवजा राशि का भुगतान किया । इस विवेचन के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हमारी यह राय है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी कीसेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ तथा 25 - जी की पालना नहीं की है और ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्तिअवैध तथा अनुचित प्रमाणित होती है ।
15. अब हमें यह देखना है कि प्रार्थी क्या अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ? हमारी राय में प्रार्थी सेवा में पुनस्थापित किये जाने योग्य है । प्रार्थी की सेवाएं उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से उसे सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने कीदिनांक तक निरन्तर माने जाने योग्य है । पत्रावली पर यह साक्ष्य हैकिप्रार्थी ने अपने इस बेरोजगारी के समय में कपड़े आदि सिलाई का व्यवसाय किया है । अतः समस्त परिस्थितियों पर सावधानीपूर्वक विचार करने के पश्चात् हमारी राय में प्रार्थी उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने तक की अवधि के वेतन की 50 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्वभृति के रूप में प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ।
आदेश
15. अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि:
( 1) अप्रार्थी नियोजक 57 एफ०एम० एस०डी० मार्फत 56 ए०पी०ओ० के प्रबन्धन द्वारा प्रार्थी श्री रामचन्द्र पुत्र श्री मोहनलाल की सेवा दिनांक 28.10.2006 से समाप्त किये जाने की कार्यवाही अवैध तथा अनुचितहै ।
(2) अप्रार्थी नियोजक प्रार्थी श्री रामचन्द्र पुत्र श्रीं मोहनलाल को तुरन्त सेवा में पुरस्थापित करे। प्रार्थी की सेवाएं उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने तक निरन्तर मानी जायेगी ।
( 3) प्रार्थी उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने तक की अवधि के वेतन की 50 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्वभृति के रूप में अप्रार्थी नियोजक से प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी है ।
जावे । 16. इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ राज्य शासन को प्रेषित किया [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1737 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी : श्री सतीश कुमार शर्मा 17. यह अधिनिर्णय मेरे द्वारा लिपिबद्ध करवाया जाकर आज दिनांक 20.09.2011 को खुले ऱ्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर उद्घोषित किया गया।
एक आर० नागौरी, न्यायाधीश
प्रार्थी की ओर सेः श्री जे.एल. शाह अप्रार्थी की ओर सेः श्री तेज प्रकाश शर्मा
औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिकरण एवं
दिनांक अवार्ड: 16.9.2011
श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर ।
अवार्ड
नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2012
1. केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली ने उपरोक्त आदेश के जरिये निम्न विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णय हेतु निर्देशित किया है:
का०आ० 760.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दी पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल, अजमेर प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.1.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of through PostMaster General Raj- Eastern Region in terminating the services of Shri Radha Kishan from 21.1.94 is legal and justified? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "
[सं . एल -40011/24/1994 आईआर ( डीयू) ]
रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2012
2. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से इस आशय का स्टेटमेंटऑफ क्लेम पेश किया गया कि दिनांक 4.5.93 को उसकी विपक्षी कार्यालय में चौकीदार के पद पर नियुक्ति हुई । उसका कार्य स्थाई प्रकृति का था । उसने विपक्षी संस्थान में 240 दिन पूरे कर लिये थे । उसने जब स्थाई करने की मांग की तो उसे दिनांक 21.1.94 को सेवा मुक्त कर दिया और ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित होने के बावजूद वापस सेवा में नहीं लिया जबकि वह कार्य अभी भी चल रहा है । उसे एक माह का नोटिस नहीं दिया, छंटनी का मुआवजा भी नहीं दिया, अतः प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति को अनुचित व अवैध घोषित किया जाये और सभी लाभ परिलाभ सहित उसे सेवा में बहाल किया जाये ।
S.O. 760. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 04/1996) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between The Post Master General Ajmer and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23.1.2012 .
[No. L-40011 /24/ 1994- IR(DU) ]
RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
अनुबंध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर
केस नं. सी.आई.टी. 4/96
3. विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में कहा कि प्रार्थी को कनटिन्जैट चौकीदार के पद पर कुछ समय के लिए इस शर्त के साथ नियुक्ति दी गई थी कि विभाग में नियमित होने के लिए उसका कोई दावा नहीं रहेगा । विपक्षी संस्थान " उद्योग " की परिभाषा में नही आता है, यह पद समाप्त किया जा चुका है । उसने 240 दिन काम भी नहीं किया है । उसे सेवा मुक्त नहीं किया गया है बल्कि 28.1.94 को यह पद समाप्त होने के साथ ही उसकी कार्य मुक्तिहुई है । वह स्थाई होने या अन्य लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य है ।
4. साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी राधाकिशन ने स्वयं के बयान कराये । विपक्षी की ओर से भंवर लाल भाम्बी के बयान हुए ।
रैफरेंसः केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्र. एल.-40011/24/94 आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) दि. 27.12.95 श्री राधा किशन पुत्र श्री मांगू जी हरिजन, मार्फत अखिल भारतीय सफाई मजदूर , कांग्रेस, अजमेर ।
5. हमने दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन
-प्रार्थी
किया।
बनाम
पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल , राजस्थान ( पूर्व ) रीजन , अजमेर ।
-अप्रार्थी
6. विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी की दलीलें हैं कि राजपत्रित अवकाश व राष्ट्रीय पर्वो को मिलाकर प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन से अधिक नौकरी कर ली है । कंटिन्जैट एम्पलाई को भी 240 दिन पूरे किये जाने पर हटाने से पहले नोटिस व छंटनी का मुआवजा देना आवश्यक है । क्लेम स्वीकार करने योग्यहै । अपने समर्थन में प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी ने न्याय दृष्टान्त ( 1 ) 1981 1 1738
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
अवार्ड
एल.एल.जे. ( एस.सी. ) 386 सुरेन्द्र कुमार वर्मा व अन्य बनाम सी.जे. आई.टी. ( 1 ) 1981 II एल.एल.जे. ( एस.सी. ) 70 मोहन लाल बनाम भारत इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स लि. व ( 3 ) 19861 एल.एल.जे. ( एस.सी. ) 127 एच.डी. सिंह. बनाम रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ इंण्डिया पेश किये ।
14. पोस्टमास्टर जनरल राजस्थान पूर्व रीजन के प्रबंधन द्वारा श्रमिक श्री राधाकिशन की दिनांक 21.01.94 से सेवाएँ समाप्त करने का आदेश उचित एवं वैद्य है । प्रार्थी श्रमिक कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
15. आदेश आज दिनांक 16.09.2011 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया । अवार्ड केन्द्र सरकार को वास्ते प्रकाशनार्थ भेजाजाये ।
सतीश कुमार शर्मा, न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी, 2012 7. दूसरी ओर विपक्षीगण के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि की दलीलें हैं कि प्रार्थी को सिर्फ तीन माह के लिए नियुक्ति दी गई है, पूरे एक वर्ष के लिये भी नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई है । यह पद नौ महीने से कम अवधि में ही समाप्त हो चुका है। प्रार्थी को सेवा में नहीं रखा है । विपक्षी विभाग ' उद्योग ' की श्रेणी में नहीं आता । क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य है । अपने समर्थन में विद्वान प्रतिनिधि ने न्याय निर्णय ( 1 ) 2001 ( 1 ) डब्ल्यू.एल.सी . 593 राम गोपाल सैनी बनाम जज , लेबर कोर्ट नं . 2 जयपुर, ( 2 ) ( 1997 ) 4 एस०सी ०सी० 391 हिमांषु कुमार विद्यार्थी बनाम बिहार राज्य व अन्य ( 3 ) (1996) 10 एस.सी.सी. 597 इलाहबाद बैंक बनाम प्रेम सिंह पेश किये।
8. हमने दोनों पक्षों की दलीलों पर विचार किया, प्रस्तुत न्याय दृष्टांतों का ससम्मान अवलोकन किया ।
का०आ० 761.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दी 57 , एफ० एम०सी०डी० द्वारा 56 ए०पी० ओ० जोधपुर प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या-05 /2009 .... ........ ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.01.2012 प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल०-14012/ 12/ 2009 आई०आर० डी०यू०) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2012 9. प्रार्थी के नियुक्तिआदेश प्रदर्श एम -1 के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट हैकि उसे एक्स सर्विस मैन के रूप में कंटिन्र्जेंट पेड चौकीदार के पद पर तीन माह के लिए अस्थाई तौर पर नियुक्ति दी गई है । नियुक्ति आदेश में साफ तौर पर अंकित किया गया है कि यह नियुक्ति शुद्ध रूप से अस्थाई व कंटिन्जैट प्रकृति की है जो कभी भी बिना नोटिस के समाप्त की जा सकती है । प्रार्थी किसी भी सूरत में नियमित समायोजन का दावा नहीं करेगा अर्थात् प्रार्थी को पूरे एक साल के लिए भी नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई है, सिर्फ नौ माह से कम अवधि में ही प्रार्थी वाला पद समाप्त कर दिया गया है । अतः माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के विनिर्णय सर इनेमल एण्ड स्टैम्पिंग वर्क्स लि॰ बनाम कर्मकार में प्रतिपादित विधिक स्थिति के अनुसार प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकार नहीं रह जाता है ।
S.O. 761. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the 57 , FMCD through 56 APO Jodhpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23.01.2012 .
[No. L- 14012/ 12/2009 - IR(DU) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 10. उपरोक्त के अलावा ऐसा भी नहीं है कि प्रार्थी को नौकरी से हटा दिया गया हो और किसी दूसरे व्यक्ति को इस पद पर रखा गया हो या उससे कनिष्ठव्यक्ति सेवा में हो और प्रार्थी को अवैध रूप से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया गया हो बल्कि पद समाप्त होने पर ही उसे सेवामुक्त किया गया है।
अनुबंध
औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर ।
पीठासीन अधिकारी: - श्री एच०आर० नागौरी , आर०एच०जे० एस० औद्योगिक विवाद् ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या: - 5 सन् 2009
11. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के विनिर्णय 2006 ( 4 ) एस०सी०सी० पेज 1 कर्नाटक राज्य बनाम उमा देवी वगैरह में सरकारी सेवाओं में कंटिन्जैट/कैजुअल श्रमिकों के समायोजन बाबत विधिक स्थिति प्रतिपादित की गई है जिसके मुताबिक प्रार्थी उपरोक्त निर्विवादित हालात के रहते कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
श्री राधाकिशन पुत्र श्री रामजी जरिये राजस्थान ट्रेड यूनियन केन्द्र सुरतसिंह जी कीकोठी बाटा गोदाम के ऊपुर सोजतीगेट के बाहर, जोधपुर ।
प्रार्थी
बनाम
12. प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्याय दृष्टांतों से किसी में भी ऐसी स्थिति नहीं रही है जहाँ केन्द्र सरकार के किसी विभाग से श्रमिक को सिर्फ 3 माह के लिए कंटिन्जैट नियुक्ति दी गयी हो , 9 माह के अंदर वह पद समाप्त हो गया हो , श्रमिक से कनिष्ठ कोई कर्मचारी ऐसे पद पर नहीं रखा गया हो और फिर भी श्रमिक को किसी प्रकार की राहत दी गई है अतः प्रस्तुत न्याय दृष्टांतों से प्रार्थी को कोई सहायता नहीं मिलती है ।
57. एफ०एम०सी०डी० , एफ० एम०एस०डी० मार्फत 56 ए॰पी॰ओ॰ मिल्ट्री हॉस्पीटल के पास, उम्मेद भवन रोड़ जोधपुर ।
अप्रार्थी 13. उपरोक्त विवेचन के फलस्वरूप प्रश्नगत रैफरेंस में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है:-
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
1739 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
उपस्थितिः-
( 1) प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधी- श्री विजय मेहता उपस्थित ।
(2) अप्रार्थीगण के प्रतिनिधि श्री मधुसुदन व्यास उपस्थित ।
अधिनिर्णय
दिनांक:- 20.09.2011
1. भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमॉक एल 14012/ 12/2009- आईआरए ( डी०यू० ) नई दिल्ली दिनांक 21.7.2009 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद् अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया है:-
"Whether the action of the management of 47 FMSD C/Q 56 APO in terminating the services of Shri Radakishan w.e.f. 28/10/2006 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
क्रम जारी रखा और इस प्रकार कृत्रिम ब्रेक देने का क्रम जारी रखते हुए अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 28.10.2006 को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसने उसकी सेवापृथकता के पूर्व के एक वर्ष में 240 दिन तक कार्य कर लिया था । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने भी यह स्पष्ट घोषित किया कि प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन कार्य कर लिया है । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया कि श्रमिक के सेवाकाल में एक बार एक वर्ष में 240 दिन की सेवा पूरी करना आवश्यक है। प्रत्येक वर्ष 240 दिन कार्य करना आवश्यक नहीं है । माननीय राजस्थान उच्चन्यायालय ने प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवापृथकता से सेवा में पुनस्थापित करने की अवधि को निरन्तर सेवा माना है । प्रार्थी ने प्रति वर्ष 240 दिन की सेवा पूरी कर ली थी । प्रार्थी ने सेवापृथकता के पूर्व 240 दिनों से अधिक दिनों तक कार्य कर लिया था । प्रार्थी ने सेवापृथकता के पूर्व 240 दिनों से अधिक दिनों तक कार्य कर लिया था । प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवा पृथकता के पूर्व न तो एक माह का नोटिस दिया गया और न ही छंटनी का मुआवजा दिया गया। प्रार्थी की सेवापृथकता के पूर्व नियमानुसार वरियता सूची भी प्रकाशित नहीं की गई । केन्द्रीय सरकार को इसकी सूचना नहीं दी गई और न ही छंटनी किये जाने की अनुमति प्राप्त की गई । अप्रार्थी के अधीन सौ से अधिक श्रमिक तथा कर्मचारी है । प्रार्थी कनिष्ठतम श्रमिक नहीं था । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिकों को नियोजित रखा गया । प्रार्थी की संवापृथकता के पश्चात् नई नियुक्तियाँ दी गई, लेकिन प्रार्थी को ऑफर नहींदी गई । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि इस प्रकार उसकीसेवापृथकता औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ, 25 - जी , 25 - एच तथा एन तथा नियम -77 तथा 78 के प्रतिकूल है ।
4. प्रार्थी ने अपने माँग पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता के पश्चात् प्रार्थी ने अपने को सेवा में पुनस्थापित करने के लिए अप्रार्थी से कई बार निवेदन किया , लेकिन आश्वासन के उपरान्त भी अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित नहीं किया । उक्त आधारों पर प्रार्थी ने यह प्रार्थना की है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता को निरस्त कर उसके उसकी सेवा की निरन्तरता में सम्पूर्ण वेतन सहित सेवा में पुनस्थापित किया जावे । देय वेतन पर 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज भी दिलाया जावे ।
प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग- पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अग्रार्थी ने मजदूर के पद पर नियुक्ति देने के लिए नियोजन कार्यालय से मजदूरों के नाम मॅगवाये थे । नियोजन कार्यालय द्वारा प्रेषित मजदूरों के नामों पर विधिवत्विचार तथा मनन करने के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी का मजदूर के पद पर नियुक्ति हेतु चयन किया तथा पार्थी को 750/- रुपये प्रतिमाह वेतन, मंहगाई भत्ता तथा अन्य भत्तों पर दिनांक 18.7.1994 के आदेश के द्वारा नियुक्त किया । कार्यभार ग्रहण करने के पूर्व प्रार्थी का पुलिस वेरीफिकेशन तथा मिलट्री हॉस्पीटल में मेडिकल भी करवाया गया । प्रार्थी ने यह उललेख किया है कि इसके पश्चात् अप्राथी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 18.7.1995 को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । इस आदेश को प्रार्थी ने केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण, जोधपुर में चुनौती दी । अधिकरण ने प्रार्थी के प्रार्थना- पत्र को निरस्त कर दिया । इसपर प्रार्थी ने इसे माननीय राजस्थान उच्चन्यायालय में चुनौती दी । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2002 के द्वारा यह निर्णित किया कि अप्राथी ने प्रार्थी को कृत्रिम ब्रेक दिये । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने इस प्रकार दिये गये कृत्रिम ब्रेक को नजरअंदाज करते हुए यह माना कि प्राथी ने अप्राथी नियोजक के यहां 240 दिन की सेवा पूर्ण कर ली थी । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी की सेवापृथकता को गैर कानूनी मानते हुए यह स्पष्ट किया कि इन परिस्थितियों में यह माना जायेगा कि प्रार्थी को कभी भी सेवा से पृथक नहीं किया गया । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने प्रार्थी की सेवापृथकता को निरस्त करते हुए प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवा की निरन्तरता में बकाया वेतन सहित दिनांक 31.3.2001 तक सेवा में पुनस्र्थापित होने का आदेश दिये । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने माननीय राजस्थान उच्चन्यायालय के आदेश को माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में चुनौती दी । सर्वोच्च न्यायालय नेदिनांक 6.10.2004 के आदेश के द्वारा प्रार्थी की अपील निरस्त करते हुए प्रार्थी को दैनिक वेतन भोगी माना ।
3. प्रार्थी ने अपने माँग पत्र में आगे यह उल्लेख किया है कि इसके पश्चात् अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 1.11.2004 के द्वारा प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनस्थापित किया । प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 4.11.2004 को कार्यभार ग्रहण किया । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के ऑर्जवेशन के बावजूद प्रार्थी को उसके सेवा में कृत्रिम ब्रेक देने का
5. अप्रार्थी ने अपने प्रत्युत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी को मात्र दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में जरिये आदेश डब्ल्यू ई० 5043/1946/8 द्वारा मात्र 89 दिनों के लिए अस्थाई रूप से लगाया गया था । प्रार्थी की सेवाएँ मात्र अस्थाई आधार पर आवश्यकता अनुसार समय- समय पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में दिनांक 18.7.1994 से 18.7.1995 के बीच प्राप्त की गई थी । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी द्वारा केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण में कार्यवाही किया जाना तथा माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2001 पारित होने का तथ्य स्वीकार किया है । माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 6.10.2004 पारित होना भी स्वीकार किया है । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी ने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष कन्टेम्पट पिटीशन पूर्व आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2001 के सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत की थी जो पिटीशन दिनांक 24.2.2006 को निरस्त की जाने पर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत एस०एल० पी० दिनांक 19.3.2007 के द्वारा निरस्त की गई ।
1740
[PART II-- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
9. यह स्वीकृत तथ्य है कि प्रारम्भ में प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 18.7.1994 के द्वारा मजदूर के पद पर नियुक्त किया था । इसके बाद प्रार्थी को 89 कार्यदिवसों के पश्चात् एक अथवा दोदिन के बनावटी अथवा काल्पनिक ब्रेक देकर प्रार्थी को नई नियुक्ति दीगई । अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा ऐसा कई बार किया और अन्त में अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की दिनांक 18.7.1995 को सेवा समाप्त कर दी । इसके विरुद्ध प्रार्थी ने केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण, जोधपुर में प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । उस प्रार्थना- पत्र को केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 28.4.2000 के द्वारा निरस्त कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने इस आदेश के विरुद्ध माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर में रिट याचिका प्रस्तुत की । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 12.1.2001 प्रदर्श-5 के द्वारा ग्रार्थी की रिट याचिका स्वीकार की तथा निम्न आदेश पारित कियाः-
6. अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी विभाग कार्य की आवश्यकता के अनुसार थोड़े समय अवधि के लिए दैनिक वेतन भोगी कीनियुक्तिकरने हेतु सक्षम है । कमान अधिकारी को निर्देशित किया गयाकि 89 दिन से अधिक किसी भी श्रमिक को नियुक्त नहीं किया जावे और इसलिये पद में कृत्रिम ब्रेक देने सम्बन्धी तथ्य असत्य होने से अस्वीकार है । अस्थाई आवश्यकता की मॉग के अनुसार समय - समय पर भिन्न-भिन्न आदेशों के जरिये दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में श्रमिक कीसेवाएं प्राप्त की गईं। नियमानुसार 89 दिन उपरान्त सेवाएं समाप्त की जाती रहीं । प्रार्थी के नियुक्ति- पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से अंकित किया जाता रहा कि उसकी सेवाएं बिना किसी अग्रिम नोटिस के समाप्त की जायेगीं । अप्रार्थी विभाग में विभागीय आदेशानुसार अधिकतम मात्र 9 श्रमिकों की अस्थाई सेवाएं ली जा सकती हैं एवं इसी अनुरूप सेवाएं ली जाती रही हैं । इस प्रकरण में कोई नोटिस अथवा छंटनी मुआवजा देने की आवश्यकता नहीं है । वरियता सूची के प्रकाशन की अनुमति के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं । प्रार्थी श्रमिक को अस्थाई श्रमिकों के समानान्तर नहीं माना जा सकता । अप्रार्थी संस्थान में अस्थाई आवश्यकता अनुसार कार्यभार महसूस होने पर प्रार्थी की सेवाएं दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में प्राप्त की गई । प्रार्थी की अस्थाई नियुक्ति विशुद्ध रूप से कार्य के आधार पर निर्भर करती है । प्रार्थी स्वंय का सिलाई का व्यवसाय करता है । प्रार्थी विशेष रूप से रक्षा कमियों की वेशभूषा के कार्य में दक्ष होने के कारण उपरोक्त व्यवसाय में जुटा हुआ है । उक्त आधारों पर अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी के मांग - पत्र को निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की ।
"In view of the above discussion , both these petitions are allowed , the original applications of the petitioners are granted , it is declared that their last termination orders were bad in law and illegal and their services were never terminated and they shall be treated as continuous in service and they shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits of the services . It is also declared that they shall be treated as appointed on the post having fixed pay scale of Rs . 750/- plus usual allowances . The respondents shall reinstated the petitioners by 31.3.2001 and pay all the arrears by that time . "
माननीय उच्चन्यायालय ने अपने इस निर्णय में निम्न निष्कर्ष भी निकाला:-
"The above facts make it very clear that all throughout both the petitioners were given artificial break for a day or two in their services . It is clear that they had completed 240 working days in a calender year when their services were terminated last without following the provisions of Section 25 - F and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act. "
10. अब तक आदेश में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने सभी तथ्यों पर विचार करने के पश्चात् निम्न निष्कर्ष भी निकालेः-
"From the above mentioned facts , three things are very much clear:-
1. that both the petitioners were duly selected and appointed after their medical examination was done on a fixed salary of Rs . 750/- per month with usual allowances .
7. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग- पत्र में उल्लेख किये गये तथ्यों की पुष्टि मेंस्वंय का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । प्रार्थी पी० डब्लु -1 श्री राधाकिशन से प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में नियोजन सेवा निदेशालय से प्राप्त पत्र प्रदर्श-1 , प्रमाण- पत्र प्रदर्श-2 , नियुक्ति-पत्र प्रदर्श-3 , नियुक्ति- पत्र प्रदर्श-4, माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय दिनांक 12.1.2001 प्रदर्श -5 तथा माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालयका आदेश दिनांक 6 अक्तूबर 2004 प्रदर्श -6 को पेश कर प्रदर्श करवाये गये । अप्रार्थी की ओर से मैजर प्रवीण सिंह का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया। डी० डब्लु -1 श्री प्रवीणसिंह से प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में नोट प्रदर्श ए-1 , नियुक्ति-पत्र प्रदर्श ए-2 , सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-3 , नियुक्ति- पत्र प्रदर्श ए-4, सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-5 , नियुक्तिआदेश प्रदर्श ए-6 , सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-7 , नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए -8 , सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-9 , नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-10 , सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-11 , नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए -12 , सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-13 , नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए -14, सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-15 , नियुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-16 , सेवामुक्ति आदेश प्रदर्श ए-17 , नियुक्तिआदेश प्रदर्श ए-18 , माननीय उच्च न्यायालय का आदेश दिनांक 24.2.2006 प्रदर्श ए-19, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय का आदेश प्रदर्श ए-20 तथामाननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय का आदेश प्रदर्श ए-21 को पेश कर प्रदर्श करवाया गया ।
2. Unilaterally, the respondents took the decision and changes the terms and conditions of their appointment and ordered that the petitioners shall be paid only Rs . 35/ - per day as wages .
8. बहस उभय - पक्ष सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य तथा विधि के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हमारा निष्कर्ष निम्नप्रकार है ।
3. Right from the day one of the joining of their services , they have continuously worked for [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1741 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
more than 240 days or two by way of artificial breaks in their services .
From the order, it looks that their appointments were fora fixed period of89 days but from the facts narrated herein above , it is clear that they were in continuous service except by way of artificial breaks . It was not expected from the Union of India to act in this manner. "
है । माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने भी इस आदेश के विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत अपील में पारित आदेश प्रदर्श-6 के द्वारा माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के इस आदेश की कुछ संशोधनों के साथ पुष्टि की थी । हमारी राय है कि माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय तथा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आदेशों के उपरान्त भी अप्रार्थी संस्थान का यह आचरण उक्त आदेशों की अवमानना की श्रेणी में आता है । इस आचरण की जितनी भी भर्त्सना की जाए उतनी कम है ।
माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने निम्न ऑब्र्जवेशन का भी
उल्लेख किया है:-
"We have noticed that this is a general tendency growing in the States and Union of Keeping poor labours and then terminating their services after taking work from them only because , they do not want to extend the legitimate benefits of services to them."
13. माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने उक्त आदेश प्रदर्श -5 में यह माना था कि जब से प्रार्थी को नियुक्ति दी गई है तब से प्रार्थी ने 240 दिनों से ज्यादा दिन तक निरन्तर कार्य किया है । यह भी माना है कि जिस केलेण्डर वर्ष में प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त की गईं उस वर्ष में प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन से ज्यादा दिन कार्य किया था तथा उसकी सेवाएं औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ तथा 25- जी के प्रावधानों की पालना किये बिना समाप्त की गई थी । हमारे समक्ष इस प्रकरण में भी अप्रार्थी ने मांग- पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में इस तथ्य का खण्डन नहीं किया है कि प्रार्थी ने प्रतिवर्ष 240 दिन की सेवा पूर्ण कर ली है । अप्रार्थी ने मांग-पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में इस तथ्य का खण्डन नहीं किया है कि प्रार्थी ने उसकी सेवापृथकता के पूर्व के 12 केलेण्डर माहों में 240 दिनों से अधिक दिनों तक कार्य किया था । अप्रार्थी ने मांग- पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में प्रार्थी के कार्यदिवसों के सम्बन्ध में कोई तथ्य उल्लेख नहीं किया है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी के नियुक्ति- पत्र तथा उसकी सेवा समाप्ति के पत्र प्रदर्श ए-४ लगाये प्रदर्श ए-18 प्रस्तुत हुए हैं । इनके अवलोकन से भी यही प्रतीत होता है कि अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को उसकी सेना के विधिक लाभों से वंचित करने के उद्देश्य से प्रार्थी की सेवा में बनावटी तथा काल्पनिक ब्रेक दिये । यह अवश्य है कि इस बार पूर्व की तुलना में अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने यह होशियारी बताई है कि जहां पूर्व में प्रत्येक ब्रेक के बीच में एक अथवा दो दिन का गैप था वहीं इस बार लम्बे ब्रेक दिये हैं । हमारी यह राय है कि ये लम्बे ब्रेक भी प्रार्थी को उसकी सेवा सम्बन्धी विधिक लाभों से वंचित करने के उद्देश्य से दिये गये हैं । अतः इन ब्रेक को भी प्रार्थी की सेवा अवधि का अंग माना जायेगा ।
11. अप्रार्थी ने अपने प्रत्युत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी को89 दिनों के लिए अस्थाई रूप से लगाया गया था । अप्रार्थी ने माँग- पत्र के प्रत्युत्तर में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान कार्य की आवश्यकता के अनुरूप थोड़ी समय अवधि के लिए दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिकोंकी नियुक्तिकरने हेतु सक्षम है । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी के कमान अधिकारी को यह निर्देशित किया गया है कि उसके द्वारा 89 दिवसों से अधिक किसी भी श्रमिक को नियुक्त नहींकिया जावे । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अस्थाई आवश्यकता की मांग के अनुसार समय - समय पर भिन्न - भिन्न आदेशों के जरिये दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में श्रमिक की सेवाएं प्राप्त की गई थीं तथा नियमानुसार 89 दिवस उपरान्त सेवाएं समाप्त की जाती रहीं । यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि श्रमिक को दिये गये नियुक्ति- पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से यह उल्लेख किया जाता रहा है कि उसकी सेवाएं बिना किसी अग्रिम नोटिस के समाप्त की जायेगीं । अप्रार्थी संस्थान के साक्षी डी. डब्लु. - 1 मैजर श्री प्रवीणसिंह ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह उल्लेख किया है कि उनके यहां नियुक्ति 89 दिन के लिए ही दी जाती थी । इस साक्षी ने कहा कि 89 दिन की नियुक्ति देने काप्रावधान है तथा उसके आगे ब्रेक देकर फिर श्रमिक को रखा जाता था । इस साक्षी ने यह तथ्य स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी को भी 89 दिन के लिए रखा फिर ब्रेक दिया फिर 89 दिन के लिए रखा और इसी प्रकार उसे रखा गया । इस साक्षी ने कहा है कि वह यह नहीं बता सकता कि प्रार्थी ने ब्रेक सहित कुल कितने दिन काम कर लिया । इस साक्षी ने कहा कि उनके यहां 9 लोगों की जरूरत थी ।
14. हमारी राय में प्रार्थी की औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - बी के प्रावधानों के अनुसार निरन्तर सेवा प्रमाणित होती है । पत्रावली पर यह साक्ष्य नहीं है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्तिके पूर्व प्रार्थी को एक माह का नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन तथा मुआवजा राशिका भुगतान किया । इस विवेचन के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हमारी यह राय है कि अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व औद्योगिक विवाद् अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ तथा 25- जी की पालना नहीं की है और ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति अवैध तथा अनुचित प्रमाणित होतीहै।
12. उक्त तथ्यों तथा उक्त साक्ष्य पर विचार करने के पश्चात् हमें एक निश्चित निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचना है । प्रार्थी को पूर्व में भी सेवा से पृथक किया गया है । इसके लिए प्रार्थी को लम्बी कानूनी लड़ाई लड़नी पड़ी थी तथा लम्बी कानूनी लड़ाई के पश्चात् उसे अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने पुनः दिनांक 1.9.2004 को नियुक्ति दी थी, लेकिन दुर्भाग्य से अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपना रवैया नहीं छोड़ा और उसे उसी प्रकार 89 दिन की नियुक्ति देते रहे तथा बीच - बीच में वही बनावटी तथा काल्पनिक ब्रेक देते रहे । माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने उक्त आदेश प्रदर्श -5 में अप्रार्थी संस्थान की इस पद्धती के बारे में स्पष्ट रूप से यह उल्लेख किया था कि अप्रार्थी भारत सरकार से ऐसी कार्य पद्धती की अपेक्षा नहीं की जा सकती
14. अब हमने यह देखना है कि प्रार्थी क्या अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ? हमारी राय में प्रार्थी सेवा में पुनस्थापित किये जाने योग्य है । प्रार्थी की सेवाएं उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से उसे सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने की दिनांक तक निरन्तर माने जाने योग्य है । पत्रावली पर यह साक्ष्य है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने इस बेरोजगारी के समय में कपड़े आदि सिलाई का व्यवसाय किया है । अतः समस्त परिस्थितियों पर सावधानीपूर्वक 1742
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
विचार करने के पश्चात् हमारी राय में प्रार्थी उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने तक की अवधि के वेतन की 50 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्वभृति के रूप में प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ।
आदेश
15. अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि:-
( 1 ) अप्रार्थी नियोजक 57 एफ.एम.एस.डी. मार्फत 56 ए.पी. ओ. के प्रबन्धन द्वारा प्रार्थी श्री राधाकिशन पुत्र श्री रामाजी की सेवा दिनांक 28.10.2006 से समाप्त किये जाने की कार्यवाही अवैध तथा अनुचितहै ।
( 2 ) अप्रार्थी नियोजक प्रार्थी श्री राधाकिशन पुत्र श्री रामाजी को तुरन्तसेवा में पुनस्थापित करे । प्रार्थी की सेवाएं उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने तक निरन्तर मानी जायेगीं ।
(3) प्रार्थी उसकी सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि से सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने तक की अवधि के वेतन की 50 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्वभृति के रूप में अप्रार्थी नियोजक से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ।
16 इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ राज्य शासन को प्रेषित किया ।
17. यह अधिनिर्णय मेरे द्वारा लिपिबद्ध करवाया जाकर आज दिनांक 20.09.2011 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर उद्घोषित किया गया ।
एच. आर. नागौरी , न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 762.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जरनल मैनेजर, मंगलौर टेलीकाम डिस्ट्रीक, मंगलौर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16897 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2012 का प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -40012/ 156/1995 - आईआर ( डीयू) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2012
S.O. 762. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 168/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employer in relation to the General Manager , Mangalore Telecom District , Mangalore and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2012 .
[No. L-40012/ 156/ 1995 - IR (DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , BANGALORE.
Dated 08th December 2011
Present:
SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND PresidingOfficer
C.R. NO . 168/97
II PARTY
The General Manager , Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road , MANGALORE - 575001 I PARTY Shri B Rajaram S/o Krishna Murthy Bhat . R/a C/ o K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad Malmar, Ashoknagar Post, MANGALORE - 575006
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub Section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) has referred this dispute vide order No. L -40012/ 156/ 95 - IR ( DU ) dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication onthe following Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri B. Rajaram is proper, legal and justified? If not , to whatreliefthe workman is entitled to ? "
2. This reference after affording the several opportunities to the workman to file his Claim Statement was rejected by award dated 27.12.2001 along with some other references and all those references when challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by order dated 23.07.2007 came to be set aside and remitted back to this tribunal with direction to afford opportunities to both the parties to contest the case . Thereafter pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 35066/2003 c / w 26849/2002 ( L -TER) dated 23rd July 2007 again this reference was taken in its original number. After counsel appearing for the first party taking several adjournments to lead evidence of the workman, on 8.12.2001 filed a memo to the effect that the first party workman having died the reference may be dismissed , further submitted that he has learnt that he has not left any legal heirs . In view of this submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the first party workman the reference is abated due to the death ofthe workman without leaving any legal heirs . Hence I pass the following award:
AWARD
The reference is rejected as abated due to the death ofthe first party workman without leaving any legal heirs [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1743 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
behind him.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 8.12.2011)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
management of Department of Posts , Bhandara Sub Division, Bhandara ( MS) and their workman , Shri Yusufali H. Sayyed, for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 40012/58/ 2004- IR ( DU ) dated 08.11.2004, with the following schedule:-
नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी , 2012
"Whether the action of the management of department of Posts , Bhandara Sub - Division , Bhandara (MS) in terminating the services of Shri Yusufali H. Sayyed , temporary Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, ( Bela) w. e.f. 25.09.2003 isjustified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled? "
का०आ० 763.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार अस्सिटेन्ट सुपरेन्टेन्डेन्टडाकघर , डिपार्टमेंन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट, ब्रान्द्रा, महाराष्ट्र प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी० जी० आई०टी० एन०जी०पी०/ 127/ 2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -40012/58 /2004- आईआर ( डीयू) ]
रमेश सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी
Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman ; Yusufali H. Sayyed (the " workman " in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of the Asstt . Supdtt . Of Posts , Bhandara Sub -Division ( " Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .
New Delhi , the 25th January, 2012
S.O. 763. 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/ 127/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between The Assistant Suptd . Dakghar, Dept. of Post Bhandara ( Maharashtra) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25.01.2012 .
The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was appointed temporally as anExtra Departmental Delivery Agent ( " EDDA " in short ) , Bela , w.e.f. 25.09.2001 and worked continuously till 07.01.2003 and his service record was clean and unblemished and he completed more than 240 days of continuous service, but the Party No. 1 terminated his services illegally, without complying the mandatory provisions of the Act and as such , the order of termination is arbitrary, contrary to the law and illegal and he is entitled for reinstantement in service.
[No. L-40012/58 /2004- IR(DU) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
The further case of the workman is that his appointment was against a vacancy arose due to the retirement of one of the regular employees and he had the requisite qualifications for his permanent employment in thepost, which he was holding and as such , the termination of his services was not justified.
Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 127/2004
Date: 27.12.2011 .
PartyNo. 1:
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
The Assistant Superintendent, Dakghar ( Up - Sambhag), Deptt . OfPosts , Bhandara Sub - Division ,
Bhandara(MS) .
Versus
Party No. 2: Shri Yusufali Hafixali Sayyed, R/ o Bela , Post Bela Tehsil and Distt. Bhandara (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 27th December , 2011 )
3. The Party No. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the post of GDS MD , Bela Branch office was lying vacant due to the retirement of the regular incumbent, Hafiz Ali Rahim Ali Sayyed , the father of the workman on 25.09.2001 on superannuation , after attaining the age of 65 years and as it was not possible to appoint a regular employee in his place immediately and for proper functioning of Bela Post Office , the workman was engaged to work as GDS MD , Bela Branch office w. e.f. 25.09.2001 purely on temporary basis with an under taking that the appointment was till the process of recruitment for appointment to the post of GDS MD , Bela on regular basis is initiated and accordingly, the recruitment process for appointment to the post of GDS MD, Bela Branch office was initiated and in all 12 candidates including the present 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
452GI/2012-22 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1744
workinan were called for the interview for the post and the name of the workman was considered along with other candidates for selection by the committee and Shri R.D. Selokar was selected as he had secured 54.13% if mark in SSC examination and the workman had secured 45 % mark in SSC examination and as such , the services of the workman wasdiscontinued from 07.01.2003 and the selection of Shri Selokar was done as per rules and regulations and the appointment of the workman at no point of time was made as per the recruitment rules and he was engaged as a stop gap arrangement and it is well settled law that 240 days engagement is not a sine -quo - non for claiming permanency and there is no merit in the case of the workman and he is not entitled for any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that as the workman did not appear in the case on 23.09.2009 and thereafter, argument was heard from the side of the management and the case was closed and posted for award .
5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that the workman was engaged temporarily till the process of recruitment was initiated and the process of recruitment was initiated and the workman applied for the post and his case was considered along with the other candidates by the Selection Committee and as Shri R.D. Selokar had secured 54.13% of marks in SSC examination , more than the percentage of marks secured by the workınan , Shri Selokar was selected as per the rules , so the services of the workman was discontinued and the workman was never appointed, but was engaged as a stop gap arrangement and the workman had not produced any evidence to prove his case and as such , he is not entitled for any relief.
6. It is well settled that whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the service, it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challanged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case . It the workman fails to appear or file statement or produce evidence , the dispute referred by the Govt . cannot be allowed in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief. In this case , the workman has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim and as such , he is not entitled to any relief.
Moreover, on perusal of the document filed by the management and copy of the appointment order filed by the workman himself, it is clear that engagement of the workman was on purely temporary basis , due to the retirement of his father on 25.09.2001 . It is also found that the workman had given an undertaking that he should be appointed temporarily and his services can be terminated at any time without any intimation . In view ofthe documents and that the workman was disengaged by the management after selection of a regular employee cannot be termed as retrenchement from services and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief. Hence , it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management ofdepartment ofPosts , Bhandara Sub- Division , Bhandara ( MS) in terminating the services of Shri Yusufali H. Sayyed , temporary Extra Departmental Delivery Agent , (Bela) w.e.f. 25.09.2003 is justified . The workman is not entitled for any relief.
J.P. CHAND , PresidingOfficer. नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 764.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डिफेन्स स्टेट आफीसर विशाखापटनम् प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय, सरकार को 25.01. 2012 प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-13012/2/2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 25th January, 2012
S.O. 764.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 64/2004) 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 Defence Estate Officer Vishakhapatnam their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25.01.2012 .
[No. L- 13012/2/2001 - IR(DU ) ] 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 21 st day of December, 2011
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 64/2004
Between:
SriL. Ram Babu .
D.No. 32-8-84, Harijan Jaggayyapalem , B.H.P.V. Post, Visakhapatnam -530012 .
Petitioner
AND [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1745
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6. 1933
1. The Defence Estates Officer ,
Ministry of Defence ,
India, from where the matter has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication .
D.No. 1-91-9 , Sector-V, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam - 17.
2. The Director,
Defence Estates , Ministry of Defence , Southern command, R.No. 49/9-1-2002 , Pune-411001 .
4. It is alleged that Petitioner was Initially appointed on monthly wages of Rs . 1500/- which was raised to Rs . 4026/ - by afflux of time . He worked without any break and belongs to a scheduled caste community as such, the termination of his services without following proper procedure is illegal and his services may be reinstated.
......... Respondents
Appearances:
Forthe Petitioner : Sri P. Sri Venkateshwar, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri K. Suryanarayana , Advocate
AWARD
5. The management has filed counter- statement alleging therein that the petition is not maintainable , Petitioner was appointed as a casual civilian Motor Driver through Employment Exchange and it was made clear to the Petitioner that his services are purely of casual nature as per conditions of appointment G.O. Part - II No. 89 dt . 28.7.95 wherein it was clarified that :----
(i ) that the payment would be made for the days which the employee would actually work;
(ii) the appointment of the individual was purely on temporary basis liable for termination at any time without assigning any reason.
This case is referred by Government of India , Ministry ofLabour & Employment through its order No. L - 13012/ 2/ 2001 - IR(DU) dated 18.12.2001 under section 10( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Visakhapatnam and the same was transferred to this Court in view of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour's Order No. H - 11026/ 1 /2001 - IR(C - II) dated 18.10.2001 bearing I. I.I.D. (C) . No. 26/2002 and renumbered as I.D. No. 64/2004 in this Tribunal between the management of Defence Estates Officer and their workman . The reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
6. It has further been submitted that as per the demand and sanction accorded by Directorare of Defence Estates Southern Command. Pune under the powers for demand of casualM.D. Driver delegated to the Director , the Petitioner wasappointed for a period of six months i.e. , mostly for 89 days depending upon the urgency of work which was stipulated in the official order .
"Whether the action of the management of Defence Estates Office, Visakhapatnamby terminating the service of Sh . L. Rambabu , ex - civilian Driver w.e.f. is 23.8.2000 is legal and/ or justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
On receipt of the reference notices were issuedto the parties concerned .
7. It is further submitted that government is determind to bring down the establishment expenditure and save more and more finance for constructive development of the nation. In view ofthat last sanction accorded by Directorate was from 11.2.2000 to 10.8.2000 . Subsequentiy, no sanction was issued as such , the services were terminated . As per office order No. 245 dated 16.2.2000. The Petitioner can not claim any privilege under CCS /CCA rules being casual staff.
8. It was further submitted that Petitioner was knowing fully well that his services were of temporary nature , liable to be terminated at any time but he has come with the false allegations . He was considered for re- appointment from time to time as and when occasion arose . The office of Defence Estates does not come under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as such, the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed .
2. The workman has filed claim statement alleging therein that he was appointed as casual Civil M.T. Driver in theoffice ofRespondent where he joined on 28.7.1995. Не was sponsored through Employment Exchange and appeared for interview on 27.7.1995 and was selected and immediately joined the duty. He put in blemishless services to the satisfaction of his superiors continuously till 22.8.2000 . On 23.8.2000 he was asked not attend the duty by a verbal order. No reason was assigned for termination of the services , no charge sheet , no notice or retrenchment compensation was given to the Petitioner as such , the mandatory provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was violated by the management . The action of management is arbitrary, illegal , in view of Sec . 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence . Petitioner has filed his affidavit and produced himself for cross examination and was cross - examined by the management . The Petitioner has marked eight documents Ex . W1 to W8 . The management has produced affidavit of Sri G.V. Appa Rao and produced him for cross- examination who has marked 10 documents Ex . M1 to M10 .
3. Petitioner approached the management several times but no action was taken , then the matter was raised before the ALC( C) who started conciliation proceedings , the conciliation failed and report sent to Government of
10. I have heard arguments of both the parties and I [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1746
(III) Whether the provision of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is applicable in the present case of not?
13. Point No. (1 ); It is undisputed fact that Petitioner's services were terminated or discontinued w. e.f. 23.8.2000, it is also undisputed fact that the Petitioner was appointed on28.7.1995 after interview and by a written appointment order. It is also undisputed fact that Petitioner continuously worked w.e.f. 28.7.1995 to 22.8.2000 as Civilian Motor Driver in the Respondent's organization is for more than five continuous years . In view of the above admitted facts it is to be considered whether the order of termination for the Petitioner is illegal , arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice or not .
14. Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 , he has stated that he worked from 28.7.1995 to 22.8.2000 , initially he was getting Rs . 1500 /- as pay which was raised to Rs . 4026/- . He has filed service certificate Ex . WI and his representation dated 10.4.1997 - Ex . W2 , and other representations Ex. W3 , W4 and W5 . This fact is not disputed by the management .
have gone through the evidence pre duced by the parties . It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the workman orally as well as through his written pleas that the Petitioner was duly appointed through a written order dated 28.7.1995. Heworked upto 22.8.2000 and his services were abruptly discontinued by a oral order from 23.8.2000 as such , the action ofthe management terminating the Petitioner orally is illegal , arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Sec . 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 because no onemonth's prior notice was given to the Petitioner before termination of his series nor compensation was awarded to him in lieu of the notice as such , the action of management is violative of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 . Against this arguement of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the managementement has argued that Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is not applicable in case of the Petitioner because Defence Estates is not an industry and the Petitioner is governed under CCA and CCS rules as such , the non - observance of the provisions of Sec . 25F is non- applicable in the present case . He has argued that Director of Defence Estates , Southern Command is controlling authority and he is the authorized person who extend the service of the Petitioner. Last Office Order No.245 dated 16.2.2000 was issued and thereafter period of employment of the Petitioner was not extended as such, the Petitioner's services were terminated . However, the Respondent has not been able to clarify whether any notice was given to the Petitioner or not before terminating his services or whether retrenchment compensation was paid to the Petitioner or not at the time of termination of his services . Not replying to these material questions of the Petitioner either through oral or written arugment or through the documentary evidence proved that the management has not complied with the provisions of the Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 who has worked without management continuously for more than 5 years thereby the entire action of the management is illegal and arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
11. Against this argument of the Learned Counsel forthe Petitioner workman the argument of Learned Counsel for the Respondent is that provision of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is not aplicable to the Petitioner. Petitioner's services were governed by CCS and CCA rules as such , the question of giving notice or retrenchment compensation does not arise in this case and there is no illegality in discontinuing the services of the Petitioner.
12. I have considered the above argument of Learned Counsel for the parties and this Tribunal has to adjudicate the following points:--
(I ) Whether the action of management of Defence Estates , Visakhapatnam Steel Plant by terminating the services of Sri L. Rambabu w.e.f. 23.8.2000 is legal and justified or not?
15. The management has admitted that Petitioner was appointed, his services were continued upto 22.8.2000 . The contention of the management is that vide order No. 245 dated 15.2.2000 no sanction was received from the office of the Director extending period of service of Petitioner beyond 22.8.2000 . However, during cross - examination of management witness , the witness has stated that the workman has worked in the management organization in between 28.7.1995 to 11.8.2000 as Driver though he has stated no appointment letter was given to the Petitioner, but, this witness himself has proved Ex.M2 daily order part- 2dated 28.7.1995 by which Petitioner Mr. L. Ram Babu wasappointed as Civilian Driver on monthly fixed pay of Rs . 1500/- P.M. Thus , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was appointed without any written order. Respondent's own document Ex.M2 clearly proves that Petitioner was appointed through a written order dated 28.7.1995 and no specific period was mentioned in that order . Though hand written sentence has been added in it , " the termination at any time without assigning any reason " . No doubt , the condition was mentioned that termination can be made at any time without assigning reason but since the Respondent's witness has admitted that Petitioner has wroked for more than five years , why his services were terminated abruptly on 23.8.2000 is not clear . The Respondent's has alleged that vide order No. 245 dated 16.2.2000 extension of services was not granted by Directorate but no such order has been placed by the management before this Tibunal . However , ifthe extension ofperiod of service was not given by the Directorate to the local management whether the local management informed the Petitioner about non - extension of his services has not proved or specified by management . Under the service law ( 11) To what relief if any the Petitioner workman isentitled?
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1747
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
been challenged by the management before any superior authority as such , this Tribunal is of the considered view that petition is maintainable before this Tribunal as well . Point No. ( III ) is answered accordingly.
it was the duty of the management to prove that the Petitioner was given notice of termination of the serives . Since Petitioner has worked for more than 5 years and he was regularly appointed by the management observing the rules of appointment , in that case if was the duty of the management to inform the Petitioner that his services will not be required after 22.8.2000 . But, no such notice or letter has been produced by the management . Though the management has marked 9 documents , the alleged notice or information is lacking on the part of the manageinent . This shows that management has acted arbitrarily in abruptly discontinuing the services of the Petitioner worker without following the principles of natural justice without holding an enquiry, without giving prior notice of termination or without paying any retrenchinent compensation as such , the action of AM IS illegal , aro trary and devoid of principles of natural justice.
19. From the above disussion , this Tribunal is ofthe considered opinion that the action of management in terminating the services of the Petitioner after continuous service of 5 years without following the due procedure of law, is illegal , arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and the termination order dated 23.8.2000 is unfair labour practice as such it deserves to be quashed and it is being quashed. The Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner on the post of Driver. The Petitioner will be entitled for 50% of the wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and thereafter he will be entitled for full pay and allowances within two months from the date of receipt of this award.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 21st day of December, 2011 .
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
16. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that his services were terminated by an oral order but , the appointment ofthe Petitioner was made through a written order in that case , the services of the Petitioner could not have been terminated by an oral order , this amounts to unfair labour practice as well . Thus , the action of the management is arbitrary, illegal , unjustified and violative ofprinciples of natural justice. Point No. (1 ) is answered accordinlgy.
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WWI : Sri L. Ram Babu
MWI : Sri GV. Appa Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. WI: Copy of service certificatedt . 9.3.1998
Ex. W2: Copy of representationdt . 10.4.1997
Ex. W3:
Copy of representation
17. Point No. ( II ) : The Petitioner was appointed through a written order. He worked for more than five year continuously as Driver and his services were discontinued withoutany written order without assigning any reason as such the action of the management and the manner in which the Petitioner's services were disontinued is clearly violative ofprinciples of natural justice which is arbitrary and illegal as well . Hence , oral termination order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed . Point No. ( III ) decided accordingly .
Ex.W4: Copy of representationdt . June, 1999
Ex. W5: Copy of representationdt . 6.7.2000
Ex. W6: Copy of representationdt . 25.10.2000
Ex. W7: Copy of representationdt . 3.1.2001
Ex . W8: Copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings dt.30.5.2001
Ex. W9:
Original ofEx . W1
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex . W1:
Copy of requisitiondt. 4.7.95
Ex. W2: Copy of daily order Part - IIdt . 28.7.95
Ex.W3: Copy ofD.O. Part - II No. 244 & 245 dt . 15.2.2000
Ex. W4: Copy of representation of WW1 dt . 25.10.2000 18. Point No. ( III ) : The Respondent has raised this objection before this Tribunal that Industiral Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable in this case . However , the management has not challenged the action of the government while referring this case to this Tribunal for adjudictation . Not only that even if the Petitioner can approach Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal as claimed by the management , there is no specific prohibition under any service rules that Petitioner is prohibited from approaching this Tribunal . The Petitioner is a workman as such , he can either approach this Tribunal or he can approach the Hob'ble Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance . Since he approached the ALC ( C ) for redressal of his grievances who started conciliation proceedings which ended in failure and the matter was referred to the government, which referred this case for adjustication to this Tribunal . The action of the government has not
Ex. W5: Copy of letter informing conduct of conciliation [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1748
AWARD
proceedings to the management by ALC(C) dt. 17.11.2000
(Dated: 28thDecember , 2011 )
Ex . W6: Copy of lr. No. 16728 / Ram Babu/Vizag/ 8C/DE dt.24.11.2000
Ex. W7: Copy of lr . No. 18/4/2000-ALCdt. 3.1.2001
Ex. W8: Copy of gazette notificationdt . 25.1.1990 on file No. 104/32/ADM/DE/87- D ( Appts )
Ex. W9: Copy oforder in WP No. 2524/2003
Office copy of authorization letter dt . 27.4.2010
Ex. W10:
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 Post Office and their workman Shri R.T. Waiwre, to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 40012/51/90- IR (DU) dated 22/30.11.90 , with the following schedule:-
नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2012
"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Suptd . ofPost Offices , Amravati by dismissing the services ofShri R.T. Waware is justified ? If not, what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled to ? "
Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.
का०आ० 765.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरइन्टेंडेन्ड ऑफ पोस्ट आफिसिस, अमरावती , महाराष्ट्र 444062 प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या- सी०जी० आई०टी०/एन०जी०पी०/ 51 /2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.01.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[संख्या एल -40012/51/1990- आई आर ( डी यू) ]
रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
2.Onreceipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union " A.I.P.E.U. Postmen & Gr. D" , ( " the union " in short ) filed the statement of claim on behalf ofthe workman Shri T.T. Waware , ("the workman " in short ) and the management of the Post Office , ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .
New Delhi , the 25th January, 2012
S.O. 765. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 51 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between The Sr. Suptd. OfPost offices , Amravati Maharastra 444602 and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25.01.2012 .
[No. L-40012/51 / 1990- IR(DU) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Date: 28.12.2011 .
Case No. CGIT/NGP/51/2003
PartyNo. 1 : The Sr. Suptd. of Post Offices , Amravati-444602 .
Versus
PartyNo. 2: Shri R.T. Waware , Extra Dept. Branch Post Master , Kalashi , Tah . Daryapur, Amravati-444602.
The case of the workman as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that the workman was working as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, ( " EDBPM " n short) , Kalashi we.f. 14.04.1979 and he was put off from duty w.e.f. 14.11.1985 and he was served with a charge sheet dated 1.3.08.1986 , under rule 8 of EDA (Conduct and Services ) Rules , 1964by the party no. 1 , i.e. after nine months from the date of put off duty and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted by the enquiry officer from 14.11.1986 to 18.09.1987 and the final order of removal from services against the workman was passed by the party no . 1 on 19.04.1988 , with a direction that the order would take retrospective effect from 14.11.1985 and the workman preferred an appeal on 20.06.1988 , but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and then the workman on 16.08.1989 , submitted an appeal to the Chief Post Master General , but the same was also rejected on 06.03.1990. The further case of the workman is that as the charge sheet was not submitted within three months of the put off duty and the same was served after nine months , the initiation of the departmental enquiry was illegal and the departmental enquiry was also not concluded within the stipulated time of 120 days , as per the notification of the Government of India dated 24.02.1979 , so the final order is also vitiated for the delay and the workman was removed from service with retrospective effect which is not tenable in law, hence , the removal of the workman from service is illegal and the workman was also not supplied with a copy of the enquiry [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1749 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 6, 1933
report before imposition of the penalty, which amounts to violation ofthe principles of natural justice and article 311(22) ofthe Constitution of India and the order of punishment is illegal and reasonable opportunity ofdefence was not given to the workman . Prayer was made by the union for reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages .
respect of deposits made by the depositors of RD A/c . no . 1202181 , RDA/c no . 1202182 and S.B. A/c no. 272762 and such serious misconducts have been proved against him in a properly held departmental enquiry. The findings of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence available on the record, so the same cannot be said to be perverse . The punishment imposed against the workman is also not shockingly disproportionate to the serious misconducts proved against him in a properly held departmental enquiry. The order of the Disciplinary Authority that the order of dismissal from service would take effect retrospectively from the date of put off duty i.e. 14.11.1985 had already been modified by the Post Master General , Nagpur vide hisorder dated 06.03.1990 . The Post Master General , Nagpur has ordered that since the removal cannot be from back date , the effect of the orders would be from the date of issue ofpunishment memo by the disciplinary authority i.e. 19.04.1988 . Hence , there is no reason to interfere with theorder of punishment . Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action ofthe management of Sr. Suptd . of Post Offices , Amravati by dismissing the services of Shri R.T. Waware is justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter- alia that the workman went in conciliation by his application dated 27.03.1989 and the ALC entertaining the same, issued notice to the management for conciliation on 18.07.1989 and management filed its reply on 01.08.1989 and the ALC being satisfied about the non -existence of a dispute, filed the proceedings and the workman again went for conciliation by his second application dated 16.08.1939 and the second conciliation ended in a failure and on submission of failure report , the reference was made by the Government and therefore the reference made by the Government is wholly without any jurisdiction and is a nullity and therefore , the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. It is further pleaded by the party no. 1 that the grievance of the workman is only limited to the order of punishment made with retrospective effect from 14.11.1985 , but such grievance doesn't survive , as because the said reliefhad been granted by the Post Master General , Nagpur by his order dated 06.03.1990.
J.P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2012
4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from service , after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity ofthe departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue . The workman submitted a pursis on 06.05.2008 , stating therein that he has no grievance in respect of the validity of the departmental enquiry and the matter be heard on the merit of the case . In view of the pursis filed by the workman and the materials on record, the enquiry was held to be valid as per orders dated 28.09.2010 .
का०आ० 766.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार नैशनल ब्यूरो ऑफ प्लांट जैनेटिक रिसोर्सेस , रांची प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के वीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 100/94/7 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25.1.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
5. It is necessary to mention here that the workman did not appear in the case for advancing oral argument and as such, the case was closed and posted for award.
[सं. एल -42012/9/ 1993- आईआर( डीयू) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 25th January, 2012
S.O. 766.-In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 100/94/7) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Cour No. 1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute betweenThe employers in relation to the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources , Ranchi and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on 25.1.2012 .
6. In the entire statement of claim , the workman has not challenged that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the punishment imposed against him is shockingly disproportionate . According to the workman , as the charge sheet was submitted nine months after the putoffduty, the enquiry was illegal and as the departmental enquiry was not completed within 120 days , the final order is illegal . However , the workman has not been able to prove by adducing legal evidence that if a departmental enquiry is not completed within 120 days , then the final order passed in the case is to be treated as illegal . Hence , I find no force in the said contention . Perused the documents filed by the workman regarding the departmental enquiry. Charges were leveled against the workman for misappropriation of cash and falsification of accounts in
[No. L-42012/9/1993 - IR(DU)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer [ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1750
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD
It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleasd to hold that the action of the management in terminating the service of the concerned workman w.e.f. 1.2.90 is not justified and he is entitled to be reinstated with fuli back wages and consequential benefits .
In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.
Reference No. 100 of 1994 .
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources , Regional Station , Ranchi .
AND
Their Workmen .
Present:
Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer.
Apperances:
For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate
For the Workman: None .
State: Jharkhand. Industry : Coal .
Dated: 2.1.2012
AWARD
3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman was a casual employee and was throughout employed as casual workman on a casual nature ofjob . His employment came to be terminated as soon as the casual nature ofjob came to end . Casual nature of employment does not confer a right upon a casual employee for employment as a regular employee . The nature of work entrusted to the concerned workman was of intermittent nature . The work doen by the permanent staff is quite different from the nature ofjob performed by the employee concerned . A casual labourer may be given the benefits of two years continuous service as a casual labour if has put in at least 240 days of services/ 226 days in the case of office observing five days week of service as a casual labourer, including broken period of a service , during each ofthe two years of service . Casual workers are not eligible forregular employment and their services may be terminated any time . The concerned workman was not employed against any regular post . A casual worker have had to perform msicellaneous work of casual nature which varied from time to time . It has been submitted that the casual employment of the concerned workman came to an automatic end and was not terminated w.e.f. 1.2.90 . It has also been submitted that there is no sanctioned post for such employment .
By Order No. L-42012/9/ 93 - IR ( DU) dated 21.4.1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to hold that the action of the employer isjustified and Shri Ravindra Kumar is not entitled to any relief.
"Whether the action of the management ofNational Bureau ofPlant Genetic Resources , Regional Station , Ranchi in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Kumar , w.e.f. 1.2.90 is justified ? If not , what reliefhe is entitled to ? "
4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's writting statement .
5.The management produced MW- 1 , M.M. Koppar and NW- 2 , Dr. J.B. Tomar. Two documents have been proved on behalf of the management which have been marked as Exts . M - 1 and M- 2 .
The concerned has not produced any oral evidence . Documents of the concerned workman have been proved and marked as Exts . W- 1 , W- 1/2 and W- 1/3 .
6.No argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman. From 7.10.2010 neither the concerned workman appeared nor any one appeared on his behalf.
Argument of the management has been heard .
Management's evidence shows that the concerned workman was doing permanent nature ofjob like weeding and harvesting. He was not employee of the management . He was given temporary job and no retrenchment notice 2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was employed as skilled daily paid worker ofN.S.P.G.R. , Regional Station, Ranchifrom 1st January, 1989 and worked still 31st January, 1990 at the said job . He worked for 261 days in the year 1989 excluding Sundays , Holidays and worked for 28 days in the month of January, 1990. He worked continuously in apermanent post . But his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.2.1990 by the Officer - in-Charge of the management without any notice or pay in lieu of notice or compensation as per the provisions of law . There was no charge against the concerned workman . After his termination one Sri A.K. Gupta was employed in the same post . He represented several times before the management against his illegal termination , but the management did not pay any heed to it. Ultimately, the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) Ranchi , which ended in failure. Thereafter this dispute has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1751
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारिया , आर० एच०जे ०एस०
निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक: औ ०न्या०-17/2008
दिनांक स्थापितः 25/7/08
was given which entitled him compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act . Plant Genetic Research is not an 'Industry' . There is still vacancy in the category of post to which the workman has claimed for his reinstatement , as perExts . W- 1 / 1 , W- 1 /2 and W- 1 /3 written by Dr. J.B. Tomar, MW-2 .
प्रसंगः भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल० 42011/28/2008 आई०आर० ( डी०यू० ) दिनांक 9/7/08
निर्देश/विवाद अंन्तर्गत धारा 10( 1 ) ( घ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947
मध्य
MW- 2 has stated that I am head of the department of Ranchi Unit of the Organisation . It has also been said in cross-examination and an award passed by the Tribunal as been implemented by our Organisation . It is clearly admitted case of the concerned workman he has worked for more than 240 days in a year and he has also filed muster roll , photo copy, which found his signature in Ext . M-2 bunch .
अध्यक्ष, राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम कर्मचारी संगठन नेशनल थर्मल पॉवर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड अन्ता गैस विद्युत स्टेशन पोस्ट अन्ता जिला बारौं ।
..प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक यूनियन
एवं
जनरल मैनेजर, नेशनल थर्मल पॉवर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, अन्ता गैस विद्युत स्टेशन अन्ता जिला बाराँ ( राजस्थान )
अप्रार्थी नियोजक 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances and evidence of MW- 2 , I hold that the action of the management ofNational Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources , Regional Station , Ranchi , in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Kumar w.e.f. 1.2.90 is not justified . Accordingly, the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The management isdirected to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.
उपस्थित
Thisis my Award.
श्री बी०एम० मालव
प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः
H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer.
अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः श्री सुरेश माथुर नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2012
अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 22/12/2011
अधिनिर्णयः
का०आ० 767. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैनेजमैन्ट नेशनल थरमल पावर कारपोरेशन प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या-17/2008 .
..को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार
भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने उक्त प्रासंगिक आदेश/अधिसूचना दि० 9/7/08 के जरिये निम्नलिखित निर्देश, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से संबोधित किया जायेगा ) की धारा 10( 1 ) ( घ) के अंतर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है:-
को25.01.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -42011/ 28/2008- आई०आर० ( डी ०यू०॰) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th January, 2012
"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Tap Vidyut Nigam Karamchari Sangathan for payment ofbonus to them by the management of National Thermal PowerCorporation from the year 2006-2007 is legal and justified ? Ifyes , to what relief the workmen are entitled to? "
2. निर्देश/विवाद प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरांत पक्षकारों को नोटिस/सूचना जारी कर अवगत करवाया गया।
S.O. 767. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trialDisputeAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2008 ) of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Kota as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute be- tween the Management National Thermal Power Corpo- ration and their workman , which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 25.01.2012.
[No. L-42011 /28/2008 - IR (DU) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
अनुबंध
3. प्रार्थी की ओर से अपना क्लैम स्टेटमेंट पेश किया गया जिसमें यह वर्णित किया गया प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के संस्थान की मान्यताप्राप्त ट्रेड यूनियन है एवं प्रार्थी ने अपने सदस्य कर्मचारियों के लिए वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए बोनस की मांग अप्रार्थी के यहाँ रखी थी लेकिन अप्रार्थी ने प्राथी द्वारा रखी हुई मांग के अनुसार वार्षिक वेतन का 20% बोनस देने से मना कर दिया, जबकि यह पॉलिसी निदेशक मण्डल से अनुमोदित है । प्राथी ने यह माँग समझौता अधिकारी के यहाँ भी रखी परन्तु अप्रार्थी ने 20% न्यायाधीश, औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण/केन्द्रीय /कोटा/राजस्थान
452GI/2012-23 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 1752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
कर्मचारीगण बोनस चाहते हैं या एक्सग्रेसिया, इस सम्बन्ध में दोनों कानून अलग-अलग हैं । केन्द्रीय सरकार को विवाद रेफर करने को कोई अधिकार नहीं है तथा बोनस भुगतान अधिनियम की धारा 2 - A के अनुसार ऐसे कर्मचारी जिसका वेतन दस हजार रुपये प्रतिमाह से ज्यादा है, उन कर्मचारियों पर बोनस भुगतान अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं । अतः इस मामले में जिन कर्मचारियों ने यह विवाद उठाया है , उन सभी का दस हजार रुपये या उससे ज्यादा प्रतिमाह वेतन होने से इन कर्मचारियों पर बोनस भुगतान के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं । इसके अलावा एन०टी०पी०सी० कर्मचारियों व एन०टी० पी०सी०लि० के मध्य कोई विवाद उत्पन्न होता है तो उस विवाद को रेफर करने का अधिकार सिर्फ राज्यसरकार को है । राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत कर्मचारी संगठन को यह विवाद उठाने का कोई अधिकार नहीं है । अतः जवाब के माध्यम से अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थीगण का क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की ।
5. इसके पश्चात् साक्ष्य प्रार्थी में डबल्यूडबल्यू 1 श्रीलाल मालव व डबल्यूडबल्यू 2 संजीव कपूर के शपथ- पत्र पेश हुए । दोनों गवाहों से अप्रार्थी की ओर से जिरह की गयी । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डबल्यू० 1 लगा० 12 तक के कागजात पेश किये गये । इसके पश्चात साक्ष्य अप्रार्थी में एम॰डबल्य० । नरेश कुमार हसीजा का शपथ- पत्र पेश हुआ, प्रार्थी की ओर से उससे जिरह की गयी व प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम॰ 1 लगा॰एम॰ 3 तक के कागजात भी पेश किये गये ।
बोनस की मांग स्वीकार नहीं की, अतः अप्रार्थी द्वारा एकतरफा एक्सप्रेसिया की गणना का कोई आधार भी नहीं बताया जा रहा है, जिस राशि पर प्रार्थी यूनियन से समझौता करवाना चाहता है । समझौता नहीं होने पर समझौता अधिकारी ने भारत सरकार को विवाद भेजा जिस पर यह प्रकरण दि० 9/7/08 को निर्देशित किया गया । अप्रार्थी के अन्ता गैस विद्युत स्टेशन सहित अन्य पॉवर स्टेशन में बोनस एक्सग्रेसिया उत्पादन एवं उत्पादकता से जुड़ा रहता है जो धारा 31 ( ए) बोनस भुगतान अधिनियम के अंतर्गत ही है एवं वर्ष 1988-89 से नियमानुसार एक्सग्रेसिया/बोनस दिया जा रहा है । इसी आधार पर अप्रार्थी ने अपनी इकाइयों के ट्रेड यूनियन से बोनस के लिए एग्रीमेंट भी किया और बोनस के लिए एक फार्मूला तैयार किया जो आगे क्लेम स्टेटमेंट में वर्णित किया गया जिसमें क्या मापदण्ड, किस हैसियत से कार्य-निष्पादन या आय- उपार्जन व किस हैसियत से बोनस या एक्सग्रेसिया दिया जायेगा, इसका उल्लेख किया गया । वर्ष 2006-07 में अन्ता गैस पावर स्टेशन परफोरमेंस जनरेशन /एम्पलाईज रेशो 7.99% रही , प्लांट लोड फैक्टर 89.43 % रहा , प्लांट एवेलेबिलिटी 90.09% रही, शुद्ध लाभ उत्कृष्ट तथा प्राप्तियाँ 100% रही । इस प्रकार निष्पादन के आधार पर प्रार्थीगण वार्षिक वेतन का 20% एक्सग्रेसिया/बोनस प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है । तथा देरी के कारण 20% एक्सग्रेसिया/बोनस प्राप्त करने के अधिकार है । इसके अलावा अप्रार्थी ने कुछ कर्मचारियों को एक्सग्रेसिया/बोनस के रूप में राशि का भुगतान कर दिया एवं कंपनी द्वारा एकतरफा इस राशि पर कोई विवाद नहीं था , प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्यों को नहीं दी गयी, जबकि कुछ कर्मचारी सेवानिवृत्त होने जा रहे हैं, कुछ स्थानान्तरित हो चुके हैं व कुछ की मृत्यु हो चुकी है इस कारण वे आर्थिक मुश्किल में है, अतः अन्तरिम अनुतोष के रूप में एकतरफा निर्धारित एक्सग्रेसिया/बोनस अप्रार्थी से तुरन्त दिलवाया जावे । अतः प्रार्थी यूनियन ने अपने क्लेम के माध्यम से वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए अप्रार्थी अन्ता गैस विद्युत स्टेशन के कर्मचारियों को अप्रार्थी से 20% की दर से बोनस/एक्सग्रेसिया दिलाये जाने के साथ ही इस पर देरी हुई तिथिसे 18% ब्याज भी दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना की ।
6. इसके पश्चात् उभयपक्ष की बहस सुनी गयी । बहस के दौरान प्रार्थीगण की ओर से दलील दी गयी कि पूर्व में अप्रार्थी ने एक पोलिसी प्रदर्श डबल्यू० । बनायी थी जिसमें किस आधार पर बोनस दिया जायेगा, इसके मापदण्ड आदि दिये गये, उसी आधार पर प्रार्थीगण बोनस की मांग कर रहे हैं । अप्रार्थी उस पोलिसी या नीतिगत निर्णय से परे नहीं जा सकता है । प्रबन्धन विगत समझौते से आबद्ध है एवं उसकी पालना नहीं कर रहा है, जबकि वह समझौता 2/11/94 से विबद्ध ( E. stopped ) है एवं अप्रार्थी का यह कृत्य अनुचित श्रम आचरण की तारीफ में आता है । अप्रार्थी ने जो एन ०बी०सी० ( राष्ट्रीय द्विपक्षीय समिति ) बनायी है , उसका कोई वैधानिक दर्जा हासिल नहीं है, उसमें प्रार्थी यूनियन को आमंत्रित भी नहीं किया गया, अतः वह समझौता प्रार्थीगण की यूनियन पर लागू नहीं कहा जा सकता । अप्रार्थी ने किस पद्धति से बोनस/एक्सग्रेसिया/विशेष पुस्कारकी घोषणा की है, इसका भी कोई खुलासा नहीं हुआ है। प्रार्थीगण 20% बोनस प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी हैं तथा इस राशि पर 18% ब्याज भीप्राप्त करने के हकदार हैं । अप्रार्थी का यह कहना कि अप्रार्थी की फर्म राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम ना होकर एनटीपीसी हो गयी है, इससे अप्रार्थी के दायित्व पर कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ा है । राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम व एनटीपीसी, दोनों ही एक ही संस्था है । पूर्व में अप्रार्थी का पूरा नाम राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम था, बाद में इसे संशोधित रूप में एनटीपीसी कर दिया गया है तो भी इससे संस्था के दायित्व आदि पर कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ा है । अप्रार्थीपर बोनस अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं । अतः अप्रार्थी को वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए प्रार्थीगण कमकारों को वार्षिक दर 20 % बोनस मय देय तिथि से 18% ब्याज के दिलाये जाने का आदेश दिया जावे । इस सम्बन्ध में उनकी ओर से निम्नलिखित न्यायनिर्णय भी उद्धृत किये गयेः-
( 1 ) मै० मोतीलाल पदमपत शुगर मिल्स कोर०लि० बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य ( 1979 ) 2 एस०सी०सी० 409 - इस 4. प्रार्थी के क्लेमस्टेटमेन्ट से अप्रार्थी को अवगत करवाया गया, उन्होंने अपना जवाब पेश किया जिसमें यह वर्णित किया कि प्राथी मान्यता प्राप्त ट्रेड यूनियन होना तो स्वीकार है, परन्तु कर्मचारीगण बोनस प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी नहीं है क्योंकि अप्रार्थी संस्थान पर बोनस अधिनियम लागू नहीं होता, इस कारण से बोनस अदायगी बाबत कोई समझौता करने का प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता तथा वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए भी बोनस का इस मामले से कोई लेना- देना नहीं है । इसके अलावा वर्ष 88-89 में बोनस के बाबत क्या समझौता हुआ , इसका भी इस विवाद से कोई लेना- देना नहीं है । अप्रार्थी के यहा धारा 31 - ए बोनस भुगतान के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं । अप्रार्थी संस्थान में किसी भी कर्मचारी को बोनस की राशि नहीं दी गयी है तथा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम में अन्तरिम अनुतोष के रूप में एकतरफा निर्धारित बोनस दिलाये जाने का कोई प्रावधान नहीं है । प्रार्थी यूनियन ने मै० नेशनल थर्मल पावर कौर० लिमिटेड के विरुद्ध यह विवाद उठाया है, जबकि इस नाम का कोई संस्थान नहीं है । जो संस्थान इस समय कार्यरत है, उस संस्थान का नाम एन०टी०पी० सी० लि० है । भारत सरकार ने नेशनल थर्मल पावर कोर लिमिटेड के नाम से निर्देश भेजा है जो इस नाम की कोई संस्था नहीं है, अतः निर्देश में संशोधन कराये बगैर यह विवाद चलने योग्य नहीं है । प्रार्थी [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1753 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
न्यायनिर्गय भी में यह प्रतिपादित किया गया कि वचनात्मक विबद्धता (E. stoppel ) का सिद्धांत किन परिस्थितियों में लागू होता है , उसकी क्या प्रकृति, क्षेत्र एवं कहां विस्तार होता है, इस बाबत स्थिति विवेचित की गयी है एवं इसमें सरकार पर भी ऐसा सिद्धांत लागू किया जा सकता है, ऐसा प्रतिपादित किया गया है ।
वर्ष2006-07 से पहले के सभी वर्षों का व उसके बाद के सभी वर्षों का एक्सग्रेसिया या विशेष पुरस्कार या बोनस आदि प्राप्त कर लिया । इससे भी यह स्पष्ट जाहिर होता है कि उन्हें इस एक्सग्रेसिया या विशेष पुरस्कार बाबत कोई आपत्ति नहीं थी तथा जब दूसरी यूनिटों के कर्मचारियों ने तो वर्ष2006-07 का भी एक्सग्रेसिया या विशेष पुरस्कार प्राप्त कर लिया है तो प्रार्थीगण भी प्रबन्धन के समक्ष अपना घोषणा- पत्र भरकर प्राप्त कर सकते हैं, प्रबन्धन आज भी उन्हें देने के लिए तैयार है जोकि अन्य कर्मचारियों को दिया गया । अतः प्रार्थीगण जो मांग इस रेफ्रेन्स में कर रहे है वह कतई न्यायोचित नहीं है व इस सम्बन्ध में उनकी ओर से निम्न न्यायनिर्गय उदृत किये गयेः-
(2) राजस्थान वित्त निगम ओफिसर्स एसोसियेशन बनाम राजवित्त निगम एवं अन्य राज उच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय दि० 5/9/88 को भी उद्धृत किया गया-इस न्यायनिर्णय में वित्त निगम के कर्मकारों को 20% एक्सग्रेसिया राशि दिये जाने का आदेश दिया गया है ।
( 1 ) पोटरी मजदूर पंचायत बनाम दी परफेक्ट पोटरी कंलि एवं अन्य- एआईआर एस०सी० 1356 - इस मामले में यह प्रतिपादित किया गया कि औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण रेफ्रेन्स की शर्तों से परे जाकर कोई विनिश्चय नहीं कर सकता है ।
7. इसके अलावा प्रार्थीगण की ओर से एनटीपीसी लि० के मजदूरों के पुनरीक्षण बाबत एक पत्र दि० 7/7/10 की प्रति पेश की व जुलाई , 2007 माह की कुछ कर्मचारियों की पे- स्लिप्स भी पेश की गयी ।
8. अतः प्रार्थीगण की ओर से ऊपर दी गयी दलीलों व न्यायनिर्णयों को उद्धृत करते हुए यह प्रकट किया गया कि प्रार्थीगण की समस्त दस्तावेजी व मौखिक साक्ष्य से मामला साबित है, अतः उन्हें निर्देश ( रिफ्रेन्स) में वांछित अनुतोष प्रदान किया जावे ।
(2) शौकत अली एवं अन्य बनाम एकोनोमिक इंजीनियरिंग कोर. एवं अन्य-2003 ( 99 ) एफ. एल.आर.1114 ) बाम्बे उ . न्या. इस मामले में यह प्रतिपादित किया गया है कि जहां पक्षकार किसी मसझौते पर पहुंच जाता है तो फिर उसके बाद में अधिनिर्णय के लिए मामला कोई शेष नहीं रहता है ।
(3 ) कॉफी बोर्ड एम्पलाईज एसो . बनाम ए.सी. शिवेगोवडा व अन्य-1992 लेब . आई.सी. 2492 ( एस.सी.)- इस मामले में प्रतिपादित किया गया कि जहां कॉफी बोर्ड द्वारा अपने कर्मचारियों को बोनस के बजाय एक्सग्रेसिया का भुगतान किया गया तो ऐसे मामलों में क्या बोनस अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू होते हैं या नहीं , यह तथ्य असंगत हो जाता है ।
(4) कमिश्नर आफ इनकमटैक्स, वेस्ट बंगाल बनाम होलमेन क्लाईमेक्स मैनी . लिमि. कलकत्ता-1991 लेब. आई.सी. 2195 ( कलकत्ता उ. न्या.)-इस मामले में प्रतिपादित किया गया कि मासिक उत्प्रेरक बोनस व विशेष उत्प्रेरक बोनस, दोनों के भुगतान को बोनस अधिनियम के तहत भुगतान नहीं माना जा सकता ।
( 5 ) टाटा इंजीनियरिंग एण्ड लोकामेटिव कं.लि. एवं उनके श्रमिकगण- ए.आई.आर. 1981 एस.सी. 2163- इस मामले में प्रतिपादित किया गया कि जहां अधिकांश श्रमिकों की यूनियन व प्रबन्धन के बीच समझौता हो जाता है तो समझौता केवल इस कारण से अनुचित नहीं माना जा सकता कि कुछ कर्मकारों द्वारा उसमें भाग लेने से इन्कार कर दिया गया ।
(6) हरबर्टसन लिमि. बनाम उसके कर्मकार- ए.आई.आर 1977 एस.सी. 322- इस मामले में प्रतिपादित किया गया कि किसी भी समझौते को पृथक- पृथक भागों में स्वीकार या अस्वीकार नहींकिया जा सकता, अपितु पूरा की स्वीकार या अस्वीकार किया जाना होता है । समझौते के किसी एक भाग के सम्बन्ध में आपत्ति उठाना उचित नहीं कहा जा सकता है ।
9. इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी की ओर से दलील दी गयी कि प्रार्थीगण यूनियन का रुख हमेशा हठधर्मिता की तरह रहा है । इसके अलावा वर्तमान में राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम अस्तित्व में नहीं है, एनटीपीसी अस्तित्व में है, जबकि रिफ्रेन्स राष्ट्रीय ताप निगम के विरुद्ध हुआ है, अतः यह रिफ्रेन्स चलने योग्य नहीं है । प्रार्थीगण के मामले में अप्रार्थी पर बोनस अधिनियम के प्रावधान भी लागू नहीं होते हैं । इस सम्बन्ध में उनकी ओर से बोनस अधिनियम की धारा 10 व 31 - ए तथा बोनस भुगतान संशोधन अध्यादेश 2007 को उद्धृत किया गया । अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह भी दलील दी गयी किजिस पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू० 5 को प्रार्थीगण आधार मान रहे हैं वह तो केवल एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए ही था तथा उस पत्र मे प्रार्थीगण की यूनियन शामिल भी नहीं हुई थी, अतः वे उसका सहारा नहीं ले सकते हैं । प्रार्थीगण किस आधार पर बोनस की मांग कर रहे हैं, ऐसा उन्होंने कोई समझौता भी पेश नहीं किया । धारा 31 - ए बोनस अधिनियम में तो कोई लिखित में समझौता होना आवश्यक है परन्तु इस मामले में ऐसा कोई समझौता नहीं हुआ है । इसके अलावा एन०बी०सी० में जितनी भी यूनियनें शामिल होती हैं, उनकी सहमति के आधार पर ही बोनस या एक्सग्रेसिया की घोषणा की जाती है । कोई यूनियन सहमत भी नहीं होती है तो कोई अलग से समझौता नहीं किया जा सकता । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू० 1 में भी 20% एक्सग्रेसिया प्रतिवर्ष दिया जायेगा , ऐसा उल्लेख नहीं है एवं बोनस अधिनियम की धारा 10 के तहत यदि बोनस दिया जाता है तो बिना समझौते के अभाव में न्यूनतम 8.33% बोनस दिया जाना लाजिमी होता है एवं उससे अधिक का बोनस देने पर उन सभी आधारों को पूरा लेखा-जोखा विचरित किया जाता है कि जिसमें संस्थान में कितना उत्पादन हुआ, क्यालागत आयी तथा कितनी बिक्री हुई तथा शुद्ध लाभ कितना हुआ एवं अब उस आधार पर कितना % बोनस या एक्सग्रेसिया दिया जा सकता है । हस्तगत मामले में ऐसी कोई स्थिति प्रकट नहीं हुई है, अतः प्रार्थीगण की समस्त दलीलें आधारहीन है । इसके अलावा प्रार्थीगण ने [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
1754
प्रदर्श एम. 1 से जाहिर नहीं होता है । अतः बोनस अधिनियम के प्रावधान का इस संस्थान पर लागू नहीं होने का तथ्य सारहीन हो जाता है ।
10. अतः उपरोक्तन्यायनिर्णयों को उद्धृत करते हुए व दलीलें देते हुए उन्होंने प्रार्थीगण का क्लेम खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की ।
11. अब इस मामले में जहां तक अप्रार्थी द्वारा दो मुख्य दलीलें इस रेफ्रेन्स के सम्बन्ध में इसकी पोषणीयता बाबत उठायी गयी है । प्रथम तो यह कि राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम वर्तमान में अस्तित्व में नहीं है बल्कि एनटीपीसी अस्तित्वमें है एवं रेफ्रेन्स राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम के विरुद्ध हुआ है । इस सम्बन्ध में इस न्यायाधिकरण का यह अभिमत है किजहां प्रबन्धन ने या केन्द्रीय सरकार ने इस संस्थान का पूर्व का नाम नेशनल थर्मल पावर कोरपोरेशन लिमिटेड या राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम से बदलकर या संशोधित कर उसे छोटे रूप में " एनटीपीसी " कर दिया है तो इससे संस्थाकी देयता, दायित्वों या जिम्मेदारियों पर विपरीत असर नहीं पड़ जाता है । कई बार एक निगम या शासन अपने नाम या संविधान में संशोधन कर देता है तो इससे कर्मचारियों की सेवा- शर्तों या उनके सम्बन्ध में देय दायित्वों पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ता है एवं यह एक ऐसा तथ्य भी नहीं कि जिससे पूरा ही मामला पोषणीय नहीं हो जाता है या ऐसी स्थिति पैदा हो जाती है । एनटीपीसी का भी पूरा नाम नेशनल थर्मल पावर कौर लिमिटेड है ना कि अन्य नाम । अतः न्यायाधिकरण इस दलील में कोई बल महसूस नहीं करता है कि अप्रार्थी का नाम एनटीपीसी हो जाने से यह रेफ्रेन्स चल नहीं सकता ।
13. अब प्रार्थीगण द्वारा इस मामले में 20 % बोनस की मांग की गयी है । बोनस की मांग का आधार उन्होंने पूर्व में वर्ष 1995 में अप्रार्थी द्वारा बोनस के सम्बन्ध में जारी पोलिसी प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 व डब्ल्यू. 2 का अवलम्बन किया है । इन दोनों का अवलोकन किया जावे तो इनमें एक्सग्रेसिया भुगतान , उत्पादन से सम्बन्धित होने के कुछ मापदण्ड तय किये गये तथा इनमें जो कर्मचारी बोनस प्राप्त करने के दायरे में नहीं आते हैं उनको भी सम्मिलित करते हुए एक्सग्रेसिया शब्द काम में लेते हुए यह प्रोत्साहन राशि दिये जाने की नीति तय की गयी । यह पत्र 2/11/94 कोजारी किया गया है । इसी पत्र के आधार पर बाद में 11 सितम्बर, 1995 को प्रबन्धन व कर्मकारों के बीच द्विपक्षीय वार्ता प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 2 हुई । इसमें उत्पादकता से सम्बन्धित विशेष वेतन या बोनस आदि दिये जाने का उल्लेख किया गया । साथ ही साथ इसके अन्त में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया कि यह समझौता एक वर्ष के लिए लागू किया जा रहा है, भविष्य के लिए भारत सरकार की अनुमति मिलने पर वर्ष दर वर्ष के आधार पर एक्सग्रेसिया भुगतान का विनिश्चय किया जायेगा । अतः इस भाषा से यह स्पष्ट है कि यह समझौता केवल मात्र वर्ष 1994-95 के लिए ही था । उसके आगे के लिए तो भारत सरकार से अनुमतिमिलने पर लागूकिया जाना था । अर्थात् यह समझौता हमेशा के लिए मान्य हो गया हो, ऐसा इस समझौते की भाषा से प्रकट नहीं होता है । अतः प्रार्थीगण इस समझौते को आधार बनाकर भी जो वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए मांग कर रहे हैं, उस सम्बन्ध में भी कहीं उनकी ओर से यह प्रकट नहीं किया गया कि भारत सरकार ने वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए भी इसी समझौते के अनुरूप विशेष पुरस्कार या ईनाम इस समझौते के आधार पर दिये जाने की अनुमति दे दी हो । अतः इस समझौते के आधार पर वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए प्रार्थीगण द्वारा बोनस या विशेष वेतन की मांग किया जाना विधिसम्मत नहीं कहा जा सकता ।
14. प्रार्थीगण के गवाह डब्ल्यू. डब्ल्यू. 1 श्रीलाल मालव ने अपनी जिरह में कथन किया कि शपथ- पत्र में मैंने जो अनुसूची बतायी उसके अनुसार हम लोगों को भुगतान मिलना चाहिए एवं इस अनुसूची बाबत हमारी यूनियन से प्रतिपक्षी के मध्य एग्रीमेन्ट हुआ था एवं उस एग्रीमेन्ट की प्रति हमारे द्वारा न्यायालय की पत्रावली पर पेश नहीं की गयी । यदि ऐसी अनुसूची बाबत कोई समझौता प्रार्थी व अप्रार्थी के मध्य हुआ है तो निश्चित रूप से प्रार्थीगण को अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के समर्थन में पेश करना चाहिए था, परन्तु उनके द्वारा पेश नहीं किये जाने से यह तथ्य भली- भांती साबित हो जाता है कि ऐसा कोई समझौता प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी के मध्य नहीं हुआ एवं यदि ऐसा समझौता हुआ भी होता तो शायद ही प्रार्थी अपने पास रखते अपितु अवश्य न्यायाधिकरण में पेश करते । अब इसी गवाह ने आगे जिरह में कथन किया कि यह सही है कि वर्ष 2006-07 के पहले एवं उसके बाद का हम भुगतान ले चुके हैं तो फिर प्रश्न यह पैदा होता है कि वर्ष 2006-07 के पहले के एवं इसके बाद के भुगतान को उन्होंने किस आधार पर व किस समझौते के आधार पर प्राप्त किया, ऐसा कोई खुलासा प्रार्थीगण द्वारा नहीं किया गया । अतः इससे स्पष्ट जाहिर होता है कि प्रार्थीगण ने जो भी विशेष वेतन के रूप में 12. अब एक दूसरी दलील अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह दी गयी कि प्रार्थीगण जो मामला लेकर आये हैं, उनके मामले में बोनस अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं एवं इस संबंध में उन्होंने बोनस भुगतान संशोधन अध्यादेश 2007 को उद्धृत किया । इसमें धारा 2 में यह वर्णित किया गया कि पूर्व में जो 3500/- रु० की सीमा था उसे अब 10,000/- रु० तक प्रतिस्थापित कर दिया गया । अर्थात पूर्व में बोनस प्राप्त करने की जोअधिकतम सीमा 3500/- रु० थी उसे 10,000/ - रु० कर दिया गया । यह अध्यादेश 27/10/2007 को जारी हुआ है एवं वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए अप्रार्थी ने जो आदेश कर्मचारियों के विशेष पुरस्कार बाबत जारी किया वो 13/10/07 को किया । अत स्पष्ट है कि यह अध्यादेश अप्रार्थी के वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए विशेष पुरस्कार के आदेश जारी होने के बाद में प्रभावशाली हुआ है । अतः ऐसी परिस्थिति में इस अध्यादेश के आधार पर अप्रार्थी का यह कथन कि इन प्रार्थीगण का वेतन 10,000/ - रु० से ज्यादा होने से वे बोनस प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी नहीं हैं, सारहीन हो जाता है । इसके अलावा अप्रार्थी के स्वयं के आदेश प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 5 व डब्ल्यू7 के पैरा सं० 3 में वर्णित तथ्य कि यह विशेष पुरस्कार एक्सग्रेसिया या बोनस को सम्मिलित करते हुए दिया जा रहा है, अर्थात् जो कर्मचारी बोनस या एक्सग्रेसिया प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी हैं उनको शामिल करते हुए यह विशेष पुरस्कार (Special reward ) वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए घोषित किया जा रहा है । अतः इससे भी स्पष्ट है कि जो कर्मचारी बोनस प्राप्त करने के हकदार हैं, उनको भी इस आदेश की सीमा में लाकर विशेष पुरस्कार में वह राशि भी सम्मिलित कर ली गयी । अतः अप्रार्थी की यह दलील की प्रार्थीगण पर बोनस अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं, स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । इसके अलावा कर्मकारों की अलग-अलग श्रेणियां बतायी गयी है एवं हर कर्मकार बोनस अधिनियम केदायरे में नहीं आता है , यह तथ्य भी स्वयं अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेन्ट [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1755
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
या एक्सेग्रसिया की घोषणा होगी , ना कि हर यूनियन के लिए अलग - अलग । अतः यदि जहां अधिकांश यूनियनों ने उस समझौते को स्वीकार कर लिया है तो फिर एक यूनियन द्वारा स्वीकार नहीं किये जाने से पूरे ही द्विपक्षीय समझौते को प्रभावहीन नहीं बनाया जा सकता है ।
17. मामले में प्रार्थीगण की ओर से एक दलील यह भी दी गयी कि राष्ट्रीय द्विपक्षीय समिति का वैधानिक कोई अस्तित्व नहीं है । इस सम्बन्धमें इस न्यायाधिकरण का अभिमत है कि यह प्रबन्धन एवं कर्मकारों के स्तर पर आपसी विवादों या मामलों को निपटाने का एक सुलभ व आसान तरीका है जिसमें दोनों पक्ष बात- चीत के द्वारा किसी समस्याका निराकरण करते हैं एवं जो भी बात - चीत से निराकरण होता है उसी के अनुसार आगे कार्यवाही की जाती है एवं इसमें कोई अनुचितता भी नहीं है । प्रार्थी यूनियन के गवाह संजीव कपूर ने भी जिरह में स्वीकार किया है कि वह भी इस द्विपक्षीय वार्ता में जाता है । अतः इससे स्पष्ट है कि यह मामले के निराकरण का एक अच्छा मन्च एवं तरीका है एवं यदि इसकी वैधानिकता को ही चुनौती दे रहे हैं तो फिर प्रर्थीगण इनमें क्यों जा रहे हैं, यह तथ्य अपने आपमें स्वयं विचारणीय हो जाता है ।
अप्रार्थी द्वारा घोषित किया गया है वह उन्होंने ले लिया है एवं उसमें प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 व डब्ल्यू. 2 को ही आधार माना है, ऐसा किंचित मात्र भी प्रकट नहीं होता । इसी गवाह ने आगे जिरह में कथन किया कि वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए एक्सग्रेसिया हमारी यूनियन के अलावा दूसरी यूनियन प्राप्त कर लिया । अतः जब एक ही संस्थान में अलग-अलग यूनियन हैं तो हर यूनियन के लिए अलग-अलग बोनस या एक्सग्रेसिया या विशेष पुरस्कार के लिए समझौता नहीं हो सकता है, क्योंकि सभी कर्मकारों के कार्य के फलस्वरूप संस्थान में उत्पादन होता है । अतः ऐसे में अलग -अलग यूनियन के आधार पर बोनस या एक्सग्रेसिया या विशेष पुरस्कार का वेतन निर्धारण नहीं किया जा सकता । प्रार्थीगण के अन्य गवाह संजीव कपूर ने भी वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए बोनस /एक्सग्रेसिया की मांग उनकी यूनियन द्वारा किये जाने का कथन अपने शपथ- पत्र में किया है । किन्तु जिरह में इस गवाह ने कथन किया कि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 के अतिरिक्त न्यायालय की पत्रावली में ऐसा कोई दस्तावेज पेश नहीं किया गया कि जिसमें यूनियन व प्रबन्धन के मध्य यह तय किया गया हो कि 25% बोनस दिया जायेगा । अतः इस स्वीकारोक्ति से ही स्पष्ट है कि वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए प्रार्थीगण यूनियन से अप्रार्थी का कोई समझौता हुआ हो, कतई साबित नहीं होता है । इसी गवाह ने आगे जिरह में कथन किया कि 12/10/07 को एन०बी०सी० में समझौता हमारी यूनियन के बीच में नहीं हुआ । हमारी यूनियन के बीच समझौता हुआ या नहीं, मुझे पता नहीं । मुझे इस बात का भी मालूम नहीं है कि हमारी यूनियन के अलावा अन्य यूनियन वालों ने बोनस प्राप्त कर लिया हो । इस गवाह ने यह भी कथन किया कि मैं प्रार्थी यूनियन के महासचिव के पद पर हूं तथा वर्ष 1999 से. एन॰बी॰सी॰ में जो समझौते होते हैं , उनमें जाता हूं।
18. मामले में प्रार्थीगण की ओर से एक दलील यह भी दी गयी कि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू० 12 में अप्रार्थी ने यह स्वीकार किया कि बोनस या अनुग्रह राशि का भुगतान, बोनस भुगतान अधिनियम की धारा 31 - ए के उपबन्धों के अनुसार किया गया है । इस सम्बन्ध में यह न्यायाधिकरण स्पष्ट करना चाहेगा कि प्रदर्श डबल्यू० । व डबल्यू०2 में इस बाबत स्थिति स्पष्ट कर दी गयी है कि कौन कर्मचारी बोनस भुगतान प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी बनते हैं एवं कौन कर्मचारी बोनस भुगतान के अधिकारी इस अधिनियम में ऊपरी सीमा वर्णित कर दिये जाने से नहीं बनते हैं । परन्तुसंस्थान के उत्पादन में सभी कर्मचारियों का योगदान होता है , अतः इस लिहाज से सभी कर्मचारियों को लाभ प्राप्त हो , इस हिसाब से बोनस प्राप्त करने वाले कर्मचारियों को व अन्य कर्मचारियों को मिलाकर अनुग्रह राशिया विशेष पुरस्कार राशि की घोषणा की जाती है ताकि सभी पक्ष लाभ प्राप्त कर लेवें एवं इसीलिए प्रबन्धन ने अपने आदेश में स्पष्ट लिखा कि यह जो विशेष पुरस्कार दिया जा रहा है, उसमें वह राशि भी सम्मिलित है जो कर्मकार बोनस या अनुग्रह राशि प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है । अतः अब इस बाबत भी कोई विवाद की स्थिति नहीं रहती है ।
15. अतः इस गवाह के बयान से भी यह स्पष्ट है कि यह गवाह स्वयं राष्ट्रीय द्विपक्षीय समिति जिसे लघु रूप में एन॰बी॰सी॰ ( National Bipartite Committee ) कहा जाता है, उसमें जाता है एवं कहीं पर भी इस गवाह द्वारा वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी के मध्य 20% या 25% बोनस दिये जाने का समझौता हुआ हो , ऐसा उल्लेख नहीं करता है तो फिर किस आधार पर इस अवधि के लिए 20% बोनस की मांग की जा रही है , यह तथ्य प्रार्थीगण प्रकट नहीं कर पाये हैं । अप्रार्थी के गवाह नरेश कुमार हसीजा ने जिरह में कथन किया कि वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए प्रबन्धन और सभी यूनियनों से समझौता हुआ था, अन्ता यूनियन से अलग से कोई समझौता नहीं हुआ तथा स्पेशल रिवार्ड के सम्बन्ध में जो आदेश जारी हुआ है उनमें सभी यूनियन के प्रतिनिधि व अधिकारी मौजूद थे तथा इस वर्ष के लिए एनटीपीसी की सभी यूनिटों में स्पेशल रिवार्ड का पेमेन्ट कर्मकारों के खातों में जमा करा दिया गया है , परन्तु अन्ता यूनिट के प्रतिनिधियों द्वारा नहीं लेने से उनके खातों में जमा नहीं करवाया है तथा हमारी अन्ता के भी अन्य यूनियनों वालों ने जिन्होंने कि इस रिवार्ड को स्वीकार किया है, उनको भुगतान किया है । इस गवाह के बयान से भी स्पष्ट है कि एनटीपीसी की अन्ता यूनिट को छोड़कर शेष सभी इकाईयों मे जो स्पेशल रिवार्ड वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए प्रबन्धन ने घोषित किया था, उन्हें भुगतान किया जा चुका है । अन्ता इकाई के भी उन यूनियन वालों को भुगतान किया जा चुका है जिन्होंने उसे स्वीकार किया है ।
19. मामले में बोनस भुगतान के सम्बन्ध में अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह दलील दी गयी कि बोनस अधिनियम की धारा 10 के तहत तो नियोक्ता पर 8.33: न्यूनतम बोनस राशि दिये जाने का दायित्व है एवं उससे ज्यादाराशि बोनस के रूप में तभी दी जा सकती है जबकि संस्थान ने उस सुसंगत वर्ष में उसी अनुरूप लाभ कमाया हो । वहीं दूसरी और धारा 31- ए में तो पक्षकारों के मध्य समझौते के आधार पर बोनस जोकि उत्पादकता या उत्पादन से सम्बन्धित होता है, घोषणा की जाती है । अर्थात धारा 31 - ए के तहत समझौते के आधार पर भुगतान किया जाता है एवं धारा 10 में विधिक बाध्यता के रूप में भुगतान किया जाता है । उनकी इस दलील को देखा जावे तो हस्तगत मामले में तो प्रबन्धन द्वारा जो विशेष अनुग्रह राशि या ईनाम के रूप में घोषणा की गयी है, वह समझौते के आधार पर ही किया जाना प्रकट होता है क्योंकि स्वयं प्रार्थीगण के गवाह ने जिरह में स्वीकार कर लिया कि प्रार्थी यूनियन के अलावा 16. जैसा कि हमारे द्वारा ऊपर वर्णित किया जा चुका है कि एक ही संस्थान द्वारा अपने कर्मकारों के लिए एक ही विशेष ईनाम या बोनस [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1756
नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2012
अन्यसभी यूनियन वालों ने इस घोषित अनुग्रह राशि या विशेष पुरस्कार कोस्वीकार कर लिया है । अतः अब यदि एक यूनियन उसे स्वीकार भी नहीं करती है तो उस पूरे ही समझौते को या पूरी घोषणा को अलग- अलग रूप में खण्डित या विभाजित नहीं किया जा सकता है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा जो न्यायनिर्णय " हरबर्टसन लिमि० बनाम उनके कर्मकारों " का उदृत किया गया है, उसमें भी यही सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया गया है।
का०आ० 768.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी॰बी॰एस॰बी॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण न० 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 220/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/01/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-23012/55/1997- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी०एस०एस श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
S.O. 768. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 220/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. -2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBBMB and their workman , which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 27/01/2012 .
[No. L -23012/55 / 1997 - IR (C- 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. 220/2005
Registered on 3.8.2005
Shri Jagdish Ram, S/o Kanshi Ram , Village Barati , Anandpur Sahib , Distt . Roper.
20. अतः ऊपर किये गये समस्त विवेचन के आधार पर इस न्यायाधिकरण की राय में सर्वप्रथम तो प्रार्थीगण यूनियन जिस समझौते को आधार रूप में लेकर वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए बोनस की मांग कर रही है, वह समझौते उस सुसंगत वर्ष के लिए प्रभावशील ही नहीं है । अन्य कोई समझौता प्रार्थीगण यूनियन व अप्रार्थी के मध्य हुआ हो , ऐसा कोई समझौता भी पेश नहीं किया गया है । प्रार्थीगण यूनियन के अलावा अन्य सभी यूनियन वालों ने इस वर्ष के लिए अप्रार्थी द्वारा घोषित बोनस स्वीकार कर लिया है, अतः ऐसे में अलग- अलग यूनियन के लिए अलग - अलग बोनस या अनुग्रह राशि या विशेष पुरस्कार की घोषणा किया जाना कतई विधिसम्मत नहीं है । प्रार्थीगण यूनियन द्वारा इस वर्ष को छोड़कर इसके पहले व इसके बाद के वर्षों में भी अप्रार्थी द्वारा बोनस या विशेष अनुग्रह राशि या विशेष पुरस्कार को स्वीकार किये जाने से भी यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि प्रार्थीगण यूनियन भी जो एन०बी०सी ० में अन्य यूनियनों द्वारा समझौता किया गया है, उसी अनुरूप उस राशि को स्वीकार करती आयी है । अतः केवल वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए ही प्रदर्श डबल्यू०। व डबल्यू2 के आधार पर 20% बोनस की राशि की मांग किया जाना कतई तर्कसंगत या विधिसम्मत नहीं है । इसी प्रकार जहां तक 18 % ब्याज कासवाल है, उस राशि पर कोई ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रावधान नहीं है । अप्रार्थी यह राशि पूर्व में ही अदा करने के लिए तैयार था व आज भी अदा करने के लिए तैयार है । अतः इन परिस्थितियों में ब्याज का भी कोई प्रश्न ऐसे मामले में पैदा नहीं होता है । अतः ऐसे में रेफ्रेन्स नकारात्मक रूप से उत्तरित होने योग्य है ।
Petitioner
Versus
The ChiefEngineer, Bhakra Dam, Nangal Township , Distt. Roper (Punjab ) Ropar .
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
Sh . R.K. Singh Parmar Advocate.
Shri Bhagat Singh Law Officer
For the Management
AWARD
परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के द्वारा अपने आदेश सं० एल० 42011/28/2008 ( आईआर ) डीयू ( दि० 9/7/08 के द्वारा सम्प्रेषित निर्देश /विवाद में राष्ट्रीय ताप विद्युत निगम कर्मचारी संगठन ) प्रार्थीगण यूनियन ) द्वारा वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए उनके प्रबन्धन से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के अनुसार 20: अनुग्रह राशि या बोनस की मांग करना उचित, तर्कसंगत व विधिसम्मत नहीं कही जा सकती एवं प्रार्थीगण यूनियन भी वहीं राशि प्राप्त कर सकती है जोकि अप्रार्थी ने वर्ष 2006-07 के लिए अन्य यूनियनों या अन्य इकाई के कर्मकारों को अनुग्रह राशि, बोनस या विशेष पुरस्कार के रूप में भुगतान की है, इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है ।
Passed on Jan. 04 , 2012
अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 22/12/2011 को खुले न्यायाधिकरण में सुमाया जाकर हस्ताक्षरित किया गया जिसे नियमानुसार समुचित सरकार कोप्रकाशनार्थ भिजवाया जावे ।
प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया,
Central Government vide Notification No. L -23012/ 55/97 / IR( CM - II ) Dated 05 / 10.11.1998 , by exercising its power 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 folowing
न्यायाधीश [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1757
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/ फाल्गुन6, 1933
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -
"Whether the action of the management of Bhakra Dam represented through the Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam, Nangal Township , Distt . Ropar (Punjab) in terminating the.services of Sh . Jagdish Ram , S/ o Sh . Kanshi Ram , w.e.f. 30.9.1988 is justified? If not , to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
months together in his service to debar him from completing 240 days continuous service . He has further alleged the violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act and adoption ofunfair labour practice on the part of the management in terminating his service. But violation of Section 25H ofthe Act in beyond reference as the dispute referred for adjudication is the termination of the service and not the denial ofright of re-employment . thus the following issues arise for consideration in this matter.
1. Whether the claimant was employed in a factory and his services were terminated in violation of Section 25N of the Act ?
2. Whether the services of claimant were terminated inviolation of Section 25G of the Act ?
3.Whether the management in guilty of adopting unfair labour practice in terminating the service of the claimant?
4. To what relied the claimant is entitled ?
Insupport ofhis claim the workman filed his affidavit and gave his statement while on behalf of management Maminder Singh filed his affidavit and gave his statement and on the application of claimant produced certain record .
The claimant has raised an industrial dispute by stating that he was employed in the Water Supply and Sanitation Sub - Division of the respondent, which is a registered factory under the Indian Factories Act, since 1984 till his termination in September 1988. He was not allowed to work beyond 28 days in a month and after every two months a break for one month or of months together was put in his service to debar him from claiming 240days continuous services . His services were terminated in violation of Section 25N of the Act . It has been further pleaded that the respondent has not maintained any seniority list and junior were retained and regularized. Claimant also pleaded that he was not called for re- employment per provision of Section 25H of the Act and the respondent in terminating the service has adopted unfair labour practice . He has claimed his reinstatement with full back wages and all attendant benefits .
The authorized representative of the parties have filed their written arguments . I have gone through the written arguments of the authorized representatives and also evidence on record . My findings on various issues are as follows:-
FINDINGS
Issue No. 1
Respondent in its reply has admitted the employment ofthe claimant as unskilled mazdoor on daily wages in BC &townwhip Division, Nangal Township w.e.f. July, 1984 to August, 1988 intermittently for a specific seasonal / casual work as per field requirement. Accordingto respondent services of claimant were not required after completion of specific work for which he had been deployed . It was also pleaded that the claimant left the work of his own accord without any intimation. It was denied that any fresh hands were deployed and any junior was retained . Regarding the maintenance of seniority list it was contended that the seniority list was maintained as per policy framed in pursuance of the instructions issued by the Hon'ble High CourtofHimachal Pradesh in CWP No.27/88 Ram Pyari and others Vs. BBMB w.e.f. 1.4.1988 of those daily rated workmen onlywho had worked continuously for 120 days in the preceding six months from 1.4.1988 . The claimant was not in continous employment from 1.10.1987 to 31.3.1988 as such his name was not required to be included inthe seniority list . It was also contended that the claimant had not completed 240 days service in 12 consecutive months and so he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation or notice and his claim is not tenable .
It may be noted that the claimant has stated his employment in factory and has alleged the violation of Section 25N of the Act regarding the termination of his service. He has not alleged the violation of Section 25F of the Act and has stated in the claim statement itself that after every two months there was a break of one month or
As stated above the workman has alleged his employment in a factory namely Water Supply and Sanitation Sub- Division . While according to the management the claimant was employed in BC & Township Division Nangal Townwhip . The details of the days worked in the Division have been annexed by the respondent to the written statement . It supports the case of the respondent that the applicant was employed in BC & Township Division Nangal Township. The claimant has notplaced any record to show that he was employed in the alleged factory. Against it in the written arguments itself filedonbehalf of the claimant , it has been admitted that the claimant was engaged/ employed in BC & Township Division , BBMB Nangal Township and his services were terminated without any notice or notice pay in violation of Section 25F of the Act . Therefore it cannot be accepted that the claimant was employed in a factory and his services wereterminated in violation of Section 25N oftheAct which isapplicable to the employees of a factory. I am therefore ofthe view that Section 25N of the Act has no application inthe case and the termination of the workman cannot be assailed on the ground of violation of the said provision .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1758
relevant when it is proved that anyjunior had been retained while terminating the service of the workman . It is correct that the claimant has pleaded so but he has not named such junior person in his claim statement . During cross- examination also he has stated that he does not know whether a junior to him has been regularized in the service by the management. Against it management has specifically denied that anyjunior person had been retained. Therefore no violation of Section 25G of the Act is proved in the case . Issue No. 2 is decided against the claimant.
Issue No. 3
Thenon- compliance of Section 25F of the Act raised for the first time in the written arguments , is beyond the pleadings /claim statement . However from the statement made in the claim statement itself it appears admitted to the claimant also that he has not completed 240 days continuous service preceding the date of his termination . He has alleged in the claim statement that the respondent puta break of one month or months together after every two months to debar him from the benefit of 240 days continuous service . In the claim statement it has been alleged that such breaks are notional breaks but this interpretation of notional break cannot be accepted. Notional break cannot be ofmonths .
As it has been held that the workman is not entitled tothe protectior of Section 25 - F of the Act and no violation ofSection 25 - N is involved in the case and also the claimant has not proved the violation of Section 25 -G of the Act it cannot be held that the management is guilty of adopting unfair labour practice in terminating the service of the claimant . Issue No. 3 is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 4
From the above going discussion it is clear that the termination of the service of the claimant is according to law and justified. The claimant is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . Let two copies of the award be sent to Central Government for further necessary action .
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer From the statement of working days annexed to the written statement it appears that the claimant worked up to August 1988 only . Therefore for the entitlement of Section 25F of the Act the period commencing from 1st September, 1987 to 31st August , 1988 becomes relevant . The statement shows that the claimant did not work in September , October , November 1987 , January 1988 , April 1988 and June 1988 . During the preceding 12 calendar months he worked only in December 1987 , February 1988 , March 1988 , May 1988 , July 1988 and August 1988 and the total working days of his service during the preceding 12 calendar months before his termination are only 157 days. Therefore he was not entitled to the protection of Section F of the Act as well . The termination of the services of the workman cannot be assailed on the ground of violation of Section 25 - N or 25 - F ofthe Act . Issue No. 1 is decided against the workman.
Issue No. 2
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 769. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू०सी ०एल० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध 1 में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27.01.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -22015 /13/2005- आईआर ( सी-11 ) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी The workman's case is that while terminating his service the juniors were retained in violation of Section 25G of the Act . Much emphasis has been laid down in the written arguments on the non- maintainability of seniority listwhich is a must for an employer under Rule 77 of ID( C) Rule 1957 and relying on ajudgement of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hisar 2010 ( 1 ) SCT 303 it was argued that in case of violation of Section 25G of the Act the workman is entitled to reinstatement.
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012 The management on the other hand has pleaded that in compliance ofthe judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofHimachal Pradesh the seniority list is being maintained and as per policy only those workmen have been placed in the list who had worked continuously for 120 days in preceding six months immediately before 1.4.1988 and as the workman has himself admitted in para 7 of his affidavit that he had worked for 78 days only, during this period , so his name was not included in the list .
S.O. 769. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/ 05) ofthe 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 WCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27.01.2012 .
[No. L- 22015 / 13 /2005 - IR ( C - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer .
But I think that the dispute of maintaining or non- maintaining of seniority list and the inclusion or non- inclusion ofthe claimants name in the seniority list becomes [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1759 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
ANNEXURE
that the management be directed to pay the scale attached to the post of tub loader and also directed to refund the deduction made with interest .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/ 107/05
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN
The Authorised Representative,
M.P. Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Panchayat ( HMS) ,
Junnardeo ,
Distt. Chhindwara
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Pench Area,
PO Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of January 2012
1. The Government of India, Ministry or Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22015/ 13 /2005 - IR ( C - II ) dated 26.9.2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the management of WCL , Pench Area , P.O. Parasia , Distt . Chhindwara in not protecting the higher basic wages drawn in Category Gr. 5A (Piece rated) by the worker Shri Thakur S/ o Ramdeo earlier is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?
3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management, inter alia is that the workman was initially appointed as Underground Tub Loader in Rawanwara Khas Mines w.e.f. 7.12.1972 and worked on the said post till 13.3.1999. He underwent for periodical medical examination asrequired under Mines Rules and it was detected that he was suffering from disease unconnected with his employment . He was referred to Apex Medical Board for examination who advised him for alternate job not involving the strenuous physical work . There was no alternate job at Rawanwara Khas colliery. The workman is said to have approached the management and requested for giving light job to any other colliery where the light/alternate job was available . The piece rated , Tub loaders are paid according to the output done by the employees whereas the time rated workers get a fixed pay scale . The workman wanted to change his job from piece rated to time rated due to his health reason . Accordingly he was transferred to Thesgora Mechanised Mine at his request for time rated alternative job vide order dated 12.3.99 . Subsequently order No. 290 dated 15.3.99 was issued to the workman and work was allotted of time rated category of Pump Khalasi . It is admitted that those papers are filed by the workman which are W/ 3 to W/ 5 . The workman is said to have accepted the job and has raised this issue after several years . The workman was not entitled the wages of Tub Loader as he wasworking as General Mazdoor. The pay fixation of the workman had been done in accordance with the settlement and office order which are M/ 1 and M/2 . The workman had rightly paid the wages of time rated as he had performed the job of time rated only. The order referred to by the workman does not show that he was transferred to' Thesgora Mine to the post of Tub Loader. It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference be answered in favour of the management .
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are famed for adjudication-
I. "Whether the action of the management in not protecting the higher basic wages drawn in CategoryGr. 5A ( Piece rated) by the workman is legal and justified ? "
II. To what relief, the workman is entitled?
5. Issue No. 1
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the following facts are admitted as such those are not necessary to be proved.
2.The case of the Union/ workman in short is that the workman Shri Thakur was appointed in WCL , Pench Area , Chhindwara (MP) in the year 1972 as Tub Loader. The management gave a letter dated 23.2.99 to the Mines Superintendent directing him to inform the workman to appear before the Headquarter hospital , Nagpur on 26.2.99 for medical examination . He was examined by the Apex MedicalBoard Nagpur who recommended to the Manager to give him alternative job . The workman was transferred from Pench to Thesgora Mine on 15.3.99 and was doing duties of Tub Loader. Thereafter the management issued anorder dated 4.5.99 directing him to work as Pumper on temporary basis for three months . He was drawing salary ofTub Loader till March 99. However all of a sudden his basic salary was reduced from April 1999 and was being paid salary of General Mazdoor. He was not appointed to the post of General Mazdoor nor consent/ permission/ intimation was given by the workman before making change of his service conditions . The workman did not want to change thejob . It is violation of the provision of NCWA as well as other rules applicable to the Coal Industry. The workman had made several representations . It is submitted
452 G1 / 2012-24 1760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1. The workman Shri Thakur was appointed in WCL , Pench Area , Chhindwara (MP ) in the year 1972 as Tub Loader.
2. The workman was periodically examined under Mines Rules and was referred to Apex Medical Board, Nagpur for examination.
3. He was examined by the Apex Medical Board on 26.2.1999 at HQ Dispensary Nagpur and was recommended for alternative job due to I.H.D. not involving strenuous physical work .
4. The workman was transferred from Pench to Thesgora Mine on 15.3.99 .
5. Thereafter the management issued an order dated 4.5.99 directing the workman to do work as Pumper on temporary basis for three months .
6. He was drawing salary oftub loader till March 1999 . Thereafter his basis salary was reduced from April 1999.
6. Now the important point for consideration is as to whether the workman was entitled to get pay protection on transfer from Pench Area to Thesgora Mine . According to the workman , he had not given any consent , permission or intimation to the management to change his service conditions from Tub Loader (piecerated) to General Mazdoor ( time rated) . It is alleged that it was in violation of the provision of NCWA as well as rules applicable to the Coal Industry whereas the management contended that there was no alternate job at Rawanwara Khas colliery in view ofthe Apex Medical Board report where the workman was working , then the workman approached the management to give light job at any other colliery where the light/alternate job was available. Accordingly he was transferred to Thesgora Mechanised Mine at his request for time rated alternative job vide order dated 12-3-99. Subsequent order No. 290 dated 15-3-99 was issued to the workman and work was allotted of time rated category of pump khalasi .
7. The important point is that as to whether the consent was given by the workman for light/ alternate job and for transfer to Thesgora Mechanised Mine . The pleding of the management itself shows that the workman approached and requested to transfer anywhere in another mine. This pleading itself shows that it was not the request to transfer in Thesgora Mechanised Mine alone where alternate job was not available.
8. Another important point is as to whether the workman gave any consent for changing him from piece rated to time rated. There is no chit of paper filed either by the workman or the management to show that the workman hadgiven any consent in writing to change him from piece rated to time rated and to give lighter /alternate job . However the report of the Apex Medical Board which is admitted by
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
both the parties shows that it was recommendation of the MedicalBoard . The report is W/2 which is as follows-
"Shri Thakur S'o Ramdeo , T. Loader , Pench East Incline , AN ALTERNATE JOB CASE , has been examined by the Apx Medical Board on 26-2-99 at HQ Dispensary Nagpur and recommended as under:
"ADV. Alternate job due to I.H.D. not involving strenuous physical work . "
This clearly shows that it was the Medical Board who had advised for giving him alternate job to the management due to heart disease . This also shows that the workman had not given any consent or intimation to the management in writing to change from Piece rated to time rated .
9. The workman has filed the transfer orders and the order of posting as Pumper which is said to be time rated job which are W/3 to W/ 5 . The management has also admitted these documents in his pleadings . Now let us examine these documents to determine that as to whether the workman was transferred in time rated with his consent or not . W/3 is the Release order dated 12-3-99 which shows that the workman Shri Thakur was released on transfer from Rawanwara Khas colliery to Thisgora as Tub Loader and he was directed to report to Sub Area Manager. There is nothing to show that he was transferred on the time rated post . W/4 is the order dated 15-3-99 of the Mines Manager Thisgora Underground Mine . This order shows that the workman was permitted to work in the mine as Tub Loader . This order further shows that he was not entitled TA/DA as he was transferred on his own request but this order does not show that the workman had consented for lighter job of time rated rather the order shows that he was transferred on the post of Tub Loader/Piece rated . W/5 is the office order dated 4-5-99 of Mines Manager , Thisgora Uderground Mine . This order shows that the workman was directed to work as Pumper temporarily for three months . This itself shows that he was not permanently made as Pumper. Thus the order clearly shows that he was permanently not given light job . There is no other paper to show that he was allotted permanently light job as pumper onthe consent of the workman . This aspect further shows that there was no consent of the workman as such he was temporarily given lighter job . The workman has filed two pay slips, one is of March 1999 and another is of November . 2000. In both the pay slips , he was designated as Tub Loader. It is obvious that the documents show that the workman had not consented for light job rather the Apex Medical Board had suggested for alternative job due to heart ailment and it was the move of the management to provide him lighter job . He was temporarily made pumper for three months and thereafter continued as tub Loader as per pay slip as there was no order showing permanant lighter job allotted by the management .
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1761
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
Thus it is clear that the action of the management is not justicfied in not protecting the higher basic wages drawn in Category 5A ( piece rated ) . Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
14. Issue No. II
On the basis of the discussions made above , it is clear that the workman is entitled to get protection of piece rated wages . Accordingly the management is directed to pass necessary order within two months from the date of award after protecting the wages of piece rated of the workman from the date of payment of time rated wages . The reference is , accordingly, answered.
10. The workman Shri Thakur is also examined in the case .He has supported that he was transferred to Thesgora Mines on the same post . This fact is in corroboration of the documentary evidence as discussed above . he has stated that after six months his pay was deducted. He has admitted that he was entrusted the work of General Mazdoor , Fitter, ter, Helper, Mechanical Helper time to time but there is no order filed by the management to show that he was entrusted these works by any written order after converting hisjob from piece rated to time rated . This shows that he was basically Tub Loader but the work was taken of different types time to time and there was no such consent of the workman rather it was done on the recommendation of the Apex Medical Board. Thus his evidence also supports that he had not given any consent to change the job from picce rated to time rated .
15. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
16. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .
11. On the other hand , the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence . The management has filed photocopy of settlement between the management and the RKKMS Union which was arrived on 31-10-1995 and which is M/ 2 and para - 5 of the said settlement runs as follows-
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, PresidingOfficer.
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2012
"Such piece rated workmen who may be put in time rated/monthly rated in future by managerial decisions i.e. without seeking option for time rated/monthly rated or without going through the selection process against internal notification for time rated/ monthly rated , will continue to get protection of piece rated wages . Such piece rated workmen who come to TR as per option given by them will not get his benefit . "
का०आ० 770.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स आयल इंण्डिया लिमिटेड जोधपुर एश्योरेंस के प्रबंधतंत्र के सबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायलय जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 39/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं० एल -30015 /9/2005- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi the 27th January, 2012 This clearly shows that the workman was put in time rated by managerial decisions without option of the workman and without any permanent order of lighter job and therefore he would continue to get protection of piece rated wages . In this particular case , there is no chit ofpaper to show that the workman had given option for time rated. As such he appears to be entitled to get protection of piece rated wages .
S.O. 770. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No .......... 39/2005 .......... ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /S Oil India Ltd ( Jodhpur ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2/1/2012
[No. L- 30015/9/2005 - IR(M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR 12. The management has filed office order which is Exhibit M/2 . The office order also goes to show that those piece rated workers who had been deployed on time rated job at their own request should not be paid group wages . Butin this particular case , it appears that the Apex Medical Board recommended for alternate job and it was the managerial decision . There is nothing to show that the workman had opted for time rated. Moreover it appears from the documents discussed above that he was temporarily directed to work for three months as pumper and thereafter he remained as Tub Loader . This aspect of the case also shows that the workman is entitled to get protection of piece rated wages from the date of reduction ofhispay.
PRESENT N.K. PUROHIT PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. 39/2005
13. The management withness Shri Hirok Sarkar is Dy. Personnel Manager. He has stated that the workman wanted alternate job of time rated. There is no paper to show that the workman had given in writing any option for time rated . His evidence appears to be not raliable to absence of any option given by the workman to the management .
Reference No. L - 30015 /9 /2005 - IR( M) date: 16/03/2005 Sh. Sultan Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Hanuman Singh Rathore 1762
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
R/ o Lodsar House , Rasala Road , Jodhpur.
V/ s
The General Manager
Oil India Limited
Rajasthan Project
12-Old Residency Road, Jodhpur.
AWARD
17-11-2011
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribubal for adjudication which is as under: -
"Whether the demand of Sh . Sultan Singh Rathore S/ o Sh . Hanuman Singh Rathore for regularizing his service as Radio Operator in the service of Oil India Limited from the date of his initial appointment , or from the date the services of other 3 similarly placed persons were ragularized , justified? if so , to what relief Sh . Sultan Singh Rathor is entitled ? "
2. The workman in his claim statement has pleaded that he is an ex- employee of Border Security Force and after his superannuation as Assistant Sub - Inspector in 1989, he was engaged in the services of non - applicant Corporation w.e.f. 16.8.1989 on the post of Radio Operator. In spite of the fact that the post of Radio Operator was substantively available with the non - applicant Corporation to avoid the legitimate rights of the workman he was engaged through a contractor . He has further pleaded that he is discharging the duties of Radio Operator under the guidance and supervision of the non - applicant Corporation &the presence of contractor is merely a camouflage . The workmanhas also pleaded that he is discharging his duties from last about 16 years without any status & he is not getting the benefit of regularization & equal salary and pay scale payable to the regular employees of the non - applicant Corporation. The workman has prayed for regularization of his services as Radio Operator in the services of non- applicant Corporation from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits .
3.The Corporation in its reply has denied the claim of the workman . It has been averred that workman was never engaged in the services of the non- applicant on the postofRadio Operator directly & no post of Radio Operator was substantively available . The Corporation has contended that the workman had been engaged as an employee of the contractor on the post of Radio Operator which is of temporary in nature & he has rendered his services under the direct control & supvervision of the contractor concerned & not of the Corporation . It is wrong to say that presence of the contractor is merely a camouflage to violate the legal rights of the workman . The duty which has been discharged by the workman is not of continuous & perennial in nature . It has further been contended that there is no vacancy & vacant post & all recruitment are freezed from 1996 onwards till the day therefore , question ofabsorption & regularization of the workman's service can never arise. Further contract labour has no right to be automatically absorbed with the principal employer.
4. The non-applicant Corporation has also raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the claim on the ground that such type of dispute can only beraisedthrough union ; that no employer employee relation ever existed; that the reference at the outset is 'bad in law' .
5.Inrejoinder, the workman has only reiterated earlier averments made by him in his claim statement.
6.Theworkman filed his affidavit on 17.5.06 in support ofhis claim & he was cross examined on 25.3.10 by the representative on behalf of the Corporation.
7. At the stage of workman evidence the workman moved an application on 23.11.10 along with an affidavit stating therein that he wants to withdraw his claim without any condition therefore , he maybe allowed to withdraw hiscase & his claim may be disposed of accordingly.
8. On subsequent dates the learned representative ofboth the sides sought adjournments for filing settlement between the parties & ultimately on 17.11.11 an application was submitted on behalf of the Corporation to dispose of the case according to the enclosed settlement between the parties.
9. Upon perusal of the agreement dated 15.11.11 it reveals that the said agreement has been signed by the workman & General Manager , Oil India Ltd. , Rajasthan Project , Jodhpur on behalf of the Corporation . It further reveals that both parties have mutually agreed upon the terms & conditions of the settlement & as per settlement arrived between the parties now no dispute exists between the parties on any point .
10. So far as request of the workman for withdrawal of the claim is concerned , there is no specific provision under the I.D. Act for withdrawal of the claim . But since , the workman has admitted that now no dispute exists & his grievances stand redressed , there is no need to adjudicate the dispute on merits as there is no grievance left with the workman . Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to theworkman.
11. In view of the settlement dated 15.11.11 arrived between the parties "No Dispute Award" is passed . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
12. Award as above .
13. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/ s 17 ( 1 ) ofthe I.D. Act.
N.K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 771.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीचअनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 103/2001 ) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1763
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
कोप्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -31011/3/2000- आई आर ( एम ) ]
जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th Juanuary, 2012
S.O. 771. In purusance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No .... 103/2001 .......) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Mumbai - 2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Mumbai Port Trust (Mumbai) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2/1/2012 .
[No. L-31011 /3 /2000- IR(M) ] Johan Topno , Under Secretary
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CNETRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI
Present
Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ PresidingOfficer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT-2/103 of2001
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST
The Chairman Mumbai Port Trust Port House, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg Mumbai 400038 .
AND
THEIR WORKMEN,
( 1) The General Secretary Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Employees Union
Kamgar Sadan Mazgaon Mumbai 400 010.
(2) The President Transport & Dock Workers Union P.D'mello Bhawan P.D'mello Road Carnac Bunder Mumbai 400 038
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER:
Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMAN Union No. ( 1 ) :
Mr. J.H.Sawant, Advocate .
FOR THE WORKMAN Union No. (2) : Mr. A.M. Koyande, Advocate.
Mumbai , dated the 15th November 2011 .
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L -31011 /3 /2000- IR (M), dated 17.08.2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the industrial dispute relating to Leave Encashment , House Rent Allowance and Port Allowance raised by the All India Port & Dock Workers Federation against the management of Mumbai Port Trust justified? If so , to what reliefthe workmen are entitled to ? "
2.After receipt of the reference from the Ministry, both the parties were served with notices and they appeared through their legal representatives . In response to the notice the second party union no . I representing the workers has filed its statement of claim at Ex- 9 and Second party union no . 2 adopts the same Statement of claim vide Ex- 16 .According to it, the union is representing the workers ofMumbai Port Trust. The Mumbai Port Trust is a Statutory Body constituted under the provisions of Major Port Trust Act 1963. The service conditions of the workmen concerning the present dispute are governed and settled byway ofvarious settlements , agreements , awards , orders , rules , regulations and Trustees Regulations so also directives and laws . The workmen are enjoying the benefit of leave encashment of only earned leave . It was allowed only once in a year and limited to 50% of the leave standing attheir credit . Encashment is paid in advance and same is not counted as emoluments for any purpose . The scheme isapplicable to all regular employees . The benefit of said leave encashment of earned leave based on the pay and allowance including the house rent allowance was available to and in fact enjoyed by the workmen w.e.f. 13/02/1979 and the said benefit was protected under clause 26 ofsettlement dated 4/1/1981 and the clause was included in every settlement thereafter till the year 2000. The benefit ofencashment of earned leave based on pay & allowances including HRA have become one of the statutory conditions of the service of the workmen . Mumbai Port Trust management has started recovering the amount of HRA from leave encashment amount w.e.f. May 1993 and the amount of house rent allowance was not further computed for the purpose of earned leave w.e.f. February 2000. This has been done by the Mumbai Port Trust by 1764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
issuing office circular dated 17.08.2001 issued by Accounts Department to all the principal officers . They have stopped computing the HRA from 1/1/1998 restrospectively for the purpose of overtime wages of the employees who are not in receipt of HRA . For all the workmen such allowance was available since 1970 .
3.All the workers were receiving City Compensatroy Allowance in the terms of settlement arrived at between the Port authroities and five major federations of Port and Dock workers and it was considered as pay for all the purposes including for contribution to PF and for rate of overtime working the said allowance was renamed as Port Allowance w.e.f. 1.1.1998 .
4. The above referred three benefits were existing from long time and they were the statutory terms of the employment of the workmen under reference . These were the part and parcel of the terms of memorandum of settlements arrived at under the provisions of Section 12 ( 3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Mumbai Port Trust by its circulardt. 17/8/2000 on the subject of pay revision ofClass- III and Class - IV employees w.e.f. 1/1/1997 and 1/ 1/1998 stopped the Port Allowance . They have stopped considering the HRA for calculating over time for payment for work done on national or festival holidays , for leave encahsment etc. They have also started recovery of HRA alredy paid since May 1993 and stopped considering HRA since January 2000 for the encashment of earned leave . They have also stopped the Port allowance . Therefore the union has filled writ petitition bearing no . 1342/2001 in Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging amongst the others the clauses of circular no . FA/EWRS - 1 (98 )/ 12888 dated 17/08/2000 . The Hon'ble Bombay High Court was pleased to direct the union to refer the dispute for adjudication . The Central Government has therefore has referred this dispute . The union therefore prays that the clauses nos . III , VII and 7 of circular no . FA/EWRS - 1 ( 98 )/ 12888 dated 17/08/2000 be quashed and set aside. The first party be directed to pay all the arrears with interest @ 18% p.a. and also pray to direct first party to restore the above three benefits with immediate effect .
5.The first party company resisted the claim vide its written statement Ex - 11 . According to them , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as the decision in respect of House RentAllowance is taken on the basis of Government orders . The action taken by the first party is in consonance with the orders issued by the Government . As per the settlement dated 1/1/1984 and 1/1/1988 the terms thereof were subject to approval of Government of India . The Ministry of Shipping is the controlling authority in the matter of service conditions of the employees . The action of first party is as perthe direction of Government of India by its order dt . 12/ 12/1978 in respect of HRA in the matter of encashment of earned leave .
6.The resident Audit Officers have raised objection
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]
for payment of HRA in overtime wages to those who were occupying Port Trust quarters . It was held an error as overpayment ofovertime wages . Therefore since 1/1/1998 the HRA was not considered for the purpose of counting overtime wages of the employees who are occupying Port Trust quarters . Therefore such employees are not entitled to receive amount of HRA in over time wages .
7. The Port Allowance now introduced has new character different from earlier CCA hence it would not have the same treatment as that of CCA in the matter of deduction of PF and payment of overtime wages . The Port Allwance is distinct from CCA.. CCA was payable in some Ports during earlier settlements . The Port Allowance thus , need not be considered for dec.uction of PF or for payment of overtime wages . Therefore question of quashing instructions issued by the Port Trust in clauses 3 ( iii) , 3 (vii) (e) and 3 (vii) (f) of circular d . 17/8/2000 does not arise . According to them , the reference is devoid of merit . Thus they pray that the same be dismissed with cost .
8. Following are the issues frame by my Ld . Predecessor for my determination I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1 . Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference as averred in Written statement, para.3 ? Yes .
2. Whether dispute raised by the union against the management relating to leave encashment is justified? Yes .
3. Whether the dispute raised by the union against the management relating to House Rent Allowance is justified? Yes.
Yes.
4. Whether the dispute raised by the union relating to Port Allowance is justified?
5. Whatrelief the workmen are entitled to?
Asper
final order.
REASONS
Issue no . 1 : -
9. It is the case of first party management that the decision in respect of calculation of amount of leave encashment and overtime wages was taken by the Government . The action of the management is in consonance with the orders issued by the Government . In the circumstances , this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the legality, validity and propriety of the Government [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1765 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
and they have made the changes as per the directions/ circulars of the Government . In this respect fact is not disputed that there is change in calculating the amount of leave encashment and overtime wages . In the circumstances , the question is whether it amount to the change in the service conditions of the employees and whether notice under Section 9- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter for brevity referred as I.D. Act ) is necessary?
" 2. On the point Id . Adv. for the second party submitted that as HRA and Port Allowance are not calculated, while payment of overtime wages and leave encashment, if affect the interest of the workmen concerned. According to him , it amount to change in the service conditions of the workmen. In support of his argument he resorted to Apex Court ruling in Workmen at the Wadala Factory of HP Co. Ltd. V/ s . IHP Co. Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 1794 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that , under Section 9- A of the I.D. Act , wage structure change in the system detrimental to workers not to be allowed except under compelling circumstances .
13. Ld. Adv. also referred another ruling ofHon'ble BombayHigh Court in Tata Tea Ltd. (Bom) Employees Union V/s . Tata Tea Ltd. & Anr. 2007 III CLR 724 wherein there was a provision of pension to the employees of the company on their retirement . It was continued for a long period . The pension scheme was subsequently withdrawn . Theworkmen raised dispute for non -compliance of Section 9 -A of the I.D. Act . It was rejected by the Tribunal. Therefore the workmen had approached the Hon'ble High Court . The Hon'ble High Court on the point observed that;
" It is a charter of payment of pension continued for long time which cannot be withdrawn unilaterally withoutissuing notice under Section 9-A of the Act. " orders. In this respect I would like to point out that it is the case of the second party unions that neither they have challenged the Government order or any circular issued thereby. Therefore question of deciding validity of order orcircular ofGovernment does not arise . The second party in this reference has challenged the action of the management in calculating the amount of leave encashment and of the overtime wages . According to the first party, Government of India , Ministry of Labour issued a notification stating that the provisions of Section 2 (h ) , Section 14 and Rule 25 of the Minimum Wages Rules 1950 shall not apply to the employees engaged in scheduled employment in Port Trust. The Financial Audit Advisors and Chief Accountant Officer, Mumbai Port Trust vide his circular dated 30/5/2002 discontinued the practice of paying overtime wages at double the ordinary rate of wages . Vide this circular , Port Trust has discontinued the practice of 51 years in the matter of payment of wages of overtime at double the rate of normal wages . In the case at hand the question is whether it amount to change in the terms of service conditions as contemplated under Section 9 - A of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. If it amount to change in the terms service conditions , it was mandatory to issue notice to the second party by the management . If there is change in the terms of service conditions , may it be in consonance with the order of Government or otherwise , the notice under Section 9 -A is the mandate of law. No order or Government circular is challenged herein nor any declaration to that effect canbe given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is deciding a mere point in issue as to whether the action of the management is legal and valid in the light of Section 9 -A of I.E. Act 1947. In this respect I would like to point out that this Tribunal can very well examine the issues under reference and it has jurisdiction to that effect . In this backdrop I decide this issue no . 1 in the affirmative that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this reference .
Issues nos . 2 to 4 :-
Hon'ble Court in this case in para 21 ofthe judgement further observed that;
"Theprovisions of Section 9 -A are attracted when any change is to be brought about in the conditions of service enlisted in the Fourth Scheduled of the I.D.Act . "
10.All these issues are in respect of counting of pay for the purpose of encashment of leave and for payment of overtime wages . Such as whether HRA and Port Allowance is part of pay for encashment of leave and to pay the wages of overtime which is @ double the wages per hour of the employee? All the three issues are related to the same point . Therefore in order to avoid repetition of discussion , they are decided simultaneously . A short question for determination is whether management is justified in not calculating the HRA and Port Allowance while encashment of leave and payment of overtime.
11. In this respect, the fact is not disputed that while computing the amount of leave encashment as well as the amount of overtime wages previously, HRA and Port Allowance were considered as part of the pay of the workman concerned. According to the first party, there was no approval of Government to the earlier settlements
14. On the point the Id . Adv. for the first party submitted that, the management has not stopped payment ofHRA or the Port Allowance to the workers under reference . On the other hand , HRA and Port Allowance are not taken into account at the time of leave encashment and in calculating the overtime wages . Therefore , according to him it does not amount to change in the service conditions . In this respect I would like to point out that HRA and Port Allowance were considered as part ofpay while calculating overtime wages and amount of leave encashment. It was practice followed since number of years . Though the amount of HRA and Port Allowance are meager amount , they were treated as part of pay while calculating amount [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
1766
ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Mumbai - 2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Mumbai ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2.1.2012 .
of leave encashment and overtime wages . Withdrawal of said practice amount to withdrawal of concession or privilege as contemplated under entry no . 8 , of Fourth Schedule i.e. ' Withdrawal of any customary or concession orprivilege or change in the usage ' . Change therein as per the Government circular and direction no doubt amount to change in the terms of service conditions .
[No. L- 30012/22/2007 - IR(M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secretary
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI
Present
Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT -2/53 OF 2007
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 15. In the light of the ratio laid down in both the above rulings I hold that the action of management amount to change in the condition of service . There is no dispute that, for any change in the service conditions of the workmen notice under Section 9 - A of the I.D. Act is necessary. In the case at hand , not taking into account the HRA and Port Allowance in calculating the overtime wages and the amount of leave encashment come in the ambit of Section 9 -A of the I.D. Act as it amount to withdrawal of customary concession or privilege or change in usage . Therefore I hold that the decision taken by the management cannot be called justified when they have made the change without notice under Section 9 - A of the I.D. Act . Accordingly I decide these issues nos . 2 to 4 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Reference is allowed with no order as to cost .
The Dy. General Manager ( HRS ) West Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. BharatBhavan No. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate P.B. No. 688 Mumbai-400 001 .
AND
(ii) The dispute raised by the second party unions in respect of calculating leave encashment and overtime wages with HRA and Port Allowance is justified.
( iii) The Change made by the management in calculating the amount of leave encashment and overtime wages without considering HRA and Port Allowance is held illegal and void.
THEIR WORKMEN Smt . Rahi Sanjiv Shinde 'Neelkanth Dhara ' No. B- 7 , 1st floor Subhash Road Dombivli (W) Distt. Thane .
Dated: 15.11.2011
APPEARANCES :
K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER :
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
Mr. R.S. Pai Advocate .
FOR THE WORKMAN :
Mr. Prakash Devdas , Advocate .
Mumbai , dated the 14th November 2011 .
AWARD
का०आ० 772. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई -2 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 53/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2.1.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/22/2007 - आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L- 30012/22/2007- IR ( M ) , dated 22.10.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management is fair and justified in dismissing the services of deceased workman S.O. 772.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2007) 1767
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
during the period of missing ? If not, what benefits is his legal heir entitled for? And whether the demand ofthe legal heir to allow all benefits/entitlement till declaration ofdeath ofmissing workman is in order and valid as per law? Ifso , what benefits and payments is the legal heir entitled for ? "
sonof deceased workman Shri Nilesh Sanjeev Shinde who had applied for employment on compassionate ground. The management has refused all the claims of the L/Rs . Therefore theypray that the dismissal ofdeceased workman be set aside. They also pray for direction to treat qualifying service of the workman from 1.10.1981 to 2.9.2004 . They also pray for direction to pay all the dues of the deceased workman on the basis of the said qualifying service . They also sought direction to the first party to give employment to Shri Nilesh Sanjeev Shinde , son ofthe deceased workman on compassionate ground on the basis of his qualification and also pray for cost of the reference .
2.After receipt ofthe reference , both the parties were served with the notices . They apeared through their respective legal representatives . The second party widow of the deceased workman filed her statement of claim at Ex- 5 . According to her, she is the widow of deceased workman Sanjeev D. Shinde . According to her , husband was employed with the first party as Operator (Field) . He wasemployed since 1.10.1981 . On 3.9.1997 he was found missing after duty hours 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. shift duty. Missing complaint was lodged with Byculla Police . The employer BPCL had initiated an inquiry against the workman for habitual absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days and committing an act of subversive of discipline. The said chargesheet was never served on the workman as he was missing. The LRs and widow remained present before the
Inquiry Officer and informed his that workman was missing since 3.9.1997 . They also produced the copy of missing NC report lodged in the police station. Inspite of that, the inquiry officer conducted exparte inquiry and submitted report . The employer BPCL dismissed the workman from his services by their order dated 26.10.1999. The legal heirs /widow of the workman approached to the ALC ( C) and raised industrial dispute . As the conciliation failed, at the report ofALC (C) , the Ministry of Labour has sent this reference .
4.The first partyBPC Ltd. has resisted the statement ofclaim vide its written statement Ex- 8 . According to them, theworkmanMr. S.D. Shinde was absent from duty without permission for more than 301 days from January 1997 to March 1998. He was therefore charge sheeted dated 12.3.1998 for habitual absence without leave and absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days . The charge sheet was served at his known address . The corporation has also published the charge sheet in newspaper, daily Loksattadt. 9.7.1998 calling upon Mr. S.D. Shinde to remain present before the inquiry officer Shri R.I. Mehta, Dy. Manager, DSB at Sewri on 16.7.1998. Inspite of the said notice and intimation , he remained absent . Therefore inquiry officer conducted exparte inquiry and he submitted his report dt . 4.9.98 holding the workman guilty ofthe charges leveled against him . Copy of the report was sent to the known address of Mr. Shinde . First party did not receive any representation on the report of inquiry officer. They only received the acknowledgement from the wife of the workman. As no representation was received , disciplinary authority by its order dt . 26.10.1999 dismissed Mr. Shinde from the services of the Corporation .
3.According to the widow /LR of the deceased, the action of the management is unfair and unjustified in dismissing the services of the deceased workman . In fact the workman is missing and police were not able to trace him out. The management has merely complied with the formalities of the inquiry knowing well that the workman was missing. The inquiry officer violated the principles of natural justice . As the workman is missing since 3.9.1997 and his whereabouts are not known more than 7 years . Therefore since 2.9.2004 he has to be presumed to be dead and the his L/Rs are entitled to all the benefits of the deceased workman till the date of2.9.2004 . The demand of the L/Rs and the widow for declaration of death of the missing workman after 7 years is valid as per the law and they are entitled to the benefit as if workman died while in service of first party. The management has counted the service ofthe workman from the date of his recruitment till the date of his missing which is erroneous . The widow and L/Rs claim the gratuity, pension and other benefits presuming that the workman was in service till 2.9.2004 i.e. on the date ofhis civil death . The children of the deceased workman are entitled employment on compassionate ground. The management refused to consider the claim of
5. After the dismissal of the workman , his wife submitted an application to Dy. G.M. ( HRS ) ( W ) dated 28.2.2000 stating that she is wife of Shri S.D. Shinde , Operator and informed that he was missing since 3.9.97 . She also made a request to the Corporation to wait for a period of 7 years . Thereafter claimant has raised industrial dispute. According to them, the reference is not tenable. The workman was dismissed from the service for the misconduct proved against him i.e. unauthorized absence of 301 days . The disciplinary authority considered the report ofthe inquiry officer and past record of the workman where-under he was awarded punishment for several misconducts mentioned in the order 26.10.1999. Therefore according to them the punishment is just fair and in accordance with the standing orders . There is no employer- employee relationship between the Corporation and the claimant . The claimant has not obtained succession certificate . The action of the Corporation of initiating inquiry and dismissing the workman is just, proper and legal . The workman cannot be deemed to be in employment till the date of his presumed death as on 2.9.2004 . They
452Gl /2012-25 1768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
denied that claimant of the other legal heirs are entitled to the benefits on the basis of presumption of death of the workman since 2.9.2004 by disregarding his dismissal dt . 26.10.99 . They also denied that children of workman are entitled to get employment on compassionate ground . It cannot be sought for by way of industrial dispute. The periodfrom thedate of dismissal till the date of presumption of death cannot be treated as period of service for the purpose ofentitlement of benefits by the claimant and other L/Rs of the workman . Therefore , they pray that the reference be dismissed with cost .
offer any explanation or representation in respect of the report and the findings of the inquiry officer. In the circumstances , Id. adv. submitted that the inquiry is fair and proper. He further submitted that in such circumstances , the Tribunal cannot setaside the inquiry and also cannot reach to the conclusion that findings are perverse. In support of his argument Id . adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. V/s . The workmen AIR 1963 SC 1914 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that:
6. The widow of the deceased workman vide of rejoinder Ex- 9 denied the contents in the written statement and repeated her claim that the widow and L/Rs are entitled to get all the benefits with presumption of death 7 years after the date of missing.
" Ifan employees service is terminated after a proper domestic inquiry, held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusion reached at in the inquiry are not perverse , the Industrial Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of the said conclusion . " 7. Following are the issues framed by my Ld . Predecessor for my determination . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
S. No. Issues
Findings
No.
The Id . adv. also resorted to another Apex Court ruling in Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. V/s . Labour Court II , Lucknow 1972 IILLJ 328 wherein the Hon'bleCourt observed that:
1. Whether the action of the management is fair and justified in dismissing the services of deceased workman during the period of missing?
Party in the affirmative .
2. Whether the legal heirs of the deceased workman are entitled to the retirement benefits till his retirement on superannuation?
Yes.
"This court had in several cases while dealing with industrial disputes of this kind occasion to point out thatan Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in characterizing the findings recorded at the domestic inquiry as perverse unless it can be shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence or is entirely opposed to the whole body of evidence adduced before it . "
3 Whether the son of the deceased workman is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of his qualifications?
4 What other reliefs the heirs of deceased workman are entitled to?
Asper final order.
5. What orders?
Asper final order.
The Id . adv. also resorted to another Apex Court ruling in South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union V/s. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors . (2006) 5 SCC 201 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that:
REASONS
Issue no . 1 :
"Conducting of inquiry by an officer of the management not ipso facto vitiative of the inquiry . "
The Hon'ble Court in this case also observed that:
" If the inquiry is proper then in the absence of any allegation of victimization or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed. "
However this rule is not applicable for discharge and dismissal of the worker from service which is governed under Section 11 -A of the I.D. Act .
8. In this respect, the Id . Adv. for the first party management has submitted that the notice of domestic inquiry was sent on the correct address of the employee . The notice of inquiry was also published in English and vernacular newspapers . Inspite of that nobody appeared to resist the inquiry. Therefore he submitted that the inquiry officer rightly proceeded exparte . He further submitted that the inquiry officer recorded the evidence of the witnesses . Perused the documents produced in the inquiry proceedings and he found the workman guilty for the misconduct of habitual absence continuously for more than 10 days . Therefore, the management sent showcause notice to the workman on his residential address . The workman did not
9. In the case at hand , the Id . Adv. for the second party submittedthat the inquiry and findings of the inquiry officer were exparte . He submitted that the second party i.e. the widow of the workman has placed on record the [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1769
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
fact that the workman is missing since 3/9/1997 . It is a fact that no notice or chargesheet was served on the workman as he is missing . According to the inquriy officer and the first party, the chargesheet and showcause notice etc. were sent on the residential address of the workman . As the inquiry notice was not served on the workman , they have also published the notice in English as well as in vernacular newspapers . In short fact is not disputed even by the first party that the workman is missing and he was not served with the chargesheet . In the circumstances Id . adv. for the second party submitted that the above referred rulings are in respect of the facts wherein inquiries were conducted on merit. In the case at hand , as the workman was not served with the chargesheet , the Id. adv. for second party rightly submitted that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid ruling is not attracted wherein the inquiries were conducted onmerit . The Id. adv. submitted that the inquiry cannot be called fair and proper unless , chargesheet thereof is served on the workman or unless sufficient opportunity is given to him to defend himself. According to him , as the workman is missing , no show- cause notice or chargesheet were served on him. There was clear violation of principles of natural justice . Therefore , according to him , the inquiry cannot be called fair and proper and findings of Inquiry Officer are apparently found to be perverse . In support of his argument , Id . Adv. resorted to the Apex Court ruling in Union of India & Ors . V/ s . Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Ors . in CA no . 1477/1993 decided on 30/07/1998 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 of the judgement observed that:
" It has already been found that neither the chargesheet nor the showcause notice were never served on the original respondent Dinanath Shantaram Kerkar consequently the entire proceedings were vitiated. "
10. In case at hand, since the workman is missing, neither showcause notice nor the chargesheet was served upon him . So also the order of termination was not served upon him. In the circumstances the inquiry cannot be called fair and proper so also findings of the inquiry officer recorded in the inquiry proceeding cannot be accepted as legal and valid . Accordingly I hold the inquiry is illegal and unfair. I also hold that the findings of inquiry officer are perverse . Thus I set aside the order of termination of services of the workman.
Issue no . 2 :-
11. The second party is the widow and the L/R ofthe workman. According to them , as the workman is missing since 3/9/1997 , he is unheard for more than 7 years .
Therefore as per Section 108 , it should be presumed civil death of the workman . Therefore the widow and L/Rs are claiming the wages of the workman till 2/9/2004 . The fact is not disputed that the workman is not on work since 3/9/1997 . Therefore , question ofpayment ofhis wages from that date till 2/9/2004 does not arise . It is a fact that the workman is missing and unheard for more than 7 years . Therefore, as per the presumption it is his civil death as on 2/9/2004 i . e. on completion of period of 7 years . The order of termination of services of the workman is set aside . Therefore , it has to be treated that the workman died on 2/9/2004. His widow and L/Rs are entitled to get his pay arrears till 3/9/1997 and pension and other benefits such as they are entitled to receive amount of Provident Fund, Gratuity, pension if any and other monetary benefits . The period from 3/9/1997 to 2/9/2004 be treated as extraordinary leave ofthe workman without pay. Accordingly, I decided this issue no. 2 partly in the affirmative .
Issues Nos . 3 & 4:-
12. The workman herein is presumed dead as on 2/9/2004. Had he been alive he would have been 49 years ofage in 2004, as he was 42 years of age in the year 1997 . Naturally the workman would have been in service in 2004. Had he died during the tenure of his service , naturally his son or daughter would have been taken in the service on compasssionate ground . In the case at hand it is the civil death ofthe workman as per the presumption of law. He is missing since last more than 14 years . In the circumstances , the first party should consider his son to appoint him as per his eligibility and qualification on compassionate ground . Accordingly, I decide this issue no . 3 in the affirmative and issue no . 4 accordingly. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The inquiry and findings of inquiry officer in domestic inquiry are set aside .
(ii) The order of termination of services of the workman is also set aside .
( iii) The workman is deemed to have died as on 2/9/2004. The period from 03/09/1997 to 2/9/2004 be treated as extraordinary leave of the workman without pay.
(iv) The widow and L/Rs are entitled to get all the pay and other arrears till the date of his missing i.e. till 3/9/1997 . They are also entitled to the amount of PF, Gratuity and other benefits available as on 2/9/2004 (except pay and allowances for the period 3.9.1997 to 2/9/2004) .
1770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
(v) The first party is directed to give suitable employment to the son of the deceased workman as per his eligibility and qualification on compassionate ground.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
Shri R.B. Patil
4, Raichand Niwas AgarBazar, S.K. Bole Road Dadar(W)
Mumbai 400 028 .
Date: 14/11/2011
K.B. Katake, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 773.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स आयल एण्ड नेचुरल गैस कारर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -30012/ 7/2006- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
S.O. 773. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2006 ..... ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Mumbai-2 now as shown in the Annexure.in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (Mumbai) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 02/1/2012
[No. L- 30012/7 /2006- IR(M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI
Present
Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑKE Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT-2 /31 OF 2006
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD .
The Chief Manager ( Services )
Oil& Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
Vasudhara Bhawan
Bandra (East),
Mumbai 400 051
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER :
Shri G.D. Talreja Representative .
FOR THE WORKMAN :
No appearance.
Mumbai , dated the 3rd October, 2011 .
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No. L- 30012/7 /2006 - IR (M ) , dated 29.05.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adi idication:
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC , Mumbai is justified in terminating the services of Shri R.B. Patil , Jr. Draftsman (Mech .) CPF No. 56526 w.e.f. 28/12/2002? if not , and if proved, what lesser punishment on the workman be imposed ? "
2.After receipt of the reference , notices were issued to both the parties . Both the parties appeared through their legal representatives . The second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex - 6 . According to him , he was Jr. Draftsman (Mech .) and permanent employee of first party. He was on leave for the period 24/6/2002 to 27/12/2002 . He resumed his duties on 28/12/2002 and reported to Mr. S.S. Soman , Chief Engineer. He submitted application to the management to release his payment for the period May 2002 to December 2002. However the Chief Engineer who was a controlling officer did not forward absentee statement to the Finance Section for drawal of wages of the workman though he was present . He made representation to the management for payment of wages . Finally Shri S.S. Soman, Chief Engineer told the workman not to report for duty and did not allow him to work and to sign the muster roll . The workman was put in great financial difficulties .
3. After reading the notice published in Loksatta dated 1/4/2004 workman vide his letter dt. 20/12/2004 requested the management to allow him to attend his duty. Hedid not receive the memorandum as referred in the notice. The notice was false . The management neither allowed the workmanto resume the duty nor replied his letterdt . 20/ 12/ 2004. He was informed that his name was struck off from the muster roll as per the ordersdt . 3/2/2005 by the [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
1771
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
competent authority by saying that he was not interested inthe serivce ofONGC . He sent a letterdt . 19/5/2005 through his advocate requesting to withdraw the order and allow him to attend his duty . The management replied that workman has been treated as resigned from job w.e.f. 28/12/2002 . The workman raised industrial dispute . The conciliation proceedings failed on account of rigit attitude ofthe management . Therefore the ALC referred the matter to Labour Ministry. The Labour Ministry therefore send the reference to this Tribunal . The workman therefore prays thataction of the management in terminating his service be declared illegal and unjust and he be reinstated in service w.e.f. 28/12/2002 with continuity in service, full backwages and other consequential benefits and the costs and compensation.
4. The first party management resisted the statement ofclaim vide its written statement Ex- 8 . According to them, the reference is not maintainable . Mr. R.B. Patil the second party started remaining absent without leave and without prior permission w.e.f. 28/12/2002 after expiry ofhis earned leave , halfpay leave and extra ordinary leave . Therefore he wasdeemed to have been resigned and ceases to be in the employment of ONGC w.e.f. 28/12/2002 . He has committed many mischief and malpractices . He was given warning for forging his E.L. encashment claim . He was in a habit to obtain loans from various nationalised and co - operative banks . There were number of decrees of various courts in which the amount of his pay was attached . Warning was given to him not to obtain any loan from any other Bank without prior permission of first party. However he flouted the conditions in warning . The second party remained absent . Therefore he was served with memorandum for initiating disciplinary action in view of habitual in - debtness anddefaulting in returning of loans . He was called upon to joinhis duties . His whereabouts were unknown therefore notice was published in English and vernacular newspapers . Inspite of that the second party workman has not resumed his duties . Therefore it was treated under Rule 14(5) of ONGC Leave Rules that he is not interested in service on ONGC and his name was struck off from the muster roll as workman is deemed to have resigned . Therefore the management prays that the statement of claim isdevoid ofmerit and the reference be dismissed with cost.
5. Following are the issues framed by my Id. Predecessor Ex - 9 for my determination . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Issues
Findings
No.
1. Whether the action termination of second party is legal ?
2. Is the second party entitled to any
No.
relief sought for?
3. What order ?
As per order below.
REASONS
Issue no . 1 & 2 :-
6. It is the case ofthe first party management that the workman remained absent wilfully from 28.12.2002 . According to them the workman was asked to join his duties immediately. Notice was sent to him . As his whereabouts were not known , it was also published in English and Vernacular newspapers . Inspite of that the workman did not turn up to join his duties . Therefore they realised that he was not interested in joining his duty and it amount to deemed resignation . Therefore his name was removed from themuster roll .
7.The management also contended that the workınan had obtained loans from various banks and number order of attachment of his pay and allowances were received by them from various courts . Therefore the workman was directed not to obtain any further loan without permission ofthe management . Inspite of that he had obtained loan from some other banks and they also received order of attachment of his pay and allowances from courts . He committed misconduct by remaining absent and incurring loan against the direction of the first party.
8.As against this it is the case of the second party workman that , he had been to his ofice on 28/12/2002 to joinhis duty. However they did not allow him to join his duty. Therefore he has raised this industrial dispute . The burden is on the workman to show that he had been to the office of first party to join his duty and they did not allow him to join or work in his office . However the workman remained absent and did not file his affidavit in lieu of examination - in- chief. For want of evidence , burden on the workman cannot be discharged . In short, the workman remained absent, has not led any evidence to discharge the burden of proving the fact that he had reported his duty on 28/12/2002 or at any point thereafter. In the circumstances , no fault can be found in the order of termination of the workman . Accordingly I hold that his termination cannot be said illegal or unjustified . Accordingly I decide this issue no . 1 in the negative . Consequently I also hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief claimed for. Accordingly I decide this issue no . 2 also in the negative . Thus the order:
ORDER
Reference is dismissed with no order as to costs .
Dated: 03.10.2011
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer 1772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
Government , Ministry of Labour vide order No. L - 30011 / 11/2009 - IR( M) dated 29.07.2009 has referred the industrial dispute specified in the schedule in that order for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
का०आ० 774.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपॅर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड कोच्चि रिफाइनरी अम्बलमुगल के प्रबंध तित्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -30011 / 11 /2009- आई आर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
"Whether the action of the management ofM/s . BPCL- Kochi Refinery, in terminating the services of S/ Shri . Louis D'Cruz , Ex - Security Sergeant and Shri K. Murali , the Ex - General Workman on the alleged misconduct of habituai absenteeism is fair and justifiable ? To what relief they are entitled to ? "
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
NOTIFICATION
3.Union filed claim statement challenging the validity ofthe enquiry which ended in the dismissal of Shri Louis D'cruz and stating that there was valid explanation for his absence from duty for 160 days during 2005 and 59 days during 2006. It was not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer in entering into the finding as to his unauthorized absence . No challenge is made in the claim statement with regard to the enquiry against Shri . K. Murali which resulted in the termination of his service .
S.O. 774. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby published the award ( Ref. No. 25/2009 , .......... ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M./s . B.P.C.L- Kochi Refinery, (Ambalamughal ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 02/1/2012
[No. L- 30011/ 11 /2009 - IR(M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
4.Management filed written statement denying the allegations challenging the validity of the enquiry made in the claim statement and contending that the domestic enquiries against the two workmen were validly conducted without any violation of the principles of natural justice andthey were terminated from service based on the finding as to habitual absenteeism .
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
5.Union did not file any rejoinder in spite of granting several adjournments .
Present : Shri . D. Sreevallabhan , B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 16th day of December , 2011 /25th Agrahayana , 1933)
I.D. 25/2009
Union : The General Secretary, Cochin Refineries Workers Association, VPP 1/427, Ambalamughal , Cochin-682 302.
By Adv. Shri . K.S. Madhusoodanan .
Management : The Executive Director, BPCL - Kochi Refinery, Ambalamughal .
By M/ s . Menon & pai .
6.After posting the case for evidence management has produced the Enquiry File. Afterwards union was continuously absenting without any representation on several posting dates and hence was declared ex parte. Management filed affidavit to prove its case . The averments inthe affidavit are sufficient to satisfy that the enquiry was validly conducted against the workmen and there is no illegality in the imposition of the penalty on them based on the findings in the enquiry . On a perusal of the enquiry file it isnot discernible that there is any illegality in the conduct ofthe enquiry. It is based on the admission of the alleged misconduct of each of the workmen the finds were entered into against them . There is nothing to satisfy that the termination of the workmen for the misconduct of habitual absenteeism is not fair and justifiable . Hence it can be held that the action of the management of M/ s . BPCL , Kochi Refinery in terminating their services is fair and justifiable.
This case coming up for final hearing on 16.12.2011 and this Tribunal- cum- Labour Court on the same day passed the following.
AWARD
Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central
In the result an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management of M/s . BPCL -KR in terminating the services of Sri . Louis D'Cruz , Ex - Security Sergeant and Shri K.Marali , the Ex- General Workman on the alleged midconduct of habitual absenteeism is fair and justifiable. Hence they are not entitled to any relief.
1773 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
And their workman
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette .
Shri Devangkumar Jashvantlal Shah ,
7/255 , Nishal Falia, Rander,
... Second Party
Surat , (Gujarat) .
Dictated to the Personal Assistant , Transcribed any typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 16th dayof December, 2011 .
Forthe first party Shri K.V. Gadhia , Advocate
D. SREEVALLABHAN PresidingOfficer For the second party: None
AWARD
Appendix -NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
TheAppropriate Government, by order No. L. 30012/ 28/2007 (M) New Delhi dated 06.02.2008 referred this Industrial Dispute for adjudication by formulating a terms of reference as per schedule as follows .
SCHEDULE
का०आ० 775.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स आयल एन्ड नेचुरल गैस कॉरपॅर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड अंकलेश्वर 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 6/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -30012/28/2007- आई आर (एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd. , Ankleshwar Asset by passing order No. Ank/E.II / PF / DJS/ JT ( E)/ 2003/2373 dated 21/11/2003 declaring Shri D.J. Shah has deemed to have resigned from service of the ONGCLtd. , w.e.f. 25/06/2003 and striking of his name from Muster Roll is legal , just and proper ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
S.O. 775.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2008 , .......... ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M./s . Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (Ankleshwar) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 02/1/2012
[No. L- 30012/28/2007 - IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary
ANNEXURE
2. On receiving the copy of the orders of the Appropriate Government it was registered as aforesaid reference case and the parties were sent notices to appear and to file their pleadings . The first party Management of ONGC appeared through Advocate , by executing power in favour of Shri K.V. Gadhia, Shri M.K. Patel , Shri Yogi Gadhia; Advocates . The second party workman also appeared by executing a power in favour of his lawyer Mr. H.D. Katharotiya but thereafter the second party lost interest in thiscase and inspite of several adjournments and reminders notices to the second party for filing his statement of claim but no statement of claim was filed whereas the first party ONGC was appearing on the dates and was awaiting for the copy ofstatement of claim ofthe second party for filing itswritten statement . So , it appears to this tribunal that the second party workman has lost interest in this case and left doing pairvy and did not file statement of claim for standing his claim in this reference case.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR- COURT, AHAMEDABAD
Present
Binay Kumar Sinha ,
PresidingOfficer,
CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad , Dated 08.12.2011
Reference: CGITA of 6 of 2008 New
The Executive Director ,
3. For the reasons noted above the terms of reference isanswered as follows . The action of the Management of ONGCLtd. , Ankleshwar Asset by passing order No. Ank E.II/PF /DJS/ JT (E )/2003/2373 dated 21.11.2003 declaring Shri D.J. Shah (workman ) has deemed to have resigned from service ofthe ONGCLtd. , w.e.f. 25.06.2003 and striking of his name from Muster Roll is legal , just and proper. The second party workman is not entitled to get any relief in this case as the reference is dismissed for non -prosecution.
ONGC , Ltd. , Ankleshwar Asset ,
This is my award.
First Party
Ankleshwar, Bharuch.
1774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
Let copies of the award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication and needful .
BINAY KUMAR SINHA ,
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]
PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 776.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मिनरल एक्सपलोरेशन कोरपोरेशन लिमिटेड नागपुर के प्रबंधतत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-29012/109/95 आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
S.O. 776. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No............ 89 / 2003.........) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. (Nagpur) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2/1/2012.
[No. L-29012/109/95 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Sec .
ANNEXURE
Central Government Industrial TribunalNagpur
No. 89/2003
Date
ExhibitNo. Progress
33
Petitioner/ : The General Secretary,
17.01.2011 Party No. 1 Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union ,
Secretariat , Seminary Hills , Nagpur-440006.
Versus
Respondent/: The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Party No. 2 Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440006.
AWARD (Dated: 17th January, 2011 )
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub - section 2(A) ofsection 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act " in short) had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. ( in short "MECL ") and their workman , Shri V.S. Babu ( " the workman " for brevity) as per letter No. L- 29012 /109 , IR ( Misc . ) dated 3.10.1996, with the following schedule to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur for adjudication:-
"Whether the demand of the Mineral Exploration Corp. Employees Union for the promotion of Shri V.S. Babu , U.D.C. to the post of ' Assistant (Accounts)' with effect from the date from which his juniors werepromoted and with all consequential benefits is justified and proper ? If so , to what relief Shri V.S. Babu is entitled and from which date ; and what other directions are necessary in the matter ? "
Subsequently the reference was transferred to this Tribunal (CGIT, Nagpur ) for disposal according to law.
2.The workman and the management ofMECL filed their respective statement of claim and written statement respectively on receipt of notice from the Tribunal .
3.According to the claim petition , the workmanjoined MECL as LDC on 1.4.1980 and was promoted to the post of UDC on 22.6.1985 and as per the recruitment and promotion rule ofMECL , all UDCs have to exercise option for further promotion either as Assistant ( P & A ) or Assistant (Accounts) and accordingly, the workman exercised option for promotion as Assistant ( P & A ) alongwith some other employees and according to the rules , once option is exercised , the same shall be final and no request for change ofoption will be entertained , but with malafide intension, the management secretly and quietly invited change of option from the Assistant ( P& A) to Assistant (Accounts) from Shri P. Rameshwar , S.L. Kakeri , V.C. Philip , R.S. Chalpe, V.M. Amle ,G.C. Srivastava , GS . Raju and B.M. Ambalkar and accepted their option and subsequently they were given promotion as Assistant ( Accounts) by order dated 14.6.1991 and the workman was deliberately and intentionally kept in the dark regarding the opportunity afforded to other employees regarding change of option and the persons so promoted were juniors to the workman , except the employees named at Sl . No. 1 & 2 and the workman personally approached the General Manager in this regard and he also brought the same to the notice of theMECL through his representation dt . 16.7.1991 , 6.9.1991 and 27.3.1992 and also requested to give him an opportunity for revising option as given to others , but his request was rejected and as there was no suitable response to the subsequent representations made by the workman , the matter was brought to the notice ofthe ALC and during the course ofconciliation , the management offered to promote the workman to the post of Assistant ( Accounts ) by accepting revised option from prospective date and accepting of such offer should have resulted in foregoing the claim ofthe workman for promotion from the date ofhis
1775
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
24.8.2007, the parties remained absent and did not take part
juniors had been promoted i.e. 14.6.1991 and thus the in this case so the was closed on 5.1.2011 and posted for
conciliation failed and failure report was submitted to the award.
Central Government. The workman prayed for directing
the managementto accept revised option submitted by the Asin this case , the parties did not appear and remain
workman with effect from the date on which others had absent, it is found from the record that the parties are not
been afforded such privilege and grant promotion from interested in proceeding with the case and it is necessary
14.6.1991 and all consequential benefits including to pass an order of " no award " in this case . Accordingly, it
appropriate seniority as admissible to the workman. isordered:
4. The management of MECL filed its written ORDER
statement pleading iter- alia that there are two channels of
promotion from the cadre of UDC viz . (i ) post ofAssistant The case may be treated as a case of "no award" .
(personnel) and (ii) Assistant (Accounts) and the allocation J.P. Chand, Presiding Officer
of the channel of promotion was made on the basis of
option exercised by the concerned UDC subject to the
position of sanctioned strength and vacancies available at नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2012
any particular. time and the option once exercised is final
and binding and in the process , options were invited from का०आ० 777. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947
the UDCs in 1984 and 1987 and after submission of the का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स यू बी
options,. UDCs were allotted their channel of promotion इन्जीनियरिंग लिमिटेड पुना के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके
and after submission of the option for the personnel कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय
discipline, S/ShriG.S. Raju , GC . Shrivastava, R.S. Chalpe , सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ
S.L. Kakeri , B.M. Ambalker , P. Rameshwar and V.C. Phillip
requested for change in their option from personnel संख्या 58/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
disciplinetoAccounts Division , but in view ofthe existing 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
system the request were turned down and subsequently [सं० एल-26012/3/99- आई आर (एम ) ]
one UDC, Shri P. Rameshwar made further representation जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
for change of option to Accounts Stream from Personnel
Stream, as he was engaged in accounting work and the NewDelhi , the 27th January, 2012
MECL employees union at that stage , wrote to the
management strongly recommending the representation S.O. 777.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the
made by 5 UDCs for change of their option and keeping in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central
viewthe recommendations of the union and circumstances Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ....... 58/
ofthe case, the representations were reconsidered and the 2001 ........ ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
concerned employees were allowed to change their option Labour Court Bhubaneswar - 2 now as shown in the annexure
from Personnel Stream to Finance Stream as a special case inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
and the workman neither represented requesting the change to the management of M/ s U.B. Engineering Ltd (Pune)
ofoption nor the union recommended his case alongwith and their workman , which was receivedby the Central
the others and as such the six persons who opted for Government on 2/1/2012.
Accounts Stream were promoted as Assistant (Accounts) [No. L-26012/3/99 - IR (M)]
in June , 1991 and as the workman's name was not included JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secretary
in the list recommended by the union , no discrimination
was caused to him and the workman made representation Annexure
only on 16.7.1991 , but his request change of option was CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
not allowed, as promotion in Accounts stream had already CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
beentaken place and thereafter the workman did not make
any further representation for nearly three years and on Present:
8.3.1995, he again demanded for change of his option to Shri J. Srivastava ,
Account stream but at that time , as the period of probation Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. - cum- Labour
of six months of the promoted employees in Accounts Court, Bhubaneswar .
streamwas already expired and the employees were already Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 58/2001
confirmed, the prayer of the workman was not allowed , as
the same would have disturbed the existing seniority and Date of Passing Order- 24th November , 2011
would have given rise to several disputes and as such, the Between:
reference is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. TheDirector, M/ s . U.B. Engineering Ltd. ,
5. It is necessary to mentioned here that since
452GI/2012-26 1776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
Sahyadri Sadan , Tilak Road, Pune -411030
3. The 1st Party- Management filed written statement Pune (Maharashtra)
1stParty Management .
(And)
Their workman Shri Satyabadi Jena, Qrs .No. B/275 , Sector - 16, Rourkela Sundargarh .
2nd
Party-
Workman.
Appearances:
Shri Jagabandhu Sahu
For the 1st Party- Management.
Shri Satyabadi Jena .
For the 2nd Party- Workman.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of the Director, M/s. U.B. Engineering Limited and their workman in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide their letter No. L-26012/3 / 991R(M) , dated06.08.1999 to the following effect .
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . U.B. Engineering for not providing employment to Shri Satyabadi Jena under the terms of settlement is justified? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? "
and stated that the Management of M/ s . U.B. Engineering Limited is an establishment which engages itself in time bound projects under different Public Sector and Private Sector Undertakings by engaging contractors for the execution ofjobs . Usually after completion of time boud project job the workers engaged by the contractors are retrenched with payment of their dues . Like other workers the present workman Shri Satyabadi Jena was engaged in a time bound project work at Rourkela Steel Plant site under the Management. He met with an accident and sustained minor injury on his right knee on 6.7.1994 . He was immediately taken to E.S.I. hospital , Kansabahal and from their to Orthopedic Department ofV.S.S. Medical College Hospital , Burla . After the workman was declared fit by the medical authority on 11.11.1994 he joined his work under theManagement . He was again treated for his old injury at E.S.I. Hospital from 12.12.1994 to 28.12.1994 and was declared fit for work on 29.12.1994 . He worked with the Management from 29.12.1994 to 25.3.1995 in a time bound project work . The said work was closed on 25.3.1995 and he was retrenched from his job after payment of full and final settlement like all other workers of that project . He thereafter raised a dispute alleging that he was illegally retrenched whereupon the conciliation proceeding was conducted and both the parties reached a settlement on 23.9.1995 in presence of the Asst . Labour Officer, Rourkela. Inthat settlement it was declared that the workman has received all his full and final dues from the Management , but as a gesture of goodwill the Management assured to employ him under any of its subcontractor. As per the said settlement dated 23.9.1995 the workman was employed under sub- contractor M/ s . Versha & Co. outside the plant area and worked there till 14.2.1996 when the workman himself left the job . So the question of payment of any final settlement amount does not arise . Despite all these things the workman again raised a dispute on 10.4.1996 ignoring the terms of the settlement dated 23.9.1995 . However with the assistance and concurrence of the Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer , Rourkela , the parties to the dispute have agreed to resolve the dispute and a final settlement was drawn on 8.8.1996 . As per that settlement it was agreed and accepted by the parties that although the workman had no claim against M/ s . U.B. Engineering yet as a gesture of good will and to rehabilitate the workman the Management would pay a lump sum amount of -Rs . 11,000/- to the workman. The workman would not make any claim in future after receipt of the said amount before any court or authority either for employment or for any financial benefit . It was also agreed by the workman that he would not ask the present Management for payment of E.S.I. medical benefits on any occasion as he was covered under E.S.I. Scheme . After signing the settlement on 8.8.1996 by the workman, representative ofthe Management 2. The 2nd Party- workman has filed his statement of claim wherein it has been stated that he joined the 1st Party-Management M/ s . U.B. Engineering Limited as Helper inside Rourkela Steel Plant , Rourkela on 5.1.1994. While working he faced an accident on 6.7.1994 at about 3.45 P.M. and underwent medical treatment for fracture of hisknee. The 1st Party- Management instead of taking care of the workman and his family members neglected them and harassed the workman by removing him from service on 25.3.1995 . Because of forcible retrenchment he faced financial scarcity and requested the Management to allow him to work as he has no fault of his own . But without considering his request and gravity of the matter the management illegally retrenched him from service . He sustained 5% permanent disability in the said accident, but he has not yet availed any compensation either from the Management or from Employees State Insurance. Therefore he filed a petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Rourkela, but they did not give any relief and referred the matter to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. A prayer has been made for giving direction to the 1st Party-Management to provide him immediate employment with back wages from the date of accident and medical expenditure .
1777
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
and conciliation officer- cum-Assistant Labour Officer , Rourkela , the present Management paid the settled amount of Rs . 11,000/- which the workman received on the same date in presence of the Asst . Labour Officer , Rourkela . After acceptance of the settlement amount the workman has no locus- standi to file this case against the Management. The settlement signed by the parties under law and implemented cannot be reviewed and questioned in any manner.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the following ssues were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the settlement entered into between the parties can be reviewed and avoided by any of the parties ?
2. Whether the action of the Management of M/ s . 1.B. Engineering for not providing employment to Shri Satyabadi Jena under the terms of settlement is justified?
3. If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?
5. The 2nd Party- workman Shri Satyabadi Jena examined himself as W. W. - 1 and filed documents marked as Ext . - 1 to Ext. - 18.
6. The 1st Party- Management has filed affidavit of Shri Jagabandhu Sahu in evidence and relied upon documents filed by it marked as Ext . - A to Ext.-F.
FINDINGS
ISSUES NO . 1 & 2
6. Since both the issues are inter - related hence they are taken up together for convenience sake.
It is admitted case of the parties that the 2nd Party- workman Shri Satyabadi Jena was working as Helper under the Ist Party -Management inside the Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela in th year 1994 and he met with an accident injuring his right knee on 6.7.1994 while working at the work place. The contention of the 2nd Party - workman is that instead oftaking care ofhis welfare he was retrenched from service on 25.3.1995 . But according to the 1st Party - Management , the 2nd Party -workman was engaged in a time bound project workwhich was closed on 25.3.1995 and therefore he was retrenched from service after payment of full and final settlement like other workers of that project. It has also been statedby the 1st Party - Management that prior to his retrenchment the 2nd Party - workman was declared fitby medical authority on 11.11.1994 and he joined the work under the 1st Party- Management . He was again treated for his old injuryat E.S.I. dispensary from 12.12.1994 to 28.12.1994 and was declared fit for work on 29.12.1994 . Thereafter he worked with the 1st Party-Management from 29.12.1994 to 25.3.1995 , when the said work was closed and he was retrenched from his job. The 2nd Party- workman thereafter raised the dispute alleging that he was illegally retrenched . After long negotiations a settlement was reached on 23.9.1995 wherein it was declared that the workman has received all his full and final dues from the Management , but the Management as a gesture ofgoodwill asured him to employ under its sub- contractor namely M/ s. Versha & Company where the 2nd party- workman worked till 14.2.1996 and left the job himself on that date . After that the 2nd party - workman raised the dispute on 10.4.1996 ignoring the terms of settlement dated 23.9.1995. However with the assistance and concurrence of the Asst . LabourOfficer-cum-Conciliation Officer , Rourkela parties to the dispute agreed to resolve the dispute and a final settlement was drawn on 8.8.1996, according to which it was agreed and accepted by the parties that although the workman had no claim against M/s . U.B. Engineering Limited , yet as a gesture of goodwill and to rehabilitate the workman the Management would pay a lumpsum amount ofRs . 11,000/- to the workman and the workman in turn would not make any claim in future after receipt ofthe said amount before any court or authority either for employment or for any financial benefits . It was also agreed by the workman that he would not ask the 1st Party - Management for paymentfo E.S.I. medical benefits on any occasion. The aforesaid settlement was signed by the workman , representative of the Management and the conciliation officer-cum -Asst . Labour Officer, Rourkela . The 1st Party- Management paid the settled amount of Rs . 11,000/- to the 2nd Party workman on the same date in presence of the Asst. Labour Officer , Rourkela. Hence no question arises for employment of the 2nd Party - workman or payment of any back wages or medical expenditure.
7. The management witness Shri Jagabandhu Sahu has proved the facts alleged by the 1st Party- Management in its written statement . Nothing could be extracted from
his cross examination to discredit him . It has been suggested by the 2nd party- workman in corss examination of the management witness that the Management took advantage of illiteracy of the workman and took his signature on the settlement , which has been denied by the management witness . It has also been denied by the management witness that the settlements were made afterwards and were not read over and explained fully to the2nd Party-workman . Ext . - C shows that he 2nd Party- workmanwas treated for his knee injury at E.S.1 . dispensary from 7.7.1994 to 11.11.1994. On 11.11.1994 he was made fit. After that he was again treated at E.S.I. dispensary from 12.12.1994 to 28.12.1994 and was made fit on 29.12.1994. Ext. -D isthe settlement dated 23.9.1995 and Ext- E is another settlement dated 8.8.1996 . The terms of both the settlements were fulfilled by the 1st Party- Management , settlements were signed by the 2nd Party - workman himself and the representative for the Management and also by the Conciliation Officer- cum-Asst . Labour Officer, Rourkela. Ext. - F is the money receipt signed by the 2nd Party- 1778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
Dictated& Corrected by me JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, PresidingOfficer.
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012 workman, which shows that he had received Rs . 11,000/- towards his full and final payment as per memorandum of settlement dated 8.8.1996 . Therefore these settlements cannot be termed as fake and fictitious or made after wards to make out a case of the Management . The 2nd Party- workman cannot take himself out of the settlement . There is no allegation or evidence worth the name that these settlements were terminated or brought to an end in some manner known to law.
8. In Civil Appeal No. 2696 (NL ) of 1986 between General Manager, Security Paper Mills , Hoshangabad and R.S. Sharma and others it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
का०आ० 778. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) , की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स न्यूइंण्डिया एश्योरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड नागपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायलय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं० एल -15025/ 1/2012- आईआर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012 "Law attaches importance and sanctity to a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding. since it carries a presumption , that it is just and fair and makes it binding on all the parties as well as the other workman in the establishment or part of it to which it relates as stated above . "
9. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 also makes settlement of binding nature on all the parties to the agreement . Therefore none of the parties to the settlement or agreement can avoid it and ask for its review. ThisTribunal/ Court is also obliged to respect it and has no power to review or avoid it at the request of any party. Therefore Issue No. 1 is decided against the 2nd party- workman.
S.O. 778. In pursue of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1971 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publisit the award ( Ref. No. 02/2008 ...) ofthe Ceneral Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of M/ s . New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Nagpur) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2/1/2012
[No. L- 15025/ 1 /2012 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
CaseNo. CGIT/NGP/ Appln ./02/2008
Date: 13.12.2011 .
Complainant : Shri Arvind Jeevansingh Mariam Nagar, Civil lines, Nagpur Versus
10. Since the 2nd party - workman has got payment and accepted it in full and final settlement of his claim and also because he was employed on a time bond project work which has been closed he cannot seek employment under the Ist Party- Management and his prayer in this regard cannot be granted . He has also claimed in his statement of claim medical benefits from the 1st Party- Management but that is not within the competence of this Tribunal /Court . He can seek remedy in his regard in a proper forum, ifso admissible to him . Therefore the action of the management of M/ s . U.B. Engineering Limited for not providing employment to the 2nd Party -workman under the terms of settlement is justified . This issue is also decided against the 2nd Party- workman and in favour of the 1st Party -Management .
Respondent : The General Manager,
The New India Assurance ISSUE NO . 3
Company Ltd.,
Ambedkar Bhavan , MECL Premises , 4thfloor, Seminary Hills , Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 13th December, 2011 ) 11. Since the 2nd Party - workman has entered into settlements with the 1st Prty - Management which are binding upon the parties and now no claim is outstanding to the 2nd Party - workman agaisnt the 1st Party- Management , the relief claimed in this reference is not admissible to him and therefore he is not entitled to any relief claimed for.
12. Reference is answered accordingly.
This is an application under section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( " the Act " in short ) , filed by the complainant named above .
1779
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2.The case of the complainant is that he was working with the respondent w.e.f. 29.04.1998 , as a staff car driver continuously without any break with a salary of Rs . 5200- per month and the respondent kept him on temporary basis for years together and as such , he approached the respondent to make him permanent and as the respondent did not make him permanent, the dispute was raised before the conciliation officer and on failure of the conciliation, failure report was sent to the Central Government andthe Government, in its turn , referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in reference no . CGIT/NGP/30/2002 and the respondent being aggrieved by such reference, started to harass him on one count of the other and he was shown as temporary daily wages employee , though he was appointed on a clear vacancy of a driver and the respondent also gave artificial break from 17.08.2004 to 30.08.2004, for which he issued notice through his advocate on 15.01.2006 and made demand for his reinstatement and payment of salary, but the respondent refused to allow him to drive the vehicle and the respondent again discontinued his services on 17.07.2006 and he had suffered from Malaria and de- hydration and was under medical treatment from 24.05.2006 to 26.06.2006 and he was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Shankar Khobragade and thereafter, he was bed ridden and he approached the respondent to allow him to work, butthe respondent did not allow him to work for the period from 28.06.2006 to 04.07.2006 , and he was allowed duty from 05.07.2006 to 14.07.2006 but on 17.06.2006 , he was intimated by the respondent that his services were no more required, so on 20.07.2006 , he served a notice , but the respondent ignored the same and did not reinstate him in service and engaged another driver in his place and the management terminated his services without any reason and without following the due process of law and his termination was during the pendency of the dispute in reference no . 30/2002 and before terminating his services , permission of the Tribunal was not taken , as required under section 33 of the Act . The complainant has prayed to reinstatement him in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The respondent in its show cause pleaded inter - alia that CGIT/NGP/ 30./2002 is now posted for final argument and the complainant was never appointed as staff car driver and his services was utilized purely on as and when required basis and he was engaged, when there was need for driving the staff car on day to day basis and as such , his case cannot be considered for regular appointment and there is no vacancy of driver in the regional office at Nagpur and the complainant was never appointed as per the process of selection and payment was made to him either through disbursement vouchers /receipts /note sheets etc. and during the engagement of the complainant on daily basis , he committed fraud by making a false pay slip alleged to have been issued by management, for the purpose to taking loan from the Bank and the management came to know about the fraud, when the Bank made queries about the correctness of the documents placed by the complainant and due to the fraud committed by the complainant, management lost confidence on him and as there was no need of his temporary services on daily basis, he was stopped from work and the said action doesn't attract section 33 -A of the Act.
4.Itisnecessary to mention here that the complainant did not appear in the case and remained absent since 19.6.2009. He did not appear for his cross - examination , inspite ofgiving him several opportunities for the same . So hisevidence on affidavit was expunged, as per order dated 31.12.2010 and after hearing the management on 22.07.2011 , the case was posted for orders .
5. It is well settled that when a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce evidence , the dispute cannot be answered in his favour and he could not be entitled to any relief.
In this case in hand also , the workman has failed to produce evidence in support of his claim and as such , the application cannot be answered in his favour therefore , the applicant is not entitled to any relief. Hence , it is ordered:---
ORDER
Theapplication is rejected being devoid of any merit. J.P. Chand, Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 779. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) , की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स आयल एन्ड नेचुरल गैस कारर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड अहमदाबाद एवं मैसर्स बी एस चौधरी एन्डकम्पनी महसाना के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2005 पुरानी संख्या 1354/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -30012/29/2005- आईआर (एम ) ]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
S.O. 779. In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. ... 114/2005 Old No. 1354/2008 ....... ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Ahmedabad 1780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
against the management of ONGC Ltd. , Mehsana over regularization of their service in the management ONGC justified? If so , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled? " .
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (Ahmedabad) M/sB.S. Chaudhary & Co. , Mehsana, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2/1/2012
[No. L -30012/29/2005 - IR (M) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM- LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present
Binay Kumar Sinha, PresidingOfficer, CGIT-cum - Labour Court Ahmedabad, Dated 21.12.2011
Reference : ITC No. 1354 of 2008 Old
2.On registering a reference case the parties to this case were noticed for filing their pleadings and for hearing ofthis case . The president of Sarvodaya Mazdoor Sangh namely L.N. Medipalli file an application at Ext . 2 for interim relief on 26.12.2005 with affidavit at Ext . 3 and at Ext. 4 an application was filed to produce document with list at Ext . 4. Subsequently at Ext . 5 an authority letter was filed by the workmen involved with their signatures authorising President of Sarvodaya Mazdoor Sangh labour union to represent them in this case . On 28.12.2008 a Vakalatnama at Ext . 6 was executed by the first party No. 1 ( ONGC ) appointing a lawyer K.V. Gadhia and M.K. Patel . Thereafter at Ext . 11 the second party filed statement of claim on 10.01.2006 and the first party No. I ONGC filed its written statement at Ext . 12 against the statement of claim of the second party and also filed written reply at Ext. 13 to the interim relief application of the second party at Ext. 2.
Reference : CGITA of 114 of 2005
1. TheGroupGeneralManager,
ONGC Ltd. , Ahmedabad Project , Chandkheda, 5th Floor Avni Bhavan , Ahmedabad(Gujarat) .
2. The Prop . M/s . B.S. Chaudhary and Co. , 7, Urmi Shopping Centre , Opp. B.K. Cinema, S.T. Workshop Road , Mehsana ,
Gujarat-384002.
First Parties
and their workman
Shri Mukesh Kumar B. Raval & 18 Ors .
As per list through their union Sarvodaya Mazdoor Sangh , Second Floor, Vora Chamber, Rakhial , Nava Vas , Ahmedabad.
..Second Party
Forthe first party
3. The stands taken by the second party in the statement of claoi that the workman are working with the first party ONGC Ltd. and are discharging their duties as its labourers since many years . Though these workmen are shown working through labour contract on paper but actually they are working with the first party No. I ONGC and are its employees and that contract shown on paper through whom second party workmen are working are sham and bogus contract and the first party ONGC intend to deprive the right of these workmen in the garb of sham and bogus contract . The second party have prayed for holding and declaring that the workmen involved in this case are direct employees of the first party No. 1 ONGC from the date of their initial appointment and that contract system showing the workman as contractor labour is bogus, illegal and malafide and that the workmen are entitled for wages and other benefits as availed by the regular workmen and forany other relief to which the workmen are found entitled.
Shri K. V. Gadhia , Advocate Shri M.K. Patel , Advocate
None
For the second party:
AWARD
The appropriate Government/Government of India, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya vide order No. L- L- 30012/29/2005 /IR (M) New Delhi dated 22.11.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication by this tribunal considering an Industrial Dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC and their workmen. The dispute was referred as per schedule which is as follows.
SCHEDULE
4. On the other hand contention raised by the first party No. 1 ONGC in its written statement inter - alia is that the reference is not maintainable . The second party workmen have no valid cause of action since there is no master and servant relationship between first party No. 1 and the workmen . Rather the second party workmen are the contractor's labour and the workmen are dis - engaged by the contractor from 30.10.2005 and so the reference regarding regularisation is not maintainable. The first party No. 1 in its written statement have denied the allegation made in the statement of claim parawise and the prayer has been made to dismissed the reference since the workman through their union are not entitled to get any relief.
"Whether the Industrial Dispute raised by Sh . Mukesh Kumar B. Raval and 18 others ( list attached)
5.Before filing statement of claim the second party union filed application for interim relief at Ext. 2 praying 1781 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2012
का०आ० 780.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स दी न्यू इण्डिया एश्योरेंस कंपनी कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2/1/2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -17012/13/96 आई आर- डी-यू ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
therein for restraining first parties ONGC and their contractor not to terminate or relieve the second party workmenfrom their service or prevent or restrain the second partyworkmen for giving work . The reply to Ext . 2 was filed by first party ONGC at Ext . 13 contending therein that since there in no master and servant relationship between the first party No. 1 and workmen and that the workmen are contractor labourers and the contractor has dis - engaged them from 30.10.2005 and so the application for seeking interim relief at Ext. 2 which is dated 26.12.2005 is infructuous itself and so the second party union is not entitled to get any interim relief. An order was passed on Ext. 2 by this court on 21.12.2006 which is at Ext. 14 wherein the interim relief application of the second party union was rejected and parties were directed to attend this reference case for further hearing on merit .
S.O. 780. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No ......... 13/ 96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . The New India Assurance Company (Kota) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2/1/2012
[No. L- 17012/13/96- IR-DU (M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secretary
अनुबंध
केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर केस नं० सी०आई०टी० 13/96
रैफरेंसः केन्द्र सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली का आदेश क्र० एल०-17012/13/96 आई०आर० ( डी०यू० ) दि० 29.02.96 6. Thereafter the second party union appears to have lost interest, neither any of the workman nor their representative union take further steps for leading evidence in this case inspite of notices . In the mean time the record was transferred from this tribunal to state tribunal in the year 2008 and reference ITC 1354/2008 was registered therein while the first party was doing pairvy through its appointed lawyer. But the second party remained absent inspite of notice . Subsequently again this record was transfer to this tribunal as per labour Ministry's order on 01.11.2010/02.11.2010 and the record was received back in this tribunal and again fresh notice at Ext. 15 was issued to the second party union and the workman fixing 04.05.2011 for hearing of this case . But inspite of so many adjournments no one appeared on behalf of second party and last chance was given for leading evidence to the second party by proceeding dated 11.10.2011 . Fixing this date 21.12.2011 . But the second party did not lead evidence and remained absent inspite of notice . So , it appears that the second party workmen who raised Industrial Dispute through this reference case have lost all interest in this casewhereas the first party No. 1 ONGC is ready to defend its stand as per their pleading in the written statement .
श्री रामविलास माली पुत्र श्री बद्रीलाल माली निवासी छाबड़ी चौक, पोस्ट आलनपुरा, जिला सवाईमाधोपुर ।
-प्रार्थी
बनाम
7. For the reasons noted above the terms of reference is answered in favour of the first party and it is answered that the Industrial Dispute raised by Shri Mukesh Kumar B. Raval and 18 others against the management of ONGC Ltd. Mehsana for regularization of their service in the management of ONGC is notjustified and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
01. दी न्यू इण्डिया एश्योरेंस कंपनी, 4-5 टॉक रोड, सवाईमाधोपुर जरिये ब्रांच मैनेजर ।
02. दी न्यू इण्डिया एन्श्योरेंस कंपनी , जरिये डिवीजनल मैनेजर, 19 झालावाड़ रोड, कोटा ।
8. Since the second party has lost interest in this case and the onus is upon the second party union of proof its case. But the second party have failed to lead evidence and so the reference is dismissed for non prosecution .
अप्रार्थी
Thisismy award.
उपस्थित
पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्री सतीश कुमार शर्मा
Let copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication and for needful .
प्रार्थी की ओर सेः
श्री एम०एफ० वैग
श्री प्रदीप सिंह
अप्रार्थी की ओर सेः
Binay Kumar Sinha, PresidingOfficer 1782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
दिनांक अवार्ड : 21.9.2011
अवार्ड
1. भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली ने उपरोक्त आदेश के जरिये निम्न विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1948 की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णय हेतु निर्देशित किया है:
"Whether the action of the management of the New India Assurance Company, Kota in terminating the services of Shri Ram Vilas Mali w.e.f. 22.08.94 is legal andjustified? Ifnot to what relief is the said workman entitled?"
2. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से इस आशय का स्टेटमैंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश किया गया कि विपक्षीगण द्वारा दिनांक 11.11.91 को उसे चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्त किया । उससे नियमित रूप से नियोजित चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के सभी कार्य लिए गए फिर भी उसे दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में वेतन दिया गया । छद्म नामों से भुगतान किया गया । प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 1991 से 1994 तक लगातार काम किया । विपक्षीगण ने दिनांक 22.08.92 को उसे मौखिक तौर पर कार्य पर आने से मना कर दिया । उसे कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया गया और न ही कोई नोटिस वेतन दिया गया । कोई वरिष्ठता सूची प्रकाशित नहीं की गई अतः प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति को अवैध व अनुचित घोषित किया जावे एवं उसे सेवा में पुनः लिया जाकर सभी लाभ परिलाभ दिए जावें ।
3. विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में कहा कि प्रार्थी को कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई बल्कि उसे आवश्यकता पड़ने पर कभी कभी कैजुअल लेबर के रूप में पानी भरने का काम लिया गया । इसके एवज में भुगतान कर दिया गया । प्रार्थी ने कभी नियमित चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर काम नहीं किया । सिर्फ 15-20 मिनट तक पानी भरने का काम कभी कभी किया । प्रार्थी एक तरफ वर्ष 1991 से 1994 तक कार्य करने की बात कहता है वहीं दिनांक 22.08.92 से सेवा समाप्त करने का कथन करता है जो विरोधाभाषी तथ्य हैं । प्रार्थी को कभी कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं दिया गया और न ही उसकी स्थाई नियुक्ति हुई है बल्किप्रतिपक्षी संस्थान में नौकरी के लिए एक नियमित प्रक्रिया से गुजरना पड़ता है तभी किसी व्यक्ति को नौकरी पर रखा जा सकता है । क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य है ।
4. प्रार्थी की ओर से साक्ष्य में स्वयं के व कमलबाबू ने बयान कराये । विपक्षी की ओर से के०के० कपूर, आर० पी० शर्मा व शेखर सक्सैना के बयान हुए ।
5. हमने दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी । प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया ।
6.विद्वान प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी की दलीलें हैं कि प्रार्थी ने सेवामुक्तिसे पहले 240 दिन काम किया है । नियमित कर्मचारी व पार्टटाइम कर्मचारी में कोई भेद नहीं है । प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति अवैध है । क्लेम स्वीकार किए जाने योग्य है ।
7. दूसरी ओर विपक्षीगण के विद्वान प्रतिनिधि की दलीलें हैं कि प्रार्थी को कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई । कैजुअल लेबर के रूप में कभी कभार पानी भरने का काम लिया गया है जिसका पूरा भुगतान किया जा चुका है । उसे किसी स्थाई पद के विरुद्ध नौकरी पर नहीं रखा गया है । वह पुनः विपक्षी बीमा कंपनी की सेवा में आने का कोई अधिकार नहीं रखता है । क्लेम खारिज होने योग्य है । उन्होंने अपने समर्थन में न्याय निर्णय ( 2006 ) 4 एस० सी०सी० स्टेट ऑफ कर्नाटक व अन्य बनाम उमा देवी बगैरह पेश किए ।
8. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के उमा देवी वाले विनिर्णय से यह स्पष्ट विधिक स्थिति सामने आती है कि सार्वजनिक सेवाओं में स्थाई पद परनियुक्तनियमित प्रक्रिया के तहत ही की जा सकती है । किसी कैजुअल अंशकालीन लेबर को लंबी अवधि तक कार्य करने के आधार पर ही सार्वजनिक सेवाओं में किसी स्थाई पद पर नियुक्ति पाने का अधिकार नहींहै ।
9. दोनों पक्षों की दलीलों के संदर्भ में प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य का विश्लेषण करने पर स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी रामविलास ने अपने मुख्य परीक्षा के शपथ पत्र में यह अवश्य कहा है कि उसने वर्ष 1991 से 1994 तक चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर कार्य किया और उसे दिनांक 22.08.94 से मौखिक रूप से हटा दिया गया लेकिन जिरह में वह स्वीकार करता है कि उसका कोई नियुक्तिआदेश जारी नहीं है । उसे 22/ -रु० रोज मिलते थे जबकि नियमित कर्मचारी को 3000/-रु० मासिक वेतन मिलता था । उसने कभी भी नियमित चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के वेतन के लिए मांग नहीं की थी उसने यह भी स्वीकार किया कि उसने जितने दिन काम किया उसका वेतन उसे पूरा मिल गया है । वह यह भी स्वीकार करता है कि विपक्षीगण के यहां दो चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद स्वीकृत थे और दो चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी विपक्षी बीमा कंपनी में काम कर रहे थे ।
10. प्रार्थी ने कमलबाबू शर्मा नाम साक्षी भी पेश किया है जिसने दिनांक 11.11.91 से 22.08.94 तक प्रार्थी द्वारा काम करने की बात कही है लेकिन उसे इस दौरान कार्यरत रहे मैनेजर के नाम याद नहीं हैं, अपनी जन्मतिथि भी याद नहीं है ।
11. विपक्षीगण के उक्त साक्षीगण ने भी अपने बयानों में यह बताया है कि प्रार्थी को चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया । उसे केवल पानी भराने का काम कराया गया जिसका उसे भुगतान कर दिया गया ।
12. उपरोक्तानुसार दोनों पक्षों की साक्ष्य से यह निर्विवादित स्थिति सामने आती है कि प्रार्थी को कभी भी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियमित नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई । विपक्षीगण के यहां स्वीकृत दोनों पदों पर पहले से कर्मचारी कार्यरत हैं अर्थात् कोई पद रिक्त नहीं है । प्रार्थी को अंशकालीन भत्ते पर पानी भरने के काम पर ही रखा गया है जो कभी भी हटाया जा सकता है । सर्वप्रथम तो प्रार्थी द्वारा 240 दिन लगातार काम करने का तथ्य साबित नहीं है फिर ऐसा मान भी लिया जावे तो भी इन हालात में उक्त विधिक स्थिति के तहत चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियुक्तिपाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
1783 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
13. उपरोक्त विवेचन के फलस्वरूप प्रश्नगत रैफरेंस में निम्न अवार्ड पारित किया जाता है:
........ Petitioner
C/oM/ s . J. Seshagiri Rao & L. Kumarswamy, 8-3-231 /A/32 , Sri Krishnanagar , Yousufguda, Hyderabad-45.
AND
14. दी न्यू इण्डिया एश्योरेंस कंपनी, कोटा द्वारा श्रमिक श्रीरामविलास की दिनांक 22.08.94 से सेवाएं समाप्त करने का आदेश उचितएवं वैध है । प्रार्थी श्रमिक कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
1. Managing Director, M/s. Hemadri Cements Limited, R/o Plot No. 77 - D, No. 8-3-1002 , MainRoad , Srinagar colony, Hyderabad .
15. आदेश आज दिनांक 21.09.2011 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया जो केन्द्र सरकार को वास्ते प्रकाशनार्थ नियमानुसार भेजा जावे ।
सतीश कुमार शर्मा , न्यायाधीश
2. PlantManager/General Manager, M/s. Hemadri Cements Limited, Factory at Vedadri , Jaggaiahpet ( M), Krishna District.
नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2012
3. Managing Director, M/s . HCL Agro Power Ltd. , Plot No. 77-D, No. 8-3-1002, Main Road, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Yadagiri , J. Seshagiri Rao & L. Kumara Swamy, Advocates का०आ० 781.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हमाद्री सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड हैदराबाद 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 122/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2.1.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
For the Respondent : Ch . Ramesh Babu , Ch . Uma Sankar &D. Hemanth , Advocates [सं० एल -15025/1/2012 आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
AWARD
New Delhi , the 27th January, 2012
Sri G. Ramesh an ex. employee of M/s . Hemadri Cements Limited, has filed this petition No. LC 122/2006 under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for declaration of action ofthe management in not allowing the Petitioner for duty from30.3.2006 as illegal , arbitrary, unjust and violative ofprinciples ofnatural justice and to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner into service .
S.O. 781- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No ........ 122/2006 ..........) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Hemadri Cements Ltd. (Hyderabad) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2.1.2012.
[No. L- 15025 / 1 /2012- IR (M)]
JOHN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
2.Points raised in this petition are: that the Petitioner wasappointed as Trainee on 2.9.1985 , he was confirmed as Mech-Attendant in the M/s . Hemadri Cements Limited , vide order dated 10.11.1987 . He worked in that capacity till the date of pending list placed on the notice board on 16.5.2006. He was drawing Rs . 3314.80 ps as wages per month. He has filed M.P. 44/2005 for adjudication of his dueswhich is pending before this Tribunal .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD
Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur Presiding Officer
Datedthe 14thday ofNovember, 2011
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 122/2006
Clubbed with M.P. 44/2005
Between:
3. Itis further stated that in the month ofApril , 2002 Respondent No. I stopped Petitioner and other employees wages and no wages has been paid from that date onward . Subsequently the management declared lockout on 30.3.2002 without any notice in violation of provisions of labour industrial laws . The Petitioner and other employees are suffering without wages . However, on the request of the workers management of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 had agreed to pay the wages to the workers as Respondent No. 3 is the sister concern of Respondent No. 1 and is being managed by Sri G. Ramesh, S/ o Radha Krishna Murthy ,
452G1/2012-27 1784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
Sri K. Srimannarayana family members . The management W5. No oral evidence has been adduced by th
has reopened the unit from 31.3.2006 but the Petitioner has Respondents .
not taken on duty and the name of the Petitioner has been
kept pending , list has been displayed on the notice board Facts of case No. M.P. 44/2005:
of the company. The action of the Respondent in not taking
the Petitioner on duty and not paying his wages amount to 9. Thismiscellaneous petition has been filed for the
termination of services without any notice . The Petitioner computation of amount due to the Petitioner as stated in
has no other alternative but to approach this Tribunal the computation table to a tune of Rs . 1,75,657.90 ps.
through M.P. 44/2005 and this petition to declare the action 10. It is submitted by the Petitioner that he was
ofthe management as illegal , arbitrary and unjust and in appointed as trainee on 2.9.1985 and he was confirmed as
violation ofprinciples of natural justice . Hence this petition. Mech - Attendant. The Petitioner was paid wages upto
4.Respondents were called upon to file counter and February, 2002, thereafter his wages has not been paid nor
Respondent No. 1 filed counter statement wherein he has the bonus from 1998-99 to 2002-03 . The Petitioner learned
stated that this Tribunal has no power to grant the relief that company declared lockout on 30.3.2002 without any
sought by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 and 3 are prior notice and went on filing petition before Hon'ble High
not necessary parties . The Respondent No. 1 is an Court ofA.P. , and BIFR/AAIF. An agreement was entered
industrial company registered under the provisions ofThe into between the parties but Respondent No. 1 failed to
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 comply with the agreement dated 19.8.2003. Petitioner
and no leave has been obtained by the Petitioner in terms approached Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 by
ofSection 22 ( 1 ) ofSICA . wayof an application to return the claim of PF which was
returned to rectify the defects . The Petitioner and other
5. Petitioner has stated that he was stopped along coworkers are starving , no unions are existing in company
with other workers in the month ofApril , 2002 consequent assuch , Petitioner is not able to raise his grievance through
todeclaration of lock- out by Respondent No. 1 on 30.3.2002, union . As such , Petitioner requested that his dues be
but, he has not assailed the action of lockout either through computed with 18% interest and PF amount be ordered to
the union or by way of complaint to the Government nor be paid to the Petitioner.
Government has invoked its power under Sec. 10( 1 ) ofthe
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore this Petition is not 11. Management has filed counter stating therein
maintainable . thatthe proceeding under Sec . 33C (2) is of the nature of
execution and question of determination of right of the
6. The Respondent has submitted that they have worker is outside the scope of the said provision . The
paid Rs . 39,422/- toward exgratia/ compensation due to the Petitioner claimed net salary of Rs . 3,317.20 P.M. from
closure from June, 2002 to 17.4.2004 and also service March, 2002 to August , 2005. This amount has not been
benefits like gratuity and leave encashment . Not only that ascertained by any competent authority. At any rate the
theRespondent No. I has paid Provident Fund contribution also to the Petitioner . net salary claimed by the Petitioner is Rs . 3317.20 P.M. , as
such he is not the person included in the definition of
7. It has further been submitted that the Petitioner workmanbecause his salary was more than Rs . 1600/- Ρ.Μ.
has committed misconduct of act of theft of company's thispetition is liable to be dismissed. It has further been
property and he was caught red- handed by the security stated that Petitioner has admitted that employer declared
staff of the company and thus he has lost confidence of lockout on 30.3.2002 and company is before the BIFR/ 、
the RespondentNo. 1. Not only that the workers who were AAIFR and has sought protection before the Hon'ble High
not taken on duty, their retrenchment compensation etc. Court . Even then, the Petitioner has filed this Petition for
was calculated by the management and paid to them. the wages of lockout period as such , Petitioner's claim can
Petitioner's claim was also determined as per law but the not be allowed. The Petitioner has not challenged the action
Petitioner did not turn up to receive the amount determined oflockout nor the government has invoked its power under
by the management as such , Petitioner can not state that Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947as such, the
he was not paid the retrenchment compensation of legal Petitioner's claim is devoid of merits. Since the company
dues . This Petition under Sec . 2A(2) is not maintainable was under lock out and matter is pending before BIFR/
because the company was on lockout and that action has AAIFR, this Tribunal is not in a position to allow the claim
not been challenged by the Petitioner . The petition has got be dismissed. the Petitioner. Petition is not maintainable and deserves to
no force and deserves to be dismissed .
8.Both the parties were afforded opportunity to file 12. Both the parties were directed to produce their
their evidence . Petitioner worker filed his affidavit as his evidence . Petitioner worker Mr. G. Ramesh has filed his
examination. in chief and produced himself for cross affidavit as his examination in chief. He has marked five
examination . petitioner has filed five documents Ex. WI to documents Ex. W1 to W5 and produced himself for cross
examination. Respondent's has not filed any oral evidence
1785
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
nor they have filed written or oral arguments . Petitioner's counsel has filed written arguments which has been considered by this Tribunal .
16. This prove that the factory was not functioning and Petitioner has not worked during that period, in that event also the petitioner is not entitled for any pay and allowances as claimed by him . It is further noteworthy that the Petitioner has admitted that there was lockout in the company from March, 2002 to August , 2005 and the employees union or the government has not challenged the lockout action of the management as such , this Tribunal isofthe considered opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled for any salary or allowances during the period of lockout as such, the miscellaneous petition No. 44/2005 filed by the Petitioner is devoid of any merit and it deserves to be dismissed.
13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner through his written argument has asserted before this Tribunal that the Petitioner was terminated from the service without following the principles of natural justice illegally, arbitrarily and unjustifiable manner. He has stated that in fact he has filed two petitions before this Tribunal . First one is M.Ρ. 44/2005 for computing his salary and benfits due to him from April , 2002 to 2005 and the second petition has been filed to declare his termination order as illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice . He has argued that management has not filed any document . Whereas the Petitioner worker has filed documents Ex. W1 to W5 and has produced himself in support of his claims . Thereby the Petitioner worker has proved that he was terminated from the service illegally and his due were paid. He was entitled for the salary from April , 2002 to 2005 and Respondent be directed to pay the amount mentioned by him in the calculation sheet filed by him.
17. Petitioner has filed another claim statement i. e . LC No. 122/2006 in which he has stated that his services were terminated by the management . However, he has alleged in the claim statement that he came to know that the factory was closed due to lockout from March , 2002 to August, 2005 and after the reopening ofthe company the management has taken required number of employees whereas 29 employees were not re - engaged by the management . However, the Petitioner has admitted that an agreement was entered into between the employees union and the management on 19.8.2005 and those employees whowere not reengaged were paid their dues . However, he has denied that he was paid any dues or he has received the dues. This prove that the Petitioner was not terminated or retrenched without following the procedure because there was lockout in the company, the company remained closed for more then three years . Petitioner has filed docurnents Ex . WI to W5 which prove that an agreement was entered into between the employees union and the management , a xerox copy of which is produced by the Petitioner workman himself. It was agreed that the arrears ofemployees will be paid as agreed through the agreement. Thisprove that there is a union of employees in the Hemadri Cements Ltd. , company and the union has entered into agreement after reopening ofthe company on 19.8.2005 as such, the contention of the Petitioner that there is no union in the company is baseless and devoid of any merit.
14. I have considered this argument as well as oral submission of the Petitioner worker and the case law cited by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner worker. In petition No. M.P. No. 44/2005 the Petitioner has prayed before this Tribunal to compute his pay and allowances as per the calculation sheet filed by him . However, in cross examination by the Respondent on question of entitlement ofthe Petitioner, the worker Mr. G. Ramesh has stated before this Tribunal in his cross examination that , he has not filed any document to prove that on the date of the closure of the company his salary was Rs . 3317/- P.M. He has further stated that he has not filed any document to show that Respondent No. 2 to 5 are responsible for running of the company. Thus , from the own statement of the Petitioner it is crystal clear that his contention or calculation of the arrears arrived at by him through the computation table filedby him along with claim statement/petition is without any basis because he has no where stated either on oath or through any document that his pay in March, 2002 was Rs. 3317/-as such, the very basis ofthe claim is unfounded and without any proof. Though Respondent has not filed any document or evidence to contradict the claim of the Petitioner, this Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no material before this Tribunal to compute the alleged salary of the Petitioner as has been claimed by him in his computationtable.
15. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Petitioner himself has admitted in his cross examination that the factory or company remained closed under lock out from March, 2002 to August, 2005 , that is the period for which he has filed claim for computation of the salary and allowances .
18. The Petitioner has challenged his termination order but he has not filed any termination order to prove that the company of the Hemadri Cements Ltd. , ordered termination of the Petitioner. However , the evidence filed by the Petitioner documentary as well as oral prove that there was lockout in the company, the company remained closed from April , 2002 to August, 2005. During this period all the employees remained out of duty and they were not paid salary. In that case , if the Petitioner was aggrieved with the action of the management declaring lockout as illegal or against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, it was the duty and responsibility of the Petitioner to raise this issue through the appropriate government as industrial dispute under Sec . 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
31/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-29012/ 15/2009- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपना, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2012
S.O. 782. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.........35/ 2009 ....... ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Hanuman Prasad Singania, Mine Owner (Bikaner) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 31/1/2012.
[No. L-29012/ 15/2009 - IR (M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secretary.
19. This petition has not been filed under Sec . 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Petitioner has not clallengedthe action of the management declaring lockout in the company but he has chosen to move this Labour Court under Sec.2A(2) ofthe Andhra Pradesh Amendment. Thispetitionunder Sec . 2A(2) is not maintainable because the Petitioner was neither dismissed, discharged nor disengaged by any order or action of the management. The agreement dated 19.8.2005 prove that the employees were re-employed and agreement was entered into . This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Petition under Sec.2A(2) is devoid of any merit . Petitioner should have challenged the action of management under Sec . 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 through the appropriate government which has not been done as such , the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petition is devoid ofmerit andpetition in LC No. 122/2006 is also without any merit . Petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this petition also and this petition is also deserves to be dismissed . Hence, thisaward.
ANNEXURE
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 14th day of November, 2011 .
PresidingOfficer
Sh . N.K. Purohit I.D. 35/2009
PresidingOfficer Ved Prakash Gaur ,
Appendix of evidence
Reference No. L- 29012/ 15 / 09/ IR( M )) dated: 22.10.2009
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1: Sri G Ramesh
Sh . Ramganesh Prasad S/o Sh . Ram Asish Chouhan C/ o Sh . Dhanney Singh Bhati Ward No. 15, Near Old Police Chowki , Kolayat, Bikaner.
NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner
V/ s
Ex.WI: Copy of trainee appointment order dt. 2.9.1985.
Ex.W2: Copy of pay enhancement orderdt. 15.10.1986
Ex.W3 : Copy of confirmation order dt . 10.11.1987
Ex. W4: Copy ofagreementdt. 19.8.2003
M/sHanuman Prasad Singania, MineOwner through Shri R. Singania S/o Late H.P. Singania Bachhawaton ka Mohalla , Bada Bazar, Nr.Haldiram, Bikaner.
Ex. W5: Copy of pay advice
Documents marked for the Respondent
AWARD
NIL
23.12.2011
नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2012
1.The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-
का०आ० 782.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हनुमान प्रसाद सिंघानिया खान मालिक बीकानेर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
"Whether the action of the management of M/s Hanuman Prasad Singania , Owner through Shri Ram Prasad Singania S /o Sh . Hanuman Prasad Singania ,
1787
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
Bikaner in terminating the services of Sh. Ramganesh year. In 2009(2) RLW 1127 it has been held that labour
court was not to go into the question asto whether
Prasad w.e.f. 30.11.2003 is just & fair ? What relief the appointment had been made in accordance with the
workman is entitled to and from which date ? " procedure under the rules & regulations . The facts of the
2. The workman in his claim statement has stated decisions supra are quite distinguishable .
that he was orally engaged by the non - applicant as casual 9. In 2010 (3) RLW 2143 Hob'ble Apex court has
labour on 18.8.1994 but his services have been orally observed that initial burden is on the workman to show
terminated on 30.11.2003 . It has been further pleaded that that he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months
he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year & prior to his alleged retrenchment. Thereafter, burden of
has continuously worked during period August , 1994 to proofshifts to employer to prove that he did not complete
November, 2003 but in spite of this his services have been 240 days of service in requisite period to constitute
terminated without any notice or compensation in lieu of continuous service .
notice . It has been alleged that while terminating his services 10. Inpresent case , the workman in his affidavit has
theprovisions of section 25 -F, G & H & Rule 77 & 78 have
not been complied with. Thus , the workman has prayed to deposed that hewas engaged on 18.8.1994 as casual labour.
reinstate him with back wages & other consequential Hewas not performing any supervisory work . He has further
benefits. deposed that his services have been terminated on
30.11.2003 without any notice or compensation in lieu of
3. None appeared on behalf of the non- applicant notice . To substantiate his case , he has produced
despite service of registered notice therefore, ex -party documents Ex -w - 1 to Ex- w - 10 , ex- w - 1 is copy ofattendance
proceedings were drawn against the non - applicant on register of January, 2002. Ex -2 is statement of PF deductions .
6.12.2010. Ex-3 is a statement of outstanding salary. Ex -4 to Ex- 8 is
4.Theworkman in support of his claim has submitted copiesof loading slips . Ex-9 is reply given by the accountant
hisaffidavit& in documentary evidence he has produced ofthe non - applicant regarding none payment of PF. Ex - 10
Ex-w- 1 to Ex-w-23 . isa copy of attendance card.
5.Heard the learned representative on behalf of the 11. Since ex-party proceedings have been drawn
workman. against the non - applicant, there is no cross examination
on the affidavit submitted by the workman . The statement
6. The learned representative on behalf of the ofthe workman in his affidavit that he has worked for more
workman has contended that the non - applicant has not than240 days during preceding 12 months from the date
appeared to contest the case therefore , there is no reason of termination has not been controverted . There is no
to disbelieve the version of the workman that he has documentary or oral evidence on behalf of the non-
worked for more than 240 days & his services have been applicant to disprove the above statement of the workman
terminated in violation of mandatory provisions of 25 - F of on affidavit. In absence of reply to the claim statement &
the 1.D. Act. He has further contended that though the any evidence in rebuttal , it can be inferred that the non-
workman has been shown as Supervisor in the reference applicant has admitted the claim of the workman regarding
order but he was not performing any supervisory or 240 working days during requisite period.
managerial work. Moreover , even if he was doing 12. Inabsence of any pleading & evidence in rebuttal
supervisory work he was not drawing wages exceeding on behalf of non - applicant, there is no reason to disbelieve
limits mentioned in the amended clause ( iv) of section 2 - s the statement of the workman that no notice or
ofthe I.D. Act. In support of his contentions he has relied retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of
onAIR 1988 SC 329, 2000(3 ) RLR 447 , 2009 (2) RLW 1127, histermination .
2010(3) RLW 2143 SC .
13. In veiw ofabove , it is established that services of
7. I have gone through the decisions referred to by the workman have been terminated in violation of section
the learned representative on behalf of the wrokman . 25- F ofthe I.D. Act .
8. InAIR 1988 SC 329 the employee was working as 14. So far as allegations regarding non - compliance
Internal Auditor & he was only checking on behalf of ofsection 25 -G & H are concerned there are neither specific
employer. He was not having any independent rights to pleadings nor any oral or documentary evidence to
take decisions therefore , Hon'ble Court held that the substantiate the said allegations . Thus , the workman has
employee was a workman within the meaning of2 - S of the failed to prove violation of section 25 -G & H of the I.D.Act .
I.D. Act . In RLR 2000(3 ) 447 , despite several opportunities 15. The learned representative on behalf of the
having been granted employer failed to produce muster workman has submitted that termination of the workman is
rolls for entire relevant period therefore, Hon'ble Court held inviolation of the section 25 - F ofthe I.D. Act therefore, the
thatinference was rightly drawn by the labour court that workman be reinstated with all consequential benefits .
workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar
1788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]
16. This legal position is not in dispute that in case
of non -compliance of section 25- F the workman can be "There has been a shift in the legal position laid
reinstated with other consequential reliefs. down by the Supreme Court and now there is no
17. Earlier in cases of termination in violation of hard- and- fast principle that on the termination of
service being found to be illegal reinstatement with
section 25 - F reinstatement of the workman with full back backwages is to be awarded. Compensation can be
wages used to be automatically granted, but keeping in awarded instead , at the discretion of the Labour
view several other factors, a change in the said trend is Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. "
now found in the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. In a large number of decisions in the matter of grant
ofrelief ofthe kind, Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished 20. In present matter, admittedly the workman was
permanent employee. between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a orally engaged as casual labour. He was not holding any
regular post. Keeping in view the nature of employment &
having regard to the entire facts & circumstances of the
18. In recentdecision (2010) 1 SCC (L& S) 545 Jagbir case, instead of reinstating him the interest ofjustice will
Singh V/s Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board after be sub served by paying compensation to the workman
considering the earlier decisions referred to therein on the instead & in lieu of relief of reinstatement in service.
pointshould an order of reinstatement automatically follows
in a case ofviolation of section 25- F ofthe I.D. Act Hon'ble 21. Accordingly, the reference is answered in
Apex Court has observed that :- affirmative in favour of the workman & it is held that the
" Itwouldbe, thus seen that by a catena of decisions action ofthe management in termination of the serivces of
theworkman being in violation of section 25- F oftheAct is
in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that illegal & unjustified. Therefore, the non- applicant is directed
an order of retrenchement passed in violation of to pay compensation to the workman worth Rs. 35000/-
Section 25- F although may be set aside but an award (Thirty Five Thousand only) instead & in lieu of his
of reinstatement should not , however, be reinstatment ofservice . The payment shall be made within
automatically passed. The award of reinstatement eight weeks from the publication of the award failing which
with full back wages in a case where the workman it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.
has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding 22. Award as above .
the date of termination , particularly, daily wagers
has not been found to be proper by this court and 23. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central
instead compensation has been awarded. This Court Government for publication u/ s 17(1 ) of the I.D. Act .
has distinguished between a daily wager who does
not hold a post and a permanent employee. " N.K. PUROHIT,
(Presiding Officer)
19. Continuing this line ofapproach in decision (2010) नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2012
under:-- 2 SCC ( L& S) 376 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
का०आ० 783.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947
"While the earlier view of the Court was that if an का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हनुमान
order oftermination was found to be illegal, normally प्रसाद सिंघानिया खान मालिक बीकानेर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों
the relief to be granted would be reinstatement with
fullbackwages . However, with the passage of time it और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में
came to be realized that an industry should not be केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट
compelled to pay to the workman for the period (संदर्भ संख्या 29/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
during which he apparently contributed little or 31/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
nothing at all. The relief to be granted is
discretionary and not automatic . A person is not [सं० एल-29012/14/2009- आई आर ( एम) ]
entitled to get something only because it would be जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
lawful to do so. The changes brought out by the
subsequent decisions of the Supreme court probably New Delhi, the 31st January, 2012
having regard to the changes in the policy decisions S.O. 783. in pursuance of Section 17 of the
ofthe Government in the wake of prevailing market Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (4 of 1947), the Central
economy , globalization , privatization and Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref.
outsourcing was evident. Hence now there is no such No................. 29/2009 ..........) of the Central Government
principle that for an illegal termination of service
the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in
and instead the Labour court can award the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
compensation. " employers in relation to the management ofM/s Hanuman
Prasad Singania, Mine Owner ( Bikaner ) and their workman,
1789 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
which was received by the Central Government on 31 / 1/ 2012.
F, G & H & Rule 77 & 78 have not been complied with . Thus , the workman has prayed to reinstate him with back wages & other consequential benefits .
[No. L-29012/ 14/2009 -IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary
ANNEXURE
3. None appeared on behalf of the non- applicant despite service of registered notice therefore , ex- party proceedings were drawn against the non - applicant on 6.12.2010.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
PresidingOfficer
4.The workman in support ofhis claim has submitted hisaffidavit& in documentary evidence he has produced Ex-w- 1 to Ex-w-23 .
Sh . N.K. Purohit
5.Heard the learned representative on behalf of the workman.
I.D. 29/2009
Dated: 6.10.2009
Reference No. L- 29012 / 14 /09 /IR(M)
Sh . Kamlesh Singh
S/o Shri Acchan Singh R/ o Mohta Dharamshala Ward No. 1 , Sri Kolayat , Bikaner.
V/s
6. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that the non - applicant has not appeared to contest the case therefore , there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the workman that he has worked for more than 240 days & his services have been terminated inviolation of mandatory provisions of 25 - F of the I.D. Act. He has further contended that though the workman has been shown as Supervisor in the reference order but hewas not performing any supervisory or managerial work. Moreover, even if he was doing supervisory work he was not drawing wages exceeding limits mentioned in the amended clause (iv) of section 20s ofthe I.D. Act. In support ofhis contentions he has relied on AIR 1988 SC 329 , 2000(3 ) RLR447, 2009(2) RLW 1127, 2010(3 ) RLW 2143 SC. M/sHanuman Prasad Singania , Mine Owner through Shri Ram Singania S/o Late Hanuman Prasad Singania Bacchawaton Ka Mohalla, Bada Bazar, Hr. Haldiram, Bikaner.
7. I have gone through the decisions referred to by the learned representative on behalf of the workman.
AWARD
23.12.2011
1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of M / s Hanuman Prasad Singania, Owner through Shri Ram Prasad Singania S/o Late Sh . Hanuman Prasad Singania, Bikaner in terminating the services of Sh . Kamlesh Singh , Supervisor in the month ofMarch, 2006 is just & fair ? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "
8. In A.IR 1988 SC 329 the employee was working as Internal Auditor & he was only checking on behalf of employer . He was not having any independent rights to take decisións therefore , Hon'ble Court held that the employee was a workman within the meaning of 2 - s ofthe I.D. Act. In RLR 2000(3 ) 447, despite several opportunities having been granted employer failed to produce muster rolls for entire relevant period therefore , Hon'ble Court held that inference was rightly drawn by the labour court that workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year. In 2009(2 ) RLW 1127 it has been held that labour court was not to go into the question as to whether appointment had been made in accordance with the procedure under the rules & regulations . The facts of the decisions supra are quite distinguishable .
9. In 2010 (3) RLW 2143 Hon'ble Apex court has observed that initial burden is on the workman to shows that he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months prior to his alleged retrenchment . Thereafter, burden of proof shifts to employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in requisite period to constitute continuous service .
10. In present case , the workman in his affidavit has deposed that he was engaged on 1.1.1992 as casual labour.
2. The workman in his claim statement has stated that he was orally engaged by the non- applicant as casual labour on 1.1.1992 but his services have been orally terminated in the month of March , 2006. It has been further pleaded that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year & has continuously worked during period January, 1993 to February, 2006 but in spite of this his services have been terminated without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice. It has been alleged that while terminating his services the provisions of section 25- 1790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933 [PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii)]
Hewas not performing any supervisory work. He has further 18. In recent decision (2010 ) 1 SCC (L&S) 545 Jagbir
deposed that his services have been terminated in the
month ofMarch, 2006 without any notice or compensation Singh V/ s Haryana State Agriculture Mktg . Board after
in lieu of notice. To substantiate his case , he has produced considering the earlier decisions referred to therein on the
documents Ex- w - 1 to Ex - w- 17 . Ex- w - 1 & w - 2 are copies of point should an order of reinstatement automatically follows
in a case of violation of section 25 - F of the I.D. Act Hon'ble
attendance register of May, 1992 & January, 2002 Apex Court has observed that :-
respectively. Ex- w- 3 is a statement of outstanding salary.
Ex-w-4 is reply given by accountant of the non - applicant "Itwould be, thus seen that by a catena of decisions
regarding non -payment of PF. Ex- 5 to Ex- 16 are copies of in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that
the loading slips & Ex- 17 is a copy of attendance card of Feb. 1992. anorder of retrenchment passed in violation of
Section 25 - F although may be set aside but an award
of reinstatement should not , however , be
11. Since ex-party proceedings have been drawn automatically passed. The award of reinstatement
against the non -applicant, there is no cross examination with fuli back wages in a case where the workman
on the affidavit submitted by the workman. The statement
ofthe workman in his affidavit that he has worked for more hascompleted 240 days of work in a year preceding
than 240 days during preceding 12 months from date of the date of termination , particularly, daily wagers has
termination has not been controverted . There is no not been found to be proper by this Court and instead
documentary or oral evidence on behalf of the non- compensation has been awarded. This court has
applicant to disprove the above statement of the workman distinguished between a daily wager who does not
on affidavit . In absence of reply to the claim statement & hold a post and a permanent employee. "
any evidence in rebuttal , it can be inferred that the non- 19. Continuing this line of approach in decision ( 2010)
applicant has admitted the claim ofthe workman regarding under:- 2 SCC ( L& S ) 376 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
240 working days during requisite period.
12. Inabsence of any pleading & evidence in rebuttal "While the earlier view of the Court was that if an
onbehalfofnon- applicant, there is no reason to disbelieve order of termination was found to be illegal , normally
the statement of the workman that no notice or the relief to be granted would be reinstatement with
bistermination. retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of full back wages . However, with the passage of time it
came to be realized that an industry should not be
13. Inview ofabove, it is established that services of compelled to pay to the workman for the period
the workman have been terminated in violation of section during which he apparently contributed little or
25- F of the I.D. Act . nothing at all . The reliefto be granted is discretionary
and not automatic . A person is not entitled to get
14. So far as allegations regarding non -compliance something only because it would be lawful to do so .
afsection 25 -G & H are concerned there are neither specific The changes brought out by the subsequent
pleadings nor any oral or documentary evidence to decisions of the Supreme Court probably having
substantiate the said allegations . Thus , the workman has regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the
failedto prove violation of section 25 -G & H ofthe I.D.Act . Government in the wake of prevailing market
15. The learned representative on behalf of the economy, globalization , privatization and
workman has submitted that termination of the workman is outsourcing was evident . Hence now there is no such
in violation ofthe section 25 - F ofthe I.D. Act therefore , the principle that for an illegal termination of service the
workmanbe reinstated with all consequential benefits . normal rule is reinstatement with back wages , and
instead the Labour court can award compensation. "
16. This legal position is not in dispute that in case " There has been a shift in the legal position laid
of non-compliance of section 25 - F the workman can be
reinstated with other consequential reliefs . down by the Supreme Court and now there is no
hard-and- fast principle that on the termination of
17. Earlier in cases of termination in violation of service being found to be illegal reinstatement with
section 25 - F reinstatement of the workman with full back backwages is to be awarded . Compensation can be
wages used to be automatically granted, but keeping in awarded instead, at the discretion of the Labour
view several other factors , a change in the said trend is the case. " Court , depending on the facts and circumstances of
now found in the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. In a large number of decisions in the matter of grant
ofreliefofthe kind, Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished 20. In present matter , admittedly the workman was
between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a orally engaged as casual labour . He was not holding any
permanent employee . regular post . Keeping in view the nature of employment &
having regard to the entire facts & circumstances of the
1791
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
case, instead of reinstating him the interest of justice will be sub served by paying compensation to the workman instead & in lieu of relief of reinstatement in service.
21. Accordingly, the reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the workman & it is held that the action of the management in termination of the services of theworkman being in violation of section 25 - F of theAct is illegal & unjustified . Therefore , the non -applicant is directed to pay compensation to the workman worth Rs . 35000/- (Thirty Five Thousand Only) instead & in lieu of his reinstatement of service . The payment shall be made within eight weeks from the publication ofthe award failing which itshall carry interest @ 9% per annum.
22. Award as above.
23. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/s 17( 1 ) of the I.D. Act .
N.K. PUROHIT, PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2012
का०आ० 784.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हनुमान प्रसाद सिंघानिया खान मालिक बीकानेर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 30/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31.1.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -29012/13/2009-आईआर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2012
S.O. 784. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ..30/ 2009 ..........) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Hanuman Prasad Singania , Mine Owner (Bikaner) and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 31.1.2012 .
[No. L- 29012/ 13 /2009 - IR(M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secretary
452GI /2012-28
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
PresidingOfficer
Sh . N.K. Purohit
I.D. 30/2009
dated: 5.10.2009 Reference No. L-29012 / 13 /09 /IR ( M)
Sh . Dhanney Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Rajpoot Ward No. 15 , Near Old Police Chowki Kolayat, Bikaner.
V/ s
M/sHanuman Prasad Singania, MineOwner through Shri Ram Singania S/ o Late Hanuman Prasad Singania Bachhawaton Ka Mohalla, Bada Bazar , Nr. Haldiram Bhujiawala, Bikaner.
AWARD
23.12.2011
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of M / s Hanuman Prasad Singania , Mine Owner through Shri Ram Singania S /o late Shri Hanuman Prasad Singania, Bikaner in terminating the services of Sh. Dhanney Singh, Supervisor w.e.f25.12.2002 is just & fair ? What relief the workman is entitled to and from what date ? "
2. The workman in his claim statement has stated that he was orally engaged by the non - applicant as casual labour in the month of April , 1988 but his services have been orally terminated on 25.12.2002. It has been further pleaded that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calender'year & has continuously worked during period 1988 to 2002 but in spite of this his services have been terminated without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice. It has been alleged that while terminating his services the provisions of section 25 - F, G & H Rule 77 & 78 have not been complied with . Thus, the workman has prayed to 1792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
reinstate him with back wages & other consequential benefits.
that he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months prior to his alleged retrenchment. Thereafter, burden of aproofshifts to employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in requisite period to constitute continuous service .
3. None appeared on behalf of the non- applicant despite service of registered notice therefore , ex-party proceedings were drawn against the non- applicant on 6.12.2010.
4. Theworkman in support of his claim has submitted his affidavit & in documentary evidence he has produced Ex-W- 1 to Ex -W-23 .
5.Heard the learned representative on behalf ofthe workman.
10. In present case , the workman in his affidavit has deposed that he was engaged in the year 1988 as casual labour. He was not performing any supervisory work . He has further deposed that his services have been terminated in 25.12.2002 without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice. To substantiate his case , he has produced documents Ex- w - 1 to Ex - w-23 . Ex - w - 1 & w - 2 are copies of attendance register of May, 1992 & January, 2002 respectively. Ex-w -3 is a statement of particulars regarding deduction of PF. Ex - w -4 is a statement outstanding salary. Ex-w-5 is a certificate of experience submitted by the Mines Manager of the non- applicant under coal mines regulations . Ex -w-6 to w - 21 are copies of loading slips & Ex - w - 22 is reply regarding complaint of none payment of PF & Ex- w- 23 is a copy of attendance card of February, 1997. Upon perusal of above documents , it reveals that employer employee relationship existed between the workman & the non-applicant.
6. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that the non - applicant has not appeared to contest the case therefore , there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the workman that he has worked for more than 240 days & his services have been terminated in violation of mandatory provisions of 25 - F of the I.D. Act. He has further contended that though the workman has been shown as Supervisor in the reference order but he was not performing any supervisory or managerial work. Moreover, even if he was doing supervisory work he was not drawing wages exceeding limits mentioned in the amended clause ( IV ) of section 2 -S of the I.D. Act. In support of his contentions he has relied on AIR 1988 SC 329, 2000 (3 ) RLR 447 , 2009 (2) RLW 1127, 2010 (3 ) RLW 2143 SC .
7. I have gone through the decisions referred to by the learned representative on behalf of the workman .
11. Since ex-party proceedings have been drawn against the non - applicant , there is no cross examination onthe affidavit submitted by the workman. The statement ofthe workman in his affidavit that he has worked for more than 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of termination has not been controverted . There is no documentary or oral evidence on behalf of the non- applicant to disprove the above statement of the workman on affidavit . In absence of reply to the claim statement & any evidence in rebuttal , it can be inferred that the non- applicant has admitted the claim of the workman regarding 240 working days during requisite period.
12. Inabsence of any pleading & evidence in rebuttal onbehalfofnon- applicant , there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the workman that no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of histermination .
13. In view of above , it is established that services of the workman have been terminated in violation of section 25 - F of the 1.D.Act .
8. In AIR 1988 SC 329 the employee was working as Internal Auditor & he was only checking on behalf of employer. He was not having any independent rights to take decisions therefore , Hon'ble Court held that the employee was a workman within the meaning of 2- S of the 1.D. Act . In RLR 2000(3 ) 447, despite several opportunities having been granted employer failed to produce muster rolls for entire relevant period therefore, Hon'ble Court held that inference was rightly drawn by the labour court that workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calender year. In 2009 (2) RLW 1127 it has been held that labour court was not to go into the qeustion as to whether appointment had been made in accordance with the procedure under the rules & regulations . The facts of the decisions supra are quite distinguishable .
14. So far as allegations regarding non - compliance ofsection 25 - G & H are concerned , there are neither specific 9. In 2010 (3 ) RLW 2143 Hon'ble Apex court has observed that initial burden is on the workman to show 1793
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
pleading nor any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the said allegations . Thus , the workman has failed to prove violation of section 25 -G & H. of the I.D. Act.
15. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has submitted that termination of the workman is in violation of the section 25 - F of the I.D. Act therefore, the workman be reinstated with all consequential benefits .
16. This legal position is not in dispute that in case of non-compliance of section 25 - F the workman can be reinstated with other consequential reliefs.
17. Earlier in cases of termination in violoation of section 25 - F reinstatement of the workman with full back wages used to be automatically granted, but keeping in view several other factors , a change in the said trend is now found in the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . In a large number of decisions in the matter ofgrant of reliefofthe kind, Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee .
18. In recent decision (2010 ) 1 SCC (L& S) 545 Jagbir Singh V /s Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board after considering the earlier decisions referred to therein on the pointshould an order or reinstatement automatically follows in a case of violation of section 25 - F of the I.D. Act Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :-
" Itwould be , thus seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time , this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25 - F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not , however , be automatically passed . The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, dailywagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. "
19. Continuing this line of approach in decisión (2010) 2 SCC ( L& S ) 376 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"While the earlier view of the Court was that if an order oftermination was found to be illegal , normally the relief to be granted would be reinstatement with fullbackwages . However, with the passage of time it came to be realized that an industry should not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all . The relief to be granted is discretionary and not automatic . A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. The changes brought out by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme court probably having regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the Government in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalization , privatization and outsourcing was evident . Hence now there is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages , and instead the Labour court can award compensation. "
"There has been a shift in the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court and now there is no hard- and - fast principle that on the termination of service being found to be illegal reinstatement with backwages is to be awarded . Compensation can be awarded instead, at the discretion of the Labour Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. "
20. In present matter, admittedly the workman was orally engaged as casual labour. He was not holding any regular post . Keeping in view the nature of employment & having regard to the entire facts & circumstances of the case, instead of reinstating him the interest of justice will be sub served by paying compensation to the workman instead & in lieu of relief of reinstatement in service.
21. Accordingly, the reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the workman & it is held that the action ofthe management in termination of the services of theworkman being in violation of section 25 -F ofthe Act is illegal& unjustified . Therefore , the non - applicant is directed to pay compensation to the workman worth Rs . 35000/- (Thirty Five Thousand Only ) instead & in lieu of his reinstatement ofservice . The payment shall be made within eightweeks from the publication of the award failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.
22.Award as above .
23. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/ s 17 ( 1 ) of the I.D. Act .
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer 1794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2012
AWARD
3.1.2012
1.The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-
का०आ० 785.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स आदित्य सीमेंट वर्क्स चित्तौडगढ़ के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31/1/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल- 29012/23/2005- आई आर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 31st January, 2012
"Whether the contention of the Union that the workman had worked with the management ofAditya Cement Works for period more than 240 days prior to his termination from service is correct ? If so , whether the action of the management in terminating the services of theworkman justified ? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled ? "
..... 69/2005 S.O. 785.- 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/Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between theemployers in relation to the management of M/s Aditya Cements Works (Chittorgarh ) and their workman , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 31/1/2012
2. The workman in his claim statement has pleaded that he was employed as an Assistant Operator on 5.3.1994 in the mines of non- applicant & he has worked as such from 5.3.1994 to 15.4.2004. He has further pleaded that he has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year butdespite this his services have been terminated on 15.4.2004 in violation of principle of natural justice. The workman has prayed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits .
[No. L-29012/23/2005- IR(M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secretary
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
3.The non-applicant in its reply has denied the claim ofthe workman . It has been contended that workman was never employed as an Assistant Operator & he was employee of the labour contractor M/ s Krishna Trading Company. It has further been contended that his wages used to be paid by the said contractor. No employer employee relation ever existed between the workman & the non-applicant . Therefore , claim of the workman deserves to be rejected .
PRESENT
4. The workman has filed his affidavit & certain documents in support ofhis claim.
N.K. PUROHIT Presiding Officer
I.D. 69/2005
Reference No. L- 29012/23 /2005 - IR ( M) dated: 15/7/2005
5.During proceedings an application was moved on behalf of the workman on 3.1.2012 stating that he was an employee of the labour contractor M/ s Krishna Trading Company & he himself had left the service of said contractor. The dispute between them has been settled therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw his claim.
Shri Kailash Rawat C/o Secy. B.M.S. Chittorgarh , Th . Shri Baldev Maud S/ o Sh . Amba Shankar Maud R/ o Saigva, PO Similiya Chittorgarh.
V/ s
6. The learned representative on behalf of the applicant has submitted that dispute between the parties has been settled & workman does not want to proceed further in the matter. He has further submitted that since no dispute exists between the parties & no grievance left with the workman , the matter may be disposed of accordingly.
The Executive President M/sAditya Cements Works Adityapuram Sawa-Shambhupura Distt: Chittorgarh ( Rasjasthan )
7. Initial burden was on the workman to prove that employer employee relation existed between the parties & hehadworked under the employment of the non -applicant for more than 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date ofhis termination .
1795 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , The 1st Ferbuary, 2012
8. The workman in his application has admitted that he was an employee of M / s . Krishna Trading Company & no dispute exists between the parties . Thus , it has been admitted by the workman that he was not an employee of the non-applicant i.e. Aditya Cement Works & employer employee relation did not exist between him & the non- applicant.
S.O. 787. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ... 9/2010 Old . Ref. 84/2010 .................. of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s . Gas Authority of India Ltd. ( Baroda ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1/02/2012
9. Consequently, the reference is answered in negative against the workman . Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
10. Award as above .
[No. L-30011 /38/2009- IR (M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary 11. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government u/ s 17 ( 1 ) ofthe I.D. Act for publication .
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer .
ANNEXURE
शुद्धि-पत्र
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2012
INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present.
Binay Kumar Sinha ,
PresidingOfficer,
CGIT cum Labour Court ,
का०आ० 786.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 30.11.2011 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधन से संबंधित नियोक्ताओं तथा इसके कर्मकारों के मध्य औद्योगिक विवाद में पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 01/2004 को 2004 की विविध 1 आवेदन संख्या 01 के रूप में प्रतिस्थापित किया जाये ।
Ahmedabad, Dated 17.01.2012
[सं० एल- 12025/1/2005- आईआर ( बी- II ]
Reference : ITC No. 9 of2010 Old
शीश राम, अनभाग अधिकारी
Reference: CGITA of 84 of 2010 CORRIGENDUM
The Dy. General Manager,
New Delhi , the 31st January, 2012
GasAuthority of India Ltd. ,
Manisha Circle , Old Padra Road ,
Baroda-390015 .
First Party
And their workman
S.O. 786. In partial modification of this Ministry's Notification of even numer dated 30.11.2011 , the Award Ref. No. 01/2004 may be substituted as Misc . Application No. 01 of 2004 in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank ofIndia and their workman .
Allied Services Workers Co- Op . Society Ltd., C/o Rashtriya Mazdoor Union , Aram Building, Poolbarinaka, Salatwada , Vadodara .
[No. L- 12025/ 1 /2010- IR (B- II) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer
..Second Party नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2012
For the first party Shri B.K. Oza , Advocate
For the second party Shri Sarla Kurup , General Secretary Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh
AWARD
का०आ० 787. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स गेल इंडिया लिमिटेड वडोदरा के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायलय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2010 पुरान रेफरें 84/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1/2/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल- 30011/38 /2009- आई आर ( एम) ]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
The Industrial Dispute was raised by 17 workmen through General Secretary Rashtriya Mazdoor Union demanding for recruitment/ absorption of 17 workmen before the conciliation officer. On submitting of failure report by the conciliation officer, the Appropriate Government (Central Government) considering an Industrial Dispute 1796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
existing between the employers in relation to the Management of Gas Authority of India Ltd. , and their workmen referred the dispute for adjudication by the tribunal as per order L- 30011 /38/2009 ( IR) (M)) New Delhi dated 19.03.2010 under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub section 2 (A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 formulating a terms of reference as per the schedule which is as follows .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the union for recruitment/ absorption of S/Shri ( 1 ) Lukose Simon (2) Jitendra Dave (3) Chetan Mistry (4) Mahesh Vankar (5 ) Fatehsingh Parmar (6) Ashok Solanki (7) Laxman Solanki ( 8) Poojabhai Solanki (9) Rajendrabhai Patel ( 10 ) Sanabhai Solanki ( 11 ) Jagdish Solanki (12) Chatur Solanki ( 13 ) Raman Solanki ( 14) Ganpat Solanki ( 15 ) Kalodas Solanki ( 16) Chandu Solanki and (17) Sanjay C Bhoi is legal, proper and just? To what reliefthese concerned workmen are entitled ? "
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
filed application for interim relief at Ext . 14 and its copy supplied to the lawyer of the first party upon which show- cause- notice was issued upon the first party (GAIL) directing to show cause within 21 days of receipt of the order of show cause, thereafter the first party filed reply to the interim application at Ext. 16 taking the plea that no any ingredients of prima- facie case , balance of convenience and irreparable loss is available in the case of second party for issuance of interim r e 1 i e f
3. While the matter was pending for hearing on the interim application , a withdrawal pursis a Ext . 17 wasfiled on 09.01.2012 and this withdrawal pursis was also endorsed by Shri B.K. Oza , advocate for the first party mentioning " no objection " . On 16.01.2012 the withdrawal pursis at Ext . 17 was pressed . Both sides were heard . Also persued the record and the withdrawal pursis at Ext . 17. It apears that that good sense have prevailed between the parties to sort out their dispute outside the court resulting in filing of the withdrawal pursis . This pursis is allowed . Since the parties are not at dispute now in this case , so there is no need for answering the terms of reference. Subsequently in view of the withdrawal pursis ( Ext . 17) no dispute award in this reference case is passed.
Letcopies ofthis award be sent to the appropriate government for publication and needful . BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2012
का०आ० 788.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मैगनिज और इंडिया लिमिटेड नागपुर के प्रबंधतत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/84) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1/2/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -27011/15/83- डी-3 ( बी ) आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 1st February , 2012
S.O. 788. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No ........ 33/ 84) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Manganese Ore ( India) Ltd. (Nagpur) and their workman , which was received by the Central 2. Parties to the dispute were noticed for appearances and for filing respective pleadings - statement of claim and written statement . The second party workmenthrough their union Rashtriya Mazdoor Union filed statement of claim at Ext . 7 to the effect thatjobs these workmen have been doing are of perennial nature and will remain so till the production activities of GAIL exists and that the system of CO - Operative Society has no justification or reason to continue and that the service of these workmen should be regularised as per the terms of settlement between the societies and the first party company or if the continuation of this system is necessary then equal remuneration for equal work may be paid at parwith regular employees of GAIL . The union have prayed for relief as to absorption of these workmen in the service of the first party and for extending benefits to them at par with permanent employees like Wage revision , Medical , Canteen facilities , HRA , Education and LTA , Food grain allowances , etc. and for paying similar wages to these workmen which are being paid to the comparable grades of permanent employees . Further a complaint under section 10 (A) of the ID Act 1947 at Ext . 8 was filed on behalf ofthe second party praying therein for restraining first party company from making any changes in the service condition of the workmen. Against this reply at Ext . 10 was filed by the first party GAIL denying the allegation as to change of the service and that the concern workman are guided by the MOS which is for limited period of 5 years and on expiry ofthe period of MOS it can not be termed as change in service condition . On these grounds prayer was made to dismiss the complaint made by the second party. Further the second party 1797 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Government on 1/02/2012.
[No. L-27011 / 15/83 -D- III (B)-IR (M) JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/33/84
ultimately initiated a departmental proceeding and Enquiry Officer was appointed who was witness in the criminal case regarding the same occurrence . Relevant documents were not supplied. The enquiry was conduced in the atomosphere of terror and fear and to victimize the workwomen . After enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 16-12-1982 of dismissal from services . The dismissal is void, illegal, malafide and contrary to the principle of natural justice . It is submitted that the workwomen are entitled to be reinstated with back wages and other benefits admissible to them .
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN
The President ,
Krantikari Mazdoor Mines Parishad ,
Workman
PO Balaghat (MP)
Versus
The Chairman -Cum- Managing Director,
Manganese Ore (India ) Ltd. ,
Management
3, Mount Road, Extension , Nagpur (Maharashtra )
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of January 2012
1. The Government of India , Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L-27011 ( 15 )/ 83 - D - III ( B) dated 30-5-1984 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the management of Managanese Ore India Ltd. , in relation to their Bharveli Managanese Mines in dismissing from service w.e.f. 16-12-1982 Smt . Reshmibai , Smt . Bundabai , Smt . Sukmanbai and Smt. Buttobai , piece - rated workers is justified ? If not , to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ? "
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , interalia , is that the workwomen were employed in Mnaganese Ore ( India ) Ltd. , Bharveli Mine . They had been chargesheeted on 18-8-1982 regarding the occurrence dated 27-6-1982 . They denied the allegations by giving reply which was found not satisfactory to the management . Ultimately Shri K.N. Tripathi was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. After enquiry, he submitted his enquiry report . The Mine's Manager issued showcause proposing their dismissal from services . After considering the reply, the Mine's Manager decided to reconduct the enquiry on 29-10-82 and again appointed Shri K.N. Tripathi as an Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer again conducted the enquiry. Thereafter he gave the findings on 30-11-1982 holding the workwomen guilty of the misconduct . Then the chief Mining Engineer gave a showcause notice to the workwomen proposing the punishment of dismissal from services . The workwomen submitted their reply. After considering the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal from services to the workwomen w.e.f. 16-12-1982 in view serious misconduct proved against them . It is stated that if the departmental proceeding is vitiated, the management be given opportunity to prove the misconduct in Court . It is submitted that the action of the management in dismissing the workwomen from services w.e.f. 16-12-1982 is fully justified.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are settled for adjudication-
1. Whether the enquiry is proper and legal ?
II. Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal?
III . Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this Tribunal ?
IV. Whether the termination of the workman is justified on the facts of the case?
V. Relief and costs ?
5. Issue no . I & III
Both the issues are taken up as preliminary issues by the then Tribunal. After considering the entire materials 2. The case of the Union/workwomen , in short is that the workwomen were members of the Union and they had authorized the Union to represent their case . It is stated that on 27-6-1982 some agitation took place in the form of demonstration before the office of the management of Bharveli (Balaghat ) Manganese Mine under the leadership of one Shri Kanker Mujare , President of the Union resulting in unfortunate firing by the police causing death of three employees of the mine and injury to some others . The Balaghat police prosecuted some persons under various sections of the I.P.C. and three criminal cases were initiated. These workwomen were not accused in any of the three criminal cases arising out of the said incident . They had not committed any offence , nor were member of unlawful assembly. They did not participate any way in the incident . However the Manager of Bharweli ( Balaghat ) Mine on the enmity with some persons falsely chargesheeted them on 18-8-82 under the provision of clauses 29 ( A) ( X ) , 29 ( B ) ( ii ) ( VII ) ( X) and (XII ) of the Standing Orders . They denied the charges and gave reply . The management 1798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
on record , it is held that the entire domestic enquiry is not legal and proper vide order dated 10-6-1988 and the parties are directed to lead evidence before this Tribunal to prove misconduct . Thus both the issues are already decided on 10-6-1988 and the management did not prefer to challenge this order of preliminary issues. As such these two issues have reached its finality.
6. Issue No. IV
Beforediscussing the evidence of the parties on the pointofmisconduct , it is not out of place to say that there is no document filed to show that there was any complaint of any officer or employee of the management or any preliminary enquiry report for issuing chargesheet dated 18-8-1992 against these workwomen. Admittedly they were not named in the criminal cases filed regarding the same occurrence. This question arises as to how the names of these workwomen arose for issuing chargesheet against them. This creates complete doubt about their involvement in the alleged occurrence . The chargesheet issued against the workwomen also shows that there is no basis of issuing chargesheet against these workwomen. This aspect clearly shows that there was predetermined mind of the management to victimize these workwomen on the pretext of some one or these workwomen were escape goat to save the neck of the management as three workers died in the alleged occurrence .
7. It is also not out of place to say that the order dated 10-6-1988 passed by the then Tribunal on preliminary issues show that it is also held that the chargesheet issued by the Manager was illegal and unauthorized and by a person incompetent to do so . The said order has become absolute as the said order is not challeged subsequently by any of the parties . However now let us examine as to whether the management is able to establish misconduct against the workwomen .
8. Since the departmental enquiry is vitiated, the burden is on the management to prove misconduct against the workwomen . The management has not adduced any documentary evidence in the case to show that anyone had complaint to the management in writing of instigation to gherao the Manager and for abusing the workers against these workwomen . The management has examined six witnesses namely 1. Smt . Daruk Bai , 2. Smt . Sunder Bai , 3 . Shri suchand, 4. Smt . Chandrawati Bai , 5. Smt. Yashoda Bai and 6. Shri S.C. Trivedi Sr. Manager ( Personnel ). Out of these witnesses , 1. Smt . Daruk Bai , 2. Smt . Sunder, 3. Shri Suchand , 4. Smt . Chandrawati Bai and 5. smt . Yashoda Bai have not supported the alleged facts which took place near the office of the manager as they had not left the place oftheir work . Their evidence clearly shows that the office of the manager was not visible from the place oftheirwork. These witnesses are not reliable on the point of occurrence and the participation of these workwomen which was alleged to have been taken place near the office of the Manager.
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
9. These five witnesses are only on the point that these workwomen had instigated the witnesses to gherao the Mine Manager and other officers but these witnesses refused to leave the place of work then they abused them. Now let us examine the credibility of the evidence ofthese witnesses . All these five witnesses are members of INTUC Union whereas these workwomen are members of Krantikari Mazdoor Mines Parishad . It appears and looks probable that there was Union rivalry also and they without any complaint they had been chargesheeted . The evidence filed by was of affidavits of these witnesses were typed on 30-6-91 whereas thumb impression was taken on 7-4-92 at Chhindwara on the affidavits after about a year and the same were presented before the Tribunal for oath. Admittedlythey were illiterate . The circumstances clearly shows that it was typed by the management and the thumb impression was simply taken of these witnesses on the affidavits after the lapse of one year.
10. Srnt . Daruk Bai has stated that she came alongwith Shri Chourasia who readout the contents of the affidavit and told her to speak only as in the affidavit. The said affidavit was tendered at Chhindwara which was brought by Shri Trivedi and Shri Chourasia . Her evidence clearly shows that she was a tutored witness and was set up for the purpose of the case because there was no complaint by this witness to the management earlier that she was instigated to gherao the office of the Manager and abused by them. Smt . Sunder Bai has stated that she had given this affidavit at Chhindwara and was put before the Tribunal for oath . She has stated that she had not gone in the office of the Manager and at the time of dispute she was in her section . This witness is also not reliable who was not present at the place of occurrence . Another management witness shri Suchand has stated that the Mining Officer Shri Sharma brought the affidavit after typing and he signed over it . This creates compete doubt in the thruthfulness of hisevidence that the evidence by way of affidavit was not given by him . Another management witness Sint . Chandrawati has stated in her evidence that the laywer had read over the affidavit and told her to narrate in the same way. This shows that she was a tutored witness . She was also not a witness on the point of occurrence which was alleged to have been taken place near the office ofthe Manager . She has stated that she had not seen the occurrence near the office of the Manager. Her evidence is also not trustworthy. Another management witness Smt . yashoda Bai has stated that she had not seen occurrence alleged to have been committed near the office of Manager. She appears to be not competent to say about the occurrence . She has also stated that she did not know as to where and when the affidavit was typed and three years ago the signature and thumb impression was taken and produced before the officer at Chhindwara . This fact also shows that the affidavit was prepared by the management and she had been told to narrate accordingly. She is also 1799 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
not a reliable witness . Thus the evidence of these five witnesses go to show that they were tutored witnesses as they had not made any complaint either oral or in writing before giving chargesheets to the delinquent workwomen and the names of the witnesses also do not appear in the chargesheet . The witnesses were of different Union and one of the witness Shri Suchand was Deputy Secretary of the Union whereas the delinquent workwomen were of different Union and thcrefore it appears probable that there was Union rivalry and they had been falsely implicated. They were also not witnesses of the alleged occurrence and appear to be tutored witnesses .
any dispute arose , they tried to settle the dispute . This fact does not show that they had participated in the unlawful assembly and instigated others for committing misconduct. She has denied the allegation of the chargesheet . She has been cross - examined at lenght but nothing was gained by the management . Another witness Smt . Anjana Bai is an independent witness . She has stated that these delinquent workwomen were not present at the place of agitation and had not participated in the occurence . She had stated that the members of the INTUC Union were also present and they were doing provocation where three persons died on police firing . She had further stated that the police lodged cases against 20-25 persons but these workwomen were not made accused in the case . She has stated that the delinquent Reshmi Bai had died . There is nothing in her evidence to disbelieve this witness who was co -worker and was working in the same shift . The last witness Smt. Sukan Bai has also supported the case of the Union . She has denied the allegation in her evidence . Her evidence shows that there is nothing to disbelieve this witness . Thus the oral evidence adduced by the Union shows that these workwomen had not participated in the agitation nor they had instigated nor abused anyone .
13. The Union has filed certified copy of the judgement dated 27-2-99 passed by the First Addl . Sessions Judge, Siwani , MP in Sessions Case Nos . 7/84 , 8/84 and 9/84 . These Sessions cases appear to be of the same occurrence in which 23 accused persons were facing trial . The learned Ist Addl . Sessions Judge found them not guilty and acquitted them from the charges leveled against them . It is clear from the judgement that these delinquent workwomen were not accused in the case . It also shows that Mines Manager had given information in writing to the police and on the basis of the information F.I.R. was lodged. The copy of the said information petition is not filed in this case to substantiate the misconduct . It looks probable and obvious that information petition did not disclose the names of these workwomen and therefore it was concealed and was not filed . Moreover they were not made accused in the case . Considering the entire evidence adduced by the parties , the management has failed to prove misconduct against any of the workwomen . As such the management was not justified in terminating the services of these workwomen . This issue , is , accordingly, decided in favour of the workwomen and against the management.
11. The management last witness is Shri S.C. Trivedi who was Sr. Manager (Personnel ). He is the only witness onthe point of occurrence . The Manager , who was said to have been gheraoed is not examined in the case who appears to be the most competent witness and no explanation is given by the management as to why he was not examined . He has stated that he was posted at Balaghat Mine on 27-6-1982 and was persent in the office of the Manager . He has stated that he does not know that any criminal case was lodged with regard to the alleged occurrence . Subsequently he has admitted that the police had investigated the alleged occurrence and the police had taken his statement as well . This shows that the witness was not ready to disclose the truth before the Court . he has stated that he had also deposed before the Criminal Court as well . Again he has shown his ignorance that he had taken the names of these delinquent workwomen before the criminal court . The Union/ workwomen has filed the judgement of the criminal court which is marked as ExhibitW/I which clearly shows that these delinquent workwomen were not accused in the said criminal case and their names did not appear in the F.I.R. He was not witness ofthe departmental enquiry. He has stated at para - 10 that he does not know that as to when the affidavit was prepared. His evidence shows that after about a decade he had taken the names of these workwomen for the first time as there is no evidence or allegation against these workwomen before the criminal court which was ofthe same occurrence . There is also no previous statement of this witness oral or in writing to show that he had taken the names of these workwomen . Moreover it appears that he does not want to speak truth before the Court . This creates complete doubt in the credibility of his evidence. Thus the oral evidence adduced by the management is not sufficient to prove the misconduct against the delinquent workwomen .
14. Issue Nos . II and V
Considering the discussions made above , I find that the management has failed to prove the misconduct against the workwomen . As such the order of dismissal dated 16-12-82 passed against the workwomen is , hereby set aside . The managementhent is directed to reinstate the workwomen with back wages and pay all consequential benefits . In case any of the workwomen died or has attained 12. On the other hand, the Union/workwomen has examined three witnesses including the delinquent workwomen Smt . Bunda Bai and Smt . Sukman Bai . These witnesses have denied the participation of the delinquent workwomen in the alleged occurrence for which a criminal case was also lodged against others . Smt . Bunda Bai has supported the case of the Union workwomen. She has admited that they were member of Krantikari Union and if
452G1 /2012-29 1800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25, 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
1. M/ s . Ares & Sons , Contractor , Secredihi Iron Mines of OMC Limited , Dubna, Via . Joda , Distt . Keonjhar.
the age of superannuation , the management is directed to pay retiral benefits also to the said workwomen or their legal heirs as if they had retired or died in service . Accordingly the reference is answered.
2. The Sr. Manager (Mining),
15. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
Dubna Secredihi Mines of M / s OMC Ltd. , At. Po . Dubna , Via . Joda Distt . Keonjhar.
IstParty-Managements .
(And)
16. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , PresidingOfficer
Their workmen represented through the General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union , Po. Barbil , Distt . Keonjhar.
नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2012
... 2nd Party- Union.
Appearances:
Shri K.R. Mohapatra , Authorized Representative
Forthe Ist Party- Management No. 1.
Shri S.R. Pattnaik , For the Ist Party-
Manager( Law) , Management No. 2
Shri B.S. Pati ,
का०आ० 789. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एरिस एण्ड संन्स कोन्टरटर सेकशदिहि आयरन माइन्स आफ ओ एम सी लिमिटेड कैन्योन्झर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1/2/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
General Secretary,
For the 2nd Party- Union.
North Orissa Workers' Union.
[सं० एल -26011/12/2006- आई आर ( एम ) ]
AWARD
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 1st February, 2012
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred the present industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of Contractor, Secredihi Iron Mines of OMC and their workmen in exer- cise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide their letter No. L-26011 / 12 /2006- IR( M ), dated 04.09.2006.
2. The dispute referred for adjudication as mentioned under the schedule is reproduced below:-
S.O. 789. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Indus- trialDisputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2006 ..... ) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Bhubaneswar -2 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Secredihi Iron Mines of OMC Ltd. (Keonjhar) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 01/02/2012
[No. L- 26011 / 12/2006 - IR(M) ]
JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary.
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the Contractor, M / s . Ares & Sons , Dubna Secredihi Iron Mines of OMC Ltd. , At./PO . Dubna Via-Joda , Distt . Keonjhar by terminating the services of 98 workmen we.f. 27.4.2005 ( list enclosed ) without serving any written order and also in violation of provision of law is justified ? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled?
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri J. Srivastava,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. - cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar .
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 22/2006
Date of Passing Award - 30th December, 2011
Between:
3. The North Orissa Workers Union espousing the cause of the disputant - workmen has filed the statement of claim in which it has been stated that the 1st Party- Management No. 1 i.e. the Senior Manager ( Mining), Secredihi Iron Mines of M/s . OMC Limited, At./PO . Dubna , Distt . Keonjhar is having a systematic activity carried on by co-operation between itself and its workmen including the workmen engaged by its contractors for the purpose of raising of iron ore in its Dubna Secredihi Iron Mines for their use and supplying the same to different units/ establishments with a view to satisfy human wants and it 1801 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) )
under the 1st Party - Management from 5.8.2003 to 26.4.2005 continuously without any interruption or break in service till they were illegally refused employment on 27.4.2005. The action of the 1st Party - Management in terminating the services ofthe disputant workmen with effect from 27.4.2005 in a most arbitrary manner without following the basic principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act stands highly improper, unjustified and illegal which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. They were neither given any retrenchment compensation nor any notice or wages in lieu of such notice. The basic principle of " first come last go " has also not been followed. As such the disputant - workmen are entitled to be reinstated in their services with effect from 27.4.2005 with full back wages and other consequential benefits .
4. The Ist Party- Management No. I has stated in its reply that a concocted story for the purpose of making a false allegation has been made by the 2nd Party-Union . The statement of claim is based on presumption of facts alleged by Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central ), Barbil in hisletter dated 95 (6 )/2001 - RkI /A, dated 23.1.2004 . The 2nd Party-Union requested the 1st Party - Management vide its letter dated 19.9.2003 to issue " employment cards and wage slips " to all workers which is nothing but a false pretext to start a motivated dispute against the 1st Party- Management. Hence the 1st Party- Management denies all its allegations in toto. The claim of the 2nd Party - Union is not maintainable as it does not have any cause of action against the Ist Party-Management to file the present case . The 1st Party- Management has not at any point of time engaged the disputant-workmen as alleged in the statement of claim except six workmen namely Ramani Nayak , Gamha Nayak , Rajani Deuri , Pravati Sethi , Parikh Dehuri and Donar Damolia and they have absolutely no dispute with the 1st Party- Management . Since there was no appointment or deployment of the disputant- workmen by the Ist Party- Management the question of their termination does not arise at all . Filing of several false grievance petitions before the various state machineries without any just cause and implicating the employer without his knowledge under whom the workmen were never employed at any point of time require strict proof.
5. The 1st Party- Management No. 2 has filed the written statement in which it has been alleged that out of the list of98 persons filed by the 2nd Party- Union only fix persons were working under the Ist Party- Management No. 1 , M / s . Ares & Sons whose names have been mentioned in para - 2 of its written statement. Rest of the 98 persons were not working under the said contractor as per records of the 1st Party - Management . The agency has paid the monthly wages and annual leave wages to its workers including the above named six workmen and excluding the 92 persons as mentioned in the list of the 2nd Party -Union inpresence of the authorized representative of the principal is an Industry as defined under section 2 (j ) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. The Ist Party - Management No. 2 has engaged a number of contractors for raising of iron ore etc and the 1st Party- Management No. 1 i.e. M/ s . Ares and Son is one such contractor who has engaged a number of workmen for smooth functioning of its activities and each of the disputant- workmen are its employees . All the disputant workmen joined the services of the 1st Party- Management No. 1 on 5.8.2003 as PRW ( Miner) . Besides their wages they were entitled to provident fund, bonus , leave and other benefits admissible to similar employees / workmen of the 1st Party- Management . The 2nd Party- Union is safeguarding the interest of the above workers working under the 1st Party - Management . The above Union through its letter dated 19.9.2003 requested the Management to issue " employment cards and wage slips " to all the workers in compliance of the provisions of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1971 and a copy of the said letter was endorsed to the Astt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Rourkela who in turn directed the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central ), Barbil to inspect the establishment and initiate legal action against the employer vide its letter No. 95 ( 6)/2001 - RkI /A, dated 23.1.2004 . The workers also informed the Collector, Keonjhar vide their letter dated 20.11.2004 and requested him to interfere and do the needful so that their names are entered in the Form- B Register of the establishment of the 1st Party- Management. The Collector, Keonjhar directed the Deputy Director , Mines , Joda, Keonjhar to enquire and submit a detailed report in the matter whereupon the Dy. Director , Mines , Joda , Keonjhar had submitted his report after inspection vide his letter No. 9478 /Mines , dated 21.2.2005 mentioning therein gross irregularity on the part of the 1st Party -Management No. 1 in violating Section 48 (3 ) ofthe Mines Act , 1952. The Officer- in- charge , Grievance , Collectorate , Keonjhar vide his letter dated 8.4.2005 informed the Labour Enforcement Officer , Barbil to take appropriate action to regularize the matter and for violation ofthe provisions of Mines Act , 1952. A copy of the above letter was also endorsed to the Astt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Rourkela and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rourkela. The 1st Party - Management on coming to know about the developments as aforesaid immediately terminated the services of the 2nd Party- workmenwith effect from 27.4.2005 without any rhyme and reason . The 2nd Party - Union through its letter dated 03.05.2005 requested the 1st Party- Management to reinstate thedisputant-workmen with full back wages and also sent a copy of the above letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) Rourkela . The disputant workmen had discharged their responsibilities with utmost sincerity and honesty and it had never given any chance for dissatisfaction . They were never served with any charge- sheet nor any domestic enquiry was conducted against them nor they were proceeded with any disciplinary action atany point of time . The disputant- workmen had worked 1802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
Sethi , Shri Parikha Dehury and Shri Danar Dangulia who have no dispute with the 1st Party- Management. But here it isworth mentioning thatalı the 98 disputant workmen have raised the dispute alleging that they were the workmen under the contractor M/s . Ares & Sons , Dubuna Secradihi IronMines of M/ s . O.M.C. Limited, Joda, Distt . Keonjhar and their termination from service is illegal . Whatsoever their stand may be , but this does not uproots the claim of all the workmen involved in the case . As such the reference cannot be held non - maintainable in view of the pleadings ofthe parties . This issue is decided in the negative .
employer as well as the Union representatives of Keonjhar Mines and Forest Workers Union . The principal employer has engaged M/s. Ares & Son as a raising contractor who inturn had engaged several workmen for such raising work. Sothe contract labour engaged by the contractor does not come within the purview of the employer and employee relationship . The register required to be maintained under section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 does not disclose the names of 92 persons as claimed by the 2nd Party -Union to have been engaged as workmen under the 1st Party- Management No. 1. Therefore , the workmen in question are not entitled to any relief.
ISSUE NO . 2
6. On the pleadings of the parties , following issues were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?
2. Whether the Disputants Sl. No. 22 ( Shri Gamha Naik) , Sl . No. 53 , (Ramani Naik) , Sl . No. 54, (Rajani Dehury) , Sl . No. 61 (Prabhati sethi ), Sl . No. 77 (Parikha Dehury ) , and Sl . No. ol (Danar Dangulia ) have been terminated from service with effect from 27.4.2005 by the management of M/s. Ares & Sons and if so whether the said termination was in accordance with the law.
3. Whether the disputants Sl .; No. 1 to Sl . No. 98 except Sl . No. 22 , Sl . No. 53 , Sl . No. 54 , Sl . No. 61 , Sl . No. 77 and Sl. No. 81 were working under the management No. 1 (M/s. Ares & Sons) as piece rated workers and if so whether they have been terminated without due compliance ofthe legal requirements .
4. If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?
6. That 2nd Party - Union has examined W. W. - 1 , Shri Ramani Naik and W. W. -2 Shri Debakar Mahanto in evidence and proved four documents marked as ext . - 1 , 2 , 2/1 and 3 .
7. The 1st Party -Management No. 1 has examined M.W. - 1 Prasanta Deba Ray and M. W. - 2 Tarun Kumar Das and proved certain documents marked as Ext . - A to Ext.-G.
8. That , the 1st Party - Management No. 2 has not adduced any evidence .
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO . 1
10. Admittedly the disputants at Sl . No. 22 ( Shri Gamha Naik) , SI . No. 53 , (Shri Ramani Naik) , Si . No. 54, (Smt . Rajani Dehury) , Sl . No. 61 ( Smt . Prabhati Sethi ) , Sl . No. 77 (Shri Parikha Dehury and Sl . No. 81 ( Shri Danar Dangulia) were workmen working under the contractor i.e. the 1st Party - Management No. 1 M/ s . Ares & Sons , Secredihi Iron Mines of O.M.C. Limited, Dubna, Via . Joda, distt. Keonjhar. Out ofthese sit , workmen Shri Ramani Naik hasbeen examined as W. W. - 1 by the 2nd Party- Union who has stated in his evidence that he and five others were terminated from service in 2006 since the mining operation was closed . He has further stated that " we were not paid any retrenchment compensation nor any letter of termination by the contractor, M/ s . Ares & Sons " . But in his cross examination he has asserted that " I did not complaint in the office of the O.M.C. regarding non payment ofterminal benefits " . Earlier to it he has denied that he had received the retrenchment compensation , on being sent to him by postal money order. W. W. -2 Shri Dibakar Mahanta has also stated that the above named six workmen were removed in the year 2006 but he has not said anything regarding payment of terminal benefits to these six persons . It has come in evidence of both these witnesses that they and many other workers were engaged by the 1st Party- Management No. I to split the iron ore during the year 2003 to 2005 and the names of W. W. - 1 Ramani Nayak and five other workmen were entered in Form B - Register after enquiry by the Deputy Director Mines /Labour Enforcement Officer . Since the Ist Party- Management No. I has admitted these six persons as their workers and their names being entered in Form- B Register, there remains no dispute that these six workmen were the employees ofthe 1stParty-Management No. 1 , M/ s . Area & Sons. This fact is also borne out from Ext . - 3 , Order of the Asst . Provident Fund Commissioner ( Comp. ) SRO , Rourkela.
9. There does not appear any point in issue regarding maintainability ofthe reference . Perhaps this issue has been framed suo - moto by the Court itself without any pleadings ofthe parties. It has surely been pleaded by the Ist Party- Management No. I that the claim as Laid is not maintainable as the 2nd party - Union does not have any cause of action to file the present claim because the 1st Party- Management No. 1 has never engaged the said workmen of the 2nd Party -Union excepting six workmen namely Shri Gamha Naik, Shri Ramani Naik, Smt . Rajani Dehury, Smt . Prabhati
11. The witnesses produced on behalf of the 1st Party-Management No. I have stated that they know only six persons out of the 98 workers shown in the list enclosed with the schedule of reference . Their names were entered into Form-B Register and they were the regular employees ofthe1st Party- Management No. 1. M. W. - 1 Prasanta Debray has disclosed in his evidence that he had worked in the 1803
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
13. The 1st Pary-Management No. 2 has also denied the engagement of all the workmen except those mentioned at Sl . Nos . 22, 53, 54, 61 , 77 and 81 and stated that they have never engaged rest of the 98 workmen in their establishment .
saidmine from July, 2003 to June, 2006 as the said mine was closed in 2006. But there is no denial of the fact on behalf of the 1st Party -Management that Dubna Secredihi Iron Mineswere closed for operation in the year 2006. Hence this fact cannot be disputed that the aforesaid six persons wereterminated from service in the year 2006 after closure ofthe said mines . But there is no proof that they were paid any terminal benefits by the 1st Party- Management No. 1 . Neither there is any averments in this regard in the written statement nor any evidence in proof of it has been led by the 1st Party-Management No. 1. It means that termination of services of these six persons was not in accordance with law, and the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 were infringed by the 1st Party- Management No. 1 M/ s . Area & Sons , while terminating their services . This issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative but with the modification that their services were not terminated with effect from 27.4.2005 but in the year 2006 and therefore the said six workmen will be entitled to receive terminal benefits with effect from the date of their termination in the year 2006 .
ISSUE NO . 3
14. The 2nd party - Union in order to prove the engagement of the disputant workmen has examined two witnesses , namely Shri Ramani Naik as W.W. - 1 and Shri Dibakar Mahanta as W. W. -2 . W.W. - 1 Ramani Naik is one ofthe six workmen whose engagement under the 1st Party- Management No. 1 is admitted and W.W. - 2 Dibakar Mahanta is one of the 92 workmen whose engagement is denied by the 1st Party- Management No. 1. Both of these witnesses have stated in their evidence that they along with many other workers were engaged by the 1st Party- Management during the year 2003 to 2005, but they do not knowthe names of all such workers . Some of the names of theworkers were recalled by W. W. - 1 , but W. W. - 2 , Dibakar Mahanto could not recollect the names of any of the 92workers. Except the complaint, Ext. - 1 and the report of theDeputy Director, Mines , Joda, Keonjhar Ext . - 2 there is no reliable or substantial proof to establish that these 92 persons were working under the 1st Party -Management No. 1 in the Dubna Secredihi Mines during the period under reference . They Deputy Director , Mines under his report Ext. -2 has found that several workers of the list were absent on the date of enquiry and only workers as mentioned at Sl . Nos . 36 , 58 , 70 to 73 and 77 to 98 were reported to be working in Quarry No. 3 of Secredihi mines , but it seems that no efforts were taken by him to fix the identity of the workers present on the date of enquiry and the period of their engagement . Ext . - 3 is the order of assessment of Assistant P.F. Commissioner , S.R.O. , Rourkela which also does not prove that the persons named in the list were working in the establishment of the 1st Party- Management No. 1 during the period of assessment i. e. , from April , 2004 toMarch, 2005. No other disputant workman out of the 92 has dared to come in the witness box to depose in support oftheir claim . It has come in the evidence of W.W. - 1 and W.W. -2 that they were engaged on thikka basis to split the iron ore . Hence it cannot be said with certainty that all the workers were engaged through - out the period under reference by the contractor. However, burden to prove their claim heavily lies on the 2nd Party- Union which they could not discharge satisfactorily to the hilt . Therefore the claim ofthe92 disputant- workmen cannot be accepted . This issue isaccordingly decided against the 2nd Party - Union and it isheld that the 92 disputant workmen were not the workmen of the 1st Party- Management No. 1 and therefore no question arises about their termination without due compliance of legal requirements .
ISSUE NO. 4
15. In viev of the findings recorded under Issue No. 2 and 3 , only six workmen mentioned at Sl . No. 22 (Shri 12. The 2nd Party- Union espousing the cause of the disputant workmen has alleged that the 98 workers as per list enclosed with the letter of reference were working under the 1st Party -Management No. 1 , M/s . Ares & Son as piece rated workers and their services were terminated without due compliance of legal requirements . But the 1st Party- Management No. 1 has asserted that only six workmen whose names are mentioned at Sl . Nos . 22 , 53 , 54, 61 , 77 and 81 were working under it and rest of the persons were not their workmen . It is an admitted fact that except the aforesaid six workmen names of other workmen were not entered into the B - Form register. It was the further allegation thatthey were not issued any employment cards and wage slips. Hence they made a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Rourkela whereupon on the direction of the Distt . Magistrate, Keonjhar, the Deputy Director, Mines , Joda , Keonjhar made inspection of the establishment of the 1st Party- Management No. 1 and submitted his report to the District Magistrate , Keonjhar mentioning therein gross irregularities found on inspection . The officer in - charge , Grievance, Collectorate , Keonjhar informed the Labour Enforcement Officer ( Barbil ) to take appropriate action and a copy of the letter was also sent to theAssistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rourkela . When the 1st party - Management came to know about the developments it immediately terminated the services ofthe workmen with effect from 27.4.2005 without any rhyme or reason , though they had worked continuously without any interruption or break in service from 5.8.2003 to 26.4.2005 and no retrenchment compensation or notice was given to them.
1804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
Forthe Employers : Shri B.M. Prasad , Advocate .
For the Workmen Shri D. Mukherjee , Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union .
State
: Jharkhand. Industry : Coal. Dated, the 24-01-2012.
Gamha Naik) , Sl . No. 53 , (Shri Ramani Naik) , Sl . No. 54, (Smt. Rajani Dehury) Sl . No. 61 ( Smt . Prabhati Sethi ) , Sl .No. 77 (Shri Parikha Dehury) , and Sl . No. 81 (Shri Danar Dangulia) are only entitled to get terminal benefits or the benefits provided under section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from the 1st Party - Management No. 1 and rest ofthe disputants are not entitled to get any relief from the 1st Party -Management No. 1 .
AWARD
16. The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me .
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2012
By Order No. L - 20012 ( 235 )/91 - IR (Coal - I ) dated29.07.1992 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the managementent of M/s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , Nirsha Area in relation to their Gopinathpur Colliery in not regularising S/Shri Chhatu Gope and20 others as Water Supplier is justified? If not, to what reliefthe workmen concerned is entitled? " A list ofworkers isenclosed.
का०आ० 790.---औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई०सी० लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि किरण, धनबाद नं० 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02.02.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/235/1991- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी०एस०एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2012
S.O. 790. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 63/1992) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court-1, DHANBAD , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . E.C. Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.02.2012.
[No. L-20012/235/ 1991 - IR ( C -I) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, DHANABAD
2.The case of the concerned workmen is that Chhatu Gopeand 20 others have been working as Water Carrier of Gopinathpur colliery since long with unblemished record of service . They have been performing permanent nature ofjob continuously under direct control and supervision ofthe management . All the concerned workmen have put in240 days attendance in each calender year. As per wage Board Recommendation the Water Carriers are entitled for Category- 1 wages . though the concerned workmen are entitled for Cat . I wages , but the management is paying them much below the rate of NCWA . The concerned workmen represented before the management several times for their regularisation and payment of wages as per NCWA, but without any effect . Thereafter the union raised anindustrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad , but the same ended in failure . So, the dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . The action of the management in not regularising the concerned workmen and in not paying them wages as per NCWA was discriminatory in nature and against the provision of statute.
Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.
Reference No. 63 of 1992
Parties
It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to answer the reference in favour of the management by directing the management to regularise them with retrospective effect with all arrears of wages and consequential benefits .
: Employers is relation to the management of Gopinathpur colliery of M/s . E.C. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen .
: Shri H.M. Singh , Present Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
3. The case of the management is that the management purchases several stores materials and other items required for use by it from time to time and the parties who supply the same are suppliers . There exists no employer -employee relationship between the suppliers of materials and the purchasers of the same . The management had made arrangement in the residential township which is 1805
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
hold that the action of the management of M/S.E.C.L . Nirsha Area in relation to their Gopinathpur colliery in not regularising S / Shri Chhatu Gope and 20 others as water supplier is justified and so they are not entitled to any relief.
ThisismyAward.
H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2012
का०आ० 791.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) , की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार छिंदवाड़ा क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र के सबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/207/2003- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2012 located for away from the colliery for supply ofdrinking water to a section of the workers /employees . A residential township does not fall within the definition of Mine under theMines Act, 1952. For this purpose from time to time, the management made arrangement with different persons at different times for taking responsibility of supplying such drinking water to a section of employees residing in the collierythrough their own arrangements subject to payment for supply ofwater at agreed rates from time to time. It has been submitted that this arrangement is surely an arrangement as betwen a supplier and purchaser . The person who took the responsibility for making such arrangement or the persons through whom he was supplying water, were not the same . They were changing from time to time . The management as per the above arrangement paid the water supply contractor /party periodically for the quantity of water supplied at agreed rates on the basis of bills submitted by him and payment was made to him through vouchers . When the management found that the above arrangement was no longer necessary, itwas discontinued. The management is under no obligation to continue the arrangement when it was not necessary to do so. The party who took the responsibility for supply of water,was keeping his own man for the purpose and making payment ofwages to them . The management has nothing to do with this arrangement .
In such circumstances , it has been prayed that this Hon'bleTribunal be pleased to reject the claim ofthe Union and answer the reference in favour of the management .
S.O. 791.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 32/04 of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Chhindwara- Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/02/2012
[No. L- 12012/207 /2003 -IR(B - 1 ) ]
RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admiting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .
ANNEXURE
5. The concerned workmen have not produced any evidence.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR The management produced MW- 1 , Indu Bhusan Pandey.
NO . CGIT/LC/R/32/04
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN
TheSecretary,
6.Main demand made by the sponsoring union is for regularisation of Chhatu Gope and 20 others who are water suppliers to the management of M/s.E.C.L .
Madhya Pradesh Bank Employees Association Unit , Chhindwara, C/o Shri Manoj kumar Wankhede , Chhindwara
7. The management argued that the concerned persons are water suppliers and they cannot be regularised.
Workman/Union
Versus
The Chairman, Chhindwara Kshetriya Gramin Bank , HeadOffice , 800/19, SouthCivil Lines , Chhindwara (MP) Management
AWARD
8.No evidence has been produced nor any document has been produced by the concerned persons which may prove that they have worked with the management and they are employees of the management and payment is made to them by the management . No payment receipt, Identity card and no appointment letter has been filed by the concerned persons . The management's witness , MW- 1, Indu Bhusan Pandey, clearly stated that they are water suppliers to the management and they are not employees ofthe management.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances , I 1806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/ PHALGUNA 6, 1933 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
Passed on this 16th day of January 2012 5. Issue No. I
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide According to the workman , he worked 240 days in
itsNotification No.L- 12012/207/2003 / IR(B - I ) dated 15-3- each and every year and without complying the provision
2004has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :- oftheAct, 1947, he was terminated whereas the management
contented that he had never worked 240 days or more in
" क्याचेयरमैन छिंदवाड़ा सिवनी क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक, छिंदवाड़ा any ofthe calender year. To prove the case, the workman is
म०फ्र के प्रबंधक द्वारा श्री मनोज कुमार वानखेडे आत्मज श्री भगवानदास examined in the case . The workman has state in his cross-
वानखेडे छिंदवाड़ा सिवनी क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक की रिडी एंव खवासा examination that he worked 180 days from March , 1997 to
शाखा में वर्ष 1993 से दैनिक वेतन भोगी संदेशवाहक के रूप में कार्य March 1998. This itself proves that his service is not deemed
पर रखा एवं नियमित कर्मचारी का दर्जा न देकर दिनांक 22.03.98 से to be in continuous service for a period of one year during
a period of twelve calender months preceding the date
सेवा से पृथक करने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं तो संबंधित withreference under the provision of Section 25B(2 ) ofthe
कर्मचारी किसी अनुतोष का हकदार है ? " Act, 1947. When his service is not deemed to be in
2. The case of the Workman/Union in short is that continuous service for a period of one year, then the
provision of Section 25 -F of the Act, 1947 is not said to
the workman Manoj Kumar Bhagwandas Wankhede was have been violated and he appears to be not a retrench
engaged by the management Bank at Post Reddy Branch employee. His evidence shows that the action of the
on daily wages @ Rs . 14.85ps per day from 30-3-93 as management is justified . The management has not examined
messenger. Subsequently the branch shifted to Post any evidence in the case . The burden was on the workman
Khawsha in the year 1994. He was also shifted there . He to prove his case . Thus this issue is decided in favour of
worked continuously till 21-3-1998 and thereafter he was the management and against the workman.
suddenly terminated orally without following the mandatory 6. Issue No. II
provision of Section 25 F, 25 G and 25 H of the Industrial Onthe basis of the discussion made above, I find
DisputeAct, 1947 ( in short the Act, 1947). He had completed that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly
240 days in each and every year. It is submitted that his the reference is answered .
termination is illegal, void- ab- initio and is fit to be set aside. 7. In the result, the award is passed without any
3. The management appeared and contested the order to costs .
reference by filing Written Statement. The case of the 8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the
management, inter alia, is that the workman was engaged Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
purely on part time as daily wager Safai Karmi in the said asper rules.
branch oftheBank . He worked in the year 1993 for one day,
inthe year 1994 for 120 days , in the year 1995 for 180 days , Mohd. Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer
inthe year 1996 for 143 days , in the year 1997 for 126 days नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2012
and in the yer 1998 for 47 days only. He had not worked 240 का०आ० 792. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947
daysor more in any of the calendar year. It is stated that
the provision of the Act, 1947 was not violated and the का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यू.पी. एयरवेजस
workman was not entitled to any compensation . He has लिमिटेड के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच
filedphotocopy ofthe certificate issued by the then Branch अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि
Manager , Khawasa but it was found that the workman किरण, दिल्ली नं. 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/1999 ) को प्रकाशित
forged the number of days by altering the figure of 180 करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02.02.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
entitled to any relief. days to 480 days . It is submitted that the workman is not [सं. एल -11012/32/ 1998- आईआर (सी-1 ) ]
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी
following issues are framed for adjudication-- New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2012
I. Whether the action of the management in S.O. 792. In pursuance of Section 17 of the
terminating the services of Shri Manoj Kumar Wankhede Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central
daily wages messenger w.e.f. 22.3.98 instead of Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 18/1999 )
regularization is justified and legal ? oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour
Cour- II , Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial
II . To what relief, the workman is entiled? dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/ s U.P. Airways Ltd. and their workman,
1807
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
whichwas received by the Central Government on 2.2.2012 .
[No. L- 11012/32/ 1998- IR(C- I) ]
D.S.S. Srinivasa Rao , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SATNAM SINGH , RESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , ROOM NO . 33 , BLOCK- A,GF, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI .
ID NO . 18/1999
In the matter of dispute between
Shri Pritam Singh
C-I/ 136 , Janak Puri , NewDelhi.
Workman
Versus
U.P. Airways Ltd.
A-2, Defence Colony, New Delhi
Management
AWARD
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 11012/32 /98 - IR(C - I) dated 16.12.1998 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management UP Airways in terminating the services of Shree Pritam Singh, Senior Commander on 23.7.1997 is just , fair and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief is he entitled ? "
2.Briefly stated, the case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was employed by the respondent/management as Sernior Commander vide appointment letter dated 13.4.1995 and in that capacity he has been flying F -27 air crafts . That he has been working with the management since 1.6.1995 on a total salary of Rs . 1,00,000/- per month, net of taxes, the break up ofwhich wasRs . 95,000/- as basic and Rs . 5,000/- as HRA. That all through he maintained clean meritorious record of service . The workman being captain and flying the air craft is a workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. That the services of the workman were abruptly terminated by the management in a most illegal, unlawful and unjustified manner vide its letter dated 23.7.1997 for alleged acts ofmisconduct without giving any opportunity to him to tender his explanation and withoug holding a domestic enquiry as required under the Law. The order of dismissal thus issued is patently illegal , unlawful , arbitrary, vindictive and by way of victimization .
4. That under the grab of alleged misconduct the workman has been victimized for having demanded his
Server 3 \ F\ Bill 2012\ GI\4733RR\4733RR-(65-90)
45240712-30
legal dues . Though the workman was appointed on a salary ofRs . 95,000/- per month and HRA ofRs . 5,000/- permonth, net of taxes , but the management without any justification had been withholding his part salary ever since his appointment . Despite assurances given by the management from time to time the unpaid salary and allowance of the workman were not remitted and as such as a last resort he was driven to a situation to send a written demand dated 20.7.1997 requesting the respondent/management for settlement of his due salary and other allowances . The said letter was handed over to Ms. Roshni, personal secretary to the Managing Director Shri Subash Gulati . That Mr. Gulati was intimated about the contents of the demand notice dated 20.7.1997. That on 22.7.1997 when the workman reached Mumbai with an air craft instructions were lying ready for him that he should see the Managing Director at 15.00 hours on 22.7.1997 and he was demanded an explanation for having put up a written demand for payment of salary. When reminded that demand was legitimate and the workman had asked for his due salary and allowances the Managing Director abruptly asked him without any rhyme and reason or provocation to tender his resignation . The workman agreed to submit to his dictates but politely asked him first to settle his account and then he will resign . The Managing Direcrtor however got furious and asked the workman not to operate any further flight and to go back to Delhi . That it is at the instance of the Managing Director that the workman was handed over IAC flight tickets for Delhi . It is thus clearly evident and established without any idea of doubt that the services of the workman have been terminated by way of victimization for having demanded his legitimate , legal and due salary and allowances . The Managing Direcrtor thus dismissed the workman and other pilots in most illegal and injustified manner as their dues were accumulating and the market conditions were extremely unfavourable to the pilots atthat point oftime and they were available at lesser salary. The management thus chose to get rid of the workman and other pilots by hook or by a crook by taking cover under false and flimsy allegations .
5. It is further the case of the workman that there is absolutely no truth or merit in the allegations which are contained in the letter of dismissal vide which he has been illegally removed from service . The allegations of the management that the workman refused to undertake regular scheduled flights to various destinations from 22.7.1997 are in fact a pack of lies . The correct and factual position in this regard has already been stated above . The workman had operated the flight to Mumbai on 22.7.1997 and was required to say at Mumbai for the next four days as per schedule . It was the Managing Directror who got furious onaccount of his having put up a legitimate demand for payment of his due salary and allowances and sent him back to Delhi with Captain Bindra and provided IAC tickets to them . There is , therefore , absolutely no truth in the 1808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
allegations that the workman refused to operate flights from 22.7.1997 . On the contrary the management had already made up its mind to terminate the services of the workman for having committed a mistake of asking his legitimate dues . It is nothing but victimization and unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent/management . That no flight was given to the workman to operate on 23.7.1997 . The workman had personally gone to the office on 23.7.1997 morning and was not detailed for any flight . Having abruptly removed from duty the management decided to justify its action by making false and frivolous allegations . That the purported allegations in the letter of termination are fabricated . As stated above , the workman has been victimized for no fault of his . He committed a mistake by asking for his legitimate dues which the management have been illegally and unlawfully withholding thereby putting the workman under acute financial strain .
6. That after having received the letter of dismissal the workman duly refuted all the allegations which were levelled against him vide his letter dated 05.08.1997 which was never rebutted . The management obviously had nothing to say against the demand notice and various averments raised therein and no reply whatsoever was sent to the said letter. The averments thus raised by the workman remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and be deemed to be accepted by the management . It would thus be seen from the above that the order of dismissal on the face of it is vindictive and aimed at victimizing the workman for having demanded his with-held salary which the management did not like . That the written demand infuriated the management and it was on this account that the management dispensed with the services of the workman and other pilots which had also been making same demand for payment of their unpaid salary.
7. The workman has also submitted that he has been dismissed from service without any charge sheet or holding ofdomestic enquiry. His dismissal is therefore in violation ofthe principles of natural justice . The order of dismissal thus passed is illegal and the workman is deemed to be in service of the management . That it is well settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that no workman could be dismissed from service for misconduct unless he is issued a charge sheet and is given an opportunity to give explanation to the charges levelled against him. It is also well settled law that an employer cannot inflict any punishment much less the punishment of dismissal without holding an enquiry. In the present case, not only that no enquiry whatsoever was conduct but even an opportunity to submit an explanation was also not given . That dismissal of the workman, therefore , is illegal , unlawful and unjustified. The workman, therefore, has prayed the Labour Court that it may be pleased to set aside the dismissal of the workman and direct the management to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service .
8. The management has contested the claim of the workman and in its written statement has pleaded that the claimant Captain Pritam Singh is not a workman as defined in Sub - Section ( S) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that even from the letter dated 20.07.1997 ofthe alleged workman he being a senior commander and also chief of the operations was not a workman . Further, according to the Operation Manual Vol.-I. It is provided that Manager ( Operation) is responsible to the president on all aspects ofplanning and efficient conduct of operation . It also provides that in the absence of the president he would carry out the duties of the president of the organization . That duties of manager operation are supervisory and managerial and so he is excluded from the definition of workman . Further the alleged workman was also approved to function as an examiner by the Directorate ofCivilAviation, Technical Centre Safdarjung Airport , New Delhi and so claimant Pritam Singh cannot claim himselfto be a workman . Further, the management is a licensed Air Taxi Service Provider and is not a regular airline service and so it does not come within the definition of " industry " asprovided by Section 2(J) ofthe I DAct . Hence the alleged workman cannot invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the alleged retrenchment is not a retrenchment as provided by Section 2(00) ofthe IDAct . It issubmitted that the alleged workman in total disregard of hisduty malafidely and arbitrarily and in total breach ofhis obligations to the management refused to undertake the regular scheduled flights to various destinations from 22.07.1997 onwards That the workman left Mumbai for Delhi after refusing to fly on 22.07.1997 by another airline in spite ofthe fact that he was roistered and scheduled to fly the air craft of the management on the afternoon of 23.07.1997 fromMumbai to Delhi . That the alleged workman was also instigating other pilots against the management . Thus the conduct of the alleged workman was not only willful and malafide but was also illegal . That the workman was guilty of grave dereliction of duty and misconduct . That the workmanwas illegally striking work and no notice for the same was given which resulted in the loss of Rs . 2.5 lakhs to the management on account of refund made to cancelled tickets and the matter was brought to the notice of The Directorate General of Civil Aviation vide letter dated 26.08.1997 . The management has asserted that the services of the alleged workman have been terminated due to dereliction of duty, misconduct and refusal to carry out contractual obligations and so it cannot be said that his services have been dismissed or he has been retrenched from service . It is submitted that the workman has nowhere stated in the present ID that he is out of employment since the time his services were allegedly terminated . It is submitted that any prayer for reinstatement and back wages can only be entertained where the alleged workman has failed to get alternative employment. It is submitted that the alleged workman is gainfully self employed since the time his services were terminated by the management . He
Server 3 \ F/ Bill 2012 \GT\ 4733RR\4733RR- 3-(65-90) 1809 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6, 1933
has been running a compute centre which is a self employment .Almost similar rebuttal has been made while replying parawise the submissions made by the workman inhis statement of claim . It is denied that the termination of the services ofthe alleged workman was in violation ofthe principles of natural justice . The management, therefore, has prayed for the dismissal of the claim made by the alleged workman in this case .
9. By filing a replication the workman has controverted the assertions made by the management in its written statement . It is reiterated that he is a workman as defined in Section 2(S) of the I D Act . It is denied that the management is not an industry under Section 2(J) of the I D Act . It is asserted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Bangalore Water Supply, every systematic activity is an industry and it hardly matters whether the management is a private air taxi service or an airline . It is denied that the termination of theworkman is not retrenchment in this case . It is reiterated that no punishment could be inflicted on a workman without holding domestic enquiry against him. The workman has reiterated his prayer made in the statement of claim.
11. The workman by filing his affidavit has fully supported his case as has been set up in the statement of claim . In his cross - examination from the side of the management, claimant Pritam Singh has stated that the nature ofhis duties were to fly the air crafts as commander and as examiner his duties were to take test of the other pilots and test their capability. He denied the suggestion thatas senior commander he was to give direction to other pilots or co -pilots . He then stated that he did not know if the business of the management was stopped due to non operation ofthe air craft with effect from 01.01.1999 due to financial crises.He expressed no knowledge regarding any understanding arrived at between the commanders and pilots with the management on 14.10.1996 to reduce their pay by Rs . 48.000/- . He denied the suggestion that he did notjoin/attend the duties on 22.07.1997 and thereafter at Bombay.He reiterated that on 22.07.1997 he was at Bombay and on that date he had operated the flight to Bombay.He denied the suggestion that he did not operate the flights on 22-07-1997 and onwards or that he had instigated other co-pilots not to operate the flights of the respondent/ management . He denied the suggestion that MD Mr. Gulati did not ask him to resign. He also denied the suggestion that his claim is false or that he has deposed falsely.
1
!
12. A close scrutiny of the evidence led by the claimant/workman in this case shows that his evidence could not be demolished from the side of the management during his cross-examination . The evidence ofthe workman almost remained unrebutted and there is absolutely no reason for me not to accept his evidence .
13. The management has primarily contended in this case that Captail Pritam Singh is not a workman and therefore, his case cannot be heard by this Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court . The claimant/workman on the other hand refutes the same very strongly and asserts that he is a workman as he was doing merely technical duties of flying the aircrafts .
14. It is now a settled position in law that an undue importance need not be given to the designation of an employee, or the class to which he belongs .A nomenclature and designation are not very much material for deciding whether an employee is a workman or not . What is required to be seen is as to what are the main and principle duties carried out by the official , i. e . whether these are technical , clerical or supervisory, administrative or managerial in character. Ifthe main work done is of technical or clerical in nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties were also carried out incidentally, the same will not convert the employment from that of a technical or clerical into one in supervisory capacity.
10. After pleading were complete , my learned predecessor posted the case for recording of evidence vide his order dated 10.06.2002 . The workman filed his evidence by way of affidavit and he was cross -examined from the side of the management and his cross -examination concluded on 07.07.2004 . Thereafter the case was posted for recording of management evidence . They too were asked to file their evidence on affidavit. However, despite so many opportunities afforded to the management to lead evidence in this case they failed to lead any evidence. The management filed the affidavit of Mr. Subash Gulati , Ex- Chairman of the management and they sought various opportunities to produce him in the court for his statement and cross - examination by the AR for the workman but Mr. Subash Gulati never appeared in the court for tendering his affidavit and subjecting himself to cross - examination . On 16.02.2010 even none appeared from the side of the management and ultimately the right of the management to lead evidence had to be closed . It was also ordered that since the affidavit of the witness filed on record has not even been tendered due to the witness not appearing for the purpose the said affidavit was ordered to be excluded from consideration . On 09.12.2011 none was present from the side of the management . They earlier wanted to file written submissions . No one came to address oral arguments from the side of Management . Since the case wasvery old in which the reference was made on 16.12.1998 , oral submissions made from the side of the workman were heard. The workman had already placed on record his written submissions . However, later on written submissions were also filed from the side of the management . I have gone through the written submission of both the sides .
15. It has been held that in ( 1985 ) 3 SCC 371 that the nature of the work of a workman is to be ascertained from the dominant nature of duties performed by him and not by nomenclature . In another case , Anand Regional Co-
452GI/2012-31 1810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
operative Society Union Vs Shailesh Kumar Harshadbhai Shah 2006(7) Scale 603 , it has been held that for determining the question as to whether a person employed in an industry is a workman or not; not only the nature of work performed by him but also terms of the appointment in the job performed are relevant considerations . Supervision contemplates direction and control . While determining the nature ofwork performed by an employee , the essence of the matter should call for consideration . An undue importance need not be given to the designation of an employee, or the name assigned to and the class to which he belongs . What is needed to be asked is as to what are the primary duties he performs . For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that there were some persons working under him whose work he was required to supervise . Being in charge of the section alone and that too it being a small one and relating to quality control would not answer the test.
In the case of 'Anand Bazar Patrika ( P) Ltd. Vs Workman ( 1970) 3 SCC 248 ) ', it has been held that the question whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on technical or clerical work depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a technician or clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work by incidentally or for a fraction of the time , also does some technical or clerical work, it would have tobe held that he is employed in supervisory capacity and conversely, if the main work done is of technical or clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or a small fraction ofthe work done by him will not convert his employment as a technician or a clerk into one in supervisory capacity.
16. In the instant case it is abundantly clear that the main and principal duties of Shri Pritam Singh were to fly aircrafts . Sometime he was asked to take test of others pilots to test their capabilities . That too will essentially be oftechnical nature. Thus Shri Pritam Singh was doing the work of technical nature only. Even if incidentally he was doing some supervisory duty the same will not convert his employment from technical into one in any other capacity. He was definitely not performing managerial or administrative functions . It is thus abundantly clear that Shri Pritam Singh is a " workman " as defined under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 .
17. The management has faintly contended that they are not a regular airline service and so it does not come under the definition of ' Industry' as provided in Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Refuting this argument the workman has contended that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
[PART II- SEC. 3( ii) ]
"Bangalore Water Supply " every systematic activity is an industry and it hardly matters whether the management is a private air taxi service or an airline . There is force in the submission made by the workman . The management has failed to contend satisfactorily that they are not an " Industry" .
18. From the unrebutted evidence of the workman it is abundantly clear that his services were abruptty terminated by the management in a most illegal , unlawful and unjustified manner vide letter dated 23.7.1997 for alleged acts of misconduct without giving him any opportunity to explain . No domestic enquiry has been admittedly held by the management in this case before terminating the service of the workman . It is well settled that no workman can be dismissed for alleged misconduct unless he is issued a charge sheet and was given an opportunity to give his explanation to the charges levelled against him. Aworkman cannot be dismissed in the manner as has been done by the management in this case . The action of the management in terminating the services of workman Shri Pritam Singh thus cannot be held to bejust, fair and legal . The same is clearly unfair , unjustified and illegal .
19. I therefore hold that the termination of service of workman Pritam Singh by the management is notjust, fair and legal and rather the same is clearly unfair, unjustified and illegal . He is therefore held entitled to restatement in service with full back wages and continuity in service and all other benefits . The award is passed accordingly and the reference sent by the Govt . of India stands disposed off.
Further, it is ordered that the requisite number of copies of this award be forwarded to the Central Government for necessary action at their end.
Dated: 19.01.2012
SATNAM SINGH , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2012
का०आ० 793.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस० सी० सी० एल० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एलसीआईडी संख्या 149/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -22013/1/2012- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी०एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी 1811
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6 , 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2012
S.O. 793.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ofthe Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal- cum- Labour court, Hyderabad (CGIT/ LCID/ 149/2006) 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 03.02.2012 .
[No. L- 22013/ 1 /2012- Ic(C - II ) ]
D.S.S. Srinivasa Rao, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE LOK ADALAT
(Forsettlement of cases relating to CGIT cum Labour Court at Hyderabad Under Section 20 of the Legal ServicesAuthorities Act , 1987 )
The 16th Day of December , Two thousand and Eleven
1. Sri Ved Prakash Gaur Presiding Officer.
Present:
: Member 2. Sri C. Niranjan Rao
: Member 3. Sri
(Constituted U/s 19 of the LAS Act , 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186/LSA/2006 dt . 22.8.2006 )
Inthe matter of case No. LCID No. 149 of 2006 / PLAC 66/2011
(Onthe file ofCGIT cum Labour Court at Hyderabad)
Between
.... Petitioner Mididoddi Rajesham , (EC No. 0917524) , S/ o Lachaiah , aged about 40 years , worked as Coal Filler at 6A Incline , RG Area- I , Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Godavarikhani , Karimnagar Dist.
AND
1. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, represented by its ChiefGeneral Manager, RG - I Area , Godavarikhani , Karimnagar Dist .
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A. ACT, 1987
The petitioner had agreed to the following proposals oftheManagement, as the petitioner had put in 100 musters in the two years of the preceding 5 years of dismissal and raised the dispute within three years from the date of dismissal from service . The contents are read over and explained to the petitioner, in his language and agreed by him by signing the same .
a. The petitioner workman agreed to treat his appointment as fresh appointment as Badli Filler without back wages and continuity of service subject to medical fitness by Company Medical Board.
b. Irrespective of past designations , petitioner workman agrees to the appointment as Badli Filler afresh on .
c. The petitioner workman agrees for observation of one yearwith minimum mandatory 20 musters every month and review every three months . In the event ofany short fall of attendance during the 3 months period , his services will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry.
d. Respondent Management agreed that any forced absenteeism on account of mine accidents / natural disease, treatment taken at Company's Hospitals will be deemed as attendance during the trial period .
e. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i. e . , transfer , hours ofwork, day of rest , holidays etc. , for appointment afresh.
ThisLCID is disposed of accordingly. The respondent management is directed to take him back to duty as Badli Filler afresh .
In agreement of the above , the parties /counsel have affixed their signatures /thumb impressions in the presence ofthe members of this Lok Adalat Bench .
Signature of Respondent (s ) Signature of Applicant( s )
Signature of Counsel for Signature of Counsel
Respondent (s)
forApplicant(s)
2. The Superintendent of Mines , GDK6A Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Godavarikhani , Karimnagar District
....Respondents
This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 16.12.2011 for settlement in the presence of the applicant appearing in person /represented by his counsel Sri . K. Vasudeva Reddy and the Respondent too , being present in person/ represented by his counsel , Sri M. Shamba Narayan on a persual of the case record, after considering and hearing the case of both sides and with the consent of both side , the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and delivered the following:
Signature of Presiding Officer & Members of the Bench
2.
3.
1.
-Sd./-
Chairman,
LokAdalath
CGIT-cum -Labour Court
Hyderabad.
Note: This award is final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Section 21 (2 ) of LSA . ACT 1987 .
1812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012 /PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC .3(ii)]
Mandamarri , Adilabad District.
नई दिल्ली, 03 फरवरी , 2012
2. The Superintendent of Minas , Kasipeta Mine , Mandamarri Area, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri , Adilabad District
....Respondents का०आ० 794. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस० सी० सी० एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि किरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एलसीआईडी संख्या 139/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -22013/1/2012- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
डी०एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2012
This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 16.12.2011 for settlement in the presence of the applicant appearing in person/representedby his counsel Sri . K. Vasudeva Reddy and the Respondent too, being present in person/ represented by his counsel , Sri M.U.H. Rao on a persual of the case record , after considering and hearing the case of both sides and with the consent of both side, the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and delivered the following:
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A. ACT, 1987
S.O. 794. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (CGIT/ LCID/ 139/2007) 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 03.02.2012 .
[No. L- 22013 / 1 /2012- IR (C- II)]
Thepetitioner had agreed to the following proposals oftheManagement, as the petitioner had put in 100 musters in the two years of the preceding 5 years of dismissal and raised the dispute within three years from the date of dismissal from service . The contents are read over and explained to the petitioner in his language and agreed by him by signing the same.
D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE LOK ADALAT
a. The petitioner workman agreed to treat his appointment as fresh appointment as Badli filler without back wages and continuity of service subject to medical fitnessby Company Medical Board.
(Forsettlement of cases relating to CGIT cum Labour Court at Hyderabad Under Section 20 of the Legal ServicesAuthorities Act , 1987)
b. Irrespective ofpast designations , petitioner workman agrees to the appointment as Badli Filler afresh on .
The 16th Day of December , Two thousand and Eleven
Present : 1. Sri Ved Prakash Gaur : Presiding Officer.
: Member
2. Sri C. Niranjan Rao
3. Sri
: Member
c. The petitioner workman agrees for observation of one year with minimum mandatory 20 musters every month and review every three months . In the event ofany short fall of attendance during the 3 months period, his services will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry.
(Constituted U/ s 19 of the LAS Act , 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186/LSA/2006dt . 22.8.2006)
Inthe matter of case No. LCID No. 139 of 2007/PLAC 65/2011
d. Respondent Management agreed that any forced absenteeism on account of mine accidents /natural disease, treatment taken at Company's Hospitals will be deemed as attendance during the trial period .
(onthe file ofCGIT cum Labour Court at Hyderabad)
Between:
e. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i. e . , transfer , hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc. , for appointment afresh .
Md . Esaq. (E.C. No. 2362084 ) , S/o S.K. Baba, aged about 30 years,
Ex. Coal filler at Kasipeta Mine , Mandamarri Area, Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
ThisLCID isdisposed of accordingly . The respondent management is directed to take him back to duty as Badli Filler afresh .
Mandamarri , Adilabad Dist . AND .... Petitioner
In agreement of the above , the parties /counsel have affixed their signatures/ thumb impressions in the presence ofthe members of this Lok Adalat Bench .
1. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, represented by its General Manager, Mandamarri Area,
Signature of Applicant (s) Signature of Respondent ( s ) 1813 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
54/2011
Signature of Counsel for Respondent(s)
Signature of Counsel for Applicant (s)
(Onthe file ofCGIT cum Labour Court at Hyderabad)
Signature ofPresiding Officer & Members of the Bench
Between
2.
3.
1.
-Sd./-
Chairman
....Petitioner
P. Suresh Kumar, S/o Seetharamulu, (E.C. No. 2661593 ) aged about 33 years , Ex -Badli Coal Filler at RK- 5 Incline/ 5B, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Srirampur, AdilabadDist.
AND
LokAdalat CGIT-cum - Labour Court Hyderabad.
1. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, represented by its General Manager, Srirampur Area, Srirampur, Adilabad District.
Note: This award is final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Section 21 (2) of LSA. ACT 1987.
नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2012
2.The Dy. General Manager , RK-5 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Srirampur Area, Srirampur, Adilabad District
....Respondents का०आ० 795.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस० सी० सी० एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि किरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एलसीआईडी संख्या 6/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -22013 /1/2012- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2012
This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 16.12.2011 for settlement in the presence of the applicant appearing in person/represented by his counsel Sti K. Vasudeva Reddy and the Respondent too, being present in person/represented by his counsel, Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma onapersual ofthe case record, after considering and hearing the case of both sides and with the consent of both side, the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and delivered the following:
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A. ACT, 1987
S.O. 795. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ofthe Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (CGIT/ LCID/6/2010) 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 03.02.2012 .
[No. L- 22013/ 1 /2012 - IR (C- II)]
The petitioner had agreed to the following proposals oftheManagement, as the petitioner had put in 100 musters inthe two years of the preceding 5 years of dismissal and raised the dispute within three years from the date of dismissal from service . The contents are read over and explained to the petitioner in his language and agreed by him by signing the same .
D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE LOK ADALAT
a. The petitioner workman agreed to treat his appointment as fresh appointment as Badli filler without back wages and continuity ofservice subject to medical fitness by Company Medical Board.
b. Irrespective ofpast designations , petitioner workman agrees to the appointment as Badli Filler afresh on .
(Forsettlement of cases relating to CGIT cum Labour Court atHyderabad Under Section 20 of the Legal ServicesAuthorities Act , 1987)
The 16th Day of December, Two thousand and Eleven
Presiding Officer .
PRESENT: 1. Sri Ved Prakash Gaur :
: Member
2. Sri C. Niranjan Rao
: Member
3. Sri
c. The petitioner workman agrees for observation of one year with minimum mandatory 20 musters every month and review every three months . In the event ofany short fall of attendance during the 3 months period, his services will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry.
(Constituted U/s 19 of the LAS Act, 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186/LSA/2006dt . 22.8.2006)
d. Respondent Management agreed that any forced absenteeism on account of mine accidents /natural disease, treatment taken at Company's Hospitals will Inthe matter of case No. LCID No. 6 of 2010/PLAC
452G1/2012-32 1814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25, 2012/PHALGUNA 6, 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]
Present:
be deemed as attendance during the trial period.
Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. -cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
e. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment willbe applicable i.e. , transfer , hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc. , for appointment afresh.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 22/2008 Date of Passing Award- 9th January, 2012 ThisLCID is disposed of accordingly. The respondent management is directed to take him back to duty as Badli Filler afresh .
Between:
In agreement of the above , the parties / counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions in the presence ofthe members of this Lok Adalat Bench .
The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India , Bhubaneswar Main Branch , Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda (Orissa) , Bhubaneswar . (Orissa)
Signature of Applicant ( s) Signature of Respondent ( s)
1stParty -Management .
AND
Signature of Counsel for Applicant ( s)
Signature of Counsel for Respondent(s)
Signature of Presiding Officer & Members of the Bench
Their workman Shri Samir Kumar Mantri , Qrs. No. VR- 5 / 1 , Kharvela Nagar , Unit -III , Bhubaneswar. (Orissa)
1.
2nd Party- Workman.
2.
3.
Appearances:
-Sd./-
Shri Alok Das ,
Forthe 1st Party-
Authorized Representative Management .
None.
Chairman Lok Adalat CGIT - cum - Labour Court Hyderabad.
Forthe 2nd Party- Workman.
AWARD
Note: This award is final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Section 21 (2 ) of LSA. ACT, 1987 .
नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2012
An industrial dispute existing between the employ- ers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman has been referred to this Tribunal/Court by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - sec- tion (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide their letter No. L- 12012 / 12/2008 - IR (B - I) , dated 12.05.2008 to the following effect .
का०आ० 796.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल० 12012/12/ 2008- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch in terminating ser- vicesof Sri Samir Kumar Mantri , w.e.f. 30.9.2004, without complying the provisions of the I.D. Act , is legal and justified? To what relief is he entitled?
New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2012
S.O. 796.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 22/2008 of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/02/2012.
[No. L- 12012/12/2008 - IR (B -I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The 2nd Party- Workman has filed his statement of claim alleging that he had joined his services as a Messen- ger on temporary/ casual/ daily wage basis in March , 1990 after succeeding in interview. He was assured to get per- manent appointment order after one year or on completion of 240 days' work in a calender year, but despite comple- tion of several years of continuous satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days ' work in each year he wasterminated and refused employment from 30.9.2004 by the 1st Party -management without any written communi- cation or payment of compensation . The Ist Party- Management in refusing employment to him violated all principles of natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. He was also not given regular appointment while in service. He CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR 1815
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25 , 2012/फाल्गुन 6 , 1933
[भाग -खण्द ( ii) ]
therefore brought the matter in to the notice of the C.G.M and C.D.O. of the State Bank of India, L.H.O. , Bhubaneswar. But on hearing nothing, he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) vide hisletter dated 21.2.2005 . Conciliation proceedings were started, but they failed and thereupon a failure report was submitted to the Government and the Government made the present reference . He is thus entitled to get full back wages and reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from 30.9.2004.
3. The 1st Party -Management in its reply through written statement has stated that the present dispute is misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party- workman had already raised a similar dispute along with 124 other workers through the State Bank of India Tempo- rary 4th Grade Employees Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Bhubaneswar challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st Party-manage- ment . In the said dispute the failure report was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is pending before thisTribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007 . The name ofthe 2nd Party -workman is appearing at Sl . No. 46 in Annexure- Ato the said reference . Thus , raising a common dispute for same cause of action and again raising individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of litigation . The Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central ) while conciliating the indi- vidual disputes disregarded the direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ) not to take any fur- ther action on the separate disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of action . The allegation of the 2ndParty-workman that he was discontinued from service on 30.9.2004 and was signing bogus vouchers is not cor- rect . He was engaged intermittently on temporary /daily wage basis due to exigencies of work . It is denied that he had joined the Bank in March , 1990 and was performing the duty, which is regular and perennial in nature . It is further denied that he was performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty and to the best of satisfaction of the Authority. The 2nd Party - workman has never completed several years of continous service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year preceding the date of this alleged termination . In or- dertogive an opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex - temporary employees/daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various settlements entered into between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and Manage- ment of the State Bank of India all eligible persons were called for interview. Since the 2nd Party - workman was not satisfying the eligibility criteria, he was not called for inter- view and hence he could not be empanelled for the same. The Union or the 2nd Party- workman has never challenged theimplementation ofthe settlement , which has now gained finality. It is further submitted that some of the wait- listed candidates , who could not be absorbed in the Bank's ser- vice due to expirty of the panel on 31st March , 1997 filed WritPetitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by a common order dated 15.5.1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch ofWritPetitions and upheld the action ofthe Management ofthe Bank. This order of the Hon'ble High Court was also upheldby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC-3082/1999 . Hence the above matter has attained final- ity and cannot be re -agitated . Since the services of Shri Mantri were terminated much prior to the expiry of the panel, his claim has become stale by raising the dispute after lapse of a period of 10 years . it is a settled principle of law that delay destroys the right to remedy. Thus raising the present dispute after 10 years of alleged termination is liable to be rejected.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:----
ISSUES
1. Whether the present reference of the individual work- man during the pendency of the I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue is legal and justified?
2. Whether the workman has worked for more than 240 daysas enumerated under section 25 -F ofthe Indus- trial Disputes Act ?
3. Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Samir Kumar Mantri with effect from 30.9.2004 without complying the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and justified?
4. To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?
5. The 2nd Party- workman despite giving sufficient opportunitydid not produce any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his claim and willingly kept himself out of the proceedings at the stage of evidence by absenting himself or his Union representative.
6. The 1st Party- Management has adduced the oral evidence of Shri Krupasindhu Nayak as M.W. - 1 and filed documents marked as Ext . -Ato Ext . - J in reputation of the claim of the 2nd Party-workman.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1
7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party- Management that a group of 125 employees including the 2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same relief which is pending for adjudication . The dispute as referred to in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 is given below for comparison 1816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
with the dispute in the present case-
Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not considering the case of 125 workmen whose details are in Annexure -A for re-employment as per Section 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified ? Ifnot , what relief the workmen is entitled to ?
discontinued with effect from 30.9.2004 , but stated that " in- fact the workman left from working in the branch since November , 1990 " . Thus he had never worked after 1990 . The 2nd Party-workman has to disprove the evidence led by the 1st Party- Management , but he has not come before the Court to give evidence . A temporary or daily wage worker has no right to claim reinstatement and particularly when such an employee had not worked for 240 days continuously during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his so - called termination as per provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore , it cannot be said that the services of the 2nd Party -workman were terminated without complying the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is thus decided against the 2nd Party- workman for failing to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date ofhis disengagement or alleged termination from service .
ISSUE NO . 3
8. The name of the 2nd party- workman appears at Sl . No. 46 in Annexure -A to the above reference . In both the cases the matter of disengagement or so called retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re- employment . But challenge has been made more specifically against the termination of service of the 2nd Party -workman in the present case while in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 prayer has beenmade with regard to consideration of the case of 125 workmen for re -employment as per Section 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact , in the latter case the workmen have submitted or virtually surrendered to their cessation of employment or alleged termination, whereas inthe present case they have challenged their termination on facts and law. Virtually in the present case validity and legality of the alleged termination has to be tested at the alter of facts and legal propositions . Therefore it cannot be said that issues involved in both the cases are same . This case can proceed despite pendency of I.D. Case No. 7 / 2007 and the present reference by the individual workman pending for adjudication is maintainable being legal and justified . This issue is therefore decided in the affirmative and against the 1st Party -Management .
ISSUE NO . 2
10. Since the 2nd Party - workman could not prove that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under the 1st Party- Management during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date ofhis disengagement or alleged termination, he is not entitled for re -employment even in case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination . Moreover, he was a temporary/ casual/daily wage employee. His services can be terminated at any time without assigning any cause by the 1st Party- Management . Hehas no legal right to be retained in service for extended period , ifhe was appointed for a certain period or when no time is specified . The 2nd Party- workman has not filed any letter of appointment or proof of having rendered service under the 1st Party- Management for a specified period against a regular post . The Ist Party - Management has further alleged that in time of exigencies only the 2nd Party- workman was employed . It means that with the end of exigencies hisjob also came to an end . In view of the matter the action of the management of State Bank of India , Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Samir Kumar Mantri with effect from the alleged date ofhis termination is fair, legal and justified and cannot be said to be in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative and against the 2nd Party -workman.
ISSUE NO . 4
11. In view of the findings recorded above under Issue No. 2 and 3 the 2nd Party - workman is not entitled to any reliefwhatsoever claimed .
12. Reference is answered accordingly. Jitendra Srivastava, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2012
का०आ० 797.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his alleged termination or disengagement from service lies on him, but the 2nd Party- workman has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim that he was appointed in March, 1990 and worked till 30.9.2004 on temporary/ casual/daily wage basis , but he has not filed any certificate or reliable document showing the break -up of year- wise service rendered by him under the 1st Party-Management during the above period. The 1st Party-Management , on the other hand , has alleged that the 2nd Party- workman was engaged intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to exigencies of work and he had never completed 240 days continuous service in a calendar year . M.W. - 1 Shri Krupasindhu Nayak in his statement before the Court has stated that " the disputant was working intermittently for few days in our branch on daily wage basis in exigencies completed 240 days of continuous and uninterrupted service preceding the alleged date of the termination " . He has denied the allegation that the workman was He had not 1817 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
following Schedule .
SCHEDULE
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दी लक्ष्मी विलास बैंक लि० प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि किरण बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -12012/ 31/ 2004- आईआर ( बी- I ) ]
"Whether the management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. , is justified having deleted the name of Shri M. Rajashekar , Ex. Temporary Peon from the panel with effect from 05.051999 ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? "
रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2012
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference and the notices issued by this tribunal both sides entered their appearance through their respective advocates and the first party filed claim statement on 30.09.2004 whereas the secondparty filed its counter statement on 11.04.2005 .
S.O. 797.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 34/2004 of the Cent . Govt. Indus . Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , BANGALORE as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/01/2012 .
[No. L- 12012/31 /2004- IR(B- I) ]
RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Central Government Indusrial Tribunal-cum - Labour
Court, Bangalore
Dated: 9th January, 2012
Present
Shri S.N. Navalgund Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 34/2004
1Party
Shri Rajeshkhar , M
S/o Shri Y.M. Mallappa,
D. No. 2612 , 2nd Cross , Gandhinagar, Mandya, Mandya Dist- 570401
II Party
3. In the Claim statement filed by the first party it is stated that he was appointed by the second party to work at its Mandya Branch as a Peon under order bearing No. Per/8/ 12/91-92 dated 12.02.1992 and accordingly on the very day he joined the services and from that date onwards he rendered his services honestly, diligently and sincerely but abruptly w.e.f. 5.05.1999 he was refused employment without giving any reason , without making any enquiry or complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25 F clause (a) & (b ) of the Industrial Disputes.Act and as his request to the authorities of the second party did not materialize he approached the jurisdictional Labour and Conciliation Officer and as the second party did not respond tocontinue his employment it ended in failure and ultimately the Central Government made this reference for adjudication . In the counter statement containing 9 pages filed by the second party it is contended that it has been engaging temporarily persons to work in leave vacancies of regular sub staff in different branches in subordinate cadre and during 1989 the issue of persons engaged temporarily who were working in leave vacancies of permanent subordinate staff was examined and discussions were held with the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Employees Union, the sole and recognized union of the award staff of the bank with a view to streamline/lay down procedure and guidelines for recruitment and regularization of persons engaged on leave vacancies and for uniform implementation of the same at various branches of the second party an agreement was entered into as under:-
The Divisional Manager,
Divisional Officer ,
(a) The engagement of empanelled persons is for the purpose of leave vacancy of the permanent sub staff.
(b) The engagement of such persons shall be confined to that branch only.
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, 568 , 38th Cross , 11th Main , 1 Floor , 5th Block, Jayanagar , Bangalore
AWARD
(c) Each branch will have a panel ofpersons eligible to be engaged in leave vacancies of permanent sub staff and the number of persons so listed in the panel of any branch shall be equivalent to the number of regular sub staff strength ofthe branch .
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12012/31/ 2004- IR(B - 1 ) dated 13.05.2004 for adjudication on the 1818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 25 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 6 , 1933
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
(d) The empanelled persons shall be offered to work in leave vacancies of the permanent sub staff in such a manner to ensure that the empanelled persons so engaged shall work for a period not exceeding 5 daysin one stretch or exceeding 15 days in a month or in broken periods .
(e) The bank shall maintain a seniority list for each State and the empanelled person shall be entitled in such State wise seniority list on the basis of the respective states of the first entry into the service ofthe bank and such date of entry shall determine inter seniority among them . The empanelled persons will be called for interview on the basis of Seniority Listfor recruitment .
(f) The permanent vacancies in the subordinate cadre shall be filed up subject to the provisions of the Settlement from among the empanelled persons on the basis of State Seniority and for such purpose the number of persons called for interview shall not exceed twice the number of vacancies to be filledup.
substantiate its impugned action while filing the affidavit of its Legal Officer Shri V. Gururaj on 02-08-2005 examining him on oath as MWI got marked copy of circular No. 39 / 89-90 dated 29.11.1989 regarding creation of panel for engagement of temporary persons copy of circular No. 41 / 89-90 dated 15-12-1989 containing the terms and conditions for engagement of temporary persons and conditions for engagement of temporary persons copy of minutes of the discussion held between the Lakshmi Vilas Bank and its workmen represented by Lakshmi Vilas Bank Employees Union over recruitment and regularization of persons engaged in leave vacancies on 10.11.1989 and Copy ofthe circular No. 34/ 94-95 dated 02.02.1995 in respect of engagement of temporary peon during the leave vacancy ofpermanent staff as Ex . M1 to M4 respectively. Interalia while filing the affidavit of the first party examining him on oath as WWI copy of letter addressed by him to branch Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Mandya dated 29.05.2007; letter addressed to Divisional Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. , Bangalore dated 9.07.2007 & 12.10.2007; three postal acknowledgement having served them on Divisional Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank , Bangalore and Manager, Mandya Branch ; extract of his SB account with Mandya Branch; reply received by him dated 24.10.2007 & 12.10.2007 as Ex. W1 to W6 respetively.
(g) Any empanelled persons not selected at the interview shall continue to be in the panel in the same branch or in the office and shall continue to be eligible for further recruitment until he completes the 27 years of age . Any person , who has completed 27 years of age shall have his name automatically deleted from the panel of Seniority list .
6. With the above pleadings ; oral and documentary evidence when the learned advocates appearing for the parties were called upon to address their arguments the learned advocate appearing for the second party addressed his arguments whereas the counsel appearing for the first party filed his written arguments on 17.11.2011 and today I heard the reply given by the counsel for the second party .
(h) The settlement also contain provisions for registrations of empanelled candidates with the Employment Exchange , stipulation to the effect that the purpose of enlistment of such persons in the bank, the empanelled person shall have completed 18 years of age and shall not have completed 25 years of age on the date of application to the branch/ office and their qualification should be 7th standard passed or 8th standard failed or discontinued.
7. On appreciation of the pleadings , oral and documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides in the light of the arguments put forward by the learned advocates appearing for both sides I arrived at the conclusion of rejecting the reference holding that the impugned action is justified for the following reasons .
Reasons:
4. It is further contended as per clause ' g' of the agreement any empanelled persons not selected at the interview shall continue to be in the panel in the same branch or in the office and shall continue to be eligible for future recruitment until he completes the 27 years of age and any person who has completed 27 years of age shall have his name automatically deleted from the panel of seniority list . The first party's date of birth being 05.04.1972 he completed the age of 27 years on 4.041999 as such as per the terms of the agreement his name has been removed from the panel w.e.f. 05.05.1999 and as he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year from 1993 to 1999 the provisions of Section 25 F have not been attracted in the instant case . Thus it claims the impugned action of deleting his name from the panel is justified.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the first party's services was availed by the second party at its Mandya branch as casual employee to work in leave vacancies of regular sub staff w.e.f. 12.02.1992 and that he has been removed from the panel maintained in that respect w.e.f. 5.5.1999 on the ground that he attained the age of 27 years as on 04.04.1999 being born on 5.04.1972 . It is claimed thatthe second party which has been engaging temporarily persons to work in leave vacancies of regular sub staff in different branches in subordinate cadre , during 1989 i.e. prior to availing the services of first party the issue of persons engaged temporarily who were working in leave vacancies of permanent subordinate staff was examined and discussions were held with the lakshmi Vilas Bank Employees Union the sole and recognized union of the 5. When the second party was called upon to 1819
भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 25, 2012/फाल्गुन6, 1933
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4.04.1999, no fault could be found with second party/ management in removing his name from the panel w.e.f. 05.05.1999 i.e. after one month ofthe attaining the age of27 years. As such the first party though served as temporary casual employee from 12.02.1992 till 05.05.1999 as he failed tobring on record in any calendar year during this period he having served for a period of 240 days to attract the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, no occasion has arisen in the instant case to comply the provisions of Section 25 F of ID Act by the second party. Under the circumstances the action of the management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd in deleting the name of Shri M. Rajashekar, first party from the panel of temporary employees w.e.f. 05.05.1999 is justified as such he is also not entitled for any relief.
9. In the result I pass the following Award:
AWARD
The reference is rejected holding that the action of the management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd, having deleted the name of Shri M. Rajashekar, Ex . Temporary Peon from the panel w.e.f. 05.05.1999 is justified and that he is not entitled for any relief.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 09.01.2012)
award staff of the bank with a view to streamline/lay down procedureandguidelines for recruitment and regularization of persons engaged in leave vacancies and for uniform implementation of the same at various branches of the second party and the said discussions culminated in signing of an agreement/minutes of discussion on 10.11.1989 and according to clause 'g ' of that agreement an empanelled person not selected at the interview shall continue to be in the panel in the same branch or in the officeand shall continue to be eligible for future recruitment until he completes 27 years of age and a person who has completed 27years of age shall have his name automatically deleted from the panel of the seniority list and accordingly the first party being born on 05.04.1972 attained 27 years of age on 04.04.1999 after one month of attaining 27 years of age his name has been removed from the panel. To substantiate this contention on behalf of the second party the copy of the minutes of the discussion has been produced at Ex . M4 which stipulates removal of the empanelled casual employee from the panel incase he is not selected at the interview before he completes 27 years ofage. In consonance of the terms of the minutes of this discusion the bank has also issued a cirlar No. 34/94-95 dated, 02.02.1995 and as unequivocally admitted by the first party in his cross examination that his date of birth is 05.04.1972 and that he completed 27 years of age as on
S.N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.