This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . NO . D. L. (N) 04 /0007/2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली , मार्च 4 मार्च10 , 2012 , शनिवार/फाल्गुन 14 फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

सं. 10] No. 101

NEW DELHI, MARCH 4- MARCH 10, 2012 , SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 14- PHALGUNA 20, 1933

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 11-खण्ड उप-खण्ड ( ii )

PART II - Section 3-Sub- section ( ii )

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

कार्मिक, लोक़ शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 29 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 910. 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 उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सरकार , गृह ( पुलिस ) अनुभाग -4 , लखनऊ के दिनाँक 14 जनवरी , 2012 के आदेश संख्या 01 , सीबीआई/ VI-पी-4.2012 के द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्री साहिल जैदी सुपुत्र श्री बरकत अलि जैदी , निवासी ए - ब्लॉक , पॉकेट डी, टाईप 2, आफिसर्स कालोनी , बसंत कुंज , नई दिल्ली की मृत्यु के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) के अधीन धारा 306 के अंतर्गत पुलिस स्टेशन आशियाना , जिला लखनऊ ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) में पंजीकृत अपराध सं. 409/2011 का तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या उससे संबद्ध प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत कोई अन्य अपराध /अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/06/2012 - एवीडी- II ]

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव

601GI/2012

(2215) 2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012

S.O. 910.-- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government ofUttar Pradesh, Home (Police) Section -4, Lucknow vide Order No. 01 C.B. I./VI-P-4-2012 dated 14th January, 2012, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of Case Crime No. 409/2011 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Ashiana , District Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) relating to death of Shri Sahil Zaidi S /o Shri Barakat Ali Zacii , R/o A -Block, Pocket - D, Type -2 ,Officer's Colony, Basant Kunj , New Delhi and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relaton to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/06/2012-AVD - II ]

RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय

पुणे, 14 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 911.-- आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 के 43 ) की धारा 120 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और ( 2 ) के द्वारा मुझे दिए गए प्रदत्त राक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार, केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड, नई दिल्ली अधिनियम संख्या 7842 की फाइल संख्या में 279/17/88 - आई टी जे/एस ओ 361 ( ई ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1988 और आयकर आयुक्त ( अपील्स ) ( आई टी ए टी और टी पी ) पुणे के प्रभार के निर्माण को ध्यान में रखते हुए , दिनांक 12-01-2012 के बोर्ड के आदेश संख्या 9 के द्वारा , मैं , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, पुणे एतद्वारा आयकर आयुक्तों ( अपील्स ) -1 से V, पुणे के क्षेत्राधिकार पर पूर्ववर्ती अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए निदेश देता हूँ ।

( 1 ) कि आयकर आयुक्त ( अपील्स ) यहाँ पर संलग्न सूची के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित उनका मुख्यालय उक्त सूची के स्तंभ ( 3 ) के जगह पर तदनुसार उल्लिखित , अपीलों संबंधी शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा कार्य का पालन करेंगे , जो स्तंभ ( 5 ) में उल्लिखित व्यक्तियों के अथवा व्यक्तियों के समूहों द्वारा दायर आयकर प्राधिकारियों के क्षेत्राधिकार के अंतर्गत सम्मिलित हेतु स्तंभ ( 4 ) में उल्लिखित है ।

(2) कि आयकर आयुक्त ( अपील्स ) -1 से V, पुणे सूची के स्तंभ ( 5 ) में उल्लिखित अपीलों के बारे में शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा कार्य का पालन नहीं करेंगे ।

अनुसूची

आयकर प्राधिकारी का क्षेत्राधिकार

अपील्स

क्र.सं. पदनाम

मुख्यालय

1 .

आयकर

पुणे

(i ) आयकर निदेशक ( अं. क. ) , पुणे

आयुक्त (अ)

(अं. क. और टीपी)

आयकर निदेशक ( आय टी ) , पुणे प्रभार के अधीन निर्धारण अधिकारियों द्वारा आदेशितों से निर्मित सभी अपील्स , संवर्ग नियंत्रक मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त ( संवर्ग नियंत्रक प्राधिकारी ) , नागुपर के अधीन निर्धारण अधिकारियों के अलावा ।

(ii ) आ.आ.- I , पुणे

आ. आ . II , पुणे

आ. आ. III , पुणे

आ. आ. IV , पुणे

आ. आ. V , पुणे

आयकर आयुक्त-1 , पुणे आयकर आयुक्त-11 , पुणे आयकर आयुक्त- III , पुणे , आयकर आयुक्त -IV, पुणे , आयकर आयुक्त पुणे प्रभार के अधीन कार्यरत निर्धारण अधिकारियों द्वारा पारित आदेशों से निर्मित सभी अपील्स , जहाँ पर आय तथा नुकसान विवरणी में कोई भिन्नता हो , जो निर्धारिती के लिए निर्धारण अधिकारी द्वारा 2217 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

निर्धारण में पक्षपात हो जो आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 92 सी ( 3 ) के अधीन असन्नीकट कीमत हो ।

2. यह अधिसूचना तत्काल प्रभाव से लागू होगी ।

[सं. पुणे/सी सी/समन्वयन/301 / 1 / 1/2011-12 ]

एस. जी. जोशी, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

Pune, the 14th February, 2012

S.O. 911.--In exercise of the powers conferred on me by sub -sections ( 1 ) and (2 ) of Section 120 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , and by Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes , New Delhi , Notification No. 7842 in F. No. 279 / 17/ 88 - ITJ/ S.O . 361 (E), dated 30th March, 1988 , and in view of the creation of the charge of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) ( IT & TP) , Pune vide Board's Order No. 9 of 2012 dated 12-01-2012 , I , the Chief ommissioner of Income Tax, Pune , hereby direct, in partial modification of earlier notification's on jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) I to V, Pune ,

(i ) that the Commissioner of Income Tax. (Appeals ) specified in Column (2) of the Schedule hereto annexed , having headquarters at the place specified in the corresponding entry in column ( 3 ) of the said Schedule , shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of the appeals specified in column (5) filed by the persons or classes of persons falling within the jurisdiction of the Income Tax authorities specified in column (4).

( ii) that the Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals ) I to V, Pune shall not exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of the appeals specified in column (5 ) of the Schedule.

SCHEDULE

Appeals

HeadQuarters

Designation

S.No.

Jurisdiction of the Income

TaxAuthority

Pune

1 .

(i) Director of IncomeTax

(International Taxation) ,

Pune

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

(IT& TP), Pune

All appeals arising out of the orders of the Assessing Officers under the charge of DIT (IT) , Pune other than the Assessing Officers under the Cadre Control of CCIT ( CCA) , Nagpur.

( ii) CI - I, Pune/CIT- II , Pune/CIT- III , Pune/ CIT- IV, Pune/CIT-V, Pune .

All appeals arising out of orders passed by the Assessing Officers under the charges of CIT- I, Pune ; CIT- II , Pune ; CIT- III , Pune ; CIT- IV, Pune and CIT-V, Punewhere there is any variation in the income or loss returned which is pre- judicial to the interest of the assessee on account of determination by the Assessing Officers of the arm's length price u/s 92C(3 ) of the Income- taxAct.

2. This notification shall come into force with immediate effect .

[No. PN/CC/Coord/301 / 1 / 1 /2011-12]

S. G JOSHI , Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 2218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

वित्त मंत्रालय

(व्यय विभाग)

( महालेखा नियंत्रक कार्यालय )

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 912.- पूर्व आदेशों का अधिक्रमण करते हुए महालेखा नियंत्रक ने श्री एम. प्रान कोनचाड़ी, संयुक्त महालेखा नियंत्रक को सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के उद्देश्य के लिए अपील प्राधिकारी के रूप में मनोनीत किया है । श्री एच. के. श्रीवास्तव , उप महालेखा नियंत्रक , सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के उद्देश्य के लिए महालेखा नियंत्रक कार्यालय के संबंध में केंद्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी ( सीपीआईओ ) के रूप में कार्य करते रहेंगे ।

अपील प्राधिकारी के रूप में श्री एम. प्रान कोनचाड़ी, संयुक्त महालेखा नियंत्रक और केंद्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी के रूप में श्री एच . के. श्रीवास्तव, उप महालेखा नियंत्रक का कार्यालय और आवासीय पता निम्नानुसार हैं :-

श्री एम. प्रान कोनचाड़ी, संयुक्त महालेखा नियंत्रक

कार्यालय पता:

वित्त मंत्रालय , व्यय विभाग ,

महालेखा नियंत्रक कार्यालय,

कमरा नं. 701 , 7वां तल , लोकनायक भवन,

खान मार्किट, नई दिल्ली-110003

फोन नं. 246224614

फैक्स नं. 24624614

ई-मेल: [email protected]

आवासीय पता:-

जे-5ए, ग्रीन पार्क एक्सटेंशन,

नई दिल्ली -110016

श्री एच. के. श्रीवास्तव उप महालेखा नियंत्रक

कार्यालय पता:

वित्त मंत्रालय , व्यय विभाग ,

कमरा नं. 711 , 7वां तल , सी- विंग लोकनायक भवन, महालेखा नियंत्रक कार्यालय, खान मार्किट , नई दिल्ली-110003

फोन नं. 011-24641731

ई-मेल: kumar [email protected]. in

आवासीय पता:-

आई-606 , 'एसपीएस रेजीडेंसी 18 -बी, वैभव खंड, इंदिरापुरम गाजियाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश- 201012

फोन: 0120-2276058

[सं. ए-28015 /2007/एमएफसीजीए/ आरटीआई/प्रशासन/ 63 / 1056 /1928 ]

जयदीप मिश्रा , उप महालेखा नियंत्रक ( प्रशासन )

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department ofExpenditure)

(Office of Controller General of Accounts)

New Delhi , the 16th February , 2012

S.O. 912. In supersession of previous orders, Controller General of Accounts has designated Shri M. Pran Konchady, Joint Controller General of Accounts as the Appellate Authority for the purpose of Right to Information Act , 2005, Sh . H. K. Srivastav, Dy. Controller General of Accounts, shall contiune to remain as Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) for the purpose of RTI Act, 2005 in respect of the Office of Controller General of Accounts .

The office and residential address of Shri M. Pran Konchady, Jt. CGA as Appellate Authority and Sh. H. Κ . Srivastav Dy. CGA as CPIO are as under :--

Sh. M. Pran Konchady, Joint Controller General of Accounts

OfficeAddress :-

Ministry of Finance ,

Department of Expenditure ,

Controller General of Accounts,

Room No. 701 , 7th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Sh . H.K. Srivastav

Dy. Controller General of Accounts

OfficeAddress :-

Ministry of Finance ,

Department ofExpenditure,

O/o Controller General ofAccounts ,

Room No. 711 , 7th Floor, C- Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan, 2219 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

KhanMarket, New Delhi - 110003

KhanMarket , New Delhi - 110003

Tel . No. 24624614 Fax No. 24624614

Tel . No. 011-24641731

Email: pkonchady@ hotmail . com

Email : kumar [email protected] . in

Residential Address :-

I - 606 , SPS Residency

J - 5 A , Green Park Extension , New Delhi - 110016

18 - B, Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201012

Tel.-0120-2276058

[No. A - 28015 /2007/ MFCGA/RTI /.Admn ./ 63/ 1056/ 1928 ] JAIDEEP MISHRA , Dy. Controller General ofAccounts (Admn. )

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 913.- राष्ट्रीयकृत 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 कंपनी ( 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 रिज़र्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्वारा , देना बैंक के महाप्रबंधक श्री तिलक राज चावला ( जन्म तिथि 01-05-1954 ) को 01-04-2012 को या उसके बाद उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-04-2014 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , इलाहाबाद बैंक के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2010 - बीओ -1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2012

S.O. 913. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub- 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, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri Tilak Raj Chawla ( DoB : 01-05-1954), General Manager , Dena Bank as Executive Director, Allahabad Bank with effect from the date of his taking over charge ofthe post on or after 01-04-2012 till 30-04-2014 , i . e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[ F. No. 4/ 5/2010-BO- 1 ]

VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च , 2012

का. आ. 914. राष्ट्रीयकृत 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 कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा ५ की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् , एतद्वारा , कॉर्पोरेशन बैंक के महाप्रबंधक श्री सी. वी. आर. राजेन्द्रन ( जन्म तिथि 08-04-1955 ) को उनके पद भार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-04-2015 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2010- बीओ -1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st March , 2012

S.O. 914. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub - 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 , in consultation with Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri C. V.R. Rajendran ( DoB : 08-04-1955 ), 2220

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

General Manager, Corporation Bank as Executive Director, Bank of Maharashtra with effect from the date ofhis taking over charge of the post till 30-04-2015 , i. e . the date of his superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[ F. No. 4/5/2010 -BO - I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 915.- केन्द्र सरकार, दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद , एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में , क्रम सं. 103 के उपरान्त निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां अन्तःस्थापित की जाएंगी, नामतः

" 104 महर्षि मार्कण्डेश्वर , विश्वविद्यालय , अंबाला

एम एम कॉलेज ऑफ डेंटल सांइसिज एंड रिसर्च , मुल्लाना, अम्बाला

( i ) बैचलर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

बीडीएस , महर्षि मार्कण्डेश्वर विश्वविद्यालय , अम्बाला "

(यदि यह दिनांक 22-06-2011 को या उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई हो। )

[फा. सं. वी-12017/4/2000 -डीई (पार्ट ) ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) NewDelhi , the 14th February, 2012

S.O. 915. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948), the Central Government , after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

2. In Part -I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) after Serial No. 103 , the following Serial number and entries shall be inserted, namely : --

M.M. College of Dental Sciencces &

Research, Mullana , Ambala

" 104 Maharishi Markandeshwar, University, Ambala

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery

(ifgranted on or after 22-6-2011)

BDS , Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Ambala"

[F. No. V- 12017/4/2000-DE(Pt) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

[ आयुर्वेद , योग व प्राकृतिक चिकित्सा , सिद्ध, यूनानी एवं होम्योपैथी ( आयुष ) विभाग ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 916. केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप - नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय के आयुर्वेद , योग व प्राकृतिक चिकित्सा सिद्ध , यूनानी एवं होम्योपैथी (आयुष ) विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखत कार्यालय को , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है: -

1. केन्द्रीय अनुसंधान संस्थान ( होम्योपैथी ) , कोट्टायम ।

[सं. ई -11018/2/2003- भा.चि.प. ( रा.भा. ) ]

एस. श्रीनिवास , उप सचिव [ भाग II---खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

2221 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[Department ofAyurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Sidha, Unani and Homeopathy (AYUSH)]

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2012

S.O. 916.-In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 ( as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control ofthe Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare , where more than 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:

1. Central Research Institute for Homoeopaty, Kottayam .

[No. E- 11018/2/2003 - I.S.M. (O.L. ) ]

S. SRINIVAS , Dy. Secy.

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 917. दिनांक 17-8-2006 को अधिसूचित मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक एवं वैद्युत निरीक्षक की अर्हता , शक्ति एवं कार्य नियमावली, 2006 के साथ पठित विद्युत अधिनियम, 2003 (2003 का 36 ) की धारा 162 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा उपर्युक्त नियम में उल्लिखित अर्हता एवं शर्तों के अधीन , श्री जे. कृष्ण मूर्ति , संयुक्त महाप्रबंधक (रोलिंग स्टॉक ) , चेन्नई मैट्रो रेल लिमिटेड ( सीएमआरएल ) , को सीएमआरएल में उनका कार्यकाल पूरा होने तक वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :

उपर्युक्त अधिकारी, केंद्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण ( सुरक्षा एवं विद्युत आपूर्ति से संबधित उपाय ) विनियम , 2010 में दी गई प्रक्रिया के अनुसार , सीएमआरएल के प्रभाव वाले क्षेत्रों के भीतर वैद्युत कार्यों, वैद्युत संस्थापनाओं और वैद्युत रोलिंग स्टॉक प्रचालनों के संबंध में अथवा सीए‌मआरएल के नियंत्रणाधीन /सीएमआरएल से संबंधित कार्यों तथा सभी वैद्युत संस्थापनाओं के संबंध में अपनी शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और अपने कार्यों का निष्पादन करेंगे ।

सीएमआरएल यह सुनिश्चित करेगा कि वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त अधिकारी सीएमआरएल में उनको सौंपे गए कार्य के संबंध में वैद्युत निरीक्षक नहीं होंगे ।

वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त व्यक्ति वह प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करेंगे जो केंद्र सरकार इस उद्देश्य के लिए आवश्यक समझे और यह प्रशिक्षण सरकार की संतुष्टि के स्तर तक पूरा किया जाएगा ।

[फ़ा. सं. 42/3/2010- आर एंड आर ]

ज्योति अरोड़ा, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012

S.O. 917.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 162 of the Electricity Act , 2003 (36 of 2003 ) read with qualification , power and function of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules , 2006 notified on 17-8-2006 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri J. Krishna Moorthy Jt. General Manager (Rolling Stock) , Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. ( CMRL) as Electrical Inspector till his tenure in CMRL , Subject to the qualification and Condition mentioned in the above Rule .

The above mentioned officer shall exercise the powers and perform his functions in respect of electrical works, electrical installations and electrical rolling stock in operation within the areas occupied by the CMRL or in respect ofworks and all electrical installations under the control of CMRL/belonging to CMRL as per the procedure provided in Central Electricity Authority ( Measures relating to Sefety and Electricity Supply) Regulations, 2010.

CMRL will ensure that the officer appointed as Electrical Inspectors will not be Electrical Inspector in respect of the work assigned to him in CMRL .

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

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

JYOTI ARORA, Jt . Secy.

2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PIHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) )

रसायन और उर्वरक मंत्रालय

( रसायन एवं पेट्रोरसायन विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च , 2012

का. आ. 918. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में रसायन और उर्वरक मंत्रालय रसायन एवं पेट्रोरसायन विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन ख क्षेत्र में स्थित सेन्ट्रल इन्स्टीटयूट आफ प्लास्टिक इंजीनियरिंग एण्ड टेक्नोलॉजी ( सिपेट ) अमृतसर, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. ई -11019/07/2012-हिन्दी ]

गुलशन लाल चोपड़ा, संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा )

MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS

(Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals )

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2012

S.O. 918.-In pursuance of Sub - Rule ( 4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Central Institute of Engineering and Plastic Technology (CIPET) Amritsar which is located in region B under the administrative control of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers , Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals , whereas the 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

[No. E- 11019/ 07/2012-Hindi ]

GULSHAN LAL CHOPRA , Jt. Drector( OL)

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

( उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग )

( राजभाषा यूनिट )

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 919.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम 4 के अनुसरण में मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय ( उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग ) के अंतर्गत राष्ट्रीय तकनीकी शिक्षक प्रशिक्षण एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , कोलकाता को, ऐसे कार्यालय के रूप में , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यासाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं.- 11011-1/2011 - रा.भा.ए. ] अनन्त कुमार सिंह , संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. Unit)

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2012

S.O. 919. In pursuance of sub - rule ( 4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies National Institue of Teachnical Teachers' Training and Research , Kolkata under the Ministry of Human Resource Development , (Deptt . of Higher Education ) as office , whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

[No. 11011-1 /2011-O.L.U.

ANANT KUMAR SINGH ,Jt . Secy.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2223 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय

( औद्योगिक नीति एवं संवर्धन विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 920.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में औद्योगिक नीति एवं संवर्धन विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

मुख्य विस्फोटक नियंत्रक का कार्यालय, पेट्रोलियम तथा विस्फोटक सुरक्षा संगठन , ' ए ' ब्लॉक , पांचवा तल , केन्द्रीय कार्यालय परिसर , सेमिनरी हिल्स, नागुपर ।

[सं. ई-11012/3/2011- हिन्दी] सुनीति शर्मा, संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा )

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion)

NewDelhi, the27th February, 2012

S.O. 920. In pursuance of sub - rule (4 ) of rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union ) Ruies , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office , under the control of the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion , whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

Office ofthe Chief Controller of Explosives , Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization , ' A'Bock , 5th Floor , Central Government Offices Complex , Seminary Hills , Nagpur.

[ No. E - 11012/3 /2011 -Hindi ] SUNITI SHARMA , Jt . Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2012

का. आ. 921. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में औद्योगिक नीति एवं संवर्धन विभाग के नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

उप नमक आयुक्त कार्यालय , चैन्नई

[सं. ई -11012/3 /2011- हिन्दी ]

सुनीति शर्मा , संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा )

New Delhi , the 27th February,, 2012

S.O. 921. In pursuance of sub - rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following office , under the control of the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, whose more than 80 % staff have acquired working knowledge in Hindi :

Office ofthe Deputy Salt Commissioner, Chennai .

[No. E- 11012/3/ 2011 - Hindi ] SUNITI SHARMA , Jt . Director ( OL)

601 GI /2012-2 [ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 922.-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 बिजेरबा इंडिया प्रा.लि. ईएल -100 , टीटीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया एमआईडीसी , महीप , नवी मुंबई-400710 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " बीजेड- पीएलटीपी ( टी ) श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बिजेरबा " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/260 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधि कप्तम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 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

BIZERBA

आकृति -2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान ।

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 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 और 5 × 10 के,के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 167 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2225 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 922. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class -II ) of Series " BZ - PLT- P (T) " and with brand name " BIZERBA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , maunfactured by M/ s Bizerba India Pvt . Ltd. EL 100, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape , Navi Mumbai -400710 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/260 ;

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 of50g . The verification scale interval (e) is 1g . 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- 1Model

SEALING WIRE

BIZERBA

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

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

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg . to 50mg . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to 100,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e'value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10kor 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 ( 167)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 923.-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 बिजेरबा इंडिया प्रा.लि. ईएल -100 , टीटीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया एमआईडीसी , महीप , नवी मुंबई -400710 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " बीजेड - पीएलटी- पी( पी ) " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बिजेरबा " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/ 261 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 600 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता । कि. 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 ।

आकृति - 1

SEALING WIRE

BIZERBA

आकृति -2 : उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 100,000 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 ( 167)/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2227 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 923. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class -II ) of Series " BZ- PLT-P (P) " and with brand name " BIZERBA " (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , maunfactured by M/ s Bizerba India Pvt . Ltd. EL 100 , TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/261 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with amaximum capacity of 600 kg . and minimum capacity of 1kg . 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 , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1Model

SEALING MAY

BIZERBA

BIZERER

Figure- 2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe 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 .

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

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

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 167)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

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

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर, 2011

का.आ. 924.-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 अपोलो स्केल वर्क्स , 16/ए-1 , पीली कोठी , छाता पुलिस स्टेशन के पास , छाता बाजार , आगरा , ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- IIII ) वाले " एमपीडब्ल्यूएस " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मैकेनिकल व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अपोलो " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 11 /72 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल स्प्रिंग सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मैकेनिकल व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 125 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.5 कि. ग्रा. है ।

Head hole screw

आकृति -2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

उपकरण की बाडी पर दिए गए छेदों के माध्यम से लीड और सील तार लगाकर सीलिंग की जाती है । कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सील लगाई जाती है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 150 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 और 5 × 10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 328 ) /2011 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2229 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 924. 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 (Mechanical Person Weighing Machine) of Ordinary Accuracy (Accuracy class -IIII ) of series " APWS " and withbrand name " APOLO" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , maunfactured by M/s . Apolo scale Works , 16/A - 1 , Pili Kothi , Near Chatta Polic Station , Chatta Bazar, Agra (UP) and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 / 11 / 72 ;

The said model is the principal of spring based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Mechanical Person Weighing Machine) with a maximum capacity of 125kg . and minimum capacity of 5kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 0.5kg .

Figure- 1Model

JLALI

Head hole screw

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 150kg . with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 1,000 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 (328)/2011 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 925.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स पिंक इलेक्ट्रोनिक इंड. प्लॉट नं. 1 , हरीओम सोसायटी के पास, राजेन्द्र पार्क क्रास रोड के पास , नेशनल हाइवे -8 , ओढव , अहमदाबाद-382415 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पीआईसी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " पिन्क " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधैयतुलन 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 ।

PING

आकृति-2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्ले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर डिस्प्ले के राइट साइड/ बैक साइड में 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 कलिब्रेशन 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10* , 2x10% , 5x10 % , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 02 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2231 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 31st October , 2011

S.O. 925. 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 " PIC " and with brand name " PINC " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/s . Pinc Electronic Inc. Plot No. 1 , Nr. Hariom Society, Nr . Rajendra Park Cross Road, National Highway - 8 , Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/ ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Crane type ) with a maximum capacity of300kg. and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. 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 , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

Figure- 2 Sealing arrangement

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

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

TheCentral Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity range from 50kg . and up to 5000kg . with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k or 5x10k , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (02)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

601 GI/2012-3 2232

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 926-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जे.बी.कोरपोरेशन , 58 , भारतेन्दु नगर. नियर खातीपुरा जयपुर , राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जे.बी. 101 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूत्चन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जे बी सी प्रो. " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/49 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

CLASS- 111 capacity : 30 Kg . Accuracy : 5 gm .

1. TOP BODY OF SCALE

8. LEAD SQUARE

SEAL

G. SEAL WIRE

000.0

4. SEAL HOLE OF TOP BODY

4. SEAL HOLE OF

TOP BODY

SEAL HOLE OF BOTTOM

2 BOTTOM OF SCALE

3. SEAL HOLE OF BOTTOM

आकृति- 2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्लेकी बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर डिस्प्ले के दायीं ओर/पीछे की ओर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्प्ले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने 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 कलिब्रेशन तक की पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 54) /2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2233 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 926.-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 " J.B. 101 " and with brand name " JBC Pro " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s J.B Corporation 58 , Bhartendu Nagar, Near Khatipura Jaipur Rajasthan wlhich is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 16/49 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop 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 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1Model

CLASS - III

capacity : 30 Kg.

Accuracy : 5 gm.

TOP BODY OF SCALE

8. LEAD SQUARE

SEAL

6. SEAL WIRE

300.0

54. SEAL HOLE OF TOP BODY

4. SEAL HOLE OF

TOP BODY

SEAL HOLE OF BOTTOM

2 BOTTOM OF SCALE

1. SEAL HOLE OF WE BOTTOM

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for 'e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with' e' value 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 (54)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

काआ . 927.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जे.बी. कोरपोरेशन , 58 , भारतेन्दु नगर , नियर खातीपुरा जयपुर , राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-III ) वाले " जे.बी. 102 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जे बी सी प्रो. " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ 50 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विक्रत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रकार 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 ।

CLASS - III

My Cap 1000 by

SEAL HOLE BOTTOM PLATE, or WEIGH INDICATOR

2.REAR PLATE OF WEIGH INDICATOR

S.SEAL WIRE

8. LEAD SQUARE

SEAL

000.0

1. FRONT BODY OF WEIGH INDICATOR

3. SEAL HOLE

BOTTOM PLATE OF

WEIGH INDICATOR

SEALHOLE FRONT BODY OF WEIGH INDICATOR

आकृति- 2 -मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्ले की बाड़ी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्प्ले के दायीं ओर/पीछे की ओर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्प्ले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने 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 सुविधाा 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 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 54 ) /2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2235 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 927. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " J.B. 102 " and with brand name " JBC Pro " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s J.B Corporation, 58 , Bhartendu Nagar, Nr. Khatipura Jaipur , Rajasthan which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 10/50 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of4kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 200g. 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- 1Model

CLASS - III

May Cap : 1000 ky

Auumiy ( d): 200 g

SEAL HOLE BOTTOM PLATE OF WEIGH INDICATOR

2. REAR PLATE OF WEIGH INDICATOR

S SEAL WIRE

8. LEAD SQUARE SEAL

000.0;

1. FRONT BODY OF WEIGH INDICATOR

3. SEALHOLE

BOTTOM PLATE OF

WEIGH INDICATOR

SEAL HOLE FRONTBODYOF WEIGH INDICATOR

Figure - 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with raaximum capacity up to 5000kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e' value of 100mg. to 2g . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value 1x10k, 2x 10k or 5x 10t, 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 (54)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2236

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 928.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स आस्ट्रो डिजीटल स्केल , एल आई जी क्वार्टर, नं. 2/13 , हाउसिंग बोर्ड कालोनी , त्रिमूर्ति नगर, ( रिंग रोड ) नागपुर -440022 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एएसटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " आस्ट्रो " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/ 11 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विक्रत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । 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 ।

ASTRO

STAMPING PLATE

OPHER SIDE SEALINKI

MIE SEALING

ASTR

A9884

आकृति-2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 18 )/2010] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2237 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011

S.O. 928. 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 "AST " and with brand name " ASTRO " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s Astro Digital Scales , L.I.G. Quarter , No. 2/13 . Housing Board Colony, Trimurti Nagar, ( Ring Road ) , Nagpur- 440022 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/ 11 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type ) with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e' ) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 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- 1Model

ASTRO

KPLA ALLING

OTHER SIDE SEALING

Figure-2Schematic 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 & top cover of scale, 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 conferredby sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e' value of 100mg. to 2g . and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g . or more and with ' e' value 1x10k , 2x 10k or 5x10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 18)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10. 2012 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

2238

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 929.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स आस्ट्रो डिजीटल स्केल , एल आई जी क्वार्टर, नं. 2/13 , हाउसिंग बोर्ड कालोनी , त्रिमूर्ति नगर , ( रिंग रोड ) नागपुर -440022 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एएसपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " आस्ट्रो " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/12 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 अधिकतभ क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमे 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 ।

STAMPING PLACH

GRILL

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्ले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर 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 निकालकर सील से जोड़ा गया है । माडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 उसके 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. 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 या 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 18 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2239 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011

S.O. 929. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " ASP " and with brand name " ASTRO " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . Astro Digital Scales , L.I.G. Quarter , No.2/ 13 , Housing Board Colony, Trimurti Nagar , ( Ring Road) , Nagpur- 440022 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/ 12;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg . and minimum capacity of2kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

STAMINOPLATE

GRILL

49885

Figure- 2Schematic 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 & top cover of scale , 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 50kg . up to 5000kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k or 5x10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 18 )/2010 ] ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

601 GI /2012-4 [ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 20, 1933

2240

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 930.- 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 एल एंड टी स्केल्स , नं. 10 , रामकृष्ण नगर , बेंगो स्ट्रीट , कवुनडम्पल्यम ( पीओ ) , कोयम्बतूर-641030 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एलसीके " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मकैनिकल प्लेटफार्म मशीन के लिए इलेक्ट्रोनिक कंबर्सन किट ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " माटाटोया " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/379 सम्मनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मकैनिकल प्लेटफार्म मशीन जिस में ' एस ' टाइप लोड सैल लगाया गया है , के लिए इलेक्ट्रोनिक कंवर्सन किट ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 220 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

MANO PLATF

SPALING POINT

RACKVIEW OF L-DICATOR

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्लेकी बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर डिस्पले पर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर सील से जोड़ा गया है । माडल 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 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 उसके अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 या 5 × 10 % , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शुन्य कं समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 237 )/2010 |

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2241 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011

S.O. 930. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Electronic Conversion Kit for Mechanical Platform Machine ) with digital indication ofmedium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " LCK " and with brand name " MATATTOY A" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M / s L & T Scales , No 10 , Ramakrishna Nagar, Bango Street, Kavundampalayam (Po ), Coimbatore - 641 030 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/379;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Conversion Kitfor Mechanical Platform Machine by introducing a 'S' type load cell) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 200g . 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 230Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure 1

FRONTE

KEY

MAME PLATE

SEALING FONT

BACK VIEW OF DICATOR

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 & 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 50kg. and up to 5000kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for 'e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM -21 (237)/2010 ] ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 931.-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 के तीसरे परन्तुक की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स अशलिन इंटरप्राइजिज , रा हाऊस नं. 1-2 /24 , गुडविल इन्कलेव , कल्याणी नगर , पुणे -411006 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा यथार्थता वर्ग 2 वाले " डब्ल्यूएम " श्रृंखला के कोल्ड पोटेबल वाटर और होट वाटर मीटरिंग के लिए बनाया गया मीटर , अंकक सूचन सहित , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " अशलिन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/314 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल वाटर मीटर है जिसे कोल्ड पोटेबल वाटर और होट वाटर की मीटरिंग के लिए बनाया गया है जो पोजीटिव डिस्पलेसमेंट मीटर के सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । इसकी प्रवाह दर 0.012 एम /एच से 63 एम एच जो साधारण मीटर साइज 15 एमएम से 100 एमएम डायमीटर के साथ है । इन मापनों के अंकनों को लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एलसीडी ) डिस्पले पर परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 220 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय या 20 वोल्टस डीसी पर कार्य करता है ।

Sealing

Arrangement

आकृति-2-सीलिंग प्रावधान

मीटर की बाडी में दिए गए छेदों में सीलिंग वायर निकालकर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

एक बिल्डिंग में घरेलू और औद्योगिक कार्यों के लिए प्रयोग किए गए कोल्ड पोटेबल वाटर को मापने के लिए मीटर प्रयोग में लाया जाता है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 153 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2243 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011

S.O. 931. Whereas the Central Gavernment , after considering the repart 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 af sustained use and to render accurate service under varied canditians;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub - section ( 3 ) and sub - sections (7 ) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby approves , issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of Water meter intended for the metering of cold potable water and hot water with digital indication of accuracy class 2 (hereinafter referred to as said model ) of series - ' WM ' with brand name "ASHLIN " , manufactured by M /s Ashlin Enterprises , Raw Hause No. 1-2/24 , Goodwill Enclave , Kalyani Nagar, Pune - 411006 Maharashtra , India and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /10/314;

The said model is an Water meter intended for the metering of cold potable water and hot water working on the principle ofpasitive displacement meter . Its Flow Rate Range is from 0.012m³ /h to 63m³ /h with nominal meter size from 15mm to 100mm diameter. The indications of the measurement are displayed on Liquid Crystal Diode ( LCD ) Display type . It operates on 230V, 50 Hertz , alternate current power supply or 20Valts DC .

Figure-1Model

Ashiin Enterprise

Sesling Arrangement

Fig . 2- Sealing arrangement

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

It is used for Measurement of cold potable water in a building for the uses of domestic and industrial applications .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 153 )/2010 ] ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[ PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 932. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स यूनिक पावर टेक्नोलॉजीस एच -321 ए , रिको इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , सीतापुरा , टांक रोड, जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले " ईक्यूएम " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " इक्वल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 10 / 336 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है !

उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रो मैगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पेनसेशन प्रिंसिपल पर आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

OFUER SIDE SEATING

आकृति- 2-मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडीकेटर की दोनों साइडों में बनाए गए होल्ज में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर 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. या उसके अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 , 5x10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 132) /2010]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2245 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 932. 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 uncier 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 special accuracy ( Accuracy class - 1 ) of series " EQM " and with brand name " EQUAL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured M /s Unique Power Technologies , H - 321 A , RIICO Industrial Area , Sitapura , Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 10/336;

The said model is an electro magnetic force compensation principle non - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000g. and minimum capacity.of Ig. The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg . 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 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

OTHER SIDE SEALING

Stamping Plate Side sealing

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the holes provided for sealing on both the side of the indicator. Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of50,000 or above for ' e ' value of 1 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle design and with the same materials with which the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM-21 ( 132 )/2010 ||

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 933.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स यूनिक पावर टेक्नोलॉजीस एच-321 ए, रिको इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , सीतापुरा , टांक रोड , जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ईक्यूपीएफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " इक्वल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/337 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति

81128

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

इंडीकेटर की दोनों साइडों में बनाए गए होल्ज में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । माडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में कलिब्रेशन 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 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* या 5× 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 132) /2010 ]

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

2247 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October , 2011

S.O. 933. 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 approves and issues 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 " EQPF " and with brand name " EQUAL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Unique Power Technologies , H- 321 A, RIICO Industrial - Area , Sitapura , Tonk Road , Jaipur ( Rajasthan ) which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 10 /337 ;

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

Figure- 1 Model

STAMH

81128

Figure-2 Sealing diagram.

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the holes provided for sealing on both the side of the indicator. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . up to 5000kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value 1x10k, 2x10k or 5x10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accorqance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 132)/2010 ] ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

601 GI /2012-5 2248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 934.-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 यूनिक पावर टेक्नोलॉजीस , एच-321 ए, रिको इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , सीतापुरा , टांक रोड , जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " ईक्यूपीबी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक ब्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इक्वल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/338 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता । कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 6 वोल्ट और 4.5 ए प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1 मॉडल

Sealing Point on Top side

Sealing Point location on side, Done through Sealing Hole & Wire

STAMPING PLAY SFALING

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

स्केल के अपर और लोवर माउंटिंग कार्नर पर सीलिंग वायर और स्टड से सीलिंग की गई है । मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की गई है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन, के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के तक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 200 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 ( 132 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2249 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 934.- 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 of Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Person Weighing Machine) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series "EQPB " and brand name "EQUAL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Unique Power Technologies , H - 321 -A, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Tonk Road , Jaipur ( Rajasthan ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/338 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Electornic Person Weighing Machine) with a maximum capacity of 150 kg . and minimum capacity of 1 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 50 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The LED display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 6 Volts , 4.5A alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

Sealing Point on Top side

Sealing Point location on side , Done through Sealing Hole &Wire

STAMPING PIATR SFAL

Figure- 2: Sealing provision of the indicator of Model

The scale is being sealed by the sealing wire and stud from the upper and lower mounting corner. Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similarmake , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 200 kg . verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . to 2 g . 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 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 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 said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 132 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2250

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 935.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) 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 स्केल्ज टेक्नो ( इंडिया ) , सी -12 ए, महेन्द्रा इन्कलेव , शास्त्री नगर , गाजियाबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एल टी डब्ल्यू बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " लिब्राटैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10 / 579 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति-1 मॉडल

1. Front de

2.Back Side

Stanwisa Playe

Reet Sealing sath

Lo ...

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 * , 5 × 10* , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 299)/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2251 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 935.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge Tupe ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series "LTWB " and with brand name " LIBRATECH " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Scales Techno (India), C- 12A , Mahendra Enclave , Shastri Nagar , Gahaziabad (U.P. ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/579 .

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

Figure- 1 Model

1.Front Side

Indicator

2.Back Side

For power supply

Staniping Plate

Rivet Sealing with Lead

Rivet no 2

Figure - 2: Shematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe Model .

Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the disply 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 provide 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 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 1 × 10k , 2 × 10kor 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 (299)/2010 ]

PN . DIXIT , Director of LegalMetrology 2252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर, 2011

का.आ. 936. 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 मेडीट्रीन , इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स, मधुबन , 98 , पठारे वाडी, बगीचा रेस्तरां के सामने , मलवानी चर्च, मार्वे रोड , मलाड ( प. ) मुंबई-400095 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " बेबी-30 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( शिशु तोलन स्केल ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मेडीट्रीन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/448 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

आकृति-1 मॉडल

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIRE

0000

LEAD SQUARE

SEAL

SEAL WIRE

LAD SQUARE

SEAL

आकृति-2: उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान ।

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले पर सीलिंग की जाती है । डिस्पले के ऊपरी कवर और बेस प्लेट से पूरी तरह से सील को जोड़ा जाता है । उसके बाद सील वायर को इन दोनों छेदों में से निकालकर सील से जोड़ा जाता है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 10,000 तक के 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 ( 274 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2253 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 936.- 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 an publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Baby Weighing Scale) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " Baby -30 " and with brand name " MEDITRIN " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Meditrin Instruments , Madhuban , 98 , Pathare Wadi , Opp . Bageecha Restaurant , Malvani Church , Marve Road , Malad ( W) , Mumbai -400095 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/448.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Baby Weighing Scale) with amaximum capacity of 30 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 . Theinstrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIRE

0000

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

BOTTOM OF

SEAL WIRE

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, 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 provide 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 séries with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg . to 2 g . and with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2× 10kor 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 (274)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर, 2011

का.आ. 937.-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 को प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स ईएचपी व्हेटेकनिक , जीएमबीएच , डिजलस्ट्राबे 8 , डी-77815 , बुहल ( बाडेन ) जर्मन द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एलडी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन स्केल- डुअल रेंज ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ईपीएच " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे भारत में मैसर्स ईएचपी इंडिया , न्यू नं. 15 , नार्थ स्ट्रीट , श्रीराम नगर , एलवारपेट, चेन्नई -600018 द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या पश्चात बिना कसी बदलाव के विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/615 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन स्केल - डुअल रेंज ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20,000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 कि.ग्रा. से 10,000 कि.ग्रा. तक और 10000 कि.ग्रा. से 20,000 कि.ग्रा. तक 10 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्शतोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 6 डीसी बनी बैटरी में 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1 मॉडल

NAME PLATI

STARLING POINT

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , विधिक माप विज्ञान ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( 9 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 500 कि.ग्रा. से 50,000 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 ( 374 )/2010 ]

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

2255 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 937.- 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 Scale - Dual Range) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " LD" and with brand name "EHP" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/s . EHP Wagetechnik GmbH, Dieselstraße 8 , D- 77815 , Buhl (Baden) Germany and marketed in India without any alteration before or after sale by M/s . EHP India, New No. 15, North Street, Sriram Nagar, Alwarpet, Chennai -600018 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/10/615.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Crane Scale -Dual Range) with a maximum capacity of 20,000 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 5 kg. up to 10,000 kg . and above 10,000 kg . and up to 20,000 kg . is 10 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 with in built battery of 6 DC .

Figure- 1 Model

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, 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 provide in A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with capacity above 500 kg . and up to 50,000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k where kisa 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 ( 374)/2010] B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 601 GI /2012-6 2256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 938.-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, जैड डी इंटरनेशनल लि. , यूनिट- 2301-2 , स्टार सेंटर , 443.451 , कैसल पीक रोड, कवई छिंग , एनटी, हांग कांग द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " बीएल " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " के ई आर आर ओ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे भारत में मैसर्स एसियाड इंटरनेशनल , रूम नं. 34 , मनसूर बिल्डिंग , 98 , प्रिंसेस स्ट्रीट , मुंबई-400002 ( भारत ) द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या पश्चात् बिना किसी बदलाव के बिक्रीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 / 114 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत घ्यवकलनात्मक 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 मॉडल

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIL

0000

LEAD SHAI

LECTHIONIC AC

KERPO

SEALWIRE .

BL-

BOTTOM OF SCALI

LEAD SQUARE

SEAL

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 100,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 100,000 तक के 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. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 370 ) /2010 ]

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

2257 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 938.- 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 of Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) of series " BL " and with brand name " KERRO " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model), manufactured by ZD International Ltd. , Unit - 2301-2, Star Centre, 443-451 , Castle Peak Road, Kwai Ching, N. T. , Hong Kong and sold in India without any alteration before or after sale by M/ s.Asiad International , Room No. 34 , Mansoor Building, 98 , Princess Street , Mumbai -400002 (India ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 11 / 114 ;

Thesaid Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 1,000 g . and minimum capacity of 5 g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 0.1g. 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 Model

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIG

0000

FAD SQUACI SI-AL ELECTRONIC SCALE

KERRO

SEAL WIRE

BL-

BOTTOM OF SCALL

UNTZ

LEAD SQUARE SFAL

Figure- 2 : Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe Model

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

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

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

[F. No. WM -21 (370)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 2258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 939.-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 मोरेपेन लैबोरेट्रिज लि. , 508 , अंतरिक्ष भवन, 22 , के. जी. मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डीएस " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डा. मोरेपेन वेट एंड वाच " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10 /498 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 180 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.1 कि.ग्रा . हैं । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 3 वोल्टस डीसी विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1 मॉडल

Poans for Securih Sea.

Place for

slamp

आकृति-2: उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान ।

स्केल की बाटम साइड में बनाए गए छेद में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर छेद पर सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए स्केल की बाडी में लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 200 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 ( 298 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2259 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 939. 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 of 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 (Electronic Person Weighing Machine) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) ofseries "DS" and with brand name " Dr. Morepen Weight and Watch" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/s. Morepen Laboratories Ltd. , 508 , Antriksh Bhawan , 22 , K.G. Marg, New Delhi - 110001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/498 .

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Person Weighing Machine ) with a maximum capacity of 180 kg . and minimum capacity of2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 0.1 kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 3 Volts DC .

Figure- 1Model

Position for SecuritySeal

Placefor

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

Sealing is done through the hole , made in the bottom side of the scale , and then sealing wire is passed through these holes . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of the scale with lead seal , to get the stamping.A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 200 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 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 (298)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर, 2011

का.आ. 940.-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 मोरेपेन लैबोरेट्रिज लि. , 508 , अंतरिक्ष भवन , 22 , के. जी. मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डीएस 02 " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डा. मोरेपेन वेट एंड वाच " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 10/499 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.1 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 3 वोल्टस् डीसी विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1 मॉडल

Positionfor SecuntySeal

आकृति-2: उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सविधा 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 200 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 (298 ) /2010 ]

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

2261 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 940. 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 of 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 approves and issues the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Electronic Person Weighing Machine) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " DS -02 " and with brand name " Dr. Morepen Weight & Watch " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Morepen Laboratories Ltd. , 508, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, K.G. Marg , New Delhi - 110001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/499 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Person WeighingMachine) with a maximum capacity of 150 kg. and minimum capacity of2 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 0.1 kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 3 Volts DC.

Figure- 1Model

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

Sealing is done through the hole , made in the bottom side of the scale , and then sealing wire is passed through these holes . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of the scale with lead seal , to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 200 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10kor 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 (298)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2262

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

नई दिल्ली, 31 अक्तूबर , 2011

का.आ. 941. 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 मोरेपेन लैबोरेट्रिज लि. , 508 , अंतरिक्ष भवन , 22 , के. जी. मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डीएस 03 " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डॉ. मोरेपेन वेट एंड वाच " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/500 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 0.1 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 3 वोल्टस डीसी विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1 मॉडल

Position for Security Seal H

Place for W &

stamp

आकृति-2: उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , बथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी हाँसे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 200 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 ( 298 )/2010]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2263 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

New Delhi , the 31st October, 2011

S.O. 941. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, issatisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights of 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 (Electronic Person Weighing Machine) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series "DS 03 " and with brand name " Dr. Morepen Weight & Watch " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Morepen Laboratories Ltd. , 508 , Antriksh Bhawan , 22, K. G. Marg , New Delhi - 110001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/500 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Person WeighingMachine) with a maximum capacity of 150 kg and minimum capacity of2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 0.1 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 3 Volts DC.

Figure- 1 Model

Position for SecuritySeal

Place for W & M stamp

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

Sealing is done through the hole , made in the bottom side of the scale , and then sealing wire is passed through these holes . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of the scale with lead seal , to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 200 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (298 )/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology

601 GI /2012-7 2264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2012

का.आ. 942.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम ( 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

लाइसेंसधारी का क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृति करने कीतिथि

नाम व पता

वर्ष/माह

3781372 02-12-2011

भारतीय मानक

भामा भाग अनु वर्ष

काशीर्षक

14543

2004

ओजस अॅक्वा इन्टरप्राइजेस , गट सं. 533 , ए-1 , अॅट पोस्ट, वेरल , साई नगर , तालुका खेड, जिला-रतनागिरी -415709

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सीएमडी 13:11 ]

देवदत्त झा , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2012

S. O. 942. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) ofthe regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

SI No.

Licences No.

ISNo. Part Sec. Year Titleofthe Standard

Name& Address of the

Party

3781372 02-12-2011

2004

Ozas Aqua Enterprises

GatNo. 533 , A- 1 , at

14543

Packaged Drinking

Water ( Other than

Post : Veral , Sai Nagar

Tal: Khed Packaged Natural

Mineral Water)

Distt. Ratnagiri-415 709

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

DEV DUTT JHA , Scientist " F " & Head

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2012

का.आ. 943.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उप- विनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय

नाम व पता

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

रद्द करने की तिथि

मानक का शीर्षक

1 .

7913686 सोहम इंडस्टीज ,

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद

प्लॉट सं. सी-12 ,

12-12-2011

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

एम आई डी सी , एरिया , आई एस 14543 : 2004

गणे-खोपोली , चिपलून,

रत्नागिरी-415605

[सं. सीएमडी 13:11 ]

देवदत्त झा , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख 2265 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

New Delhi , the 16th January, 2012

S. O. 943.-In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6) of the regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of India Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Licences No. CM/L-

Sl. No.

Date of Cancellation Name & Address ofthe Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/suspention

1 .

7913686

12-12-2011

M/ s . Sohum Industries Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

IS14543 : 2004

PlotNo. C- 12, MIDCArea, Gane-Khadpoli Chiplun Ratnagiri -415 605

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

DEV DUTT JHA , Scientist " F" & Head

नई दिल्ली , 17 फरवरी , 2012

का.आ. 944.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष

और शीर्षक

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

(1)

(2)

(3)

17-02-2012

01 फरवरी , 2012

आई एस 15549 : 2005 स्थिर वाल्व नियंत्रित लैड एसिड बैटरियाँ विशिष्टि

इस भारतीय संशोधन 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 11 /टी-67 ]

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

New Delhi , the 17th February, 2012

S. O. 944. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standard hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No. & year of the Amendment

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

17-02-2012

01 February,2012

IS 15549 : 2005 , Stationary valve regulated lead acid batteries--Specification

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

[ Ref: ET 11 / T-67]

R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E ' and Head ( Electotechnical ) 2266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 2 मार्च, 2012

का.आ. 945.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप विनियम ( 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 व पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथिवर्ष/माह

01 3799694 01-02-2012

भाग अनु वर्ष भारतीय मानक काशीर्षक

भामा संख्या

1993 लैंडिंग वाल्वस

आईएस 5290

न्युऐज टेकनोकास्ट प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. 86 पी-87पी , एल एम एस कंपाऊंड , जीआईडीसी फेज़ 1, सुरेन्द्रनगर, गुजरात-363035

02 3799795 01-02-2012 मीना ज्वेलर्स स्टार एपार्टमेन्ट, अमीन मार्ग, राजकोट, गुजरात -360001

03 3799593

01-02-2012

1999

आईएस 1417

1993

आईएस 903

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि अग्नि शामक हौज का शाखा पाइप वितरण कपलिंग नोजल

न्युऐज टेकनोकास्ट प्राईवेटलिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. 86 पी-87पी , एल एम एस कंपाऊन्ड, जीआईडीसी फेज़ 1 , सुरेन्द्रनगर, गुजरात-363035

04 3799997

02-02-2012 यश ऐन्टरप्राइज़ सर्वे नं. 169 पाइकी 90/92/ पी1/पी 9 , गाँव ध्रुव , तालुका मुन्द्रा, जिला कच्छ, गुजरात-370421

05 3800047

02-02-2012

2004

आईएस

14543

बोतल बंद पानी ( प्राकृतिक खनिज पदार्थ के अतिरिक्त जल)

2004

आईएस

14543

बोतल बंद पानी ( प्राकृतिक खनिज पदार्थ के अतिरिक्त जल)

अक्षर वाटर सोल्युशन इनकार्पोरेशन प्लॉट नं. 12 , सर्वे नं 75/1 , जेतपुर धोरजी राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग 8 बी, तालुका जेतपुर , जिला कच्छ, गुजरात-360370

06 3800552

03-02-2012

1999

आईएस 1

14151

सिंचाई उपस्कर-स्प्रिंकलर पाइप-विशिष्टि भाग 1 पालीएथिलीन पाइप

सागर इरीगेशन प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. 109 से. 111 , पुराना राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग , बामनबोर जीआईडीसी , गाँव नबागाम , तालुका चोटीला, जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-363520

07 3800653

06-02-2012

2008

आईएस 2

14151

सिंचाई उपस्कर- स्प्रिंकलर पाइप-विशिष्टि भाग 2 सहज संयोजी पालीएथिलीन पाइप तथा फिटिंग्स

सागर इरीगेशन प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्लॉट नं. 109 से. 111 , पुराना राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग , बामनबोर जीआईडीसी, गाँव नबागाम , तालुका चोटीला, जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-363520 2267

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

08 3800855 06-02-2012 उत्कर्ष बार्स प्रा.लि. , बी-903 , 9वां तल्ला, द इंपिरियल हाईट्स, 150फीट रिंग रोड, राजकोट, गुजरात -360005

09 3800754 06-02-2012

2008

आईएस

1786

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात छड़ और तार

1997

आईएस

3854

घरेलूऔर समान कार्यों

के लिए स्विच-विशिष्टि

सोनेरा टाईम एन्ड लाईट मैन्युफैक्चुरींग कम्पनी, मोरबी राजकोट हाईवे रोड , शक्त सनाला , मोरबी, जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-363641

10 3801857 08-02-2012

1999

आईएस

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि

आश्रय ज्वेलर्स, सहयोग होस्पीटल के नीचे , मवडी मैन रोड, विश्वेस्वर मंदिर के सामने , राजकोट, गुजरात-360001

11. 3802051 08-02-2012

1999

आईएस

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं ,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि

ऊमीया ज्वेलर्स , मोची गली , शाक मार्केट रोड , माणावदर , जिला जुनागढ़ , गुजरात-362630

12 3802960 09-02-2012

2004

आईएस

14543

बोतल बंद पानी ( प्राकृतिक खनिज पदार्थ के अतिरिक्त जल)

के डी बेवरेजीस , 11 , लाती प्लॉट ( सदगुरु नगर ) , कुवाडवा रोड ( एरीया ) , राजकोट, गुजरात-360003

13 3802657 09-02-2012

2006

आईएस

15683

पोर्टेबल फायर

एक्स्टींग्वीशर्स परफारमेंस

एण्डकंस्ट्रक्शन-विशिष्टि

कनाडीया फायर फाइटर प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, प्लॉट नं. 8 , पारस इन्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, गरीब शाह पीर , शीहोर , जिला भावनगर, गुजरात-364240

14 3803760 14-02-2012

1999

आईएस

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

1417

जे के ज्वेलर्स , एम जी रोड, तालुका बेरावल , जिला जुनागढ़ , गुजरात -362265

15 3803962 14-02-2012

2005

आईएस

3087

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि सामान्य प्रयोजनों के लिए लकड़ी के पार्टिकल बोर्ड (मध्यम घनत्व)

रूशील डेकोर लिमिटेड , सर्वे नं. 270, सुरेन्द्रनगर, घ्रगंधा रोड , गाँव नवागढ तालुका भ्रागंधा , जिला सुरेन्द्रनगर , गुजरात-363310

3805764

2002 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसेट्स

16-02-2012 अल्टो इन्डस्ट्रीज़ , वावड़ी, सर्वे नं. 30 , नीर्मल इन्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , पुनम डम्पर के पीछे, प्राइम पेकेजिंग के सामने , गोंडल रोड, राजकोट, गुजरात-360004

आईएस 8034 2268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

17 3805663

16-02-2012 अल्टो इन्डस्ट्रीज़ , वावड़ी, सर्वे नं. 30 , नीर्मल इन्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, पुनम डम्पर के पीछे , प्राइम पेकेजिंग के सामने , गोंडल रोड, राजकोट, गुजरात-360004

18 3807768

27-02-2012

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii )]

आईएस

1994 खुले कुएं के लिए

14220

सबमर्सीबल पम्पसेट्स

1991

आईएस

ऑटोमोटिव वेहिकल्स ट्यूब्सफार पेन्यूमैटिक टायर

ओमेक रब्बर इन्डस्ट्रीज़ , धर्मामेघ इन्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, मोरबी राजकोट राजमार्ग , गांव वीरपुर, तालुका टंकारा , जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-363650

19 3807869

27-02-2012

आईएस

1991

13098

ऑटोमोटिव वेहिकल्स ट्यूब्सफार पेन्यूमैटिक टायर

शुक्ला रब्बर प्राईवेट लिमिटेड , 1 फ्लोर, शुक्ला हाऊस, बालाश्रम के पास , गोंडल रोड, जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-360002

20 3807970

27-02-2012 श्रीजी ज्वेलर्स , मांडवी चौक, सोनी बाज़ार मेन रोड राजकोट गुजरात-360001

21 3808265

29-02-2012 रॉयल पॉलिमर्स , लती प्लॉट , कोल्की रोड, उपलेटा , जिला-राजकोट , गुजरात -370110

22 3808366

29-02-2012

1999

आईएस

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि

2000

आईएस

4985

पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप

1999

आईएस

13779

एसी स्टैटिक वाटऑवर मीटर , क्लास 1 एवं 2

जीनस इलेक्ट्रोटेक लि. , सर्वे नं. 43 , मेघपर बोरीची , गलपादर रोड, तालुका अंजार , जिला कच्छ, गुजरात -370110

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13:11 ]

एम. राधाकृष्ण , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi the 2nd March , 2012

S. O. 945. 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

Grant Date

SI. No.

Licence No.

Name and address of theparty

01 3799694 01-02-2012

Part.S ec. Year Title ofthe Standard

IS No.

5290

1993 Landing Valves

Newage Technocast Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 86P -87P, LMS Compound, GIDC Phase - I , District- Surendranagar Gujarat-363035

02 3799795 01-02-2012

1417

1999

Meena Jewellers , StarApartment, Amin Marg, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Gold and GoldAlloys , Jewellery- Artefacts- Fineness and Marking 2269

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

1417

1999 01-02-2012

03 3799593

Fire Hose Delivery Couplings , Branch Pipe , Nozzles and Nozzle Spanner

Newage Technocast Pvt . Ltd. PlotNo. 86P- 87P, LMS Compound, GIDC Phase- I , Surendranagar, Gujarat-363035

2004 02-02-2012

04 3799997

14543

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

Yash Enterprise , Survey No. 169, Paiki 90/92/PI/P9 Village Dhrab , Taluka-Mundra , District- Kachchh Gujarat-370421

2004 05

3800047 02-02-2012

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

Akshar Water Solution Incorporation PlotNo. 12, Survey No. 75/1 , Jetpur Dhoraji , NH 8 -B , Jetpur, District- Rajkot, Gujarat-360370

14151

1999 06 3800552 03-02-2012

Part 1

Irrigation Equipment - SprinklerPipes-Part I Polyethylene Pipes

Sagar Irrigation Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 109 Tο 111 , Old National Highway, BamanboreGIDC, AtVillage Navagam Taluka -Chotila, District- Rajkot, Gujarat-363520

14151

2008 06-02-2012

07 3800653

Part 2

Irrigation Equipment - SprinklerPipes-Part 2 QuickCoupled Polyethylene Pipes

Sagar Irrigation Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 109 Tο 111 , Old National Highway Bamanbore GIDC, AtVillage Navagam Taluka-Chotila, District- Rajkot, Gujarat-363520

2008 06-02-2012

08 3800855

1786

High Strength Deformed Steel Bars and Wires for Concrete Reinforcement

Utkarsh Bars Pvt . Ltd. B-903 , 9th Floor, TheImperial Heights , 150 Feet Ring Road , Rajkot, Gujarat-360005

3854

1997 06-02-2012

09 3800754

Switches for Domestic and Similar Purposes

Sonera Time& Light Mfg.Co. Rajkot Road, S. Sanala, Morbi , District -Rajkot , Gujarat-363641

1417

1999 08-02-2012

10 3801857

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery-Artefacts - Fineness and Marking

Ashray Jewellers Under Sahyog Hospital , Mavdi MainRoad , Opp .Vishveshvar Temple , Rajkot, Gujarat -360004

1999 08-02-2012

11 3802051

Gold andGoldAlloys , 1417 Jewellery-Artefact Fineness and Marking

Umiya Jewellers Mochi Street, Shak Market Road , Manavadar Junagadh , Gujarat-362630

2004 12 3802960 09-02-2012

14543

Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

K. D. Beverages , 11 , Lati Plot (Sadgurunagar) , Kuvadva Road (Area) , Rajkot, Gujarat-360003 2270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

13. 3802657 09-02-2012

Kanadiya Fyr Fyter Private Limited Plot No 8 , Paras Industrial Estate , Near Garibsha Pir , Sihor, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364240

14. 3803760 14-02-2012 JKJewellers MG Road , Veraval , District- Junagadh , Gujarat-362265

15. 3803962 14-02-2012 Rushil Decor Ltd. Survey No. 270 , Surendranagar Dhrangadhra Road, Village Navalgadh , Taluka Dhrangadhra District- Surendranagar Gujarat-363310

16. 3805764 16-02-2012

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

15683

2006 Extinguishers- Portable Fire Performance and Construction- Specification.

1417

1999 Goldand GoldAlloys , Jewellery-Artefacts - Fineness and Marking --

3087

2005 Wood Particle Boards (Medium Density) for General Purposes

8034

2002 Submersible Pumpsets

Al to Industries Vavdi Survey No. 30, Nirmal Industrial Area, B/H Punam Dumper, Opp. Prime Packaging , Gondal Road, Rajkot-360004

17. 3805663

16-02-2012 Alto Industries Vavdi Survey No. 30, Nirmal Industrial Area , B/H Punam Dumper, Opp . Prime Packaging, Gondal Road, Rajkot Gujarat-360004

18. 3807768

27-02-2012

14220

1994 Openwell Submersible Pump Sets

OMEC Rubber Industries

Automotive Vehicles - 13098

1991

, Tubes For Pneumatic tyres-

Dharmamegh Industrial Estate Morbi Rajkot Highway, Village Virpar, Taluka Tankara Tyres , District- Rajkot Gujarat-363650

19. 3807869

27-0212012 Shukla Rubber Private Limited

13098

1991 Automotive Vehicles - Tubes for Pneumatic

Tyres -

Ist Floor , Shukla House , Nr. Balashram , Gondal Road , Rajkot-360002

20. 3807970 27-02-2012 Shreeji Jewellers Mandvi Chowk , Soni Bazar Main Road , Rajkot , Gujarat-360001

21. 3808366 29-02-2012

1417

1999 Goldand GoldAlloys , Jewellery -Artefacts Fineness And Marking

2000 for potable Water Supplies - Unplasticized PVC Pipes 4985

RoyalPolymers

Lati Plot, Koko Road, Upleta

District Rajkot

Gujarat-360490

2271 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

22 3808366 29-02-2012

AC Static Watthour

13779

Genus Electrotech Ltd.

1999

Meters , Class 1 and 2

SurveyNo. 43,

MeghparBorichi ,

Galpadar Road, Taluka -Anjar,

MeghparBorichi ,

District- Kachchh

Gujarat-370110

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

M. RADHAKRISHNA, Sc . ' F' & Head

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2012

का.आ. 946.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतीत होता है , कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किये जाने की संभावना है ;

और उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक संख्या एम.सी.एल. /एस.ए.एम.बी./जी.एम. ( सी.पी. एण्डपी. ) कलिंगा वेस्ट ब्लाक/2011 / 14 , तारीख 30 अगस्त , 2011 का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( भू एवं राजस्व ) , महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, जागृति विहार , बुर्ला , सम्बलपुर -768020 ( उड़ीसा ) के कार्यालय में या कलेक्टर और जिला मैजिस्ट्रेट , अनगुल ( उड़ीसा ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

अतः अब , केंद्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा 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 इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , महाप्रबंधक ( भू एवं राजस्व ) , महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , जागृति विहार , बुर्ला, सम्बलपुर -768020 ( उड़ीसा ) के समक्ष-

( 1 ) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग के अर्जन या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों के प्रति आक्षेप कर सकेगा , या

(2) भूमि के प्रतिकर में किसी हित का या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का दावा कर सकेगा , या

( 3 ) प्रभावहीन हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों, खनन पट्टों के अधीन अर्जित किए जाने पर अधिकारों के लिए प्रतिकर की मांग कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 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 निर्मिति से संबंधित सभी मानचित्र , चार्ट और अन्य दस्तावेज परिदत्त कर सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड

कलिंगा वेस्ट जीओलोजिकल ब्लॉक ऑफ तलचेर कोलफील्ड्स

कोल माईनिंग ब्लॉक

बलराम एकस्पंसन ओ.सी.पी.

जिला-अनगुल, उड़ीसा

[ रेखांक संख्या एम.सी. एल/एस.ए. एम. बी/जी.एम. ( सी.पी. एण्ड पी. )/कलिंगा वेस्ट ब्लॉक/ 2011/ 14 , तारीख 30 अगस्त, 2011 ]

थाना

तहसील जिला

राज्य

टिप्पणयां क्रम ब्लाक

ग्राम

सं.

ग्राम संख्या

थाना संख्या

एकड़ में क्षेत्र (लगभग )

भाग

28.01

1 ब्लाक-ए

भाग

तलचेर

290 कोलियरी

बिरबरपुर

अनगुल

ब्लाक-बी

उड़ीसा 0.78

भाग

10.71

3 ब्लाक-सी

भाग

3.05

ब्लाक-डी

कुल : 4255 एकड़ या 17.22 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

601GI/2012-8 2272

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

सीमा वर्णन:-

ब्लाक-ए :

क- ख-ग :

रेखा बिंदु ' क' से आरंभ होती है जो ग्राम खुरिंगा , सोलाडा और बिरबरपुर का त्रिजंक्शन बिन्दु है , फिर ग्राम सोलाडा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है , फिर ग्राम सोलाडा और बिरबरपुर की भागतः सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ : रेखा प्लाट संख्या 131 , 130 , 116 की दक्षिणी सीमा प्लाट संख्या 107 की भागतः उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 181 की पूर्वी और उत्तरी और भागतः पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 187 की पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 106 की भागतः उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 82 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 62 की पूर्वी और उत्तरी सीमा , फिर प्लाट संख्या 63 , 18 ,19 , 29 , 140, 30 और 31 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घक:

फिर ग्राम खुरिंगा और बिरबरपुर की भागतः सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती हुई आरंभ बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

ब्लाक बी :

डच छङ : रेखा बिंदु 'ङ' से आरंभ होकर प्लाट संख्या 136 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' च ' पर मिलती है । फिर प्लाट संख्या 33 , 160 से गुजरती हुई ' छ ' पर मिलती है फिर प्लाट संख्या 160 और 134 की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती हुई आरंभ बिन्दु ' ङ' पर मिलती है ।

ब्लाक सी :

जरञट- ज : रेखा बिंदु ' ज' से आरंभ होकर प्लाट संख्या 154 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्या 157 , 158 , 159 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु' झ ' पर मिलती है फिर प्लाट संख्या 159 की पूर्वी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ञ ' पर मिलती है फिर ग्राम मझिका और कलाम्छुइन की भागतः ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ट ' पर मिलती है । फिर प्लाट संख्या 156 , 155 , 154 की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती हुई आरंभ बिन्दु ' ज ' पर मिलती है ।

ब्लाक डी:

उडढ़णठ: रेखा बिंदु ' ठ ' से आरंभ होकर प्लाट संख्या 114 की पूर्वी सीमा से गुजरती हुई , फिर प्लाट संख्या 133 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ड ' पर मिलती है, फिर प्लाट संख्या 133 की पूर्वी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ढ़ ' पर मिलती है , फिर प्लाट संख्या 133 की दक्षिणी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ण ' पर मिलती है, फिर प्लाट संख्या 133 और प्लाट संख्या 114 की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती हुई आरंभ बिन्दु ' ठ ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/ 15/2011- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 27th February, 2012

S. O. 946. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas , the plan bearing number MCL/ SAMB / GM ( CP & P) / Kalinga West Block/2011 / 14 dated the 30th August , 2011 of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the General Manager, ( L/R & R. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagruti Vihar; Burla, Sambalpur- 768020 ( Orissa ) or at Office of the Collector and the District Magistrate , Angul ( Orissa ) or at Office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisitions and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from land described in the said Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may.

(i ) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part ofthe 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 licenses ceasing to have effect , rights under mining leases being acquired, and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land , collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub - section ( 7 ) of Section 13 of the said Act.

2273 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

to the General Manager , ( L /R & R ) , Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagruti Vihar ; Burla , Sambalpur - 768020 ( Orissa ) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED

Kalinga West Geological Blocks of Talcher Coalfields

CoalMining Block, Talcher,

Balaram Expansion OCP

District-Angul, Orissa .

(Planbearing number MCL/ SAMB /GM ( CP & P) / Kalinga West Block/2011 / 14 dated the 30th August , 2011 ]

Remarks

State

Area in acres

SI. Name of Block

No.

Village number

Police Station

Thana number

Name of the Village

Name of District

Name of Tahasil

28.01

Part

1 Block-A

0.78

Part

2 Block-B

Part

10.71

Orissa

Angul

Block-C

Talcher

Birabarpur 290 Colliery 04

Part

3.05

4 Block-D

Total : 42.55 acres or 17.22 hectares ( approximately )

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

BLOCK " A" :

A-B -CC Line starts on point " A " which is the tri -junction point of village- Khuringa , Salada & Birabarapur , then passes over the . common village boundary of village Salada and meets at point B , then passes over the part common village boundary of village Salada and Birabarapur meets atpoint " C " .

C-D Line passes over southern boundary of plot no . 131 , 130 , 116 , part northern and eastern boundary ofplot no . 1 07, eastern and northern and part western boundary of plot no . 181 , western boundary of plot no . 187 , part northern boundary of plot no.1 06, northern boundary of plot no.82 , eastern & northern boundary of plot no.62, then northern boundary of plot no.63 , 18 , 19, 29 , 140, 30 & 31 meets at point " D " .

D-A

Then passes over the part common village boundary of village Khuringa and Birabarapur meets at the starting point "A".

BLOCK - " B " :

E-F-G-E Line starts from point E then passes over northern boundary of plot No. 136 meets at Point F. Then passes through Plot No. 33 , 160 meets at G then passes over the western boundary of plot no . 160 and 134 meets at starting point E.

BLOCK- " C " :

H- I - J - K -H Line starts at point H then passes over the northern boundary of plot no. 154 , passes through plot no . 157 , 158 , 159 meets at point I then passes over the part eastern boundary of plot No. 159 , meets at point J then passes over the part common village boundary of village Majhika and Kalamchhuin , meets at Point K. Then passes over the western boundary of plot No. 156 , 155, 154 meets at starting point H.

BLOCK - " D " :

L-M-N - O- L Line starts at point L then passes over the eastern boundary of plot No. 114, then passes over the northern boundary of plot No. 133 meets at point M , then passes eastern boundary of plot No. 133 meetsat point N, then passes over the southern boundary of plot No. 133 meets at Point O, then passes over the western boundary of plot No. 133 and plot No. 114 meets at point L.

[F. No. 43015/15/2011 - PRIW- I ]

A. K. DASS , Under Secy.

2274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

(1) (2) पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रायल

अधिसचना

नई दिल्ली , 29 फरवरी , 2012

4. किडीयानगर का.आ. 947.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डातक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज़ लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।

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

6. छोटापर

7. वेकरा

8. भीमासर 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 श्री एफ. पी. हालाणी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट , एचपीसीएल - मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ओम कॉम्पेक्स, पहली मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. ए, वार्ड नं 6 , ऑफिस नं 7 , रामबाग रोड, गांधीधाम, पिन-370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात ) , को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला-कच्छ

तालुका-रापर

राज्य- गुजरात

क्र. गांव का नाम

सेंव सं.

क्षेत्रफल

सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

1. गोविन्दपर

71/2

00 07 98

72/2

00 03 81

72/1

00 08

00 41

00 08 99

14/2

00 07 50

00 11

2. देवरवा

124/1

00 03 20

116

00 02 22

00 16

74/2

00 10 72

3. सई

466

00 07 04

353

00 04 99

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

182/1

00 06 26

108

00 01 09

113

00 03

572

00 05 43

590/3

00 02 50

701/2

00 10 38

696/2

00 01 69

695/1

00 09

812/2

00 04

947/1

00 22

971/1

00 08

970/1

00 10 04

968/1

00 15

994

00 06 13

1217

00 17 14

1189/2

00 07 22

1188/2

00 03 63

00 13

21/1

00 13 09

91/3

00 05 99

00 18 31

00 16 82

943/1

00 05 90

937

00 07 95

910

00 04

908/3

00 05

735/4

00 05 72

782

00 02 44

780

00 07 12

812/1

00 04 55

836/4

00 02 88

834/1

00 03 71

834/3

00 01

857/1

2190/2

00 01 47

2190/1

00 06 80

2179/2

00 01 36

2175/1

00 01

2173/1

00 04 45

2144/2

00 04

2130/1

00 03

2110/2

00 03

2110/3

00 02 18

2108/3

00 02 48

2056/1

00 03 79

2052/1

00 03 51

2044

00 04 80

2041/1

00 06

9 लखागढ़

362/1

00 03

338

10 भंगेरा - जदुपूर

00 08 40

187

00 08 24

00 09

212

00 04 48

213/1

00 01 17 2275

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

41 38

(3)

(6)

(4) (5)

(1) (2)

00 08 99

169

00 15

07 50

14/2

00 01

140/1

00 11 47

647/1

00 03

11 आदेसर

00 03 20

124/1

2. Dedarava

645/3

00 07 76

02 22

116

00 11

642

16 04

641/1

00 19

10 72

74/2

628

00 04 14

00 07 04

466

3 Sai

634/2

00 02

00 04 99

353

00 04 32

635/1

00 03 10

362/1

526/2

00 05 52

08 40

338

[फा. सं. आर-31015/39/2008- ओ.आर.- II ]

187

00 08 24

लाल छन्दमा, अवर सचिव

00 06 26

182/1

00 01 09

108

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

NOTIFICATION

00 03 58

113

00 05 43

572

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012

4. Kidiya Nagar

      S.O. 947.    Whereas , it appears to the Central                                590/3      00     02   50
Government that it is necessary in the public interest that                            701/2     00     10    38
 for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the                               696/2      00     01   69
State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State ofPunjab , a pipeline                        695/1      00     09    13
 should be laid by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited , ( a                               812/2     00    04    25
 subsidiary ofGuru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited);
                                                                                      947/1      00     22    34
      Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Government
                                                                                      971/1      00     08   07
that for the purpose oflaying such pipeline , it is necessary
 to acquire the right of user in land under which the said                            970/1      00     10   04
pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in                             968/1      00     15    23
 the Schedule annexed hereto;                                                          994       00     06    13
                                                                                       1217      00     17    14
                                                                                       1189/2    00     07    22
                                                                                      1188/2     00     03    63
                                                                                        29       00     13   00

5. Badalpar

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 ;

13 09

21/1

00 05 99

91/3

6. Chhotapar

18 31

7. Vekara

16 82

00 05 90

943/1

8. Bhimasar

00 07 95

937

910

00 04 59

00 05 TI

908/3

00 05 72

735/4

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 public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani , CompetentAuthority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project , HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, Om Complex, First Floor , Plot No.A, Ward No. 6, Office No 7, Rambag Road , Gandhidham- 370 201 , Kutch (Gujarat) .

00 02 44

782

SCHEDULE

780

07 12

District: Kutch State:Gujarat

Taluka: Rapar

04 55

812/1

Area

Survey No.

Sl. Name of the Village

836/4

00 02 88

No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

00 03-71

834/1

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) (5) (6)

00 01 88

834/3

00 07 98

71/2

1. Govindpar

857/1

00 00 94

00 03 81

72/2

00 01 47

2190/2

72/1

00 08

00 06 80

2190/1 2276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

8. Bhimasar Cont .

2179/2 00 01 36

2175/1 00 01 87

2173/1

04 45

2144/2 00 04 24

2130/1

00 03 50

2110/2 00 03 33

के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एफ. पी. हालाणी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा क्रूड ऑईल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट , एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ओम कॉम्पेक्स , पहली मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. ए , वार्ड नं 6 , ऑफिस नं 7 , रामबाग रोड , गांधीधाम , पिन-370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात ) , को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

2110/3 00

02 18

अनुसूची

2108/3 00 02 48

जिला-कच्छ

तालुका-अन्जार

2056/1

00 03

राज्य- गुजरात

2052/1 00 03 51

क्र. गांव का नाम

प्लॉट सं.

क्षेत्रफल

2044

00 04 80

सं

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

2041/1 00 06 25

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

9. Lakhagarh

09 41

1. चन्द्रोडा

273

00 02 76

212

00 04 48

10. Bhangera -Jadupur

279/1

00 08 33

213/1

00 01 17

276/1

00 08 42

169

00 15 79

436

00 01 72

140/1

00 01 17

422

00 09

11.Adesar

647/1

435/1

00 19 19

645/3

00 07 76

444/6

00 17 88

642

11 02

444/7

00 15

641/1

00 19 48

493/1

00 12 87

628

00 04 14

468

00 06

634/2

00 02 19

455

00 06 48

635/1

00 04 32

457

00 01 59

526/2 00 05 52

327/3

2. भुवड

00 03 15

[F. No. R-31015/39/2008-O.R. -II ]

326

00 08 54

LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy.

325

00 07 14

नई दिल्ली, 29 फरवरी , 2012

267/2

00 03 04

460/3

00 03

3. खेडोइ मोटी

527/1

00 81

718

01 25 89

318

00 34

317

00 08 68 का.आ. 948. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डातक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल-मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

141

00 17

4. सीनुगा

00 10 89

00 10 91

5. खंभरा

194

00 32 08 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन 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 पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।

195

00 19 80

196

00 11 97

6 मोटा नागलपर

128

00 01

161/2

00 22 14

171/2

00 09 71 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।

151

00 13 88

267

7. अन्जार

00 19 49

306

00 06 40 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

307

00 05

65 2277

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

(1) (2)

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

308/3

00 13

451

00 05

494/1

00 06

00 05

497

00 24

104/2

8. मीठा पसवारीया

00 67

162

00 06

196/3

9. खारा पासवारीया

00 24 95

199

00 07

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 public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani , CompetentAuthority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project , HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, Om Complex, First Floor, Plot No. A, Ward No. 6, Office No. 7, Rambag Road, Gandhidham- 370201 , Kutch (Gujarat).

00 12

SCHEDULE

00 06

District : Kutch

State: Gujarat

Taluka : Anjar

00 03

Area

Sl . Name of the Village Survey No.

278

00 05

10. अजापर

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

279

00 07

(2)

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

(1)

283

00 08

00 02 76

273

1. Chandroda

225

00 02 58

00 08 33

279/1

227

00 07 86

00 08 42

276/1

232

00 02

436

00 01 72

00 03

186

00 09 07

422

160

00 01

19 19

435/1

664

00 06

11. भीमासर

17 88

444/6

00 10

742

444/7

15 06

733

00 03

00 12 87

493/1

00 07

00 06 43

468

98/1

00 02

06 48

455

337

00 02

12. पसुडा

01 59

457

378

01 07

03 15

327/3

2. Bhuvad

       [फा. सं. आर-31015/31/2008-ओ.आर.- II ]                            326      00   08    54
                     लाल छन्दमा, अवर सचिव                              325       00   07.   14
New Delhi , the 29th February. 2012                                   267/2      00   03    04
                                                                       460/3     00   03    46
                                                                       527/1     00   81    24

3. Khedoi Mati

      S.O. 948.-Whereas , it appears to the Central
Government that it is necessary in the public interest that
 for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the                                 718       01     25   89
State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State ofPunjab , a pipeline                          318       00     34    66
should be laid by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, ( a
                                                                                        317       00    08     68
 subsidiary of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) ;
                                                                                        141       00     17    36

4. Sinugra

 16     00   10   89
 15     00   10   91
194     00   32   08

5. Khambhara

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

                                                                                       195       00    19    80
      Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred                              196       00    11    97
by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and   6. Mota -Nagalpar           128       00    01    69
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)                             161/2      00    22    14

2278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(1)      (2)                 (3)       (4)   (5)   (6)
                                                              उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने
                            171/2      00    09    71        का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
                             151       00    13    88                 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज
7. Anjar                    267        00    19    49        पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम ,
                            306        00    06    40        1962( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त
                            307       00     05    65        शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का
                           308/3      00     13    10        अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
                            451       00     05    03                कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध
                           494/1      00     06    55        है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र
                            497       00     05    09        की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन
8. Mitha Paswaria          104/2      00     24    38        के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग
                            162       00     67    23        के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एफ. पी. हालाणी , सक्षम
9. Khara Paswaria          196/3      00     06    58        प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट ,
                            199       00     24 95           एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड, ओम कॉम्पलेक्स, पहली
                             4        00     07    97        मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. ए, वार्ड नं. 6 , ऑफिस नं. 7 , रामबाग रोड ,
                            51        00     12 70          गांधीधाम, पिन-370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात ) , को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप
                                                             भेज सकेगा ।
                            64        00     06    75
                            85        00    03     69

तहसील- भचाऊ

अनुसूची जिला-कच्छ

राज्य- गुजरात 278

00 05 59

10. Ajapar

क्र. गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

279

00 07 66

सं.

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर आर वर्ग मीटर

283

00 08 18

(1)

(2)

(3)

225

(4) (5) (6)

00 02 58

227

1. मोटी चीरइ

        00  07   86                         657     00 11    29
232     00  02   23                        650/2    00 04    14
186     00  03   63                         649     00 03    80
160                                         819     00 11    61
        00  01   98
                                           393/2

2. लुणवा

00 05 17 11. Bhimasar

664

00 06 04

223/2

00 06 00

742

00 10 86

222/1

00 04 35

733

00 03 02

483/18 00 09 37

777

00 07 52

3. शीकरा

732

00 23 05

98/1

00 02 13

4. भचाऊ

918

12. Pasuda

19 86- 337

00 02 64

916/3

378

00 12 04

01 07 78

922

20 65

[F. No. R- 31015 /31 /2008 -O.R. - II ]

923/1

00 37 58

LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy.

908

00 18 02

नई दिल्ली, 29 फरवरी , 2012

903

00 13 32

923/2

00 40 88

1978

00 03 80

708/2

00 16 84

503/1

00 07 18

5. वोंध

432/5

00 का.आ. 949.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डा तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

15 39

426/3

00 06 53

368/1

12 99 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे :

2279 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

(1) (2)

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

347

09 76

6. वोंधडा

310/2

05 19

9/2

00 05 30

7. विजपासर

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

00 09 65

00 07 45

246

00 00 65

245/1

00 08 51

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;

275

03 38

277/2 00

8. लखपत

00 04 10

194/1

00 06 60

869

00 12 54

9. अधोई

00 10 62

778/2

00 01

783/1

650

05 62

614

02 59

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 public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani , CompetentAuthority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project, HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, Om Complex , First Floor, Plot No.A, Ward No. 6, Office No. 7, Rambag Road , Gandhidham - 370201 , Kutch (Gujarat).

400/5

00 05 34

SCHEDULE

00 11

400/2

Tehsil : Bhachau

District : Kutch State:Gujarat

00 05

403/1

Area

Survey No.

987

00 09 84

10. शिवलखा

Sl . Name of the Village No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

1012

00 00 56

657

00 11 29

1. Mati Chirai

1026 00 04 76

650/2

00 04 14

1033

00 03 48

649

03 80

1071/1 00 07 25

819

00 11 61

1115/2 00 01 22

2. Lunwa

393/2

05 17

1241/1-2 00 12 24

223/2

1243

00 01 15

222/1

00 04 35

1249/1

00 04

483/18

09 37

1249/2 00 03 68

732

3. Shikara

23 05

76/1

00 05 51

918

4. Bhachau

19 86

57/1

00 06 97

916/3

00 12 04

41/2

00 02 91

922

20 65

160

00. 09 26

923/1

00 37 58

168/1 0005 91

908

00 18. 02

903

13 32

[फा. सं. आर-31015/30/2008- ओ.आर.- II ]

00 40 88

923/2

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

1978

00 03 80

708/2 00 16 84 New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012

503/1

00 07 18

432/5

00 15 39

5. Vondh

      S.O. 949.    Whereas , it appears to the Central
Government that it is necessary in the public interest that
 for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the                                 426/3      00    06    53
State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab , a pipeline                         368/1      00     12   99
 should be laid by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited ( a
                                                                                         347       00    09     76
 subsidiary of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited);

601G1/2012-9 2280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

(1)      (2)                (3)        (4)   (5)   (6)       उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने
 6. Vondhada                310/2      0005        19        का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
 7. Vijapasar                9/2      00     05    30
                                         *                            अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज
                             Π         00    09    65
                                                             पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम ,
                             95       0007         45
                                                             1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त
                            246       00     00    65
                                                             शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का
                           245/1      00     08    51
                                                             अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
                            275       00     03    38
                           27712      00     05    78                कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध
8. Lakhpat                 194/1      00     04    10        है, उस तारीख से जिसको, इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र
                            42        00     06    60        की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन
9. Adhoi                    869       00     12    54       के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग
                           778/2      00     10    62        के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एफ. पी. हालाणी, सक्षम
                           783/1      00     01    42       प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट ,
                            650       00     05    62        एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ओम कॉम्पलेक्स , पहली
                            614       00     02    59        मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. ए, वार्ड नं. 6 , ऑफिस नं. 7 , रामबाग रोड,
                           400/5      00     05    34       गांधीधाम, पिन-370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात ) , को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप
                           400/2      00     11    04        भेज सकेगा ।
                           403/1      00    05     11
                                                                                    अनुसूची
10. Shivlakha               987       00    09     84
                                                                                  जिला- कच्छ

तालुका- मुन्द्रा

राज्य- गुजरात

1012

00 00 56

सर्वे सं.

1026

क्षेत्रफल

04 76

क्र. गांव का नाम सं.

हेक्टेयर आर वर्ग मीटर 1033

0300

1071/1

00 07 25

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

1115/2 00 01 22

141/8/पी4

1. मुन्द्रा

00 57 59

1241/1-2 00 12 24

170

2. बारोइ

00 03

1243

00 01 15

3. शेखडीया

                                               115/1     00 02    61
1249/1   00   04   75
                                                12/2     00 06
1249/2   00   03   68
                                                15/1     00 05    60
 76/1    00   05   51
                                                16/1     00 04    44
 57/1    00   06   97.
                          4. सडाऊ              47/2      00 04    39
 41/2.   00   02   91
                                                331

5. गुन्दाला

00 03 61

160

00 09 26

368/1

00 02 63

168/1-

00 05 91

393/1

00 08

376

00 02 [ F. No. R- 31015/ 30/2008 -O.R. - II ] LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

211/2

00 03- 02

6. मोखा

212

00 03 66

नई दिल्ली , 29 फरवरी , 2012

177/2

00 02 80

246

00 19

7. छसरा

323/2

00 13 14

319/2

00 05 50 का.आ. 950.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डा तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल - मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

122/3

00 13

123

00 11

107

00 14 92 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे 2281

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(6)

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(1) (2)

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

00 03 61

331

5 Gundalá

101

00 09 81

7. छसरा

00 02

368/1

00 21 04

08 26

393/1

00 07

00 02 49

376

[फा. सं. आर-31015/29/2008 - ओ.आर. - 11 ]

211/2

03 02 लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

212

00 03 66

6 Mokha

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012                                  177/2    .00   02   80
                                                                     246      00    19   24
                                                                     323/2    00    13   14

7 Chhasra

00 05 50

319/2

13 78

122/3

S.O. 950.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab , a pipeline should be laid by HPCL- Mittal Pipelines Limited , ( a subsidiary ofGuru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) ;

123

11- 51

00 14 92

107

00 09 81

101

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

00 21 04

00 07 86

[F. No. R-31015/29/2008 -O.R. - II ]

LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy.

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;

नई दिल्ली , 29 फरवरी , 2012

का.आ. 951.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डातक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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 public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani , CompetentAuthority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project , HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, Om Complex, First Floor, Plot no.A, Ward No.6, Office No. 7, Rambag Road , Gandhidham - 370201 , Kutch (Gujarat) .

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

SCHEDULE

Taluka : Mundra District: Kutch State:Gujarat

Area

Survery No.

Sl . Name ofthe Village

No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

(3)

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

(1) (2)

(4) (5) (6)

141/8 /P4 00 57 59

1. Mundra

170

00 03 14

2 Baroi

115/1 00 02 61

3 Shekhadia

1212

00 06 Π

00 05 60

15/1

16/1

00 04 44

00 04 39

47/2

4 Sadau

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 श्री एफ. पी. हालाणी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा कुड ऑयल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट, एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ओम कॉम्पेक्स , पहली मंजिल, प्लॉट नं. ए , वार्ड नं 6 , ऑफिस नं 7 , रामबाग रोड, गांधीधाम , 2282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

पिन-370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात ) , को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

Project, Om Complex, First Floor, Plot No.A, Ward No. 6, Office No. 7, Rambag Road, Gandhidham - 370 201 , Kutch (Gujarat).

अनुसूची

SCHEDULE

जिला-पाटण

तालुका-राधनपुर

राज्य- गुजरात

Taluka: Radhanpur District : Patan State: Gujarat

क्र. गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

क्षेत्रफल

Area

Sl . Name ofthe Village Survey No.

सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

1. सांथली

00 10 63

1. Santhali

00 10 63

2. रंगपुरा

00 07 30

2. Rangpura

00 14 94

4/6

3. लिम्बडका

00 30

3. Libadka

4/6

00 30 22

4/2

00 47

4/2

00 47 26

4/4

00 26 96

4/4

00 26 96

4. भीलोट

327

00 03 12

4. Bhilot

327

00 03 12 जावंत्री

242

00 01

5 Jawantri

242

00 01 75

258

00 01

258

00 01 52

255/1

00 07 18

255/1

00 07 18 6 चलवाडा

00 09 80

6 Chalwada

00 09 80

00 05 66

00 03

00 03 19

00 06

00 06 94

43/4

00 16 14

43/4

00 16 14

102/1

00 04 26

102/1

00 04 26

[फा. सं. आर-31015/38/2008- ओ.आर. - 11 ]

[F. No. R- 31015/38/2008 -O.R. - II ]

LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली, 29 फरवरी , 2012

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012

का.आ. 952.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डातक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

S.O. 951. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab, a pipeline should be laid by HPCL- Mittal Pipelines Limited, ( a subsidiary ofGuru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

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

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani , CompetentAuthority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline

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 श्री एफ. पी. हालाणी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट , एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ओम कॉम्पेक्स , पहली मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. ए, वार्ड नं. 6 , ऑफिस नं. 7 , रामबाग रोड, [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2283

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

गांधीधाम, पिन -370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात ) , को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला-बनासकांठा

तालुका-कांकरेज

राज्य-गुजरात

क्र. गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

क्षेत्रफल

सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) (5) (6)

556

1 शिरवाडा

00 03 58

653

2. अधगाम

202/2

00 10 laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani , Competent Authority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Om Complex, First Floor, Plot no.A, Ward No.6, Office No. 7, Rambag Road , Gandhidham - 370201 , Kutch (Gujarat).

SCHEDULE

State: Gujarat Taluka: Kankrej District : Banaskantha

Area Sl . Name ofthe Village Survey No.

No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

(1) (2)

(4) (5) (6)

(3)

556

00 03 58 1 Sirwada

362

3 ईन्द्रमाणा

00 01 80

353

00 01 38

4 काकर

169

00 12

653

00 00 91

202/2

00 10 00 2 Adhgam

362

00 01 80 3 Indramana

30 पादरडी

00 05

6 चीमनगढ

190/पी4 00 02

99पी

00 08 7 रतनगढ़

102पी

00 15

353

01 38

4 Kakar

169

00 12 90

00 05 30 5 Padardi

00 02 32

190/P4

6 Chimangadh

8 खोडा

34/1

00 02 23

99P

08 7 Ratangadh

                    36पी     00 02     62                          102P    00   15  76
                    30/2     00 02    40      8 Khoda              34/1    00   02  23
9  खीमाणा           68/पी    00 02     30                          36P     00   02  62
                     67      00 01     56                          30/2    00   02  40
                                                                   68/P    00   02  30

9 Khimana

381

00 19 24

[फा. सं. आर-31015/4/2002-ओ.आर.- II ]

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012

S.O. 952.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab , a pipeline should be laid by HPCL- Mittal Pipelines Limited, ( a subsidiary ofGuru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) ;

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

00 01 56

381

00 19 24

[F. No. R- 31015 /4/2002 -O.R. - II ] LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 फरवरी , 2012

का.आ. 953.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डा तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन 2284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 / PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एफ. पी . हालाणी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट , एचपीसीएल- मित्तलं पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ओम कॉम्पेक्स , पहली मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. ए, वार्ड नं. 6, ऑफिस नं. 7 , रामबाग रोड , गांधीधाम, पिन-370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात) , को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला-पाटण

राज्य-गुजरात

तालुका-सांतलपुर

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 public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani , Competent Authority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Om Complex , First Floor , Plot No.A , Ward No. 6 , Office No. 7 , Rambag Road, Gandhidham - 370201 , Kutch ( Gujarat) .

सर्वेसं.

क्षेत्रफल

क्र. गांव का नाम

SCHEDULE

सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

District : Patan

Taluka: Santalpur

State:Gujarat

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) (5) (6)

Area

Survey No.

153

00 16 02

सांतलपुर

Sl . Name of the Village No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

2. पर

646

00 01 90

( 1) (2)

(3) (4) (5) ( 6) 663/2

00 04 31

673

00 01 46

153

00 16 02

1. Santalpur

485

00 04 16

2. Par

646

00 01 90

473

00 01

663/2

00 04 31 463

00 07 11

673

01 46 458

00 02

3. छानसरा

485

00 06

00 04 16

120

00 06 92

473

01 68

187

00 03 09

463

00 07 11

00 86

458

00 02 07

4. दईगामडा

00 01 89

3. Chhansara

00 06 27

105

00 06 23

120

06 92 45

5. डाभी

00 11 52

उनरोट

161

187

00 04

00 03 09

00 08 96

00 86 35

7. जारूसा

301

00 02

00 01 89

4. Diagamda

00 04 81

8. झेकड़ा

105

06 23

253

00 10 09

5. Dabhi

00 11 52

[फा. सं. आर-31015/37/2008-ओ.आर.- II ]

6. Unrot

161

04 27

08 96 लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

7. Jarusa

301

00 02 07

New Delhi , the 29th February, 2012

8. Zekada

00 04 81

253

00 10 09

[ F. No. R- 31015 /37/2008 -O.R. - II ]

LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 6 मार्च , 2012 S.O. 953. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government th t it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab , a pipeline should be laid by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, ( a subsidiary ofGuru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited);

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

का.आ. 954.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भटिण्डा तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे 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) 2285

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 6th March , 2012

उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

S.O. 954. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab , a pipeline should be laid by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, ( a subsidiary of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) ;

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

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

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

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 श्री एफ. पी. हालाणी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- भटिण्डा कुड ऑयल पाइपलाइन प्रोजेक्ट , एचपीसीएल- मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ओम कॉम्पेक्स , पहली मंजिल , प्लॉट नं. ए, वार्ड नं. 6 , ऑफिस नं. 7 , रामबाग रोड, गांधीधाम , पिन -370201 कच्छ ( गुजरात ) , को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची जिला-बनासकांठा

राज्य-गुजरात

तालुका-डीसा

सर्व सं.

क्र. गांव का नाम

सं.

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

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 public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri F. P. Halani . Competent Authority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project, Om Complex , First Floor, Plot No. A, Ward No. 6 , Office No. 7, Rambag Road , Gandhidham - 370 201 , Kutch (Gujarat).

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

SCHEDULE

67/1

00 02

1. कुपट

Taluka : Deesa District : Banaskantha State: Gujarat

34/पी

00 02

2. मालगढ़

Sl . Name of the Village

Survey No.

35/ P 1

00 03

No.

Area Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

00 16

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6 )

(1) (2)

00 04 80

-71/1

67/1

00 02 06

1. Kupat

34/P

00 02 08

2. Malgadh

00 03

10/पी

3. जोरापुरा

35/P 1

00 03 56

1/पी

00 16

00 16 09

151

71/1

00 04 80

152/4

00 10 72

10/P

3. Jorapura

4.  मुडेठा            1118     00 04      94                             I/P     00   16   28
5. पालडी             57/पी3     00 02     81                             151     00   00   84
                                                                        152/4    00   10   72
                     15/पी6    00 06      00
                                                                        1118     00   04   94

4. Mudetha

15/पी2

00 05 50

57/P3

02 81

5. Paldi

6. खेटवा

00 03 28

35/1

00 06 00

15/P6

00 11

7. सोतंबला

00 05 50

15/P2

00 03 28

35/1

255पी

6. Khetwa

00 07 58

8. वडावल

00 11 12

7. Sotambla

00 02 36

91/पी ।

9. समशेरपुरा

255P

00 07 58

8. Vadawal

[फा. सं. आर-31015/49/2001- ओ.आर. - 11 ]

91/P1

00 02 36

9. Shamsherpura

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

[F. No. R- 31015/49/2001 -O.R. - II]

LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy.

2286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUN 20 , 1933

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च , 2012

का. आ. 955.- भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 2740 (अ ) तारीख 28 नवंबर, 2011 के साथ पठित अधिसूचना संख्या का .आ . 679 तारीख 24 फरवरी , 2011 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर -हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 24 सितंबर, 2011 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और, पाइपलाइन विछाने के सम्बन्ध में , जनता की ओर से काई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है;

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

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

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

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

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

अनुसूची

जिला वालश्वर एल/ नमिल/ तालुक निलगिरी

आर.ओ.यू. रोज करने

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं

गाँव का नाम

1827

बालगोड आ

1792

1826

1802

1797

1801

1800

1798

1799

1776

1766

1775

1767

1741 .

1739

1590

1591

1588

1587

1584

1586

1585

1583

1576

1577

1578

1562

1516

के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

सि-एयर

5 3

(1)

100

100 00

51 00

(17

10 00

ओडिःता

राज्य

जिला :वालेश्वर

दल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक मुणा

371

वाल गोपालपुर

373

363

375

357

581

विव्याधग्पुर

577

607

भण्डा

606

1 GI /2012-10

78 00

00 00

41 00

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1933

                            2
(নিক)            626
                 625
                 624
                 630
                 631
                 632
                 634
                 336
                 335
                 324
                 248
                 247
                 251
                 240
                 263
                 221
                 136
                 140
                 153
                 157
                 163
                 370
                 371
                 983
                 1304
                 1303
                 1300
                 1298
                 1305
                 1295
                 1294
                 1321
                 1322
                 1293
                 1323
                 1324
                 1330
                 1331
                 1329
                1332
                1333
                1339

[Part II- Sec. 3 (ii) ]

 3      4       5
 00    08      09
 00    09      94
 00    00      30
 CO    12      05
 00    10      03
 00    04      03
 00    00      57
 00    01      91
 00    01      07
 00    01     66
 00    07     93
 00    04     93
 00    05     48
 00   00       17
 00   05       17
 00   05      63
 00   07      27
 00   03       12
 00   02      56
 00   03      48
00    01      46
00    00      53
00    00       10
00    00      03
00    02      83
00    01      87
00    04      38
00    01      90
00    01      01
00    10      66
00    08      24
00    01      31
00    03      56
00    00      70
00    03      41
00    02      50
00    04      39
00    02      10
00    02      49
00    05      88
00    12      75
00    06      93

2289

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

( भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

1341

5 ) शिन्नामुअन (निरंतर)

1351

1366

1367

1364

1362

1370

1369

1360

679

) नच्छापुर

677

676

674

672

686

670

717

690

691

692

693

714

713

719

720

721

712

726

727

728

729

711

730

734

789

785

790

791

793

799

800

801

82 01

26 00

62 00

20 00

20 THE GAZETTE OS INDIA MARCH 10, 2012 / PHALGUN/20, 1933

[ Part II - Sec. 2 (ii ) )

  00    00      39
  00    00      96
  00    00      10
  00    31      42
  00    01      35
  00    09      27
  00    04      00
  00    00      23
 00    01      49
 00    03      48
 00    06      31
 00    00      82
 00    04       15
 00    06      40
 00    01      60
 00    09      49
 00    00      76
 00    03      56
 00    04      94
 00    00      10
 00    03      06
 00    01      41
 00    06      74
 00    04      22
 00    00      72
 00    07      05
 00    00      66
 00    02      51
 00    05      28
00    01       45
00    00       28
00    00       51
00    04      45
00    02      33
00    01      20
00    00      02
00    03      82
00    03
00    01      02
00    06      03
00    05      51
00    00      28

2291

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

खण्ड (i) ]

                                              3      4      5
                              2
                                              00   02     09
নিক)              615
                                              00   00      58
                  613
                                              00   00      29
                  612
                                              00   05     94
                  616
                                              00   00     26
                  618
                                              00   05     02
                  617
                                              00   00      10
                  596
                                              00   04     35
                  588
                                              00   32     70
                  589
                                              00   00      39
                  577
                                              00   01      98
                  563
                                              00   01      14
                  573
                                              00   04     26
                  572
                                              00   03     26
                  569
                                              00   02     92
                  570
                                              00   00      85
                  571
                                              00   05     76
                  567
                                              00   04     32
                  566
                                              00   00      51
                  539
                                              00   02     67
                  535
                                                   04      51
                  536
                                              00   00      18
                  533
                                              00   0-4    93
                  532
                                              00   01      53
                  529
                                              00   07     21
                 531
                                              00   00     48
                  530
                                              00   04      59
                 389
                                              00   00      24
                 382
                                              00   02      53
                  444
                                              00   12      67
                  390
                                              00   08     94
                 391
                                              00   01      17
                  392
                                              00   02     08
                 401
                                              00   08     00
                 407
                                              00   00      72
                 408
                                              00   00     09
                 409
                                              00   05     37
                 403
                                              00   07      54
                 406
                                              00   00      19
                 404
                                              00   07     24
                 414
                                              00   05     04
                 415
                                              00   00      10
                 417

2292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20 , 1933

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

416

7 ) काशिमपुर (निरंतर )

235

195

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/16/2011 - जी.पी.]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2012

S. O. 955.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 679 dated 24th Feburary, 2011 , read with their notification number S.O. 2740(E) dated 28th November , 2011 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada -Basudebpur - Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 24th September , 2011 ;

And whereas , no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;

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

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

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

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

2293

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

Schedule

State: Orissa

District: Baleshwar

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk:Nilagiri

Area to be acquired for Rou

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

1827

1 ) Baulagadia

1792

1826

1802

1797

1801

1800

1798

1799

1776

1766

1775

1767

1741

1739

1590

1591

1588

1587

1584

1586

1585

1583

1576

1577

1578

1562

1516

C-Are

Are

Hec

State:Orissa

District: Baleshwar

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Remuna

371

1 ) Balagopalpur

373

363

375

357

581

2 ) Bidyadharpur

577

607

Bharda

3 )

606

00 2294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 10, 2012 / PHALGUN20, 1933

2 Bader ( ont

633

Balipal

324

218

こに

136

15 :

163

371

5 ) Silasuan

983

1304

1303

1300

1298

1305

1005

1294

1321

1322

1293

1323

1324

1330

1331

1329

1332

1333

1339

[Part II Se. ( )

100

1に

117

101

0.1

90.

100

0:4

(11)

93 2295

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 19.33

भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1341

Silasuan (Contd)

1351

1366

1367

1364

1362

1370

1369

1360

679

6 ) Nachhipur

677

676

674

672

686

670

717

690

691

692

693

714

713

719

720

721

712

726

727

728

729

711

730

734

789

785

790

791

793

799

800

801

601 GI/2012-11

00 2706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUN 20 , 1933

61 semur ( Contd

798

806

807

447

920

Kasinipur

919

918

916

913

824

820

816

815

814

811

812

796

795

794

798

792

790

791

769

765

767

746

760

759

758

757

749

751

750

752

729

728

753

754

727

614

726

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

()

28 2297

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

                                              2                3       4       5
                                  615                         00     02       09
7 ) Kasimpur ( Contd )
                                  613                         00     00       58
                                  612                         00     00       29
                                  616                         00     05       94
                                  618                         00     00      26
                                  617                         00     05      02
                                  596                         00     00       10
                                  588                         00     04       35
                                  589                         00     32       70
                                                              00     00       39
                                  577
                                  563                         00     01       98
                                  573                         00     01       14
                                                              00     04       26
                                  572
                                  569                         00     03       26
                                  570                         00     02       92
                                  571                         00     00       85
                                  567                         00     05       76
                                                              00     04       32
                                  566
                                  539                         00     00       51
                                                              00     02       67
                                  535
                                  536                         00     04       51
                                  533                         00     00       18
                                  532                         00     04       93
                                  529                         00     01       53
                                                              00     07       21
                                  531
                                  530                         00     00       48
                                  389                         00     04       59
                                                              00     00       24
                                  382
                                  444                         00     02       53
                                  390                         00      12      67
                                  391                         00     08       94
                                  392                         00     01       17
                                  401                         00     02       08
                                  407                         00     08       00
                                  408                         00     00       72
                                  409                         00     00       09
                                  403                         00     05       37
                                  406                         00     07       54
                                  404                         00     00       19
                                  414                         00     07       24
                                                              00     05       04
                                  415
                                  417                         00     00       10

2298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUN 20 , 1933

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

5 Kasimpu (Contd)

416

235

195

[F. No. L - 14014/16/2011 -GP. ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च , 2012

का. आ. 956.- भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 2740 (अ ) तारीख 28 नवंबर, 2011 के साथ पठित अधिसूचना संख्या का .आ . 678 तारीख 24 फरवरी, 2011 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वाग काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर-हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 12 अक्तूबर, 2011 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और, पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्वन्ध में, जनता की ओर से काई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है;

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

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

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

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

2299

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

जिला:वालेश्वर मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक : बस्ता

राज्य ओडिशा

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं

गाँव का नाम

82/106

) धनुखोजा

81/105

77/101

76/100

73/97

74/98

72/96

71/95

68/92

99/127

63/86

67/90

66/89

58/81

57/80

42/64

56/79

41/63

40/62

10/12

11/13

14/16

16/18

17/19

31/53

30/52

25/31

35/93

2 ) चंदनपुर

34/92

33/91

32/90

31/89

30/88

28/86

29/87

22/80 आर.ओ.यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल

सि-एयर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

72 00

25 00

12 00

21 2300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN 20 , 1933

              1                        2
  2 ) चंदनपुर (निरंतर)     23/81
                           21/76
                           20/75
                           19/74
                           71
                           69
                           67
                           35
                           16/66
                           36
                           37
                           30
                           29
                           27
                           28
3 ) गोहिरागाडिया           176
                           175
                           173
                           178
                           171
                           179
                           180
                           196
                           118/195
                           194
                           113/182
                           193
                           115/184 ।
                           192
                           191
                           187
                           208
                           209
                           244
                          126/217
                          218
                          238
                          232
                          219
                          229
                          228
                          227

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

 3       4       5
 00    04      62
 00    00      36
 00    00      83
 00    04      96
 00    00      10
 00    02      05
 00    01      16
 00    02      22
 00    08      26
 00    03      50
 00    01      56
 00    03      44
 00    05      80
 00    00      10
 00    06      80
 00    00      10
 00    02      15
00     07      29
00    07       21
00    04       42
00    07       85
00     16     06
00    00      46
00     15      57
00     10     37
00    00      96
00    01      32
00     11     42
00     10     79
00    03       19
00    08      36
00    07      75
00    06       10
00    08      65
00    01      43
00    07      71
00    01      49
00    03      17
 00   22      80
00    00      24
00    02      31
00    03      92

2301

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

                                                           3      4      5
                                          2
               1
                                                           00   04      60
  3 ) गोहिरागाडिया (निरंतर)   226
                                                           00   02      97
                              221
                                                           00   18      71
                              225
                                                           00   03      12
4) चकराडा                     4/4
                                                           00   02      60
                              3/3
                                                           00   09      22
                              1/1
                                                           00   01      55
                              2/2
                                                           00   02      59
5 ) वैगणडिहा                  42/82
                                                           00   10      61
                              44/84
                                                           00   07      52
                              43/83
                                                           00    10     80
                              45/85
                                                           00    15     28
                              46/86
                                                           00   01      67
                              37/77
                                                           00    15     10
                              47/87
                                                           00   26      73
                              35/75
                                                           00    11     50
                              70/111
                                                           00   05      06
                              76/117
                                                           00   05
                              75/116
                                                           00   07      13
                              63/104
                                                           00   22      28
                              83/154
                                                           00    10     68
                              131/280
                                                           00    16     04
                              130/279
                                                           00   03      57
                              127/276
                                                           00   28      87
                              126/275
                                                           00    32     71
                              124/272
                                                           00   05      06
                              62/63
6) वरडा
                                                           00    13     09
                              116/120
                                                           00    06     86
                              115/119
                                                           00    00     10
7 ) शासनसनबार                 249
                                                           00    02     24
                              248
                                                           00   06      19
                              245
                                                           00    02     40
                              157
                                                           00    14     31
                              159
                                                           00    02     24
                              160
                                                           00    10     40
                              164
                                                           00    02     13
                              163
                                                           00    06     90
                              167
                                                           00    01     98
                              166
                                                           00    16     84
                              172
                                                           00    00     10
                              170
                                                           00    00     10
                              176
                                                           00    01     10
                              175

2302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUN 20, 1933

                                           2
  7 ) आपनवार (निग्नर )        140
                              137
                              138
                              106
                              128
                              110
                              109
                              82
                              81
                              77
8 ) नावदा                     112/170
                              114/172

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ]

 3      4        5
00     00      10
00     07      80
00     00
00     00       27
00     07      23
00     02      08
90    07       07
010   09       00
00     12      01
00     13      06
(0)   02
00    03
00     13      64

131/189

130/188                        00    20      78
                               00   04       19

129/187

134/193                       00    02      38
140/199                       00    (04     72
141/200                       00    06      38
                              00    18      56

148/232

                               147/231                        00   09      28
                               146/230                        00   02      67
                               228                            00   06      06
                               223                            00   04      50
                               208                           00    ()()    36
                               219                           100   00      19.4
                               325                           00    13
                               324                           00    03      66
                               323                           00    05      66
                               32.2                          00    05      82
                               321                           00            94
                               312                           00    01      59
                               314                           00    03      67
9   ममहा                       153                           00    08      88
                               83                            00    02      17
                               150                           00    (0 )    10
                               88                            00            95
                               84                            00    02      05
                               87                            00    (0 )    11
                               86                            00    01      07
                               89                            00    04      89
                               90                            00    01      63
                              92                             00            25

2303

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

ग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

                                    2
          1
 ममडा (निरंतर)          91
                        97
                        95
                        96
                        99
                        101
                        100
                         63
                         61
                         62
                        58
                         32
                         57
                         56
                         39
                         51
                         50
                         40
                         45
                         44
                         41
                         42
न/ नहमिल/ तालुक जालश्वर        जिन्ना वालश्वर
काटमाही                  271
                         56
                         63
                         65
                         64
                         89
                         86
                         88
                         100
                         104
                         102
                         1401
                         1402
                         1410
                         1395
                         1398
                         1392
                         1397
                         1387
                         1388

GI/2012-12

 3      4        5
00    04       62
00    12       89
00    01
00    03       64
00    05       85
00    00       10
00    02       74
00    06       62
00    00       10
00     17      38
00    01       69
00    00       10
00    05       06
00     03
00     09      7()
00     01      90
 00    02      56
 00    (04     65
 00    03       אן
 00    03
 00    05
 00    00      יא
  गज्य ओडिशा
 00    05      00
 00    05
 00    02      98
 00    00       こり
 00    04       40
 00    01
 00    03
 00    00
 00    00       10
 00    04       06
 00    02       03
 00    03       15
 00    ())      81
 00    09       05
 00    05       21
 00    00       10
 00    00       45
 00    00       4S
 00    03       63
 00    01       20

2304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUN 20 , 1933

                                2
शरमाही (निग्नर)      1368
                     1385
                     1384
                     1376
                     1378
                     1375
                     1696
                     1699
                     1700
                     1691
                     1692
                     1693
                     1689
                     1690
                     1684
                     1688
                     1682
                     1677
                     1640
                     1676
                     1675
                     1674
                     1673
                     1672
                    1665
                    1666
                    1656
                    1856
                    1855
                    1854
                    1851
                    1850
                    1847
                    94
                    21
                    93
                    23
                    24
                    25
                    26
                    28
                    14

[Part 11- Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

  3              5
 00    02       95
 00    00       57
 00    00       10
 00    00       10
 00    07      42
 00    01       88
 00    02       36
 00    02      27
 00    02      56
 00    00       30
 00    04      94
 00    00      50
 00    02      92
 00    11      98
 00    06      68
 00    01       15
 00    00      29
 00    00      25
 00    04      54
 00    04       19
 00    01      25
 00    01      33
 00    00      38
 00    12      03
 00    03      43
 00    06      15
 00    00      50
 00    00      45
00     13      30
00     00      31
00    05       60
00    03       38
00    00       16
00    00       26
00    03       08
00    00       10
00    04       42
00    04       82
00    05       81
00    06       56
00    09       28
00    01       11

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2305

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

  2 ) केशपुग (निरंतर)     29
                          33
                          34
                          36
                          35
                          67
                          66
                          65
                          57
                          56
                          59
                          60
                          52
                          53
                          397
                          398
                          400
                          401
                          404
                          410
                          420
                          411
                         417
                         418
                         453
                         454
                         455
                         465
                         466
                         467
                         468
                         471
                         470
3 ) सरसिदा                1076
                          1081
                          1075
                          1074
                          1086
                          1037
                          1036
                          1035
                          1104

00    05       30
00    00       26
00    03       14
00    06       68
00    00       78
00    08       75
00    10       94
00    02       58
00    02       58
00    03       66
00    02       56
00    04      35
00    04       55
00    01       19
00    03      09
00    13       72
00    00       84
00    00       37
00    00       11
00    07      68
00    03       56
00    00       10
00    04      06
00    02      26
00    01      06
00    01      62
00    04       19
00    08      08
00    02      44
00    03      89
00    05      38
00    00       10
00    00      45
00    03       16
00    02      50
00    13      95
00    12      82
00    02      59
00    02      51
00    14      56
00    14      80
00    00       10

2306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUM 20 , 1933

              1                          2
     मरणिका (निरंतर )        966
                             964
                            963
 मंडल/ तेहमिल/ तालुक: ग्मुणा       जिला:वालेश्वर
1 ) पाग्विलडा                84
                            85
                            86
                             169
                            87
                            168
                            165
                            161
                            211
                            157
                            212
                            155
                            216
                            214
                            249
                            219
                            223
                            245
                            244
                            246
                            243
                            247
                            248
                            242
                            257
                            355
                            356
                            359
                            364
                            360
                            348
                            346
                            345
                            344
                            334
                            337
                            339
   मोजपुर                   5
                            4

[Part II- Sec. 3 (ii) ]

 3       4        5
 00    16       81
 00    07       00
 00    00       65
 गज्य आडिशा
 (00   00       10
 00    01       68
00     06       53
 00    01       14
 00    03       19
 00    03       88
 00    00       13
 00    02       07
 (00   00       37
00     05       97
00     04       89
 00    01       19
       00       10
00     03       29
00     03       61
00     00      88
00     07       00
00     01       16
00     02       38
00     00       15
00     04      20
00     02
00     01      83
00     18      55
( 1)   00       10
00     00      25
( A)   03      81
00     08      05
(0 )   00       16
(01)   03
00     00      28
00    02       38
(00    14      65
00    08       27
00    00       26
00     10      04
00    04       50
(00   02       25
00             50

2307

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

  [भाग !! - खण्ड 3(ii)]
                                                                    4      5
                                            2                3
               1
                                                            00    00      71
                              3
 23 बोजपुर (निरंतर )                                        00    03      21
                              11
                                                            00    03      39
                              10
                                                            00    02      83
                              12
                                                            00    13      31
                              14
                                                            00    00      36
                              15
                                                            00    11      68
                               167
*   कल्याणपुर                                                00   04      97
                               171
                                                             00   08      36
                               172
                                                             00   06      93
                               173
                                                             00   05      27
                               776
                                                             00   07      70
                               775
                                                             00   02      29
                               774
                                                             00    00     23
                               787
                                                             00    02     93
                               789
                                                             00    02     21
                               790
                                                             00    01     64
                               792
                                                             00    03      52
                               791
                                                             00    00      87
                               808
                                                             00    03      96
                               807                                         22
                                                             00    02
                               819
                                                             00    00      10
                               818
                                                             00    03      64
                               817
                                                             00    00      10
                               815
                                                             00    01      43
                               816
                                                             00    03      31
                               825
                                                             00    00      52
                               827
                                                             00    00      43
                               843
                                                              00   04      51
                               842
                                                                   07      35
                                                              00
                                841
                                                              00   03      10
                                840
                                                              00   00
                                839
                                                              00   00      68
                                853
                                                              00   03      90
                                854
                                                              00   06      37
                                855
                                                              60    04     56
                                856                                        26
                                                              00    01
                                857
                                                              00    00      10
                                943
                                                              00    04     09
                                940
                                                              00    00     43
                                937

गज्य ओडिशा

जिला मयुग्भज

नहला नेहसिल/ तालुक: गयागोविंदपुर                                   00     01      95
                                 237
) सापागाडिया                                                       00     08       39
                                 242

2308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1933

1 ) मापागाडिया (निग्नर)

251

248

249

265

263

266

329

330

344

326

325

348

349

426

425

421

414

420

417

419

416

2 ) पाइकासाही

1015

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक : बेतनटी

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii )]

जिला:मयुग्भंज

1 ) कालामा

2 ) वालियापिटा

295

296

310

311

312

315

314

316

324

325

323

326

331

327

234

राज्य ओडिशा

50 2309 [ भाग 1।- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

228

2 ) वालियापिटा (निरंतर)

229

222

215

[फा सं. एल. -14014/17/2011 -जी.पी. ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2012

S. O. 956.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 678 dated 24th Feburary , 2011 , read with their notification number S.O. 2740(E ) dated 28th November, 2011 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), Government of India declared its intentionto acquire the Right of User in land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada-Basudebpur - Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 12th October, 2011 ;

And whereas , no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;

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

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

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

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

2310

Har il-Sec . 3 ( ) } THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1953

Schedule

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk: Basta

District : Baleshwar

Village

State: Grissa

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

              1                                      2
 1 ) Dhenukhoja                        82/106
                                       81/105
                                        77/101
                                       76/100
                                        73/97
                                       74/98
                                        72/96
                                       71/95
                                       68/92
                                       99/127
                                       63/86
                                       67/90
                                       66/89
                                       58/81
                                       57/80
                                       42-64
                                       56.79
                                       41/63
                                       40/62
                                       10/12
                                       11/13
                                       14/16
                                       16/18
                                       17:19
                                       31/53
                                      30/52
                                       25/31
                                      35
2   Chandan- pur                      35/93
                                      34/92
                                      33/91
                                      32:90
                                      31/89
                                      30/88
                                      28/86
                                      29/87
                                      22/80

Area to be acquired for Rou

Rec      Are     C-Are
  3               5
 00     00       15
 00     04      60
 00     18      75
 00      10     90
 00     14      95
 00     10      47
 00             94
 90     00      80
 00     27      77
 00     07      05
 00     19      33
 00     08      18
 00     08      85
 00     00      58
 00             02
 00     10      91
 00     01      37
        11      81
 00     03      33
 00             98
 20             25
 00     04      56
 00     06      17
        05      61
 00     01      35
 00     20      65
 00     06      67
90      01      86
 00     07
00      08      77
00              25
00      13
00     24       17
00      19      73
00     02       50
00      is      12
00     21      41

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2311

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

2) Chandan -pur( Contd)                23/81
                                       21/76
                                       20/75
                                       19/74
                                       71
                                       69
                                       67
                                       35
                                       16/66
                                       36
                                       37
                                       30
                                      29
                                      27
                                       28
3 ) Gohiragaria                        176
                                       175
                                       173
                                       178
                                       171
                                       179
                                       180
                                       196
                                       118/195
                                       194
                                      113/182
                                       193
                                      115/184.
                                      192
                                       191
                                      187
                                      208
                                      209
                                      244
                                      126/217
                                      218
                                      238
                                      232
                                      219
                                      229
                                      228
                                      227

601 GI/2012-13

 00     04      62
 00     00      36
 00     00      83
 00     04      96
 00     00      10
 00     02      05
00      01      16
 00     02      22
 00     08      26
00      03      50
00      01      56
00     03       44
00      05      80
 00     00      10
00      06      80
00      00      10
00      02      15
00     07      29
00      07      21
00      04     42
00     07       85
00      16      06
00     00      46
00      15     57
00      10     37
00     00       96
00     01      32
00      11     42
00     10      79
00     00      19
00     08      36
00     07      75
00     06      10
00     08      65
00     01      43
00     07      71
00     01      49
00     03      17
00     22      80
00     00      24
00     02      31
00     03      92

2312

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUN20 , 1933

                                                 2                3        4        5
3 ) Gohiragaria ( Contd)            226                           00      04      60
                                    221                           00      02      97
                                    225                           00      18      71
4 ) Chakrara                        4/4                           00      03       12
                                    3/3                           00      02       60
                                     1/1                          00      09      22
                                    2/2                           00      01       55
5 ) Baigandiha                      42/82                         00      02       59
                                    44/84                         00      10      61
                                    43/83                         00     07        52
                                    45/85                         00      10      80
                                    46/86                         00      15      28
                                    37/77                         00      01      67
                                    47/87                         00      15       10
                                    35/75                         00      26       73
                                    70/111                        00      11       50
                                    76/117                        00      05      06
                                    75/116                        00      05      22
                                    63/104                        00      07       13
                                    83/154                        00      22      28
                                     131/280                      00      10 .    68
                                    130/279                       00      16      04
                                    127/276                       00      03       57
                                    126/275                       00      28      87
                                    124/272                       00      32      71
 6 ) Barada                         62/63                         00      05      06
                                    116/120                       00      13      09
                                    115/119                       00      06      86
 7 ) Sasansanbar                    249                           00      00       10
                                    248                           00      02      24
                                    245                           00      06       19
                                     157                          00      02      40
                                     159                          00      14      31
                                    160                           00      02      24
                                    164                           00      10      40
                                     163                          00      02       13
                                    167                           00      06      90
                                    166                           00      01      98
                                    172                           00      16      84
                                    170                           00      00       10
                                     176                          00      00       10
                                     175                          00      01       10

2313

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
                                                                           4       5
                                                2                 3
                                                                 00      00       10
                                    140
7 ) Sasansanbar ( Contd)                                                 07       80
                                                                 00
                                    137
                                                                 00      00       10
                                    138
                                                                 00      00       27
                                    106
                                                                 00      07       23
                                    128
                                                                 00      02       08
                                    110
                                                                 00      07       07
                                    109
                                                                 00      09       00
                                    82
                                                                 00      12       01
                                    81
                                                                 00       13      06
                                    77
                                                                 00      02       55
                                    112/170
 8 ) Nabda                                                       00      03       22
                                    114/172
                                                                  00     13       64
                                    131/189
                                                                  00     20       78
                                    130/188
                                                                  00     04
                                    129/187
                                                                  00     02       38
                                     134/193
                                                                  00     04       72
                                     140/199
                                                                  00      06      38
                                     141/200
                                                                  00      18      56
                                     148/232
                                                                  00      09      28
                                     147/231
                                                                  00     02       67
                                     146/230
                                                                  00      06      06
                                     228
                                                                  00      04      50
                                     223
                                                                  00      00      36
                                     208
                                                                  00      00      94
                                     219
                                                                  00      13       51
                                     325
                                                                  00      03      66
                                     324
                                                                  00      03       66
                                     323
                                                                  00      03       82
                                     322
                                                                  00      02       94
                                     321
                                                                  00      01       59
                                     312
                                                                  00      03       67
                                     314
                                                                  00      08       88
                                     153
 9 ) Masada                                                       00      02       47
                                     83
                                                                  00      00       10
                                     150
                                                                  00      01       95
                                     88
                                                                  00      02       05
                                     84
                                                                  00      01       44
                                     87
                                                                  00      01       07
                                     86
                                                                  00      04       89
                                     89
                                                                  00      01       63
                                     90
                                                                  00      03       25
                                     92

2314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUN 20 , 1933

9 ) Masada ( Contd)

101

100

Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Jaleswar

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

District: Baleshwar

1 ) Kotsahi                        271
                                   56
                                   63
                                   65
                                   64
                                   89
                                   86
                                   88
                                   100
                                    104
                                   102
                                   1401
                                   1402
                                   1410
                                   1395
                                   1398
                                   1392
                                   1397
                                   1387
                                   1388

State: Orissa

 00     05      00
 00     05      98
 00     02      98
 00     00      29
 00     04      46
 00     01      66
00      03      79
 00     00      39
00      00      10
00     04       06
00     02       03
00     03       15
00     01      81
00     09       95
00     05
               21
00     00      10
00     00      48
00     00      48
00     03      63
00     01      29

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]

2315

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

1 ) Kotsahi ( Contd)                   1368
                                       1385
                                       1384
                                       1376
                                       1378
                                       1375
                                       1696
                                       1699
                                       1700
                                       1691
                                       1692
                                       1693
                                       1689
                                       1690
                                       1684
                                       1688
                                       1682
                                       1677
                                       1640
                                       1676
                                       1675
                                       1674
                                       1673
                                       1672
                                       1665
                                       1666
                                       1656
                                       1856
                                       1855
                                       1854
                                       1851
                                       1850
                                       1847
2 ) Kespura                           94
                                      21
                                      93
                                      23
                                      24
                                      25
                                      26
                                      28
                                       14

5 3

00      02     95
00     00       57
00      00      10
00     00       10
00     07      42
00     01      88
00     02       36
00     02      27
00     02      56
00     00      30
00     04      94
00     00       50
00     02      92
00      11     98
00     06      68
00     01      15
00     00      29
00     00      25
00     04      54
00     04       19
00     01      25
00     01      33
00     00      38
00     12      03
00     03      43
00     06      45
00     00      50
00     00      45
00     13      30
00     00      31
00     05      66
00     03      38
00     00      16
00     00      26
00     03      08
00     00      10
00     04      42
00     04      82
00     05      81
00     06      56
00     09      28
00     01      11

2316

[Part II - Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/ PHALGUN 20 , 1933

               1                              2                3       4        5
L
2) Kespura ( Contd)               29                          00     05       30
                                  33                          00     00       26
                                  34                          00     03       14
                                  36                          00     06       68
                                  35                          00     00       78
                                  67                          00     08       75
                                  66                          00      10      94
                                  65                          00     02       58
                                  57                          00     02       58
                                  56                          00     03       66
                                  59                          00     02       56
                                  60                          00     04       35
                                  52                          00     04       55
                                  53                          00     01       19
                                  397                         00     03       09
                                  398                         00      13      72
                                  400                         00     00       84
                                  401                         00     00       37
                                  404                         00     00       11
                                  410                         00     07       68
                                  420                         00     03       56
                                  411                         00     00       10
                                  417                         00     04       06
                                  418                         00     02       26
                                  453                         00     01       06
                                  454                         00     01       62
                                  455                         00     04       19
                                  465                         00     08       08
                                  466                         00     02       44
                                  467                         00     03       89
                                  468                         00      05      38
                                  471                         00      00      10
                                  470                         00      00      45
                                  1076                        00      03      16
 3 ) Sarsida
                                  1081                        00      02      50
                                   1075                       00      13      95
                                   1074                       00      12      82
                                  1086                        00      02      59
                                   1037                       00      02      51
                                   1036                       00      14      56
                                   1035                       00      14      80
                                   1104                       00      00      10

2317

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
                                                                           4        5
                                                2                 3
                                                                 00      16       81
                                    966
3) Sarsida ( Contd )                                                              00
                                                                 00      07
                                    964
                                                                 00      00       65
                                    963
                                        District: Baleshwar        State: Orissa
     Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Remuna                                 00     00       10
                                    84
 1 ) Paribelda                                                                    68
                                                                  00     01
                                    85
                                                                  00     06       53
                                     86
                                                                  00     01       14
                                     169
                                                                  00     03       49
                                    87
                                                                  00     03       88
                                     168
                                                                  00     00       13
                                     165
                                                                  00     02       07
                                     161
                                                                  00      00      37
                                     211
                                                                  00      05      97
                                     157
                                                                  00      04      89
                                     212
                                                                  00      01       19
                                     155
                                                                  00      00       10
                                     216
                                                                  00      03      29
                                     214
                                                                  00      03      61
                                     249
                                                                  00      00       88
                                     219
                                                                  00      07       06
                                     223
                                                                  00      01       16
                                     245
                                                                  00      02       38
                                     244
                                                                  00      00       15
                                     246
                                                                  00      04       20
                                     243
                                                                  00      02       64
                                     247
                                                                  00      01       83
                                     248
                                                                  00      18       55
                                     242
                                                                   00     00       10
                                     257
                                                                   00     00       25
                                     355
                                                                   00     03       81
                                     356
                                                                   00     08       05
                                     359
                                                                   00     00       16
                                     364
                                                                   00     03       51
                                     360
                                                                   00     00       28
                                     348
                                                                   00     02       38
                                     346
                                                                   00      14      65
                                      345
                                                                   00     08       27
                                      344
                                                                   00      00      26
                                      334
                                                                   00      10      04
                                      337
                                                                   00      04      50
                                      339
                                                                   00      02      25
                                      5
  2 ) Maujpur                                                      00      11      59
                                      4

2318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN, 20, 1933

2) Maujpur (Contd)

167

3 ) Kalyan pur

171

172

173

776

775

774

787

789

790

792

791

808

807

819

818

817

815

816

825

827

843

842

841

840

839

853

854

855

856

857

943

940

937

Mandal /Tehsil / Taluk: Rasagobindapur

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

District: Mayurbhanj

1) Sapagadia

237

242

State: Orissa

39 2319

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

                                              2               3        4       5
               1
1 ) Sapagadia (Contd)             251                         00     32      66
                                  248                         00     09      05
                                  249                         00     02      75
                                  265                         00     13      95
                                  263                         00     03      04
                                  266                         00     07      84
                                  329                         00     24      75
                                  330                         00     00      59
                                  344                        00      04      21
                                  326                        00      03      14
                                  325                         00     23      70
                                  348                        00      12      67
                                  349                        00      10       15
                                  426                        00      03      11
                                  425                        00      09      41
                                  421                         00     12      54
                                  414                        00      07      58
                                 420                         00      00      01
                                  417                        00      11      61
                                  419                        00      01      22
                                  416                        00      03      43
2 ) Paikasahi                     1015                       00      02      73

State:Orissa

District: Mayurbhanj

Mandal/Tehsil / Taluk : Betnoti

1 ) Kalama                          1
                                   2
                                   3
                                   4
                                    13
2 ) Baliapita                      295
                                   296
                                   310
                                   311
                                   312
                                   315
                                   314
                                   316
                                   324
                                    325
                                   323
                                   326
                                   331
                                   327
                                   234

601GI /2012-14

00     06      03
00     02      87
00     02      55
00     03      55
00     00      41
00     00      21
00     00      10
00     03      51
00     01      27
00     02      01
00     05      12
00     01      88
00     12      20
00     07      68
00     07      93
00     01      06
00     02      26
00     00      36
00     00      23
00     12      50

2320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 / PHALGUN 20 , 1933

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 2 ) Baliapita (Contd )

228

229

222

215

[F. No. L - 14014/ 17/2011 -GP. ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 6 मार्च, 2012

का. आ. 957.- भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 681 तारीख 01 मार्च , 2011 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिरसों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैमर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा वासुदेवपुर- हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 09 फरवरी , 2012 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और. पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्वन्ध में , जनता की ओर से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है;

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

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

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

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

| भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

2321

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

अनुसूची

जिला मेदिनीपुर सडल/ तहमिन्न/ तालुक 'भगवानपुर li

सर्वे सं/ सब डिविजन सं.

गाँव का नाम

                                   2
नया चमन उर्फ धाइपुखुग्यिा 137
                       158
                       157
                       159
                       160
                       153
                       152
                       161
                       207
                       206
                       205
                        194
                       195
                        204
                       203
                       198
                       199
                       201
                       200
                       331
                       330
                       329
                       325
                       328
                       326
                        320
                        2245
                       317
                        344
                        1137
                        2510
                        2508
                        2509
                        2502
                        1355
                        1348
                       2492

राज्य पश्चिम बंगाल

आर.ओ.यू.अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर   सि.एयर
 3       4       5
 00    05      24
 00    10      36
 00    01      24
 00    17      38
 00    12       14
 00    00      91
 00    04      95
 00    03      61
 00    07       89
 00    08      36
 00    14      23
 ос    02      90
 00    00      40
 00    il       55
 00    Co      62
 00    00      62
 00    05      50
 00    12      56
 00    07      87
 00    00       51
 00    03       77
 00    06       78
 00    00       17
 00    07       21
 00    21      93
 00    17      67
 00    04       31
 00    02       72
 00    05      05
 00    00       96
 00    12       19
 00    01       36
 00    12       85
 00    02      20
 00    41       33
 00    01      29
 00    05       69

2322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1933

                                        2
   1 ) नया बसन उर्फ धाइपुखुरिया (निरंतर) 1354
                            2486
                            2487
                            1361
                            1311
                            1365
                            1366
                            1367
                            1368
                            2546
                            960
                            2376
                            961
                            962
                            963
                            964
                            871
                            2453
                            2452
                            2451
                            977
                            978
                            2466
                            2467
                            2465
                           2464
                           981
                           987
                           988
                           989
                           996
                           997
                           998
                           1000
                           1007
                           1009
                           833
                           1010
                           1011
                           831
2 ) रानी चक्               7
                           17

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii )]

  3      4       5
  00    18      53
  00    17      91
 00     11      82
 00    23       10
 00    01      61
 00    00       10
 00     16     45
 00    02      84
 00    01      78
 00    11      01
 00    06      07
 00    04      08
 00    07      68
 00    00      SS
 00    00       11
 00    00      10
 00    01       15
 00    14      67
 00    02      15
 00    00      40
 00    03      78
 00    22      88
 00    12      49
 00    00      37
 00    05      08
 00    03      70
 00    02      00
 00    12      29
 00    12      17
 00    02      65
 00    04      99
 00    05      57
00     11      96
00    09       58
00     10      60
00    00       37
00    04       52
00    04       19
00    00       16
00    08      93
00    07      49
00    00       10

2323

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

                                                               3      4       5
                                             2
                1
                                                              00     14      15
  2 ) रानी चक् (निरंतर)         19
                                                              00    00      39
                                20
                                                              00     10     27
                                292
3) गरनिआ                                                       00    11     71
                                296
                                                              00    02      91
                                297
                                                               00   03      92
                                580
                                                              00     01     22
                                579
                                                               00    00     44
                                583
                                                               00    14     13
                                538
                                                              00    09      65
                                541
                                                               00    03     41
                                542
                                                               00    12     40
                                533
                                                               00    05      89
                                532
                                                               00    00      21
                                527
                                                               00    21      07
                                526
                                                               00    13      15
                                524
                                                               00    04      32
                                516
                                                               00    04      89
                                514
                                                               00    00      78
                                513
                                                               00    04      90
                                500
                                                               00    04      23
                                499
                                                               00    09      27
                                496
                                                               00    13      32
                                4:48
                                                               00    00      10
                                1107
 4 ) वृंदावनपुर                                                00    18      41
                                1106
                                                               00    05      95
                                1109
                                                               00    02      53
                                1110
                                                               00    07      10
                                 1111
                                                               00     15     65
                                 1113
                                       जिला:मेदिनीपुर           राज्य:पश्चिम बंगाल
   मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पोटाशपुर ।।                                  01      84
                                                               00
  1                              176
     इस्माइलपुर
                                                               00    02      81
                                 206
 2 ) सतशातमल                                                   00    05      23
                                 157
                                                               00    29      79
                                 156
                                                               00    01      36
                                 124
                                                               00    04      86
                                 125
                                                               00    27      60
                                 115
                                                                00   20       36
                                 116
                                                                00    01      13
                                 1-21
                                                                00    48     49
                                 119
                                                                00    05     24
                                 79
                                                                00    15      51
                                 78
                                                                00    05      42
                                 77

2324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNDO , 1933

2 ) सतशातमल (निरंतर)

352

356

353

354

355

357

358

1244

3 ) संदलपुर

1248

1240

1251

1253

1135

1132

1134

1133

1148

1146

1149

1150

1153

1151

1099

1156

1157

1163

1161

1164

1165

1166

1167

1172.

1169

1170

759

756

754

744

4 ) मियनरी

279

270

[Part II Sec. 3(ii ))

44 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2325

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

                                                           3     4       5
4 ) सियनरी (निरंतर)          272                          00    08      49
                             38                           00    00     54
                             88                           00    01     29
                             89                           00    00      10
                             87                           00    10      34
                             86                           00    00     53
                             94                           00    07     42
                             107                          00    01     86
                             127                          00    06      15
                             125                          00    01     93
                             124                          00    08     85
                             133                          00    01     46
                             148                          00    00     61
                             147                          00    09     96
                             145                          00    04     54
                             144                          00           10

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/10/2011- जी.पी. ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 6th March , 2012

S. O. 957. Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 681 dated 1st March, 2011 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada - Basudebpur - Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M / s Reliance Industries Limitedby M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country ;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 09 February , 2012;

Andwhereas , no objection was received from the public to the laying of the pipeline ;

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

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

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

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

2326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN 20 , 1933

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

Schedule

State:West Bengal

District: Medinipur

Mandal / Tehsil /Taluk : Bhagawanpur - II

        Village                    Survey No./Sub-Division No. Area to be acquired for RoU
                                                             Hec       Are      C-Are
           1                                   2                3       4        5
1 ) Naya Basan Urf Dhaipukhuria    137                         00      05      24
                                  158                          00      10      36
                                   157                         00     01       24
                                   159                         00      17      38
                                   160                         00      12      14
                                   153                         00      00      91
                                   152                         00      04      95
                                  161                          00      03      61
                                  207                          00      07      89
                                  206                          00      08      36
                                  205                          00      14      23
                                   194                         00      02      90
                                   195                         00      00      40
                                  204                          00      11      55
                                  203                          00      00      62
                                  198                          00      00      62
                                  199                          00      05      50
                                  201                          00      12      56
                                  200                          00      07      87
                                  331                          00      00      51
                                  330                          00      03      77
                                  329                          00      06      78
                                  325                          00      00       17
                                  328                          00      07      21
                                  326                          00      21      93
                                  320                          00      17      67
                                  2245                         00      04      31
                                  317                          00      02       72
                                  344                          00      05      05
                                  1137                         00      00      96
                                  2510                         00      12      19
                                  2508                         00      01      36
                                  2509                         00      12      85
                                  2502                         00      02      20
                                   1355                        00      41      33
                                   1348                        00      01      29
                                  2492                         00      05      69

2327

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

                1                                  2
1 ) Naya Basan Urf Dhaipukhuria (Contd) 1354
                                      2486
                                      2487
                                      1361
                                      1311
                                      1365
                                      1366
                                      1367
                                      1368
                                      2546
                                      960
                                      2376
                                      961
                                      962
                                      963
                                      964
                                      871
                                      2453
                                      2452
                                      2451
                                      977
                                      978
                                      2466
                                      2467
                                      2465
                                      2464.
                                      981
                                      987
                                      988
                                      989
                                       996
                                      997
                                      998
                                       1000
                                       1007
                                       1009
                                       833
                                       1010
                                       1011
                                       831
 2 ) Rani Chak                         7
                                       17

601GI/2012-15

 3       4       5
00     18      53
00     17      91
00     11      82
00     23      10
00     01      61
00     00      10
00     16      45
00     02      84
00     01      78
00     11      01
00     06      07
00     04      08
00     07      68
00     00      55
00     00      11
00     00      10
00     01       15
00      14     67
00     02       15
00     00      40
00     03      78
00     22      88
00      12     49
00     00      37
00     05      08
00     03      70
00     02      00
00      12     29
 00     12      17
00     02      65
00     04      99
 00    05      57
 00     11      96
00     09      58
 00     10     60
 00    00      37
 00    04       52
 00     04      19
 00     00      16
 00     08     93
 00     07      49
 00     00      10

2328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20 , 1933

                 1                                  2
2) Rani Chak(Contd)                    19
                                      20
3 ) Garania                           292
                                      296
                                      297
                                      580
                                      579
                                      583
                                      538
                                      541
                                      542
                                      533
                                      532
                                      527
                                      526
                                      524
                                      516
                                      514
                                      513
                                      500
                                      499
                                      496
                                      448
4 ) Brindabanpur                      1107
                                      1106
                                      1109
                                      1110
                                      1111
                                      1113
    Mandal/ Tehsil/Taluk: Potashpur - II

[Part II-Sec. 3( ⅱ) ]

 3       4        5
 00     14      15
 00     00      39
 00     10      27
 00     11      71
 00     02      91
 00     03      92
00      01      22
00      00      44
00      14      13
00      09      65
00      03      41
00      12      40
00      05      89
00     00       21
00      21      07
00      13      15
00     04       32
00     04       89
00     00       78
00     04       90
00     04       23
00     09       27
00      13      32
00     00       10
00      18     41
00     05      95
00     02       53
00     07       10
00      15     65
  State: West Bengal

District : Medinipur

176

1 ) Ismailpur

2 ) Satshatamal

206

157

156

124

125

115

116

121

119

42 2329

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

                                                2                3        4        5
                1
                                    76                           00     07       68
2) Satshatamal (Contd)
                                    75                           00              06
                                    352                          00              38
                                    356                          00     00       10
                                    353                          00     08       16
                                    354                          00     03       29
                                                                 00     08       53
                                    355
                                                                 00     00       29
                                    357
                                    358                          00     00       62
                                    1244                         00     01       38
 3 ) Sandalpur
                                    1248                         00     03       80
                                                                 00     00       91
                                    1240
                                                                 00     03       41
                                    1251
                                    1253                         00      11      83
                                                                 00     05       69
                                    1135
                                    1132                         00      01      87
                                    1134                         00      06      69
                                    1133                         00      00      13
                                    1148                         00      11      51
                                    1146                         00      00      16
                                    1149                         00      01      21
                                                                 00      15      53
                                    1150
                                    1153                         00      02      30
                                    1151                         00      00       10
                                    1099                         00      01      37
                                    1156                         00      04      71
                                                                 00      12      22
                                    1157
                                    1163                         00      12      58
                                    1161                         00      00      93
                                    1164                         00      01      07
                                     1165                        00      07      27
                                    1166                         00      11       31
                                                                 00      04       28
                                    1167
                                     1172                        00      00       68
                                                                 00      04       59
                                    1169
                                    1170                         00      06       42
                                    759                          00      03       33
                                    756                          00      11       39
                                                                 00      02       70
                                    754
                                    744                          00      16       80
                                                                 00      08       70
 4 ) Sianri                         279
                                    270                          00      03       44

2330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1933

                                                    2
4) Sianri ( Contd)                     272
                                       38
                                       88
                                       89
                                      87
                                      86
                                      94
                                       107
                                       127
                                       125
                                       124
                                       133
                                       148
                                       147
                                       145
                                       144

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )

 3       4       5
00     08      49
00     00      54
00     01      29
00     00      10
00     10      34
00     00      53
00     07      42
00     01      86
00     06      15
00     01      93
00     08      85
00     01      46
00     00      61
00     09      96
00     04      54
00     00      10

[F. No. L- 14014/10/2011 -GP. ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च , 2012

का. आ. 958.- भारत सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 731 तारीख 21.02.2011 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नैलुर- चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई -बंगलौर मंगलौर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 06 सितंबर , 2011 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

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

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

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

और , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के वजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

2331

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

जिला:तुमकुर तालुक: तुमकुर

राज्य: कर्नाटक

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं

गाँव का नाम

2 1

i नंदिहल्ली

101

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

सि.एयर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

5 3

10 00

05 00

राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला:हासन

        2332
                     THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1933 [Part II- Sec . 3 (ii )]
                    1
                                                  2                 3      4
                                                                                   5
      2 ) कारेबोरे कावलु (निरंतर)   55                             00    10      80
                                    2/1                            00    09
                                                                                 85
                                    2/2                            00     11     35
                                    246/1                          00    01      70
                                    238/2                          00    07      30
                                    238/3                          00    27      02
                                    238/4                          00    14      06
                                    238/7                          00    00      14
                                    237/1                          00    02      78
                                    237/4                          00    00      59
                                   48/1 ए                          00    00      43
                                   48/1बी                          00    08      05
                                   48/1ची                          00    08      70
                                   48/1डी                          00    13      45
 तालुक: हासन                       48/10                           00 59    79
                                                              00         15      69
                               21
1 ) सिद्दापुरा                     48/1एफ                     00   00 30 17 47   84
                               19/3
                                   47/1                            00 10 00 09   10
                                                              00
                               19/5 47/2
                                                              00   00 22 04 36   27
                               20/1
                                   53/1                       00   00 00 49 10  97
                               20/2
                                   54/2                       00   00 25 28 63   14
                               17/2
    3 ) हुल्लेनहल्ली               49                         00   00 71 00 26
                                                                                 10
                               17/1
    4 ) चिगटिहल्ली                                             00   00      99
                               16/8 21                             00    00
                                                                                 10
                                                               00    14      55
                               16/9 23                            00     16
                                                                                86
                                                              00    09       77
                               16/10 22/5                         00     22     29
                                                               00    00      15
                               16/5 22/4                          00     10
                                                                                64
                                                               00    10      17
                               16/6 22/6                          00    06
                                                                                 11
                                                               00    14     50
                                6/1 22/7                          00     10
                                                                                16
                                                               00    19      53
                                6/2 4/1                           00     10     34
                                                               00    12     63
                                7/1 5/1                           00    09      28
                                                               00    09      14
                                7/2 5/2                           00    08      49
                                                               00    13      69
                                8/1 5/3                           00    06      49
                                                               00    00      10
                                90/4 6                            00    07
                                                                                77
                                                               00    87      82
                                91/1 7/2                          00    13
                                                                                89
                                                               00    00      10
                                92 7/1                            00    13
                                                                                11
                                                               00    31      15
                                88/2 8                            00    14      99
                                                               00    03      67
                                93/2 10                           00    01
                                                                                95
                                                               00    01      96
                                93/1 56/1                         00    00      21
                                                               00    82      20
                                84 56/2                           00    01      69
                                                               00    11      34
                                99/1 56/3                         00    17      96
                                                               00    26      87
                                1  56/4                           00    18      01
 2 ) कारेबोरे कावलु                56/5                        00    29      18
                                247                               00    11      42
                                                               00    00      33
                                49 57/1                           00    01      77
                                                               00    35      07
                                50
                                                               00    50      62
                                51
                                                               00    50      64
                                52

2333

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

                                          2               3      4      5
                                                          00    22     89
   ) चिगटिहल्ली (निरंतर)     47/2
                                                          00    03     11
                             47/1
                                                          00    13     67
                             42/1
                                                          00    14     40
                             42/2
                                                          00    10     15
                             42/3
                                                          00    27     37
                             41/3
                                                          00    10     21
                             41/4
                             41/5                         00    02     20
                                                          00    17     76
                             40
                                                          00    03     84
                             39
                                                          00    00     38
                             9/10
                             9/3                          00    00     08
                                                          00    10     77
                             9/4
                             9/5                          00    19     83
                             9/7                          00    07     44
                                                          00    00     65
                             9/9
                             99/1                         00    02     58
5 ) होन्नावरा
                             99/2                         00    14     28
                             100/1                        00    00     51
                             100/2                        00    06     54
                             100/3                        00    08     61
                             100/4                        00    00     50
                             132                          00    09     32
                                                          00    09     97
                             131
                                                          00    06     79
                             129
                             128                          00    05     30
                             127/1                        00    08     37
                             127/2                        00    05     57
                             200                          00    00     97
                                                          00    11     12
                             201
                             202                          00    05     94
                             203                          00    14     12
                             204                          00    04     01
                             206                          00    06     27
                             208                          00    19     46
                             209                          00    07     59
                             210                          00    04     32
                             211                          00    04     08
                             212                          00    04     54
                             213                          00    04     35
                             214                          00    06     76
                             261/1                        00    00     54

2334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1933

              1                         2
  5 ) होन्नावरा (निरंतर)    261/2
                            260
                            259/1
                            259/2
                            257
                            256/1
                            274/1
                            274/2
                            276
                            275/5
                            275/6
                            275/1
                            275/2
                            275/3
                            133/3
                           101/1
                           101/2
                           130/1
                           130/2
                           215/1
                           273/4
                           273/5
                           273/6
                           273/7
                           273/8
6 ) पूमगामे                 22
                            20/2
                           21
                           20/4
                           20/3
                           19/2
                           18/5
                           18/3
                           14
                           247
                           13
                           12
                           9
                           6/10
                           6/9
                           6/5
                           6/2

[Part II-Sec. 3( ⅱ) ]

 3      4       5
 00    01      96
 00    07     33
 00    11     37
 00    18     58
 00    19     89
00     00     23
 00    13     54
 00    01     91
 00    32      51
00     00      10
00     16     56
00    03      87
00     12     54
00     10     37
00    01       10
00     12     73
00     02     48
00     10     70
00    09      09
00    01      04
00    00      39
00    00      10
00    05      12
00     10     69
00    01      70
00    01      14
00    02      22
00    09      31
00    13      59
00     14     92
00    22      16
00    07      38
00    02      34
00    16      14
00    01      84
00    13      47
00    02      06
00    10      21
00    17      55
00    01      22
00    03      84
00    01      84

2335

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10 , 2012/ फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6/4

6 ) पूमगामे (निरंतर)

6/3

110

109

96/2

96/1

97/1

97/2

99/3

99/1

100/1

102/10

102/9

102/8

102/1

102/2

102/3

102/4

102/5

102/6

8/1

8/2

257/4

267/1

267/7

103/2

103/3

103/4

29/1

7 ) चिक्कम्मनहल्ली

29/20

31/2

31/3

31/4

35/1

35/2

35/4

48/1

49/1

601 GI /2012-16

56 15

75 02

67 07

71 13

90 10

92 24

78 09

77 00

35 00

00 2336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUN 20, 1933

7 ) चिक्कम्मेनहल्ली (निरंतर)

48/2

49/3

46/1

45/1

44/1

44/2

30/2

8 ) बोगाराहल्ली

286

सोमनहल्लीकावलु

१)

277

तालुक: अरसीकेरे

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) )

जिला:हासन

1 ) केंकेरे

231/ 2वी

231/ 2सी

231/ 2डी

231/2

232/1

236/8

236/7

236/6

246/8

246/7

246/5

246/4

246/1

246/2

252/2

252/3ए

राज्य:कर्नाटक

252/4बी1

2 ) बिदरे कावलु

213

212

214

217

218

219

224

225

231

236

237

244

00 40

00 42

01 2337

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

243

242

2) बिदरे कावलु (निरंतर)

143

144

142

141

138

139

135

134

331

133

132

131

126

130

127

128

287

289

304

313

230/1

288/1

288/2

72/1

5 3 ) मंगलापुरा

00 2338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/ PHALGUN 20, 1933

3 ) मंगलापुरा (निरंतर)

4 ) कोंडेनाहालु

138

83/4

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)]

123/2

125/2

125/1

127

130

129

128/1

128/2

151

150/1

152/1

152/2

153/4

154

155/1

155/ 2एफ

155/2सी

158/3

158/4

157

24/2

24/3

23/3

23/2

23/1

22/4

22/1

81/1

81/2

139/3

29/1

29/2

29/3

29/4

67 2339

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

2 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

30/4

30/5

4 ) कोंडेनाहालु (निरंतर)

5) होन्नेनहल्ली

26/1

26/2

26/3

26/4

26/5

26/6

26/7

26/8

26/9

26/11

26/12

26/13

26/14

26/15

44/9

44/10

44/11

44/12

44/13

44/14

44/15

44/16

44/17

4/5

6 ) होन्नकुमारनहल्ली

20/4

20/3

31/3

24/1

24/2 3

00 2340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN (20, 1933

6 ) होन्नकुमारनहल्ली (निरंतर)

31/2

39/1

39/4

39/3

39/2

55/1

55/2

53/26

53/27

53/2

53/3

30/1

50/1

50/2

7 ) जक्कनहल्ली

40/2

39/1

110/2

110/1

50/2

50/7

50/1

48/5

48/4

48/3

112

111

46/1 ए

46/2ए

8 ) चन्नापुरा

32/5

32/6

32/4

35/3

35/1

36/6

36/5

36/4

36/3

36/8

[Part II Sec. 3( i)]

00 01

48 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2341

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

                1                            2                3
                                                                     4       5
  8 ) चन्नापुरा (निरंतर)       36/1                           00   09      42
                               37                             00   07      19
                               40/6                           00   07      26
                               40/4                           00    53     25
                               40/2                           00   01      51
                               40/10                          00   07      05
                               41/2                           00   06      83
                               41/1                           00    15     57
                               42/1                           00   05      21
                               43/1                           00   00      32
                               42/ 2ए                         00    13     31
                               43/3                           00    10     40
                               44/1                           00   01      86
                               44/2                           00   22      43
                               45/1                           00   62      60
                               45/2                          00    15      86
                               48/1                          00    24      87
                               50                            01    81      23
                               39/6                          00    13      10
                               39/7                          00    13      80
                               47/1                          00    03      96
                               47/2                          00     11     60
                               47/11                         00    13      95
                               47/3                          00    05      79
                               47/4                          00    03      09
9 ) नागरहल्ली                  21/2                          00    03      16
                               21/4                          00    00      44
                               18/1वी                        00    27      39
                               18/ 1 ए                       00    01      29
                               18/2                          00    04      82
                               16/4                          00    22      58
                               16/3                          00    05      05
                               16/10                         00    07      82
                               16/ 2वी                       00    11      78
                               16/20                         00    29      33
                               16/1                          00    18     05
                               7/5                           00    03      36
10 ) बाम्मचिहल्ली                                            00    30     02
                               32                            00    32     93
11 ) जिनकेरेहल्ली             43                             00    23     53
                              44                             00    19     44
                              45/2                           00    01     90

2342

[Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20 , 1933

जिला:हासन

राज्य:कर्नाटक

तालुक: चेन्नरायपटना

1 ) कोडिहल्ली

59/1

[फा-सं. एल.-14014/81/2010 -जी.पी. ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th March , 2012

S. O. 958.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S.O. 731 dated 21-02-2011 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 06th September, 2011 ;

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

And whereas , the Competent Authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Áct, submitted report to the Government of India;

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

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

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2343

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

Schedule

Taluk: Tumkur                            District: Tumkur                State: Karnataka
         Village                        Survey No./Sub-Division No.   Area to be acquired for RoU
             1                                       2
1 ) Nandihalli                         40
                                       87
                                       86
                                       41
                                        101
                                       42
    Taluk: Hassan                           District: Hassan
 ) Siddapura                           21
                                        19/3
                                        19/5
                                       20/1
                                        20/2
                                        17/2
                                        17/1
                                        16/8
                                        16/9
                                        16/10
                                        16/5
                                        16/6
                                        6/1
                                        6/2
                                        7/1
                                        7/2
                                        8/1
                                        90/4
                                        91/1
                                        92
                                        88/2
                                        93/2
                                        93/1
                                        84
                                        99/1
2 ) Karebore Kavalu                     1
                                        247
                                        49
                                        50
                                        51
                                        52

601GI/2012-17

 2344          THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20 , 1933   [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]
               1                                2                 3       4        5
2)  Karebore Kavalu (Contd)         55                           00      10       80
                                    2/1                          00      09       85
                                    2/2                           00     11       35
                                    246/1                        00      01       70
                                    238/2                         00     07       30
                                    238/3                        00      27       02
                                                       Hec       Are     C-Are
                                    238/4                        00       14      06
                                                         3        4        5
                                    238/7                         00     00       14
                                                         00     02       72
                                    237/1                         00     02       78
                                                         00     00        10
                                    237/4                         00     00       59
                                                         00     47       90
                                    48/ 1A                       00      00       43
                                                         00     33       01
                                    48/ 1B                       00      08       05
                                                         00     44       05
                                    48/ 1C                        00     08       70
                                                         03     24       52
                                    48/ 1D                        00      13      45
                                    48/ 1E                 State: Karnataka 00 15 69
                                    48 / 1F              00      59 00   79 17    84
                                    47/1                 00      30 00   47 00    10
                                    47/2                 00      10 00   09 04    27
                                    53/1                 00      22 00   36 49    97
                                    54/2                 00      00 00   28 10    14
                                                         00      25      63
                                    49                            00      00       10
 3 ) Hullenahalli
                                                         00      71      26
 4 ) Chigatihalli                   21                            00      00      10
                                                         00     00       99
                                    23                            00      16      86
                                                         00      14       55
                                    22/5                          00      22      29
                                                         00      09       77
                                    22/4                          00      10      64
                                                         00      00       15
                                    22/6                          00      06       11
                                                         00      10       17
                                    22/7                          00      10      16
                                                         00      14       50
                                    4/1                           00      10      34
                                                         00      19       53
                                    5/1                           00      09      28
                                                         00      12       63
                                    5/2                           00      08      49
                                                         00      09       14
                                    5/3                           00      06      49
                                                         00      13       69
                                    6                             00      07      77
                                                         00      00       10
                                    7/2                           00      13      89
                                                         00      87       82
                                    7/1                           00      13       11
                                                         00      00       10
                                    8                             00      14      99
                                                         00      31       15
                                     10                           00      01      95
                                                         00      03       67
                                    56/1                          00      00      21
                                                         00      01       96
                                    56/2                          00      01      69
                                                         00      82      20
                                    56/3                          00      17       96
                                                         00      11       34
                                    56/4                          00      18       01
                                                         00      26       87
                                    56/5                          00      11      42
                                                         00      29       18
                                    57/1                          00      01       77
                                                         00      00       33
                                                         00      35       07
                                                         00      50       62
                                                         00      50       64

2345

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

                                              2                3       4        5
                                                              00      22      89
4) Chigatihalli (Contd)           47/2
                                                              00      03      11
                                  47/1
                                                               00     13      67
                                  42/1
                                                               00     14      40
                                  42/2
                                                               00     10      15
                                  42/3
                                                               00     27      37
                                  41/3
                                                               00     10      21
                                  41/4
                                                               00     02      20
                                  41/5
                                                               00     17      76
                                  40
                                                               00     03      84
                                   39
                                                               00     00      38
                                   9/10
                                                               00     00      08
                                  9/3
                                                               00     10       77
                                   9/4
                                                               00      19     83
                                   9/5
                                                               00     07      44
                                   9/7
                                                               00     00       65
                                   9/9
                                                               00     02       58
                                   99/1
 5 ) Honnavara                                                                 28
                                                               00      14
                                   99/2
                                                               00     00       51
                                   100/1
                                                               00      06      54
                                   100/2
                                                               00     08       61
                                   100/3
                                                               00      00      50
                                   100/4
                                                               00      09      32
                                   132
                                                               00      09      97
                                   131
                                                               00      06      79
                                   129
                                                               00      05      30
                                   128
                                                               00      08      37
                                   127/1
                                                               00      05      57
                                   127/2
                                                               00      00      97
                                   200
                                                               00      11      12
                                   201
                                                               00      05      94
                                   202
                                                               00      14      12
                                   203
                                                                00     04      01
                                   204
                                                               00      06      27
                                   206
                                                                00     19      46
                                   208
                                                                00     07      59
                                   209
                                                               00      04      32
                                   210
                                                                00     04      08
                                   211
                                                               00      04      54
                                   212
                                                                00     04      35
                                   213
                                                                00     06       76
                                   214
                                                                00     00      54
                                    261/1

2346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUN 20, 1933

5) Honnavara (Contd)

261/2

260

259/1

259/2

257

256/1

274/1

274/2

276

275/5

275/6

275/1

275/2

275/3

133/3

101/1

101/2

130/1

130/2

215/1

273/4

273/5

273/6

273/7

273/8

6 ) Poomagame

20/2

20/4

20/3

19/2

18/5

18/3

247

6/10

6/9

6/5

6/2

[Part II Sec. 3 (ii)]

84 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2347

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

                                               2                3        4       5
               1
                                   6/4                          00      15      56
6) Poomagame(Contd)
                                   6/3                          00     02       75
                                   110                          00     07       67
                                   109                          00      13      71
                                   96/2                         00      10      90
                                   96/1                         00     24       92
                                   97/1                         00     09       78
                                   97/2                         00      12      61
                                   98                           00      18      69
                                   99/3                         00      12      77
                                   99/1                         00      12      55
                                   100/1                        00     03       87
                                   102/10                       00      13      54
                                   102/9                        00      07      18
                                    102/8                       00      02      31
                                    102/1                       00      00      10
                                    102/2                       00      04       13
                                    102/3                       00      07      87
                                    102/4                       00      03      29
                                    102/5                       00      01      02
                                    102/6                       00      01       16
                                    8/1                          00     03       35
                                    8/2                         00      04      44
                                   257/4                        00      00       10
                                    267/1                        00     33       82
                                    267/7                        00     00       34
                                    103/2                        00     02       22
                                    103/3                        00     15       02
                                    103/4                        00     07       66
                                    29/1                         00     22       23
 7 ) Chikkamenahalli
                                    29/2A                        00     42       25
                                    31/2                         00     27       28
                                    31/3                         00     00       21
                                    31/4                         00     09       03
                                    34                           00     25       79
                                    35/1                         00     13       56
                                    35/2                         00     11       11
                                    35/4                         00     01       06
                                    37                           00     39       97
                                                                 00     46       73
                                    38
                                    48/1                         00     48       25
                                    49/1                         00     00       28

2348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/ PHALGUN/20 , 1933

                                                     2
7)  Chikkamenahalli (Contd)            48/2
                                       49/3
                                       46/1
                                        50
                                       45/1
                                       44/1
                                       44/2
                                       43
                                        30/2
3 ) Bogarahalli                        48
 2)           Somanahalli Kavalu        286
                                        277
    Taluk: Arsikere                         District: Hassan
 1 ) Kenkere                           231/2B
                                       231/20
                                        231/2D
                                        231/2E
                                       2327
                                        236/8
                                       236/7
                                       236/6
                                       246/8
                                       246/7
                                       246/5
                                       246/4
                                       246/1
                                        246/2
                                        252/2
                                        252/ 3A
                                        252/4B1
2 ) Bidare Kavalu                       213
                                        212
                                        214
                                        1
                                        217
                                       218
                                       219
                                        224
                                        225
                                       23.1
                                        236
                                       237
                                        244

[Part II- Sec. 3 (ii ) )

3        4       5
00     01      82
00     24      99
00     01      05
00     06      71
00     24      37
00     33      17
00     00      26
00     18      36
       00      18
00     99      69
00     36      53
00     16      71
  State: Karnataka
00     00       11
00     23      10
00     30      74
       00      19
00     40      37
00     18      72
00     25      23
00     19      73
00     09      88
00     09      74
00     20      90
00     07      89
00     20      90
00     00       10
00     00      49
00     12      65
00     21      30
00     51      77
00     03      08
00     08      42
00     47      41
00     01       15
00     48      51
00     00      56
00     54       19
00     44      13
00     21      18
00     40      50
00     42      82
00     29      01

2349

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

243

2) Bidare Kavalu (Contd)

242

143

144

142

141

138

139

135

134

331

133

132

131

126

130

127

128

287

289

304

313

230/1

288/1

288/2

72/1

3 ) Mangalapura

5 3

10 00

59 40

48 00

31 00

23 67

02 41

70 00

29 00

13 00

59 00

73 00

00 2350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN 20 , 1933

                 1                                    2
3 ) Mangalapura ( Contd)                30
                                        29
                                        28
4 ) Kondenahalu                         80
                                        138
                                        83/4
                                        123/2
                                        125/2
                                        125/1
                                        127
                                        130
                                        129
                                        128/1
                                        128/2
                                        151
                                        150/1
                                        152/1
                                        152/2
                                       153/4
                                        154
                                        155/1
                                        155/ 2F
                                        155/ 2C
                                       158/3
                                       158/4
                                        157
                                       24/2
                                       24/3
                                       23/3
                                       23/2
                                       23/1
                                       22/4
                                       22/1
                                       31
                                       34
                                       81/1
                                       81/2
                                       139/3
                                       29/1
                                       29/2
                                       29/3
                                       29/4

[Part II -Sec . 3(ii )}

 3       4       5
 00     00     45
 00     41     98
 00     28     93
 00     72     93
 00     20     65
 00     22     40
 00     03     03
 00     10     92
 00    04      83
 00     25     32
 00     12     86
 00     13     47
 00     00     98
00      12     99
00     02      60
 00     25     25
 00     10     71
00     00      11
00      15     59
00      11     29
00     06      35
00     09      77
00     08      70
00     15      16
00     14      54
00     31      11
00     17      76
00     01      17
00      16     23
00     13      25
00     35      88
00     00      02
00     02      38
00     25      77
01     18      30
00     82      93
00     19      79
00     19      56
00     15      66
00     20      16
00     19      46
00     09      67

2351

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

                1                                  2
4 ) Kondenahalu (Contd.)              30/4
                                      30/5
5 )    Honnenahalli                   21
                                      24
                                      16
                                      40
                                      39
                                      41
                                      42
                                      5
                                      26/1
                                      26/2
                                      26/3
                                      26/4
                                      26/5
                                      26/6
                                      26/7
                                      26/8
                                      26/9
                                      26/11
                                      26/12
                                      26/13
                                      26/14
                                      26/15
                                      44/9
                                      44/10
                                      44/11
                                      44/12
                                      44/13
                                      44/14
                                      44/15-
                                      44/16
                                      44/17
                                      4/5
 6 ) Honnakumaranahalli                21
                                      22
                                      20/4
                                      20/3
                                       31/3
                                       24/1
                                       24/2

601 GI/2012-18

3       4       5
00     24      53
00     01      24
01     07      32
01     31      68
00     65      04
00     03      35
00     51      38
00     29      91
00     44      01
00     74      14
00     03      55
00     09      90
00     07      59
00     09      08
00     08      88
00     10      04
00     09      44
00     14      20
00     16      52
00     08      49
00     06      68
00     06      99
00     06      66
00     07      15
00     00      16
00     07      25
00     02      62
00     13      87
00     04      71
00     16      95
00     09      74
00     02      42
00     02      34
00     03      20
00     10      26
00     24      61
00     05      43
00     20      05
00     03      60
00     00      10
00     21      88
00     00      33

2352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUN120 , 1933

6) Honnakumaranahalli ( Contd )

31/2

39/1

39/4

39/3

39/2

55/1

55/2

53/26

53/27

53/2

53/3

30/1

50/1

50/2

7 ) Jakkanahali

40/2

39/1

110/2

110/1

50/2

50/7

50/1

48/5

48/4

48/3

112

111

46/1A

46/2A

32/5

8 ) Channapura

32/6

32/4

35/3

35/1

36/6

36/5

36/4

36/3

36/8

[ Part II - Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

48 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2353

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

                1                                2                 3        4        5
8)  Channapura (Contd)               36/1                         00      09       42
                                     37                           00      07       19
                                    40/6                          0:0     07       26
                                     40/4                         00      53       25
                                     40/2                         00      01       51
                                    40/1A                         00      07       05
                                     41/2                         00      06       83
                                     41/1                         00      15       57
                                     42/1                         00      05       21
                                    43/1                          00      00       32
                                     42/ 2A                       00       13      31
                                     43/3                         00       10      40
                                    44/1                          00      01       86
                                    44/2                          00      22       43
                                    45/1                          00      62       60
                                    45/2                          00      15       86
                                    48/1                          00      24       87
                                     50                           01      81       23
                                     39/6                         00      13       10
                                     39/7                         00      1:3      80
                                    47/1                          00      03       96
                                    47/2                          00       11      60
                                    47/11                         00      13       95
                                    47/3                          00      05       79
                                    47/4                          00      03       09
 9 ) Nagarahalli                     21/2                         00      03       16
                                    21/4                          00      00       44
                                     18/ 1B                       00      27       39
                                     18 /1A                       00      01       29
                                     18/2                         00      04       82
                                     16/4                         00      22       58
                                     16/3                         00      05       05
                                    16/10                         00      07       82
                                     16/2B                        00               78
                                     16/2A                        00      29       33
                                     16/1                         00      18       05
                                     7/5                          00      03       36
10 ) Bommachihalli                                                00      30       02
                                     32                           00      32       93
11 ) Jinakerehalli                  43                            00      23       53
                                    44                            00      19       44
                                    45/2                          00      01       90
    Taluk: Chennarayapatna               District:Hassan         State: Karnataka
                 1                                2                 3        4        5
  1) Kodihalli                       59/1                          00      03       21

[F. No. L- 14014/81 /2010-GP. ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

2354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

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

TheDirector

: 2nd Party/Respondent

Central Electro Chemical

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 14 जनवरी, 2012

Research Institute,

Karaikudi-630006

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/ Petitioner : Sri K. Vasudevan , Advocate

For the 2nd Party/ Management : Set Ex-parte का०आ० 959.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल सेकरेट्री, थनमनडाला पोडू तोजहिलर संगम के प्रबंधतंत्र, के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या अहिण्डी-85/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

AWARD

[ ( सं० एल -42011 /19/2011 - आई०आर० ( डी०यू० ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

The Central Government , Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L-42011 / 19/2011 - IR(DU) dated 05.09.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 14th January, 2012

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Electro Chemical Research Institute ( CECRI ) , Karaikudi for not regularizing the Contract Labour as claimed by the Thenmandala Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam, Devakottai is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

S.O. 959. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2011 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Secretary Thenmandala Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14.01.2012 .

[No. L-42012/19/2011 - IR(DU) ] Johan Topno, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 85/2011 and issued notices to both sides. Petitioner entered appearance through Advocate and filed Claim Statement . Respondent though served with notice by Registered Post has not turned up in spite of several adjournments given and has been called absent and set ex - parte . Needless to say no counter by way of pleading has been filed by it .

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

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

Tuesday, the 22nd November, 2011

PRESENT:

A.N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

Industrial dispute No. 85/2011

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Central Electro Chemical Research Institute ( CECRI ) , Karaikudi and their Workman).

BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary : 1st Party/ Petitioner Union

Thenmandala Podhu

Thozhilalar Sangam

Devakottai , Sivaganga

District , Tamil Nadu

Vs.

The members of the Petitioner Union employed as Sweepers and Gardeners in the Respondent/Management through Contractors after having put in minimum two years and maximum 10 years of service , even with the change of Contractors every year, are continuing in employment without any disruption . They had been engaged on daily rate basis since 1977. In 1983 Management formed a Cooperative Society by name Alagappapuram Labour Contract Cooperative Society in which the Dy. Director Mr. K. Balakrishnan of the Management was holding the postof President and Mr. K. Subramanian , scientists as secretary with other seven board of directors from the permanent staff. There have been repeated demands and agitation to regularize the workmen. The society functioned till 1996. Later Mr. K. Selvaraj , Sweeper was nominated as president . In 1998 the society was closed and the workers were directed to form a separate society to ensure that the workers are employed continuously on daily rated basis , thus Sivaganga District Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers . Thus the workers were continuously 2355 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

under their control instead of contracting out the work. Hence the demand for regular absorption in the fold ofthe Management is only justified . The names of workers employed as Sweepers and Gardeners with their dates of joining are given in the annexure viz . Sweepers serially numbered from 1 to 18 and Gardeners serially numbered from 1 to 26. Their efforts having failed, ID raised . Merely because the Management has registered under the Contract Labour Act as contended , it does not mean that petitioner is barred from claiming absorption on the ground that the contract is sham and nominal . That the Management has no control over the workmen is untrue . The work is supervised by the officials of the Management who have given certificate vouchsafing them as workers under the Management which is simply denied by the Management as being given only by the Heads of Department of their own capacity. It is nothing but exploitation of cheap labour, victimization and unfair labour practice . The workmen are therefore entitled to absorption and the claim is fully justified, which is prayed for.

4. Respondent being ex - parte no counter is forthcoming.

5. Points for consideration are :

(i ) Whether the action in not regularizing the contract labour is legal and justified?

(ii) Towhat reliefthe concerned workmen are entitled?

6.Evidence consists of the sworn testimony of WW1 byway ofProofAffidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and Ex . W1 to Ex . W18 marked .

Points ( i) & ( ii)

7. Heard Petitioner's counsel . Perused the Claim Statement , records and documents . It is argued that contract labour, 18 named Sweepers and 26 named Gardeners have been engaged under the Management on daily rated payment basis. Their claim is that though they are described ascontract labour , really they are direct employees under the Respondent/Management doing work of permanent and perennial nature . Their work is controlled and supervised by the officials of the Management only. The so- called intermediate Contractors are only name lenders . The so -called contract is a pretence , nominal and sham . It ismere ruse and camouflage to avoid compliance of various beneficial legislations and payment of wages and to exploit cheap labour and also to deny the workmen the status of regular workmen. The Contractors have no license . The contract is a mere paper arrangement . The work done by theworkmen being regular and prennial in nature only direct employees are to be employed . Ex. W1 to Ex. W 18 are the documents relied on by the Petitioner Union to substantiate the contention . They at best tend to show that the workmen were actually engaged directly under the Management and not through any intermediary Contractors . Discernibly there working. The name of the contract was being changed to avoid regularization . In 2001 in the place of the said Society new Society by name Om Shakti Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam was formed . Management nominated its own workersS /Sri Saravana , P. Ganesan , S. Kannan as President, Secretary and Treasurer who have been working for the last 20 years . Contract was not given to any outsiders . In 2002 Management formed Kaliamman Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam and nominated Mr. A. Raman , a retired employee of the Management as President . Later on direction workers formed another Society by name Sri Ganapathy Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam in which one R.K. Muthukumar, a Gardener was President who has been working for the last 25 years . The Contractors are not registered Contractors. In 2004 under Management's advice the name of the contract was changed as Sri Ganapathy Contractors in which Mr. R. M. Muthukumar was President and K.R. Periyasamy was President ( Secretary) who have beenworking for the last 25 years . The work performed is perennial in nature coming within the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. The contracts between the Management and the Contractors are mere paper arrangement . The work is directly controlled by the Management . The Contractors are only name lenders . Payment is directly made by the Management in some cases . The Contractors never turn up to the work spot . The Contract is sham and make - believe arrangement to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations and payment ofwages . It is exploitation of cheap labour and to avoid the workmen the status ofregular workmen . Scheme of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act is to avoid contract labour when the work is regular and perennial in nature . In STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD . AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL UNION WATERFED WORKERS AND OTHERS (2001-4 - LLN - 135 ) Apex Court held as follows "On issuance ofprohibition notification under S. 10, (1) ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act prohibiting employment ofcontract labourer or otherwise, in any industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labourer in regard to condition of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground ofhaving undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labourer for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers ofthe benefit there under. Ifthe contract is camouflage, the so- called contract labourer will have to be treated as employees ofthe principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labourer in the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light ofpara 6 hereunder " . Since the work is regular and perennial in nature it is just and necessary that the Respondent/ Management should employ workmen in these areas directly 2356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

have been changes of Contractors over a period from time to time but even with such change of Intermediary Contractor the workmen have not been changed. It is sworn to that the officials of the Management supervised and controlled the work . Payments were made by the Management and not by the Contractor. These aspects are apparently or prima- facie proved from the sworn testimony of WW1 and the documents produced . It may therefore aptly be said that in spite of the mentioning ofthe workmen asContract Labour they are really workmen directly under the Respondent/ Management . After having engaged them for years they are still continued as such in order to exploit cheap labour and to deny them benefits payable to their counterpart in the regular employment . This amounts to unfair labour practice . The Respondent/Management though served with notice has not turned up to challenge the case or evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner Union . Though as unfolded by the Petitioner that the Respondent disowns control or supervision over the work of the workmen and also that the Management has registered under the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 and has put forth their case elsewhere or in the conciliation forum , they have not come forward before this adjudicatory forum to affirm it. Rules in the Evidence Act or Code of Civil Procedure regarding admission of evidence would be of guidance as tool of fair procedure only when a tool becomes necessary for application on the face of any challenge to the material produced. In the absence of any contra evidence and pleadings or any challenge to the credibility of the evidence ofthe petitioner, let in by way of Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination , though not subjected to cross- examination, but supported by documents , it is only just and proper for this Court to be swayed away for giving a finding in favour of the case of the Petitioner Union as pleaded and formally and prima -facie established . Therefore it is only to be held that the workmen are workers directly under the Respondent/Management and they are entitled to be regularized , denial of which is not legal and justified.

8. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd November, 2011 )

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

: WWI , Sri G. Sethuraman Forthe 1st party/ Petitioner

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

For the 2nd Party/

: None

Managment

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

on the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex. WI 02.11.1995

Certificate issued by the Respondent

Ex. W2 07.06.1986

Certficate issued by the Algappapuram Labour Contract Co - operative Society

Ex. W3 13.09.1995 Appointment order to Mr. Kurumban

Ex. W4 25.10.2000

Copy of the credit card

Ex. W5 17.07.2001

Interview card sent by the Respondent

Ex. W6 12.09.2001

Letter written to Sivaganga District Labour Contract Society

Ex. W7 30.01.2002

Letter of the Respondent

Ex. W8 28.02.2002

Letter to Kaliamman Oppanthakarargal Nala Sangam

Ex. W9 26.12.2002

Probation declared to Mr. Kurumban

Ex. W10 11.07.2003

Letter of the Respondent

Ex. W11 28.05.2004

Letter to Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakarargal Nala Sangam

Ex. W12 27.07.2004

Letter to Om Sakthi Oppanthakarargal Nala Sangam

Ex. W'13 07.06.2007

Bonus issued by the Respondent

Ex. W14 20.11.2007

Order in W.P. No. 11571 of 2004 etc. bath case

Ex. W15 07.03.2007

Petition filedby the Union

Ex. W16 24.01.2008

Interview letter

Ex. W17 10.10.2008

Letter of the Respondent

Ex. W18 05.09.2011

Letter of the Central Govt .

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Description

Date (N/A)

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2012

का०आ० 960.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बडौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2357

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय-1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -1/ 72 ऑफ 2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-01-2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ एल -12012/ 93/2004- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2012

S.O. 960. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 1 / 72 of 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court -1 , Mumbai new as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16/01/2012 .

[No. L- 12012/93/2004- IR(B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1

MUMBAI

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 1/72 of 2004

Parties

Employers in relation to the management of Bank ofBaroda And TheirWorkmen

(Yashoda G. Namaey)

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mr. Lancy D ' Souza, Management Representative.

For the workman

: Mr. M.B. Anchan , Adv.

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 30th day of December 2011 .

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub section ( 1) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act' ) . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda , thorough its officers in terminating/ discontinuing the services of/ in not allowing the workman Smt. Yashoda Ganpat Namaey to resume her duties on and from 20.11.2002 is legal , proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman isentitled to and from which date .

2.According to the statement of claim filed by the workman Yashoda Ganpat Namaey she was working with the first party bank as a sweeper - cum- peon from October 1990. She worked continuously and without break and her last drawn wages were 1,650/-p.m . She was getting Rs. 750/- for the work of sweeper and thereafter she worked as peon . Her record was clean and spotless . She was admitted in hospital on 8.11.2002 on account of stomach problem. After operation she went to resume her duty on 20.11.2002 but the Manager of the first party bank orally told her that her services were not required . No notice or charge sheet was issued and no proper enquiry was conducted and she was not given any opportunity to defend . According to the statment of claim the action of the first party bank is illegal . The action of the first party bank amounts to retrenchment whereas no retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman . It has, therefore , beenprayed that the first party bank be directed to reinstate her with continuity of service and full back wages .

3. The first party bank has filed written statement wherein it has stated that the workman was not engaged against any vacancy and she was engaged as a casual for cleaning the verandah of the first party bank as and when required . The bank has denied that the workman was working as a sweeper - cum-peon . The workman was engaged intermittently as stop gap arrangement in the absence of regular sweeper and that too for a limited duration of each such days ofher engagement. The Branch Manager of the bank had no authority to employ her because the bank had its own rules and regulations for recruitmentofsub - staff employees . The workman was never given any appointment letter and she was required to work only on the basis of need . According to the written statement the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein she has reiterated her stand taken in the statement of claim .

5. The workman has filed her affidavit and she has been cross -examined by learned counsel for the bank whereas the bank has filed affidavits of Abhay Pradhan and Ramesh Shivlal Parikh who have been cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman .

6.Heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. The first party bank is a nationalised bank which has its own rules and regulations for recruitment. The workman has not been appointed in accordance with the rules but she has been engaged as casual part time worker on the basis of need of the work . A person who accepts such engagement either temporary or casual in nature is aware of the nature of employment and accepts the 2358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

employment with eyes open . If it is directed to continue such person permanently then by doing so , it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible under law.

8. Since the workman was only a casual or temporary worker she had no right to the post and her disengagement cannot be said to be arbitrary and cannot be construed to be retrenchment under the Act .

For the reasons stated above the workman is not entitled to any relief.

AnAward is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2012

का०आ० 961.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियेन्टल बैंक ऑफ कामर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आईटी-1/ 7ऑफ 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकारको 16.01.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-/2012/75/2006- आई आर ( बी -11 ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th February, 2012

S.O.. 961. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 1/7 OF 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 1 , MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16/01/2012 .

[No. L - 12012/75 /2006 - IR( B-II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMABI

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 1 /7 OF 2007

Parties

: Employers in relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce

And

Their Workmen

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

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Shri . T. Vijaykumar, Adv .

Forthe workmen Shri . J.P. Sawant , Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , datedthe 15th day of December , 2011 .

AWARD

Thisisa reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce , Mumbai by terminating the services of S / Shri Satyendra D. Naik , R. Ramdas , Mahadev Shabaskar and Shri Anil Shukla w.e.f. 30.11.2005 is justified? If not , what relief these four workmen are entitled to?

2. The workman R. Ramadas has not filed any statement of claim .

3. According to the statement of claim filed by Satyendra D. Naik, Mahadev Shabaskar and Anil Shukla the workmen Satyendra D. Naik and Anil Shukla were appointed Data Entry Operators while the workman Mahadev Shabaskar worked as Peon for almost two years and thereafter he was appointed Data Entry Operator in the Global Trust Bank . A.N. Bhatkal was the contractor through whom the workmen were paid wages . After amalgamation of the Global Trust Bank with Oriental Bank of Commerce ( hereinafter referred to as the Bank ) on 14.8.2005 the workmen continued to work in the Bank till their termination on 30.11.2005 . Vide notificationdt . 14.8.2004 the Central Government sanctioned the scheme for the amalgamation according to which all the employees ofthe transferor bank would continue in service and would be deemed to have been appointed in the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees . Asper the minutes of industrial relations meeting with the All India Oriental Bank Federation held on 30.9.2005 there was a proposal for absorption of outsourced employees in the regular employment . As per the circulardt. 28.10.2005 the workmen were to be absorbed in the Bank . As per the circular the workmen applied to the Bank through proper channel but without any success . According to the statement of claim the contract arrangement between the management and the contractor for providing labour was sham , bogus , nominal and rather it was a camouflage and paper arrangement just to deprive the workmen of their rights and to deny them better wages and service conditions which were available to regular employees of the Bank . The workmen were controlled and their work was supervised by the Bank officers and the contractor came only once in a month for paying the salary to the workmen .

2359

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

secured minimum 50% of marks in S.S.C. examinations . This is correct that I do not hold that qualification" .

8. The workman Anil Shukla has stated in his cross examination:

Asthe contractor was almost a broker and an agent of the management the workmen are entitled to be declared as permanent and are entitled to receive wages , allowances and other benefits as are available to the permanent employees of the Bank. There are vacancies of data entry operators and the workmen are fully qualified for the said posts . The workmen have , therefore , prayed that the management be directed to reinstate and absorb them as permanent workers .

"This is correct that I never applied for job in the GlobalTrust Bank . This is correct that I did not get my salary from the Globala Trust Bank or from the first party Bank . The Global Trust Bank or the first party Bank did not give to me any termination letter............. I used to get my salary from M/s . A.N. Bhatkal Financial Services Pvt. Ltd ..... This is correct that I am not a graduate . In Higher Secondary Examination I secured 37 % marks . In Matriculation examination I secured 40% marks . This is correct that I was not fulfilling the conditions for making permanent in service ".

9. The workman Mahadev Shabaskar has stated in hiscross-examination

3. The Bank has filed written statement wherein it has been stated that the Bank follows prescribed procedure for appointment and never employed any of the three workmen in whatsoever capacity at any apoint oftime and, therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the workmen . The Bank neither issued any letter of appointment to any of these workmen not made payment of salary to them. The Bank did not issue any letter of termination either for the simple reason that they were never the employees of the Bank. In fact they were employed by M /s . A.IN. Bhatkal Financial Services Pvt . Ltd, the contractor . According to the written statement the workmen did not posess required qualification as per the circulardt. 28.10.2005. As per the terms of amalgamation approved by the Resreve Bank of India as well as the Central Government and as per the notificationdt. 13.8.2004 issued by the Govt . of India there is absolutely no obligation on the Bank to regularize, absorb or protect the employment of the contractual employees and, therefore, the workmen have no legal right to claim absorption or reinstatement in the Bank.

"Thisis correct that I did not (apply) for job in Global Trust Bank. This is correct that neither I was issued appointment letter nor I was given salary by the Global Trust Bank or the first party Bank . I was not given any termination letter also by the Bank...........At the time of amalgamation I was receiving my salary from M/s.A.N . Bhatkal Financial Services Pvt . Ltd...... This iscorrectthat I am not graduate . I secured 35 % marks inHigher Secondary Examination . In matriculation Examination I secured 43 % marks . This is correct thatI do not come within the criteria for being made permanent" .

4. The workmen have filed rejoinder wherein they have reiterated what they have stated in the statement of claim.

5. The three workmen have filed their affidavits and they have been cross - examined by the learned counsel for the Bank. The Bank has filed affidavit of Raj Jee , Chief Manager who has been cross - examined by learned counsel for the wokmen .

10. The statements of the workmen thus make it absolutely clear that they were neither appointed nor terminated by the Bank . It is also very clear that they were receiving their salary from M/ s.A.N , Bhatkal Financial Services Pvt . Ltd. and not the Bank . There is thus no doubt that there were never was an employee and employer relationship between the workmen and the Bank.

5.Heard learned counsels for the parties .

7. The workman Satyendra D. Naik has stated in his cross examination:

11. There is no proof of the allegation made in the statement of claim that the contract between the Bank and the contractor M/ s . A.N. Bhatkal Financial Services Pvt . Ltd. was sham , bogus and nominal .

12. It is also admitted by the workmen that they do not hold the qualifiications as prescribed in their circular dt.28.10.2005 for absorption.

13. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure he is aware ofthe consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot claim absorption when an appointment to the post can be made "This is correct that I did not apply for job in global Trust Bank. This is correct that my salary was paid by contractor and not by global Trust Bank of Oriental Bank of Commerce . Global Trust Bank or Oriental Bank of Commerce did not give me any letter of ....... On the date of termination . amalgamation my educational qualification was S.S.C. in S.S.C. examination I secured 38 % marks . This is correctthat after amalgamation a circular was issued in the month of October 2004 wherein it was stated that for absorption on the post of Data Entry Operator the person should be a graduate or should have

601 GI /2012-19 2360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

only by following a proper procedure for selection . Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the workmen do not hold requisite qualifications .

1.TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/375/95- IR(B -2) dated 3-1-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

12. For the reasons stated above I am of the opinion tha the workmen are not entitled any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2012

"Whether the action ofthe management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Komal Dashrath , daily rated casual peon , Sarvan Branch, Distt Ratlam w.e.f. 16-8-93 without following the provisions of Section 25 -F of I.D. Act is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

का०आ० 962.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंध तिंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/12/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12012/375/1995 - आई आर ( बी- II) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was engaged on daily wages since 9th November 1990 by the Branch Manager UCO Bank, Sarwan Block Sailal branch andworked till 16-8-93 as a peon . He was orally terminated on 16-8-93 without notice and without retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short the Act , 1947 ) He was working continuously and worked more than 240 days in every year. It is submitted that his termination is illegal within the provision of the Act , 1947 and the workman be reinstated withbackwages .

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2012

3. The management also appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia, is that the workman might have been engaged on part time daily wages basis to do cleaning and sweeping nature of work in the Bank but it is denied that he worked more than 240 days every year and therefore the provision oftheAct, 1947 was not applicable . It is submitted thatthe reference be answered in favour of the management .

S.O. 962. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 12/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , JABALPUR now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13/01/2012 .

4. On the basis of the pleadings , the following issues areframed for adjudication-

[No. L- 12012/375 / 1995 - IR (B - II) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Komal Dashrath, daily rated casual peon w.e.f. 16-8-93 is legal and justified?

II . To what relief the workman is entitled?

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

5. Issue No. I

NO . CGIT/LC /R/ 12/97

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR

The workman did not filed any evidence in the case and became absent . Lastly his evidence was closed.

HASAN

Shri Komal Dashrath , 134, Ram Rahim Nagar, Ratlam (MP)

Workman

Versus

Divisional Manager, UCO Bank,

Old Parasia,

A.B. Road, Indore

: Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of December 2011

6.The management has examined one witness inthe case. The management witness Shri A. Sheikh was Asstt . Manager in UCO Bank , Sarwan Branch during the period from 8-9-2008 to 26-6-2010 . He has stated that the workman was engaged time to time on urgency of daily wages which came to an end immediately on completion of such urgent work. He was paid from contingency expenses . He never worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year and the provision of the Act, 1947 is not attracted. His evidence is unrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness . This shows that there is no violation oftheAct , 1947. This issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

2361

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7. Issue No. II

Santacruz(W) Mumbai 400 054 .

AND

Onthe basis of the discussion made above, it is clear thatthe workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered.

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

THEIR WORKMEN, Shri Nagraj S. Devar Shree Samarth Sadan House No. 962, Room No. 2 Koparkhairne Village Sector- 19 -C NaviMumbai.

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

APPEARANCES:

21.12.11

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. R.S. Pai , Advocate .

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mohd . Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2012

:Mr. D.S. Hatle , Advocate . Mumbai , dated the 1st November 2011 .

AWARD

का०आ० 963.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , न० 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/ऑफ 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को16-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L- 12012/23 /2006 - IR (B - II ), dated29.06.2006 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:

[सं० एल-12012/23/2006- आई आर ( बी० II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

Ref. CGIT--2/40 of 2006

NewDelhi , the 9th February, 2012

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank , Regional Office , Mumbai in imposing the punishment ofdismissal from service on Mr. Nagraj S. Devar w.e.f. 04.09.2003 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief, Shri Nagaraj S. Devar is entitled?" S.O. 963.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/2/40 of 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of VIJAYA BANK and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16/01/2012..

[No. L- 12012/23/2006 - IR(B - II) SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT:

2.After receipt of the reference from the Ministry, both the parties were served with the notices . They appeared through their respective legal representative . The second party workman has filed his statement of claim at Ex-8.According to him , he was serving as a Peon with the first party Bank . He served with the first party honestly and sincerely for about 20 years . On 22/03/2003 , Bank has given him show cause notice and suspended him . On 18/4/2003 he was served with charge sheet . He submitted hisreply thereto . However the management was not satisfied with his reply and they started departmental inquiry against him . On 4/9/2003 , they informed him that he wasdismissed from service . His appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

К.В. КАТАКЕ , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2 /40 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF VIJAYA BANK

The Regional Manager

VijayaBank

RegionalOffice

3.According to him . the inquiry against him was based on false allegations made by lady clerk Smt . Nazia Patel from the office of Chartered Accountant M/ s Sunil Chopra & Co .. She had made false allegation of misbehaviour with her . The allegations were totally false. He further contented that he is educated only up to 8th std. and inquiry officer did not explain him the inquiry proceedings . His signatures on the inquiry proceedings 1st floor, S.V. Road 2362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

were obtained by the inquiry officer under coercion and threat . Inquiry Officer did not take in to account his defence in the inquiry proceeding . Inquiry officer acted at the instance of the first party. He wrongly held the second party workman guilty of the charges leveled against him. The inquiry is not fair and proper and the order of dismissal isillegal . Therefore the workman prays that the order of dismissal be quashed and he be reinstated in the service with full back wages .

party Bank , nor she was under the control of the management. Therefore , her presence could not be secured and the inquiry officer thus , could not record her statement . However according to him , there is not reason to discard the testimony of the Branch Manager to whom Ms. Nazia made a complaint . He further submitted that the Branch Manager wrote a letter to higher authority about the misbehavior . The said letter is on record . In this respect the Id. Adv. submitted that the first party examined the witnesses which were under their control and could not examine Ms. Nazia as she was not available for personal reasons . Therefore the Id Adv submitted the non- examination of such a witness does not vitiate the nquiry proceeding.

4.The first party management resisted the statement ofclaim vide its written statement Ex- 9. According to them, while working as a Peon at Vashi Branch , Navi Mumbai , he was involved in sexual harassment of Ms. Nazia Patel , an female employee from the office ofAuditor or Bank namely M/s . Sunil Chopra & Co. The workman was charge - sheeted for the same. D.E. was initiated against him and he fully participated therein . The inquiry officer by his report dt.5/8/2003 found the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him . He submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. it was served on the second party. Second party submitted his representation dated 29/8/2003 . The disciplinary authority after cosidering the report and findings of inquiry officer and the representation of the workman dated 18/9/2003 , vide its order dt . 6/10/2003 imposed punishment of dismissal of the workamn from services . According to them the inquiry officer has conducted fair and proper inquiry and his findings are just and proper. The Punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is quite adequate and proportionate to the misconduct of the workman . Therefore they pray that the reference be dismissed with cost .

5. Following are the preliminary issues framed by my Ld. Predecessors for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Issues

Findings

7. In this respect the Id. Adv. for the workman submitted that the workman is illiterate , he does know English whereas the evidence is recorded in English . According to him . it amount to violation of principles of natural justice . On the point Id. Adv. for the first party submitted that the workman was represented by his defence representative Mr. Sunil J. Sapkal who knows English well . He further submitted that though the evidence was recorded in English , the inquiry was conducted in Marathi . Therefore he submitted that the inquiry cannot be held illegal or unfair. On the point he resorted to Bombay High Court ruling in National Organic Chemicals Ltd. & Ors . V/ s. Pandit Ladaku Patil 2008 III CLR 716 wherein the inquiry was conducted in Marathi and the evidence was recorded in English . The Hon'ble Court held that , the inquiry cannot be quashed for following such a procedure of recording evidence in English . The same principle was laid down in Navinkumar B. Panchal V/ s Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & Ors . 2004 1 CLR 47. In the light of the ratio laid down in these rulings the inquiry cannot be declared improper for recording the evidence in English.

Yes .

1. Is inquiry fair and proper ?

Yes.

2.Is findings preverse?

REASONS

Issue no.1 :-

6. In the case at hand , the Id adv. for the second party workamen vehemently submitted that in the departmental inquiry, the main witness i. e. the complainant Ms. Nazia Patel was not examined . According to him , whatever evidence recorded by the inquiry officer was not atall admissible being hearsay evidence. According to him , the inquiry officer mostly relied upon the statement of the Branch Manager concerned , to whom Ms. Nazia alleged to have reported about the alleged teasing and misbehavior bythe second party workman. In this respect the Ld. Adv. ofthe first party contended that, She did not appear before the enquiry officer for personal reasons . He further submitted that , neither Ms. Nazia is employee of the first

8. In respect of non - examination of Ms. Nazia Patel , the Id . Adv. for the second party workman submitted that as management did not examine Ms. Nazia , therefore workman could not cross examine her in the departmental inquiry. Therefore , according to him , it amount to violation ofprinciples of natural justice. In this respect I would like to point out that as Ms. Nazia was not examined, question of cross examining her does not arise . Had she been examined and not offered for cross examination , then , it would have amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Witness who is not examined , question of her cross examination does not arise . At the most it can be said evidence or complaint of such witness who is not examined cannot be used against the second party. The evidential value thereof would be seen on merit . In short the claim of the second party to declare the inquiry unfair or illegal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice is found to be devoid of merit .

2363

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

9. Inrespect of the merit of the inquiry proceeding, fact is not disputed that the charge - sheet was served upon the second party. Charge was also explained to him. the second party has also contended in his statement of claim that , he has filed reply to the charge- sheet . From the evidence on record , it is clear that the second party workman had taken part in the inquiry proceeding . Fair and proper opportunity was given to him to defend himself. Copies of all documents were served on him . His defence representative has cross examined the prosecution witnesses . In the circumstances , though one of the witnesses who is the main witness is not examined as she is not under control of the Bank . In the circumstances , inquiry cannot be called unfair or improper. The management has followed the principles of natural Justice . They have examined the witnesses which were under their control and available . Ms. Nazia could not attend the inquiry proceeding for personal reasons . Effect thereof can be seen while deciding the point of genuineness of findings . For non -examination of a witness , the inquiry cannot be called illegalor improper.

10. The id Adv. for the first party further submitted that strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable to the domestic inquiry. In support of his argument he resorted to Apex Court ruling in State of Haryana & Anr. V/ s . Rattan Singh & Ors . Civil Appeal No. 922 of 1976 decided on 22/3/1977 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that :

"Itiswell- settled that in a domestic inquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. "

In the case at hand , therefore the above referred irregularity of not examining the complainant, does not vitiate the inquiry. In the circumstances , I hold that the inquiry is fair and proper. Accordingly, I decide this issue No.1 in the affirmative .

Issue No. 2:-

11. Inrespect of findings of inquiry Officer, the Id . Adv. for the second party submitted that, the findings of the inquiry officer arrived at on the basis of hearsay evidence . Therefore such findings cannot be upheld. He further submitted that , neither complainant was examined , nor the second party got an opportunity to cross examine her and the findings are based merely on hearsay evidence . As against this , the Id . Adv. for the first party submitted that in domestic inquiry , such evidence can be relied upon. In support ofhis argument , he resorted to Apex Court ruling in Shri J.D. Jain V/ s . The Management of State Bank of India & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 495 ( L) of 1979 decided on 17/12/1981 . However facts in that matter were altogether different, wherein the complainant therein had not given written complaint against the bank employee for withdrawal of excess amount from his account . On the other hand he had given verbal complaint in presence of four other employees ofthe bank . In that case though the complainant wasnot examined , and there was no written complaint , the Hon'ble Court held that such a verbal complaint is acceptable . The Hon'ble Court in that case held that evidence ofthe other employees in whose presence , verbal complaint was given cannot be called hearsay evidence . The Hon'ble Court on the point of hearsay evidence in a domestic inquiry observed in para 9 of the judgement that :

"There is no allergy to hearsay evidence, provided it has nexus and credibility . "

Inthe light of above ruling , though hearsay evidence cannot be totally discarded , however in the case at hand there is no other evidence of the alleged sexual harassment or there is also no nexus with the allegations thereof. So also the evidence of Branch Manager cannot be called credible as not supported by any other independent evidence . Therefore , the ratio laid down in the above ruling is not helpful to the first party in the case at hand . In this respect , I would like to point out that the allegations made by Ms. Nazia to the Branch Manager were wrongly accepted as evidence of sexual harassment . In fact the evidence is not only hearsay but also not corroborated by any material evidence or circumstances on record.

12. On the point further I would like to point out that , even presuming for the sake of argument that the second party workman had asked Ms. Nazia as to when her work would be completed and as to when she was going home and whether her superior was to visit the office on that day? None of these questions or queries can be called obscene gesture nor would come in the purview of sexual harassinent without any other evidence on record . Even asking Ms. Nazia why she was wearing a particular type of shoes does not come in the ambit of obscene or sexual harasssment as has been alleged . In this backdrop , I come tothe conclusion that the findings arrived at , by the inquiry officer does not stand to reasons that , the workman had sexually harassed a lady employee .

13. In this respect the Id . Adv . for the first party management submitted that the inquiry and finding of the inquiry officer cannot be set aside by Industrial Court when the inquiry officer has followed proper procedure , and has also followed the principles of natural justice. In support of his argument , the Id Adv. resosrted to the Apex Court ruling in S.E. & Stamping Works V/s . The workman AIR 1963 SC 1914 wherein the Hon'ble Court in para 4 of the judgement observed that:

" If an industrial employee's services are terminated after a proper domestic inquiry, held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusion reached at the inquiry are not perverse, Industrial Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of the said conclusion . " 2364

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

The Id. Adv. also resorted to another Apex Court ruling in Banaras Electrics and Power Co. Ltd. V/s. Labour Court II Lucknow & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble Court held that:

"This Court has in several cases while dealing industrial dispute of this kind , occasion to point out that an Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in characterizing the findings recorded at the domestic inquiry as perverseverse unless it can be shown that such findings is not supported by any evidence or is entirely opposed to the whole body of evidence adduced before if. "

Ms.Naziawas not examined by the inquiry officer . Though the questions alleged to have asked by him do not found in the category of sexual harassment, no doubt it was unnecessary to as such questions to an employee of audit office with whom he had no concern . It seems that he himself had invited the trouble , may be due to his over curiosity or to get unwanted knowledge . Furthermore , he was not on duty since the day of his suspension and the Bank need not bear the burden of backwages of a person who did not work for the period . In the circumstances it would not be proper to grant backwages to the second party. In this backdrop I think it proper to set aside the order oftermination and direct the management to reinstate secondpartyworkman without backwages . Thus the order :

ORDER

(i) The inquiry is held to be fair and proper.

(ii) The findings of inquiry officer are perverse.

(iii) The order of termination is hereby set aside .

( iv) The first party management is directed to reinstate the second party employee with all other benefits including benefit of pension , gratuityetc. Without arrears of back -wages .

Date:01.11.2011

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2012

का०आ० 964.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र , के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय -1 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्यासीजीआईटी -1- 28ऑफ/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12011/ 302/2003- आई०आर० ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9th February ,

S.O. 964. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the ward ( Ref. No. CGIT- 1 /28 OF 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court - 1, MUMBAI now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO BANK and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16/01/2012 .

14. In the case at hand at the outset I would like to point out that the allegations against the second party workman cannot be called sexual harassment merely as he asked Ms. Nazia as to when here work would be over? When she was leaving the office? Whether her superior was to visit the office ? and Why she was wearing a particular type of shoes? It is alleged that he followed her riskshaw by another rickshaw and teased her at the signal point . In this respect I would like to point out that though the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to the domestic inquiry proceeding , however the basic principles thereof cannot be totally lost sight of Ms Nazia was not at all examined by the inquiry officer by saying that as shew was not bank employee ; she was not under their control . It is alleged that Ms Nazia left the office alongwith another lady employees Mrs. Uma Maheshwari . However no incident of teasing had taken place in presence of Mrs. Uma Maheshwari . No other witness is examined who has heard or seen the workman teasing or making any gesture . Neither complainant was examined nor any other witness who has seen or heard about the alleged incident. In the circumstances allegations made against the workman that he teased Ms. Nazia and asked her some questions and sexually harassed her cannot be said to have been proved even by applying the principles of prepondence of probability as there is absolutely no evidence . The questions referred above in normal course neither can be called obscene nor it can be said sexual harassment unless these questions are asked in some special circumstances . The complainant did not come forward to explain any special circumstance to say that , these questions were asked in order to harass her sexually. In short it is clear that, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are not supported by the evidence on record as has been observed in the above referred rulings . Accordingly I hold that , the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are perverse as not supported by evidence on record. Therefore though the inquiry is held to be fair and proper, I hold that as findings are perverse, the workman has to be exonerated from the charges leveled against him . Consequently I hold that the workman is entitled to be reinstated .

[No. L- 12011 /302/2003 - IR( B - 1 ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

15. In respect ofbackwages , I would like to point out that the workman is exonerated as the main witness 2365 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding officer

Reference No. CGIT- 1/28 Of 2004

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank And

treatment from a psychiatrist . The management sent to him a letter by registered post on 3.6.1992 directing him to join the duties immediately. Another notice was sent on 8.7.1992 directing him tojoin duties within 30 day failing which his services would stand terminated . The Workman produced medical certificate but the bank refused to accept it . Vide letter dt. 14.10.1992 the bank repeated that his services ended and that he stood voluntarily retired . According to the statement of claim the decision of the bank is unilateral and illegal . It has , therefore , been prayed that the bank be directed to take back the workman in service with full back wages and all other benefits that are payable to him.

TheirWorkman (D.N. Chavan)

APPEARANCES:

For the Management : Mrs. P.S. Shetty, Adv.

For the Workman

: Mr. P.R. Ranade , President

UCO Bank Workes Organization

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated 21st day of December 2011 .

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its power under clause (d) of sub section( 1) and sub- section (2 -A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management ofUCO Bank interminating the service of Shri D.N. Chavan, filing despatch record clerk w.e.f.8.9.1992 by striking his name from the muster roll on the ground of deemed voluntary retirement without conducting any enquiry on the alleged charges of remaining unauthorised absent against the workman is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

The bank has filed written statement wherein it has beenstated that there is a gross delay of 12 years in raising the matter and as such the request of the workman cannot be entertained . According to the wirtten statement the workman accepted his post retirement benefits and , therefore, he should not be allowed to raise issues which are settled and accepted by him way back in the year 1996 . The workman used to abstain from work without notice and on serveral occasions he was warned orally as well as in writing. In spite of repeated notices /warnings the attendance of the workman in the bank did not improve . According to the bi -partite agreementdt . 10.4.1989 if an employee absents himself from work for a period of90 or more consecutive days without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/ subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or when the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention ofjoining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date ofthe notice stating inter alia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining duties and furnishing necessary evidence , where available . Unless the employee reports for duty within 30days ofthe notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the said period satisfying the management the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice .The workman went on leave w.e.f. 11.1.1992 and thereafter never returned for duty. Therefore , the bank issued the notice dt. 8.7.1992 calling upon the workman to report for duty or tender his explanation within a period of 30 days from the date ofthe said notice failing which he would be deemed to have been voluntarily retired . The envelope containing the said notice returned with the remark that the workman 2.According to the statement of claim filed by General Secretary, UCO Bank Workers Organization D.N. Chavan was appointed as sub - staff (peon ) by the UCO Bank on 14.12.1971 on regular basis and he was posted on D.N. Road , Mumbai Branch and thereafter on his request he was posted at Pimpri Branch , Pune in 1977. In 1986 he was promoted as Filing/ Despatch/ Record Clerk and he was posted at Shivaji Nagar Branch , Pune . The workman D.N. Chavan carried out his duties whole heartedly , honestly and with devotion . While his house was under construction he had to stay home to supervise and follow up the work and also to procure material required for construction . The house was built in 1990. The workman did not have any issue and , therefore , he was under mental tension. The workman had health problems in 1990 and 1991 and was taking medical treatment for arthritis and he also took

was out of station . The bank issued another warning notice dt. 14.10.1992 by registered AD and under certificate of posting and ordinary post which returned with the remark addressee not accepting the registered. Consequently the bank deleted his name from the roll of the employees ofthe bank treating him as voluntarily ceded the service . On his [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

requiring him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of the notice in accordance with clause 17 (a) of the bi- partite agreement dt. 10.4.1989 .

12. In view of the above the action of the bank deeming the workman to have retired voluntarily from the bank's service is unjustified and illegal .

13. Then comes the question what reliefthe workman isentitled to.

voluntary cessation of service the workman was eligible for post retirement dues . However, the workman had taken a loan of Rs . 1,20.000/- from the bank for construction of the house and the workman vide his letter dt . 31.1.1996 instructed the bank to adjust retirement dues against the above loan . Thus the workman accepted the post retirement benefits and he is estopped from raising any claim on his voluntary retirement . Therefore , it has been prayed that the claim ofthe workman be rejected.

The organisation filed its rejoinder .

14. It is not disputed that the services of the workman ended in 1992 and the workman first approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Pune in the year 2003 and thusthere is a delay ofmore than 10 years in initiating legal action by the wokrman.

5.Ashok Chintaman Ghavi , General Secretary, UCO Bank Workers Organization has filed his affidavit on behalf oftheworkman and he has been cross- examined by learned counsel for the bank. The bank has filed affidavit of G.K. Kolte, Deputy Chief Officer who has been cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman.

6.Heard P.R. Ranade , President of UCO Bank Workers Organization and Mrs P.S Shetty learned counsel for the bank .

15.Admittedly the workman has crossed the age of superannuation and , therefore , there is no question ofhis reinstatement. The workman has not filed any affidavit in the matter and thus there is no evidence to the effect that he remained out ofemployment after his deemed voluntary retirement . Looking to the principle of " No Work No Pay " the workman is not entitled to back wages .

16. The workman has received all post retirement benefits .

17. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the matter the workman is not entitled to any financial benefits .

7. As per the bi-partite agreement dt . 10.4.1989 the absence of the workman has to be for a period of 90 or more consecutive days and he has to be given a notice calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of the notice . Unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days or given an explanation for his absence within the said period the workman will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said period of 30 days .

8. Two notices have been exhibited by the bank .

18. Consequently the action of the bank in terminating the services of the workman by striking his name from the muster roll on the ground of deemed voluntary retirement is quashed and set aside but it is also held that the workman is not entitled to any other relief .

Award is passed accordingly. JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2012 9. One notice dated 8.7.1992 is Ex- 3 which , according to the affidavitof G.K. Kolte , Dy, Chief Officer ofthe bank, returned with the remarks that the workman was out of station . It is thus clear that Ex- 3 was not served on the workman . In the statement of claim though there is a reference of the notice dated 8.7.1992 but there is no clear and specific admission of the fact that the workman received the said notice . In the absence of any admission of the receipt or proof of service of the said notice it cannot be said that a notice to report for duty within 30 days was given to the workman .

का०आ० 965.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लि० एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -20040/58 /1995 - आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012 10. The other notice dated 14.10.1992 is Ex-3A . Ex. 3 -A is not a notice according to the bi - partite settlement dt. 10.4.1989 because by this notice the workman has not been called upon to report for duty within 30 days from the date of the notice . In Ex . 3 -A there is mention of a letter dt. 3.6.1992 but this letter has neither been proved nor it has been exhibited . In the statement of claim , again there is a reference of letter dated 3.6.1992 but there is no admission of the fact by the workman that by that letter he was given 30 days to report for duty.

S.O. 965. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- 11. It is thus clear from the above discussion that the bank has miserably failed to prove notice to the workman 2367

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10/2/2012.

[No. L-20040/58/ 1995 - IR(C-I) ]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

issued a certificate of his satisfactory service . It is stated that Shri A.K. Gupta Manager , HPCL issued a certificate of his satisfactory service . It is stated that Shri A.K. Gupta Manager , HPCL issued a certificate on 7-12-92 when emergency was imposed in Bhopal . It is stated that the services of the workman was terminated in July, 1994 without assigning any reason by verbal order. He was terminated without any notice and without any retrenchment compensation .It is submitted that the termination of the workman be declared illegal and the benefit of regular clerk be awarded.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC /R/37 /99

Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

Presiding Officer :

Shri Jamin Hussain,

-S/o Shri Iqbal Hussain , House No. 5, Gali No. 2, Beldarpura , Bhopal

Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ,

Gautam Nagar, Bhopal

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of January, 2012

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-20040/58 /95 - IR (C- II) dated 23-12-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:--

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management, inter alia , is that M/ s HPCL is a Govt . of India undertaking and came into existence in the year 1974. The corporation has one of the its Depots at Nishatpura falling under the administrative jurisdiction of Bhopal Regional Office . In case ofthe claimant/workman engagement, if any, was by disregarding the rules .As such he cannot be absorbed in regular service . The management has not issued any appointment order to the claimant . The further case is that the management does not have any particulars about Shri Hussain's educational qualification , age etc. and just because he may have been engaged by the Depot on a casual basis through corporation to meet the temporary work for exigencies he cannot be absorbed in the regular services of the corporation in violation of theCorporation's Recruitment Policy. It is denied that the Hon'ble High Court had directed to produce certain documents before any authority. The further case of the management is that the claimant was never employed by the management of HPCL . As he was not employed by the management, the question of termination of his services either orally or by issuing any other in writing does not arise. The documents filed by the workman in support of the case are denied by the management . It is submitted thatthe reference be answered in favour of the management .

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

1. Whether Shri Jamin Hussain should be treated as an employee of HPCL ?

"Whether the workman Shri Jamin Hussain should betreated as an employee ofthe Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. If yes , whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , in terminating the services ofShri Jamin Hussain w.e.f. July 1994 is justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

II . Ifyes, whether the action of the management of HPCL in terminating the services of Shri Jamin Hussain w.e.f. July 1994 is justified . ?

III . To what other relief the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

According to the workman, he was appointed as an office clerk in HPCL at Nishatpura in the year 1961 and worked for 35 years . He was terminated without notice and without compensation in July 1994. On the other side , the management has no definite case , at the first instance it is stated that in case of claimant engagement, if any, was disregarding the rules . As such he may have been engaged by the Depot on casual basis to meet the temporary work 2. The case of the workman , in short , is that he was appointed as an Office clerk in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short HPCL) at Nishatpura , Bhopal in the year 1961 without any appointment letter. He worked continuously for 35 years . His contribution towards Employees State Insurance (in short ESI) was deducted from his pay. The workman filled up and submitted declaration form of ESI on 4-10-1978 which was counter signed by the Depo Superintendent, Chola Road, Bhopal . It isstated that Manager, ESI after verifying the record on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court had issued the copy of the same . A temporary identity letter was also issued. The Depo Superintendent of Nishatpura had also .

601 GI/2012-20 2368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

on exigencies . It is further stated that the claimant was never employed by the management of HPCL .

6. Now the important question is as to whether Shri Hussain should be treated as an employee of HPCL . The prove the case the workman Shri Jamin Hussain is examined . He has stated that he was appointed in the establishment of the management in the year 1961. This fact appears to be not reliable because HPCL came into existence in the year 1974. He has subsequently stated in cross- examination that he was not given any appointment letter. Except his oral evidence , there is no corroboration that he was appointed in the year 1961 in the erstwhile Esso in India. Now the question arises as to whether he worked in HPCL after coming into existence in the year 1974. He has stated that ESI contribution was deducted from his salary through the management . It is urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the workman that it is a proof that he was working in the establishment of the management . He has further stated that the declaration form of ESI was varified by the Manager , ESI as per order of the Hon'ble High Court . The workman has filed the certified copy of the order dated 12-2-1998 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of MP at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 3057/97 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that--

"After hearing the parties , it is directed that the petitioner shall produce Annexures P - 10, P- 11 , P- 12, P - 13 & Annexure P - 14 in the office of E.S.I. Corporation, Bhopal to obtain fresh certificate as to whether the petitioner was working as an employee of Respondent No. 4 and whether at any point of time he had availed the benefit from the E.S.I. Corporation or Corporation has ever received any amount for the present petitioner from the Respondent No. 4. "

Thelearned counsel for the workman urged that in view of the said order ofthe Hon'ble Court the declaration form was verified which is Paper No. P/ 6 and P/7 . The Declaration Form shows that the workman was appointed on 4-10-1978 as Casual/temporary clerk . The said declaration form of ESI is verified by the Manager of ESI. The said ESí declaration form appears to have been countersigned by Depot Superintendent , Nishatpura Bhopal . This fact shows that the workman was engaged as casual/ temporary clerk in the establishment of HPCL w.e.f. 4-10-1978 and not from the year 1961. The workman has not filed any other paper in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court that he had availed the benefit from the E.S.I. Corporation or the corporation had received any amount for the workman from the management . The workman has stated in his evidence in cross -examination that he had not received any book from ESI nor he had availed any medical facilities . This part of the evidence clearly shows that there is no evidence to prove ove that any contribution was made in the account of the workman by the management to ESI Corporation and

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

he had ever availed any facilities from ESI . This aspect clearly shows that except the oral evidence ofthe workman , there is no evidence that there was contribution towards ESI by the management and he was in continuous service till 1994. Moreover there is no case as to how much contributions were made in the name of the workman on monthly basis .

7. The workman has filed Paper No. 12/4 certified copy of copy of a certificate alleged to have been issued by Shri A.K. Gupta , Manager Depot , Nishatpura Depot on 7-12-1992 to the workman during emergency period to permit to attend the duties from 8.00 AM to 6.00 PM . This is filed to show that the workman was working in the year 1992. Paper No. 12/5 is photocopy of curfew pass issued by the office of District Magistrate , Bhopal on 22-12-92. This is filed to show that he was working on that date in Hindustan Petroleum . The learned counsel for the management argued that the originals of these documents arenot filed by the workman during the course of evidence or thereafter . It is submitted that these documents are not reliable . It is clear from the evidence that the workman was engaged intermittently on temporary casual basis but these documents donot show that he was in continuous employment of the management . The documentary evidences of the workman do not establish that the workman was in employment as casual employee for 240 days or more in a calender year and was also in employment for 240 days during the period of twelve calender months preceding the date with reference . This simply shows that he was engaged intermittently on exigencies.

8. The management has examined one witness in the case . Shri Salim Warsi was working as Depot Manager in HPCL . He has supported the fact that Shri Jamin Hussain was allegedly engaged on contract/ casual basis at Nishatpur Depot . He was never a regular employee nor he was appointed as a clerk in the corporation . He has stated that the provision of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (in short the Act , 1947) is not applicable . He has denied that Shri Hussain had continuously worked for 35 years . There is nothing in his evidence to show that the workman had worked more than 240 days during the period to twelve calender months preceding the date with reference . This shows that this service is not deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year under the provisions of section 25B( 2) of the Act and therefore he is not said to be a retrenched employee of the management . Considering the discussion made above , it is clear that he was not to be treated as employer of the management as he was not termed as retenched employee because his service shall not be deemed to be a continuous service for a period of one year during a period of twelve calender months preceding the date with reference. This issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

2369

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

9. Issue No. II

It is clear from the evidence discussed above that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the workman wascontinously working as casual employee and specially 240 days during the period of twelve calender months preceding the date with reference . As such the action of the management appears to be justified. Accordingly this issue is also decided in favour of the management.

10. Issue No. III

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

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

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

Mohd. Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2012

का०आ० 966.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोरपोरेशन बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट पार्ट -1 ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/52 ऑफ 2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12012/45/2002- आई आर ( बी- II)] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2012

S.O. 966.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Part- 1 (Ref. No. CGIT- 2 /52 of 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No.2 , MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Corporation Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20/01/2012 .

[No. L- 12012/45/2002- IR(B- II) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT:

K.B. Katake , Presiding Officer Reference No. Cgit- 2/52 of 2002

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATION BANK

The Regional Manager CorporationBank Nariman Bhavan Building, 4th floor 409, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 .

AND

THEIR WORKMEN . Shri Ashok Medekar Transit Camp Building No. 55 , R. No. 1084 Opp. Jaicoach Company Goregaon(E) Mumbai 400 065.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. R.S. Pai , Advocate .

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. Manoj Gujar, Advocate.

Mumbai , dated the 23rd December 2011 .

AWARD PART- I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L- 12012 / 45 /2002 - IR (B - II ) , dated 17.06.2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Shri AshokMedhekar by way of dismissal vide letter dated 9.11.1996 is legal and justified ? If not , what reliefthe employees is entitled to ? "

2.After receipt of the reference from the Ministry, both the parties were served with notices . They appeared through their respective legal representatives . The second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-7 . According to him, he joined the services of the first party Bank as a Peon w.e.f. 06/01/1984 . He had worked continuously for 12 years . The entire service record of the second party workman was clean and unblemished except thealleged incident of fraud . According to him he has not committed any fraud in respect of the property of Bank : Charges levelled against him are false and fabricated. He was wrongly implicated in the case of fraud of theft of cheques . He was working in the said branch on deputation . The charges levelled against him are false and baseless andthey are with malafied intention .

2370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

3. The inquiry into the said charges was a mere farce and empty formality and needs to be quashed . The inquiry officer did not follows the principle of natural justice . He was favouring the Bank at all the point of time . The inquiry was one sided proceeding. Bank did not handover all the relevant documents though asked by the workman during the inquiry proceeding. There was no evidence or written complaint against the workman . The inquiry proceedings were recorded in English inspite of objection of the workman.The inquiry was held hurriedly. The inquiry officer was one of the officers of the Bank . He did not advise the workman . The inquiry is improper and not fair. The findings of inquiry officer are perverse . They are mere imaginary and not based on evidence . The workman therefore demanded for reinstatement with full backwages . He sent a letter to that effect to the Bank . However he did not receive favourable reply. Therefore he approached the Conciliation Officer.As conciliation failed , the Conciliation officer sent a report to the Ministry. The punishement of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate . Since he was dismissed from service he made attempt to secure employment . However due to the stigma of termination, he could not get any job . The workman and his family are suffering heavily because ofhis illegal dismissal . Therefore workman prays that the inquiry and order of termination be set aside and he be reinstated in the service with full backwages.

4.The first party resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement Ex-8 .According to them , the workman while working on deputation as a Sub staff in Mumbai Wadala Branch reported to have clandestinely removed two cheque books containing cheque leaves nos. 840071 to 940080 and 885121 to 885140 respectively between the period from 3/8/1993 to 4/12/1993 . He unauthorisedly handed over certain cheque leaves from the above referred cheque books to third parties who drew the large amount through the said cheques forging the signatures of constituent of the Bank and thereby exposed the Bank to grave financial risk and grave consequences .

5. As per the chargesheetdt . 19/12/1994 , issued to the workman, names of the third parties and amount they have encashed were given in the chargesheet . All the cheques were presented for clearing on or about 23/ 11/ 1993. Shri Sudhir Hankonkar Special assistant , supervising the Clearing Department entrusted the inward clearing cheques for being delivered to the concerned departments . With deliberate intention of avoiding to return the cheque no . 885124 for Rs . 23,460 in clearing and thereby facilitating withdrawal of the cheque amount at the collecting Bank, theworkman clandestinely removed the said cheque out ofthe cheques entrusted to him . Upon inquiry by the Branch of the Bank with Canara Bank, Mazgaon Mumbai, they informed that Shri S.D. Salvi the payee of the cheque had informed them that the cheques presented through his accountwere handed over to him by the workman. Similarly

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

on inquiry with Abhudaya Co - op Bank, it was revealed that three cheques in question were handed over to their constituent Shri R.A. Chalke by the workman .

6. The aforesaid act constituted gross misconduct under clause 19.5 ( i ) of Bipartite Settlement applicable to the workman . Bank also filed an FIR on 2/12/1993 at Matunga Police Station, Mumbai . However even after one year of the complaint no progress was made by Police and the workman was not put of trial . Therefore Bank issued the aforesaid chargesheetdt . 19/12/1994 . The workman submitted his reply dt . 3/1/1995 denying the charges as explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory the disciplinary authority decided to proceed with the inquiry. They appointed Shri Titues Mathew an officer of theBank as Inquiry Officer . The workman fully participated in the said inquiry. Full opportunity was given to him to defend himself through Secretary of Corporation Bank Employees Union . The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry, submitted his report and findings dated 5/7/1996 holding the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him. Copy ofthe report and findings were forwarded to the workman to submit his representation thereon if any. After giving personal hearing , disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal of the workman from services of theBank.

7. The workman filed appeal there- against . The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the order ofdisciplinary authority. They denied all the contents in the statement of claim that record of the workman was clean through out his service . They denied that he was not givensufficient opportunity to defend himself. They denied that all the documents were not shown to him in the inquiry proceeding . They denied that there was violation of principles of natural justice . They also denied that the second partywas victimized . According to them, the inquiry officer has given sufficient opportunity to the workman to defend himself. All the documents were shown to him . Workman was defended by Mr. Mule , Secretary of the Union . He cross examined all the witnesses . The second party was also allowed to examine his witnesses . He examined himself. The inquriy was fair and proper. Accroding to them the findings of the inquiry officer are based on evidence on record . They are also just and proper. Thus they pray that the reference be dismissed with cost.

8.Following are the preliminary issues framed by my Ld. Predecessor for my determination . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No. Issues

Findings

Yes.

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workmen was fairproper and as per the principles of natural justice?

No. Whether findings of Inquiry Officer are perverse?

2371

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

REASONS

Issue no. 1: -

9. In the case at hand, the second party workman has challenged the inquiry on the grounds that there was violation ofprinciples of natural justice while conducting the inquiry. He was not shown all the documents at the time of inquiry proceeding . The inquiry proceeding was recorded in English . The Inquiry Officer was bias and inquiry proceeding was one sided.

13. The second objection raised on behalf of the second party is that he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and was not allowed to examine his witness also does not stand to reason. In this respect Ld . Adv for the first party rightly pointed out that the second party workman was represented by Mr. Muley who was Secretary ofEmployees Union . He further pointed out that the workman fully participated in the inquiry proceeding. Hisdefence representative cross examined all the witnesses . The second party admitted in his cross examination at Ex- 15 that copies of inquiry proceedings were served to the defence representative . He has also admitted that his representative attended the inquiry till the end of the inquiry. He has also admitted in his cross that witnesses were cross examined by his defence representative . His evidence was recorded in the inquiry proceeding. He vaguely contended that he was not given opportunity to examine his Vitnesses . However he has not specifically.

contended who were his witnesses and when he sought to produce them before the inquiry officer. No such application was filed by the workman or his defence representative before the inquity officer. This version of the second party also is devoid of merit and point is raised merely to raise one more ground . This objection thus is unacceptable and devoid of merit.

14. Inrespect of recording the proceeding in English, thisobjection to the inquiry proceeding also appears devoid of merit . It is not the case of the workman that the proceeding was conducted in English. He merely says that itwas recorded in English . Inquiry proceeding conducted inthe lanugage of the delinquent can be recorded in English for the purpose of convenience . It does not create any defect to the inquiry proceeding .

10. In respect of the objection that while conducting inquiry there was violation ofprinciple ofnatural justice , it is vaguely contended that all the documents were not shown to the second party workman and he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himselfand the proceeding was recorded in English . In this respect , the Ld Adv. for the first party submitted that all the documents available were shown at the time of inquiry proceeding to the workınan and his defence representative . The documents whichwere not available cannot be shown . He further submitted that no such objection was raised by the defence representative at the time of inquiry proceeding . The Ld adv. further submitted that even before this Tribunal , second party workman or this defence representative have not pointed out specifically which document were relevant and were not shown to the workman and his defence representative . The vague allegation that all the documents were not shown is meaningless . On the point Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that neitherdocument is referred or speciafically pointed out nor relevancy thereof is shown . Therefore such a vague averrnent is not sufficient to vitiate the departmental inquiry. In support of his argument, the Ld. Adv. Resorted to Apex Court ruling in Secretary to Government & Ors . V/s . ACJ britto 1997 II LLJ page 194 where in on the point Hon'ble Court observed that :

"Merenon-furnishing ofcopies ofdocuments would not vitiate departmental action . Administrative Tribunal has to find out how documents are relevant and how he was prejudiced in defending himselfas a result offailure to supply copies ofdocuments. "

11. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to another Apex Court ruling in Synidicate Bank & Ors . V/s . Venkatesh Guru Rao Kurati (2006) 3 SCC 150 where in theHon'ble Court on the point held that;

15. In the case at hand , the workman was chargesheeted for the alleged misconduct of theft and fraud. After considering his explanation , the competent authority decided to initiate inquiry and Mr. Titues Mathew wasappointed as Inquiry Officer. The workman took part in the inquiry proceeding . He engaged Mr. Muley the Secretary of the Union as his defence representative, who cross examined all the prosecution witnesses . Fair and full opportunity was given to the workman to participate in the inquiry. The copy of inquiry report and findings of inquiry officer were served on the workman . After giving him fair opportunity ofhearing, the competent authority has passed the order of tremination . In the circumstances it cannot be said that the inquiry was illegal or improper .

"Non supply of ducuments on which the inquiry officer does not rely during the course of inquiry does not create prejudice to the delinquent. "

16. In this respect the Ld . Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Sur Enamel and stamping Works Ltd. V/s . The workmen AIR 1963 SC 1914 wherein the Hon'ble Court has given the five ingredients of legal and proper inquiry they are:

"( i ) The employee proceeded against has been 12. In the circumstances , Hon'ble Court in this case held that non - supply of suchdocuments which are not relied by the inquiry officer does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice . The same principle is reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent case State Bank of India & Ors . V/s . Bidyut Kumar Mitra and Ors . (2011 ) 2 SCC 316 .

2372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

informed clearly of the charges levelled against him .

18. On the point Ld . Adv. also resorted to landmark ruling ofApex Court in Sur - Enamel and Stamping Work Ltd. referred supra . In paras 4 ofthe judgement, the Hon'ble Court on the point observed that:

(ii) The witnesses are examined ordinarily in presence of the employee in respect of the charges ( iii ) The employees is given, fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses (iv) he is given fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself if he so wishes onanyrelevant matter (v) The inquiry officer recorded his findings with reasons for the same in his report . "

" If an industrial employee's services are terminated after a proper domestic enquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and conclusions reached at the enquiry are not perverse the industrial tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of the said conclusions . " In the case at hand , all these requirements are compliedwith. Therefore inquiry cannot be called illegal or unfair. In this backdrop I come to the conclusion that the inquiry was fair and proper and there was not violation of principles of natural justice . Accordingly I decide this issue no. 1 in the affirmative .

Issues no . 2 :-

19. On the point Ld . Adv. for the first party further argued that the disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and the proof herein to prove the charges is not required beyond reasonable doubts . On the other hand, preponderance of probability suffices the purpose . In support of his argument , he referred to Apex Court ruling in Union of India V/s. Sardar Bhadur 1972 I LLJ 1 wherein inthis respect Hon'ble Court observed that :-

" The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. A diciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial . "

20. In the light of fact and circumstances on record , it is clear that the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer are based on the evidence adduced before him . They are well reasoned findings and cannot be termed as perverse . Accordingly I hold that the inquiry is just, proper and legal . I also hold that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are not perverse . Accordingly, I decide this issue no . 2 in the negative. Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(1) The inquiry and findings of inquiry officer are declared to be just, proper and legal .

(ii) The parties to remain present before the Tribunal on 13.03.2012 to argue on the point of punishment or to lead evidence if any.

Date: 23.12.2011

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer 17. In respect of findings of inquiry proceeding, it was argued that the main witnesses in this case who have deposited the cheques for encashment of amount were not examined . It was further argued that the evidence of the other witnesses was hearsay evidence . Therefore the Ld . Adv. submitted that the conclusion of inquiry officer based on hearsay evidence is perverse. In this respect the Ld Adv. for the first party submitted that in the inquiry proceeding the officers of the concerned Bank were examined where the cheques were deposited for encashment. Those officer have enquired with the concerned persons and they all have given name of the workman who has handed over cheque leaves to them . It is their first hand information . Therefore , it cannot be said hearsay evidence . As many as six witnesses were examined in the domestic inquiry. They are responsible officers of the concerned Bank and there is not reasons to discard the evidence ofthese witnesses . Therefore , Ld . Adv. submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer is quite just and proper. He further submitted that Industrial Tribunal cannot arrive at different conclusion though it is possible todo so . In support of his argument, the Ld . Adv. resorted to the Apex Court ruling in M/s . Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. V/s . The Labour Court - II , Lucknow & Ors. 1972 II LLJ 328 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that:

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2012

का०आ० 967.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) , की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी०जी० आई०टी० एन ०जी०पी०/ 28/2007 को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.01.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं॰एल॰- 12012/ 80/2006- आई० आर०( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी "This Court had in several case while dealing with industrial dispute of this kind occasion to point out that an Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in characterzing the findings recorded at the domestic enquiry 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 . In a domestic enquiry once a conclusion is deduced from the evidence it is not possible for some other authority to assail that conclusion even though it is possible for some other authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence ." 2373 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012

S.O. 967. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/28 /2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, NAGPUR now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UNION BANK OF INDIA and their workman, which was revised by the Central Government on 16/01/2012 .

[No. L- 12012/80/2006- IR (B- II) ]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

The case of the workman is that he was appointed on daily wages basis of Rs . 30/- per day by the Party No. 1 on 03.06.1998 and worked till June , 2004 as a Peon and he was given assurance that he would be made permanent, after one year of employment and he was receiving payment weekly on vouchers , from the date of his appointment till March, 2004 and he was orally dismissed from service in June, 2004 and he had worked for more than 240 days in every year and he was in regular and continuous service withParty No. 1 and though his appointment was as Peon , he was also working for collection of loan amount from the borrowers , as per the direction of the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India , Gondia Branch and the Branch Manager, Gondia Branch dismissed him from services without compliance of the provisions of the Act.

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 30/12.2011 .

Case No. CGIT/NGP/28/2007

PartyNo. 1

The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Ashirwad Commercial Complex, Ramdespath , Central Market Road , Nagpur ( MS ) 440010.

Versus

PartyNo. 2 :

The further case of the workman is that he approached the then Branch Manager , Gondia, Shri D.S. Koche for his reinstatement in service repeatedly, but all his efforts went in vain and one Kawale was appointed in his place by the Bank and he issued notice on 23.09.2004 through his advocate to Party No. 1 and the Branch Manager of Gondia Branch and the Branch Manager of Gondia Branch replied to his notice through the advocate ofthe Bank admitting of his working in the Bank and as he was not reinstated in service , he raised the dispute before theALC and after failure of the conciliation , a failure report was submitted by the ALC to the Central Govt . and the Central Govt . referred the matter to the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the Party No. 1 is an industry.

Shri Sanjay Lahanuji Ukey, R/ o Raamnagar (NearAmbedkar Statue) , Dindayal Ward, Gondia, Tehsil & Distt.Gondia (MS) .

AWARD

The workman has prayed to declare the termination of his services as illegal and void and to reinstate him in service with full back wages .

(Dated: 30th December , 2011 )

Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation of the management of Union Bank of India and their workman Shri Sanjay L. Ukey, for adjudication , as per Letter No. L- 12012/80/2006- IR ( BII) dated 28.5.2007 , with the following schedule:--

"Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Ukey w.e.f. March , 2004 without following the prescribed procedures under I.D. Act , 1947 is legal and just ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled for?"

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that for permanent appointment in the Bank service , there are certain norms and rules to be followed and the initial appointment of the workman is illegal, being country to the rules framed by the Bank in this regard and the workman was engaged by the Bramch Manager of Gondia Branch in purely casual and temporary basis , intermittently on daily wages , due to administrative exgencies and need to work , as messenger/peon/ sweeper onpart time/full - time and the workman was never engaged with the intention to give permanent employment and the Branch Manager has no power to do so , in view of the laid down procedures and the applicant is not a workman as defined in Section 2 (s ) of the Act and as such , the provisions of the Act are not applicable to he case in hand and the alleged dispute does not fall under the definition ofthe Industrial Dispute as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act . The further case of the Party No. 1 ' is that the initial appointment of the workman was purely on temporary basis , on completion of the purpose for which, he was engaged was completed ; discontinuation of his services was inevitable and in or around 2002, the brother of the workman 2.On receipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Sanjay Ukey ("the workman " in short ) filed his statement of claim and the management of the Union Bank of India (" Party No. 1 " inshort) filed its written statement .

2374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

availed loan from the branch for fire wood business and he used to visit the Branch in the company of the workman , for processing the loan application etc. and the workman being acquainted with the officers of the Branch, worked for some days during that period and was paid wages as per work and he had never completed 240 days ofwork in the Bank at any point of time, much less in any calendar year and when the officers acquainted with the workman were transferred from the Branch , the workman for the first time in October, 2004, issued notice to the Bank claiming various reliefs and the Bank replied to the said notice denying all adverse allegations and the workman with ulterior motives has raised the dispute and no assurance was given to the workman for permanent employment or reinstatement in service and workman is not entitled for anyrelief.

4. In support of their respective claims , both the parties adduced oral evidence , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence . The workman examined himself as a witness . One M. Kanshiraman was examined as a witness by the Party No. 1 .

The examination- in- chief of the workman is on affidavit . He has reitereated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim in his evidence . In his cross- examination, the workman has admitted that he was not appointed under any written order and he has no document to show that he worked from June , 1998 .

The evidence of the witness for the Party No. 1 is also in the same line of the stands taken by the Party No. 1 in the written statement . In his cross -examination , this witness has admitted that he was not working at Gondia Branch of the Bank , while the workman was engaged there and was also terminated and one Sanjay Kawale was appointed as peon in Union Bank of India , Gondia Branch permanently in accordance with the rules of the Bank .

5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman was appointed on 03.06.1998 by the Bank and he worked till the month of June , 2004 as a peon and he was illegally terminated from services orally in June , 2004 and the workman had completed continuous service of240 days in every calandar year and the evidence adduced by the workman clearly establishes his claim as and as the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules have not been complied with before termination of the services of the workman , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages .

Insupport of such contentions , the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance of decision reported in 2010 (2) Mh , L.J. - 321 (Executive Engineer, Palkhed Canal Division , Nashik versus Pandharinath Chindu Kale)

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

6.Percontra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the initial engagement of the workman was illegal , being contrary to the rules and as such , he is not entitled to any relief and the reference is bad in law as the appropriate Government has not applied itsmind to the facts of the case and latest law laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements and the workman has failed to prove the onus that he worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination of his services and even if, it is found that he worked for 240 days than also , he is not entitled for any relief, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in 2006 SCC ( L & S ) 753(Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Umadevi & others) and many others .

7. The first contention raised by the Party No. 1 is that the applicant is not a workman as he was a temporary employee engaged on daily wages basis and as such , the dispute is not an industrial dispute. However, I find no force in the contention, as it is well settled that even a temporary employee is a workman with the meaning ofthe expressions " workman " Section 2( S) of the Act .

8. It is the admitted case of the parties that the workmanwas appointed on daily wages basis by the Branch Manager ofUnion Bank of India, Gondia Branch . According to the workman, he was appointed on 03.06.1998 and worked up to June, 2004. The workman has not mentioned the specific dated on which , his services were terminated by the Branch Manager. The case of the workman is that he had worked for 240 days in every calendar year including in the year pereceding his termination. The claim of the workman has been denied by the management . According to the management, the workman was engaged on temporary basis as when required on daily wages and he had not completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. So, the onus lies upon the workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year peceding his termination .

Atthis juncture, I think it appropriate to mention the settled principles in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court indifferent decisions .

Inthedecision reported in AIR 1966 SC- 75 ( Employers in relation to the Digwadih Collery versus their workman) , theHon'ble Apex Court have held that:

"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), S. 25 F. S. 25 B , S. 2 ( eee ) ( as amended) by Industrial Disputes (amended) Act , ( 1964 ) Expression " continuous service for not less than one year " in Section 25- Meaning-Effect of Amendment in 1964.

Though S. 25 F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled. The 2375 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service . The Tribunal did not consider the question from that angel . It held that the burden of proof was upon the appellant on the premise that they have failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service .

Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact worked for 240 days in a year. Such evidence might include proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period or the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment , or by examination of any other witness in support of his case . "

definition of " continuous service " need not be read into S. SB . The fiction converts service of240 days in a periodof 1 calendar months into continuous service for one complete year . The amendment S. 25 B. only consolidates the previous S.s 25 B and 2 (eee) in one place , adding some other matters . The purport ofthe new provisions, however, is not different . In fact the amendment of S. 25 F of the Principal Act by substituting in CL. (b) the words " for every completed year of continuous service in place ofthe words "for every completed year of service " has removed a discordance between the unamended S. 25 B and the unamended CL . (b) of S. 25 F. No uninterrupted service is necessary if the total service is 240 days in period of 12 calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the datewith reference to which calculation is to be made . The Jast amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended S. 25 B. "

9. Keeping the principles as enunciated by the Hon'bleApex Court in mind , the present case in hand is to be considered.

In the decision reported AIR 2002 SC 1147 (Range Forest Officer versus S.T. Hadimani) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :

" Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 )/S . 25 - F 10- Retrenchment compensation- Termination of services without payment of-Dispute referred to Tribunal Case of workman/ claimant that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination Claim denied by management--Onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year---In absence ofproof ofreceipt ofsalary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination . "

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 2179 (Manager, Reserve Bank of India versus 3. Mani ) have held that:

In support of his claim , the workman has relied on Exhibits W-6 / 1 to W- 6/41 , which are vouchers under which he had been paid wages . The vouchers relate to the period from March, 1999 to December , 2001. The said documents do not show that the workman was engaged beyond 08.12.2001 . The said documents also show that the engagement of the workman was intermittent and not continous and he had not completed 240 days of work in any calender year . The workman has filed two Current Account Pass Book of the Bank and according to him, the same are his muster roll and the same show the dates for which he was paid. However , there is no evidence on record to show as to who had maintained the said pass books . The said pass books do not contain the signature of any authority of the Bank in support of the correctness of the contents thereof, except on the first 9 pages of the first pass book relating the period from 03.07.1998 till 31.03.1999 . The entries of the said pass books do not tally with the vouchers Exhibits W- 6/ 1 to W-6/41 . The pass books , Exhibits W- 7/ 1 and W- 7/2 respectively cannot be taken as genuine documents , so as to hold that the workman worked till June, 2004. The other documents filed by the workman do not show that the workman worked for 240 days preceding the 12 months of the date of his termination . From the evidence available on record , it is found that the workman has failed to discharge the burden of proving that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination . Therefore , the provisions of S. 25 - F are not applicable to the case of the workman . Hence, itisordered:

ORDER

The action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Ukey w.e.f. March, 2004 without following the prescribed procedures under I.D. Act , 1947 is legal and just . The workman is not entitled for any relief.

11 " Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 - S.s . 25 F, 25 B and 240 day's continuous service onus and burden of proof with respect evidence sufficient to discharge to failure of employer to prove a defence (of abandonment of service ) if sufficient or amounted to an admission , discharging the same burden-held , initial burden of proof is on workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service onus of proof does not shift to employer nor is the burden of proof on the workman discharged , merely because employer fails to prove a defence or an alternative plea of abandonment of service--filing of affidavit of workman to the effect that he had worked for 240 days continuous or that the workman had made repeated representation or raised demands for reinstatement , is not sufficient evidence that can discharge the siad burden-other substantive evidence needs to be adduced to prove 240 day's continuous service- instances of such evidence given.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer.

601 GI /2012-21 2376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2012

अधिसूचना

श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार ने " औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947" (जिसे आगे चल कर संक्षेप में केवल " अधिनियम " कहा जावेगा ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( d ) अधिसूचना क्रमांक L-40012/ 108/93 - IR(DU) dated 09.05.2002 के द्वारा इस अधिकरण में निम्न प्रसंग ( reference ) को अधिनिर्णय हेतु प्रेषित किया गया का०आ० 968.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ जनरल मैनेजर, डिपार्टमेन्ट ऑफ टेलीकमनीकेशन , भोपाल प्रबंध तत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी /एलसी /आर/334/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of Post Master, Head Post Office, Bikaner and Supdt . Deptt. ofPosts, Rani Bazar, Bikaner interminating the services of Sh . Prahlad Sing Bhati S/ o Sh . Birbal Singh Bhati on 1st April , 1992 is jsutified? If not, what relief he is entitled to ? " [सं० एल -40012/281/1991--आई आर (डी०यू०) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी

2. प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर प्रकरण दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया ।

Now Delhi , the 13th February, 2012

3. दोनों पक्षों द्वारा अपने-अपने लिखित अभिवचन पेश किये गये हैं । अर्थात् प्राथी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह ( जिसे आगे चलकर केवल प्रार्थी श्रमिक कहा गया है ) के द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम का जबाब अप्रार्धगण-नियोजक द्वारा दिया गया है ।

S.O. 968. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 06/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bikaner as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Post Master, Head Post Office, Bikaner & Others and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13/02/2012 .

[No. L-40012/ 108/ 1993 -IR (DU) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

4. स्टेटमेंटऑफ क्लेम में प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपनी नियुक्तिमेल पिओन के रिक्त पद पर दिनांक 1-5-1991 को हैड पोस्ट ऑफिस बीकानेर में पोस्ट भास्टर के मौखिक आदेश से होना बताया है । स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में लिखा गया है कि प्रार्थी को 600 रुपया प्रतिमाह की दर से भुगतान किया जाता था और उसका कार्य रजिस्ट्री व पार्सल पोस्ट मैन को देना व अन्य कार्य करना था । वह आठ घंटे कार्य करता था ।

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण , बीकानेर

स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में आगे यह भी लिखा है कि प्रार्थी एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करने के आधार पर " औद्योगिक कर्मकार " हो गया ।

पीठासीन अधिकारी: ओम प्रकाश गुप्ता, RHJS

केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक विवाद प्रंसग संख्या 06/2002

स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में आगे यह भी अंकित किया गया है कि प्रार्थी एक" औद्योगिक कर्मचारी " है तथा पोस्ट ऑफिस एक " औद्योगिक संस्थान" है ।

प्रहलाद सिंह पुत्र श्री बीरबल सिंह जाति भाटी राजपूत मार्फत महामंत्री राजस्थान कैजुअल लेबर यूनियन, डागा स्कूल के पास, बीकानेर

-प्रार्थी/श्रमिक

विरुद्ध

1. पोस्ट मास्टर , हैड पोस्ट ऑफिस, बीकानेर। 2. अधीक्षक, पोस्ट ऑफिस, रानी बाजार, बीकानेर !

स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में आगे यह भी दर्ज किया गया है कि प्रार्थी कीसेवा दिनांक 1.4.92 को फोरनून से पोस्ट मास्टर, हैड पोस्ट ऑफिस द्वारा अपने मौखिक आदेश से बतौर रिट्रन्त्रमेन्ट टर्मीनेट कर दी गई और सेवा टर्मीनेट करने पर उसको किसी भी प्रकार का टर्मीनेशन नोटिस व वेतन नहीं किया गया । अन्य किसी प्रकार का मुआवजा भी नहीं दिया गया । किसी प्रकार का आरोप पत्र भी नहीं दिया गया ।

-अप्रार्थीगण/नियोजक

प्रसंग अन्तर्गत धारा 10( 1 ) ( d ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

उपस्थितः

स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में आगे यह भी उल्लेख है कि प्रार्थी की सेवा टमीनेट करने से पूर्व उस जैसे कार्य वारने वाले कर्मचारियों की वरिष्ठता सूची घोषित नहीं की गई और पहले आये पीछे जाये के सिद्धांत की पालना नहीं जजी गई ।

1. अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि अरविन्द सिंह सेंगर, प्रार्थी की ओर से

2. अधिवक्ता नरेश श्रीमाली , अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से अधिनिर्णय

स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में आगे यह भी अंकित किया गया है कि पूर्व में उसके द्वारा टर्मीनेशन के विरुद्ध असफत वार्ता के आधार पर इस न्यायालय में दिनांक 10.4.95 को स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम प्रस्तुत किया गया था, जो केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक विवाद प्रसंग संख्या 1/1994 दर्ज हुआ जिसमें दिनांक 10 मार्च, 2011 2377 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

सम्बन्धित पेश किए गए औद्योगिक विवाद प्रसंग संख्या 1/94 में कलमबद्ध की गई गवाह भैराराम की साक्ष्य को हस्तगत प्रकरण में पढ़ा जावे । इसके अलावा और कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की गई है ।

8. अंतिम बहस सुनी गई ।

अधिकरण ने दिनांक 26.11.97 को उसके खिलाफ पारित किए गए award में उसको औद्योगिक कर्मचारी नहीं माना । उक्त अवार्ड के विरुद्ध उसने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर में रिट याचिका संख्या 528/99 प्रस्तुत की थी । रैफरेन्स में टर्मीनेशन तिथि नहीं होने के कारण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उसकी रिट याचिका स्वीकार की गई । तत्पश्चात् भारत सरकार ने दिनांक 9.05.2002 को अधिसूचना जारी करते हुए विचाराधीन प्रसंग इस अधिकरण में अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित किया है ।

9. दोनों पक्षों के तर्कों पर विचार किया । अभिलेख पर उपलब्ध मौखिक व प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य का अवलोकन किया गया । मेरा निष्कर्ष निम्न प्रकार है:-

10. प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह ने शपथ पत्र में इस आशय की साक्ष्य दी है कि हैड पोस्ट ऑफिस, बीकानेर के पोस्ट मास्टर के मौखिक आदेश से दिनांक 1.05.1991 को उसकी प्रथम नियुक्ति मेल पियोन के रिक्त पद पर हुई थी ।

स्टेटमेंटऑफ क्लेम में आगे यह भी लिखा गया है कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 25 - एफ. , जी, एच, तथा 25 एन. एवं नियम 77-78 के आज्ञापक प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं किए जाने के कारण प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति अवैध, अनुचित , अप्रभावी व शून्य होने से निरस्तनीय है तथा प्रार्थी सेवामुक्ति की दिनांक 1.04.1992 से पुनः पूर्व पद पर सेवा की निरन्तरता के लाभ सहित बहाल होने का अधिकारी है ।

11. मेरेमतानुसार निम्न कारणों से प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह की उक्तसाक्ष्य नितान्त असत्य व आधारहीन है: -

5. अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत जवाब में स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम के लगभग सभी महत्वपूर्ण तथ्यों को अस्वीकार किया गया है ।

A. अभिलेख पर प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह ने ऐसा कोई दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है, जो यह ईंगित करे कि दिनांक 1.5.91 को उसकी प्रथम नियुक्तिमेल पियोन के रिक्त पद पर हुई थी ।

B. स्वयं प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह ने अपनी साक्ष्य के समय दिनांक 1.5.91 की चार्ज रिपोर्ट प्रदर्श डब्लू-2 को साबित करवाया है, जिसके अनुसार extra-departmental mail peon पूर्णसिंह ने 40 दिवस के अवकाश पर प्रस्थान करते समय दिनांक 1.5.91 को प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह को पूर्वाहन में चार्ज सुपुर्द किया था ।

जवाब में दर्ज किया गया है कि अप्रार्थी " डाक विभाग " द्वारा निर्मित सेवा नियम ' Service Rules for Extra Department Staff के अधीन पूर्णसिंह ने अपने अवकाश के दिनों में अपने स्थान पर प्रार्थी प्रहलाद सिंह को कार्य सुपुर्द किया था और एक प्रार्थनापत्र दिनांक 1-5-91 को लिखकर डाकपाल को सुपुर्द किया था । Extra Department Staff जब भी अवकाश मांगता है, तब विभागीय नियमानुसार अवकाश के दिनों की कार्य व्यवस्था के लिए वह अन्य व्यक्ति की स्वीकृति व उसका नाम अवकाश प्रार्थना पत्र में उल्लेखित करता है और वही व्यक्ति उसके स्थान पर कार्य करने का अवकाश दिवसों तक उत्तरदायी रहता है।

मेरे विचार से चार्ज रिपोर्ट प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-2 से यह साबित नहीं होता है कि प्रार्थी की प्रथम नियुक्ति दिनांक 1.5.91 को मेल पियोन के रिक्त पद पर हुई थी ।

जबाब में आगे अंकित किया गया है कि अप्रार्थी " डाक विभाग " औद्योगिक संस्थान नहीं है और प्रार्थी श्रमिक औद्योगिक कर्मकार नहीं है ।

C. Extra - Departmental mail peon पूर्णसिंह द्वारा अवकाश पर जाते समय स्वयं के स्थान पर कार्य करने हेतु प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह को डाकपाल बीकानेर के समक्ष जिस प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ पेश किया गया था, उस प्रार्थना पत्र को नियोजक की ओर से Ex.M. 1 के रूप में प्रदर्शित करवाया गया है ।

जबाब में आगे यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि नियमानुसार प्राथी को पूर्णसिंह ने अपनी एवज में अपने अवकाश से लौटने तक के लिए विभागीय नियमों के अधीन चार्ज रिपोर्ट दिनांक 1-5-91 के जरिये चार्ज दिया था, जो उसकी संविदा दिनांक 29.02.92 को समाप्त की जाकर भारमुक्त कर दिया गया था जिसका मुक्ति पत्र दिनांक 29.02.92 है । इस तरह प्रार्थी प्रहलादसिंह और अप्रार्थीगण के मध्य श्रमिक व नियोजक का कभी भी संबंध स्थापित नहीं हुआ , बल्कि शुद्ध रूप से प्रार्थी का संबंध संविदात्मक था और पूर्णसिंह के अवकाश तक ही इस संविदा का प्रभाव था । प्रार्थी पर पोस्टल डिपार्टमेंट द्वारा पृथक से निर्मित वैधानिक सेवा नियम आकृष्ट होते हैं और उसकी सेवाऐं इन्हीं वैधानिक नियमों से गवर्नहोतीहै ।

Ex.M.1 की दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य से यह भलीभांति प्रमाणित हो जाता हैकिदिनांक 1.5.91 को प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह की नियुक्ति मेल पियोन के रिक्त पद पर नहीं हुई थी, बल्कि extra- departmental mailpeon पूर्णसिंह द्वारा दिनांक 1.5.01 को 40 दिन के अवकाश पर प्रस्थान करते समय अपनी ड्यूटी करने के लिए अपने स्थान पर प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह को डाकपाल बीकानेर के समक्ष substituted extra-departmental agent के तौर पर पेश किया गया था ।

इस प्रकार कुल मिलाकर प्रार्थी का स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम सव्यय निरस्त करने का आग्रह किया गया है ।

6. साक्ष्य के दौरान प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह ने स्वयं का शपथपत्र पेश किया, जिस पर अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से जिरह की गई ।

D. Posts and Telegraphs Extra - Departmental Agents [Conduct and Service ] Rules , 1964 के Rule 5 के तहत डायरेक्टर जनरल द्वारा जारी निर्देशों के अनुसार अवकाश पर प्रस्थान करते समय extra -departmental agent का यह दायित्व है कि वह अपने स्थान पर कार्य करने के लिए किसी व्यक्ति [ substituted person ] को सक्षम प्राधिकारी के समक्ष अवकाश स्वीकृत करवाने हेतु पेश करेगा ।

7. दिनांक 15.10.2007 की आदेशिका दर्शाती है कि अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रार्थनापत्र पेश कर निवेदन किया कि गवाह भैराराम का निधन हो जाने के कारण प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह द्वारा इसी विवाद से 2378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

केन्यायिक दृष्यन्त में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त के अनुसार Substituted Extra - Departmental Agent प्रहलाद सिंह पर औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं।

उक्त Rule 5 के अनुसरण में extra-departmental mail peon पूर्णसिंह ने दिनांक 1.5.91 को 40 दिन के अवकाश पर प्रस्थान करते समय अपनी ड्यूटी करने हेतु डाकपाल बीकानेर के समक्ष प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह को substituted extra -departmental agent के रूप में प्रार्थनापत्र प्रदर्श एम.1 के साथ हाजिर किया था ।

15. जब प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह की दिनांक 1-5-1991 को मेल पिओन के रिक्त पद पर प्रथम नियुक्ति होना साबित नहीं होता है तथा प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह पर औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं, तब प्रार्थी श्रमिक इस अधिकरण से कोई relief प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

16. एतस्मिनपूर्व किए गए समग्र विवेचन के प्रकाश में भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विचाराधीन प्रसंग को उत्तरित करते हुए निम्न पंचाट पारित किया जाता है:-

जब Rule 5 के अनुसार extra-departmental mail peon पूर्णसिंह ने दिनांक 1.5.91 को 40 दिन के अवकाश पर प्रस्थान करते समय अपनी ड्यूटी हेतु प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह को substituted person के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया था, तब यह भलीभांति प्रमाणित हो जाता है कि पोस्ट मास्टर बीकानेर ने मौखिक आदेश से दिनांक 1.5.91 कोप्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह को मेल पियोन के रिक्त पद पर नियुक्ति प्रदान नहीं की थी ।

पंचाट

प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह की दिनांक 1-5-1991 को मेल पिओन के रिक्त पद पर प्रथम नियुक्ति होना साबित नहीं होने के कारण तथा प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह पर औद्योगिक जिवाद अधिनियम, 1947 के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होने के कारण प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह को इस अधिकरण से कोई relief प्राप्त करने का अधिकार नहीं है ।

E. अगर प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह के कथनानुसार दिनांक 1.5.91 को पोस्ट मास्टर बीकानेर द्वारा उसकी मेल पियोन के रिक्त पद पर प्रथम नियुक्ति की जाती तो निश्चित रूप से प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह द्वारा extra-departmental mail peon पूर्णसिंह के अवकाश पर प्रस्थान करते समय दिनांक 1.5.91 को पूर्वाहन में पूर्णसिंह के substituted extra - departmental agent के तौर पर कार्यभार ग्रहण नहीं किया जाता ।

17. " अधिनियम" की धारा 17 ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिनिर्णय प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को भेजा जाये ।

18. अधिनिर्णय दिनांक 16.03.2011 को विवृत न्यायालय में सुनाया गया ।

ओमप्रकाश गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2012 12. पूर्वगामी विवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थी यह प्रमाणित करवाने में पूर्णतया विफल रहा है कि पोस्ट मास्टर, बीकानेर के मौखिक आदेश सेदिनांक 1.5.91 को उसकी प्रथम नियुक्ति मेल पियोन के रिक्त पद पर हुई थी । अलबत्ता, एतस्मिनपूर्व किए गए समग्र विवेचन के आधार पर यह भलीभांति प्रमाणित हो जाता है कि extra-departmental mail peonपूर्णसिंह के दिनांक 1.5.91 को 40 दिन के अवकाश पर प्रस्थान करने के कारण प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह ने पूर्णसिंह के स्थान पर Substituted Extra - Departmental Agent के रूप में काम किया था । लिहाजा प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलादसिंह की सेवा शर्तें " Posts and Telegraphs Extra - Departmental Agents [ Conduct and Service ] Rules , 1964 " से govern होती हैं ।

का०आ० 969. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947. ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मद्रास पोर्ट, ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ अन न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 413/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.01.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

13. निम्न न्यायिक दृष्टयन्त में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा यह स्पष्ट मत व्यक्त किया गया है कि जब श्रमिक [ employee ] की सेवा शर्तें statutory rules से govern होती है, तब उस श्रमिक पर औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं:-

[सं० एल 33012/4/1996- आई आर ( एम )/ ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012 Prabhu Dayal

Vs.

Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Mujuri Vikas Khand Paniyara & Ors 2008 [ 2 ] SCT 123 [ SC]

{ एतस्मिनपश्चात् " Prabhu Dayal " से अभिप्रेत}

S.O. 969. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 413/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , CHENNAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MADRAS PORT TRUST and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16/01/2012 ,

14. इस अधिनिर्णय के पैरा संख्या 10 से 12 में किए गए विवेचन के आधार पर यह भलीभांति प्रमाणित हो जाता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक प्रहलाद सिंह की सेवा शर्तें statutory rules i.e. "Posts and Telegraphs Extra- Departmental Agents [ Conduct and Service] Rules , 1964 " से govern होती है । लिहाज "Prabhu Dayal "

[No. L- 33012/4/ 1996 - IR ( M )/ ( B - II) ] Sheesh Ram , Section Officer 2379

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 8th December, 2011

PRESENT:

A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 413/2001

(in the matter of the dispute for adjudication under ciause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) ofSection 10 ofthe industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Madras Port Trust and their Workman)

BETWEEN

The General

: 1st Party/Fetitioner Union

Secretary

Madras Port Trust

Employees Union:

Antony Pillai Bhawan ,

Ne . 9 , Second Line Beach , Chennai- 630001 .

The Chairman ,

2nd Party /Respondent

Madras Porn Trust,

Rajaji Salai , Chennai - 600001 .

APPEARANCE:

: Shri K.M. Ramesh , Advocate

For the 1st Party! Petitioner Union

Sri M.R. Dharanichander , Advocate

For the 2nd Party Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 1-33012 /4/ 1996 - IR( M ) dated 05.12.1996 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the Management ofMadras Port Trust in dismissing Sri K. Vijayaraghavanfrom service is justified? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled?"

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute on transfer from Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal where it had been taken on file as ID 107/1996 as per the order of the Ministry of Labour this Tribunal numbered it as ID 413/2001 and issued notices to both sides . Second Party entered appearance through M/ s . Iyer & Dolia Associates but neither the First Party nor this counsel on record appeared. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 18.05.2001 the parties or their counsel were not present . It is seen from the records that this case had been referred by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by order dated 05.12.1996 for an adjudication by that Tribunal . Though both sides had entered appearance before the Tribunal on 17.01.1997 Claim Statement was filed on 13.06.1997. Second Party filed Counter Statement only on 30.06.1998 . Thereafter neither party was ready to prosecute the case there . After transfer of the case to this Court First Party or Counsel has not appeared before this Court. The Counsel on Record for the Respondent also had not appeared. Therefore this Court dismissed the dispute for default for non- representation and non-prosecution passing an award holding that no dispute exists between the parties as per award dated 18.05.2001 .

3.As per order dated 06.07.2011 in WP No. 18920 of 2009 preferred against the impunged award of ti is Tribunal , the Hon'ble High Court of Madras set aside the award restoring the ID on the file of this Tribunal for deciding the case on merits after due notice to the parties within a period of3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4.Pursuant to notice both parites entered appearance.

5. The averinents in the Claim Statement briefly read as follows:

The concerned employee , Sri K. Vijayaraghavan entered service under the Respondent/ Management as Driver (Senior Driver) in 1981. With a suspension order dated 06.12.1989 he was asked to explain for having produced a bogus School Certificate for his appointment . No basic report was furnished to him. The statement of imputation and Articles of Charge were not properly framed in terms of Standing Order. An enquiry was held on 09.04.1990 during which he produced his School Certificate showing to have studied in Besant Montessori and Sarojini Matriculation School , Madras - 600017 and that he was posessed of the requisite qualification . He explained that the certificate produced by him initially was given by his fater which was produced in haste due to pressure of time . No witness was examined in the enquiry. No finding was communicated to him . Show Cause Notice dated 07.06.1990 was served on him to show cause against his dismissal from service. He gave explanation dated 26.06.1990 pointing out material irregularities in the enquiry. He was called upon for personal hearing on 12.07.1990 with original School Certificate. The same was produced at the adjourned date viz . 29.08.1990 . As per order dated 05.12.1990 he was dismissed from service . Appeal dated 02.02.1991 before the Deputy Chairman was rejected by a cryptic order dated 26.03.1991 . Another appeal filed was rejected on 09.03.1995. There was also a representation from the Peitioner Union dated20.06.1994, all in vain . Hence the ID which culminated in the reference. The disciplinary proceeding is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice . The enquiry report was not based on any evidence . The employees was presumed to have admitted his guilty by the Enquiry 2380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

Officer. Conduct of the Enquiry Officer has been biased .
He was not permitted to have proper assistance in the
 enquiry. Enquiry was not as per the rules and regulations .
The charge itself was not framed legally. Disciplinary
Authority did not apply his mind properly. Second Show
Cause Notice was not competent and was not accompanied
 by the Enquiry Report . In passing dismissal past record of
 service was not considered. Employee's reply was not
 considered . Action is vindictive and malafide . Employees
 alone was discriminated against . Punishment is excessive
and two disproportionate . He is to be reinstated with all
benefits.
      5. The Counter Statement averntents bereft of
 Unnecessary details are as foliows :
      At the time ofjoining service the employee produced
School Cortificate from Corporation Middle School ,
Ekang paran , Midras - 600023. There was report that he
 hod producd a bogus certificate for the employment . The
Headmianaas . Corporation Middle School . Mabas on a
 request to verify , informed by letter dated 23.09.1989 that
on verification of school records the certificate produced
 by K. Vijayaraghavan was found to be not genuine and
 that the samebelongs to a girl student . For fraud played co
 the Trust he was suspended mentioning in the memo that
he had produced a certificate "Promoted to 9th Standard "
 signed by the Headmaster , Corporation Middle School ,
 Ekangipuram, Madras dated 11.06.1968 (Admission No.
1601 ) certifying that Vijayaraghavan had promoted to 9th
 Standard and that on a reference to the Headmaster ,
Corporation Middle School at Ekangipuram, Madras he
had informed that the certificate which was producedby
 him was verified with school records and found it not
 genuine and the same belongs to a girl student . Statement
 of Articles of Charges , Statement of Imputation of
Misconduct in support of the Articles of Charges and list
 ofdocuments were furnished to him on 05.01.1990 under
Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due which was
 acknowledged on 08.01.1990 . Enquiry was conducted on
10.01.1990 which on his request to produced panel of
department's name and written statement was fixed again
 on 24.01.1990 . Again at his request it was re - fixed on
05.02.1990 on which day he failed to attend the enquiry. In
the re - fixed date on 20.02.1990 he attended . Enquiry Officer
has followed all the norms and principles of natural justice .
The employee informed the Enquiry Oficer that he has no
evidence when opportunity was given to produce
witnesses and documents by him . He agreed for closure of
the enquiry. By the enquiry findings dated 06.03.1990
charges were held proved. Final Show Cause Notice dated
09.06.1990 enclosing enquiry findings was given to the
employee . He was called for personal hearing on 11.07.1990
also requiring him to produce the original certificate which
his advocate forwarded from Besant Montessori and
 Sarojini Matriculation School , T. Nagar. On re - opening the
enquiry as informed by the Disciplinary Authority since

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

 the employee produced some documents in his defence on
09.04.1990 , employee produced a School Certificate from
 Besant Montessori and Sarojini Matricuiation School , T.
Nagar who also informed that the certificate was misplaced
andhis father had produced another certificate at the time
 ofhis initial appointment and requested to be excused. In
 the enquiry report dated 26.04.1990 charges were held
proved recording that employee himself accepted the
 charges . In the personal hearing on 29.03.1990 no new
 points were given by the employee . The employee was
 removed from service by order dated 05.12.1990 which is
 reasonable, just and legal . The petitioner has not placed
 any materials in the Claim Statement to set aside the
dismissal order. It is denied that Statement of Imputation
and Articles of Charges were not properly framed .
 Employee had been given all opportunities to defend. In
 fact the enquiry was re - opened giving opportunity to the
 petitioner to produce some documents . That the enquiry
 report was not based on evidence is not correct . Further it
 is incorrect to allege that the employee did not admit the
 guiit, that the Enquiry Officer is biased , that he was not
 perinitted for proper assistance , that charge was not framed
 iegally, that there was no proper application of mind, that
 past record was not considered , that dismissal order is
 vindictive and malafide, that appeal orders were cryptic
 and punishment & discriminatory and excessive . In case
 the enquiry is found to be not fair and proper Respondent
may be given opportunity to adduce fresh evidence . The
 claim is to be dismissed .
      7. At the stage of enquiry after examining the
workman by way of Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief
Examination Ex . Wi to Ex . W14 were marked . While so ,
 Respondent filed a memo for deciding the validity of the
 enquiry as a Preliminary Issue which was not objected to
 by the Petitioner . The learned counsel for the Respondent
 by an endorsement requested for eschewing the evident
 of WW1 till then adduced for the time being which was
 conceded to by the other side. Accordingly, the Proof
Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and the evidence by
way ofEx . W1 to Ex . W 14 were eschewed for the time being.
 Thereafter Ex . Wl to Ex . W 12 and Ex.M1 to Ex.M35 were
marked on consent .
      8.After hearing on the question of Preliminary Issue
 as to whether the enquiry held was fair and proper, as per
 order dated 24.11.2001 it was held that the domestic enquiry
held is fair and proper.
      9.Afterwards the enquiry was proceeded with further
examining WW1 , the workman and further marking Ex. W13
 to Ex . W15 on the petitioner's side and Ex . M36 to Ex .M39
on the Respondent's side were also marked on consent .
      10. Points for consideration are:
      (i) Whether the dismissal of Sri K. Vijayaraghavan
 from service is justified.

2381

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(ii)To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

11. Evidence consists of the testimony of WW1 and Ex. W1 to Ex. W15 on the petitioner's side and Ex. Ml to Ex. M39 on the Respondent's side .

Points ( i) & ( ii)

12. Heard both sides . Perused the records , documents , evidence and written arguments on the side of the Respondent . The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the qualification for the post of Driver was passing 8th Standard and holding to drive vehicles , which the petitioner possessed both of licence for driving heavy vehicle and light motor vehicles . The driving test conducted by the Port Trust was also passed by the workman . The workman's father out of his anxiety for employment of petitioner happened to produce a different certificate which then was accepted by the employer. After 9 years the genuineness of the certificate arose when the workman was promoted as Senior Driver. During the enquiry the petitioner was asked by the Enquiry Officer to produce the original certificate and the peritioner wanted 10 days time to produce the original . By Ex . M18 letter of the Chief Engineer the certificate was sought to be verified as to its correctness to which there is no reply or any ostensible reason assigned . It is left in darkness as to what happened to the letter of the Chief Engineer . So much so no report has been there commenting anything adverse in regard to the certificate which was sought to be verified. Therefore Ex. W15 certificate proriuced by the workman is only to be presumed as being unquestionable . Now it is not open to the Management to assail the entitlement of the workman to the relief sought for. The petitioner is not at all under a duty to prove the genuineness of the document which now remains unchallenged or unquestioned as to its veracity. The finding ofthe Management is perverse which was rendered after re- opening ofthe evidence at which Ex. W15 was produced There is no basis for the workman being founddismissal is wholly unwarranted . It is further argued that even if the certificate happened to be bogus same is not to reckoned very serious . He relied on the decision ofthe High Court of Madras in:

-Κ.. UDAYALAKSHMI VS. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER , UDUMALPET ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE AND OTHERS (MANU -TN -3095-2011 ) wherein it was held "once the certificate was verified by the Respondenis through the educational authorities and genuineness of the certificate was proved, and the verifi. ation preceded the appointment, the first Respondent should not have re - opcned the issue at all".

-P. SEKAR S /O POONAM VS. THE REGISTRAR , TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS (MANU -TN - 0285-2008 ) wherein it was held "it is not in dispute that a criminal case is pending and therefore the question as to whether the petitioner had knowingly utilized the false mark sheet would be decided in such criminal case".

- K. DHANASEKARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ( MANU - TN - 2008-2010) wherein it was held "however, it was not the case of the Respondents that petitioner was not qualified-- Therefore, imposition ofpunishment should be lesser than dismissalfrom service based on alleged bogus certificate-Ifpunishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority orAppellate Authority shocks conscience ofHigh Court it would appropriately mould relief either directing Disciplinary Authority to reconsider penalty imposed or to shorten litigation it may itself in exceptional and rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof".

13. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent are that the petitioner admitted the certificate to be bogus and that the charges are proved coupled with evidence . The domestic enquiry has been held by this Tribunal as fair and proper. There is no case of victimization against the workman. There is fraud played by the workman which is a serious misconduct . The punishment is not to be interfered with under Section - 11A of the ID Act. The scope ofjudicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making and not in deciding . A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got appointment on the basis of a false certificate by playing fraud . No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue . The workman has not had stated in the enquiry that he studied at Saint Besant Sarojini Montesseri School , T. Nagar. No school authorities have been examined. The employee has to prove the genuineness of the certificate . He created the certificate for this case. The petitioner is gainfully employed after his termination from service and is not entitled to any benefits.

14. Reliance was placed on behalf of the Respondent to the decision of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 15.12.2010 in :

-- PARAMAKURI URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION -41 OF THE TAMIL NADU SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT AND ANOTHER wherein itwas held that " it is to be borne in mind that if an enquiry has been conducted in a reasonable and fair manner and if the Domestic Enquiry Officer's findings are not perverse and per contra, if it is 2382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

based on proper evidence and on available petitioner to have had acquired necessary educational
materials on record, then it is not open to the first qualification for appointment as Driver and the due
respondent/Appellate Authority to set aside the acceptance thereof hout any adverse report as to its
order ofdismissal passed by the petitioner /Bank in genuineness , though the same was sought to be verified
respect of the second respondent/Watchman in a as per Ex. M18 letter of the Chief Engineer but the same
routine and that too, in a casual and whimsical having not been reported to be tainted in any way till date.
manner".
or nothing having been heard as to that , the said certificate
-HARPAL VS. PRESIDING OFFICER , LABOUR is only to be presumed as genuine and is no more in the
COURT-VI , DELHI AND ANOTHER ( 2006 - II - SCC- realm of being questioned . This situation has exonerated
541) wherein High Court of Delhi and held that' ifby the petitioner from any duty to prove the genuineness of
doing fraud, an appointment is obtained, such thedocument anymore . As matters stand the finding of the
fraudulent practice cannot be permitted to be Management that the petitioner is guilty of having
continued by a Court of law in directing fraudulently produced bogus certificate is rendered
perverse and is bad in law. He would further adhere to the
reinstatement of respondent workman with all
consequential benefits" . contention that even if the certificate happened to be bogus
itisnot to be considered so serious and he sought to gain
-RAM SARAN VS. IG OF POLICE , CRPF AND strength for his contentions placing reliance on the
OTHERS , judgement of the Supreme Court dated decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner . The explanation
02.02.2006 it was held "the Courts should not interfere of the petitioner regarding the certificate which was
with the administrator's decision unless it was originally produced at the time ofhis appointment was that
illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or his father out of his anxiety to procure employment to his
was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the son happened to produce different certificate and that
sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral during the enquiry only he came to know of that fact . Even
standards" . if petitioner was responsible for the production of the
--R. VISWANATH PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA certificate which was the basis for his selection as Driver
AND OTHERS VS. (2004-2 - SCC- 105 ) Supreme Court whatis pertinent to consider is whether the petitioner has
held "Pensionary benefits-Right to , held, accrues had any guilty intention to defraud the employer to procure
from a valid appointment and not from a void the employment . The petitioner had the requisite
appointment-Hence , where the delinquent officer qualification of holding licence for driving both heavy duty
vehicles and light duty vehicles .He also passed the driving
was dismissedfor procurring appointment in apost
reservedfor SC candidate by producing afalse caste test then conducted by the appointing authority. He was
recruited into service as Driver and he continued in service
certificate, plea to substitute the order of dismissal
by an order of compulsory retirement or removal whereafter on his promotion as Senior Driver, the dispute
from service to protect the pensionary benefits as is seen to have arisen . During the re - opened enquiry the
he had rendered service for a very long period (27 petitioner expressed his readiness to produce the copy of
years in this case) , rejected" . the original certificate which is Ex . W15 which then on
production was sought to be verified as to its genuineness
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. M. by the Chief Engineer. But regarding its genuineness or
BASKARAN AND TWO OTHERS ( 1996-1 - LLJ - 781 ) otherwise no report is forthcoming and therefore the finding
Supreme Court held "fraudulently obtained oftheEnquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty of having
appointment orders could be legitimately treated fraudulently obtained job is baseless . Ex . W15 by then not
as voidable at the option of the employer and could shown to have been blemished in any way is to be presumed
be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely to be genuine capable of being based for the continuance
because the employees have continued in service ofthe employment already procured by the petitioner. There
for number ofyears on the basis ofsuchfraudulently is no case for the Respondent that the petitioner was not
obtained employment orders cannot create any qualified . Whether the initial certificate was procured and
equity in theirfavour or any estoppels against the produced by his father or by himself it is not in evidence
employer". that the same was produced with the awareness that it is
not authentic certificate in relation to the petitioner. In other
15. It has already been found that the enquiry held is words it is not in evidence that the same was produced
been fair and proper. The next question is whether the either by the petitioner or his father with guilty intention of
finding and the punishment imposed are just and proper. defrauding the employer and to obtain any employment by
Thelearned counsel for the petitioner Thiru K.M. Ramesh illegal means of the same . Therefore , it is unjust to
would canvass for the contention that on the re - opening straightaway proceed to attribute fraudulent conduct on
of the enquiry with the production of Ex . W15- Original the part of petitioner's father who allegedly produced the
Certificate in the name of the petitioner showing the certificate initially or on the petitioner himself ifhe produced

2383 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

him with any guilty or fraudulent intention to mislead the employer to procure an employment for him . It is well to remember that to err is human and to forgive is divine . Such innocent conduct cannot be said to be uncommon among the vast mass of the people who are with different degrees of knowledge regarding men and matters and behavioral patterns to meet with different situations in all walks of one's life in the Society. Straightaway jumping into conclusion that in the given facts and circumstances ofthe case the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and that he isguilty only can emanate from mechanical application of minds which often actually falls short of realistic approaches and perceptions in human problems and matters . The authorities starting from the Enquiry Officer till the Disciplinary Authority could only be said to have jumped into a conclusion without proper application of mind in finding the petitioner guilty of having defrauded the authorities for procuring employment . In the given facts and circumstances of this particular case the conduct of the petitioner or his father may amount to innocent conduct without any blameworthy intention punishing which is illegal , unjust , unfair and arbitrary. What is to be punished is not the misconduct itself but the guilty intention by which the misconduct was perpetrated. In the absence ofa guilty intention , mens - rea the conduct , actus - rea does not become punishable.

16. Therefore finding that the petitioner has been guilty is perverse and the same is not sustainable . There is deficiency in the decision making in interfering which the scope ofjudicial review extends . Therefore the finding is set aside .

17. Coming to the punishment the same is set aside . Needless to say the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into Service forthwith after setting aside his dismissal from service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits . Regarding back wages , though his case is that he has been remaining unemployed ever since his dismissal , and has been dependent on his in - laws for his and his family's sustenance including educational expenses of his children running to thousands per rupees per month , he has not succeeded in satisfying this Tribunal that he has not had any employment to meet those expenses and he was purely depending on this parents - in - law who are aged , and some among whom are by now no more . His case on the aspect inherently improbable and intrinsically infirm . Hence he is to be given 25% back wages from the date of his dismissal from service and the same is ordered to be paid by the Management without interest and cost of his proceedings.

18. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on thisday the 8th December , 2011 )

A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer the certificate notwithstanding his case that it was father whowas hastily producing a different certificate out ofhis anxiety to procure the employment for his son is true . As against the explanation of the petitioner it is not eminently proved that the petitioner or his father acted fraudulently in producing a bogus certificate to procure Employment for his son . The aspect as to whether the petitioner or his father had knowingly utilized the first certificate as bogus is not at all established in this case . It was not open to the Management to proceed to order dismissal of the petitioner in a routine manner and that too in a casual and whimsical manner . The conduct of playing fraud by producing bogus certificate does not stand established against the petitioner and therefore the finding is only to be held as perverse . The decision appears illogical and is shocking . Since fraud cannot be straightaway ascribed to the petitioner's conduct he cannot be found to be guilty of having produced a bogus certificate for procuring his employment. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Respondent Thiru M.R. Dharanichander are mostly dealing with the questions of fraud and impact thereof and therefore have no relevancy to the case of the petitioner. Though there is a case that the petioner admitted the certificateto be bogus it does not lead to an automatic assumption that it was know to be bogus by him or that it was fradulently produced to procure employment as Driver to which he was fully eligible by having acquired the requisite driving qualifications as well as on the spot qualification by undergoing a physical driving test held by the employer. In regard to his minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post viz. passing the 8th standard initially the impugned certificate was produced for which later, after a long time he was arraigned as to its validity. With the subsequent production of Ex. W 15 certificate in original which is a Transfer Certificate petitioner is shown to have had the very same qualification as those disclosed in the allegedly bogus certificate produced at the time of his initial appointment as Driver under the Management . The same viz . Ex W 15 - certificate now not shown to be tainted in any way vouchsafes the truth of the qualifications which the petitioner was possessing at the time of his initial selection which amounts to confirmation of the said fact of having all the qualifications by subsequent events . Therefore whether or the initial certificate produced by the petitioner atthe time ofhis initial selection was bogus , is not a ground or circumstance to readily lead the conclusion that the petitioner intended by a bogus certificate to defraud the employer and procure an employment for him . with the un- impugned ExW15 certificate showing the petitioner to have hadthe very same qualifications as were revealed through the allegedly bogus certificate , it is well to infer that the explanation given by the petitioner that his father was hastily producing a different certificate out of his anxiety to procure an employment for his son is only apt to be believed and is true. The fact that the petitioner virtually admitted the certificate to be a bogus is therefore not to be read against

601 GI /2012-22 2384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

WITNESSES EXAMINED :

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Engineer to the Petitioner

16.12.1989

Ex.M2

: WWI Sri K. Vijayaraghavan

Forthe 1st Party/ Petitioner

: None

For the 2nd Party/ Respondent

DOCUMENTS MARKET:

On the Petitioner's side :

Date

Ex. No.

Description

Ex.Wi

06.12.1989

Letter from the Chief Engineer to the Petitioner with acknowledgement

Ex.M3 27.12.1989

Letter from the petitioner to theRespondent

Ex.M4

04.01.1990

Letter from the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner

05.01.1990

Ex.M5

Order suspending K.

Vijayaraghavan

Ex.W2 16.12.1989

Letter from the Chief Engineer to the Petitioner Memo issued to the petitioner with acknowledgement

Charge Memo issued to K.

Vijayaraghavan

Ex.W3 05.01.1990

Memo issued to Κ . Vijayaraghavan enclosing Statement of Articles of Charges

Ex.W4 12.01.1990

Ex.M6 12.01.1990

Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.M7

16.01.1990

Letter from the Enquiry Officer to the Chief Engineer

Ex.M8 24.01.1990

Letter from the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner

Enquiry Proceedings

Ex. W5 09.04.1990

Ex.M9 24.01.1990

Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.W6 07.06.1990

Letter from the Enquiry Officer to theChief Engineer

Ex.M 10 24.01.1990

Show Cause Notice issued

to K. Vijayaraghavan

Ex.W7 26.06.1990

Letter from the Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer

Ex.M 11 30.01.1990

Reply submitted by K.

Vijayaraghavan to Show

CauseNotice

Ex.W8 05.12.1990

Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex.M 12 01.02.1990

Orderimposing punishment

on K. Vijayaraghavan

Ex.W9 02.02.1991

Letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.M 13 05.02.1990

Appeal preferred by K.

Vijayaraghavan

Ex.W10 26/27.03.91

Enquiry Officer letter to the Petitioner acknowledgement with

Orderpassed in appeal

Ex.W11 21.04.1970

Ex.M 14 10.02.1990

Letter from the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner

School Transfer Certificate

ofK. Vijayaraghavan

Ex.W12

Service Rules regarding appointment of Driver Car/ Van/ Jeep in the 2nd Party

Ex.W13 29.09.1992

Ex.M 15 20.02.1990

Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.M 16 05.03.1990

Letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.M 17 06.03.1990

EnquiryOfficer findings

Representation to the

Chairman

ExW14 09.03.1995

Rejection of the representation made by the Madras Port Trust Employees Union

Ex.W15 21.04.1970

Production of Original School Transfer Certificate.

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

ExM

06.12.1989

Ex.M 18 19.03.1990

Chief Engineer letter to theVigilance Officer

Ex.M 19 21.03.1990

Letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent

Ex.M 20 31.03.1990

Letter from the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner

Ex.M21 09.04.1990

Letter from the Petitioner to the Enquiry Officer

Ex.M 22 09.04.1990

Enquiry Proceedings

Letter from the Chief

25.04.1990

Ex.M 23

Enquiry officer findings 2385

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

23.05.1990

Ex.M24

Letter from the Petitioner to the Chairman

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

07.06.1990

Ex.M25

Second Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner with acknowledgement

[सं० एल-32011/6/ 2005 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

26.06.1990

Ex.M26

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012

Letter from the Petitioner to the Chief Engineer

05.07.1990

Ex.M27

Lester from the Chief Engineer to the Petitioner withacknowledgement

30.07.1990

Ex.M 28

Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner with acknowledgement

01.08.1990

Ex.M29

S.O .. 970. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , KOLKATA now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of KOLKATA PORT TRUST and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27/1/2012 .

Legal notice sent by the petitioner alongwith certificate

10.08.1990

Ex.M 30

[No. L-32011 /6/2005 - IR ( B - II) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner with acknowledgement

25.08.1990

Ex.M31

Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

05.12.1990

Ex.M 32

Reference No. 46 of2005

Parties

Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner with acknowledgement

02.02.1991

Ex.M.33

: Employers in relation to the management of Kolkata Port Trust AND

Letter from the Petitioner to theRespondent

26.03.1991

Ex.M 34

Theirworkman

Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner

PRESENT:

08.11.1991

Ex.M 35

Letter from the Respondent to the Petitioner

Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer

23.09.1989

Ex.M 36

APPEARANCE:

: Mr. M.K. Das , Industrial Relations Officer, Xerox copy of the School Certificate verified and found not genuine by the School authorities

Onbehalf of the

Management

Ex.M37

Corporation Chennai Document

Onbehalf of the

Workman

: Mr. A. Bhadury, executive committee member ofthe workmen union .

23.11.1989

Ex.M38

Industry: Port & Dock .

State: West Bengal

Disciplinary action note against the Petitioner for production of bogus school certificate

Dated: 20th January, 2012. AWARD

07.12.1989

Ex.M39

Suspension order pending enquiry against the petitioner

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2012

Byorder No. L-32011/6/2005 - IR (B - II ) dated 07.11.2005 theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )( d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of KOPT in denying promotion to Sh . Swapan Chakraborty to का०आ० 970.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोलकाता पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 2386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

the post of Inspector ( vig .) and allowing Shri Kaushik Mondal a pharmacist of another department to work as Sr. Investigator (Vig .) from 09.01.2002 superseding Shri Chakraborty is legal and justified ? If not to what relief does Shri Swapan Chakraborty is entitled? "

basis, until further order retaining his lien and seniority by the parent department and protecting his pay' . Later the workman filed a Writ Application No. 17206 (W) of 2001 and therein the Hon'ble High Court passed an order for considering his case as per rules and to give preferenceto him for his experience in the Vigilance Department and accordingly he submitted an application on 11.12.2001 to the C.V.O. , KOPT for his promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) on the basis of the order of the Writ Court . In the meantime the written examination and interview were completed and on that basis candidate , Shri Kaushik Mondal who was a Pharmacist in the department of the Chief Medical Officer and another person , namely, Shri Dilip Das were selected for the said two posts and accordingly Shri Kaushik Mondal joined as Senior Investigator (Vigilance ) with effect from 09.01.2002 and subsequently the workman was promoted as Inspector (Vigilance ) with effect from 28.01.2004 and thereby he became junior to Shri Kaushik Mondal in a illegal and unjestified way. Subsequently the union had raised an industerial dispute with their letter dated 04.04.2005 before the Conciliation Office and subsequently that proceeding ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer sent the failure report to the appropriate authority by a letter dated 28.06.2005 . The workmen union claimed that the promotion ofthe workman to the post of Inspector ( Vigilance) should havebeen made with effect from 01.01.2001 and his seniority would have been effected from that date .

3. The management expressed its case through a written statement of reply wherein it has been stated that Kolkata Port Trust has two systems of dock , namely, Kolkata Dock System and Haldia Dock Complex and they earlier has good number of departments and one of them is Vigilance Department headed by the Chief Vigilance Officer and the board framed regulations as power conferred under theMajor Port Trusts Act , 1963 for dealing with the matters relating to applintment , promotion , seniority for its employees through Kolkata Port Trust Employees' ( other than Haldia Dock Complex ) ( Recruitment , Seniorty and Promotion) Regulations , 1985 .

2. In the written statement of claim of the workmen union it is stated that at the time of making such statement the workman , Shri Swapan Chakraborty was working as Inspector (Vigilance) in the Department of Chief Vigilance Officer ofthe Kolkata Port Trust . Earlier he was working as Junior Inspector (Vigilance ) in the same department . One postof Inspector ( Vigilance ) fell vacant with effect from 01.0.2001 due to retirement of the erstwhile Inspector (Vigilance ) , Shri Tileswar Shaw and in view ofthe existing norm of the management , the said post was to be filled up through usual promotion of the senior- most Junior Inspector ( Vigilance) which was the only criteria for such promotion . The workmen union claimed that being the senior -most Junior Inspector (Vigilance ) , such promotion to the said vacancy was due to the workman concerned but the management with a view to promote a chosen person , having deep - sighted ill - motive, did not fill up the vacancy of Inspector (Vigilance ) from 01.01.2001 by promoting the workman and being frustrated, the workman submitted an application on 31.07.2011 to the Chief Vigilance Officer of KOPT and without giving any reply thereto , the ChiefVigilance Officer in an unprecedented and illegal way, issued a circular to all concerned on 09.10.2001 inviting applications from the candidates from all the departments for filling up two posts , namely Inspector ( Vigilance ) and Sr. Investigator ( Vigilance ) as the post of Inspector (Vigilance) became vacant with effect from 01.01.2001 and the other post also became vacant with effect from 01.11.2001 . The workman concerned submitted an application on 17.10.2001 to the Chairman of the KOPT protesting against illegal issue of such circular violating the existing norms and also pointed out that the post of Inspector ( Vigilance ) was a promotional post to be filled up by promoting senior- most Junior Inspector (Vigilance ) in the department and in the present case , by promoting the workman concerned to the post . So the workman concerned with some other staff of the Vigilance Department submitted another application to the Chairman , KOPT on 02.11.2001 showing instances about such similar past promotions in the Vigilance Department , but this enraged the management and the workman was transferred to another department , namely, 'Hydraulic Study Department' by an order dated 19.11.2001 of the ChiefVigilance Officer. The workmen union claimed that the work of the said department was to study theHooghly River by way of conducting survey of tide, depth, soil testingetc. which has nothing to do with the Vigilance Department and so the workman had to pass idle period fro 9.11.2001 drawing ' idel- wages' . Subsequently the transfer was modified with the approval of the Chairman 'to work in the Hydraulic Study Department on deputation

The management also raised a point of maintainability ofthe present reference claiming Shri Swapan Chakraborty being in the post of Inspector ( Vigilance ) , was in a supervisory post and the wages paid to him exceeding Rs . 1600/- per month and therefore he was not a workman as defined in Section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the date of raising the industrial dispute . It is further stated that Shri Chakraborty, the workman concernedjoined in the Kolkata Port Trust as Vigilance Watcher from Kolkata Police with effect from 03.01.1995 and subsequently absorbed in the said department from the date ofhisjoining and was allowed promotion to the post of Junior Investigator (Vigilance ) with effect from 03.02.1989 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Junior Inspector ( Vigilance) with effect from 25.11.1998 . It is further 2387 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

statement of reply by the management .

5.Deprivation of promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) to the present workman in the vacancy arose on 01.01.2001 is the industrial dispute raised here from the side of the workman . Before going into the merit of the case as to whether the workman , Shri Swapan Chakraborty was deprived from the said promotion being a legitimate claim from his side as alledged , another issue has been raised from the side of the managment that Shri Swapan Chakraborty has no locus standi to raise the present dispute in the capacity of a workman since at the time of initiation of the industrial dispute he was doing the post of Inspector (Vigilance ) as he was promoted to the said post on subsequent event .

6.According to Mr. M.K. Das , the authorized representative of the management Port Trust the post of Inspector (Vigilance ) is in the rank of a supervisor and on being promoted to the said post , Shri Chakraborty was placed in the pay scale of Rs . 5000-10850 and thus Shri Chakraborty lost the capacity of a workman in view of the provision in Section 2 (s ) ( iv ) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he was drawing more than Rs . 1600/- per month atthe time of initiation of the industrial dispute .

7. In the second part of his argument Mr. Das submitted that the post of Inspector ( Vigilance ) fallen vacant in the year 2001 and filling up of the said post being a non - selection post , was being normally done as per prevailing practice by way of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum -suitability and requisite experience for being considered for promotion was four years in the grade of Junior Inspector (Vigilance) . It has been argued that Shri Chakraborty was promoted the post of Junior Inspector (Vigilance) with effect from 25.11.1998 and so he lacked the required four years experience in the grade for the post of Inspector ( Vigilance ) fallen vacant with effect from 01.01.2001 , since the said experience was much below than the required experience of four years . Such requisite can be viewed from Ext . M - 03 being annexed to an office correspondence dated 24.12.1988 from the Superintendant ofVigilance Department to the Secretary to the Kolkata PortTrust . It is further argued by Mr. Das that though he was the senior most Junior Inspector ( Vigilance ) which was feeder post for promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance ), candidature of Shri Chakraborty could not entertained.

claimedthat the post of Inspector ( Vigilance ) carried a scale ofpay ofRs . 5000-10850 and the said post becoming vacant was tobe filled on the basis of seniority and suitability and the requisite experience for being considered for promotion to the above post was four years experience in the feeder post of Junior Investigator (Vigilance ) and as Shri Chakraborty being in that feeder post , possessed only near about two years experience at the relevant point of time and so he did not fulfill the requisite criteria of four years experience and so he was not considered for promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) .Managerment further stated that as there was no other departmental candidate , it was decideed by the management to fill up those posts by inviting applications from suitable candidates of various departments and accordingly inter department Circular No. Vig/ 18 /III/ 1363 dated 09.10.2001 was issued by the Vigilance Department and in response thereto, altogether 33 applications were received and among them Shri Kaushik Mondal was one of the applicants and the present workman Shri Chakratory did not submit any application in response to the said circular and rather, he subınitted an application dated 17.10.2001 to the Chairman protesting against the issuance of the said circular. Written test and interview was subsequently conducted and therefrom Shri Kaushik Mondal joined the Vigilance Department with effect from 09.01.2002 as Inspector (Vigilance) but the other selected candidate , Shri Dilip Das selected for the post of Senior Investigator ( Vigilance ) did not join. Subsequently Shri Swapan Chakraborty was transferred on deputation to Hydraulic Study Department and he was advised to report to the Chief Hydraulic Engineer on 20.11.2001 and thereafter on 26.11.2001 Shri Chakraborty filed a writ application before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta but none of his prayer was consideredby the Hon'ble High Court and passed an order not affecting the seniority and maintenance of lien of Shri Chakraborty for the chance of promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) by taking into account the relevant rules and circulars of the department for promotion and it was also ordered that such consideration would be made only ifthe petitioner had applied or would apply for such promotion . Shri Chakraborty submitted an application 11.12.2001 for the post of Inspector (Vigilance ) after that order and said application could not be considered being beyond the last date of receipt of such application and since by that time Shri Swapan Chakraborty gained requisite experience in the feeder post, he was allowed promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance ) with effect from 28.01.2004 . The management denied all other charges made against it by the workmen union including his supersession for such promotion by Shri Kaushik Mondal to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) with effect from 01.01.2001 and claimed that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8.It is further argued by Mr. Das that since none was available in the Vigilance Department for promotion to the postof Inspector ( Vigilance ) departmentally from the feeder post, the management through the Chief Vigilance Officer decided to the circulate the vacany departmentally or any other department of the management inviting application within a prefixed date for offering candidature and facing the suitability test for such post as the criteria ofexperience 4. A rejoinder was filed by the workmen union reiterating the story as made in the written statement of

claim followed

al para-wise made in the written 2388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

in the feeder post was abandoned on that occasion and though the ChiefVigilance Officer received 33 applications from different employees of the management in other departments , no such application was filed by Shri Chakraborty by offering himself for selection to the said post of Inspector ( Vigilance) . It is cleared by Mr. Das that if the candidature of Mr. Chakraborty was to be accepted departmentally from the feeder post of Junior Inspector (Vigilance) , the experience criteria of fouryears was needed and no application was required to be filedby him in that occasion since seniority and suitability tests are being done by the management through the records of his past conduct and other qualities while acting in the feeder post . According to Mr. Das , since Shri Chakraborty was not a workman in view of the submission made in the carlier paragraph, he cannot claim himself to be a workman and raise this industrial dispute , nor he can claim his promotion to the promotional post of Inspector (Vigilance) in the vacancy arise on 01.01.2011.

9. Mr. Animesh Bhadury, the authorized representative ofthe workmen union , in his turn , submitted that no prospective promotee from the feeder post is needed to file an application seeking promotion, since promotion in this type of case is automatic and no yardstick is provided for consideration for such promotion . It is also stated by him that by denying promotion to Shri Chakraborty, the management had proceeded in whimsical way calling for open candidature through a circular inter - departmentally of the Port Trust and practically one of such candidate, being a Pharmacist was considered for promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance ) by ignoring and superseeding the legitimate claim of Shri Chakraborty to the said post . It is claimed by Mr. Bhadury that even though Shri Chakraborty has got less than four years experience as Junior Inspector (Vigilance) , he was Junior Investigator (Vigilance) before being promoted to the post of Junior Inspector ( Vigilance) and thus work experience period criteria would not have been any hindrance on the way of selection of Shri Chakraborty as Inspector ( Vigilance ) .

10.Mr. Bhadury then tried to convince the Tribunal that even thereof, Shri Chakraborty filed an application offering his candidature to the open invitation of candidatureby the Chief Vigilance Officer. He referred the said open circular ( Ext . W-08 ) and the application of Shri Chakraborty dated 17-10-2001 ( Ext . W-09) which was received by the office of the management on the same date.

11. In respect of management's claim that Shri Swpan Chakraborty was not a workman as per provision of Section 2(s) ( iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, it is to be ascertained from the documents in the record filed by the respective parties as to what was the nature of work to be done by an Inspector (Vigilance) and in reference thereto the management side referred to a schedule in Ext . W- 02

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

wherein in the heading Inspector (Vigilance ) the nature of work was defined in four items and in Item Nos . ( iii) and (iv), it was proposed that the work of Inspector ( Vigilance) would be " supervise the work of the subordinates " and "Ministerial , supervisory " . Basing upon the said pronunciation in the said document in Item Nos . ( iii ) and (iv) , the management side claimed that the Inspector (Vigilance) was a supervisory post and he also referred to the pay scale of the Inspector (Vigilance ) described in Ext . M - 03 being Rs . 2425-4760 . But , as being pointed out by Mr. Bhadury, it is found that Ext . W-02 was a recommendation of the Wage Revision Committee and no document is produced from the side of the management that such recommendation has been accepted and implemented by the management of the Port Trust in respect of the post of Inspector (Vigilance) . Further, the annexed chart of information for preparing R.S.P. Schedule for Class- III and IV employees in Ext . M - 03 nowhere it is stated that the post was one of supervisory. Further, in Ext . W-08 which is an open interdepartmental notice for filling up the post ofinspector (Vigilance ), the work of Inspector (Vigilance) was stated involving conducting vigilance enquiries and carrying out inspection and any of the duties related to vigilance and nowhere it is stated that some work of supervision of the work of subordinates was needed to be done by such Inspector ( Vigilance ) and so it is not clear whether the recommendation made in Ext. W- 02 to treat the post of Inspector ( Vigilance) in the act of supervisory has beenaccepted by the management of the Kolkata Port Trust . Further, Ext . W- 17 is the letter of promotion issued to Shri Chakraborty to the post of Inspector ( Vigilance ) dated 27.01.2004 and nowhere therein the nature of work as being supervisory has been described . So , the management side failed to substantiate that besides vigilance enquiries and related work as is evident from Ext . W - 08 , the post of Inspector (Vigilance) also is burdened with the supervisory work and thus knocking out the said rank from the definition ofworkman. I cannot accept the claim from the side of the management that Shri Swapan Chakraborty cannot be treated as a workman for raising the present industrial dispute.

12. In respect of claim of promotion by Shri Chakraborty, he cannot treat himself out of the rules and regulations of the management Port Trust for the purpose of such promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance).Admittedly, Shri Chakraborty was in the feeder post and he was in the normal ladder of promotion as being a departmental candidate and also as it is found from the schedule attached to Ext . M - 03 and it is also admitted that he was the senior - most employee in that cadre . But , the claim of the management that he was promoted to the post ofJunior Inspector ( Vigilance ) with effect from 25.11.1998 and the first vacancy to the post of Inspector ( Vigilance ) , after Shri Chakraborty's promotion to the post of Junior Inspector ( Vigilance ) , occured in the year 2001 , specifically 2389

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

on 01.01.2001 and at that time or in any part of 2001 , Shri Chakraborty had experience less than four years or within three years and thus he was lacking one of the point ofeligibility for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) . Thus the criteria ofexperience is very much in the regulation of the management Port Trust for consideration ofthe claim ofpromotion departmentally. If there is a shortfall of such eligibility criteria in the case of Shri Chakraborty, definitely the management has got every right not to propose for his promotion and thus there act cannot be criticized by Shri Chakraborty.

not find any merit in the present dispute wherein it has been claimed that the management of KOPT denied promotion to Shri Chakraborty to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) with effect from 09.01.2002 and offering that promotion to Shri Kaushik Mondal , a Pharmacist of another department by way of superseding Shri Chakraborty as an illegal and unjustified act of the management and rather, such illegality and unjustifiabability act of the management has not been proved from the side of the workman Shri Chakraborty and so as it is found in the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, denial ofpromotion to Shri Swapan Chakraborty for the post of Inspector (Vigilance) in the year 2001 was done by following the rules and regulations made thereto and it was legal and justified.

16. Consequently the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Dated,Kolkata,

The 20th January, 2012.

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2012

का०आ०971.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोलकाता पोर्ट ट्रस्टके प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-01-2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल० 32011/4/2002-आई आर ( बी- II)] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , The 13th February, 2012 13. Further, in respect of open inter departmental circular (Ext . W-08 ) from the ChiefVigilance Officer for filling up the post of Inspector (Vigilance ) arising in the year 2001, the matter was kept open for candidates from all the departments and there the provision was made for making application for the said post fixing a cut- out date for application and the departmental candidates filed applications and those who were found eligible , were called for test and interview. It is fact that though the case of Shri Chakraborty was defeated departmentally for a shortfall in work experience , he did not take the opportunity to make application in response to the said circular. Though Mr. Bhadury tried to claim that Ext . W- 09 was such application of Shri Chakraborty in response to the said inter departmental circular, on going through the said application (Ext . W-09) it is found that it was not an application offering his candidature by Shri Chakraborty, but it was rather in the naure ofprotest against the said circular and claiming his promotion as a departmental candidate . So , Ext. W-09 cannot be treated as an application to offer candidature for the post of Inspector (Vigilance ) by Shri Chakraborty in response to Ext . W-08. 1 also cannot accept the submission from the side of the workman that the candidature of Shri Chakraborty should be considered for a departmental promotion to the vacancy of Inspector (Vigilance ) arising in the year 2001. So , there was nothing in the process of by passing his candidature to give avenue to some preferred candidate as it is found from the respective parties case, that Shri Chakraborty was subsequently offered the promotion to the post of Inspector (Vigilance) in the year 2004 when he fulfilled the work experience criteria and thus allegation against the management of having malafide intention in not giving promotion to him in the year 2001 can be accepted.

S.O. 971. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of KOLKATA PORT TRUST and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19/01/2012 .

SHEESH RAM , Section Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 16 of2003

Parties

14. The Tribunal will not interfere in the process of selection for promotion to the higher post departmentally when it was intended to be done by following the rules and regulations meant therefor and it is claimed by the management that filling up the post of Inspector (Vigilance), the management had primarily tried to get it filled up departmentally and on failing to get any eligible candidate from the feeder post, it decided to go with an open offer in all the departments of the management .

: Employers in relation to the management of Kolkata Port Trust

15. In view of all the discussions made above , I do THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 2390 AND was considered as entry post in the unit and the post of

Their workman.

PRESENT:

Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

: Mr. M.K. Das , Industrial Relations Officer.

Onbehalf ofthe Management

Onbehalf of the Workmen : Mr. A. Bhadury, executive Committee member of the workmen union .

Industry: Port & Dock.

State: West Bengal .

Dated: 3rd January, 2012.

AWARD

By Order No. L- 32011 /4 /2002 - IR( B - II) dated 27.03.2003 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1) (d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Kolkata Port Trust in denying the promotion of Shri Santi Ranjan Bapari , Greaser to Winchman in Vessel SD 'Churni ' w.e.f. 1.6.2002 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

2. The Workman's case in his written statement of claim is that the said workman Shri Santi Ranjan Bapari had beenworking in the capacity of Greaser in SD Churni being a permanent workman and he was senior - most among the Greaser. The main engine and auxiliary engine of the said SD Churni were required to be operated by different categories ofworkmen on round the clock basis with specific duties and responsibilities depending upon their responsibilities and capabilities and the category -wise posts in the said vessel (starting from the senior - most post) was E.R. Driver, E.R. Second Driver, E.R. Winchman , E.R. Greaser, E.R. Cassab and E.R. Fireman and among these posts, the post of Greaser , Cassab and Fireman carried same scale ofpay ofRs . 3900-6860 and the rest other posts used to carry higher pay scale in staircase process from Winchman to Driver. For holding the post of E.R. Driver and E.R. Second Driver the incumbents need to posses certificate of competency from Mercantile Marine Department (MMD) as a statutory requirement but such certificate is not needed for holing the post of E.R. Winchman , E.F. Greaser and E.R. Greaser Cassab and E.F. Fireman and the posts are being filled up by workmen strictly on the basis of seniority in the grade . The post of Winchman is a promotional post carrying higher scale of pay and senior-most Greaser used to get promotion to the said post. Though the post of Fireman , Cassab and Greaser used to carry the same scale of pay, normally the post of Fireman Cassab (single post) was filled up by Fireman who sought for day duty in place of night duty and the post of Cassab is not an operational post but is a maintenance post for maintaining store materials required for engine room. Workman claimed , the line of promotion was strictly within the uncertificated categories of engine room staff in SD Churni viz. from E.R. Fireman and E.R. Cassab to E.R. Greaser and from E.R. Greaser to E.R. Winchman . One post of Winchman became vacant for a temporary period of 26 days( leave vacancy) on 12.12.2001 and denying temporary promotion to the workman , the next senior below Shri Bapari , Shri Devdulal Mukhopadhyay was promoted to the said post of Winchman and being superseeded, this workman made a representation claiming his promotion to Winchman on the same day but it was unheeded . Again , a permanent post of Winchman fell vacant on 01.06.2002 and that vacant post was again filled up by the said Devdulal Mukhopadhyay ignoring the senior position of the present workman . Sensing foul game , the workmen union took up the matter in advance with the sectional head but it failed to produce any satisfactory reply. The workman made several representations on different dates and when his representations went in vain , the workmen union raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer at Kolkata and as it failed, the matter was sent to the appropriate Government which subsequently sent the present reference to this Tribunal .

3. In their written statement , management ofKolkata Port Trust submitted that the only post of Engine Room Cassab in vessel SD Churni fell vacant with effect from 01.02.2000 because of the superannuation ofthe concerned incumbent and as per practice and convention followed in the said vessel , the senior - most Greaser was being posted as Cassab though the said post used to carry the same scale of pay as that of Greaser for the purpose of future promotion to the post of Winchman and accordingly at the material point of time the then senior- most Greaser, the present workman , was asked to accept the post of Cassab which he refused and so the next senior - most Greaser Shri Devdulal Mukhopadhyay was offered the post of Cassab and accordingly he accepted the posting with effect from 01.02.2000 . According to the management , the hierarchy of the engine room operational staff constituted ofdifferenet posts in the staircase process from Fireman - 1, Greaser, Cassab to Winchman and accordingly the senior- most Fireman- 1 is posted as Greaser and the Senior-most Greaser is posted as Cassab and finally the Cassab is promoted to the post of Winchman. The promotional channel is so designed for the reason that the post of Cassab has higher duties and responsibilities than the post ofGreaser which also treated as a higher post than that of Fireman 1. It is claimedby the management that if promotion to the post of Winchman is allowed from anyone ofthe said feeder post , no crew member would be availale to shoulder the higher responsibility ofthe post of Greaser 2391 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

junior to Shri Bapari in the Greaser category and subsequently when the vacancy to the post of Winchman was being filled up, the senior-most employee, the present workman in the Greaser category was not offered such promotion and in his place , as he being posted as Cassab , Shri Devdulal Mukhopadhaya was given promotion to the post of Winchman with effect from 01.06.2002 . As an explanation to such act on the part of the management, it is stated by Shri M.K. Das , the authorized representative of the Kolkata Port Trust that it was a long practice in the management to offer the post of Cassab to a senior-most Greaser and after he joins in the post ofCassab , the vacancy inthe promotional post of Winchman is filled up from the loneCassab. It is further stated by Mr. Das that though the post ofFireman, Greaser and Cassab are in the same scale of pay, these have got different types of responsibilities having an uprise trend from Fireman- 1 (entry post) , to Greaserand from Greaser to Cassab and then the promotion to the post of Winchman is considered only for the employee posted as Cassab having the greater responsibility among the three categories of posts .

er that of Cassab which is even higher than the post of Greaser in view of its responsibilities. It is further claimed datifthe incumbent of the post of Cassab refuses to accept the post on promotion directly to the post of Winchman , then the senior - most Greaser is allowed to be considered for promotion to the post of Winchman. In the present case, the workman , Satya Ranjan Bapari refused the post of Cassab being offered on 01.02.2000, the next senior- most Greaser, Debdulal Mukhopadhyaya was offered that post which he accepted and when subsequently the post of Winchman fell vacant on 01.06.2002 , said Shri Mukhopadhaya was promoted to the post of Winchman. Had the present workman accepted the offer for being appointed to the post of Cassab, by this time he would have been promoted to the post of Winchman with effect from 01.06.2002 and it is claimed that Shri Mukhopadhaya was justifiably promoted to the said post and there is no merit in the demand either of the union or of the workman concerned, Satya Ranjan Bapari and is not entitled to get any relief. The management Port Trust has categorically denied that it ever flouted the provisions made in the Kolkata Port Trust Employees' (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulation, 1985 as alleged by the workmen union and it is claimed that no junior employee was promoted to the post of Winchman bypassing legitimate claim for promotion of a senior - most employee .

7. On the other hand, Mr. Animesh Bhadury, the authorized representative of the workmen union submitted that this is uncoded practice from the side of the management and no rule and regulation is there with the management that a worker posted in the engine room of S.D. Churni should be posted as Cassab first before being considered for promotion to the post of Winchman or that there is a compulsion on the part of the workman to be routed through the post of Cassab for promotion to the post ofWinchman .

4.Arejoinder is filed by the workmen union wherein the same story as narrated in the original written statement of claim was repeated and the workmen union denied the case alleged para- wise in the written statement ofreply of the management and claimed that the post of Cassab is not the only feeder post in line for promotion to the post of Winchman and that the said post essentially is a maintenance post like a Store Keeper having no bearing with the operational post like Fireman 1 , Greaser and Winchman and there is no hard and fast rule and even convention that promotion to the post of Winchman, an employee in the engine room must have served in the post of Cassab at his credit.

8.Mr. M.K. Das , the authorized representative ofthe management Port Trust submitted that such a practice is being followed by the management by following the direction given in an Award passed by this Tribunal in Reference No. 1 of 1956 wherein the Hon'ble Presiding Officer of this Tribunal has laid down the process of promotion, but on going through the said Award , (copy of which has been filed in the present record) nothing is found as to how the promotion to the post of Winchman is SD Churni like vessel is to be operated. The management all through the present reference and all through the argument, banked upon a claim from their side that it was a long practice from the side of the management Port Trust to promote a worker in the engine room to the post of Winchman from the feeder post.

5.Admittedly the workman concerned at the time of promotion to the post of Winchman in the year 2002 was posted as senior - most Greaser. It is also admitted that even when the post of Winchman fell vacant , at that material pointoftime, the claim of the workman was not considered for promotion to the said post being in the feeder post and that post of Winchman is a promotional post from those feeder post . It is also admitted that one Devdulal Mukhopadhaya, immediately junior to the present workman, was considered and appointed on promotion to the post of Winchman .

9.It is notdenied by the management Port Trust that the promotion to the post of Whinchman being a promotional post , is being done from the senior- most employee in the engine room in the posts of Cassab, Greaser and Firemen- 1 , all the three being feeder post and all the three being in the same scale of pay. It is also found from the submission of the respective parties that the post of Firemen 1 lies in the entry level in the said categories and 6. The management has claimed that such an act was undertaken as the workman , Satya Ranjan Bapari , refused the offer for the post of Cassab when it fell vacant and on his such refusal , the said post was filled up by the next

601 GI /2012-23 2392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2012

का०आ० 972.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इश्योरेंस क. लि. के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/1 ऑफ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को20-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था

[सं० एल -17011/ 7/ 2002- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012

S.O. 972. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT-2 / 1 of 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 2, MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO . LTD . and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20/01/2012 .

thereafter a greater-responsibility is given to such a worker inthe post ofGreaser. On the other hand , the single post of Cassab in SD Churni had non -operational job in the engine room while Greaser and Firemen are directly linked with the working ofthe engine room. No doubt Winchman is a senior promtional post also having the link to the engine room, the management has not formulated any rule or regulation to show that a senior Greaser must take the job of Cassab before being considered to the post of Winchman or that the channel ofpromotion to the post of Winchman is always through the post of Cassab and not directly from Greaser. As there is no compulsory regulation to that effect, the management of Kolkata Port Trust cannot claim that a worker being a seniorGreaser must be a Cassab first before being considered to the post of Winchman. Admittedly the post ofWinchman, Cassab, Greaser and Fireman- 1 does not need any certificate of competency from the Marine Department and naturally the person who is involved in the operation ofthe engine room in these categories for a considerable period of time is/are considered for promotion to a higher responsibility and unless he has got some bad conduct in course of his employment , a senior- most employee in that category must be given consideration first for promotion to the post of Winchman .

[No. L - 17011 /7/2002- IR(B - II)] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

REFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT:

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT -2 /1 OF 2003

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT 10. Admittedly the present workrnan , Shri Satya Ranjan Bapari was the senior - most Greaser and since the next senior most Greaser, Shri Devdulal Mukhopadhaya acepted the post of Cassab , the claim of the present workman, Shri Bapari was ignored for promotion to the post of Winchman and in his place Shri Mukhopadhaya was considered for such promotion only because he accepted the post of Cassab and thereby the management has definitely made an injustice to the present workman , Shri Bapari without any solid reason besides the one as referred above .

OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. The Deputy Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Mumbai Regional Office- II 5thfloor, Sterling Cinema Building 65, Murzban Street , Fort Mumbai -400001 . AND

THEIR WORKMEN The Joint Secretary General Insurance Employees Union 232 , D.N. Road Fort ,

Mumbai 400 001 .

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

11. In that case, I have no hesitation to hold that the claim ofthe present workman to be promoted to the post of Winchmanwith effect from 01.06.2002 before Shri Devdulal Mukhopdhaya has been ignored by the management Port Trust and thereby the action of the management in that regard is completely unjustified and not in any term ofthe legal procedure since there is no codified provision with the management of Kolkata Port Trust in that respect that promotion to the post of Winchman is to be done from the worker in the post of Cassab. Consequently the management of Kolkata Port Trust shall take all the necessary step in that regard so that the workman, Shri Satya Ranjan Bapari is treated to be promoted as Winchman with effect from 01.06.2002 .

FOR THE WORKMAN

: Mr. Manoj Gujar, Advocate . : Mr. R.D. Joshi , Advocate .

Mumbai , dated the 21st December, 2011 .

AnAward is passed accordingly.

AWARD

Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar Presiding Officer Dated Kolkata, the 3rd January, 2012 .

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & 2393 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

andMinistry sent the reference to this Tribunal . The union thus prays that the employer be directed to cancel the termination of services of Mr. Sanjay H. Gond and they be directed to regularise his services with all backwages and other consequential benefits .

Employmentby its Order No. L- 17011/7/2002- IR (B- II), dated 18.06.2002 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 ofNational Insurance Co. Ltd. , Mumbai in terminating the services ofShri Sanjay H. Gond is legal andjustified. Ifnot, what relief the employee is entitled to ? "

2.After receipt of the reference from the Ministry, both the parties were served with notices . They appeared through their respective legal representatives . The second party union filed his statement of claim at Ex- 7. According to the second party union the first party has opened branch office No. IV under Divisional Office with very skeleton staff. The company business started growing but as the BranchManager could not get additional typist to complete the policy document work and hence he had engaged Mr. Sanjay Gond to type the policy documents of the Branch Office from January 1997 to November 1997. He was paid sum of Rs . 1200/- p.m. by voucher . Mr. Gond came to know about the circular of regularisation, therefore, he made an application for regularisation of his services by his letter dt . 30.08.1999. The employer received it on 1/9/1999. The workman has passed F.Y. B.Com Exam of Mumbai University. He has knowledge of typing and can operate computer. He is from S.T. Category and badly in need of financial help to his family. He had worked for the employer to the fullest satisfaction of his superiors . The Union requested the Regional Manager and General Manager of the first party to regularise services of the workman as 'Assistant (T) . ' The workman had completed more than 240 days continuous service in a year . Workman is well acquainted with policy documents on computer. He has fulfilled the requirement of the recruitment to the post of Assist. (T) . There is a post of typist/Assist . (T) in the said branch.

4.The first party resisted the statement of claim vide theirwritten statement Ex - 18 . According to them, the claim ofthe second party Union is false . The first party has branches all over India and there are about 17,000 employees working on permanent basis . In Mumbai Company has 10 branch offices, 2 registered offices and 20 divisional offices managed by respective heads of the particular office . There are about 600 permanent employees ofall the cadre. There is no post vacant in the establishment . The branch office No. IV under Divisional Office No. IX came in to existence and started functioning since 20.07.1995 . The second party workman was engaged on need basis to clear typing work from January 1997 to May 1997 and was paid Rs . 1200/- p.m. as typing charges . Again he was engaged on purely need basis from July 1997 to Sept 1997 to do similar work . Hisdisengagement from service was for want ofwork and it cannot be treated in violation of any statutory provisions . Hewas engaged for a specific period purely on need basis from time to time to do the specific job of typing as and when contingency arose . The second party has never worked continuously for more than 240 days in any particular period as has been alleged. The claim of the second party is belated and stale , thus not tenable . He cannot claim reinstatement with full backwages in continuity in service as he was never employed or never worked 240 days . Neither he was appointed nor the recruitment rules were followed. He was engaged for a casual work on need basis . The reference is made mechanically without applying mind even by the conciliation officer . The second party has no locus -standi to raise this dispute of regularisation as an individual dispute . Such a dispute cannot be raised under Section 2 (A) ofthe Act . There reference is mere error by the Ministry. Such a casual employees cannot be absorbed or regularised. He has also not worked for 240 days in a year as has been claimed. The reference is devoid of merit . Therefore the first party pray that the same be rejected with cost .

5. By way of rejoinder Ex - 22 , the second party contended that he was working as a typist on vacant post and was denied benefit of permanent employees . He denied the contents in the written statement and repeated the allegations in the statemment of claim that he deserves to be absorbed and regularised in the service as a regular employee with full backwages .

6. Following are the issues framed by my Ld . Predecessor. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

3. As workman has completed 240 days and made a request to the management to regularise him , therefore concerned officer instructed the workman not to come to office for work and assured him that his case will be considered lateron . However no action was taken to regularise the workman . Therefore matter was discussed with national managerment . They had agreed to take up the issue of regularisation with Head Office . Union issued reminder to the national management . New India Assurance Company one ofthe subsidiary of GIAC have regularised 13 employees who worked for more than 240 days . As the managment did not take any action , union took up the matter to ALC (C) Mumbai . As conciliation failed ALC sent areport toGovt. of India, Ministry ofLabour & Employment 2394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

Sr. No. Issues

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Findings

No. 1. Does second party establishes employee-employer relationship ofconcerned workman with first party?

No. 2. Doessecond party establishes that, concerned workman requires to be regularised in the employment of first party?

No. 3. Does second party prove that concerned workman worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year to claim permanency?

4. Whatrelief second party may get for concerned workman ?

No relief.

5. Whatorder?

Asper final order.

Ref. GIP -2/ 109/2003

REASONS

Issues Nos . 1 to 4 :-

7.All these issues are interlinked therefore inorder to avoid repetition of discussion they are discussed and decided simultaneously. According to the workman, he worked with the first party's concerned branch from January 1997 to November 1997. He used to get Rs . 1200/- p.m. by voucher. According to him , he had worked for more than 240 days in the year 1997. He also contended that he worked atbranch nos . 3 , 4 & 5 from time to time . However he has produced on record with list Ex - 8 the vouchers of October 1997, September 1997 , July 1997 , June 1997 , May 1997 & April 1997. There is no document on record to show that he has worked for 240 or more days continuously in a year. Furthermore the Ld . Adv for the first party pointed out that the workman was engaged casually to do the typing work and remuneration for typing work was paid to him whenever he was called . He further submitted that the workman was never appointed . He pointed out the admission of the workman in his cross examination at Ex - 27 wherein workman had admitted that no appointment letter was given to him atany time by the first party . He further pointed out that neither name of the workman was called from Employment Exchange nor workman had undergone any recruitment examination or test prescribed therefore . In the circumstances , he argued that even question of termination of such employee does not arise . He was engaged to do a particular work of typing. He was disengaged after the work was over. Such disengagement cannot be called illegal termination .

8. The Ld . Adv for the first party submitted that the workman was engaged to do typing work from January 1997 to May 1997 and again was called from July 1997 to September 1997. As against this the workman claims that he worked continuously from January 1997 to November 1997. The Ld . Adv. for the first party submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record . The workman has produced vouchers of only four months with list Ex- 8 . Не submitted that the burden was on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar year. The workman has produced vouchers of four months in the year 1997. There is absolutely no evidence in respect of any other period or any other year to show that the workman had worked with the first party. The Ld . Adv submitted that the burden lies on the workman to prove that he has served more than 240 days . According to him the workman failed to discharge the burden . On the other hand the workman has admitted in his cross at Ex - 27 that there was no work of typing after 1997 and thereafter typing work was not provided . It shows that the workınan had not worked or was not engaged for the typing work after 1997. He further submitted that burden or onus cannot shift on the employer to prove negative fact such as the workman had not worked for 240 days in a calender year. In support of his argument, Id Adv. cited Apex Court ruling in General Manager, BSNL & Ors . V/s . Mahesh Chand 2008 I CLR 784 SC . In the case at hand , the second party has not led any evidence to show that the workman has worked continuously for more than 240 days in any calendar year .

9. Furthermore , it is a fact that the workman had not faced any recruitment test . His name was also not referred through employment exchange. In the circumstances , ld. Adv. for the first party submitted that such a workman who wasworking casually or as a part time worker cannot be regularised , though worked for a long time. In support of hisargument the Id. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Union of India Vs. Bishmbar Dutt ( 1996) 2 SCC 341 wherein Hon'ble Court held that:

"Person appointed on part - time employment divorce the rules even though regularly working for a longtime is not entitled for regularisation . "

10. The Id . Adv. for the first party also submitted that daily wage workman not appointed by following the procedure for recruitment neither can be regularised nor can be reinstated. In support of his argument he resorted toApex Court ruling in Pravin Bhatia V/s . Union of India & Ors . 2009 III LLJ 9 , wherein the Hon'ble Court held that:

"When daily wages workmen could not show that their appointments were made in compliance with constitutional scheme of equity, their reinstatement into service cannot be directed . "

11. The Id. Adv. also resorted to Apex Court ruling in C.S. Azad Krishi Even Prodyogiki Vishwa V/s . United Traders Congress and others 2008 I LLJ 75 wherein the Hon'bleApex Court on the point held that:

"Working continuously for more than 240 days in a year though quite long period itself does not confer any right upon a workman to be regularised in service ." 2395

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Industrial Dispute No. 136/98

BETWEEN

Sri A.P. Srivastava, State Secretary , United Bank of India Employees Association , C/o United Bank of India, Nayaganj Branch, Kanpur.

12. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the case laws discussed herein above , it is clear that the workman was not appointed by following recruitment rules . Furthermore , he failed to prove that he had worked more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year . On the other hand from the evidence on record it is seen that he was engaged to do casual work of typing and was paid for the same. In the circumstances , he cannot claim reinstatement or status of permanency. Accordingly, I decide this issue no. 1 to 3 in the negative . I also hold that the workman is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly the issue no. 4 is also decided in the negative . Thus , I proceed to pass the following order:

And The General Manager (Personnel ) United Bank of India , 10 Old Court House Street , Kolkatta.

ORDER

AWARD

cost. The reference stands rejected with no order as to

Date: 21.12.2011

1. Central Government , Mol , New Delhi vide notification No. L - 12012/279 /97 /IR(B- II) dated 20.07.98 , has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication-

Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2012

2. Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India in treating the request made by the workman Sri R.L. Chopra as conditional acceptance and refusing promotion to the post of Special Assistant is justified?. whether the employee is eligible for promotion to the post of special assistant with retrospective effect with consequential benefits ? If not what relief the workman is entitled for?

3. Brief facts are---

का०आ० 973.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था!

[सं० एल-12012/279/1997- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012

S.O. 973 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , KANPUR now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UUNITED BANK OF INDIA and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19/01/2012 .

[No. L - 12012/279/1997- IR (B- II )] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

4.Itisanadmitted fact that Sri R.L. Chopra claimant was employed as a clerk at Nayaganj Branch Kanpur of United Bank of India . The promotion in the bank to the post of special assistant from clerical cadre are governed by the rules as contained in UBI 1st Supplement to guidelines or staff administration (Chapter II ) . In terms of the aforesaid rules the bank had invited applications to fill up the post of special assistant . In the promotion process of1993 vacancies lying vacant up till 31.12.90 were to be filled.At Nyaganj branch of the Bank there were two posts of special assistants . That vide letter no. HRD-dated 26.03.87, the office of the bank reduced the strength of special assistant from 2 to 1. Though the strength of special assistant was reduced from 2 to 1 yet the actual strength at the branch remained two . That the reduction in the strength as stated aforesaid was resisted by the employees association of the bank due to which the bank vide its letter No. CR/Admn .-ted 22.12.95 advised as under-- ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PRAKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER

Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur.

5.Onour clarification regarding the date of sanction of the post, they have , vide their letter No. HRD-dated 3.11.95 informed that the sanctioned position of the special assistant of two in Nayaganj branch should be treated to have been sanctioned with retrospective effect from 2396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
March 87. Thus defacto/dejuro position was that there assistant they should inform the head office well in advance
always remained two post ofspecial assistant at the branch. so that their names may not be considered . After selection
Thus in the promotional process other year 1993 two post for the post of SA being 1 out of 5 selected candidates Sri
of special assistant were required to be filled up. In this Chopra was offered the post of special Asstt . by the bank
process the claimant was also called for interview along posting at banks mau - ima branch vide letter dated 16.02.93.
with other eligible clerks . He was selected for promotion. Sri Chopra accepted the posting order at Mau - ima branch
Thus in terms of the posting procedure detailed at serial conditionally stating " I agree to accept the assignment of
No. 430. of the guidelines referred to in paragraph 6 special assistant under terms and conditions subject to
hereinabove , aforesaid claimant ought to have been offered the post at Kanpur station having vacancies at Nayaganj
the posting, as special assistant at Nayaganj Branch itself. and Kanpur Branch . " This conditional acceptance was
But the bank instead of offering the posting at Nayaganj against the rules of the bank and the claimant was informed
Branch offered the post of special assistant at Mua- una that the same would be treated as his refusal to accept the
branch of the bank in contravention of the rules . The offer as per th relevant policy of the bank as also in terms
claimant accepted the promotion but objected to his posting of provisions of circular dated 11.5.92 . Sri Chopra had
at the Mua- ima branch of the bank . The bank took it as a
participated in the process of selection process being fully
conditional acceptance and declined him promotional post aware that if selected he would be posted anywhere in the
of special assistant . Therefore, the claimant has alleged State Sri Chopra wrote a letter dated 24.02.93 and 07.08.93
that in refusing him the posting of special assistant after claiming that there were two vacancies of special assistants
promotion at Nayaganj branch the action of the atNayaganj branch . The said request of Sri Chopra and his
managetient is unjust . He requested that he should be union could not be accepted as there was only one vacancy
notea and be given the consequential benefits with at Nayagani branch at the tiine under consideration for
retrospective effect .
selecion in ms of the aforesaid circulars . It is a fact that
6. Opposite party has filed the written statement. It in the year 1995 the sanctioned strength of special assistant
has been accepted therein that the claimant was selected atNayaganj Branch was increased from one as on 31.2.90
as special assistant in the year 1993 , but his selection was to two vide fester dated 15.02.95 and the above
based on the basis of banks circular No. PA( AS )--dated communication was receivedby regional office after the
11.05.92 and number PA(AS)-dated 12.09.92. According selection process for special assistant was over way back
to the circular dated 11.5.92, the result of interview would in1993 itself. It is also stated by the opposite party that the
be published and arranged in descending order of seniority claim of the claimant is barred by principle of estoppels .
ofthe candidates selected state- wise commensurate with Lastly it is pleaded by opposite party that the present claim
the number of vacancies declared for each state as on the is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit and claimant is
stipulated date i. e. 31.12.90 . The candidate so selected would not entitled for any relief.
be posted thereafter against the resultant as well as ab-
initio no optee vacancy of special assistant . It has been 7. Claimant has also filed rejoinder but nothing new
specified that there was only one post of special assistant has been stated there in except reiterating the facts of the
claimpetition.
and as such there was one vacancy at Nayaganj Branch till
the time of declared vacancies of special assistant as on 8. Both parties have filed documentary as well as
31.12.90 as per circular No.-dated 12.09.92 ( aforesaid). oral evidence .
As per aforesaid circular dated 12.09.92 the bank has
informed the all concerned that there were total 5 vacancies 9. Heard the arguments of the parties at length and
existing in the state of U.P. as on 31.12.90 and accordingly have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
the candidates were called for interview and selection and 10.The short question to be decided in this case is
there was only one vacancy at Nayaganj branch of the whether there was only one vacancy at Nayaganj Branch
bank, the date of vacancy was 31.5.88 and total 5 vacancies in the year 1993 when the selection process took place or
were existing in the state of Uttar Prades . The guidelines there were two vacancy as claimed by the claimant .
for staff administration 1st supplement which has been
referred by the claimant also expressly clarifies in Para 34 11. Second question to be decided is whether
all those who appeared in the interview will be considered according to the letter No. HRD- 15.02.95 wherein the
to have expressed their willingness to work as special sanctioned strength of special assistant was increased from
assistant and after participating in the interview if selected one to two as on 31.12.90 , which was received by the
for the post of special assistant will have to accept the Regional Office after the selection process of special
posting at any branch/office within the same state . In no assistant was over way back in 1993 .
case he will be allowed to refuse the said posting . Similarly 12. First question- It has been alleged by the
the circular dated 11.05.92 provides that those employees claimant, Sri R L Chopra in his statement as W.W.1 that
who are not willing and interested for the post of special there were two vacancies of special assistants when the

2397 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

there was only one sanctioned post of special assistant at Nayaganj branch when the selection process has taken place considering the vacancies as on 31.12.90 , therefore , itwas not possible for the opposite part to post two persons against a single vacancy . Sri Kanojia who was senior to the claimant has been posted at Nayaganj Branch . As such according to the first part there is no malafide in the action of the management accordingly the same is decided in favour of the opposite party bank.

17. Second question- That there is a contention of the claimant that according to circular dated 22.12.95 , the sanctioned Post 2 of special assistant at Nayaganj branch should have been treated to be two with retrospective effect from March 87 .

selection process took place . But I have examined his statement . In his statement there is no such documentary evidence which supports the version of the claimant. If it was like this the claimant could have summoned such records from the opposite party, whereas the opposite party in his statement as M.W.1 Sri Bholanath Rai who is an officer of the bank specifically stated on oath that there were only 5 vacancies in the state of U.P. as on 31.12.90 and there was only one vacancy at Nayaganj Branch ofthe Kanpur for the post of special Assistant. There is a circular which is paper No. 11/2 which dated 11.5.92 and contains the guidelines , it is stated that Sri Chopra has applied under the terms of this circular and he has participated knowing fully the term and conditions ofthe circular. It has been specifically stated by the opposite party in para 8 of theirwritten statement that there was only one vacancy of special assistant at Nayaganj Branch and when the selection process was over one Sri Nand Kishore Kanojia who was found slected on the basis of seniority cum suitability was posted at Nayaganj Branch, Kanpur of the bank . M.W.1 categorically stated that there was one sanctioned post 2 of special assistant at Nayaganj branch, Karpur. W. W.1 claimant in his cross examination clearly admitted that Sri Kanojia was posted at Nayaganj Branch was senior to him .

18. I have given due thoughts to this contention. While deciding the first point it was found that there was no malafide on the part of the bank when the selection process were initiated and posting was done because there was only one post at Nayaganj Branch . Opposite party has specifically stated in their evidence as well as in their pleadings that the communication letter no . HRD dated 15.02.95 was received by Regional Office after the selection process for the post of special assistant was over way back in the year 1993. The claimant has invited my attention towards paper No. 40/2-3 the circular dated 22.11.95 and letter dated 22.12.95 paper No. 39/1-2. I have thoroughly examined the contents of these letters . According to the claimant if claimant is posted with retrospective since 1993 to the post of special assistant I think it may cause prejudice to other bank employees who could not participate under the doctrine of public expectation.

15. Therefore after the perusal of the evidence the version and the contention of the opposite party is believeable and found true that there was one post at Nayaganj Branch in the year 1993 and Sri Kanojia who was senior to the claimant was posted for the post of special assistant at Nayaganj Branch . Therefore , ifthere was only one post and if a senior has been posted on the basis of seniority and suitability, then I think that there is no malafide in the action of the opposite party bank in refusing the claimant to be posted at Nayaganj Branch as special assistant, where as the claimant himself has conditionally accepted his promotion . According to the opposite party, this conditional acceptance is against the policy of the bank.

19. There is a letter dated 22.11.95 filed by the claimant himself states if the post of special assistant at Nayaganj Branch is restored with effect from March 87 , it will affect the posting of special assistant selected after March 1987 i.e. in the year 1990 and onwards . I think that there is a force in this reasoning. On the basis of doctrine of public expectation the claimant could not be posted for the post of special assistant since 1993 claiming his posting with retrospective effect . Accordingly it is held that there is no force in this contention of the claimant and is rejected .

20.Accordingly reference is answered against the Union holding that the claimant is not entitled to any relief.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

Dated: 31.10.11

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2012

14. Opposite party contended that after seeing the condition put bythe claimant on paper No. 11/08 which was not found to be tenable , the bank has written a letter dated 05.03.93 , paper No p. 11/09 stating that your appointment and posting as special assistant has been done as per bank's guidelines and the existing vacancies as on 31.12.90 , as such the conditional acceptance ofthe appointment letter is not acceptable and it is presurned that you are not interested to accept the offer. Your non acceptance will be treated as refusal in terms of Head office circular no dated 11.05.92 .

15. I have perused all the evidence and the contents of the circular . There is nothing illegal in this letter dated 05.03.93 .

का०आ० 974.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 16. Therefore for the first point my finding is that 2398

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था । जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/31/2008- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, in relation to their Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Pravakar Mallick, w.e.f. 30.9.2004 , in fair, legal and justified ? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012

S.O. 974.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 42/2008 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 workman , received by the Central Government on 13/02/2012 .

Ramesh Singh , Desk Officer

[No. L- 12012/31 /2008 - IR(B -I) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 42/2008

Date of Passing Award-24th January, 2012

BETWEEN:

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India , Bhubaneswar

1stParty-Management .

(And)

Main Branch , Bhubaneswar , Dist. Khurda (Orissa), Bhubaneswar. (Orissa) Their workman Sri Pravakar Mallick, Qrs. No. VR-5 / 1 , Kharvela Nagar , Unit- III , Bhubaneswar Orissa

2nd Party -Workman.

APPEARANCES:

ShriAlok Das

: For the 1st Party-

Authorized Representative Management .

None.

: For the 2nd Party- Workman.

AWARD

Anindustrial dispute existing between the employers 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- section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide their letter No. L - 12012/ 31/2008- IR (B - 1 ) , dated 02.06.2008 to the following effect.

2. The 2nd Party - Workman has filed his statement of claim alleging that he had joined his services as a Messenger on temporary/ casual /daily wage basis on 18.06.1988 after succeeding in interview. He was assured to get permanent appointment order after one year or on completion of240 days ' work in a calendar year , but despite completion of several years of continuous satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days ' work in each year he was terminated and refused employment from 30.9.2004 by the 1st Party - Management without any written communication 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 therefore brought the matter in to the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. ofthe State Bank of India, L.H.O. , Bhubaneswar. But on hearing nothing , he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) vide his letter dated 28.2.2005 . 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 started that the present dispute is misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party- workman had alreaady raised a similar dispute along with 124 other workers through the State Bank of India Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st Party-Management . 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 this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007 . The name of the 2nd Party - workman is appearing at Sl . No. 19 in Annexure -A to the said reference . This , raising a commondispute 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 individual disputes disregarded the direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ) not to take any further action on the separate disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of action . The allegation of the 2nd Party - workman that he was discontinued from service on 30.9.2004 and was 2399

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4. To what reliefthe workman is entitled?

5. The 2nd Party- workman despite giving sufficient opportunity did 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 Abhay Kumar Das as M.W. -1 and filed documents marked as Ext . - A to Ext.- J in refutation of the claim ofthe 2nd Party-workman . ISSUE NO.1 FINDINGS

7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party- Management that a group of 125 employees including the 2nd Party-workman has 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 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 workman whose details are in Annexure -A for re - employment as perSection 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal andjustified? If not , what relief the workmen is entitled to ? "

signing bogus vouchers is not correct . As per his own admission his services were discontinued from December, 1997 and he was receiving payment in his own name . He was engaged intermittently on temporary /daily wage basis due to exigencies of work . It is denied that he had joined the Bank on 18.6.1988 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 continuous service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 daysof continuous service in any calendar year preceding the date of his alleged termination . In order to give 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 Management of the State Bank of India all eligible persons were called for interview. The 2nd Party -workman was also called for an interview along with all the other eligible persons in the year 1993 and was empanelled . But unfortunately the panel lapsed on 31.3.1997 and consequently he could not be absorbed in the Bank's service . the Union or the 2nd Party - workman has never challenged the implementation of the 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 service due to expiry of the panel on 31st March, 1997 filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa. 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 of Writ Petitions and upheld the action of the Management of the Bank . This order of the Hon'ble High Court was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC - 3082/ 1999 . Hence the above matter has attained finality and cannot be re- agitated. Since the services of Shri Mallick were terminated inDecember, 1997 his claim has become stale by raising the dispute after lapse of a period of 8 years . It is a settled principle of law that delay destroys the right to remedy. Thus raising the present dispute after 8 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 workman during the pendency of the I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue is legal and justified?

8. The name ofthe 2nd party - workman appears at Sl . No. 19 in Annexure - A to the above reference . In both the cases the matter of disengagement or so called retrenchment is involved to the 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 been made with regard to consideration of the case of 125 workman 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 in the present case they have challenged their termination on fact 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 thelst Party - Management.

2. Whether the workman has worked for more than 240 days as enumerated under section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act ?

ISSUE No. 2

9. The onus to prove that the 2nd party - workman hascompleted one year or 240 days of continuous service 3. Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in relation to their Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Pravakar Mallick, with effect from 30.9.2004 , is legal and justified?

601 GI/2012-24 2400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

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 on 18.6.1988 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 Ist 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 Abhay Kumar Das 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 ..... He had not completed 240 days of continuous and uninterrupted service preceding the alleged date of the termination . " He has denied the allegation that the workman was discontinued with effect from 30.9.2004 , but stated that " In- fact the workman left working in the branch in the year 1993 " . Thus he had not worked after 1993. The 2nd Party - workman has to disprove the evidence led by the Ist Party- Management, but he has not come before the Court to give evidence . A temporary or daily wage worker has not 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 to get benefit of Section 25- B of the 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 of his disengagement or alleged termination from serivce .

ISSUE No.3

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/ causal/daily wage employee . His services can be terminated at any time without assigning any cause by the 1st Party-Management . He has no legal right to be retained in service for the extendedperiod, if he was apointed for a certain period or whenno 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 1st 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 his job also came to an end. In view of the

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

matter the action of the management of State Bank of India in relation to their Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Pravakar Mallick with effect from the alleged date of his termination is fair, legal and justified. 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 Srivastova , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2012

का०आ० 975.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र, के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं०2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/ 51 ऑफ/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को16-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12011 / 111 /2000- आई०आर० ( बी -11 ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2012

S.O. 975. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT-2/51 OF 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 2, MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofALLAHABAD BANK and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 16/01/2012 .

[No. L- 12011 / 111 /2000- IR(B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT:

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2/ 51 OF 2005 (Old Ref. CGIT-2/ 90 of2000)

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD BANK 2401 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

The Assistant General Manager

Allahabad Bank

served with notice ofthe reference . The second party unions appeared through their legal representatives . Union no . 3 filed their written statement at Ex -46 and Union nos . 1 & 2 filed their rejoinder ( Ex -47 ) to the Written statement. Thereafter matter was fixed for evidence of second party.

99C , Rosewood Chambers Tulsiwadi , Tardeo Mumbai 400 034.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN .

( 1 ) The General Secretary

3. Meanwhile on the request of both parties , matter waskept in the lokadalat. Adv. for union no . 1 & 2 by their purshis Ex - 53 prayed to dispose of this reference . Accordingly, vide Ex- 54 , matter was placed before this Tribunal for order. Hence the order:

All India Allahabad Bank SC /ST Employees Welfare Council .

Ref. CGIT- 2/51 of 2005

(OldNo. Ref. CGIT- 2/90/2000 )

ORDER

C/ o . Allahabad Bank ParelBranch , Dr. Ambedkar Marg Mumbai-400012 .

(2) The Vice President

The reference is disposed of vide Ex - 53 & 54 in

Allahabad Bank Karmachari Sena

Lokadalat .

C/ o . Allahabad Bank

Date: 14.10.2011

K.B. Katake, Presiding Officer 37, Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai 400 023.

Ex-53

(3) The General Secretary

Allahabad Bank Employees Union

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI 37, Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 023.

Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 51 OF 2005

APPEARANCES :

: First Party

Allahabad Bank

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Ms.Geeta Raju:

V/s.

Advocate i/b M/ s . Kini & Co.

Theirworkmen

: Second Party

FOR THE UNION Nos . 1 & 2 : Mr. J.H. Sawant , Advocate .

Application for disposal of the Reference as withdrawn .

FOR THE UNION No. 3 : Mr. S.C. Hegde , Advocate .

MAY IT PLEASE YOU HONOUR

Mumbai , dated the 14th October 2011 .

Ref. CGIT-2/ 51 of 2005 (Old No. Ref. CGIT-2/90/2000 )

Allahabad Karmachari Sena and All India SCs / ST Association , the Second party No. 1 & 2 hereby pray that the above matter may please be disposed of as withdrawn .

AWARD

Mumbai

Date: 14.10.2011

Sd/-

(Jaiprakash Sawant )

Adv.orSecond Party No. 1 & 2 .

ORDER

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No. L- 12011 / 111 / 2000 - IR ( B - II) , dated 15.09.2000 and corrigendum dated 11.02.2002 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:

Ld . Adv. present he admitted the contents hence recorded & filed.

Sd/-

(K.B. Katake)

PO , CGIT-2 , Mumbai .

Ex. No. 54

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT HELD ON 14TH OCTOBER 2011

"Wether the action of the management ofAllahabad Bank in not effecting rotational transfer of Award Staff in Mumbai Region and allowing them to remain at oneplace for years together in violation ofthe transfer policy is justified? Ifnot, thenwhether the employees who completed the tenure are liable for transfer to another places on administrative grounds in terms of the transfer policy? "

Panel Members: ( 1 ) Adv . SHRI Η.Κ.

BHALERAO

2. After the reference was remanded back to this Tribunal by Hon'ble High Court, both the parties were 2402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SFC . 3 ( ii ) ]

SHRI S.V.

(2) Adv . ALVA

प्रसंगः भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली के आदेश सं. एल -12012/ 24/2009 ( आई आर) ( बी-1 ) दि. 26/10/09

SHRI M.B. ANCHAN (3) Adv.

निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) (घ ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 Reference No. CGIT- 2/ 51 of 2005

मध्य

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD BANK AND

अशोक कुमार गुप्ता पुत्र श्री हजारीलाल द्वारा संयुक्त महामंत्री, हिन्द मजदूर सभा , बंगाली कोलोनी , छावनी , कोटा/राज./

THEIR WORKMEN

प्रार्थी श्रमिक

PRESENT:

एवं

Adv. Geeta Raju

वरिष्ठ सहायक उपाध्यक्ष, बैंक आफ राजस्थान , कोटा ।

For the management

अप्रार्थी नियोजक : Adv. Shri J.H. Swant for Union 1 & 2

उपस्थित

For the workmen

: Adv. Shri S.C. Hedge Union No. 3

प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर सेः

कोई उपस्थित नहीं

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से : श्री सुरेश माथुर Adv . Shri J.H.Sawant filed withdrawal Pursis and accordingly matter dispossed off as withdrawn . Sent to tribunal for Award.

प्रतिनिधि

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 16/12/2011

Sd./illegible

अधिनिर्णयः

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली के उक्त प्रासंगिक ओदश/अधिसूचना दि. 26/10/09 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश/विवाद, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जायेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण दो अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है:-

का०आ० 976.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) , की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि० प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को14-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/ 24/2009 - आईआर ( बी -1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

"Whether the action of the management of the Fank ofRajasthan Ltd. , Kota ( Raj .) in terminating services ofShri Ashok Kumar Gupta S/ o Shri Hazarilal w.e.f. 22/2/2008 , is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled? " S.O. 976. In pursuanceursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 1/2009 of the Industrial Tribunal, KOTA as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of The Bank ofRajasthan Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14/02/2012.

[No. L- 12012/24/2009- IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

अनुबंध

2. निर्देश/विवाद न्यायाधिकरण में दि० 27/11/09 को दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया । इसके पश्चात् दि० 2/6/010, 15/11/010, 7/4/011 और 8/8/011 को पक्षकारों के प्रतिनिधिगणों की उपस्थिति लिखी जाती रही । अप्रार्थी कीओर से उनके प्रतिनिधि श्री सुरेश माथुर उपस्थित हैं एवं अब तक प्रार्थी की ओर से श्री एन०के० तिवारी को उपस्थित माना जाता रहा परन्तु आज उन्होंने जाहिर किया कि इस मामले में उन्होंने प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रतिनिधित्व- पत्र पेश नहीं किया है तथा प्रार्थी का यह व्यक्तिगत मामला था । इसके अलावा अन्य कोई प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी की ओर से उपस्थित नहीं है एवं ना ही प्रार्थी उपस्थित है ।

न्यायाधीश , कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोय/राज

श्रम मंत्रालय

पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया, आर.एच.जे.एस. निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक: औ.न्या./केन्द्रीय/-1/2009

दिनांक स्थापितः 26/11/09

3, औद्योगिक विवाद नियमों के नियम 10- ख के अनुसार निर्देश दर्ज रजिस्टर होने पर पक्षकारों को नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिवस के अन्दरप्रार्थी को अपना क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश करना होता है । इस मामले में 2 वर्ष की अवधि इस हेतु व्यतीत हो चुकी है एवं ना तो क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश हुआ है एवं ना ही प्रार्थी को ओर से कोई अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित आ रहे हैं एवं ना ही प्रार्थी उपस्थित आ रहा है । अतः अनिश्चितकाल तक 2403

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

PRESENT:

Shri S.n. Navalgund , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 51/2003

II PARTY

IPARTY

TheRegional Manager,

The Executive Committee

यह न्यायालय मामले को पक्षकारों के पेशी पर आने या उसकी ओर से क्लेमस्टेटमेन्ट पेश किये जाने के इन्तजार में लम्बित नहीं रख सकता है एवं सार रूप में इतना ही कहना पर्याप्त है कि प्रार्थी की ओर से कोई भी उपस्थितनही आने व ना ही क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश होने से प्रार्थी हस्तगत निर्देश में कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नही बनता है ।

Member,

Bank of Maharashtra ,

Regional Office,

15, Police Station Road, Basavangudi,

Bank ofMaharashtra Employees Union, C/o Bank of Maharashtra, Vastrad Building Regal Talkies Road,

Bangalore-560004

Dharwad (Dt)-580001

AWARD

परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश/अधिसूचना सं० एल-12012/24/2009 ( आईआर ) बी-1 (दि० 26/10/09 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी द्वारा किसी के उपस्थितनहीं आने व कोई क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश नहीं होने से वह किसी प्रकार काकोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है, इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है ।

प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section (1 ) and Sub- section 2Aof Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12011/76/ 2003- IR(B - II ) dated 14.08.2003 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

का०आ० 977.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) , की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफमहाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौरके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2003) को प्रकाशित करती हैजो केन्द्रीय सरकार को16-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the management of Bank of Maharashtra in not maintaining two separate seniority lists for Karnataka and Goa Region for part time Sweepers subsequent to reorganization of the zones of the Bank and not absorbing the senior most part time staffappearing in the seniority list for Goa Region is justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

[सं० एल -12011 /76/ 2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

2.After recording the evidence led by both the parties , when the matter was at the stage of arguments, the firstparty advocate filed a Memo that the dispute between the first party and the Second Party being amicably settled out of the court, the first party union will not press the reference . In view of this memo , the learned advocate appearing for the Second Party management has also submitted that the matter being amicably settled between the first party union and second party may be closed.

3. In view of the amicable settlement between the first party union and the second party management in respect of the dispute on the schedule reference, the reference is liable to be rejected. Hence the following award:

AWARD

S.O. 97 % . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , BANGALORE now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BANK OF MAHARASHTRA and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16/-01 /2012 .

The reference is rejected. No costs.

[No. L- 12011 /76/2003 - IR (B - II) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 28th May 2010)

S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 28th May 2010

978.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) , की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार का० आ० 2404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्याा 2/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12012/ 113/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

इसका कारण यह बताया गया था कि प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 16.11.1999 से 14.9.2002 की अवधि में केवल 75 दिन ही अप्रार्थी बैंक में कार्य किया और इस कारण यह विवाद् औद्योगिक विवाद्अधिनियम की धारा 25- एफ के अन्तर्गत पोषणीय नहीं पाया गया । इस आदेश के विरुद्ध प्रार्थी ने माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष रिट याचिका प्रस्तुत की उसमें पारित आदेश की पालना में भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 2 अप्रैल, 2008 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद् इस न्यायालय को रेफर किया है:-

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

"Whether the claim of Shri Iqbal Khan that he had beenworking as daily wager peon in the Central Bank of India w.e.f. 16.11.1999 continuously and his services was terminated by the management w.e.f. 14.9.2002 without following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified ? If so, then what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

S.O. 978.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2008) of the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, JODHPUR now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 16/1/2012 .

[No. L - 12012/ 113 /2004- IR(B -II)] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर ।

2. प्रार्थी ने अपने माँग पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी बैंक ने प्रार्थी को दिनांक 16.11.1999 को मौखिक आदेश के द्वारा पियोन का काम करने के लिए नियुक्त किया । प्रार्थी वहाँ दिनांक 14.9.2012 तक निरन्तर कार्यरत् रहा । अप्रार्थी बैंक के मैनेजर ने दिनांक 14.9.2002 को कार्य समाप्ति के पश्चात् अपने मौखिक आदेश के द्वारा प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग- पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी के नाम बदल- बदल कर प्रार्थी से उक्त अवधि में कार्य कराया जब कि उक्त नामों के आदमी अस्तित्व में ही नहीं है ।

पीठासीन अधिकारी:- श्री एच०आर० नागौरी, आर० एच०जे० एस० औद्योगिक विवाद् ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या 2 सन्2008 श्री इकबाल खान पुत्र श्री मोहम्मद याकुब निवासी हैण्ड पम्पके सामने, बकरा मण्डी, न्यूचांदपोल रोड़, जोधपुर ।

प्रार्थी

बनाम

दि जनरल मैनेजर सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया, रीजनल ऑफिस, एस०सी० रोड़, आनन्द भवन, जयपुर ।

अप्रार्थी

उपस्थितिः-

3. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग पत्र में आगे यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने प्रार्थी से कई बार लिपिक का भी कार्य लिया था । प्रार्थी को पहले 50/-रुपये उसके बाद 55/ - रुपये तथा बाद में 60/- रूपये प्रतिदिन के हिसाब से वेतन का भुगतान किया जाता था । प्रार्थी को वाउचरों पर हस्ताक्षर करवाकर भुगतान किया जाता था । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि जब- जब उसे भुगतान किया गया तब- तब की तारीखें उसने नोट कर ली है । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि इस प्रकार प्रार्थी को 148 बार भुगतान किया गया । इसका विवरण संलग्न परिशिष्ट संख्या -1 में अंकित होना बताया है । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि यदि अप्रार्थी इस परिशिष्ट में उल्लेख किये गये तथ्य अस्वीकार करेगा तो प्रार्थी इस परिशिष्ट में अंकित वाऊचर अप्रार्थी से तलब करवायेगा ।

( 1) प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधिः- श्री विजय मेहता उपस्थित ।

(2) अप्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधिः श्री अचलसिंह उपस्थित ।

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक: 6.1.2011

प्रार्थी ने अपने इस विवाद् को समझौते के लिए केन्द्रीय सम्भागीय श्रम आयुक्त, अजमेर के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया था । केन्द्रीय सम्भागीय श्रम आयुक्त, अजमेर के समक्ष समझौता वार्ता विफल हो गई, लेकिन भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 3.9.2004 के द्वारा इस प्रकरण को न्याय निर्णय हेतु न्यायालय को रेफर करना उचित नहीं माना ।

4.प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग पत्र में यह उल्लेख किया है कि जब-जब प्रार्थी से अप्रार्थी ने लिपिक का काम करवाया वह तारीखें भी प्रार्थी ने नोट कर उसकी तालिका बनाई है । प्रार्थी ने कुल 171 दिन लिपिक का कार्य किया था। इसका विवरण संलग्न परिशिष्ट संख्या 2 में अंकित है । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि क्यु०सी०सी० रजिस्टर, डिस्पेच रजिस्टर तथा वी०पी० रजिस्टर प्रार्थी के हाथ के हैं और उनका विवरण संलग्न परिशिष्ट संख्या-3 में अंकित है । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि यदि अप्रार्थी इन तथ्यों से इंकार करेगा तो वह उसके द्वारा किये गये लिपिक कार्य के दस्तावेज अप्रार्थी से तलब करवायेगा । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसने उक्त कार्य अवधि में प्रत्येक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 2405

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

दिनों से अधिक दिनों तक अप्रार्थी के अधीन कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी को सेवापृथकता के पूर्व न तो एक माह का नोटिस दिया गया और न ही छंटनी का मुआवजा दिया गया । प्रार्थी को सेवापृथकता के पूर्व वरीयता सूची भी प्रकाशित नहीं की गई । प्रार्थी कनिष्ठतम श्रमिक नहीं था । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिकों को नियोजित रखा गया । प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी ने नई नियुक्तियां दी, लेकिन प्रार्थी को ऑफर नहीं दी गई इस प्रकार प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25- एफ, 25 - जी तथा 25 - एच एवं नियम 77 तथा 78 के प्रतिकूल है ।

5. प्रार्थी ने यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि द्विपक्षीय समझौते के अनुसार अप्रार्थी को प्रार्थी की सेवाएं नियमित की जानी चाहिये थी, लेकिनप्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्त कर दी गई ताकि प्रार्थी को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम तथा द्विपक्षीय समझौते के अंतर्गत मिलने वाले लाभों से वंचित किया जा सके ।

अप्रार्थी का यह कृत्य अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस है ।

करवाया जाता था । जिस दिन प्रार्थी से कार्य करवाया जाता था उस दिन उसे मजदूरी दे दी जाती थी । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि इस प्रकार प्रार्थी कर्मचारी की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है । उसने कोई निरन्तर कार्य नहीं किया । प्रार्थी ने छूटपूट मजदूरी का कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी ने सन्2002 तक 75 दिन कार्य किया । यह कार्य भी बीच में काफी गेप से किया गया है । प्रार्थी ने निरन्तर कार्य कभी भी नहीं किया है । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि यदि प्रार्थी का नाम बदल बदल कर कार्य करवाया गया तो प्रार्थी ने अपने नाम से कार्य नहीं होने पर उसी समय क्यों एतराज नहीं किया । प्रार्थी ने दैनिक वेतन पर कार्य किया था। अप्रार्थी ने मांग- पत्र में उल्लेख किये गये अन्य तथ्यों को भी गलत बताया है । यह तथ्य भी गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी को 148 बार भुगतान किया गया । यह तथ्य भी गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी ने 171 दिन लिपिक काकार्य किया । प्रार्थी ने तीनों परिशिष्ट गलत बनाकर पेश किये हैं । प्रार्थी ने कोई कार्य ही नहीं किया तो प्रार्थी के संबंध में कोई दस्तावेज होने का प्रश्न पैदा नहीं होता है । प्रार्थी कर्मकार की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है । अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक ही नहीं था तो उसके कनिष्ठतम होने का कोई प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता है । प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी बैंक के यहां श्रमिक ही नहीं था तो नियुक्तियां आदि की ऑफर देने की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं थी । यह तथ्य गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी की सेवापृथकता औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ, 25- जी, 25 - एच तथा नियम 77 तथा 78 के प्रतिकूल है ।

8. अप्रार्थी बैंक ने अपने प्रतिउत्तर में मांग पत्र में उल्लेख किये गये अन्य तथ्यों को भी गलत बताया तथा यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी बैंक ने पियोन/लिपिक भर्ती करने की एक सुस्थापित प्रक्रिया है । उक्त आधारों पर अप्रार्थी बैंक ने प्रार्थी के मांग - पत्र को निरस्त करने कीप्रार्थना की ।

6. प्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता के पश्चात् प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी से निरन्तर मिलता रहा और उन्हें अपने को सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने का निवेदन करता रहा । प्रार्थी ने सेवापृथकता के तुरंत बाद दिनांक 25.9.2002 को एक पंजीकृत ए०डी० से आवेदन भेजा तथा सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने का निवेदन किया । इसका कोई उत्तर नहींदिया गया । प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 17.10.2002 , 9.12.2002 , 19.1.2003 , 22.1.2003 , 1.3.2003 तथा 23.4.2004 को स्मरण- पत्र भेजकर सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने का निवेदन किया । इनका भी अप्रार्थी ने कोई उत्तर नहीं दिया । प्रार्थी बार - बार जोधपुर में अप्रार्थी के मैनेजर से मिला । मैनेजर ने प्रार्थी को आश्वासन दिया कि रिजनल कार्यालय से आदेश प्राप्त कर उसे सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित कर दिया जायेगा । प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी पर विश्वास करता रहा , लेकिन विवाद करने के दो दिन पूर्व ही अप्रार्थी के मैनेजर ने जाहिर किया कि अब प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करना सम्भव नहीं होगा । इस पर उसने दिनांक 13.5.2003 को विवाद प्रस्तुत किया । प्रार्थी ने उक्त विवाद में प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर अप्रार्थी से दस्तावेज तलब करवाने की प्रार्थना की, लेकिन अप्रार्थी ने कोई दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत नहीं किये । उक्त आधारों पर प्रार्थी ने यह प्रार्थना की है कि उसकी सेवापृथकता को निरस्त किया जावे तथा उसे सेवा की निरन्तरता में सभी परिलाभों सहित सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने का आदेश दिया जावे। देय वेतन की राशि पर उसे 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज दिलाया जावे ।

9. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग - पत्र में उल्लेख किये गये तथ्यों की पुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ - पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । प्रार्थी पी०डब्ल्यू- । श्री इकबाल खान से प्रतिपरीक्षा की गई । प्रार्थी ने प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में परिशिष्ट -1 प्रदर्श-2 , परिशिष्ट-2 प्रदर्श-2, परिशिष्ट-3 प्रदर्श-3, आवेदन प्रदर्श-4 , आवेदन प्रदर्श -5 , कुरीयर सर्विस की रसीद प्रदर्श-6, प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रदर्श -7 लगायत प्रदर्श -14 , पत्र प्रदर्श -15, डाक की रसीदें प्रदर्श -16 लगायत प्रदर्श-43 , वाऊचर की सूची प्रदर्श-44 प्रार्थी द्वारा लिखित इन्द्राज प्रदर्श -45 तथा एक प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रदर्श-46 को पेश कर प्रदर्श करवाये गये । अप्रार्थी बैंक की ओर से गवाह श्री अचलसिंह चौहान का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया। डी०डब्ल्यू०-1 श्री अचलसिंह चौहान से प्रतिपरीक्षा कीगई ।

10. बहस उभय - पक्ष की सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य तथा विधि के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हमारा निष्कर्ष निम्नप्रकार है ।

11. प्रार्थी के अनुसार उसने अप्रार्थी बैंक में दिनांक 16.11.1999 से 14.9.2002 तक निरन्तर कार्य किया है । इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी बैंक का यह मानना है कि प्रार्थी ने इस अवधि में केवल आवश्यकता पड़ने पर कभी कभी कार्य किया है तथा इस अवधि में प्रार्थी ने केवल कुल 75 दिन ही कार्य किया है । अप्रार्थी के साक्षी 7. अप्रार्थी बैंक ने अपने प्रतिउत्तर से इस तथ्य को गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी को दिनांक 16.11.1999 को अप्रार्थी बैंक ने नियुक्त किया । यह तथ्य भी गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक ने निरन्तर दिनांक 14.9.2002 तक कार्य किया । यह तथ्य भी गलत बताया है कि प्रार्थी से नाम बदल- बदल कर काम लिया गया । अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि जब प्रार्थी को नियुक्त ही नहीं किया गया तो उसकी मौखिक आदेश से सेवा समाप्त करने का कोई प्रश्न ही नहीं पैदा होता । अप्रार्थी बैंक ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी बैंक की दैनिक आवश्यकताओं हेतु जरूरत पड़ने पर प्रार्थी से किसी दिन मजदूरी पर छुटपूट काम 2406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

डी० डब्ल्यू०-1 श्री अचलसिंह चौहान ने अपनी प्रतिपरिक्षा में यह उल्लेख किया है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थी बैंक ने 75 दिन काम करने का तथ्य उसने अपने शपथ पत्र में पत्राचार के आधार पर लिखा है तथा प्रार्थी के संबंध में अन्य दस्तावेज अप्रार्थी बैंक में नष्ट किये जा चुके है । अप्रार्थी बैंक की ओर से उस पत्राचार को भी साक्ष्य में पेश नहीं किया गया है । इस प्रकार अप्रार्थी बैंक के पास ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है जिसके आधार पर यह माना जा सके कि प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में केवल 75 दिन ही कार्यकिया ।

प्रावधान नहीं है । दिनांक 6.10.2010 कोअप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना- पत्र से भी यह स्पष्ट है कि अप्रार्थी बैंक ने क्यु.सी.सी. रजिस्टर , वी.पी. रजिस्टर तथा डिस्पेच रजिस्टर की बैंक में जांच की, लेकिन बावजूद जांच के उक्त रजिस्टर बैंक में उपलब्ध नहीं हुए । यदि मान भी लिया जाए कि ये दस्तावेज नष्ट कर दिये थे, तब भी ऐसे दस्तावेजों को नष्ट करने के संबंध में एक रजिस्टर अप्रार्थी बैंक में मेनटेन किया जाता है, लेकिन पर्याप्त अवसर दिये जाने के बावजूद अप्रार्थी बैंक इस रजिस्टर कोसाक्ष्य में पेश करने में भी सफल नहीं हुआ । हमारी यह राय है कि चाहे वाऊचरों से भुगतान किया गया हो , लेकिन उनका इन्द्राज बैंक की लेखा- पुस्तकों में अवश्य होता है । अप्रार्थी बैंक उन लेखा- पुस्तकों को भी साक्ष्य में पेश कर सकता था, लेकिन अप्रार्थी बैंक ने इस प्रकरण में किसी निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचने के लिए कोई सहायता नहीं की है । अप्रार्थी के साक्षी डी. डब्लु-1 श्री अचलसिंह चौहान ने जिन पत्राचार के आधार पर अपनी साक्ष्य दी है उन पत्राचार को भी अप्रार्थी बैंक ने साक्ष्य में पेश नहीं किया है । ऐसी स्थिति में पत्रावली पर इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचने के लिए कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है कि प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में दिनांक 16 : 11.1999 से 14.9.2002 की अवधि में केवल 75 दिन ही कार्य किया ।

12. प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग - पत्र तथा अपनी साक्ष्य में तीन सूचियां प्रदर्श -1 , प्रदर्श -2 तथा प्रदर्श -3 प्रस्तुत की हैं । प्रदर्श -1 में उन तिथियों का उल्लेख है, जिस दिन प्रार्थी को वाऊचर के द्वारा भुगतान किया गया था । यह कुल 148 तिथियां हैं । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी को कुल 148 बार भुगतान किया गया । प्रार्थी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह स्पष्ट किया है कि उसे सप्ताह में एक बार भुगतान किया जाता था । विद्वान प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी का यह तर्क रहा है कि यदि इस परिशिष्ट को सही भी मान लिया जाए तो भी इससे यही तथ्य प्रमाणित होता है कि प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में केवल 148 दिन कार्य किया है । यदि परिशिष्ट-1 प्रदर्श -1 का सावधानीपूर्वक अवलोकन किया जाए तो यह तथ्य स्पष्ट होता है कि प्रत्येक भुगतान में 6-7दिन का अन्तर है । इस तथ्य से प्रार्थी को प्रतिपरीक्षा में आये इस तथ्य की पृष्टिहोती है कि उसे सप्ताह में एक बार भुगतान किया जाता था ।

15. अप्रार्थी बैंक ने लिखित बहस में एक तथ्य यह उल्लेख किया है कि यदि परिशिष्ट -1 प्रदर्श -1 में उल्लेख किये गये वाऊचर्स को सही मान लिया जाए तब भी प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में केवल 148 दिन ही कार्य किया है । इस प्रकार स्वयं अप्रार्थी बैंक यह मानता है कि प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में 75 दिन से ज्यादा कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेख किया है कि उसे सप्ताह में एक बार भुगतान किया जाता था । इस तथ्य की पुष्टि प्रदर्श । से भी होती है । प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श -1 में भुगतान के वाऊचर्स दिनांक 20.11.1999 से दिनांक 14.9. 2002 तक की अवधि के उल्लेख किये है । अतः समस्त परिस्थितियों पर सावधानीपूर्वक विचार करने के पश्चात् हमारी यह राय है कि अप्रार्थी बैंक ने जानबूझकर दस्तावेजों को साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है । ऐसी स्थिति में अप्रार्थी बैंक के विरुद्ध विपरीत उपधारणा ली जानी अपेक्षित है । इस आधार पर हमारी यह राय है यदि अप्रार्थी बैंक इन दस्तावेजों को साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत करता तो निश्चित रूप से यह निष्कर्ष निकलता कि प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में दिनांक 16.11.1999 से 14.9.2002 तक निरन्तर कार्य किया है । हमारी राय में पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य से यह तथ्य प्रमाणित होता है । समस्त परिस्थितियों पर सावधानीपूर्वक विचार करने के पश्चात् हमारी राय में प्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थी बैंक में औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - बी के प्रावधानों के अनुसार निरन्तर सेवा प्रमाणित होती है ।

13. प्रार्थी ने तीन परिशिष्ट परिशिष्ट-1 प्रदर्श-1, परिशिष्ट-2 प्रदर्श-2 तथा परिशिष्ट-3 प्रदर्श -3 साक्ष्य में पेश किये हैं । प्रदर्श -1 भुगतान के वाऊचर की तारीखें हैं, प्रदर्श-2 प्रार्थी द्वारा लिपिक के काम करने की तारीखें हैं तथा प्रदर्श -3 वे रजिस्टर हैं जिनमें प्रार्थी ने काम किया था । प्रार्थी ने उक्त दस्तावेजों को तलब कराने के लिए दिनांक 28 . 1.2009 को एक प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था । दिनांक 15.6.2009 को अप्रार्थी ने उसका प्रतिउत्तर प्रस्तुत किया, उसमें अप्रार्थी ने यह उल्लेख किया है कि अप्रार्थी द्वारा पांच वर्ष पुराने दस्तावेज नष्ट किये जा चुके हैं । यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि यदि प्रार्थी समुचित तथ्य देता तो वह उन दस्तावेजों को ढूंढनें का प्रयास करते । प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 11.8.2009 तथा दिनांक 12.8.2010 को भी यह दस्तावेज तलब करवाने के लिए प्रार्थना की । अप्रार्थी ने इनका प्रतिउत्तर दिनांक 27.08.2010 को प्रस्तुत किया । दिनांक6.10.2010 को अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर यह उल्लेख किया है कि दस्तावेजों को नष्ट करने के संबंध में रखी गई फाईल जांच करने पर भी उपलब्ध नहीं हुई । यह भी उल्लेख किया है कि क्यु.सी.सी. रजिस्टर, वी.पी. रजिस्टर तथा डिस्पेच रजिस्टर भी जांच के बाद उपलब्ध 1 नहीं हुए । अप्रार्थी ने एक परिपत्र प्रस्तुत किया । दिनांक 24.9.2010 की आदेशिका के द्वारा अप्रार्थी को उक्त दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत करने का आदेश दिया गया, लेकिन अप्रार्थी के द्वारा ऐसे कोई दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत नहीं किये गये ।

16. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - बी के प्रावधानों के अनुसार प्रार्थी की निरन्तर सेवा प्रमाणित हुई है और ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के पूर्व अप्रार्थी बैंक को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ के प्रावधानों की पालना करना आवश्यक था । अप्रार्थी बैंक ने इन प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की है । अतः समस्त परिस्थितियों पर सावधानीपूर्वक विचार करने के पश्चात् हमाारी राय में प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति वैध तथा उचित प्रमाणित नहीं होती है ।

14. उक्त विवेचन के पश्चात् हमें एक निश्चित निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचना है । अप्रार्थी ने रिकोर्ड नष्ट करने के संबंध में परिपत्र प्रस्तुतकिया है, इसमें ऐसा कोई तथ्य नहीं आया है जिसके आधार पर यह माना जा सके कि पांच वर्ष की अवधि में जिन वाऊचर्स से भुगतान किया जाता है, उन वाऊचर्स को नष्ट किया जा सकता है । क्यु.सी.सी. रजिस्टर, वी.पी. रजिस्टर तथा डिस्पेच रजिस्टर को भी नष्ट करने का भी इसमें कोई

17. अब हमें यह देखना है कि प्रार्थी क्या अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है । प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी बैंक में दिनांक 16.11.1999 से 2407 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT /NGP/200/ 2000

Date: 22.11.2011

PartyNo. 1

14.9.2002 तक ही सीमित अवधि के लिए कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी की नियुक्तिनियमानुसार नहीं है । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति केवल अप्रार्थी बैंक में आकस्मिक आवश्यक कार्यों के लिए हुई थी । प्रार्थी की नियुक्तिसमुचित नियुक्तिप्रक्रिया के द्वारा नहीं की गई थी । ऐसी स्थिति में हमारी यह राय हैकि प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित करने के स्थान पर समुचित क्षतिपूर्ति दिलाया जाना समीचीन है । समस्त परिस्थितियों पर सावधानीपूर्वक विचार करने के पश्चात् हमारी राय में प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी बैंक से 40,000/- ( चालीस हजार रुपये ) की क्षतिपूर्ति प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ।

आदेश

The Regional Manager , Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office , Ghanshyam Bhawan , Opp . Police HQ.

18. अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि:-

Mul Road . Chandrapur (M.S. ) 442402. Versus

PartyNo. 2

( 1) प्रार्थी श्री इकबाल खान को अप्रार्थी नियोजक दी रिजनल मैनेजर सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया, रिजनल ऑफिस एस.सी. रोड़, आनन्द भवन, जयपुर द्वारा दिनांक 14.9.2002 को सेवा से पृथक किया जाना उचित तथा वैध नहीं है ।

Shri S.R. Raut , R/ o . Malipura, At , Post & The- Nerparsopant , Distt. Yavatmal (M.S .)-445102 .

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd November, 2011 )

(2) प्रकरण की परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित किया जाना उचित नहीं हाने से प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी नियोजक से सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित किये जाने के स्थान पर क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप में 40,000/- (चालीस हजार रुपये ) प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी घोषित किया जाता है ।

19. इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली को प्रेषित किया जाये ।

20. यह अधिनिर्णय मेरे द्वारा लिपिबद्ध करवाया जाकर आज दिनांक 06.01.2011 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर उद्घोषित किया गया ।

एच. आर. नागौरी , न्यायाधीश

Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and Shri Sanjay Ramachandra Raut , for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 12012/ 22/2000 - IR ( B- II ) dated 30-05-2000, with the following schedule:-

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

"Whether the action of the management namely Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra Region , Chandrapur,dismissing Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Raut, Ex -Clerk, Bank of Maharashtra , Digras, Distt. Yavatmal, is legal proper or justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled and from which date? What other direction are necessary in the matter ? " का० आ० 979.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र 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 सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/200/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/6/2000 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Raut ( " the workman " in short) filed his statement of claim and the management of the Bank of Maharashtra (here - in- after referred to as the " Party No. 1 " ) filed its written statement .

S.O. 979. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/200/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, NAGPUR now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BANK OF MAHARASHTRA and their workan, which was received by the Central Government on 16/01/2012 .

[No. L- 12012/22/2000 - IR(B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

The case of the workman as projected by him in the statement of claim is that he was appointed as a clerk in the Bank , in February, 1988 and was posted at Kalwadi Branch and then he was transferred to Pune and from Pune to Digras Branch and he was confirmed in the post of clerk and his performance was unblemished and he was charge sheeted by communication dated 13.08.1998 (wrongly mentioned as 13.08.99 in the statement of claim) , on the allegations that he was involved in the case of bungling a cheque and the Bank initiated a departmental proceeding

601 GI / 2012-25 2408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

that he was guilty of the charges and though he was given against him and on the basis of perverse findings , dismissed him from services w.e.f. 21.09.1998 and the findings given by the enquiry officer were perverse and he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and the enquiry officer recorded the proceedings in the manner he wanted and taking advantage of his admission of guilt, arrived at an arbitrary finding a second charge sheet dated 09.09.1998 , the party no . 1 did not proceed with the said charge sheet and party no . 1 imposed the punishment of dismissal from services by order dated 21.09.1998 and he was not given any opportunity to have his say on the findings of the enquiry officer and the findings were not supplied to him and he was not heard before the imposition of the punishment and the enquiry was conducted in a casual manner and the Bank , under pressure , got the amount deposited , even before ascertaining as to whether actually a fraud was committee or not and his case is a case of victimization and his admission was extractedby inducement , though virtually he had not committeed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet and the penalty imposed is not commensurate with the gravity ofthe misconduct and while imposing the punishment , his past record of eleven years was not taken into consideration and as such , the order impugned is unsustainable . Prayer has been made by the workman to reinstate him is service with back wages.

3. The party no . 1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that under clause 19.5 (d) and (j ) of Bipartite Settlement , charge sheet was issued against the workman by the Disciplinary Authority- cum- Regional Manager vide letter dated 13.08.1998 , on the allegations of committing gross misconduct, ie. causing damage to the property of the Bank and its customers and doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank , involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss respectively and an enquiry was ordered and the workman accepted the charges leveled against him before the enquiry officer and the same was recorded in the proceedings dated 28.08.1998 and was duly authenticated by the workman and taking into consideration the voluntary acceptance of the charges , the enquiry officer submitted his findings vide letter dated 29.08.1998 , holding both the charges to have been proved against the workman and the workman was advised to submit his say on the findings of the enquiry officer directly to the Disciplinary Authority and the workan was given a personal hearing on the proposed punishment on 17.09.1998 and taking into consideration the gravity ofthe misconduct , punishment of dismissal without notice with effect from 21.09.1998 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

The further case of the party no . 1 is that the bank issued charge sheet dated 13.08.1998 for the acts of withdrawing Rs . 20,000/-from A/c of P.D. Joshi without debiting the said A/ c . and manipulating the figures in

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii )]

supplementary register and passing of the cheque for Rs. 12,400/- in his own account without posting in ledger and manipulating the figures in supplementary register thereby causing loss to the Bank of the tune of Rs . 32,400/ and the findings to the enquiry officer are not perverse and the evidence adduced in the enquiry by the Bank and the workman was taken into consideration by the enquiry officer in giving his findings and the workman was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself and the matter of issuing second charge sheet dated 09.09.1998 is totally irrelevant in the present context, as the punishment of dismissal without notice was already imposed on the basis ofthe charge sheet dated 13.08.1998 and the enquiry was not conducted in a casual manner and no pressure wasexerted to effect recovery from the workman and the depositing of defrauded money by the workman was at his own wish and the allegation that the case is one of victimization is baseless and false and the punishment imposed is proportionate with the nature of misconduct and isjust and proper and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. As the dismissal of the workman from services was after holding of a departmental enquiry, the validity of the enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and as per order dated 03.07.2006 , the departmental enquiry was held to be legal valid and fair and the case was fixed for consideration on the question of the perversity of the findings of the enquiry officer and theproportionate for the punishment.

5. It is necessary to mention here that after passing ofthe order on the validity of the departmental enquiry, the workman did not appear in the case , so award was passed against him on 15.02.2007 . However, on 12.03.2008 , the workman field an application to set aside the ex - parte award along with another petition to condone the delay and after hearing the parties in the matter , as per order dated 22.11.2010 , the award was set aside and the workman was allowed to contest the case.

6. During the course of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the service records of the workman was meritorious and unblemished for the entire period from 1988 to 1998 and the allegations in the charge sheet are baseless , unfounded and without any complaint from any account holder or the party no . 1 and the party no . 1 induced the workman to accept the charges or else he would be facing criminal prosecution and also assured the workman that he would not be dismissed from service and would be let off with some minor punishment in case of deposit of the amount of loss and in view of such assurance , the workman deposited the amouint of loss and also accepted the charges during the course of the departmental proceedings , but the workman wasdismissed from services in gross violation of such oral assurance and the findings given by the enquiry officer 2409 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

were vitiated and perverse and the punishment imposed against the workman is not commensurate with the gravity ofthe misconduct and the same is too harsh and the past unblemished records of the workman were not taken into consideration while imposing the punishment and as such, the order of punishment is unsustainable and as the workman made good the loss as alleged, the cause of misconduct did not exist and the order of dismissal is an example of victimization of the workman out the hand of partyno. 1.

perusal ofthe documents of the departmental proceedings , it is found that the workman voluntarily admitted the charges during the course ofthe departmental ; proceeding . He also admitted each and every document produced by the management during the enquiry in support of the charges. Such admission was made by the workman in presence of his defence representative. The workman and his defence representative have authenticated the proceedings of the enquiry by signing the same . In the comments submitted by the workman on the findings of the enquiry officer he had mentioned about his agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. Nowhere , he had mentioned that he was induced to admit the charges . It is clear from the materials on record that the workman admitted the charges leveled against him voluntarily and the plea that he was induced to make the admission is an afterthought.

From the materials on record, it is also found that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the admission ofguilt by the workman and documents produced during the enquiry. Such findings are not based on any extraneous material . Hence , the findings ofthe enquiry cannot be said tobe perverse.

10. So far the contention that as the workman had already deposited the amount and had made the loss of party no . 1 good, the cause of misconduct did not exist is concerned, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that deposit of the amount of loss does not absolve the delinquent from committing the misconduct . Hence , it is found that the said contention has no force .

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that due to the misconduct committed by the workman, the Bank suffered a loss of Rs . 32,400/- and for that charge sheet under clause 19.5 (d) and (j ) was submitted against the workman and during the course of the departmental enquiry, the workman accepted the charges voluntarily and there was never any inducement for the same and in view of the voluntary acceptance ofthe charges by the workman , the enquiry officer held both the charges to have been proved against him and the departmental enquiry has already been held to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice and the act of the workman caused shadow on his integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence in performing his duties and the imposition of the punishment is proportionate for such act of dishonesty and the principles of loss of confidence is attracted against the workman and the report ofthe enquiry officer was supplied to the workman and he submitted his comments on the same on 08.09.1998 and he was also heard before impostion of the punishment on 17.09.1998 and therefore , the workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

11. In this case , it is already found that the departmental enquiry was fair and proper . Commission of grossmisconduct has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. Hence, even ifthe past record of the workman was not considered before the imposition of the punishment, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed, calling for interference in the matter. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases , but for the same, the Tribunal cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer .

8. The workman has mentioned in the statement of claim that the findings of the enquiry officer were not supplied to him and he was not heard before the imposition ofthe punishment of dismissal . However, on perusal ofthe documents filed by the party no . 1 , it is found that the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman and the workman submitted his comments on the same on 08.09,1998 and he was also heard on 17.09.1998, before imposition of the punishment . The workman has also admitted such facts in his cross - examination . In the written notes of arguments submitted on behalf of the workman such facts have been admitted in paragraph nine at page 5 . So, there is no force in the said contentions .

9. The next contention is that the workman was induced to admit the charges and as such, the findings of the enquiry officer basing on such admission are perverse . It is necessary to mention here that in the statement of claim and in his evidence also , the workman has only mentioned that the admission was extracted by inducement . Except such a casual statement , nothing has been mentioned as to who made the inducement and when such inducement was made and how it was made . Moreover , on

12. So far the punishment imposed against the workman is concerned , it was urged that a lenient view should have been taken , but such submission has no force . The scope ofjudicial review is very limited . Sympathy or generosity as a factor is impermissible . Loss confidence is the primary factor. In the instant case , the workman was foundguilty of committing gross misconducts and there is nothing wrong in the Bank losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal , In such case , there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy and interfering with the quantum ofpunuishment awarded by the party no . 1. The workman held a position of trust , where honesty and integrity were in built requirements of functioning and the workman betrayed 2410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

V/s .

The General Manager

such trust and as such , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman . Hence , it is ordered:-

Dena Corporate Centre

ORDER

C-10,G-Block

Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(East) Mumbai 400 051 . : Opposite Party

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE COMPLAINANT :

The action of the management namely Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra Region , Chandrapur, dismissing Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Raut, Ex -Clerk, Bank of Maharashtra, Digras , Distt . Yavatmal, is legal , proper and justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate .

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY : Ms. Nandini Menon , Advocate J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

Mumbai, datedthe 16th December , 2011 .

AWARD

1. The Dena Bank Employees Union has filed this complaint against Dena Corporate Centre under Section 33-Aof Industrial Disputes Act for violation of Section 33 ofI.D. Act .

का०आ० 980.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार देना कॉरपोरेट सेंटर प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध 1 में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं० 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( शिकायत नं० सीजीआईटी -2/5 ऑफ 2005 इन संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी -2/ 6 ऑफ 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-01-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12025/ 1/2010- आई आर ( बी- II )] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

2.According to the complainant , services of S / Shri Umesh Lanjekar and Pramod Satam were terminated when the conciliation proceedings were pending before Conciliation officer and also during the stay order of the Hon'ble High Court . The services of two other workmen S/ Shri Parmar and Lingam were terminated when the above dispute was pending before this Tribunal . It is further contended that the Bank has not taken approval of this Tribunal while terminating their services thereby contravened Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore, complainant prays that the action of the Bank bedeclared illegal , invalid and not justified and also prays to direct Bank to reinstate the workmen with full back- wages and continuity of service .

S.O. .980 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Complaint No. CGIT- 2 / 5 of 2005 in Ref. No. CGIT- 2/6 of2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No.2 , MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Corporate Centre and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20/01/2012 .

[No. L- 12025/ 1 /2010- IR(B- II)] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

3. Opposite party Bank resisted the complaint by filing its written statement. According to the opposite party there is no employer -employee relationship between the Bank and the concerned workmen and therefore alleged termination of service or change in conditions of service does not arise . They pray that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs . Thereafter the matter was fixed for evidence of the complainant .

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO . CGIT-2 /5 of2005

3.Meanwhile on the request of complainant, matter was kept in the lokadalat . Advocate for the complainant by hispurshis Ex - 13 prayed to dispose of this reference as the workers have been reinstated in service and therefore they do not want to pursue the complaint. Accordingly, vide Ex- 12, matter was placed before this Tribunal for orders . Hence the order:

Ref. CGIT- 2/ 6 of2005

ORDER

ThePresident

Dena Bank Employees Union (Maharashtra)

17 , Horniman Circle

The Complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution vide Ex- 12 & 13 in Lokadalat .

Fort

Dated: 16.12.2011

Mumbai 400 001. : Complainant

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer 2411

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

Ex-12

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOKADALAT HELD ON 16TH DECEMBER, 2011

PanelMembers; -

1. Mr. R.S. Pai, Adv.

2.Ms. Sejal Kulkarni, Adv.

3. Mr. J.H. Sawant, Adv .

का०आ० 981.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे प्रबंध तंत्र के सबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 प्राप्त हुआ था । संख्या एल-41012/40/2008- आईआर (बी-1 )

4. Mr. G.M. Thomas , Adv.

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

COMPLAINT NO . CGIT-2/5 of2005

NewDelhi , the 14th February, 2012 Complainant

Dena Bank Employees Union :

V/s .

Dena Bank

: Opponent

PRESENT:

For the Complainant : Mr. M.B. Anchan , Adv.

For the Opponent: A.

S.O. 981. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 03/2009 of the Cent. Govt. Indust. Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , BANGALORE as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Southern Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/02/2012

Since the Advocate for the complainant has given an application for disposal of the complaint as the issues aresettled by reinstating the workmen , the above complaint may be disposed of.

[No. L-41012/40/2008 - IR(B- I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

Mumbai

ANNEXURE

Date: 16.12.2011

Sd/-

(M.B. Anchan) Adv. for the Complainant

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

Dated: 13th January 2012

Sd/- (Adv. Sejal Kulkarni )

Sd/- (Adv. R.S. Pai)

PRESENT

Seen

Sd/- (Adv. G.M. Thomas)

Shri S.N. NAVAL GUND, Presiding Officer C.R. NO. 03/2009

II PARTY

I PARTY

Sd/- (K.B. Katake) PO , CGIT-2 , Mumbai .

Shri N. Sundaresha Babu ,

EX-13

TheDivisional Railway Manager,

Southern Railways ,

S/o Late H. Nagappa,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai Complaint No. CGIT- 2 /5 OF 2005

Divisional Office ,

No. 228 /B , M.G. Colony,

General Branch , Dena Bank Employees Union

Railway Quarters ,

V/s.

South Western Railway,

Magadi Road,

Dena Bank

BANGALORE- 560023

BANGAORE -560023

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

AWARD

In the above complaint , the Workers have been reinstated in service . As such the complainant does not want to contest above complaint.

Itis, therefore , prayed that the above complaint may bedisposed of.

Mumbai

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2AofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L -41012/40/ 2008 - IR(B - 1 ) dated 02.01.2009 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

Date: 16.12.2011

SCHEDULE

Sd/- (M.B. Anchan) Adv. for Complainant

Seen

"Whether the action of the management of South Western Railway, Bangalore , Karnataka in compulsory retiring Shri N. Sundaresha Babu S/ o Shri H. Nagappa, Ex . Junior Clerk, Mechanical Branch, Byappanahalli , Bangalore w.e.f. 3.08.1998, is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

Sd/- (K.B. Katake) PO , CGIT- 2 , Mumbai.

2412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

from30.01.96 to 31.03.1996, 09.05.96 to 10.05.06, 13.05.96 to 14.05.1996,06.06.96 to 31.07.96, 12.09.96, 14.09.96 to 16.09.96, 3.10.96 to 4.10.96 , 8.10.96 , 13.10.96 to 1.11.96 , 16.11.96 , 23.12.96, 24.01.97 to 27.01.97 , 22.02.97 to 24.02.97, 10.04.97 to 11.04.97, 17.04.97 to 18.04.97 , 29.05.97, 2.06.97 to 04.06.97, 07.06.97 to 8.06.97, 28.06.97,01.07.97,04.7.97 and 7.07.97 without proper authority .

Thus the Shri N. Sundaresh Babu has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in the manner which isunbecoming of a Railway Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3 ( i )( ii ) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. "

2.After receipt of the reference when notices were issued to both the sides the claimant had forwarded his Claim Statement through post received in this tribunal on 10.02.2009 . In the notice issued by this tribunal the date was given to both sides to appear on 16.04.2010 and on that day Shri S.M. Khamroz Khan , advocate filed his appearance for the second party whereas the first party appeared in person . On 24.05.10 the counter statement came to be filed for the second party substantiating the impugned action of compulsorily retiring the first party. On that day having regard to certain allegations made in the Claim Statement preliminary issue came to be raised touching the fairness of the D.E. Subsequentto 26.05.10 the first party never turned up and participated in the proceedings .After receiving the evidence for the second party on the preliminary issue through enquiry officer and after hearing the learned advocate appearing for the second party the issue touching the fairness of the enquiry was held in favour of second party. Thereafter though several opportunities weregiven to the first party to lead evidence on victimization and unemployment if any he did not avail such opportunity and thereafter though several opportunities were given to the first party he did not avail same to demonstrate the finding ofthe enquiry officer being perverse or punishment imposed being disproportionate . Today Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya , advocate for the counsel appearing for the second party submitted that in view of this tribunal answering the issue of DE as fair and proper and the first party failing to demonstrate the enquiry finding is perverse , the reference be rejected.

3. It is borne out from the records that the first party was served with charge- sheet dated 29.07.1997 for his unauthorized absence as under:-

CHARGE SHEET

4. Though the charge - sheet was received and acknowledged by the first party on 2.08.1997 he did not give any reply and the Disciplinary Authority appointed Shri D. Maheshwaran as enquiry officer and directed to hold the DE. It is borne out from the records produced for the second party that the enquiry officer securing the presence of the first party by serving notice on 6.03.1998 proceeded with the enquiry and the first party when charges were read over accepted the same and chosen to defend himself without availing the services of any one as his DR . In spite of accepting the charges the enquiry officer after recording the statement of first party /CSE and also the time keeper who maintained the muster on being satisfied of alleged unauthorized absence submitted his enquiry finding. Since even in the claim statement the first party has not disputed the unauthorized absence covering the charge and also failed to substantiate by leading any evidence that his such absence was not wilful and that he was unable for genuine reason to attend the duty absolutely I find no reason to say the finding ofthe enquiry officer being perverse. When the fair and proper Domestic Enquiry has been conducted by the management it was for the first party to demonstrate that the finding of the enquiry officer was erroneous or that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. No such effort being made by the first party I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the enquiry officer and the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement.

"Shri Sundaresha Babu . N while working as Jr. Clerk, SSE (O) /Ds.I/KJM has committed misconduct in that hehas absent from duty from 30.01.96 to 31.03.1996, 09.05.96 to 10.05.06 , 13.05.96 to 14.05.1996 , 06.06.96 to 31.07.96, 12.09.96 to 16.09.96, 3.10.96 to 4.10.96, 8.10.96, 13.10.96 to 1.11.96 , 16.11.96 , 23.12.96 , 24.01.97 to 27.01.97 , 22.02.97 to 24.02.97, 10.04.97 to 11.04.97 , 17.04.97 to 18.04.97 , 29.05.97 , 2.06.97 to 04.06.97, 07.06.97 to 8.06.97,28.06.97,01.07.97 , 04.7.97 and 7.07.97 without permission or sanction of leave from competent authority or observing Railway Medical Rules .

5. In the result I arrived at the conclusion of rejecting the reference and pass the following award:

AWARD

Thus the said Shri Sundaresh Babu has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Railway Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3 ( i) ( ii ) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules , 1966. "

"Statement of imputation of misconduct/ misbehaviour in Support ofArticle of Charges

The reference is rejected holding that the action of the management of South Western Railway, Bangalore , Karnataka in compulsory retiring Shri N. Sundaresha Babu S/o Shri H. Nagappa, Ex - Junior Clerk, Mechanical Branch, Byappanahalli , Bangalore w.e.f. 3.08.1998 is legal and justified and he is not entitle for any reliefs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 13.01.2012)

Shri Sundaresh Babu. N is working as Jr. Clerk Ds.1 / KJM. As a Railway Servant he should always maintain punctuality in his attendance and should not be absent himself from duty on his own accord without prior permission or observing the Railway medical rules . But as seen from the muster , he as absented himself from duty

S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer 2413

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2012

का० आ० 982.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यिोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं० एल -12012/ 32/ 2008- आई आर ( बी- I) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February , 2012

S.O. 982.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 432008 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, andtheir workmen , received by the Central Government on 14/02/2012 .

[No. L- 12012/32/2008 - IR(B- I) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT:

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer , C.GI.T. - cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Case No. 43/2008 Date of Passing Award- 1st February, 2012

BETWEEN:

The Assistant General Manager , StateBank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch , Bhubaneswar , Dist. Khurda (Orissa) .

1stParty -Management .

(And)

Their workman Sri Bhikari Pradhan, Qrs . No. VR-5/ 1 , Kharvela Nagar , Unit-3 , Bhubaneswar. (Orissa)

... 1st Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES :

Shri Alok Das ,

: For the 1st Party- Management .

Authorized Representative

: For the 2nd Party- None .

Workman.

AWARD

An industrial dispute existing between the employers 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- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 vide their letter No. L- 12012/ 32/2008 - IR (B - I ) , dated 02.06.2008 to the following effect .

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , in relation to their Main Branch , Bhubaneswar interrr in terminating the services of Sri Bhikari Pradhan w.e.f. 30.9.2004, is fair, legal andjustified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?

2. The 2nd Party- Workman has filed his statement of claim alleging that he had joined his services as a Messenger on temporary/ casual/daily wage basis on 01.12.1986 after succeeding in interview. He was assured to get permanent appointment order after one year or on completion of240 days ' work in a calendar year , but despite completion of several years of continuous satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days' work in each year he was terminated and refused employment from 30.9.2004 by the 1st Party- Management without any written communication or payment of compensation . The 1st 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. Не therefore brought the matter in to the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. ofthe 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 28.2.2005 . 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 Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Bhubaneswar challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st Party-Management . 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 thematter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is spending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007 . The name ofthe 2nd Party - workman is appearing at Sl . No. 5 in Annexure - A to 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 individual disputes disregarded the direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ) not to take any further 2414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

3. Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in relation to their Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Bhikari Pradhan, with effect from 30.9.2004 , is fair, legal and justified?

4. To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

6. The 1st party - Management has adduced the oral evidence of Shri Abhay Kumar Das as M. W. - 1 and filed documents marked as Ext . - A to Ext . - J in refutation of the claim ofthe 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 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 areinAnnexure -A for re - employment as per Section 25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

action on the separate disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of action . The allegation of the 2nd Party -workmanthat he was discontinued from service on 30.9.2004 and was signing bogus vouchers is not correct. As per his own admission his services were discontinued from December, 1997 and he was receiving payment in his own name . He was engaged intermittently on temporary/ daily wage basis due to exigencies of work. It is denied that he had joined the Bank on 01.12.1986 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 continuous service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year preceding the date of his alleged termination. In order to give an opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex-temporary employees/ daily wagers in the Bank in view ofthe various settlements entered into between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and Management of the State Bank of India all eligible persons were called for interview. The 2nd Party- workman was also called for an interview along with all other eligible persons in the year 1993. As he was not found seccessful in the said interview he could not be absorbed in the Bank's service . The Union or the 2nd Party- workman has never challenged the implementation 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 service due to expiry ofthe panel on 31st March, 1997 filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa . But the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa by a common order dated 15.5.1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions and upheld the action of the Management of the Bank. This order of the Hon'ble High Court was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC- 3082/ 1999. Hence the above matter has attained finality and cannot be re -agitated. Since the services of Sri Pradhan were terminated in December , 1997 his claim has become stale by raising the dispute after lapse of a period of 11 years . It is a settled principle of law that delay destroys the right to remedy. Thus raising the present dispute after 11 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 workman 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 as worked for more than 240 days as enumerated under section 25 - F of the Industrial DisputesAct?

8. The name of the 2nd party- workman appears at SL . No. 5 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 been made 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 , inthe latter case the workmen have submitted or virtually surrendered to their cessation of employment or alleged termination , whereas in the 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 the 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 2415

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

adjudication is maintainable being legal and justified . This issue is therefore decided in the affirmative and against the 1st Party- Management.

ISSUE NO . 2

extended period, if he was appointed for a certain period orwhen 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 1st Party- Management has further alleged that in time of exigencies onlythe 2nd Party- workman was employed. It means that withthe end of exigencies his job also came to an end. In view ofthe matter the action of the management of State Bank of India in relation to their Main Branch , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Bhikari Pradhanwith effect from the alleged date of his termination is fair, legal and justified . 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 IssueNo. 2 and 3 the 2nd Party - workman is not entitled to any reliefwhatsoever claimed.

12. Reference is answered accordingly. JITENDER SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2012

का० आ० 983.- 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 बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को14-02-2012 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[संख्या एलः 12012/161/2000- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश , सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 14th Febrary, 2012 9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service during a periodof 12 calendar months preceding the date ofhisalleged termination or disengagement from service lies on him, but the 2nd Party- workman has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary in support ofhis contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim that he was appointed on 01.12.1986 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 ontemporary/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 Abhay Kumar Das in his statement before the Court has stated that " the disputant was working intermittently for few days in our branch on Hehad not 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 discontinued with effect from 30.9.2004, but stated that "In- fact the workman left working in the branch in the year 1997 " . Thus , he had not worked after 1997. 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 ofhisso - called termination he is not entitled to get benefit ofSection 25 - F of the 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 of his disengagement or alleged termination from service .

S.O. 983.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 63/2001 of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , BANGALORE as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial disputebetween the management of State Bank of Mysore , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14/02/2012

ISSUE NO. 3

[No. L- 12012/ 161 /2000 & IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated: 19th January, 2012 10. Since the 2nd Party- workman could not prove thathe had rendered 240 days continuous service under the 1st party-Management during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his 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 . He has no legal right to be retained in service for the

601 GI/2012-26 2416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

PRESENT:

Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 63/2001

I PARTY

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

II PARTY

Shri Muniswamy Rao,

No. 340, Sultanpalya

TheManaging Director, State Bank ofMysore , Head Office, K.G Road, BANGALORE-09 MainRoad, Manoharayanapalya, Near Lakshmi Venkateshwara FloorMills, R.T. Nagar P.O. , BANGALORE- 32

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 No. L- 12012/ 161 /2000- IR( B- I ) dated 27th August 2001 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore in not giving re- emloyment and not regularising the services of Shri V. Muniswamy Rao is justified ? If not what relief he isentitled ? "

2. This tribunal pursuant to the receipt of the reference securing the presence of both sides after completion ofthe pleading and adducing evidence passed award on 28.03.2006 directing the management/second party to absorb the first party in permanent cadre of sub- staff in their bank within 3 months from the date of publication of the award. When the management challenged the said award before the Hon'ble High Court ofKarnataka in Writ Petition No. 11057/06 ( L - RES ) , the Hon'ble High Court in that Writ Petition by order dated 28.09.2011 while observing that " according to the respondent his claim for absorption is to be considered on the basis of the circular dated 03.09.1991 issued by the Petitioner Bank . On the other hand the petitioner bank contends that the respondent has not submitted any application either by himself or through his Union claiming benefit under the circular dated 03.09.1991 . This controversy between the parties is not adjudicated by the tribunal. On this short ground alone the impugned award is liable to be set aside . The Petitioner Bank contends that this court in W.P. No. 3407/1997 directed to consider the claim of respondent in accordance with the schemeif any that is in force . It is further contended that there is no any such scheme in force in the year 1997 to consider the claim of respondent . But there are subsequent proceedings between the parties in WP No. 548/2001 and WA No. 4012/2001 wherein it is stated that the claim of respondent is to be considered on the basis of circular dated 03.09.1991 . But unfortunately the respondent has not produced the order in WP No. 548/ 2001 and WA No. 4012/2001 before the tribunal . An opportunity is to be provided to the Respondent to produce these documents which throw light on the issue in controversy between the parties . For this reason also the matter requires to be remanded " , set aside the said award dated 28.03.2006 and remitted back the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunities to both the parties as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than four months from the date of appearance of the parties and also directed the management/ second party from the date of order till the disposal of the matter before the tribunal to pay 75 per centofthe Interim wages on the basis of last drawn wages .

3. When the matter was tried before this tribunal earlier on behalf of the second party/management while examining the Dy. Manager , Industrial Relations department who deposed to the facts on the basis of the records as MWI and got marked Photostat copy of the certificate issued by the Manager , 9th Block, Jayanagar dated 13.09.1985 certifying the first party workman having worked during September 1984 to 1984 for 44 days and during January 1985 to July 1985 for 90 days said to have been produced by the first party in the High Court; True copy ofits staff circular No. 9 dated 21.04.1991 ; True copy ofstaff circular No. 66 dated 03.09.1991 ; copy of form 'C ' regarding details of bonus paid to first party ; Copy of the letter received from the first party addressed to the General Manager(Personnel & Administration Department ) , State Bank ofMysore dated 18.06.1989 giving his bio- data with a request to give him opportunity to serve in the bank; Copy of the letter addressed to the first party by the Assistant General Manager of the Second party dated 25.01.1999 intimating that since he is not coming under the purview of protected category of employees under the Industrial Disputes Act it will not be possible to consider his application for appointment in the bank with reference to the order passed in the writ petition No. 3407/ 97 and the letter addressed by the Assistant General Manager ofthe second party dated 18.05.1999 as a reply tohis letter dated 08.05.1999 to the effect that he has already been advised him under their office letter No. AGM/ BZ/ Esttdated 25.01.1999 and that since he has not completed 240 days of service in a block period of 12 months he cannot be absorbed in the permanent cadre as Ex . MI to M7, whereas, the first party while filing his affidavit in lieu ofhis evidence and examining himself on oath as WWI had got marked copy of an application purported to have been submitted by him to General Secretary of the Union on5.03.1991 for his absorption pursuant to the publication made in Union Bulletin No. 18/91 dated 25.02.1991 ; certified 2417 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 3407/97 dated 20.10.1998 ; copy of representation purported to have been given by him to the management as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 3407/97 ; registered postal acknowledgement regarding service of the said representation; letter obtained from the Chief Postmaster dated 24.11.1998 registered post being delivered on 3.11.1998; reply received to his representation from the Assistant General Manager intimating that since he is not coming under the purview of protected category under Industrial Disputes Act and it will not be possible to consider his application for appointment in the bank; copies of two more representation said to have been given by him to he Assistant General Manager dated 2.03.1999 and 8.05.1999 seeking appointment to the post of Peon; renly received by him from the Assistant General Manager dated 18.05.1999 wherein it is stated that they have already advised him in the matter under their letter No. AGM.1 / BZ /Estt dated 25.01.1999 acknowledged by him and that he having not completed 240 days of service in a block period of 12 months it is not possible to absorb him in the permanent cadre as Ex . W1 to W7 respectively.

4. After the remand by the Hon'ble High Court as directed in the said order the first party while filing his additional affidavit got marked the Photostat copies of order passed in Writ Petition No. 548/01 and Writ Appeal No. 401/01 as Ex . W8 and W9 respectively and no additional evidence adduced for the second party. With the above pleadings , oral and documentary evidence I have heard the arguments once again addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides .

5. On appreciation of the pleadings , oral and documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides and the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in WritPetition No. 11057/2006 in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides I arrived at the conclusion of rejecting the reference holding that the action of the management of State Bank ofMysore in not regularising the services of Shri V. Muniswamy Rao is justified for the following reasons;

REASONS

30.09.1991 . It is the contention of the second party failed to submit his application he could not be called for interview as such he is not entitle for absorption under the said circulars dated 21.04.1991 & 03.09.1991 . As against this it is the assertion of the first party that pursuant to these circulars a Bulletin issued by the State Bank of Mysore Employees union inviting information from the temporary employees to forward the applications containing particulars to absorb them , he submitted application dated 05.03.1991 to the General Secretary with a request to forward the same to the second party/ management and he had also submitted the application along with the particulars to the Regional Manager of the Second Party/management . The first party except his self swearing statement that he did personally submit an application to the Regional Manager of the Second Party bank did not produce any evidence in its support . Whereas in Ex . W1 he has produced copy of the application purported to have been submitted by him to the General Secretary, State Bank of Mysore Employees Union , Central Office, Avenue Road , Banagalore on 5.03.1991 . But this document do not suggest or bear any endorsement being received by the General Secretary, State Bank of Mysore Employees Union , Central Office or same being forwarded to the management . Since the second party emphatically denied receipt of application either from first party personally or through the State Bank of Mysore Employees Union, in the absence of any evidence made available by the first party that he did submit application to the General Secretary within the stipulated time and the same was forwarded to the bank it is not possible to accept his contention that he did either gave application personally to the Regional Manager or through the General Secretary of State Bank of Employees Union . In the Write Petition filed by the first party before the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Write Petition No. 548/01 since there was a direction to the Central Government to refer the dispute between the first party and second party with regard to the non - consideration of his case for absorption/ appointment pursuant to the circular dated 3.09.1991 which up held in the Write Appeal No. 4012/2001 ( L ) this reference being made by the Central Government and the first party failed to satisfy this tribunal that he did apply for his absorption within the dates stipulated in Circular dated 3.09.1991 , on his subsequent efforts the management rightly turned down his request as such I am of the considered view the action of the management of State Bank of Mysore in not giving re -employment and not regularising the services of Shri V. Muniswamy Rao is justified.

7. In the result I pass the following Award: AWARD

The referance is rejected holding that the action of the mangement of State Bank of Mysore in not giving re- 6. There is no dispute as to the fact that the first party having served as a temporary sub - staff/Peon intermittently between September 1984 to July 1985 for a period of 137 days as evidenced from the certificate issued by the Manager , State Bank of Mysore , 9th Block , Jayanagar Branch , Bangalore produced at Ex. M1 as well as the second party issuing circulars inviting applications from the casual and temporary workmen who have completed 90 days work between 1.11.1984 to 31.12.1989 which are at Ex . M2 & M3 . There is also no dispute that last date for submitting application for absorption being 2418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of January 2012 employment and not regularising the services of Shri V. Muniswamy Rao is justified and he not entitle for any reliefs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corroected and signed by me on 19.01.2012)

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012/ 542/ 98 /IR ( B - I ) dated 29.12.1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:---

S.N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

"Whether the action of he management of Regional Office of State Bank of India at Shahdol in terminating the services of Shri Bhola Nath Dubey, subordinate staff and not considering him for permanent appointment as per agreement on 17.10.88 and under Section 25 H of the I.D. Act isjustified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled for? "

का० आ० 984.-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 जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/542/98- आई आर ( बी० 1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman Shri Bhola Nath Dubey was engaged as temporary full time messenger in the State Bank of India (inshort SBI ) , Ambikapur Branch w.e.f21.11.90 . He worked continuously till 18-2-91 when his services were suddenly terminated. After terminating him , the management arbitrarily engaged two persons namely Sampurna Ram and Jaru Ram illegally in violation of the provision of Section 25 H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the Act 1947) instead of regularizing him in service . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages and be also directed to regularize him in service with cost of the suit.

S.O. 984. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 42/99 ) oftheCentral 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 State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14/02/ 2012 .

[No. L- 12012/542 / 1998 - IR( B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC / R/42/99

SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer

Shri Bhola Nath Dubey,

S /O Late Ram Ekbal Dubey

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management , inter alia, is that Shri Bhola Nath Debey was engaged only as temporary casual employee at the SBI , Ambikapur Branch for a period of88 days from 21-11-90 to 16-2-91 on contract basis and was paid accordingly. It is stated that the provision of Section 2 ( oo)( bb ) ofthe Act , 1947 is attracted . He has not worked for 240 days as such the provision of Section 25 (B) of the Act, 1947 is not applicable . It is stated that on the basis of settlement between the management and the Union , an advertisement was published in the newspaper inviting application for permanent appointment . The workman was also interviewed but he was not found suitable . Under the circumstances , the workman in not entitledto any relief.

Through Shri Hridyanand Dubey, Patrakar , Brahm Path ,

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are settled for adjudiction:-

PO Ambikapur, Distt . Surguja ( MP)

Workman

Versus

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Bhola Nath Dubey and not considering him for permanent appointment as per agreement on 27.10.88 and under Section 25 H of the Act , 1947 is justified ?

II . To what relief the workman is entitled?

The Asstt . General Manager, State Bank of India . Regional Office, Egion- 4, Mithupara , Shahdol

5. Issue No. I

Management 2419

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

found not fit . The management witness Shri S. Ram Krishnan has stated that he was interviewed and was not found fit for permanent appointment. The persons who were suitable were given appointment as per Exhibit M/4 list . Thus it is clear that he had been given opportunity to appear in the selection process and his candidature was rightly considered but he was not found fit.

Itis an admitted fact that the workman was in the employment ofthe management from 21-11-90 to 16-2-91 for 88 days only. This shows that his services are not said to be in continuous service for a period of one year under the provision of Section 25 B of the Act, 1947. When his service is not continuous service for a period of one year the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947 is not applicable . He was admittedly terminated/disengaged after the said period.

9. Another question is as to whether there is violation of Section 25 H of the Act , 1947. The evidence discussed above is clear that the workman was engaged ondaily wages basis . This fact is supported by the witness ofthe management Shri S. Ramakrishnan who has stated that he was engaged as purely casual employee for a total period of 88 days upon the exigency of work. There is no evidence on the record adduced by the workman that the persons who had less than 88 days are still working with the management and they had been engaged after him. The workman has stated in his evidence that he cannot say that how many days Aichhaibar Dayal and Nandini Hela had worked. This shows that there is no evidence to show that they are employed with the management and had worked less then the workman and are still in employment. Thus it is clear that there was no violation of the provision of Section 25 H of the Act, 1947 by the management . This issue is , therefore , decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

10. Issue No.1

6. Another question raised by the workman that after his termination, the management had engaged two persons namely Sampuana Ram and Jaru Ram . The workman Shri Bhola Nath Dubey has stated in his evidence that Sampuana Ram and Jaru Ram were appointed as full time on temporary basis and they are being continued . The workman has not filed any document to show that they are working with the management . Moreover their apointment is said to be temporary basis but the workman has failed to show that he was also appointed in the same category. The workman has further stated the names of Aichhaibar Dayal and Nandini Hela who worked alongwith him but he is unable to say the period they worked. His evidence shows that there is no illegality committed by the management in not continuing him in employment . The workman hasnot filed any document to show that he was engaged as full time messenger in the SBI , Ambikapur Branch . In absence of the documentary evidence , his evidence is not reliable that he was engaged as full time messenger in the SBI , Ambikapur branch .

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is evident that the management is justified in terminating the services of the workman as there is no violation of any provision of the Act, 1947. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

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

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

7. On the other hand the management has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The documents filed by the management are admitted by the wrokman . Exhibit M/ I isthe photocopy of the certificate oftemporary service on daily wages basis . The certificate shows that he was engaged only for 88 days on daily wages basis . This shows that his appointment was not temporary appointed rather he was appointed on daily wages basis by the Branch Manager on exigency of work . Since he had not completed a continuous service for a period of 240 days in twelve calendar months prior to the date of reference , he is not fit to claim the right under the provision of Section 25 - F of theAct, 1947 .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

का० आ० 985.- 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 जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12012/268/97- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी 8. Exhibit M /2 is the proforma of call letters sent to 61 candidates for interview for temporary appointment . Exhibit M/3 is the chart of compilation of the days of engagement of the candidates for appointment in the temporary service . The name of the workman also stands in the list . Theis is filed to show that he worked only for 88 days .His position in working days is last but one. Exhibit M/4 and M/ 5 are the lists of the candidates called for interview. It appears that the workman also appeared in the interview on 6-9-94. This is clear that he was given opportunity in the interview and he was not selected as 2420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2012

manager did not allow him and his services were orally terminated without any reason and without complying the provision of Section 25- F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short the Act, 1947) . The Branch Manager is said to have appointed a new person in violation of the provision of section 25 ( H ) of the Act, 1947. It is submitted thatthe workman be reinstated with full back wages.

S.O. 985. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 , ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/ 98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14/02/ 2012.

[No. L- 12012/268 / 97 - IR (B - 1 ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC /R/ 132/ 98

SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer

Shri Anoopdhar Mishra,

S/ O Shri H.S. Mishra Gram & Post Jugrapur, Tah .Manjhanpur, Distt . Allahabad (UP)

Workman

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Amlohari Branch , POAmlohari ,

Distt. Sidhi (MP)

Management

AWARD

3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management , inter alia , is that the alleged workman was employed in the Staff canteen of the Bank from August 1991 to March 1996 as Canteen Boy. There was a local Implemention Committee . The Branch Manager was President, Union Representative of the Staff members was Secretary and one more staff member was member of the said Branch of the Implementation Committee . The said Committee recruited the Canteen Boy . The Bank had nothing to do with such recruitment . There was not right of the Bank to supervise and control and work of the Canteen Boy nor had any right to take any disciplinary action. He was not employee of the Bank. However the alleged workman was engaged by the Bank as Casual Worker on daily wages intermittently in absence of the regular messenger . He was engaged 67 days in the year 1990, 137 days in the year 1991 , 107 days in the year 1992, 165 days in the year 1993 , 103 days in the year 1994 and 10 days in the year 1995 only. He had not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year as required under Section 25 - B of the Act , 1947. His non -engagement would not be retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2( oo) of the Act , 1947. On the basis of the facts and circumstances , it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

Passed on this 3rd day of January 2012

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are settled for adjudiction- 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/268 /97 - IR ( B - I ) dated 30.6.98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

1. Whether the action of the mangement in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. April 1996 is legal and justified ?

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India , Amlohari Branch , Distt . Sidhi in terminating the service of Shri Anoopdhar Mishra , S/O Shri H.S. Mishra, daily wage casual sub staff at S.B.I Amlohari Branch w.e.f. April 1996 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the wrokmanAnoopdhar Mishra was appointed as daily wages casual worker w.e.f. 24-9-90 by the State Bank of India (in short SBI ) . Amlohari branch and worked till March 1996 . In the year 1991 sometimes he was discontinued for few days . The workman also appeared in interview/ test on 31-8-94 for permanent absorption in the Bank services but the result of the interview was not known . The workman applied for leave which was sanctioned by the Branch Manager but when he returned tojoin his duty, the Branch

To Prove the case , the workman has adduced his evidence . The workman Shri Anupdhar Mishra has stated in his evidence that he was appointed as daily wages casual workerw.e.f. 24-9-90 and worked continuously till March 1996. He had worked more than 240 days and the termination was amount to retrenchment . He has further stated that before termination , he was not served with any notice , nor any retrenchment compensation was paid . Butin cross - examination , the workman has admitted the case of the management . He has admitted in his cross- examination that he worked on daily wages in the Staff Canteenfrom August 1991to March 1996 and there was local Implementation Committee in the bank. Branch 2421

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2012

का० आ० 986.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ०सी०आई० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ईरनाकुल्लम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को14-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -2011 / 39/2008- आई आर ( सी०एम० II ) ] डी०एस ०एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012 Manager was President. Union Representative of the staff member was Secretary and these people used to run the canteen and this committee had appointed canteen boy in the canteen . This admission of the workman clearly shows that he was canteen boy in the canteen of the Bank and the Bank had not engaged him from August 1991 to March 1996. The workman apears to have proved the case of the management . The workman has further admitted in his cross - examination that as has been stated in Para -2 of the Written Statement , he worked as messenger on daily wages for the said period. Para - 2 of the Written Statement clearly shows that he had never worked 240 days in any calender year and specially twelve months preceding the date of reference . This clearly shows that he had not worked for a continuous period of one year as has been stated in Section 25 B(2) ofthe Act , 1947. He is , therefore , not be treated as retrench employee under Section 2( oo) of the Act , 1947. This further shows that the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act , 1947 was not violated.

S.O. 986. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 2/2009 ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , ERNAKULAM as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, Food Corporation of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14-02- 2012

[No. L-2011 /39/2008 - IR ( CM - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri . D. Sreevallabhan , B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Tuesday the 31st day of January, 2012/ 11th Magham , 1933 ) I.D. 2/2009

Unions

6. The management has also adduced two witnesses in support of their case . The management witness Shri D.S. Yadav is presently Branch Manager , SBI , Amlohari Branch . Another witness Shri Prafulla Kumar Bargale is Chief Manager. Both have supported the case of the management that the workman was Canteen Boy and was engaged by the Canteen Implementation Committee who was not employee of the Bank . The learned counsel for the workan submits that the witnesses have admitted in their evidence that there was attendance register of the Canteen Boy regarding the number of days worked in the Canteen as well as in the Bank but inspite of demand, these registers were not produced as such adverse inference is to be drawn . The learned counsel for the management argued that there was no need to produce the documents in view of admission ofthe workman in his evidence in Court . It is stated that the workman has admitted that he was Canteen Boy and he worked as casual labour in the Bank in the manner as has been stated in Para - 2 of the W.S. and not more than 240 days in calendar year and specially preceding twelve calendar months of the reference . I find strength in the argument of the management . Since the workman has admitted the case of the management , I find that the facts have been proved and the provisions of the Act , 1947 are not violated . Thus it is clear that Shri Anupdhar Mishra was not employee of the Bank and the action of the Bank was legal and justified . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman .

1. Shri . K.T. Sasi , Convenor of Head Load Workers( CITU ) FCI Workers Association (CITU). Kotayam , Kerala .

7. Issue No. II

2. Shri P.K. Sasi

Origanising Secretary, FCI Workers Union .

On the basis of the discussion made above , I find that there is no merit in the case of the alleged workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

Chingavanam, Channanikadu , Kottayam . By Adv . Shri Santhosh G.P. 8. In the result , the award is passed without any order to costs .

2422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012 / PHALGUNA 20, 1933

Prabhu.

Management : 1. The Area Manager , Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Chingavanam, Kottayam .

2. The General Manager ,

Food Corporation of India , Regional Office , Kersavadasapuram , Trivandrum.

By Adv . Shri M.R. Anison .

Thiscase coming up for final hearing on 30.01.2012 andthis Tribunal- cum - Labour Court on 31.01.2012 passed thefollowing:

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour 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 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication to this tribunal by its order No. L- 22011 /39 /2008 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 24.10.2008 .

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in effecting recovery from the wages of DPS workers on account of demurrage charges levied by the Railways is legal and justified ? To what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ?"

3. The two unions which raised the industrial dispute represent all the DPS workers in the Chingavanam depot ofthe management , the Food Corporation of India, under the Direct Payment System ( DPS) implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1997 as per circular No. IR( L) / 8 ( 22 ) / 94 dated 14.06.1996 . As per proceedings No. IRL 32( 5)/ 07 dated 18.10.2007 the management ordered to recover Rs . 1800/- paid as Demurrage Charges ( D.C.) to the Indian railways from 104 of those DPS workers @ Rs. 17.31 from the wages for the month of October, 2007. Challenge is made by the unions by raising the above industrial dispute representing those DPS workers .

4. According to the unions the action of the management is arbitrary, illegal , unjust and in violation of the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. The allegations put forward in the claim statement in support of it are that they were discharging their duty sincerely and efficiently by working beyond the normal working time of 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. so as to avoid any loss to the management . On 21.06.2007 104 DPS working in attendance started their work of unloading of the 13 wagons placed in the depot at 6 a.m. and completed it before 11 a.m. and afterwards engaged in the work of

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

distribution of 6600 sacks of food grains . On that day each of them had dealt with the work of 237 sacks of food grains in the place of the prescribed 90 sacks to be attended to by a workman . They were not informed about the placement of the two wagons at 3.30 p.m. on that day and no instruction was given to them to unload it on the same day. Ifthe workmen were informed about the unloading of those wagons it would have been done on that day itself. Instead the management issued Memo No. IR - L/ 32 ( 5 )/07 dated 16.07.2007 to them calling upon their explanation for leaving the depot without unloading the wagons in spite of the repeated requests by the officials of the Food Corporation of India to unload those wagons which resulted in the payment of Rs . 1800/- towards demurrage charge for 12 hours and for the recovery of the said amount from them .After submitting the explanations by them the management decided to recover the amount from their wageswithout affording an opportunity to hear them . They had not caused any loss to the management and the management is not entitled to recover any demurrage charges from them .

5.Management filed written statement raising several contentions to justify the decision to recover the D.C. from the DPS workers . It is mainly contended that it is due to the deliberate and negligent conduct on the part of the DPS workers the Food Corporation of India had to pay the D.C. and the same can be recovered from the erring workers as per the modified instructions issued after the circular dated 14.06.1996 for the implementation of DPS . Food Corporation of India completely depends on Indian Railways for transportation of food grains and the DPS workers for carrying out the loading and unloading work in the notified depots including the one at Chingavanam . Food grains are packed rake wise and each rake contains 42 to 43 wagons . The rakes when placed in the Food Corporation of India godowns by the Railways the goods are to be loaded or unloaded within nine hours of placement irrespective of the time and day. Hence the DPS workers have to attend the work beyond the normal working hours and on weekly off days , if required, with over time wages , compensatory off etc. Such placement takes place only 4 or 5 times in a month and there are some DPS workers who wilfully abstain from attending the work on those days . The expected placement of one rake of food grains at 6. a.m. on 21.06.2007 was intimated to the DPS workers in advance by issuing a memo dated 20.06.2007 . Though the rake contained 32 wagons of food grains 13 wagons were only placed at 6 a.m. on 21.06.2007 due toderailment. Two more wagons were placed at 3.30 p.m. on that day and the DPS workers were orally requested to clear those wagons by the Manager concerned but they left the godown without attending the work even though their normal working hours is from 8. a.m. to 5.30 p.m. Those two wagons were cleared only on 21.06.2007 by 8.30 a.m. and hence the Railway imposed an amount of 2423

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Rs. 1800 / - towards D.C Management issued separate show cause notice on 16.07.2007 to each of the 104 headload workers under DPS Scheme who were present for duty on 21.06.2007 seeking their explanation for not recovering the D.C. for non clearance of the two wagons in time from thern . No convincing explanation could by given by them for not unloading the wagons placed at 3.30 p.m. on that day though they are bound to be available till 5.30 p.m. The D.C. was incurred only due to the illegal conduct of deliberate non attendance of duty as required by them.

6. Unions filed replication denying the contentions inthe written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the claim statement. It is further alleged that the free time which was provided for by the Railway for unloading the wagons was reduced and the same was unilaterally accepted by the management without any discussion with the DPS workers . Their overtime wages was reduced by 1.1.% ofthe normal pay and about which a case is pending before the National Industrial Tribunal , Mumbai .

7. Evidence was adduced from both sides and it consists of the depositions of WWI , WW2 , MWI and Exts . Mlto M - 12 .

8. The points for determination are:

(1) Whether the demurrage charges was to be paid by the Food Corporation of India on account of the deliberate refusal or failure of the DPS workers to unload the two wagons within the free time?

(2) Whether the action of the management to recover the demurrage charges from the wages of the DPS workers is legal and justified ?

(3) To what relief, if any , the workmen concerned are entitled to?

9. Point No. 1 : A sum of Rs . 1800/- was levied as D.C. by the Railway from the management for the delay caused for the release of the two wagons placed for unloading at 3.30 p.m. on 21.06.2007 at the Chingavanam depot and the same is evidenced by Ext. M5 . The request for waiver of D.C. made by the management was not accepted by the Railway and the management was directedto challenge the decision by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date ofthe decision as per Ext . M6 letter dated 25.09.2007 . Without adopting the course to prefer an appeal the D.C. was paid by the management as per Ext . M7 receipt dated 30.11.2010 . The management issued Ext. M8 memo dated 16.07.2007 to the 104 DPS workers present on 21.06.2007 calling for their explanation to be submitted within seven days for not realising the D.C. from them stating that they left the depot without unloading the wagons on 21.06.2007 despite the repeated requests by the Manager (Movt. ) and others and that ifthey were sincere the wagons could

601 G2012-27

have been unloaded within the free time without incurring any D.C. They have submitted their expla..alons stating that they were given intimation on 20.06.2007 as to the placement of one rake of wagons at 6 a.m. on 21.06.2007 . but only 13 wagons were placed for unloading and the same were unloaded by them by il a.m. or that day. It is further stated that they were not given any intimation regarding the placement of the twe wagens for unloading until they left from the depot at 5.30 p.in. on that day and it was only after 5 p.m. on that day the union reader was informed that the two wagons placed afterwards due to derailment were to be unloaded at 6 a.ni. on 22.06.2007 . Those two wagons were cleared by them by unloading it from 6 a.m. ic 8.30 a.m. on 22.06.2007 and hence they cannot be held liable for the D.C. Their explanations were pot accepted by the managemem stating that 17.6 was incurred due to thei " refusal to unload the wagons and also due to the absence of most of them at the time of the placement of the wagons . Thereby Ext . M - li proveeditigs dated 18.10.2007 wasissued by the management for the recovery of the D.C. from the 104 OPS workers attended for dry on 21.06.2007 , Challenge is made by the unions mainly on the ground that no intimation was given to them by tas management wiin regard to the placement of the two wagons for unloading at 3.30 pm. Jo 21.06.2007. On the other hand it is contended by the management that the DPS workers on duty on that day were formed ornity about the placement of those wagens but they left the godown without attending the work. Hence it is to be considered whether intimation as to the placernent of those wagons for unloading was given to there workers and whether they had willinel , testenewens de duty.

10. Intimation was given to the DPS workers by the management by issuing Ext . M 3 memo dated 20.06.2007 as to the placement of one rake ofwagons on 21.06.2007 at 6a.m and calling, upon them to attend the work of unloading without incurring any DC . Due to deraiimicin only 13 wagons were placed for unloading at 6 au on that day. All those wagons were unloaded by II ain Itis afterwards at3.30 p.m. the two wagons are stated to have been placed for unloading. Ext . M 4 is the memo issu.dca 21 06.2007 informing the DPS workers that unloaded wagons due to derailment are placed at the siding and calling upon them to attend the work at 6. a.m. on 22.05.2007 to clear those wagons without incurring any D.C. From Ext . M4 it canne: be seen that two wagons were placed for unloading 2 3.30 pin on 21.06.2007 . Except Ext . M5 there is no reliable evidence to prove that the wagons were placed fr unloading at 3.30 p.m. on 21.06.2007 . There is no documentary evidence in this case to prove that any intimation was given by the management to the DPS workers to unload the two wagons on 21.6.2007 itself. There is also no reliable oral evidence in this case to substantiate the case of the management that the DPS workers were FAC -S300 THE GAZETTE OF PIDA: MARCH 10, 2012/ PHALGUNA 20. 1933

tyowagons placed at 3 30 p.m. on 21 6.2007

11 Point No. 2: According to the unions management is not en led to recover the D.C. from them and the action of the vacagement is in velation of tire statutory provisions and the Model Standing Orders unfor the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act . in para 7 of the written statement it is contended that as per the modified instructions issued after the introduction of the DPS Scheme whenever D.C. is incurred by the Food Corporation of India to clear the wagons in time the same can be recovered from the erring workers . There is absolutely no documemary evidence in this case to prove that there was any such modified instructions . There is no provision in Ext. Mi - 12 scheme to recover the D.C. from the DPS workers . Clause 15 of Ext M-12 provides that the workers found induiging in disobedience , misconduct etc. shali be subject to action under Model Standing Orders provided in Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act. 1946.As per Section 14 of the said Act disciplinary action can be initiated against the workman for misconduct and a workman can be fined up to 2 % of his wages in a month for the acts and omissions which are notified with the previous approval of the government of the prescribed auskerity in pursuance of Section & of the Payment of Wages Act , 1946. It was submitted by the learned counse! for both sides that no notification has so far been issued by the management specifying the acts and omissions amounting to misconduct . The decision to recover the D.C. from the D.C. from the DPS workers taken by the management cannot be said to be in accordance with that provision in the said Act .

12. Clause 12 of Ext.M - 12 provides that any failure onthe part of the worker to carry out handling work when made available to the extent of the prescribed norms of 90 bags shall make the worker liable for proportionate deductions in the wages . Management could have made deduction of the wages if there was failure on the part of anyDPS worker to unload as per Ext. M - 12 but it does not contemplatethe recovery of D.C. from the DPS workers .

13. Learned counsel for the management was not able to point out any statutory provisions , rule or any agreement which permits the management to recover the D.C. from the DPS workers in this case without any enquiry . Itisalready found that it was not due to the misconduct of the workers the demurrage charge was to be paid. There is also nothing on record to satisfy that the management is entitiedto recover the same from the wages of the DPS workers.

14. In view of the above discussion I find that the action of the management to recover the D.C. from the wages of the DPS workers is not leagal and justified.

any Nehmeaty se cihaz ofthe management to suiced how None of those officials who are Se have over oral insteactions to anlead the gas cxamined in this case to prove the sarie . witress examined from the side of the mm agerem . Retok charge as Arca Manager of the district floor , at Food Corporation of India at Cinjavanen 14.2011. He is not having any direct kaledes alba de placement of those wagons for PENALOG Body or as to the intimation given to the wother wording those wagons . Fron Ext . M3 and seen not written intimation was used to be given boo, the placement of wager for unloading . At the time of argument learned counsel for the management has submitted that co such intimation is to be goen if the wagens are piaced for unleading during the normal word.ane hours. Ifthat be the case management badtotake action against the DPS workers for leaving, the godown without anending the work in accordance with the provisions contained in the DPS Scheme, copy of which is marked as FL. M - 12 . If the DPS workers were Grally instructed to unload those wagons placed at 3.30 pnt or 21.05.2007 and there was refusal to attend the wors the same is likely to be made mention of ir Ext. M4. Thers no whisper in Ext. Ma with regard to any instruction abeady given for unloading and there is only the soodfie uimation that these wagons are to be Lalosded at 6 am on 22 6 2007 to avoid payment ofD.C. The teenagement has failed to prove by adducing any satishawy evidence that the UPS werkers on duty on 21.0 2007 were asked to unload the two wagons . Without initiming any sesion for any misconduct ami without affording are opportunity to the DPS workers to substantiate the reasons stated in ine explanations submittedby them to Ext. M8 memo the D.C. was ordered to be recovered front their wages by the managernent . No reason is stated in Da . Mil for the refusal to accept the explanation suratte 1 by the DPS workers In Ext . M -16 it is hoive tot the DPS workers left after completing the work of issues ny 16.35 hours . It is seen to have been neved on 2007.It would go to show that the DPS workins were attending duty from 6 am till 4 35 p.m. on 2.6 2007 it wilt also go to show that the DPS workers were attending the work of issue even after 3.30 p.m. on 210.2007 WWI and WW2 have stated that there was no intenance with regard to the placement of wagons at 3.30 р. за 21.6 2007 and that they would have unloaded the same if there was intimation as to the placement of the watans Management has miserably failed to prove that an: in imauet, was given to the DPS workers about the placement of diase two wagons and they were called upon to unicad inose two wagons on that day. It also becomes unacceptable in view of Ext . M4 written intimation given for unloading the same at 6 am on 22.6.2007 . So it can very well he held that there was no wilful refusal or any

15. Point No. 3 : Management has no right to recover the D.C.from the wages of the DPS workers . It has come out in evidence that recovery was effected from the DPS negligence on the part of the DPS workers to unload the

AMR 1141 41 2425 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Chingavanam.

M8 Photocopy of the Memo/Notice No. IR- L32(5 )/07 dated 16.07.2007 issued by the Area Manager FCI , District Office, Kottayam to the DPS workers .

workers already retired from service . The amount , if any, recovered as D.C. is to be refunded to the DPS workers by the management within 30 days from the date ofpublication ofthis award and in the event of non payment they are entitled to recover the same from the management .

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

M9 Reply dated 30.07.2007 submitted by K.R. Suresh , HIL, DPS No. 3 of the Area Manager , FCI , Chingavanam.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcrined and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st day ofJanuary, 2012 .

M10 Office Notes / Draft prepared on the replics of DPS workers.

APPENDIX

Witnesses for the Unions

M11 Photocopy of the proceedings No. IRL/ 32 ( 5 )/07 dated 18.10.2007 ofthe Manager (S & C/Legal), Food Corporation of India, District Office, Kottayam .

WWI K.P. Shaji , Secretary, FCI Workers Association (CITU), FCI Depot, Chingavanam Unit, Chingavanam .

M12 Photocopy of the Letter No. IR ( L)/ 8 ( 22 )/94 dated 14.06.1996 sent by Deputy Manager ( IR - L ) for Executive Director (General ) FCI Head Quarter, New Delhi .

WW2 T.B. Abykumar, Unit President, FCI Workers Union , FCI Depot, Chingavanam Unit, Chingavanam .

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

Witness for the Management

MWI M. Kandamuthan , Area Manager, FCI District Office, Chingavanam, Kottayam.

Exhibits for the Unions - NIL .

Exhibits for the Managements

का० आ० 987. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुशरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस०सी०सी०एल० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजनों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध 1 में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कोनिक अधिकरण , गोदावरीखन्नी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14/2/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

M1 Photocopy of the letter No. TC - 1 /2005 /201 / 2Pt . D dated 10.10.2006.

[सं० एल-22013/1/2012-आइ यार ( सी -11 ) ] डी०एस० श्रीनिवास राय, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February. 2012

M2 Photocopy of the Letter No.IR ( L)/ 8 (22 )/94 dated 14.06.1996 sent by Deputy Manager ( IR - L ) for Executive Director (General ) FCI Head Quarter, New Delhi . (Incomplete) .

Mi3 Photocopy ofthe Memo No. DPS -D/ IRL32 (4) 2006- 2007 dated 20.06.2007 issuedby the Manager (Depot- DPS ) of the Food Corporation of India , District Office, Kottayam.

S.O. 987. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT /ID /88/2006 ) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 14.02 2012 .

M4 Photocopy of the Memo No. DPS - D.IRL/32(4 ) 2006- 07 dated 21.06.2007 issued by Manager (Depot - DPS) of the Food Corporation of India, District Office Kottayam.

[No. L-22013 / 1/2012 - IR( C - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

M5 Bill No. CGV /FCI /DC/5 /2007 dated 22.06.2007 for Rs. 1800 /-issued by the Southern Railway towards the demurrage charges .

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

GODAVARIKHANI , DISTT. KARIMNAGAR ( A.P.)

PRESENT:-

M6 Letter No. V /C.200 / DC / FCI/2 /CGV/07-08 dated 25.09.2007 sent by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway to the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office Kottayam.

Sri M. Syamala Rao , BA. , B.L. , Chairman- cum- Presiding Officer.

M7 Receipt No. CGV /FCI/DC/ P/ 11 /1 dated 30.11.2010 issued by the Station Master, Southern Railway, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

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

USE THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012.

NATAL DISPUTE NO. 84 OF 2006

men, in-Ceal Filter,

1-7133'24, So Lalaiah , Aged 43 years .

-281, Zone , PO. Kalyanikhani ,

Calebad- 504 231 (Α.Ρ.)

Petitioner

Ivmanager,

sudamarri Area,

Auwamani , Adilabad Dist . (A P.)

Kupondent

to take effective treatement in the private hospital. Thus there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the absence ofthe petitioner during the years 1997 & 1998 and it cannot be termed as misconduct . The petitioner deposed his real and actual problems during the enquiry also . But the respondent issued a notice along with enquiry proceedings requiring the petitioner to submit bis representation. No observation period for 6 months was given to the petitioner. The domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly and the findings of the enquiry officer are highly perverse and biased . The enquiry officer did not properly appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. Hence the enquiry may be held as invalid and vitiated.

custrial Dispute petition L / Sev. 2-A (2) of coming on before ans for final hearing on 2012, upon perusing all the documents on record hearing the arguments of Sri E. Venugopal , for the petitioner and Sri D.Krishna Murthy, for the respondent , having stood over for Seat on off this date, the cours passed the

AWARD

6. And that the dismissai order was issued to the petitioner straight away, without issuing any kind of show cause notice proposing the capital punishment of dismissal , which is against the mandatory/statutory provisions and contrary to the principles of naturaljustice. The extremelyharsh punishment of dismissal from service is higly excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged charge levelied against the petitioner which amounts to his economic death . It is not at all warranted and is liable to be quashed by this court and the respondent has not at all considered the long service and genuine ili health of the petitioner before imposing the punishment of dismissal

this is an industrial Dispute petition filed by the Sue /2A(2) of 1.D. Act 1947 of set aside the sider of dismissal of the petitioner dt. 2-7-1999 raspondent and to direct the respondent's somstale the petitiones into service with tonnairrofservice and ali other consequentizi atendant mang terlaing full back wages . :

7. And that ever since his dismissai from service , the petitioner could not secure any alternative job . He remained unemployed and incurred nuge debts for medical and domestic expenses of his large family. He was compelled to take debts to meet his domestic expenses and to pay the huge debts , he took his settlement benefits which was essential for his family existence and livelihood .

The oneffits of the petition are that depotioner Weeramed as Badli Filler in the year 1986 and later he rometed as Ceai Filler. Eversince the due of his put , the petitioner was discharging his duties to moset satisfaction of the company authorities .

8. And that the petitioner appeared before the high power committee on 16.11.2000 for his reinstatement as per the call letterdt. 7-11-2000 He waited all these days and moved before the company authorities for his job , but he was not reinstated into service . Hence he could not approach this court earlier. Therefore he prays for an award as above.

9. The respondent filed his counter denying the material averments in the petition.

Fadet the petitioner had put in more than the παραμεreal musters every year . During the year vilfen from chronic ill healt and sugierwent * en he could not work for the said minimum Gophosical musters during the said year 1997. Further he pudefit from 13-8-1998 and was fit nom 22-5-1999 ri , sucre respondent without considering the trus facts eit health of the petitioner issued charge shee : 121-1975 clleging that he was hak kually absent from withon sufficient cause during the car 1997. 1

And that the petitioner sobranted his written xle action for the charge sheet on 14-7-1998 . There is a resonable and sufficient cause for the alleged absence of protoner wind it is reither willful aer deliberate. But npooden : gor conducted a domestic enquiry d later dismissed the petitione: from service Lyby order No. P/ MM/ 7 / 2/ 99 /2297, dt. 2-7-1999.

10. The brief averments of the counter are that it is a Government company incorporated under the provisions ofCompany'sAct, 1956 for carrying out the business of winning and selling the coal and since the coal mining industry is a Central subject the appropriate Government for the respondent/ management is Central Government . The respondent submits that as per Sec.7 (A) ( 1 ) of I.D. , Act , the appropriate Government may by notification in the official gazette constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of Industrial Disputes relating to any matter whether specified in the 2nd or 3rd And that the petitioner underwen: treatment in pendent's company nospital and he was compelled 2427

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10, 2012. फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

भान -खण्ड 3(1) )

of the medical certificate said to to have been issued by Dr Nirmala Devi , Civil Assr . Surgeon , Govt . Civil hospital , iuxettipet recommending to sanction. the petutioner 55 days of leave from 17-11-1997 to 10-1-1998 . During cross examination, the petitioner accepted that he remained absent on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet , that he did not communicate about his sickness to the respondent company, that he did not report sick in colliery hospital and pleaded guilty of the charge levelled against him.

chedule and for performing such user henctions as mey the unsigned to them udner this Act. And the Central Gowmmen: established Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Countat Hyderabad from 29.12.2000 for adjudication of Ladustriai Disputes and the petitioner ought to have upproached the said Tribunal for the redressal of grievances , ifany. But the petitioner conveniently avoided to file his petition before the Tribur.al established by the Cautral Government for the reasons best known to him and the petition is not maintainable under law and the same may be dismissed on this ground alone

And that maintainability of the dispute raised by sne petitiorerbefore this court may be decided as eliminary issue before proceeding with the trial .

B. And that the petitioner hemzelf admitted in the unqury that he did not cenimunicate about his sickness to the coiliery authorities Even ifthe medical certificate is considered as a genuine one , the period oftreatment during Gie year 1997 was from 17-11-1997 to 31-12-1997, which was a very small part on the year 1997. The charge sheet issued was for the habitual absenteeion of the petitioner during the year 1997 but not for the year 1998 .

11. And that the petitioner failed to exhaust th convaling proceedings as laid down in the I.D. , Act, and Bled the petition under 2A (2 ) of 1.D. , Act . 1947 as amended byA.P Amendment Act, 1987 ( Act No. 32/1987 ) . And that ts appropriate Government was coal mining industry is the Contrar Government the State Amendment Act is c01 applicable to the respondent company and the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law and lieber to be dismissed in limini .

14.And thatthe petitioner was supplied with copies of enquity report and proceedings vide letter dt . 1-10-1998 to make his representation against the findings in the enquiry report . But the petitioner did not make any representation against the findings ofthe enquiry offier. It is not mandatory to counsel the petitioner to improve his attendance .

12. And that the pethioner was appointed or 24-1-1986 as Bad !: Filler and wa , subsequently appointed as Coal Filler. The petitioner being sa underground employer was expected to put in 190 masters in a calen.dat year. Sutthe following attendance particulars indicate that the peutioner was not regular to his duties and in no vear he nad pur in 190 musters during the period from 1993 to

1993-014 1996-100

15. And that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a tair way and the petitient : was given every opportunity to defend his case . The petitioner did not avail the opportunity to have assistance of any one and he did not cross examire the management witnesses , when opportunity was given by the enquiry officer. The enquiry efficer subinitted his report on the basis of the recorded evidence.

1994-069 1997--030

1995-046 1998--002

16. And that the attendance of the petitioner during the years , 1993 to 1997 was very poor and the average attendance was 065 musters only per year. Since the attendance ofthe petitioner was very poor, the respondent imposed the penalty of dismissal vide order dt . 2-7-1999 dismissing the petitioner from service from 6-7-1999.

17. And that the respondents company employs more than 33,000 persons which includes workmen , Executives and Supersors The production results will be depending upon the overali attendance and performance of each and every individual . They are inter linked and insufferable . be this regard if any one remains absent without prior leave or without any justified cause , the work to be performed geis affected . Such unzuthorised absence creates suddenly void, which is verydifficult to fill up and there wiji be no proper planning and aiready plarned schedule gets suddenly disturbed without prior notice i.e. , reason why the respondents company is compelled to take sever action against the unauthorised absentees. In this instant case the petitioner is one such auring the year 1997 , the petitioner had put in 620 numas only and remainea habitually absent on all the offer days without sufficient cause. As the above act Macerted to misconduct under the company's standing order No. 25.25 , he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet Ja 28-3-1998 . The petitioner received the charge sheut and sol elted bir written expinuntiondt 14-7-1998 statông What Jue to his Ri hoaith ,he was absent to duties but he did tot sulent ary documonar, evidence to support his sihat . Yu his explanation , the petitioner 20tepted that he remained absent to duties and not mentioned thathe reported sick in company hospital or was undergoing catnent tin the colliery hospital . In this statement before the exquriy officer , the petitioner stated that he was fering from iil health over the past 4 years and was not egularto duties as he was suffering from Asthama, cough , breathlessness and the he took treatmen in colliery hospital and private hospital . He submitted a Xerox copy 2428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 20, 1933

unauthorised absentee as such the respondent company was constrainedto dismiss the petitioner for unauthorised absenteeism vide order dt. 02-07-1999 ,

18.And that as per the settlement dt . 21-2-2000 , the petitioner made an application and this case was reviewed by the higher power committee which did not consider his case fit for appointment as badli filler for one year on trial basis as his attendance during the years 1993 , 1994, 1995 1996 was very poor as he had put in 014, 069 , 046 and 100 musters only respectively. Those cases that deserved consideration were given appointment as badli filler for one year on trial basis . Therefore prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

19. The petitioner's counsel filed a memo U/ Sec . 11 -Aof.D. , Act , on 19-9-2011 after giving notice to other side, which was recorded by this court. In view of the said memo U / Sec . 11 - A of 1.D. , Act , no preliminary issues are framed and settled .

20. During the course of enquiry . no witnesses are examined on either side , but Ex . W- 1 to W- 6 are marked on behalf of the petitioner and Ex.M - 1 to Ex.M - 9 are marked on behalf of the respondent by consent .

21. Heard both sides , perused the material papers on record .

are:- 22. Now the points that arises for consideration

(1) Whether the present petition is maintainable before this Tribunal ?

(2) Whether the charge framed against the petitioner is proved?

(3) Whether the dismissal order dt . 02--7-1999 , without issuing any show cause notice is arbitrary, illegal , unjust , against the statutory provisions and contrary to the principles of natural justice; if not , whether the punishment awarded is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charge?

(4) To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

23. POINT NO . 1 :-

Itisthe case of the respondents that the respondents company incorporated under the provisions of Company's Act 1956 for carrying out the business and selling the coal and since the coal mining industry is a Central subject , the appropriate Government for this respondents/ management is Central Government and that as per Sec.7A( 1 ) of 1 . Act, the appropriate Government may by its notification the official gazette constitute one or more industrial tribunals for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter whether specified in the 2nd or 3rd schedule and for performing such other functions as may be I.D. ,

[PART 11-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

assigned to them under this Act. The respondents further submitted in their counter the Central Government established an industrial Tribunai - cum- Labour Court at Hyderabad on 29-12-2000 for adjudication of industrial disputes and the petitioner ought to have approached the said tribunal for redressal of grievances if any. But the petitioner conveniently avoided to file his petition before the Tribunal established by the Central Government for the reasons best known to him and the petition is not maintainable under law and the same may be dismissed on the ground and this issue may be decided as preliminary issue before proceeding with the trial.

"Appropriate Government is described U/ Sec.2- A of the J.D. , Act , 1947 ". According to Sec.2 -A( 1 ) of the above Act, the Appropriate Government , by notification in the official gazette constitutes one or more Industrial Tribunals for adjudication of Industrial Disputes relating to any matter whether specified on 2nd or 3rd schedule . So , according to the above 2 provisions of law, this Tribunal is established . Admittedly the petition filed by the petitioner is covered by an industriai disputes .

24. In a case reported in 1998 ( 5 ) ALD - 6 ( D.B. ) in a writ petition between U. Chainmappa Pra , Cotion Corporation of India and others, the Division Bench ci ourHigh Court held "we will assume that in so far as the dismissed or retrenched workman is able to approach the Labour Court straightaway, the power of the Central Government to make a reference of the dispure may be whittled down protante and in that sense there is a conflict or repugnancy with sub - section (2 ) of Section 2 ( A) and Section 10 ( 1 ) r / w sub - section ( i) of Section 2 -A and Section 3 ofthe Act . Even then , the Presidential assent given ander Article 254 ( 2 ) makes the State law prevail over the provisions of the Central law to the extent of repugnancy". It also further observed Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Section 2 -A( 2 ) Not confñed to workmen employed industrial undertakings of State Government It applics aiso to workmen engaged in Central Goventment undertakings .

25. If the plea of the respondent is considered in the light of the above case law, it falls to the ground . because, Section 2 -A( 2 ) of I.D. Act , 1947 applies both to the workmen employed in industrial undertakings of State Government and also to the workmen engaged in Cenual Government undertakings .

26. In other words , it can be said it is for the workman to approach U/ Sec.2 - A( 2 ) of I.D. , Act, either to the Industrial Tribunals having Central jurisdiction and aiso the Tribunals having State jurisdiction .

27. In view of the above , I held that this Tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute on hand and the petition filed by the petitioner is inaintainable . The point is answered accordingty.

2429

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ बल 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

28. POINT NO.2:-

from duty nor report sick in the company's hospital . Prior to the charge sheet period of 1997, the petitioner put up 100 physical musters during the year 1996 , as admitted by the respondent in its counter filed before this court . As already stated above , the petitioner filed documentary proofbefore the enquiry officer for his ailment . But it seems that the respondent has not afforded the petitioner an opportunity to improve his work subsequently after 1999 .

30. Apart from the above , it is the case of the petitioner that he was unfit for the period from 13-8-1998 due to ill health and was fit from 22-5-1999 only. This plea of the petitioner was not denied by the respondent in its counter. It substantiates that the petitioner was suffering from ill health during the years 1997-1999 . But this aspect was not considered by the enquiry officer or by the respondent while passing the orders of dismissal.

31. Under the above circumstances , I am under the considered opinion that issuing dismissal order under Ex. M -9 straightaway by the respondent without issuing prior show cause notice proposing the said punishment of dismissal from service is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice . I further hold that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the respondent is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge . The point is answered accordingly.

32. POINT NO.4:-

Inview of my findings on points 1 to 3 , I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers Under Sec . 11 -A of I.D. , Act and that denial of continuity of service , all other consequential attendent benefits and entire back wages would be sufficient punishment for the petitioner, while ordering for reinstatement ofthe petitioner as Coal Filler " afresh " would meet the ends ofjustice.

Ex.W- 1 is the Zerox copy of the charge sheet, the original of which is also filed by the respondent marked under Ex. W- 1 . ExW- 2 is the served copy of the dismissal order; Ex. W- 3 is the call letter issued to the petitioner, requiring him to attend before the high power committee; Ex. W-4 is the office copy ofdemand notice and Ex . W-5 & Ex W- 6 arc the postal receipt and postal acknowledgement for the Said demand notice marked as Ex. W- 4 Turning to the doucments of the respondent, asalready stated above , Ex.M -1 is charge sheet and Ex . M-2 is acknowledgement of the petitioner to the said charge sheet . Ex . M - 3 is the reply of the petitioner given to the charge sheet, in which he stated that due to ill health he could not attend to the duties during the year 1997 on the date mentioned in the charge sheet and he prayed to drop the charge sheet assuring that he will attend to his duties regularly in future . Ex.M - 4 is the office copy ofthe enquiry notice . Ex.M- 5 is the enquiry proceedings . It shows that during the enquiry, 2 witnesses were exmained on behalf of the respondent and the petitioner himself was examined on his behalf. A perusal ofthe enquiry proceedings marked under Ex.M - 5 clearly shows that the petitioner admitted the charge levelled against him . An opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the management witnesses , but he did not avail the same . It also shows that the enquiry proceedings were read over and explained to the petitioner in Telugu language and he admitted the same and signed on the statement of the management witnesses and other relevant documents . Basing on these enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer submitted his report under Ex.M -6. The objections of the petitioner were called for requiring him to submit his representation on the enquiry report, under Ex.M - 7 supplying copies of the enquiry proceedings and findings of the enquiry officer. But it seems that the petitioner has not submitted his cbjections or representations to the enquiry findings as required under Ex.M - 7 . From the above enquiry proceedings and other documents , it is clearly evident that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved . The point is answered accordingly.

29. POINT NO.3 :-

33. In the result, the petition is partly allowed . The office order of dismissal of the petitionerdt . 2-7-1999 passed by the respondent is set aside and the respondent's company is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Coal Filler " Afresh " within one month from the date of gazette publication of this award . The petitioner is not entitled for continuity of service , other consequential attendant benefits and back wages . In the circumstances , each party do bear their own costs .

Typed to my dictation directly by Typist , correeted and pronounced by me in the open court on this , the 2ndday of February, 2012.

M.SYAMALA RAO , Presiding Officer As seen from Ex . M - 9 the dismissal order now in question, the respondent after calling the representation of the petitioner on the enqiry findings report under Ex.M - 7 , has not issued any show cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal from service and straight away passed the said dismissal order under Ex. M-9 , Apart from the above , as admitted by the enquiry officer under Ex.M-6, the petitioner submitted medical certificate for the periodfrom 17-11-1997 to 10-1-1998 which cover part of the absenteeism during the year 1997. No. doubt that the petitioner did not inform the management about his absence 2430

THE GAZETTE ΟΓ ΙΝΟΙΑ : MARCH 10, 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Management Forworknar.. IN

EXHIBITS

Frr workman

ExW1 D. 21/28-03-1998 Charge sheet , Photostat copy

(oringinal filed by the respondent)

ExW2 D2-07-1999 Dismissal erder

Exs Dt. 07-11-2000 Letter issued to the peutioner by the C.Mgr . , KK5 to attend before the high power committee

Ex.W4 Dr. 05-10-2006 Demand notice office mpy

Ex.W.5 Dt. 05-10-2006 Postal receipi

Ex.W-6 Dt 06-10-2006 Postal Ack, card

ForManagement: -

Ex.M-1 Dt. 21.28-03-1998 Charge sheet office copy.

Ex.M-2 Dt . 14.-07-1998 Ack. , to the charge sheet

Ex.M-3 Dt. -do-

Reply to the charge sheet

Ex.M-4 D. -do-

Enquiry notice office cony

Enquiry proceedings Ex.45 Dt 17-07-1998

Enquiry report Ex.M-6 Dt. 10-08-1998

Showcause notice ExJM ? Dt. 01-10-1998

Ex.M-8 Pt. 24-03-1999 Ack . , of the petitioner fer enquiry report.

ExM-3 Dt. 02-07-1999 Dismissal order office onny.

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2012

का० आ० 988.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी ०बी ० एम० बी० के प्रबंधन के संबद्ध नियमे अकों और उनके कर्मकारों को जीच निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिक 2. सण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्श 751/2005 & 748 / ) को प्रकाशित की है. जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 में

[सं० एल-23012/4/2001 - आई आर ( II) ,

सं० एल-23012/ 3/2001 - आई आर (सी -11 ) ]

डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February 2012

S.O. 988.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 751 / 2005 & 748/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cam- Labour Court - 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the managerment of BBMB, their workman which was mane

PART II -SEC. Sui) ]

by the Central Geverwent on 14/02/2012.

[No. L- 1230124/ 2001 - IR( CM- II). No. L-1230 ( 2/3 /2001 - IR ( CM- IDi

D.S.S SRINIVASARAO. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present. Sri A.K.. Rastogi Fredeng Officer.

} Case No. L.D. 7512005

Registered on 2.9.2005

ShriAshok Kumar, Sio Sh. Ram Sarup. 297 -EB , Nenge! Township,Ropar.

2 Case No. ID . 743: 2005

Registered on 2.9.2005

Sh. Chitrangad La , S/ o Sh.Vag Rai . Visi Bhalowal .

Tebsii Ananta Sahib,

Petitioners

Versus

The Chief Engirer Blaken Dam BBMMB, Nangai

Township , Ropar..

Respondent

APPEARANCES

Sh. BatraA.R. Forthe workman

For the Management : Sh . Sukhwinder Singh Law Officer.

AWARD

Passed on 2.2.2012

Vide Notification No. L - 23012 /4 /2001 ( IR ( CM- 11) Dated 2.5.2002 read with Corrigendum dated 28.9.2007 and Notification No. 23012/3/2001 IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 2.5.2002 read with Corrigendum dated 28.9.2007 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause(d) ofSub -Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section (2A) and ef Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short'Act' ) has referred the following industrialdispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

No. 751/2005

"Whether the action of management of BBMB in the terminating the service of Sh . Ashok Kumar S / o Sh . Ram Sarup we.f. 31.5.1993 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the weckman is entitled to and from which date?" 2431 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ID No. 748/2005

involved in the case . The reference is answered accordingly against the workmen . Original copy of the Awardbe placed on the record of ID No. 751 of 2005 and a copy thereof be placed on the record of ID No. 748 of 2005. Two copies of the A 1 be sent to Central Government for further necessary action .

"Whether the action of management of BBMB in the terminating the service of Sh . Chitrangad Lal S/o Sh. Yog Raj w. e.f. 31.5.1993 is legal andjustified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2012

As in both the matters common questions of law and facts are involved hence they are being adjudicated upon by the same Award .

काआ० 989.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ इजीनियर भाखड़ा नागलैंड टाऊनशिप रोपड़ पंजाब के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 219 /2K 5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -42012/50/1994- आई० आर० ( डी० यू०) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012 Workmen have raised an industrial dispute by stating that they worked as unskilled labour under the Railways Sub -Division , BBMB Nangal under the respondent from 1.10.1888 to 1991. They were again appointed on daily wage basis in the middle of December 1992 and remained with the respondents till 31.5.1993 when their services were illegally terminated and persons juniors to them and appointed alongwith them as unskilled labour were made regular . Their services were terminated in violation of Section 25 - F ofthe Act and they were not given the benefit of Section 25 -H of the Act . They have claimed their reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages etc.

S.O. 989.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , (14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 219/ 2K5) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court-No . II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam Nagal Township, Ropar Punjab and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14/02/2012 .

Claims were contested by the respondent- management and it was contended that the workmen were engaged intermittently on daily rate as per details given in the written statements . It was denied that the workmen completed 240 days service in 12 calendar months and provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act were violated. It was denied that any person junior to workmen were retained orre- employed.

[No. L-42012/50/ 1994 - IR (DU) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

After filing the claim statement the workmen did not turn up for their evidence despite notices sent by registered post and hence the cases proceeded Ex parte against them . Onbehalf of management Engineer Ashok Kumar Gupta filed his affidavit and gave his statement .

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

Chandigarh

PRESENT

SRIA.K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. 219/2005

Registereed on 3.8.2005

Shri Chaman Lal , S /o Sh. Nisha Ram , C/ o Sh . R.K. Singh Parmar, Org. Secretary, PB INTUC, Nangal Township , Distt. Ropar, Punjab

Petitioner

Versus

ChiefEngineer, Bhakra Dam , Nangal Township, Distt . Ropar, Punjab .

Respondent I have heard the Law Officer of the management and perused the record . The workmen have alleged the termination oftheir services on 31.5.1993 and violation of Section 25 - F of the Act . But there is no evidence on their behalf to prove that they completed 240 days service in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of their termination . They have not specifically pleaded so in their claim statements either. Moreover, as per details given in the affidavit ofmanagement- witness Sh . Ashok Kumar Gupta the services ofthe workmen did not terminate on 31.5.1993 . They were on the job even after the given date . Workman Sh. Ashok Kumar of ID No. 751 of2005 remained in thejob intermittently in 2005 , 2006, 2007, 2008 , 2009 and 2010. Similarly Chitrangad Lal of ID No. 748 of2005 remained in the job intermittently in 2005 , 2006 , 2007, 2008 , 2009. Obviously , the services of workmen were not terminated on 31.5.1993 and they continued in the job intermittently as before , after the alleged date of termination . Hence , neither any violation of Section 25 - F nor of 25 -H Act is

601 GI /2012-28 2432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

APPEARANCES

Fortheworkman

: Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar A.R.

: Law Officers .

of the workman . Denial of seniority or of right of re- employment provided under Section 25 - H of the Act is beyond the reference . The issues require to be decided in thiscase are: -

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 16 Jan 2012

1 . Whether the management terminated the service of the workman or the workman himself abandoned the job ?

2. If the managment terminated the service of workman , whether the workman was entitled to the protection of Section 25 - F of theAct .

Central Government vide Notification No. L -42012/ 50/94IR(DU) Dated 2.8.1994, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub - Section ( 1 ) Clause ( d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act ') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -

3. Whetherjuniors were retained in service while terminating the services of the workman?

4. Towhat relief is the workman entitled ?

I have heard the A.R. of the workman and law Officer of the management and have perused the evidence on record. My findings on various issues are as follows .

"Wether the action of the management of Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal Township in terminating the services of Sh . Chaman Lal S/ o Sh. Nisha Ram , w.e.f. 1.5.89 is legai and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitiled to?"

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

The workman has alleged the termination of his service by oral order while the management has pleaded the abandonment of the job by the workman himself.

Workman has raised an industrial dispute by stating that he was employed by the respondent as unskilled mazdoor on daily wages w.e.f. 5.4.1988 till 30.4.1989 , when he was verbally terminated from the service . He has alleged thathis termination from service is illegal for want ofnotice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation and also for the reason that juniors were retained in the service while terminating his service . He has also alleged that he was not called for re - employment as required under Section 25-H of the while new hand had been recruited . He has also alleged that his name was not included in the seniority list while the juniors were given the seniority and were regularized.

Regarding the plea of abandonment the workman in hisaffidavit has stated and it was argued by his A.R. also that abandonment of the job is a misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the mamagment and if the workman had abandoned the job then he must have been served with the charge sheet and an enquiry must have been conducted but in the present case no charge sheet was issued and no enquiry was conducted. The A.R , of theworkman argued that in the absence of any disciplinary action the plea of abandonment is not acceptable .

It was argued on behalf of management that if the management did not prefer to take any disciplinary action against the workman , it does not mean that there was no case of abandonment of the job and his services were terminated by the management . There is no evidence of termination of the service by the management except the self- serving statement of the workman . The workman is pleading the termination of his job in the hope of getting back wages for the period in which he did not work . Admitted he is back in job since 1.1.1999 .

Management has contested the case and in reply to the claim statement it has been stated that the workmen abandoned the work of his own . It has been further stated that the workman was employed intermittently for construction work as unskilled mazdoor from April 1988 to August 1989. He stopped coming to work, as it is a usual practice with the daily rated workman to abandon the job without informing the Department and join some better or gainful employment available temporarily. The seniority list had been prepared as per policy and objections had beeninvited from the workmen against it, but no objection regarding seniority list was received from the workman. Subsequently, on his representation his name was not included in the seniority list as he failed to submit documentary proof. It has also been contended that the management never refused duty to the workman and had advised him to attend duty time and again but he willfully avoided to work under a misconception that he will get all the dues and benefits without putting any work . Management is still ready to give him work .

Itmay be noted that in the claim statement the workman has not pleased that he had worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of his termination and in his affidavit he has stated that the management had put notional breaks in his service to debar him from claiming 240 day's continuous service. This statement of the workman in his affidavit is a clear improvement over his claim statement . I agree with the management that the absence of any disciplinary action for abandoning the job does not necessarily mean that It maybe noted that reference for adjudication before this Tribunal is regarding the termination of the services 2433 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

the workman did not abandon the job . If the management had any intention to terminate the services of the workman , it was very easy for it to do so after conducting an enquiry and then the management would not have given him the job from 1.1.1999 . I am therefore of the view that the plea ofthe workman that his services were verbally terminated by the management is not acceptable . He himself had abandoned the job . Issue No. 1 is decided against the workman.

का० आ० 990.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार खादी एण्ड विलेज इन्डस्ट्रीज़ कमीशन , पानाजी, गोआ प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण पानाजी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई०टी० 33/07 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

Issue No. 2

[सं० एल -42012/02/2007- आई आर ( डी०यू० ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

Since it has been held that the management did not terminate the services of the workman hence there was no occasion for the compliance of Section 25 -F of the Act . I need not to go into the details of working days , the evidence about which is of full of contractions and discrepancies . According to workman he remained in the job till his termination on 30.4.1989 but according to management he remained in job till August 1989 .

S.O. 990.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. IT/33/ 07) ofthe Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, PANAJI as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Khadi & Village Industries Commission , Panaji Goa and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14/02/ 2012.

[No. L-42012/02/2007 - IR(DU)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT PANAJI

The information contained in the papers filed by the A.R. of the workman at the stage of argument is also not consistent about the months and days of work of the workman . This information is contained in two papers i.e. paper No. 66 and 69 of the record . It was supplied to the AR ofthe workman under Right to Information Act . Both the papers show the employment since December 1987 but according to paper No. 66 it lasted upto March 1989 and the workman during this period worked in 12 months while as per paper No. 69 it lasted upto April 1989 and he worked for 8 months . Both are workman's paper and it cannot be said which one is correct .

(BEFORE SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI , HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER ) To sum up it is a case of abandonment and the workman is not entitled to the protection of Section 25 - F of the Act . Issue No. 2 is decided against the workman.

RefNo. IT/33/07

Issue No. 3

Smt . Maya Sagar Raikar , H.No. 121 , Near Gomes Building, Panajim-Goa. Workmen/Party I V/s

The workman has taken a plea that while terminating his services the juniors were retained in service . It was argued on behalf of workman that the termination of his services is bad being violative of Section 25 -G of the Act . This plea also has become redundant in view of the finding that the services of the workman had not been terminated by the management . Issue No. 3 therefore is also decided against the workman .

Khadi & Village Industries Commission , Cedmar Apartments , Ground Floor , S.V. Road , Panajim,Goa. Employer/Party II

Issue No. 4

None present for Party I. Party II represented by Adv. Shri . G.N. Das .

AWARD

(Passed on this 12th day of October, 2011 ) From the above going discussion it is thus clear that the management did not terminate the services of the workman and the workman himself had abandoned the job and he has been taken injob from 1.1.1999 hence he is not entitled to any relief. Reference is answered against the workman. Let two copies of the award be sent to Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

By order dated 18/05/2007 , the Central Government , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section ( 1 ) and sub section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) has referred the following dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal .

2434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART IJ-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

ot less than 240 days during a period of 12 calender months preceding the date 1/6/2005?

"Whether the action of the management of Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Goa in terminating the services of their workman Smt . Maya Sagar Raikar, Sweeper w.e.f. 1/6/2005 , is legal andjustified?

Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

3. Whether the action of the Party II in terminating services of the Party I with effect from 1/6/2005 is legal and justified?

4. Towhat, reliefthe Party I/Workman is entitled?

5. What Award ?

2. On receipt of the reference IT/33 /2007 wás registered. Notices were issued to both parties . Pursuant towhich the Party I filed her claim statement at Exb . 8 and Party II filed its written statement at Exb . 11. The rejoinder ofthe Party I is at Exb. 12.

8. The Party I has not adduced any evidence . The Party II has examined its Asstt. Director Incharge, Shri Ram Narayan . I have perused the records and considered the arguments advanced by the Lnd. Adv. Shri G.N. Das .

3. The Party I is employed with the Party II as sweeper w.e.f. 11/7/1997 . The Party I claimed that she was as class IV employee and that initially she was paid salary of Rs . 300/- which was subsequently revised to Rs . 1000/- per month . The Party I has claimed that since the date of her appointment till the date of her termination she has worked continuously for 240 days and more .

4. The Party I has claimed that on 31/5/2005 when she had reported for work, the State Officer of the Party II orally informed her that her services stand terminated w.e.f. 1/6/2005 for want of availability of work . Aggrieved by this action the Party I addressed a letter dated 31/8/2005 to the Commissioner, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Government of India , Mumbai . Copy ofthe said letter was also sent to the Director at Mumbai and Asstt . Director at Panajim . However, the Party I did not receive any communication from the said authorities . The Party I therefore raised an Industrial Dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Government of India, Vasco da Gama , Goa. The siad dispute was admitted in conciliation however no settlement could be arrived at .

5. The Party I has claimed that the action of the Party II in terminating her services is illegal and unjustified. The Party I has claimed that the Party II has recruited a new worker in her place. The Party I has claimed that she is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

9. Issues No. 1 and 2: At the outset it may be mentioned that the Party I had filed her affidavit in evidence at Exb . 20 and cross examination of Party I was partly recorded. During the pendency of the proceedings the Party II gave a proposal for settlement (Exb . 33.) whereby the Party II proposed that the Party could render her services on temporary basis for one hour every day to clean and sweep the office premises of the Party II , at a fixed remuneration and with out any perks . The said proposal was not acceptable to the Party I and as such , it was decided to proceed on the merits of the case . The Party I was called upon to subject herself for further cross- examination and to adduce further evidence if any. It is however to be noted that despite several opportunities given, the Party I neither subjected herself for cross- examination nor adduced any further evidence . Since the Party I has not subjected herself for cross - examination , the affidavit in evidence at Exb . 20 cannot be looked into . Consequently the Party I has failed to discharge the burden of proving that she is a workman within the meaning of section 2 ( s ) of the Act and that she has rendered continuous service of not less than 240 days during the period of twelve calender months preceding the date of her termination . This being the case issues no . 1 and 2 are answered in negative .

6. The Party II has denied that the Party I was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. The Party II has claimed that the Party I was engaged to clean office premises and that she used to work for an hour every day and that she was paid Rs . 300/- per month . The Party II has denied that the Party II has completed 240 days of continuous service . The Party II has stated that the Party I is not entitled for reliefs as claimed.

7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings following issues were framed:

1 . DoesParty I prove that she was employed by the Party II as its workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

10. Issue No. 3 : Shri Ram Narayan Das , Asstt. Director Incharge , of the Party II has filed his affidavit in evidence at Exb . 37. He has deposed that the Party I was not employed as class IV employee and that no such post exists in the state office of Party II . He has deposed that no formal requisition for the said post was published and that the Party I had not applied for any such post . He has stated that the Party I was doing the work of cleaning and sweeping the office premises of the Party II , which is approximately 140 sq . mtrs . He has deposed that the Party I was not in regular employment but was working only for one hour per day. He has deposed that the Party I was not paid salary but was paid remuneration for the said job vide daily payment vouchers . He has deposed that the Party I has violated the trust reposed in her by the Party II and she also indulge in the acts of breach of discipline.

2. Does the Party I prove that she has actually worked under employer, that is the Party II for 2435

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

between the employers in relation to the M/s V.B.S. EngineeringWorks, Vasco da Gama and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14/02/2012.

[No. L- 14011/51 /2009- IR(DU)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

The evidence of this witness which has gone unchallenged clearly indicates that the Party I was not a regular employee and that her services were engaged only for one hour on every working day. The evidence ofthis witness therefore indicates that the Party I is not a workman and that the termination of the services does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning ofsection 2(oo ) ofthe Act . There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Party II has terminated the services of the Party I in contravention of any mandatory provision ofthe Act . This being the case the termination of the Party I cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. Issue no . 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative .

(BEFORE SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI , HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER) REF.NO. IT/07/2010

Workmen,

11. Issue No. 4: The Party I has failed to prove that she is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s ) of the Act and that her termination is illegal and unjustified. The Party I is therefore not entitled for any relief. Issue no . 4 is answered accordingly.

Rep. by the President,

Under the circumstances and in view of discussion supra, I pass the following order.

GoaTrade & Commercial Workers Union Velho Building, 2nd Floor ,

Workmen/Party I

PanajiGoa.

ORDER

V/s

M/sV.B.S. Engineering Works ,

Swaraj Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ,

2nd Floor, New Vaddem ,

Vasco da Gama .

...Employer /Party II 1. The action of the management of Khadi & Village Industries Commission , Goa in terminating the services of their workman Smt . Maya Sagar Raikar, Sweeper w.e.f. 1 /6/ 2005, is held to be legal and justified.

2. The Party I is not entitled for any relief.

The reference stands answered accordingly.

Workmen/Party I represented by Adv. Suhas Naik Employer /Party II represented by Adv . S.K. Manjrekar AWARD

Inform the Government accordingly.

(Passed on this 27th September, 2011) Dated: 12/10/2011 .

A. PRABHUDESSAI , Presiding Officer

Place: Panaji.

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2012

By order dated 28.01.10 , the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

का० आ० 991.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स वी० बी० एस० इन्जीनियरिंग वर्कस , वास्को- डी- गामा प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण पानाजी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई०टी०/ 07/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the demand ofGoa Trade and Commercial Workers Union for payment of bonus for the accounting year 2007-08 and 2008-09 from the management ofM/ s V.B.S. Engineering, Contractor, forM/s Goa Shipyard Ltd. , is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to? "

[सं० एल -14011/51/2009- आई आर ( डी०यू०) ]

रमेश सिंह डेस्क, अधिकारी

2.Notices were issued to both parties pursuant to which the Party I has filed its Claim Statement at Exb . 5 and the party II has filed the Written Statement at Exb . 6 .

New Delhi , the 14th February, 2012

3. The Party I has claimed that the Party II is providing services to Goa Shipyard Ltd. , by engaging contract workmen. The party II is undertaking jobs of Goa Shipyard Ltd. , such as grinding , gauging , fabrication jobs etc. The Party II has engaged more than 100 workmen on its role S.O. 991.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. IT/07/ 2010) ofthe Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, PANAJI as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute 2436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Sd/- and these workmen are working with Party II since last several years without any break in service .

A. PRABHUDESSAI , Presiding Officer

Panaji : Dated: 27.09.2011

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2012

4. The Party I has claimed that these workmen are not given any statutory benefits . By letter dated 1.8.2009, the workers raised dispute regarding non payment of bonus for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 . The Party I has stated that the Party II has made sufficient profits and is in sound financial position , despite which it has not conceded to the demands . The conciliation proceedings have also ended in failure . The Party I has claimed that the demands raised by it are just, fair and proper and that they are entitled for bonus as claimed.

का० आ० 992.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र, के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चंण्डीगड नं०-2-के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 446/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -30012/49/1998 - आई०आर०( सी-1 ) ] डी०एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delni , the 15th February 2012, 5. The Party II has claimed that it is neither under the control of the Central Government nor it is an industry covered under Section 2( a)( i) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence , the Central Government is not an appropriate Government to refer the dispute. The Party II has further stated that the provisions of the Payment and Bonus Act are not applicable to the Contractor and the reference is bad and not maintainable. The Party II has further stated that it has started its business activities since August 2005 and that during the period 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 it had not completed the minimum initial period of five year and for this reason , the reference is not maintainable . The Party II has further stated that it has not made any profit and that the demand raised by the Party I is illegal and unjustified.

S.O. 992.- In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( 14 of 1947 ),'he Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 446/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court - 11 , CHANDIGARH, as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15/2/2012 .

[No. L- 30012/49/ 1998 - IR(C- I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: SRIA.K. RASTOGI, PRESIDING OFFICER.

Case No. 1D 446/2005 Registered on 19.8.2005

6. The Party II has stated that it is a proprietary firm registered under Goa , Daman & Diu , Shops and Establishment Act . Since the firm is registered with authority of Goa Government, the Central Government has no authority to refer any issue of the Party II for adjudication . The Party II has further stated that the Shipyard had floated tenders for two years from August 2005 to August 2007 and the biennial rate contract was extended upto June 2008. The Party II has stated that the contract between the principal employer and the Contractor came to an end on 30.6.2008 and 31.10.2008 . Hence, the relationship between the Principal employer and the Contractor came to an end on the respective dated of completion/termination of contract . The Party II has , therefore , challenged the maintainability of the reference as well as its liability to pay the bonus .

Shri Lekh Ram C/ o Sh . Ravinder Singh , Zonal Incharge , Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh , Municipality Flats Prade, Jammu Tawi ( J&K) .

Petitioner

Versus

7. By applicationat Exb . 8, filed on 8.4.11 , the Party I/Union has conceded that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government. The Party I has further stated that it does not wish to pursue the present reference and that it will raise the dispute before the appropriate Government .

1. M/sHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Jeevan Bharti Building , Canaught Circus , New Delhi .

2. M/ s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Ltd, Regional Office , Plot No.6 , Sector 19 - B , Chandigarh .

8. The Party I has conceded that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government . The party I has chosen not to pursue the dispute . The statement made by the party I fortifies the case of the Party II that the reference is not maintainable . Hence , the proceeding stands closed . Inform the Government accordingly.

2437

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3. Hindustan. Petroleum Corporation Limited , LPG, Bottling Plant , SIDOO Ind . Estate, Bari Brahmana, Jammu .

Respondents

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman

: Sh . Subhash Talwar A.R.

For the Management

Operator falls within Grade M - 06 and that of the Electrician inGrade M -05 and as per settlement some posts of Grade M-06 were upgraded to Grade M - 08 and that of Grade M- 05 ofM-06 and the category of Electrician was never revised orreclassified in Grade M - 08 from M -06 . Management has alleged the claim frivolous and vexatious .

: Sh.

Advocate .

Subhash Ahjua

AWARD

Passed on 19 Jan 2011

Central Government vide Notification No.L - 30012/ 49/98 - IR(C - 1 ) Order No.8 (4)/98 - AKJ dated 15.3.1999 in exercise of its power under Section 10 Sub- Section (1) , Clause (d) and Sub- Section (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter called as Act) has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

" क्या कर्मचारी संघ की मांग कि श्री लेखराम इलैक्ट्रीशियन को दिनांक 05.03.91 से श्रेणी M - 06 में इलैक्ट्रीशियन कम जैनेरेटर ओपरेटर का वेतनमान दिया जाए तथा तदपश्चात श्रेणी M- 08 में पदोन्नत किया जाए उचित व मान्य है । यदी है तो ये किस तिथि से किस राहत के पात्र है । "

The Workman has raised an industrial dispute by stating that on 17th September , 1987 he had been appointed by the respondent management as Electrician in Grade M - 05 at LPG Bottling Plant at bari Brahmana, Jammu . His nature of job was that of Electrician- cum- Generator Operator and accordingly he falls under Grade M-06. But the said grade was not given to him despite several representations . In a settlement between the union and the management on 5.3.1991 the category of Electrician-cum-Generator Operator was revised and classified in the Grade of M -08 from M -06 . He was entitled to M -08 w.e.f. 5.3.1991 but that too was not given to him. According to the workman the action of management in not implementing the settlement was arbitrary, illegal , wrongful , motivated, unfair labour practice and against the principles ofnatural justice. He has claimed GradeM- 06from 17-10-1987 and Grade M -08 from 5.3.1991 along with arrears .

The claim was contested by the management and it was contended that the workman has already availed the benefits ofthe settlement dated 5.3.1991 (hereinafter called settlement) . He has been beneficiary of two promotions by virtue of the aforesaid settlement and is already in S/G M-07 effective from September 1993 and is likely to be promoted to S/G M -08 . It was further contended that at the Bottling Plant Bari Brahmana there is only one post of Electrician and electricians are required to operate generators also . The post of Electrician - cum- Generator In support of his case the workman gave his statement while on behalf of management the statement of Sh . P.K. Uppal was recorded . Besides the oral evidence the parties relied on certain documents also which will be referred at proper place .

Learned counsel for the workman appeared to argue the case but none appeared on behalf on management for arguments despite notices sent to management by registered post on 29.10.2010 . Management remained absent on 14.12.2010 and 25.1.2011 . As it is a very old case hence on 25.1.2011 it was fixed for ex parte arguments of workman and the learned counsel for workman was heard on 10.3.2011 . I have perused the record . Admittedly, the ights and liabilities of the parties are to be regulated by the provisions of the settlement .

Thelearned counsel for the workman argued that as the nature of thejob of the workman was that of Electrician- cum-Generator Operator and admittedly he was operating the generator also hence he is entitled to the grade meant forElectrician-cum-Generator Operator. In this regard it is important that as per appointment letter dated 17.9.1987 ExhibitW-2 and also as per the statement of workman himself in the claim statement as well as in his evidence he had been appointed as Electrician and from the settlement Exhibit W-9 , it is clear that there are posts A.C Operator- cum-Electrician/A.C Attendant/Electrician- cum- Generator Operator as well as that of Electrician - II and Electrician-I .

Postof A.C Opeator- cum- Electrician/A.C Attendant/ Electrician-cum-Generator Operator was of Grade M - 06 which was revised to Grade M -08 by settlement . While postofElectrician - II was of Grade M -05 and revised to M- 06 by virtue of settlement and that of Electrician - I was of M -06 and was revised to M - 07 . The appointment of workman was as Electrician hence , he cannot claim the grade of Electrician-cum-Generator Operator irrespective of the fact that he was operating the generator also . The entitlement to the pay of grade depends on the post on which the workman was appointed and not on the nature ofjob which he performed . In this regard the statement of the management witness is important according to which it was not only the workman who was performing the duty ofGenerator Operator but at times other persons also do the same job and at times even the officers do the job when the need arises . In this regard it is also important that at Bottling Plant at Bari Brahmana there is no post of Electrician-cum-Generator Operator according to the management . The workman also has not pleaded that there 2438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

exist such post in the Bottling Plant . He is demanding the grade on the ground of his nature of job and not on the basisofpost. The grade of a post which is not available in the establishment is not admissible to a workman . Hence , the demand of Karamchari Sangh to give Grade M - 06 of Electrician-cum -Generator Operator to workman w.e.f. 5.3.1991 and thereafter to promote him in Grade M -08 is not just and acceptable . The workman is not entitled to any relief. 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

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2012

का० आ० 993.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 कां 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, टेलीकाम डिस्ट्रक्ट विनयनगरम एण्ड अदर्स 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 एल०सी००-22/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -42025 /03/ 2012- आई०आर० ( डी०यू०) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th February, 2012

S.O. 993. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . L.C. No. 22/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The General Manager, Telecom District , Vizianagaram & others and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15/2/ 2012 .

[No. L-42025/03 /2012- 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 23rd day of December, 2011

Industrial Dispute L.C. No.22/2006

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ]

BETWEEN:

SriM. Babji ,

S/O Late Simhachalam ,

R/O H.No. 79 , Pedda Veedhi

Jonnaguddi , Vizianagaram - 535002.

..... Petitioner

And

1. The Junior Telecom Officer,

Departmental Telegraph Office , Vizianagaram

2. The General Manager , Telecom District, Vizianagaram.

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES:

Forthe Petitioner

: M/ s.D . Jagannadha Murthy

& G.V.L.N. Murthy, Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri Y. Raveendra , Advocate

AWARD

Thispetition under Sec.2 A( 2) of the 1.D. Act, 1947 is filed by Sri M. Babji , an ex employee of Telecom Department challenging the action of his disengagement from the service w.e.f. 1.2.2004 and to reinstate him into the service with full back wages .

2. Ithas been alleged by the Petitioner that he joined the Respondent's organization in the year 1994 as club boy, in addition to that duty he performed the duty of night watchman , water boy - cum- gardener and also for delivery of the messages on daily wage basis . He continued to work in that capacity for more than 9 years upto 31.1.2004 uninterruptedly, however his services were not regularized by the management . the Petitioner made representation for regularization of his services which was forwarded by the then Sub -Divisional Officer , Phones , Vizianagaram vide letter No.EST- 14/20-21 /MB , dated 26.9.2000 Service certificate was issued by the Respondent certifying the satisfactory services of the Petitioner vide certificate dated 30.7.2001

3.A circulardated 25.8.2000 bearing No. 269-13 /99- SJN- 11 , was issued by the Department of Phones wherein it was clearly mentioned that those part time workers who have worked for less than 4 hours per day and who have completed 240 days in preceding 12 months their services may be converted into full time casual workers .Again the ChiefGeneral Manager, Telecom A.P. , issued a circularto Respondent officials dated 26.4.2001 directing the officials concerned to convert all part time causal labourers who worked more than 4 hours a day or less than 4 hours per day into full time causal workers . In view of this circular the Petitioner was entitled for conversion as a full time casual workers .But the Respondent management did not convert the services of the Petitioner. He continued to work in that casual labour's capacity upto 31.1.2004 . At 2439

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the time of his disengagement he was drawing Rs . 1345/- per month as wages. The management has disengaged the services of the Petitioner without any notice or retrenchment compensation as such, unfair labour practice has been played by the management . Hence , this petition challenging the action of termination.

4. The management has filed counter statement alleging therein that erstwhile Telegraph Traffic Wing of Department of Telecommunications engaged causal workers on hourly basis in the year 1994 for house -keeping works, delivery of telegrams . However , after amalgamation ofTelegraph Traffic wing with Telecom Engineering wing, the position ofpart time causal labour was reviewed and was found that there was excess of the staff. Subsequently, part time casual labours engaged by the erstwhile Telegraph Traffic Wing were discontinued by Heads of Secondary Switching Areas in view of the ban imposed on engagement of casual labour vide DG P & T Lr . No.270 / 05/84 - STN dated 30.3.1985 and subsequent orders . However, the In-charge of DTO- Vizianagaram has engaged casual labours on emergency needs for house -keeping and delivery of Telegrams on purely hourly basis for which payments were made from the imprest/ temporary advances fund. Accounting Wing in the office of General Manager , Telecom district raised objection with this procedure because there was ban on the engagement of the casual labour. Accordingly, the In - charge of Telecom office was ordered to stop such engagement of labourers . Sri M.Babaji was not engaged as a casual labour even on need basis for performing house keeping works . It has further been alleged that Petitioner was never engaged work as casual labour either for duty of watchman or water boy in DTO, as such , continuous working of the petitioner more than 9 years does not arise . It is alleged that even for part time/ casual labour appointment orders were being issued by clearly indicating the name of the part time worker , place where he was employed and letter of duty to be performed by him , number of hours of duty to be performed on hourly basis . But , no such appointment order was issued nor any records have been maintained in respect of the Petitioner. It has further been alleged that old records are not available in DTO , Vizianagaram as they were weeded out as per Retention Schedule on expiry of the period of preservation .

5. It is further alleged that instructions were issued by General Manager, Telecom . Vizianagaram to stop engagement of part time and casual labours it was against the rules of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , as such , there was no question of regularization of services of Sri M. Babaji . SirM. Babaji was neither appointed as part time worker by competent authority by specific order nor any muster rolls were maintained for such labour. He was not considered as part time or casual as such there was no question of regularization of his services . Petitioner was engaged intermittently after long intervals purely on hourly basis whenever regular waterman and watchman went on leave .

601 GI /2012-29

There is no shortage of Gr . D. staff. However, the In- charge JTO, DTO , Vizianagaram might not have been aware ofthe ban of engagement of the part time workers and carelessly forwarded the representation of the Petitioner to Sub- Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram to regularize the services ofthe Petitioner . The JTO is not competent to issue service certificate as such , the certificates issued by JTO is not a valid one . As per records the Petitioner was engaged on few occasions only as casual labour during January, 2000 to July, 200 ! that too only during the leave period of the regular officials . Petitioner has mentioned in his claim statement some where that as if Petitioner is a woman candidate but , no woman candidate by name M. Babaji existed in JTO , vizianagaram's office .

6. As regards letter No.269-13 / 99 - STN - II dated 25.8.2000 , New Delhi this letter is not applicable in the case of the Petitioner , it is applicable only in those cases where the casual workers were engaged by a specific order. The Petitioner was not covered by any of circulars . There was complete ban on engagement of the causa ! or part time workers as such , the Petitioner's clain is devoid of any merit . Petitioner was not engaged by any written order of the Respondent's organization . His occasional casual services purely on hourly basis can not be converted into full time on regularization in accordance with the instructions of contained in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Corporate Office , New Delhi vide lette . No.269-7 / 2002/per- IV dated 27.2.2003 . There is no sufficient work in JTO , Vizianagaram . Petitioner's case is Squarely covered bythe judgement of Hon'ble Suprerne Court in tize case of Uma Devi Vs. State of karnataka referred in 2000 SCC( 4) Page 1 and petition deserves to be dismissed .

7. Parties were directed to lead their evidence . Petitioner workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief in support of his claim statement . He has filed five documents marked as Ex . WI to W5 and another 4 documents marked as EX.W6 to W9 along with causal remittance receipts and has verified those documents on oath before this Tribunal . He appeared for cross examination but he was not cross examined as the Respondent did not attend the hearing and cross examined the witness.

8. Petitioner workman has filed a petition under order 16 Rule 6 read with Sec . 151 of C.P.C. and Sec . 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as back as on 19.2.2007 for summoning of documents from the Respondents mentioned in the accompanying affidavit and this Tribunal allowed this petition vide order dated 21.10.2008. But , that documents were not filed by the Respondents nor Respondent appeared before this Tribunal .

9. Respondent has not filed any evidence , though ample opportunity was given to the Respondent , as such , the matter was posted for the argument .

2443

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

10. On the date of arguinent Respondent did not appear tor made ary written submission . However, the Petirioner appeared through his counsel and argued his case and also filed written arguments as well as case laws is shoport of bis argument .

11. I have considered the oral and written submission ofthe Learned Counsel for the workman who has argued that Petitioner workman's contention is that he was engaged as club boy in the year 1994 in the Respondent's organization . He was performing the duty of the night watchmen and water boy and messenger as well . Though he worked on nourly basis , he continued in that capacity for more than 9 years . He used to get wages as per hourly basis.

Heworked upto 31-1-2004, but, abruptly his services were disengaged w.e.f. 1.2.2004 . During continuation of his services he made serveral representations vide Ex. W1 , W2 dated 26.9.2000 and 23.1.2004 but , his services were not regularized. He has filed service certificate dated 30.7.2001 , timing sheet dated 5.9.94 and wage sheet for the period January, 2003 to December, 2003. This prove that Petitioner has worked for continuous nine years and wages sheet from January, 2003 to December, 2003 prove that Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the year of his termination from the service and as such, the action of managerment in terminating the services of the Petitioner without following the due process oflaw mentioned in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , without payment of retrenchinent compensation is unfais labour practice and the action of the management is illegal, arbitary, violative of principles of natural justice.

12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further argued that in the present case , case law referred by the management in the counter statement i.e. 2000 SCC (4) page 1 Umadevi Vs. , State of Karnataka is not applicable because in this case the Respondent bas contended in the written statement that " Petitioner was engaged on fewer occasions only as a casual labour during the period January, 2000 to July, 2001 " , this averment of the Respondent in its own counter statement is a proof of engagement ofthe Petitioner and that proves the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days even in the years January, 2000 to July, 2001. The management has further contended that there was specific procedure for the engagement ofthe casual worker or daily wager by a written appointment order which specities therein the nature of the duty of working hours and payment per hour , but no such order was issued in the case of the Petitioner worker . However , the management has contended that the record for the period in which the Petitioner has worked has been destroyed or weeded out . Not only that Petitioner workman has applied before this Tribunal to direct the management to produce the documents wherein the Petitioner's record was maintained in year of his

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

engagement was made but, even after the specific order of this Tribunal , management has not produced the document nor gave any specific explanation before this Tribunal for non -production of the document , thus , adverse inference should be drawn against Respondent . This amply proves that the Petitioner workman was engaged by the management by legal means . But, just to deprive the Petitioner of his legal dues and his absorption and regularization of his services , the management has concealed the documents in its custody. Thus , there is legal presumption that Petitioner was lawfully engaged by the managernment in the year 1994 or 2000 he worked upto 31.1.2004 continuously without any break . As such , in view of circular of the Department of Telecommunications even if the Petitioner was working for less that 4 hours , he was entitled for conversion as full time casual worker but , instead of converting the services of the Petitioner from a part time casual worker to a full time casual worker. His services were disengaged because he moved an application on 27.1.2004 for regularization of his services and Umadevi's case is not applicable in the present case . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's case is squarely covered by case law reported in Dena Bank Employees Union , Hyderabad Vs. Industrial Tribunai- 1 , Hyderabad in which termination of the services of badli peon without observation of Sec . 25F which was found to work from 20.9.1992 to 10.3.95 was quashed by Hon'ble High Court and he was reinstated in the service on the ground that the Petitioner of that case worked for more than 240 days continously and as such his services could not be terminated without observance of the Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has further relied on the case law reported in Andh WR 2 ( 1995 ) page 38 between Union of the India Vs. Mohd. Saheb . RL W( Raj ) 2 (1989) page 290 between Yashwant Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan . I have considered the above argument and the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and evidence of the Petitioner and pleadings of the parties .

13. This Tribunal has to consider the following points:-

(1) Whether the action of the management is disengaging the Petitioner's services from 1.2.2004 is illegal , arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice or not?

(II) To what relief if any the Petitioner is entitled?

14 Point No. ( I ) : The Petitioner's case is that he was engaged in 1994 though the order of engagement is challenged by the management , in para 4( II ) of the counter statement, the management has admitted that Petitioner was engaged in January, 2000 to July, 2001. The date of disengagement has not been challenged by the management. The management's contention is that there was complete ban on engagement of the casual labourers . Butthe authority at Vizayanagaram JTO office were not conversant with the ban order and they employed or

14 2441 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

in disengaging the services of the Petitioner Sri M. Babaji as part time labour is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified against the principles of natural justice and it is being quashed. The Petitioner is entitledto be reinstated in the service. However, he is not entitled for back wages . He willbe entitled for the wages from the date he is re- engaged . Heisentitled for costs of Rs . 1,000/- for the expenses of thisdispute from the Respondent . Hence , this award, the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner 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 22nd Day ofDecember, 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer .

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

Nil

WWI: Sri M Babaji

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex . WI : Copy of representation of WWI to Respondent dt. 26.9.2000

Ex. W2: Copy of representation of WWI to Respondent dt. 23.1.2004

Ex. W3: Copy of service certificatedt . 30.7.2001

Copy of out turn slipdt . 5.9.94 Ex. W4:

Ex. W5: Copy of wage sheet for the period from January to December , 2003

Ex. W6: Copy of Ir No. 269-13/99 - STN II dt. 25.8.2000

Ex. W7: Copy of Ir . No. TA/ STB /20-2/ corr / PTS/2000 dt. 26.4.2001/1.5.2001

Ex.W8: Copy of list of short duty staff dt . 30.7.2003

Ex. W9: Copy of bunch of Petitioner's acknowledgement of receiving cash for remitting the same in head office containing 30 Nos .

engaged the Petitioner . This prove that even after imposition of the ban , the Petitioner was engaged by the management's subordinate staff of the Vizayanagaram office. Thus , the Respondent management can not take shelter of a ban order on engagement of casual or daily wages employees . Petitioner workman has filed copy of the representation for regularization of his services not only once , but he has applied for regularization of his services on different occasions : ( i ) on 26.9.2000, again another representation Ex. W2 , this prove that Petitioner was working and approached the Telecom authority to regularize his services . Had he been not in service , his application could not have been forwarded by the Junior Telecom Officer to Sub - Divisional Officer for the regularization of the services . The Petitioner has filed service certificate issued by the JTO , dated 30.7.2001 and he has further filed wage sheet for the period from January to December, 2003. Again the Petitioner has filed list of short duty staff dated 30.7.2003 wherein Petitioner has been deputed as Teleman water man and gardener , and telecommunication messenger. Not only that the Petitioner has filed 30 receipts for the year 2002 which prove that the Petitioner has received money from the customers which was due to the Telecom Department as messenger of customer service centre for the year 2002. This coupled with the statement of the Petitioner as his affidavit is uncontraverted affidavit and his unchallenged statement on oath before this Tribunal , proves that Petitioner was lawfully engaged as water boy cum gardener cum Telecom Messenger and the contention of the magagement that Petitioner was not engaged by any written order is devoid ofmerit and without any basis . The documents produced by the Petitioner proves that Petitioner was engaged by written order. He has worked for more than 240 days before disengagement from the service but his services were abruptly terminated without following the principles laid down under Sec . 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as such , in view of the case law reported in 2004(6) ALT page 32 , in the matter of Dena Bank Employees Union , Hyderabad Vs. Industrial Tribunal - 1 , A.P. , Hyderabad , the action of management is illegal , arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice . It amounts to unfair labour practice and unjustified. Hence , Point No. (1) isdecided accordingly .

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली 16 फरवरी, 2012

15. Point No. ( II ) : The Petitioner has proved that his engagement was lawfully made , he was terminated without following the due process of law, without payment of retrenchment compensation or without any notice or compensation in lieu of the notice as such , the action of the management is illegal , arbitrary, unjust and liable to be quashed. Hence , it is being quashed, Point No. ( II ) is decided accordingly.

16. From the above discussion and conclusion this Tribunal is of the view that the action of the management

का० आ० 994.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी०सी० सी०एल एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि किरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 37/2000 ) को प्रकाशित THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[ PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

राही है, जो भेन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[से• एल -20012/ 265/2000--आईआर( सी -1 ) ] डी० एस०एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

2. Mr. N.G. Arun , the Representative of the workman alongwith workman Dilip Kumar Sharma is present but Mr. S.N. Ghosh , the Ld . Advocate for the management did not appear nor any witness for the evidence of the workman has been produced .

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.G. 994. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the wustmal Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Sovemment hereby publishes the award (Rej . No. 159/ 207 of the Central Government industrial Tribunal- Labour Court- 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation ne management of M/ s . BCCL, and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 16/2/2012 .

[No. 1-20012 /265 /2000 - IR ( C - I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Seri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

be the matter of an industrial Dispute under Section idiofthe i.D. Act , 1947.

Rafcrence No. 159/2000

Moving the petitiondt. 11.12.2009 , Mr. N.G. Arun , the Ld . Counsel cum Union Representtive has submitted that the Management of M/s BCCL has assured to regularise the workman in proper order and place so the workman pressed for passing an order for withdrawal of the case . Peruse the case record , i find the present case relating to denial of the management to the regularisation of the workman is Clerical Gr. II has been pending for evidence of the workman since 7.12.2004 but meanwhile the workman also filed a petitiondt. 10.01.2012 for withdrawal of the case . Since Reference is reterred by the Government of India . Labour Ministry for adjudication , so its withdrawal is not legally permissible on the ground of assurance of the management towards the workman concersing his claim under adjudication. Though there is not any written settlement between both the parties , yet the workman as sponsored by the Union declined to proceed with the case for the aforesaid alleged assurane ofthe management cocnering his regularisation . As such the conduct of the Union Representative as well as workman clearly indicates their intention not to proceed with the case . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly, an order of no dispute is passed for the interest of the worknian.

re : Employers in relation to the Management of Kusunda Area of M/sBCCL and their workman .

ACES:

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

Perpult the workman : Mr. N.G. Arun . Rep ofthe workman;

bahalfthe amployers : Mir . S.N. Ghosh. Ld.

Advocate:

Industry: Coal.

का० आ० 995. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गो० एयरलाईन्स प्रे० लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली नं०-1 ( संदर्भ संख्या 155/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Dani, Dhanbad, the 31st Jar .. 2012 .

ORDER

[सं० एल -11012/49/2009- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डो०एस०एस० श्रीनिवास राव. डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the i tith February, 2012 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 1) ( d) ofthe LD . Act . , 1947 has referred the following lispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.1-20012/265/2009 ( C- I ) dated 25.10.2000.

SCHEDULE

S.O. 995.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 155 / 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court- 1 , New Delhi , as shown in the Annexure inthe industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 16/2/2012.

"Whether the action of the Management of Godhur colliery of M/ s BCCL in denying to regularise Sri Dilip Kumar Sharına in Clerical Grade- 11 is fair and justified if not , to what relief is the cocnerned workman entitled and from what date ? "

[No. L- 11012/49/2009 - IR(C - I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 2443 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI

post was sent on 6.9.2010 commanding him to file his claim statement on 30.8.2010 . Another notice by registered postwas sent on 11.11.2010 , impressing upon him to file his claim statement on 7.12.2010 . Despite service of notices , referred above , no claim statement was filed.

I.D. No. 155.2011

Shri Kodas Kumar S /o Sh. Ghurav Singh ,

Airport Employees Union , 3 .

4. Vide order No. Z - 22019 / 6 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) dated 30thMarch, 2011 , the matter was transferred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government, while using its powers under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 33 - B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act). V.P. House, Rafi Marg , New Delhi - 110001

WORKMAN

Versus

1. The General Manager (HR) ,

Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. ,

5.Notice by registered post was sent to the claimant calling upon him to file his claim statement on 7.7.2011 . Despite service ofthe notice , no claim statement was filed by Shri Rodas Kumar.

J.N. Herdia Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai -400001 .

2. The Base Incharge .

Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. , Delhi Regional Office , Terminal - I , IGI Airport , New Delhi - 110001

6. When, so directed , the management filed its written statement/response to the reference order on 2.8.2011 , supported by the documents . It emerged from the record that the claimant was first appointed for a period of six months by the management on 24.10.2007 . His contract of service was extended upto 24.10.2008. Relevant clauses of his appointment letter are extracted thus;

Management

AWARD

" I Your contract will commence on October 24, 2007. The contract period will be of 6 months duration . After completion of six months period the contract will cometo an end automatiacally. Depending upon availability of vacancies & subject to your satisfactory performance , we may offer permanent employment thereafter .

4. During the contract period , your appointment as aLoader/ Driver is liable for termination at any time during thisperiod without any notice and/or assigning any reason whatsoever . "

A contractual employee joined services of Go Airlines (India) Pvt . Ltd. (herein after referred to as the management ) on 24.10.2007 as a driver. He was engaged for a period of six months , His contract was extended for another period of six months . His services were dispensed with on 16.10.2008 . He raised a demand on the management for reinstatement of his services . When the management did not respond to his demand , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Centrai Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , New Delhi , vide order No. [ No. 11012/49/2009 - IR (C - I ) ] , New Delhi , dated 22.9.2009 , with following terms of reference:

7. As emerges out of record , contract of service of Shri Rodas Kumar was extened upto 24.10.2008 . Extension ofcontract of service was for another period of six months . His services were dispensed with on 16.10.2008 in terms of stipulation contained in his letter of appointment . Question for consideration comes as to whether the act of the management amounts ofretrenchment. For an answer , definition of the term is to be construed. Clause (oo ) of section 2 of the Act defines retrenchment . For sake of convenience , the said definition is as extracted thus :

"( i ) Whether the action of the management of M/sGo Airlines ( India ) Pvt . Ltd. as claimed by the Union in terminating the services of Shri Rodas Kumar S/ o Sh . Ghurav Singh , driver w.e.f. 16.10.2008 is justified and legal? ( ii ) To what relief is the concerned workman entitied? "

"( oo) " retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the services of a workman for any reason whatsoever , otherwise than as a punishment inflicited by way of disciplinary action , but does not include--

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or 2. It its order of reference , the appropriate Government directed the claimant , namely, Shri Rodas Kumar to file his claim statement before the Tribunal within a period of fifteen days of the receipt ofthe order . Despite the command , so given, he opted not to file has claim statement before the Tribunal .

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the 3. Notice was sent to the claimant on 16.11.2009 calling upon him to file his claim statement on 30.12.2009. When claim statement was not filed, a notice by registered 2444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ))

workman concerned contains a stipulation in thatbehalf; or

himself to the question whether the period of employment was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment . See Shailendra Nath Shukla ( 1987 Lab . I.C. 1607 ), Dilip Hanumantrao Shrike ( 1990 Lab . I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh (1990 (1 ) LLJ . 443).

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a result of the non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein ; or

10. On review of law laid by the Apex Court and various High Courts , a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court , in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari Sangh ( 1996 Lab . I.C. 1161 ) has laid following principles of interpretation and application of sub - clause ( bb ) of clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act:

"( i) that the provisions of section 2( 00) (bb ) are to be construed benevolently in favour of the workman,

(ii) that if the workman is allowed to continue in service by making periodic appointments from time to time, then it can be said that the case would not fall under section 2 ( oo ) (bb ) ,

(iii) that the provisions of section 2( oo )( bb ) are not to be interpreted in the manner which may stifle the main provision.

(iv) that if the work continues in service , the non- renewal of the contract can be deemed as mala fide and it may amount to be a fraud on statute.

8.Definition ofretrenchment is very wide and in two parts . The first part is exhaustive , which lays down that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a workman by the employer " for any reasons whatsoever " otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action . Thus main part of the definition itself excludes the termination of service , as a measure of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from the ambit of retrenchment . The second part further excludes ( i ) voluntary retirement of the workman , or ( ii ) retirement of workman on reaching the age of superannuation , or ( iii ) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non - renewal of contract of employment , or ( iv) termination of contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v) termination of service on the ground of continued ill- health of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents in Avon Services (Production Agencies ) (Pvt . ) Ltd. 1979 ( I ) LLJI ) and Mahabir ( 1979 ( II ) LLJ 363 ) .

(v) that there would be wrong presumption of non- applicability of section 2 ( 00 ) ( bb ) where the work is of continuous nature and there is nothing on record that the work for which a workman has been appointed had come to an end . "

11. Whether provisions of retrenchment , enacted in the Act , provide for any security of tenure ? Answer lies in negative . Provisions of retrenchiment provide for certain benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service , falling within the ambit of definition of retrenchment . On compliance ofthe requirements of section 25F or 25N and 25G of the Act , it is open to the employer to retrench a workman.

9. Sub-clause (bb) purports to exclude from the ambit of the definition of retrenchment ( i ) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned , on its expiry, or ( ii ) termination ofthe contract ofemployment in terms a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. The first part relates to termination of service of a workman as a result of non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry. Thus " non - renewal of contract of employment " pre- supposes an existing contract of employment, which is not renewed . When services of an employee is terminated on account of non- renewal of contract of employment, between the employer and the workman , it does not amount ofretrenchment . The second part refers to " such contract " being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein. The cases contemplated, under this part too, would not amount to retrenchment . However this sub- clause, being in the nature of an exception to clause ( oo) of section 2 of the Act , is ruled to be construed strictly when contractual agreement is used as modus operandi to frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or permanent against a job . The adjudicator has to address

Termination of service of an employee during the period of probation was held to be covered by the exception contained in sub - clause ( bb ) of section 2 ( 00 ) of the Act , in C.M. Venugopal ( 1994 ( 1 ) LLJ 597) . As per fact of the case , Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ( Staff) Regulation, 1962 empowered the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee within the period probation . The employee was put on probation for a period of one year, which was extended by another year. Since he could not achieve the targetto earn confirmation , his service was terminated in terms of Regulation 14 as well as order of appointment . The Apex Court ruled that the case was covered by the exception 2445

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

contained in sub - clause ( bb) , hence it was not retrenchment .

13. In Morinda Co - operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1996 Lab. I.C. 221 ) a sugar factory used to employ certain number of workmen during crushing season and at the end to the crushing season their employment used to cease . The Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the workmen worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation oftheir employment at the end of crushing season would not amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub- clause (bb) of section 2 (00) of the Act . It was observed as follows:

entitled to retrenchment as per sub - clause (bb ) of Section 2(oo) of the Act . Since the present work is seasonal business , the principles of the Act have no application . However, this Court has directed that the respondent management should maintain a register and engaged the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order ofseniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who arealready working , the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen. It would be incumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above . "

"4. Itwould thus be clear that the respondents were not working throughout the season . They worked durng crushing seasons only. The respondents were taken into work for the season and consequent to closure of the season , they ceased to work.

15. In Harmohinder Singh (2001 (5 ) S.C.C. 540) an employee was appointed as a salesman by Kharga canteen on 1.6.1974 and subsequently as a cashier on 9.8.1975 . The letter of appointment and Standing Orders , inter alia, provided that his service could be terminated by one month'snotice by either party. He was served with a notice to the effect that his service would be relinquished with effect from 30.6.1989 . Relying precedent in Uptron India Ltd. (1998 (6 ) S.C.C. 538 ) the Apex Court ruled that contract ofservice for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of retrenchment . Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held be to erroneous . It was also ruled that principles of natural justice are not applicable where termination takes place on expiry of contract of service .

5. The question is whether such a cessation would amount to retrenchment . Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in sub- clause (bb) of Section 2(oo ) of the Act . Under these circumstances , we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is illegal . However , the appellant is directed to maintain a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons enumerated herein before and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in which the respondents normally live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work . "

14. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex Court inAnilBapuro Kanase ( 1997 (10) S.C.C. 599 ) wherein itwas noted as follows:

16. In Batala Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. (2005 ( 8) S.C.C. 481) an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily wages for specific work and for a specific period . He was engaged on 1.4.1986 and worked upto 12.2.1994 . The Labour court concluded that termination of his services was violative of provisions of section 25 - F of the Act, hence ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages . Relying precedents in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills (supra ) andAnil Bapuro Kanase (supra ) the Apex Court rules that since his engagement was for a specific period and specific work , reliefgranted to him by the Labour Court cannot be maintained.

17. The Apex Court dealt with such a situation again in Darbara Singh (2006 LLR 68 ) wherein an employee was appointed by the Punjab State Electricity Board as peon ondailywage basis from 8.1.1988 to 29.2.1988. His services were extend from time to time and finally dispensed with in June 1989. the Supreme Court rules that engagement of Darbara Singh was for a specific period and conditional . Histermination did not amount to retrenchment . His case was found to be covered under exception contained in sub-clause ( bb ) of Section 2(oo ) of the Act. In Kishore Chand Samal (2006 LLR 65 ) , same view was maintained by theApex Court . It was rules therein that the precedent in S.M. Nilajkar (2003 ( II ) LLJ 359 ) has no application to the controversy since it was ruled therein that mere mention abut the engagement being temporary without indication " 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends thatthe judgment of the High Court of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated 28.3.1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable . Since the appellant has worked for more than 180 days , he is to be treated as retrenched employee and ifthe procedure contemplated under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied, his retrenchment is illegal . We find no force in this contention. In Morinda Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan in para 3 , this Court has dealt with engagement ofthe seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing, in para 4, it is stated that it was not a case of retrenchment of the workman , but of closure of the factory after the crushing season was over . Accordingly, in para 5 , it was held that it is not 'retrenchment ' within the meaning of Section 2 (00 ) of the Act . As a consequence the appellant is not 2446

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

ofany period attracts section 25F of the Act if it is proved thatthe concerned workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days . Case of Darbara Singh and Kishan Chand Satmal were found to be relating to fixed term of appointment.

18. In BSES Yamuna Power ltd . (2006 LLR 1144) Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29.9.89 , initially for a period of three months as a daily wager . His term of appointment was extextended up to 20.9.90 . No further extension was given and his services were dispensed with on 20.9.90 . On consideration of facts and law High Court of Delhi has observed thus:

" ... In the present case , the respondent was appointed as a copyist for totaling the accounts of ledger for the 1986-87 and then for 1987-88 . His initial appointment was for the period of three months . It was extended from time to time and no extension was givenafter 20th September, 1990. He was appointed without any regular process of appointment , purely casual and on temporary basis for specific work of totaling of ledger. When this work was over , no extension was given. I consider that appointment as that of the respondent is squarely covered under section 2( oo)(bb) ofthe Act . Giving of non extension did not amount to termination of service , it was not a case of retrenchment " .

19. Precedents , handed down by Allahabad High Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla ( supra ) , Bombay High Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke ( supra ) , Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh ( supra ) and Madhya Pradesh High court in Madhya Pradesh bank Karamachari Sangh (supra) castrate sub- clause ( bb) of section 2 (00) of the Act. Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates statutory provisions of sub - clause (bb ) of section 2( oo) of the Act without even discussing the legality or constitutional validity of the clause . On the other hand theApex Court in C.M. Venugopal ( supra) , Morinda Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra) , Anil Bapurao Kapase ( supra) , Harmohinder Singh ( supra) , Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra) , Darbara Singh ( supra) and Kishore Chand Samal ( supra) and High Court of Delhi in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. ( supra) spoke that case of an employee, appointed for a specific period which was extended from timetotime, would be coveredby the exception contained in sub - cluase ( bb) of section 2( oo) of the Act, in case his services are dispensed with as a result of non - renewal of the contract of employment between him and his employer , onits expiry or termination of the contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. The law, so laid, holds the water and would be applied to the case of Sh . Rodas Kumar.

20. As detailed by the management in its response to the reference order , services of Shri Rodas Kumar were dispensed with in terms of stipulation contained in contract of his employment. Action of the mangement does not amount to retrenchment , being covered by exaption enacted by sub - clause (bb ) of clause ( oo) of section 2 of the Act. When act of the management , in terminating his services , does not amount to retrenchment Shri Rodas Kumar cannot question it . Legality and justifiabiloity of the act of the management cannot be questioned within the parameters of section 25 - F, 25 - G, and 25 - H of theAct, since termination of services of Shri Rodas Kumar does not amount to retrenchment . Shri Rodas Kuinar is not entitled to any relief. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to appropriate Government for publication .

DR . R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated 12.01.2012

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 012

का० आ० 996.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार गो एयरलाइन्स प्रा० लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली नं 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 154/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/02/2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं० एल -11012/54/2009- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी,

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O. 996.-In pursuancelance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 154/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court- I, Delhi , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of M/s . Go Airlines Pvt. Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16/2/2012 .

[No. L- 11012/54/2009 - IR(C - 1 ) } D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI I.D. No. 154/2011

Shri Hari Om S/ o Sh . Kendra Pal , AirportEmployees Union , 3 , V.P. House , Rafi Marg , New Delhi- 110001.

Workman

Versus 2447

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1. The General Manager (HR) ,

Despite service ofthe notice , no claim statement was filed by Shri Hari Om.

Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd.

J.N. Herdia Marg , Ballard Estate , Mumbai -400001 .

2. The Base Incharge ,

Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. ,

Terminal- I , IGI Airport ,

6. When, so directed , the management filed its written statement/response to the reference order on 2.8.2011 , supported by the documents . it emerged from the record that the claimant was first appointed for a period of six months by the management on 24.10.07 . His contract ofservice was extended upto 24.10.2008 Relevant clauses ofhisappointment letter are extracted thus:

Delhi Regional Office, New Delhi - 110001 .

Management

AWARD

" 1. Your contract will commence on October 24 , 2007 . The contract period will be of 6 months duration . After completion of six months period the contract will come to an end automtically. Depending upon availability of vacancies & subject to your satisfactory performance , we may offer permanent employment thereafter " .

4.During the contract period , your appointment as a Loader/Driver is liable for termination at any time during thisperiod without any notice and/or assigning any reason whatsoever" .

A contractual employee joined services ofGo Airlines ( India) Pvt . Ltd. (herein after referred to as the management ) on 24.10.2007 as a loader. He was engaged for a period of six months . His contract was extended for another period of six months. His services were dispensed with on 16.10.2008 . He raised a demand on the management for reinstatement of his services . When the management did not respond to his demand , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , New Delhi , vide order No. L- 11012/54/2009 - IR(CM - I ) , New Delhi , dated 22.9.2009, with following term of reference:

7.As emerges out of record , contract of service of Shri Hari Om was extended upto 24.10.2008 . Extension of contract of service was for another period of six months. Hisservices were dispensed with on 16.10.2008 in terms of stipulation contained in his letter of appointment. Question for consideration comes as to whether the act of the management amounts to retrenchment . For an answer, definition of the term is to be construed. Clause ( oo) of section 2 of the Act defines retrenchment . For sake of convenience , the said definition is as extracted thus:

"(i ) Whether the action of the management of M/s GoAirlines (India) Pvt . Ltd. as claimed by the union interminating the services of Shri Hariom S / o Kendra Pai Loader w.e.f. 16.10.2008 is justified and lega !? ( ii) To what relief is the concerned workman entitlted? "

"(oo) "retrenchment " means the termination by the employer ofthe services of a worman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action , but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or 2. In its order of reference , the appropriate Government directed the claimant, namely, Shri Hari Om to file his claim statement before the Tribunal within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the order . Despite the command, so given , he opted not to file his claim statement before the Tribunal .

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in thatbehalf; or

3. Notice was sent to the claimant on 16.11.2009 calling upon him to file his claim statement on 30.12.2009 . Whenclaim statement was not filed , a notice by registered post was sent on 6.9.2010 commanding him to file his claim statement on 30.8.2010 . Another notice by registered post was sent on 11.11.2010 , inpressing upon him to file his claim statement on 7.12.10 . Despite service of notices , referred above , no claim statement was filed .

4. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007 - IR (C - II ) dated 30th March , 2011 , the matter was transferred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government , while using its powers under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 33 - B of the Industrial disputesAct , 1947 (in short the Act ).

5.Notice by registered post was sent to the claimant calling upon him to file his claim statement on 7.7.2011 .

8.Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in two parts . The first part is exhaustive , which lays down that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a

601 GI/2012-30 2448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(ii) that ifthe workman is allowed to continue in service by making periodic appointments from time to time , then it can be said that the case would not fall under section 2 ( oo) (bb) ,

(iii) that the provisions of section 2( oo)( bb) are not tobe interpreted in the manner which may stifle the main provision ,

(iv) that if the workman continues in service , the non- renewal of the contract can be deemed as mala fide and it may amount to be a fraud on statute,

workman by the employer " for any reason whatsoever " otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself excludes the termination of service , as a measure of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from the ambit of retrenchment . The second part further excludes (i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or ( ii ) retirement ofworkman on reaching the age of superannuation , or ( iii ) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of entract of employment, or ( iv) termination of contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v) termination of service on the ground of continued ill health ofthe workman . Reference can be made to the precedents in Avon Servies ( Production Agencies ) ( Pvt . ) Ltd. (1979 (1) LLJ 1 ) and Mahabir ( 1979 ( II ) LLJ 363) .

(v) that there would be wrong presumption ofnon- applicability of section 2 ( oo )(bb ) where the work is of continuous nature and there is nothing on record that the work for which a workman has been appointed had come to an end" .

11 Whether provisions of retrenchment , enacted in the Act, provide for any security of tenure? Answer lies in negative . Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service, falling within the ambit of definition of retrenchment.On compliance of the requirements of section 25F or 25N and 25G of the Act, it is open to the employer to retrench a workman.

12. Termination of service of an employee during the period of probation ws held to be powered by the exception contained in sub - clause ( bb ) of section 2( oo) of the Act, in C.M. Venugopal ( 1994 ( 1 ) LLJ 597) . As per fact of the case , Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ( Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee within the period of probation . The employee was put on probation for a period of one year, which was extended by another year. Since he could not achieve the target to earn confirmation , his service was terminated in terms of Regulation 14 as well as order of appointment . The Apex Court ruled that the case was covered by the exception contained in sub- clause ( bb ) , hence it was not retrenchment.

9. Sub Clause(bb ) purports to exclude from the ambit of the definition of retrenchment ( i ) termination of the serivce of a workman as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned , on its expiry, or ( ii ) termination ofthe contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained inthe contract of employment in that behalf. The first part relates to termination of service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry . Thus " non - renewal of contract of employment " pre- supposes an existing contract of employment , which is not renewed. When services of an employee is terminated on account of non - renweal of contract of employment , betweenthe employer and the workman , it does not amount to retrenchment . The second part refers to " such contract " being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein . The cases contemplated, under this part too, would not amount to retrenchinent . However this sub- clause, being in the nature of an exception to clause ( oo ) of section 2 of the Act, is ruled to be construed strictly when contractual agreement is used as modus operandi to frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or permanent against a job . The adjudicator has to address himself to the question whether the period of employment was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device to escape the applicability ofthe definition of retrenchment . See Shailendra Nath Shukla ( 1987 Lab . I.C. 1607) , Dilip Hanumantrao Shrike ( 1990 Lab . I.C. 100 ) and Balbir Singh ( 1990 ( 1 ) LLJ . 443).

13.InMorinda Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ( 1996 Lab. I.C. 221 ) a sugar factor used to employ certain number ofworkmen during crushing season and at the end to the crushing season their employment used to cease . The Supremen Court held that despite the fact that the workmen worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation of their employment at the end of crushing season would not amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub- clause (bb) of section 2( oo) of the Act. It was observed as follows:

10. On review of law laidby the Apex Court and various High Courts , a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court , in Madhya Pradesh bank Karanıchari Sangh ( 1996 Lab . I.C. 1161 ) has laid following principles of interpretation and application of sub - clause ( bb ) of clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act:

"(i ) that the provisions of section 2 (00) ( 5b ) are to be construed benevolently in favour of the workinan,

"4. It would thus be clear that the respondents were not working throughout the season . They worked during crushing seasons only. The respondents were al into work for the season and consequent to 2449

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

closure of the season , they ceased to work.

month'snotice by either party.He was served with a notice to the effect that his service would be relinquished with effect from 30.6.1989 . Relying precedent in Uptron India Ltd. (1998) ( 6) S.C.C. 538) the Apex Court ruled that contract ofservice for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of retrenchment . Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held to be erroneous . It was also ruled that principles of natural justice are not applicable where termination takes place onexpiry of contract of service.

5. The question is whether such a cessation would amount to retrenchment . Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in sub- clause (bb) of section 2(oo) ofthe Act . Under these circumstances , we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is illegal. However , the appellant is directed to maintain a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons enumerated herein before and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in which the respondents normally live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work".

14. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex Court inAnil Bapuro Kanase ( 1997 ( 10 ) S.C.C. 599) wherein itwas noted as follows:

16. In Batala Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. (2005 (8) S.C.C. 481 ) an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily wages for specific work and for a specific period. He was engaged on 1.4.1986 and worked upto 12.2.94. The Labour Court concluded that termination of his services was violative of provisions of section 25 -F of the Act, hence ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages . Relying precedents in Morinda Coop . Sugar Mills (supra) andAnil Bapuro Kanase (supra ) the Apex Court ruled that since his engagement was for a specific period and specific work, reliefgranted to him by the Labour Court cannot be maintained.

18. In BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144) Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29.9.89, initially for a period of three months as a daily wager . His term of appointment was extended up to 20.9.90 . No further extension was given and his services were dispensed with on 20.9.90. On consideration of facts and law High Court ofDelhi has observed thus:

"3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment ofthe High Court of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated 28.3.1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable . Since the appellant has worked for more then 180 days, he is to be treated as retrenched employee and ifthe procedure contemplated under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is applied, his retrenchment is illegal . We find no force in this contention. In Morinda Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan in para 3 , this Court has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing, in para 4, it is stated that it was not a case of retrenchment of the workman , but of closure of the factory after the crushing season was over. Accordingly, in para 5 , it was held that it is not 'retrenchment ' within the meaning of Section 2(00) of the Act . As a consequence the appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as per sub - clause (bb ) of Section 2(oo ) of the Act . Since the present work is seasonal business , the principles of the Act have no application . However, this Court has directed that the respondent management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who are already working , the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen . It would be incumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above . "

" ....... In the present case , the respondent was appointed as a copyist for totaling the accounts of ledger for the year 1986-87 and then for 1987-88 . His initial appointment was for the period of three months . It was extended from time to time and no extension was given after 20th September , 1990. He 15. In Harmohinder Singh (2001 (5 ) S.C.C. 540 ) an employee was appointed as a salesman by kharga canteen on 1.6.74 and subsequently as a cashier on 9..8.75 . The letter of appointment and Standing Orders , inter alia , provided that his service could be terminated by one 2450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण , धनबाद नं० 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

was appointed without any regular process of appointment, purely casual and on temporary basis for specific work of totaling of ledger. When this work was over, no extension was given. I consider that appointment as that of the respondent is squarely covered under section 2(oo)( bb ) of the Act . Giving of non extension did not amount to termination of service , it was not a case of retrenchment . "

[सं० एल -20012/296/1990- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O. 997. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/1991) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . BCCL, and their workman , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 16/2/2012 .

[No. L-20012/296/ 1990- IR (C - 1 ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

Reference No. 19 of 1991 .

Parties

: Employers in relation to the management of Sudamdih Coai Washery ofM/ s . BCCL .

19. Precedents , handed down by Allahabad High Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla ( supra) , Bombay High Court Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke (supra), Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh (supra) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari Sangh (supra) castrate sub- clause (bb ) of section 2(oo ) of the Act . Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates statutory provisions of sub- clause (bb ) of section 2(oo) of the Act without even discussing the legality or constitutional validity of the clause . On the other hand theApex Court in C.M. Venugopal ( supra) , Morindra Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) , Anil Bapurao Kanase (supra), Harmohinder Singh (supra ) , Batala Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra) , Darbara Singh (supra ) and Kishore Chand Samal (supra) High Court of Delhi in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee , appointed for a specific period which was extended from time to time, would be covered by the exception contained in sub - clause (bb ) of section 2 ( oo ) of the Act , in case his services are dispensed with as a result of non - renewal of the contract of employment between him and his employer , on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. The law, so laid, holds the water and would be applied to the case of Sh. Hari Om.

AND Their Workmen .

PRESENT

Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

None.

Forthe Employers

For the Workmen

None .

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

Dated, the 6/2/2012 . AWARD

20. As detailed by the management in its response to the reference' order, services of Shri Hari Om were dispensed with in terms of stipulation contained in contract of his employment . Action of the management does not amount to retrenchment , being covered by exaption enacted by sub - clause (bb) of clause ( oo) of section 2 of the Act . When act of the management , in terminating his services , does not amount to retrenchment Shri Hari Om cannot question it . Legality and justifiability of the act of the management cannot be questioned within the parameters of section 25 -F, 25- G, and 25 - H of the Act , since termination of services of Shri Hari Om does not amount to retrenchment. Shri Hari Om is not entitled to any relief. Anaward is, accordingly, passed . It be sent to appropriate Government for publication.

DR . R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 12.01.2012

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

By Order No. L - 20012/ 296/90 - IR( Coal - 1 ) dated 19.3.1991 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 foradjudication to this Tribunal :

का० आ० 997.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी० सी० सी० एल० 2451

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

"Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M /s BCCL , P.O. Sudamdih , Dist . Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Prabhu Nath Bharati , General Mazdoor w.e.f. 21.8.89 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. The case, of the concerned Workman is that he was initially appointed in Patherdih Colliery from where he was transferred in due course to Sudamdih Coal Washery. He was a permanent workman and worked more than 16 years of service . But unfortunately he received a Charge-sheet dated 16.5.88 which reads as follows :

(a) That , he was never appointed in B.C.C.L. in any capacity and his name does not appear in the register of employees of Patherdih Colliery.

(b) That, he fraudulently managed to work in the name of absenting workman and that he was declared imposter at Patherdih colliery.

workers entered in the Form ' B ' Register of Patherdih Colliery. It transpired that with the connivance of some of the lower functionaries of the colliery are Prabhu Nath Bharati whose name figures in the reference order managed to get his photograph pasted in the register Identity Card against the name of Prabhu Nath Yadav and started working fradulently in the colliery. The above impersonation was discovered by the management in 1977 and his employment was discontinued . The matter was takenup the RCMS with the management and it was agreed during the course of discussion at the Head Office level of BCCL and the representatives of RCMS on 22.5.1978 that the person concerned would be allowed to resume duty as Prabhu Nath Brarati subject to verification about his genuineness and identity by the police . As per the said agreement , management was given the right to terminate the concerned person if it was proved that he was in impersonator and that he was not Prabhu Nath Yadav son ofSiani Yadav of Village Barwa, P.O. Bagura, P.S. Majhali , Dist. Chapra . In the agreement itself his name was incorporated as Prabhu Nath Bharati with the following further particulars:

Father's name

Ishwar Dayal Bharati .

Ranibarika Mathiya .

Village

P.O.

Mukundapur.

(c) That , he used to work at Patherdih Colliery claudoustinely on the name of one Prabhu Nath Yadav whose name appears in the register of employee ofPatherdih Colliery and that he managed in connivance with some officials to get his photographs pasted against the name of Prabhu Nath Yadav in Register of Identity Card.

Darwanda .

P.S.

Dist .

Siwan(Bihar).

These positions show that the concerned fraudulently entered into employment at Patherdih Colliery by persenting himself as Prabhu Nath Yadav.

In reply to the charge- sheet the concerned workman submitted one letter dated 22.5.88 whereby he requested the management to supply him authentic copies of some relevant documents . But the said documents were not supplied to him . The concerned workman was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself during enquiry. It has been submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer violating the principles of natural justice . In view of the position explained above , management's action is dubbing and alleging the concerned workman as impersonator and to have taken employment fradulently and the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman is illegal and unjustified and the concerned workman is legally entitled for reinstatement with full backwages .

It has been prayed before this Tribunal to pass an award in favour of the workman .

It is obvious that as per the entries relating to Prabhu Nath Yadav in Form ' B ' Register of Patherdih Colliery and further statutory records of the Company at the time of take over, Prabhu Nath Yadav is not the same person. It so happened that the workmen was also transferred from Fatherdih Colliery to Sudamdih Washery Project and in the last pay certificate his name was re - written as Prabhu Nath Bharati after striking off the name of Prabhu Nath Yadav. From the Identity Card Register also it transpires that the name of Prabhu Nath Yadav was altered as Prabhu Nath Bharati and LPC was issued on that basis . Police verification was also carried out in this case and it revealed that the person concerned was not Prabhu Nath Yadav as per details given above . Sudamdih Washery issued a Charge- sheet dated 16.5.88 to the person concerned who was then working as Category - I Mazdoor in Sudamdih Washery. The reply of the charge-sheet dated 23.5.88 was not found satisfactory. Thereafter Sri S.C. Soneja , the then Dy. P.M. Sudamdih Area was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After due notice to the concerned workman the Enquiry Officer held the enquiry. In the enquiry the concerned workman was given full opportunity to defend his case which he did . On the basis of the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer he found the workman guilty of charge framed against him . After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer , the Project Officer, Sudamdih Coal 3. The case of the management is that the workman ofthe Patherdih Colliery were taken in the service ofBCCL without suspecting that there would be impersonators . It so happened that one of the workmen in the said Patherdih Colliery prior to nationalisation was one Prabhu Nath Yadav son of Shri Sidni Yadav of village Parwa , P.O. Bagura , P.S. Majhali , Dist . Chapra . His name was among the names of 2452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012 Washery, by an order dated 19.8.89 dismissed the concerned workman w.e.f. 21.8.89.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman w.e.f. 21.8.89 is justified and he is not entitled to any relief.

S.O. 998.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 19/1991 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court - 2 , Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16/2/2012.

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

[No. L -20012/ 10/2008 - IR (C - I ) ] 5. Thedomestic enquiry was held fair and proper by order dated 6.1.1995 .

D S.S. Srinivasa Rao , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

6.The management filed documents which have been marked as Exts .M - 1 to 1-6.

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

7. No oral argument advanced on behalf of either parties.

PRESENT

SHRI KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer.

8. As per records , I have gone through the written statements filed by the panies.

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

Reference No. 10 of 2008

Parties

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

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf oftheworkman : None

: Mr. U.N. Lal , Ld .Adv.;

Onbehalf of the management

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal The concerned workman has inpersonated hunself as Prabhu Nath Yadav, S'o Shri Sidi Yadav of Village Barwa, P.O. Saugra , P.S. Manjhi , Chapra. The present concerned workman his actual name , Prabhu Nath Bharti S / O Ishwar Dayal Bharti ofVill. - Ranibari ke Mathiya, P.O. -Rukundipur , P.S. Darawanda , Dist . Siwan (Bihar. The enquiry was held against him . I have gone through the enquiry report and found that the concerned workman impersonated him and worked for about 14 years . Criminal proceeding started against this person . The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry fairly and properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice . The act of the concerned workman is very deplorable .

Dated, Dhanbad , the 25th Jan. 2012

AWARD

9. Considering the above facts , I hold that the action of the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/ s . BCCL , P.O. Sudarndih, Dist. Dhanbad is dismissing Shri Prabhu Nath Bharati , General Mazdoor w.e.f. 21.8.89 is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )( d) of the I.D.Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute this Tribunal for adjudication vide their OrderNo. L -20012 / 10/2008 - IR ( CM - I ) dt. 21.1.2008.

SCHEDULE

This is my Award.

Sd\- H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the Management of E.J. Area of M / s . BCCL to provide employment to Shri Raju Mallah , S/o Shri Om Prakash Mallah under Land loser Scheme is justified ? If so , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?. "

2.None represented the sponsoring union /petitioner Raju Mallah nor any written statement filed on behalf of petitioner/workman despite several Regd . notices . Mr. U.N. Lal Ld . Adv. for the management is present.

का० आ० 998.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी० सी० सी० एल० एवं के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि किरण धनबाद नं० 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[से एल-20012/ 10/2008- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

Onperusal of the case record, I find that this Reference case has been pending for filing W.S. on behalf ofthe petitioner/workman since 18.3.2011 for which Regd . notices to the President of the sponsoring union on its 2453

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

address as noted in the Reference order dt. 21.01.2008 were issued on 4.6.2008 , 18.1.2011 , 11.5.2011 , show cause notice dt . 1.7.2011 , 11.10.2011 and 13.11.2011 , but all along the sponsoring union as well as the workman/petitioner remained careless for the reason best known to him .

Considering the aforesaid facts , it stands clear that the sponsoring union/ workman is not interested to pursue the case for its final adjudication . Proceeding with this case for infinity is futile and wastage of time . Hence the case is closed and accordingly the order is passed as non existent ofthe Industrial Dispute as related to providing employment to Sri Raju Mallah S/ o Shri Om Prakash Mallah under Land Loser Scheme .

Sd/-

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2012

का आ० 999.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार गो० एयरलाइन्स प्रा० लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली नं० 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 142/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -11012/51/2009- आई आर ( सी -1) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O. 999. In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 142/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court - 1 , Delhi , as shown in the Annexure in the Industria ! Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16/2/2012 .

[No. L -20012/51 /2009- IR ( C- I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 142/2001 .

Shri Sarvjeet Singh S/o Lt Gurmeet Singh , Airport Employees Union , 3 , V.P. House , Rafi Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

Workman

Versus

1. The General Manager ( HR) ,

Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. J.N. Herdia Marg , Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 .

2. The Base Incharge , Go Airlines Pvt . Ltd. , Delhi Regional Officer. Terminal - I , IGI Airport, New Delhi - 110001 .

Management

AWARD

A contractual employee joined services of Go Airlines ( India ) Pvt . Ltd. ( herein after refferd to as the management ) on 24.10.2007 as a loader. He was engaged for a period of six months . His contract was extended for another period of six months . His services were dispensed with on 16.10.2008 . He raised a demand on the management for reinstatement of his services . When the management did not respond to his demand , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , New Delhi , vide Order No. LL- 11012/ 51 / 2009-1R ( CM - I ) , New Delhi 22.9.2009 , with followingterms ofreference:

"( i ) Whether the action of the management of M/sGo Airlines ( India) Pvt . Ltd. as claimed by the union in terminating the services of Shri Saravjeet Singh , loader w.e.f. 16.10.2008 is justified and legal ? (ii )Towhat relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

2. In its order of reference , the appropriate Government directed the claimant , namely, Shri Saravjeet Singh to file his claim statement before the Tribunal with a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the order. Despite the command , so given , he opted not to file his claim statement before the Tribunal .

3. Notice was sent to the claimant on 16.11.2009 calling upon him to file his claim statement 30.12.2009 . Whenclaim statement was not filed , a notice by registered postwas sent on 6.9.2010 commanding him to file his claim statement on 30.8.2010 . Another notice by registered post was sent on 11.11.2010 , impressing upon him to file his claim staternent on 7.12.10 . Despite service of notices , referred above , no claim statement was filed .

4. Vide order No. Z- 22019 /6 /2007 - IR ( C - 11 ) dated 30th March, 2011 , the matter was transferred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government, while using its powers under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 33 - B of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( in short the Act).

5.Notice by registered post was sent to the claimant calling upon him to file his claim statement 7.7.2011 . Despite 2454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

service of the notice , no claim statement was filed by Shri Saravjeet Singh.

6. When, so directed , the management filed its written statement/ response to the reference order on 2.8.2011 , supported by the documents . It emerged from the record that the claimant was first appointed for a period of six months by the management on 24.10.07 . His contract of service was extended upto 24.10.2008 . Relevant clauses of his appointment letter are extracted thus:

" 1. Your contract will commence on October 24, 2007 . The contract period will be of 6 months duration . After completion of six months period the contract will come to an end automatically. Depending upon availability of vacancies & subject to your satisfactory performance , we may offer permanent employment thereafter " .

retrenchment means the termination of the service of a workman by the employer " for any reason whatsoever " otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action . Thus main part of the definition itself excludes the termination of service , as a measure of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes ( i ) voluntary retirement of the workman , or ( ii ) retirement of workman on reaching the age of superannuation , or ( iii ) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of contract of employment , or ( iv) termination of contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf, or ( v) termination of service on the ground of continued ill health of the workman . Reference can be made to the precedents in Avon Services (Production Agencies ) (Pvt . ) LTD . [ 1979 ( I ) LLJ 1 ] and Mahabir [ 1979 ( II ) LLJ 363 ] .

4. During the contract period , your appointment as a Loader/Driver is liable for termination at any time during thisperiod without any notice and/or assigning any reason whatsoever" .

7. As emerges out of record , contract of service of Shri Saravjeet Singh was extended upto 24.10.2008. Extension ofcontract of service was for another period of six months . His services were dispensed with on 16.10.2008 in terms of stipulation contained in his letter of appointment . Question for consideration comes as to whether the act of the management amounts to retrenchment . For an answer, definition of the term is to be construed . Clause (oo ) of section 2 of the Act defines retrenchment . For sake of convenience , the said definition is as extracted thus:

" (oo) " retrenchment " means the termination by the employer ofthe services of a workman for any reason whatsoever , otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way ofdisciplinary action , but does not include--

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman ; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in thatbehalf; or

9. Sub Clause (bb) purports to exclude from the ambit of the definition of retrenchment ( i ) termination of the service of a workman as result of non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned , on its expiry, or ( ii ) termination of the contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. The first part relates to termination of service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry. Thus " non - renewal of contract of employment " pre- supposes an existing contract of employment , which is not renewed . When services of an employee is terminated on account of non - renewal of contract of employment, between the employer and the workman , it does not amount to retrenchment. The second part refers to " such contract " being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein . The cases contemplated, under this part too . would not amount to retrenchment . However this sub- clause , being , in the nature of an exception to clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act , is ruled to be construed strictly when contractual agreement is used as modus operandi to frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or permanent against ajob . The adjudicator has to address himself to the question whether the period of employment was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment . See Shailendra Nath Shukla ( 1987 Lab . I.C. 1607), Dilip Hanumantarao Shrike ( 1990 Lab . I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh ( 1990 ) ( 1 ) LLJ . 443 ] .

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a result of the non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein ; or

8. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in two parts . The first part is exhaustive , which lays down that

2455

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

" (i) that the provision of section 2 (00 )(bb ) are to be construed benevolently in favour of the workman,

(ii) that if the workman is allowed to continue in service by making periodic appointment from time to time, then it can be said that the case would not fall under section 2(oo ) (9bb ) ,

(iii) that the provisions of section 2 (oo ) (bb) are not to be interpreted in the manner which may stifle the main provision,

(iv) that if the workman continues in service, the non- renewal of the contract can be deemed as mala fide and it may amount to be a fraud on statute;

(v) that there would be wrong presumption of non- applicability of section 2 ( oo) (bb ) where the work is ofcontinuous nature and there is nothing on record that the work for which a workman has been appointed had come to an end" .

11. Whether provisions of retrenchment , enacted in the Act , provide for any security of tenure ? Answer lies in negative . Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain benefits to a workman in case of termination ofhis service , falling with the ambit of definition of retrenchment. On compliance ofthe requirements of section 25F or 25N and 25G of the Act, it is open to the employer to retrench a workman.

12. Termination of service of an employee during the period of probation was held to be covered by the exception contained in sub - clause (bb) of section 2 (00 ) of the Act , in C.M. Venugopal [ 1994 ( 1 ) LLJ 597 ] . As per fact of the case , Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee within the period of probation . The employee was put on probation for a period of one year, which was extended by another year . Since he could not achieve the target to earn confirmation , his service was terminated in terms of Regulation 14 as well as order of appointment . The Apex Court ruled that the case was covered by the exception contained in sub - clause (bb ), hence it was not retrenchment.

13.InMorinda Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ( 1996 Lab . I.C. 221 ) a sugar factory used to employ certain number of workmen during crushing season and at the end to the crushing season their employment used to cease . The Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the workmen worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation oftheir employment at the end of crushing season would not amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub- clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act . It was observed as follows:

601 GI /2012-31

"4. It would thus be clear that the respondent were not working throughout the season. They worked during crushing seasons only. The respondents were taken into work for the season and consequent to clousure of the season , they ceased to work.

5. The question is whether such a cessation would amount to retrenchment . Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in sub- clause (bb) of section 2 (oo ) of the Act . Under these circumstances , we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is illegal . However , the appellant is directed to maintain a register for allworkmen engaged during the seasons enumerated herein before and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in which the respondents normally live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work " .

14.Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex Court inAnil Bapuro Kanase [ 1997 ( 10) S.C.C. 599 ] wherein itwas noted as follows :

"3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgement of the High Court of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated 28.3.1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the appellant has worked for more than 180 days , he is to be treated as retrenched employee and ifthe procedure contemplated under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is applied, his retrenchment is illegal . We find no force in this contention. In Morinda Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan in para 3 , this Court has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing, in para 4, it is stated that it was not a case of retrenchment of the workman , but of closure of the factory after the crushing season was over . Accordingly, in para 5, it was held that it is not 'retrenchment ' within the meaning of Section 2 (00 ) of the Act . As a consequence the appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as per sub-clause (bb ) of Section 2( oo) of the Act . Since the present work is seasonal buisness , the principles of the Act have no application . However , this Court has directed that the respondent management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who are already working , the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen. It would be incumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above " .

2456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

15. In Harmohinder Singh [2001 (5 ) S.C.C. 540) an employee was appointed as a salesman by Kharga canteen 1.6.74 and subsequently as a cashier on 9.8.75. The letter ofappointment and Standing Orders, inter alia , provided that his service could be terminated by one month's notice by either party. He was served with a notice to the effect that his service would be relinquished with effect from 30.6.1989 . Relying precedent in Uptron India Ltd. [ 1998 (6) S.C.C. 538 ] the Apex Court ruled that contract of service for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of retrenchment. Decision in Balbir Singh (Supra) was held to be erroneous . It was also ruled that principles of natural justice are not applicable where termination take place on expiry of contract of service .

16. In Batala Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. [2005 ( 8 ) S.C.C. 481 ] an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily wages for specific work and for a specific period . He was engaged on 1.4.1986 and worked upto 12.2.94. The Labour Court concluded that termination of his services was violative of provisions of section 25 - F of the Act , hence ordered for his reinstatement with 50 % back wages . Relying precedent in Morinda Coop . Sugar Mills (supra) andAnil Bapuro Kanse (supra) the Apex Court ruled that since his engagement was for a specific period and specific work , relief granted to him by the Labour Court cannot be maintained.

18. in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144) Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29.9.89 , initially for a period of three months as a daily wager. His term of appointment was extended up to 20.09.90 . No further extension was given and his services were dispensed with on 20.9.90 . On consideration of facts and lawHigh Court of Delhi has observed thus:

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

" ........ In the present case , the respondent was appointed as a copyist for totaling the accounts of ledger for the year 1986-87 and then for 1987-88 . His initial appointment was for the period of three months . It was extended from time to time and no extension was given after 20th September, 1990. Не was appointed without any regular process of appointment, purely casual and on temporary basis for specific work of totaling of ledger. When this work was over, no extension was given . I consider that appointment as that of the respondent is squarely covered under section 2(oo)(bb) of theAct. Giving of non extension did not amount to termination of service , it was not a case of retrenchment " .

19. Precedents , handed down by Allahabad High Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla ( supra) , Bombay High Court in Dilip Hanumantarao Shilrk (supra) , Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh ( supra) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari Sangh (supra) castrate sub- clause (bb ) of section 2(00) of theAct . Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates statutory provisions of sub - clause [ (bb ) ] , of section 2 (oo) of the Act without even discussing the legality or constitutional validity of the clause . On the other hand theApex Court in C.M. Venugopal ( supra) , Morinda Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra) , Anil Bapu Rao Kansase (supra), Harmohinder Singh ( supra ) , Batala Coop . Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra) , Darbara Singh ( supra) and Kishore Chand Samal ( supra ) , and High Court of Delhi in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee , appointed for a specific period which was extended from timeto time, would be covered by the exception contained in sub - clause (bb ) of secdtion 2(oo) m of the Act, in case his services are dispensed with as a result of non- renewal ofthe contract of employent between him and his employer, on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. The law. so laid, holds the water and would be applied to the case of Sh . Saravjeet Singh.

20.As detailed by the management in its response to the reference order, services of Shri Sarvajeet Singh were dispensed with in terms of stipulation contained in contract of his employment . Action of the management does not amount to retrenchment . being covered by exaption enacted by sub - clause (bb) of clause ( oo) of section 2 of the Act . When act of the management , in terminating his services , does not amount to retrenchment Shri Saravjeet Singh cannot question it. Legality and justifiability of the act of the management cannot be questioned with the parameters of section 25 - F, 25 - G, and 25-H of the Act , since termination of services of Shri Saravjeet Singh does not amount to retrenchment . Shri Saravjeet Singh is not entitled to be relief. An award is , 2457 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

accordingly, passed . It be sent to appropriate Government forpublication.

DR . R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer Dated: 12.01.2012

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 194/2003 I.R. (C- I ) dated 24.12.2003 .

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Coalfields Labour Union from the management of Argada Area , M / s CCL for regularising Smt . Shubra Singh , General Mazdoor , Category I to the post of Clerical Grade- III is justified ? Ifso, to what relief is the workman entitled and from whatdate ?" .

का० आ० 1000.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी॰सी॰एल॰ एवं के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध 1 में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रिय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण, धनबाद न. - 2 के पंचाट (संदर्भ 22/2004} को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/194/2003- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th Feburary, 2012

2.Mr. Mundrika Bhagat , the Union Representative for the workman and Mr. D.K. Verma , Ld . Advocate for the management are present. Heard both the Ld . Representatives of the respective parties over the pitition dt. 6.1.2012 in respect of withdrawal ofthe case and passing no dispute award.

S.O. 1000.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cwm-Labour Court-2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . CCL, and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 16/2/2012 .

[No. L-20012/ 194/2003 - IR(C- I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

In the light of the petition it has been submitted on behalf of the union Representative that since the management has assured her and accordingly as per its office orderdt . 26.12.2011 regularised her to the post of ClerkGr. III under NCWA VIII with immediate effect , and accordingly she was posted at her existing place of posting. Under these circumstances , the workman Smt . Shubhra Singh is not interested to contest the case . Hence , no industrial dispute exists now, and accordingly an order ispassed.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer.

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

का० आ० 1001.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी॰सी॰एल॰ एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद नं०-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

REFERENCE NO . 22 OF 2004

Parties

[सं० एल -20012/593/2000- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी०एस०एस० श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

: Employers in relation to the management of Argada Area of M/sCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES:

On behalf ofthe workman : Mr. Mundrika Bhagat, the Union Representative

Onbehlaf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld . Advocate;

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

S.O..1001 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court- 2, Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . CCL , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16/02/2012 .

Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st Jan. , 2012 .

ORDER

[No. L- 20012/593 /2000 - IR ( C - I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer 2458

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer.

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

Reference No. 90 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Dhori colliery ofM/ s CCL and their workman .

APPEARNCES:

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. K. Chakraborty, Ld . Advocate;

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld .

Advocate:

Onbehalf of the management

State : Jharkhand

Under these circumstance , pursuing the case for indefinite period of time is futile and wastage of time & energy of the Tribunal . Hence , the case is closed and accordingly order is passed as non-existent of any Industrial dispute.

Sd/- KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

का० आ० 1002.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी०सी० लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद न०-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/27/2002- आई आर ( सी- ! ) ] डी०एस०एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th Jan. 2012

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunał for adjudication vide their order No. L- 20012/593/2000 (C- I ) dt . 16.3.2001.

SCHEDULE

"whether the action of the management of CCL Dhori Colliery in not accepting the date of birth of Shri Goutam Yadav Cat . VI , Mechanical Fitter as 1.2.1954 or in not reffering him to Medical Board for age determination is just, proper and legal ? Ifnot, towhat relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " .

2. None represented the Union/ the workman concerned nor any witness produced for the evidence of the workman, despite Regd. notices , Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld . Adv. for the management is present . The perusal of the case record reveals that the case has been pending for evidence ofthe workman since 26.4.2004 , for which ample opportunities by giving several times last chance were givenas well as Regd. noticesdt . 15.11.2010 , 8.12.2010 and Show cause notice dt.9.11.2011 but even then not a single witness produced in support of the case of the workman . As such the conducts of the Union/workman clearly indicate their disinterestedness to pursue the case which is related to an issue concerning the date of birth of the workman as well as determination of his age .

New Delhi , the 16th February , 2012

S.O. 1002. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court- 1 , Dhanbad , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . CCL, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16/02/2012.

[No. L-20012/27 /2002- IR ( C - I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 1) , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act . , 1947 .

Reference No. 56 of 2002

Parties: Employers relation to the management ofBhurkunda Colliery of M / s C.C. Ltd.

And

Their Workman

PRESENT:

Shri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

: Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate .

For the Employers

For the Workman

: Shri S.C. Gour, Advocate.

2459

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Industry: Coal

State: Jharkhand

Dated, the 9-2-2012.

AWARD

ByOrder No. L-20012/27 /2002 - IR(C-I) dated 24/30- 5-2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -sec. ( 1 ) and sub - sec . (2A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"whether the refusal of the management of CCL , Bhurkunda Colliery to extend leave encashment benefit to Sri Ganesh Dubey on his retirement is proper and justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

3. The case of the management is that the person concerned was an employee of Bhurkunda colliery and he was appointed as a Shuttle Car Operator. Due to withdrawal ofShuttle Car from 1864 all the Shuttle Car Operators were declared surplus including the concerned workman. A settlement was arrived between the management and the Union on 15.51972 and as per the said settlement, the concerned workman was retained and was engaged in a Jeep as Jeep Driver as time - rated worker. he came in monthly rated cadre on and from 1.4.73 as Mining Sirdar. Aworkman governed by the service condition and previlage as per NCDC Rules will be continued to accumulate and encash leave upto 180 days in the event of retirement , death , residnation and medically unfitness . These apply to the workman, who were appointed or came over to monthly cadre between 1.10.56 and 14.8.67 . The concerned person wastime rated cadre in 1964 and he came in monthly rated cadre on and from 1.4.1973 as Mining Sirdar and as such he was given the benefit of service condition under Corporation Rules in C.P.C. scale of pay before 15.8.67. Leave encashment was allowed to monthly rated staff and not to time rated worker . During his service he was time rated worker cadre on 15.8.57 , as such he was not entitled for leave encashment as per the rules prevailing upto 15.8.67 . He had not applied for availing earned leave due to him before his retirement , as per the Circular, he is not entitled for encashment of earned leave .

Insuch circumstances , it has prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief.

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

5. The concerned workman has produced himself as WW- 1 and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 and W- 2 .

The management has not produced any oral evidence but they have filed on document which has been marked as Ext . M - 1 .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he is entitled to get leave encashment benefit of his unavailed leave due to him after hisretirement .

The Management argued that the concerned workman is not entitled as per the rules prevailing upto 15.8.67.

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was an employee of CCL , Bhurkunda colliery. He was appointed in the year 1960 when the colliery was under NCDC. He was promoted to monthly cadre w.e.f. 1.12.67. At the time of his promotion to the monthly cadre he registered his protest on the ground that unless he is extended with all the facilities entitled to NCDC monthly rated employees he will not accept to go on monthly cadre. An agreement was arrived at between the representative of the union on behalf of the concerned workman and the management of CCL and it was agreed that the concerned workman will be given the benefit of service condition applicable to the employees appointed under corporation Rules in the C.P.C. scale of pay before 15.8.67 and he will be placed in Cat . Vi under the recommendations of the Wage Board w.e.f. 15.8.67 granting him two increments . His paywill again be fixed at the appropriate stage as shot firer in the scale of pay of Rs . 205/- to 337 w.e.f. 1.12.67 . Не shall not be eligible to one ad - hoc increment granted to other employees on15.8.69 . He shall forego 50% of the arrears of difference ofpay from 15.8.67 to 14.5.72 arising out of fixation of pay. Accordingly the concerned workman accepted the promotion to the monthly cadre with all benefits which had been given to the then NCDC employees . Subsequently he had been further promoted as Overman , Sr. Overman and throughout his service he had been availing all the above facilities of leave, wages , accommodation etc. The settlement had been honoured by the management during the period of his service till retirement. But he was deprived of the leave encashment benefits/ facility by the management which is gross injustice and violation of the rules framed by the comcompany and as such he deserves for relief.

7. The concerned workman retired as per Ext. W- Iw.e.f. 4.7.98 , a workman of Nine ' B ' of the management .

Inthisrespect the concerned workman (WW- 1 ) has stated in his examination - in - chief on oath that he is entitled to get leave encashment benefit after retirement as per MOS arrived at before A.L.C. ( C) , Hazaribagh . In this Under such circumstances it has been prayed that the hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management in refusing leave encashment to the concerned workman is not justified and management be directed to pay leave encashment due to him after his retirement.

2460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/ PHALGUNA 20, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

respect his cross -examination is material in which he stated that he was appointed in NCDC as Shuttle Car Operator in time rated . He was then posted as Chief Driver and he was givenmonthly rated employee in 1973 .

cum-Labour Court-2 Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management ofM/s . CCL , and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Govertiment on 16/02/2012.

Monthly rated employee was entitled to get leave encashment as per circular Ext . M - 1 dated 15.11.91 .

[No. L-20012/240/2004- IR(C- I) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) , AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer.

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

Reference No. 29 of 2005

But the management has violated Ext . M - 1 through which the workman is entitled to get his leave encashment benefit as retirement benefit . The management has to follow its own circular, Ext . M- 1 , which cannot be violated . Ext. M- 1 mentions that the accumulation and encashment of leave upto 180 days in the case of workman governed by the service conditions as per NCDC Rules implemented as per 1.1 . No. 23/90/2990 dated 30th April, 1990 would be made effective from the date of issue of I.I. No. 61/86 dated 8th July, 1986. So. the management is not following the a ac and they have to follow it.

Parties

: Employers in relation to the management of Dhori Colliery ofM/ s CCl , and their workman .

The evidence adduced by the concerned workman which is on oath cannot be disbelieved when there is no evidence adduced by the management to that effect .

APPEARNCES :

Onbehalf of the workman

: Mr. D. Mukherji , Ld . Advocate;

Considering the above evidence of the concerned workman it shows that he is entitled to get leave encashment benefit on his retirement and such amount he is entitled to get with 6% interest till the date of payment.

: Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld . Advocate:

Onbehalf of the employer

State: Jharkhand

: Industry: Coal

Dated , Dhanbad, the 1st Feb. , 2012 .

ORDER

8. In the result , I hold that the refusal of the management of CCL, Bhurkunda Colliery to extend leave encashment benefit to Sri Ganesh Dubey on his retirement is not proper and justified . Accordingly, he is entitled to get leave encashment benefit on his retirement with 6% interest till the date of payment. The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date ofpublication ofthis award.

This is my Award.

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)( d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/240/2004 - IR ( C- I ) dated 24.3.2005 .

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

"whether the action of the management of CCL Dhori Colliery not give employment to Smt . Gendia Devi under the Provisions of NCWA as dependent of Late Sh . Sikari Manjhi , Drill Operator, is just, fair & legal ? Ifnot , to what relief is the said dependent entitled" ?.

का आ० 1003.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी॰सी॰एल॰ एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकोंऔर उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद न०-2के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -20012/240/2004- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी०एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O. 1003.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 , ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

2.Mr. D. Mukherji , the Ld . Advocate /Representative for the Union/petitioner and Mr. D.K. Verma , the Ld . Counsel for the management is present . Neither a rejoinder by the workman/ union nor documents by both side filed . perused the case record , I find that the case has been pending for filing a rejoinder by the workman since 7.3.2008, for which Registered noticesdt. 15.6.10 and 16.11.2011 were issued to the Secretary concerned of the sponsoring union . the very conduct of the petitioner Smt . Gendia Devi clearly indicates her unwillingness to persue her case which is related to the issue about providing an 2461

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

employment to her as dependant of Late Sh . Sikari Manjhi , Drill Operator as the provision of NCWA.

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances , proceeding withthe case for uncertainity is worthless and wastage of time and energy of the Tribunal , and hence the case is closed and accordingly order of No Dispute is passed.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2012

का० आ० 1004.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार टी०आई०एस०सी०ओ० लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद न०-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/1998) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/28/1997- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी०एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O..1004. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 , ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/ 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court-2 Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of M/s. TISCO Ltd. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16/02/ 2012.

[No. L - 20012/28 / 1997 - IR (C- I) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 62 of 1998

Parties

: to Employers relation the management of TISCO Ltd. , Janadaba , Dhanbad and their workman.

APPEARNCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : Mr. Samrendra Singh , Ld .

Advocate;

: Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld .

Advocate:

Onbehalf of the employers

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad , the 17th Jan. 2012

AWARD

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/ 28/97- I.R. ( Coal- I) dt . 12.3.1998 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s Tisco , Janadaba, Dhanbad in denial to provide employment to Shri Ranjit Singh , son of Late Shri Gurudatt Singh isJustified . If not, to what relief the concerned dependent of Late Shri Gurudatt Singh is entitled? "

2. The case of the petitioner as represented by the Union concerned is that Late Gurudatt Singh as Security Guard at the Security Department of the Management , who had put his spotless service for 19 years 10 months and20 days succumbed to his injuries on 21.12.1992 at the Management's Tata Central Hospital , Jamadoba after meeting with a road accident . He died in harness at the age of his 46 years by leaving only his wife Smt. Pratima Devi , two sons and one unmarried daughter. His date of birth was 15.1.1947 and he had a potential to work upto 15.1.2007, i.e. upto his 60 years of age. His premature death put his family in great trouble . So she humbly prayed before the Management for her employment on compassionate ground as to feed his children . When the management did not care for it she applied to the management for employment of her son Ranjit Kr. Singh a young and capable for all kinds ofjob , but it was regretted on the ground that the deceased workman had not enrolled the names of his any dependants for it in the Company's Employees Dependant's Register. An employee can enroll the name ofhis dependent till or even after the end/retirement ofhis service . The denial of the management to his dependant was highly unjusified as the management deprived his dependants of his retiring gratuity which was awarded by the Controlling Authority as also offered by the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act . Thus it is alleged that the dependant of the deceased employee is entitled to an employment on compassionate ground in place of deceased workman from a reasonable date with all consequential benefits .

3. Whereas with categorical denials , the centra pleaded case of the Management is that the sponsoring Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union has no locus standi to raise an industrial dispute for employment of a non- [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20, 1933

2462

workman as Late Gurudatt Singh or Sri Ranjit Singh was never its member not it has been recognised by the Management . So the present reference is unmaintainable. An employee interested to get his dependants employed isrequired to apply for enrolment of his dependants in the Employees Dependant Register on completion of his 15 years of services as per the Company's procedure . The employment is provided according to the seniority based on the registration of dependant subject to availability of vacancies . Late Gurudatt Singh had not enrolled the names of his dependant in the aforesaid Register in his life time , nor can enforce such employment of his dependant after hisdeath . Moreover Sri Ranjit Singh the alleged sone of thedeceased workman , never approached the management for his enrolment in the Regiser in life time of his father. Late Gurudatt Singh had completed 19 years of his service under the Company, though he was quite eligible for enrolment ofhis son in his life time against future vacancy, yet he could not avail of the liberal policy of employment ofdependants . The management has too a large number of dependants in the waiting list to provide such dependants an employment , as also for the reason the JBCCI cancelled all the procedure and circular followed by the management relating to employment of dependants in NCWA- 5 . The management has not got a settlement finalised with the recognised union RCMS for imposing restriction on the demand for employment of many dependants . The employment of Sri Ranjit Singh , the alleged son of the deceased workman in view of aforesaid reason was too difficult to consider, so he was not entitled to any relief.

4. The management in its rejoinder represented that admittedly Late Gurudatt Singh was employed on 1.2.1972 and died on 20.12.1992 . He had not put spotless continuous service . No procedure is for employment of any person purely on compassionate ground in absence ofvacancy and in the face of large number of dependants . The dispute arose for the conduct of Smt . Pratima Devi and her son who claimed a right to continue in the house ofthe Company even after death of Late Gurudatt Singh .

FINDING WITH REASONING

5. In this Reference Case WWI Ranjit Singh , son of Late Gurudatt Singh for the applicant (Union ), and MWI Dinesh Kr . Sharma , Head Clerk at the G.M. Office for the Management have been examined . According to petitioner Ranjit Singh ( WWI ) , his father Gurudatt Singh, the Security Guard under the Management at Jamadoba Colliery met anaccident and succumbed to his injuries on 21.12.1992 as per his death Certificate ( Ext . W- 1 ) , but factually his father could not enroll his name in the Dependant Register during his service period. Since the management did not provide him any employment, so the Industrial dispute was raised for it .

6. Whereas MWI Dinesh Kumar Sharma , Hd. Clerk , GMOffice for the management , providing the service card of the workman Gurudatt Singh as Ext . MI has asserted that he had served the Company for 19 years . His wife Pratima Devi had submitted her applicationdt . 14.3.1994 (Ext . M - 2 ) to the Management for her emplyment but the Management as its letterdt . 18 /25.6.1994 ( Ext . M -3 ) had responded to it that since the Management had not scope for female employment (as per the Minutes of the Meeting dt. 16.3.1994 Ext. M -4 ) nor the name of any dependant of the deceased was recorded by the workman ( deceased ) in the Employment Dependant Register as also evident from Manager (P ) concerned verification Reportdt. 12.6.1996 (Ext.M -6) ; moreover, because it was the Company's already existing policy/rule for employment of the deceased dependant was unanimously held to be mere favourable and accordingly to beenforced in place of Implement of NCWA- II as per the letterdt. 7.2.1981 of Sri S. Das Gupta , the Jt . Secretary to the G.M. (Collieries ) , Tisco , Jamadoba , Dhanbad ( Ext . M - 5) . The witness has asserted that enrolment of the name of dependant by the workman concerned in the Employment Dependant Register after the completion ofhis 15 ( fifteen ) years or even after expiry of six months of his death which was not done either by the deceased or by legal heir.

7. Mr. M. Singh , Ld . Counsel for Union/Petitioner submits that it is a case of employment but Management as per its letterdt . 25.6.1994 ( Ext . M- 3 ) denied it on the ground that deceased workman had not enrolled any of his dependant's name in the E.D.R. ( Employment Dependant Register ) for employment on the strength of his service despite the NCWA in 1992 was enforced. Further submission of Mr. Singh , Adv. for the Petitioner is thatproviding employment to a dependant of deceased is more important than granting an promotion to another person as held in the case of Rajender Pd . Diwadi Vs. the Secy. , F & C, SUP (Alld . H.C. ) reported in FLR 1992 at page 990. On the other hand the contention of Ld . Adv. for the Management is that in the Tata Steel Co. , there is no provision for employment procedure as also admitted by the Union provides for and pre supposed enrollment any dependant of the deceased in the aforesaid E.D.R. after the completion of his 15 years provided that there is an availability of vacancy as per Seniority. Moreover in the year 1992 NCWA .

8. On the consideration of the materials available on the case record, I find that deceased workman Gurudatt Singh , the employee of Tisco , the Security Guard (Watchman) under the Management concerned died on 21.12.1992 , though it had completed 19 years of his service yet he could not enroll the name of his dependant son Ranjeet Singh (Petitioner) or others in the Employment Dependant Register as per the existing rules of the Company, which has got precedence over the implementation of NCWII as unanimously agreed by all the Branches in the Tisco to oversee the implementations of different provisions of NCW - II as the existing 2463 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

Parties

: Employers in relation to the management of Pindra Colliery of M/s . C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen .

employment rules were more favourable . Hence , it continued to be enforced (Ext . M - 5) . The aforesaid Ruling cited by the Ld . Counsel for the petitioner appears to be quitedifferent from factum of the case so it does not hold good with it because it relates to a matter of promotion and availability of post caused by death of an employee .

PRESENT:

Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

: Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate .

Forthe Employers

For theWorkmen

: Shri U.N. Lal , Advocate .

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal .

Dated, the 8-2-2012 .

AWARD

In view of the aforesaid findings , I hold that the action of the Management of M/s Tisco , Jamadoba , Dhanbad in denial to provide employment to Sri Ranjit Singh S/ o Late Gurudatt Singh is though justified in the eye of Law, yet in view of the jurisprudence of Labour legislation, it would be proper to grant relief of the enrollment of the name of the petitioner as the dependant of Late workman Gurudutt Singh in Employment Dependant Register by the Management for his future employment as per the rules of the Management . Thus , the award is responded and Management is directed to comply it within aperiod one month from the receipt of the notification in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

By Order No. L- 20012/401 /98 - IR(C- I ) dated 17.4.99 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 :

का० आ° 1005.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी० सी० लिमिटेड एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद नं०-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/1999} को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the demand of the Union from the management of Pindra Colliery of M/ s . C.C. Ltd. , P.Ο. Pindra, Dist . Hazaribagh for proper fixation of wages inrespect of S/Sri Kadir Mian & 71 others ( as per list submitted by the union ) , T.R. workers taking into account the S.P.R.A. and as laid down under the provisions of N.C.W.A. & J.B.C.C.I. is legal and justified? If so , to what reliefthe concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date ? "

[सं० एल -20012/401/1998- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O. 1005. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court- 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . C.C. Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16/2/ 2012.

[No. L- 20012/401 / 1998 - IR(C -I ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD.

In the matter of a reference U/S . 10 ( 1 )( d))(2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

Reference No. 51 of 1999 .

2. The case of the concerned workmen/ union is that the concerned workmen are permanent employees of Pindra Colliery of M / S. CCL and were working as piece- rated workers . They were getting the wages of Group - III and the Basic Pay of the workmen was decided as per SPRA . The SPRA is a special piece rate allowance . The time-rated workers get annual increment in their basic pay whereas piece rated workers get annual increment in turm ofspecial piece rate allowance . The concerned workmen used to get SPRA as per their length of service . SPRA is earned increment by the concerned workmen . The management of Pindra Colliery invited applications from the piece rated workers for their conversion in time rated worker. Time rated workers are entitled to get the wages of Cat . I. The concerned workmen applied for the post of time rated in response to the advertisement of the management . They were interviewed and after selection the management posted them in time rated job and since thenthey are performing the job of time rated category . After conversion the piece rated workers into time rated Category I worker, granted only initial basic pay of Cat . I

601 GI/2012-32 2464

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

whereas they are entitled to the protection of their basic wages plus the earned SPRA as per the Implementation Instruction No. 26 of JBCCI . The basic pay of the concerned workmen in time rated job should be fixed after protecting the basic wages , but the management has not protected the basic wages and SPRA of the concerned workman and fixed their basic wage much lesser than they were getting earlier. When the matter was brought to the notice of the union , an industrial dispute was raised before the ALC ( C ) , Hazaribagh . Conciliation proceeding ended in failure and the matter has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . It has been submitted that the management of Popa Colliery of CCL after considering the view point of the union protected the wages of the workman concerned including SPRA and fixed their basic wages of Topa Colliery as per the guideline of JBCCI .

Under such circumstances , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workmen by directing the management to fix the wages of the concerned workmen after protecting their basic pay and S.P.R.A. with differences of wages from the date they are working in time rated job i.e. from 1.11.1996.

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workmen were piece rated workers and they were converted to time rated categories on their request as per their respective scales . It has been stated that piece rated workers hold the status of Group I employees whereas the time rated workers hold the status of general mazdoors in Category - 1 . The piece rated as well as time rated workers are deployed on different kinds of jobs in piece rated groups or time rated scales from time to time and after observing their performance , they are regularised on specific group of specific category for performing specific kind ofjobs . The piece rated groups as well as time rated categories have been fixed for different kinds of work permanently absorbed by way of regularisation of such posts . The concerned workmen were holding the status of piece rated workers in group - I and they had not been regularised on any specific group by issuing any order of regularisation or confirmation changing their status . Therefore, on their conversion to time rated categories , they were placed as general mazdoor in time rated scale of category- l and they got the wages as per the nature of jobsperformed by them . If they work as helper, they get Category- II wages , if they work as timber mistry or line mistry or any other job of higher scale , they get higher category wages . Similar was the position prior to their conversion and they were receiving wages of Group- I , Group- II or Group - III as the case may be according to the nature ofjob performed by them , but basically piece rated workers are Group - I mazdoor similar to timé rated workers of general mazdoor in Category - I . The sponsoring union is demanding the fixation of the wages of the concerned workmen in Group - III and then their conversion to higher category wages as if they were holding the permanent status ofGroup - III duly confirmed as overburden remover or miner/ loader in the quarry etc. As the demand of the sponsoring union was not found correct and genuine , the management refused to concede to their demand and did not fix them in higher categories or at higher start considering their wages as Group- III while working as piece rated workers .

In such circumstances , the management has prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass the award holding that the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.

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

5. The management produced MW- 1 , Sujit Kumar Goswami , who proved documents as Exts . M - 1 and M - 2.

The concerned workmen have produced WW- 1 , Naresh Prasad , who proved documents as Exts . W- 1 and W-2 .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workmen is that they are demanding their wages after protecting their basis pay and S.P.R.A. which they were getting prior to their conversion to time rated in June , 1996 and as per para 3.11.3 of the NCWA - V the provision is there for grant of special piece - rate allowance to piece- rated workers and the same is revised with the wage structure and SPRA is being allowed for each group of workers annually in adition to their wage paid as per job performed of the group to which they belong and it is given with a view to provide motivation for achieving higher productivity. It has also been argued that the management has paid other workers the SPRA by other collieries and also by subsidiary companies of the management . In the case of PR Trammers to TR Trammer the management Kuju Area of Pindra Colliery had protected theSPRA on their convertion to time rated in Category - III vide office order No. GM ( K ) /PD/Re-design./Trammer/95/ 3957 dt . 30.12.95 . It has also been argued that the management invited applications from PR worker of Pindra Colliery for TR job as Category - 1 mazdoor for the job of drilling and other time rated job , as per notice issued by Dy. P.M. , Pindra Colliery and another notice dated 14.2.96 was issued for holding interview and test of such workinen on 16.2.96 and the workmen were selected after their body/ job fitness and vide Office Order No. PO ( P )/PD/Conv./96/ 4010 dated 24/ 28-10-98 the concerned workmen were converted as TR workers for operation of SDL and allowed only initial of Cat . 1. It has also been argued that in the same colliery vide Office Order No. PO ( P ) PD / Regula . /96 583 dated 5/ 8-6-96 S/ Sri Gaya Thakur & other were regularised from PR to TR Category I as General Manager in Cat. I of NCWA - V and protection of pay was allowed to them . It shows that the Pindra Colliery adopteddifferent 2465 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court- 1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . CCL, and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 16/2/2012 .

policy for different set of workers in the matter of regularisation from PR to TRjob which is against the rules . The management allowed initial of Category - I without protection SPRA to these concerned TR workmen which isquite illegal and unjustified when they have given certain set of persons and denied the certain set of persons .

[No. 1-20012/160/2001 - IR(C-I)] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. I , DHANBAD

Inthe matter ofthe reference U/s . 10( ! ) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 43 of 2010 .

Parties

7. Management's witness MW-1 stated in cross- examination that I cannot say at the time of giving option the concerned workmen used to get Group- III wages with S.P.R.A. As per Ext . M - 1 the management got settlement with the union for payment SPRA as per clause (3 ) ofthe settlement . So , this settlement cannot be violated by the management . As per Ext . W- 2 is for giving approval of arrear payment of SPRA to 70 persons and by letter dated 7.7.92 reininder was issued for arrear bill of SPRA of left out employees of Pindra Colliery for payment to the workmen and letter dated 30.12.95 shows that they have got their pay protection .

Employers in relation to the management ofTapin South Colliery ofM/S.C.C . Ltd.

AND

Theirworkman .

Present : SHRI H.M. SINGH , PRESIDING OFFICER

APPEARANCES:

Forthe Employers

: Shri R.M. Zarika , Sr. Manager(P) .

For the Workman

: Shri C.S. Pathak, Authorised Representative .

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances , I hold that the demand of the Union from the management ofPindra Colliery of M / S . C.C.Ltd . for proper fixation of wages in respect of S/Sri Kadir Mian and 71 others (as per list submitted by the Union ) , T.R. workers taking into accountthe S.P.R.A. and as laid down under the provisions ofNCWA & JBCCI is legal and justified. Accordingly, the management is directed to fix the wages of the concerned workmen, (names mentioned in the order of reference) after protecting their basic pay and S.P.R.A. and to pay difference of their wages from the date they are working in time rated job i.e. from 1.11.1996 . The management is directed implement the award within 30 days from the date ofpublication of the award .

Dated, the 7-2-2012 .

This is my Award.

AWARD

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

By Order No. L20012/ 160/2001 - IR- ( C- I ) dated 10.7.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour, 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 disputes for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad:

"Whether the action of the management of Tapin SouthColliery of M/ S.C.C.Ltd . to dismiss the service of Shri Shyam Lal B.P. is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief is the workman concerned entitled? " का० आ० 1006.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी ० सी० एल० एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद नं०-1 के पंचाट { संदर्भ संख्या 43/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/02/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/ 160/2001- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] डी० एस० एस० श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

2. When this dispute was pending before Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Dhanbad , the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 -A read with Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 33 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , transferred this dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal , vide its order No. L- 20012/ 160/2001 - IR(CM- I) dated 27.8.2010 .

3. The facts of the case , in brief, are that the S.O. 1006.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/ 2466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

concerned workman , Shyam Lal B.P. , was dismissed by order 25.9.2000 which was illegal and arbitrary. He was issued a Chargesheet - cum - suspension order dated 8.2.99 alleging that he entered service of C.C.L. impersonating Shyam Lal B.P who allegedly expired on 19.7.76 , which is misconduct under the provision of 17 ( 1 ) ( a) and 17 ( 1 ) ( e) of the Certified Standing Orders . In reply to the chargesheet- cum- suspension order the concerned workman demanded copies of some documents listed in his letter dated 25.2.99 . Without taking any action on workman's demand , the Project Officer without any delegation of disciplinary power, constituted a purported enquiry, as dictatedby the C.C.L.'s Vigilance .

The concerned workman was working as casual since prior to take over of Coal Mines by the Central Government and constitution of Coal Mines Authority. The Coal Mines Authority , after required verifications , by order No. Tap/47/ 74/ 14 dated 2.5.74 , appointed the workman concerned as casual and temporary worker and obtaining L.T. I on the original and other copies the original copy ofthe order was handed over to the workman to join duty. By order dated 5.8.76 among others the concerned workman was recategorised and regularised in the grade of Clerk Grade- III . Vide order dated 21.2.80 , the workman concerned was regularised as Clerk Gr. II w.e.f. 14.12.79 with approval of Director ( Personnel) , CCL , Ranchi . He worked till the date of dismissal from service at Tapin South Colliery. The fictitious story of impersonation against the concerned workman was cooked up by a Vigilance Official with improper motive . Even the alleged complaint itself is a fabrication , in as much as the Vigilance Investigators never even tried to establish the identity of the said Complainant . The Vigilance story that as the Service Book of the workman concerned, prepared by the management on joining of duty in response to appointment orderdated 2.5.74 and kept in safe custody of the colliery administration bear the photo and finger prints of the workamn concerned, he is not the real Shyam Lal , B.P. , but impersonator is absolutely ridiculous and perverse . The chargesheet is a belated one and illegal . In response to workman's letter dated 7.6.99 by which he represented to the Enquiry Officer to keep the enquiry in abeyance, the Enquiry Officer advised the concerned workman to appear before him on 23.6.99 so that the matter could be discussed. Whenthe concerned appeared the Enquiry Officer insisted thatthe documents are strictly confidential and could not be furnished to the workman concerned . The Enquiry Officer arbitrarily deprived the workman concerned to cross - examine the management's witnesses . The finding of the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the charges of "theft", fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property " and "giving false information regarding one's name, age , father's name , qualification or previous service at the time of employment " without any supporting reason for the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

conclusion/finding . The findings are wholly arbitrary and perverse. The dismissal order dated 25.9.2000 is not a speaking order . The Disciplinary Authority failed or refused to act independently or judicially. The dismissal order is based on ' no evidence' .

Under the facts stated above , the workman has prayed that the Hon'ble be pleased to pass an award by directing the management to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service .

4. The case of the management is that a charge- sheet dated 8.2.1999 was issued against the concerned workman for commission of the following misconduct:

"That Shyam Lal B.P. S/ o Bhagirathi , Village Taldeori , P.S. Jaijaipur , Dist . -Bilashpur ( now Janjgir Champa) , Madhya Pradesh was appointed on 20.11.74 as a Piece Rated Worker in Tapin South Colliery under the then Coal Mines Authority Ltd. ( Central Division ) and he expired on 19.7.76 at his native village- Taldeori in Madhya Pradesh . A death Certificate issued by the Station Officer, Jaijaipur, P.S. Dist. -Bilaspur, M.P. confirms the death of Shyam Lal B.P. on 19.7.76 . It is further confirmed by the statement of the Sarpanch , Taldeori Village and the elder brother of Shyam Lal B.P. , who is still alive .

That after the death ofShyam Lal B.P. on 19.7.76 you fradulently entered into the service of CCL at Tapin South Colliery by impersonating Shyam Lal B.P. and have since been illegally on the pay roll of CCL as Shyam Lal B.P. "

Instead of submitting his reply, the concerned workmanwrote a letter to the management and demanded documents from the management . Thereafter management appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry in respect of the aforesaid charge- sheet. The Enquiry Officer conducted the domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the workman was given full opportunity to defend his case .

Thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charged levelled against the concerned workman has been fully established . The Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the concerned workman to defend his case , but he intentionally and deliberately avoided to attend the enquiry and tried to prolong the enquiry by raising unwanted and uncalled for quarries . As such, the Enquiry Officer finding no alternative , but to hold the enquiry ex- parte and thereafter the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex - parte . The concerned workman was aware about the date of enquiry and he deliberately avoided to attend the enquiry . Thereafter the management supplied the copy of enquiry proceeding to the concerned workman to submit his reply. After considering the charges proved levelled against the concerned workman the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service . The [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2467

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

dismissal ofthe concerned workman is legal and justified .

Under such circumstances , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the dismissal ofthe concerned workınan from service is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief.

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

6. The domestic enquiry was held to be fair and properby order dated 3.8.2011 .

7.The management produced MW- 1 , Dipak Kumar on preliminary point . Documents have been marked Exts . M- 1 to M -6.

The concerned workman examined himslef as WW- 1 on preliminary point , and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W- 11 .

8. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that the alleged complainant has not been examined by the management on which basis thisenquiry was made and he was dismissed from service.

In this respect the management's witness , Dipak Kumar (MW- 1) in cross -examination at page 3 stated that the complaint of Sri M. Singh was marked as Exhibit ME- 1 and the complainant, Sri M. Singh was not examined beforeme. During enquiry his signature was not verified by him . It shows that the management have got enquiry done and concluded and the concerned workman was dismissed from service even without examining the complainant and verification of the signature ofthe complainant in the complaint.

Another argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that the management believed on the statement of Sarpanch of Taldeori that the concerned workman was not Shyam Lal B.P.

In this respect management's witness MW- 1 , who wasEnquiry Officer, state in cross - examination that Sri M. Singh , Sarpanch of Taldeori , concerned Officer- in-Charge ofPolice Station were not produced before me as witness . It shows that on which basis the concerned workman was dismissed, those persons have not been examined by the management .

Ithas been argued that he was appointed on 20.11.74 by the management and his thumb impression was taken by the management , but no verification or thumb impression by the Handwriting Expert has been done which are in the custody of the management . It also shows that during enquiry it has not been established whether the thumb impression in service register of the management is not of the concerned workman because that can only be doneby the Handwriting Expert, which has not been done by the management .

Another argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that the management has not tried to examine or file any public document , such as, Voter List which may show that the concerned workman is not real Shyam Lal B.P.

Considering the above facts , it shows that the management has dismissed the concerned workman from service on imaginery ground without proper evidence and authentification .

Another argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that before passing final order the management has not given second show- cause notice with enquiry report which is against law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , reported in 1991 Current Labour Report (SC) 61 , in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations , if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would therefore be enetitled to the supply of a copy thereof.

The termination/dismissal order dated 25.9.2000 , which is part of Ext . M - 6 , enquiry report, shows that it has not been served to the concerned workman , rather he was dismissed.

9. In the result , I hold that the action of the management of Tapin South Colliery of M/S.C.C . Ltd. to dismiss the service of Shri Shyam Lal B.P. is not legal and justified. Hence , the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages and consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal till he isre - instated in service ,

Themanagement is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award .

This is my Award .

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOffice .

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2012

का आ° 1007.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ जनरल मैनेजर, टेलीकमनीकेशन, भोपाल प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या-सी० जी०आर०टी०/एल०सी०/ आर/ 105/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-02-2012 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं॰एल -40012/ 98 /1997 आई आर ( डी०यू०) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 2468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

NewDelhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O. 1007. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 105/ 98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of Chief General Manager, Telecommunication , Bhopal and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16.02.2012 .

[No. L-40012/98/ 1997- IR(DU) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO.CGIT/LC/R/ 105/98

Presiding Officer, SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN .

Shri Karan Singh Mehra,

S /O Shri Poonamchand Mehra ,

Vill: Sonikheri

Workman Distt . Sehore (MP)

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager, Telecommunication , M.P. Circle , Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal(MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of February 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-40012/93 / 97/IR( DU ) dated 13-5-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecommunication in terminating Shri Karan Singh Mehra S/O Poonamchand Mehra w.e.f. Sept 89 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

2. The case of the workman , is short , is that he was employed with the management on muster roll from 1985 under the Sub- Divisional office , Telecom , Sehore and worked 25days in the year 1985 , 246 days in the year 1986 and 56 days in the year 1989. It is stated that he also worked from October 1986 to 1998 under the Project Director atBhopal for about 248 days . It is stated that he worked 240 days in a calendar year. The workman is entitled to be regularized as TSM from 25-6-93 under the orders of the Govt . of India. It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workman .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management, interalia is that the workman was engaged by the SDOT Sehore for Project work for a limited period and on completion of the project work, his service was no longer required by the management . He worked in Sub Divisional Office , Telecom ( Sehore) for 14: 1 days in 1986 and 56 days in 1989 only It is denied that he worked during 1986 to 1988 under Director Project , Bhopal . He is not entitled to any relief under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the Act , 1947) . Under the circumstances , the action of the management is justified.

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

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services ofthe workman w.e.f. Sept. 1989 isjustified?

II . To what relief the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

To prove the case , the workman Sari Karan Singh Mehra is examined in the case . He has stated that he was appointed orally on casual basis . He has further stated that he worked only at Sehore . Thus he has contradicted his pleading that he worked under the Project Director , Bhopal from October 1986 to 1988 and therefore it is not proved.Admittedly he worked in 1985 and 1986. Thereafter he worked 56 days in the year 1989 orily. This clearly shows that his service shall not be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one yeair during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference under the provision of section 25 B of the Act , 1947. As such it is evident that there is no violation of the provision of Section 25 -F of the Act , 1947.

6. On the other hand , the management has also examined one witness . The management witness Shri P.N. Singh is working as Divisional Engineer, Bhopal. He has supported the case of the management . His evidence also corroborates that the workman worked only 56 days in the year 1989 and 141 days in the year 1986. His evidence also shows that the provision of section 25 ( B ) of the Act is not attracted and the action of the management is justified. This issue is thus decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

7. Issue no . II

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

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

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

2469

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

नई दिल्ली,16 फरवरी, 2012

Government, was entertained under sub- section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , for articulation of the dispute . An award was passed in the matter on 23.6.2011 .

का० आ° 1008.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोटक महिन्द्रा बैंक लिए प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2012 प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Now an application has been moved by the claimant detailing therein that his name is Sh . Brinda Prasad Shukla, which was wrongly mentioned as Varinda Prasad Shukla, in the award. A request has been made to make necessary correction in the award, in that regard.

[सं॰एल-12025/01 /2012- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

3.Rule 28 ofthe Industrial Disputes ( Central) Rules 1957 provides for correction of errors . For sake of ready reference aforesaid rule is extracted thus:

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

"The Labour Court , Tribunal National Tribunal or Arbitrator may correct any clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission in any award it/he issues " .

S.O. 1008.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/2011 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court -Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and their workman , received by the Central Government on 15.02.2012.

[No. L - 12025/01 /2012 -IR(B- I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRISIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . I , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI

I.D. No. 19/2011

4. Clerical error can be defined as an error in a document which can only by explained by considering it to be a slip or mistake of the party preparing or copying it . Literally an error is said to be " clerical " where it is made by a clerk or some subordinate agent , but actually, it means an error committed it the performance of clerical work , whether by the Court, the draftsman of the Act or by the clerk. It is an error which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion . Clerical error is in the nature of an inadvertent omission or mistake . The term " clerical error " which is amendable nunc pro tunc is distinguishable from a " judicial error " which can be corrected only on review or an appeal . Reference can be made to precedents in Rosamma Punnose (AIR 1958 Ker. 154) and Mansha Ram L. Jagdish Rai ( AIR 1962 Punj . 110)

Sh.Brinda Prasad Shukla S/ o . Sh. Ram Adhar Shukla, Through M/s. Checkmate Services Karamchari Sangh (Regd . ) , 5239 , Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi-06.

Workman

Versus

5.Accidental slip occurs when something is wrongly put in by an accident and an accidental omission occurs when something is left out by accident. The expression " accidental slip " as occurring in section 152 (new) of the Code of Civil Procedure was construed by the Federal Court in Sachindara Nath Kolya (5 DLR 68) , wherein it was observed as a follows:

1. The Manager ,

M/ sCheckmate Services Pvt . Ltd. , 58/61 , Vashishth Park , Sagarpur, New Delhi

2. The Manager ,

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. , Ground Floor , Ambadeep Building, 14 , Kasturba Gandhi Marg , NewDelhi - 110001 .

" It needs to be stressed that the keyword in the relevant phrase is " accidental " and it qualifies " omission " also , with the result that the procedure provided by section cannotbe used to correct omission , however erroneous , which are intentional , not indeed in the sense of conscious choice , for no court , is supposed to commit an error knowing it to be such , but in the sense that the Court meant not to omitwhat was omitted " .

Management

ORDER

6.Apex Court in Tulsipur Sugar Company Ltd. ( 1969 ( 2) SCC 100 ) had occasion to consider correctional jurisdiction ofthe Labour Court constituted under the UP AnIndustrial dispute , filedby the claimant without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate 2470

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. In that precedent the Apex Court made reference to the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rule 28 of the Rules and announced that power of correction of error is a limited one, which can be exercised only to cases where mistake, clerical or arithmetical or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission had occurred . It was rules therein that his power is limited only to cases where clerical or arithmetical mistake or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission have occurred .

7. After ascertaining the scope of powers of correction of errors available to this Tribunal , now it would be addressed as to whether mention of Varinda Prasad Shukla in the award was on account of conscious choice of the Tribunal . Answer lies in negative . It was recorded onaccount ofaccidental mistake . This Tribunal has power to correct the accidental mistake . Accordingly, it is ordered thatname of claimant , recorded as Varinda Prasad Shukla in the award may be read as Brinda Prasad Shukla , where ever it occurs . Ordered accordingly. The appropirate Government may be communicated of correction , so made in the award , for publication.

DR . R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 03.01.2012

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

का० आ० 1009.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार साड़ोल क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र के सबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जवलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ ) संख्या 32/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15.02.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[संख्या एल-12012/469/2000 आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O. 1009. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 32/2001 of the Cent . Govt. Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral dispute between the management of Shahdol Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15/02/2012

[No. L- 12012/469 /2000 - IR (B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/32/2001 SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

Workman Shri Sheikh Rafik Ali , S/o . Shri UmmadAli , Kachhi Mohalla, Near Choti Mashid Dhanpuri , Distt . Shahdol (MP)

Versus

The Chairman , Shahdol Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Head Office , PO Box No. 29 , IInd Floor, Bharti Bhawan , MainRoad , Shahdol (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of February 2012

1.TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012 /469 /2000/ IR (B - I ) dated 5.2.2011 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of the Chairman , Shahdol Kshetriya Gramin Bank, H.O. PO Box No. 29 , Bhartiya Bhawan , Ind Floor, Main Road , Shahdol (MP) in terminating the service of Shri Sheikh Rafik Ali , S /o . Shri Ummad Ali , Kachhi Mohalla, Near Choti Mashid, Dhanpuri , Distt . Shahdol ( MP ) and not considering for further employment under Section 25 ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not to whatrelief the concerned workman is entitled for ? "

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was appointed as Part time Messenger cum Sweeper at Mediya Rass Branch of Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 28.8.1986 and worked continuously till 13.2.1989 . Thereafter he fell ill and after illness , he produced medical certificate of Dr. P.C. Sanghai Budar before the Branch Manager on 25.3.1989 but he was directed that after obtaining sanction from the Head Office, he would be allowed to join . He went time and again in the branch for joining but he was not allowed to work . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated w.e.f. 15.3.1989 with back wages and be also directedto regularize him.

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement by way of reply to contest the reference . The case of the management , inter alia, is that the applicant/ workman was engaged part time messenger- cum- sweeper on purely day to day basis . He was paid fixed pay and no 2471 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

appointment order was issued. His case doesnot cover under the provision of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947) rather it covers the provision of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act , 1947. The non - renewal of contact is not a retrenchment . He was admittedly not in employment as on 22.2.1991 . As such he was not eligible as per award dated 22.2.1991 read with Equation Committee report communicated to RRBs vide NABARD ciruclar dated 20.3.1993 for considering his case for regularization. He is not entitled to any relief. It is submitted that the reference be accordingly answered .

a period of one year during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference under the provision of section 25B of the Act, 1947. There is no evidence to show that he was with full wages on Sunday and other holidays in the previous twelve months preceding the date with reference for the purpose to include the Sunday to calculate working days . He was appointed on casual daily rated basis, as such in absence of evidenve of the paid leave , it is difficult to say that he had completed240 days preceding the date with reference in twelve months . This shows that the action of the management is justified. This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman .

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

8. Issue No. II

I.    Whether the action of the management in
      terminating his services is justified ?
II .  Whether his case was no considered for
       further employment under the provision ofthe
      Act, 1947 is legal and justified?
 III . To what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. Issue No. I

     Admittedly he was not in service on 22.2.1991 and
therefore the policy taken for regularization under the
NABARD circular does not arise . It also appears that the
wasdisengaged on casual basis as admittedly he had left
the service on his own accord on the ground of illness . I
 find that there is no merit for considering his further
 employment by the management . This issue is
 accordidngly answered.

9. Issue No. III

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

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

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

The workman Shri S.K. Rafique Ali has supported his case . He was stated that he was appointed orally and has not submitted any document to show that he has worked in Bank for how many days . He has further stated that he cannot say that how many days he worked continuously for a period of one year during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference under the provision of Section 25 - B (2) of the Act . This shows that there is no violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Act , 1947 in not further engaging him in the service.

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2012

का० आ० 1010.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र के सबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ ) संख्या 72/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15.02.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[संख्या एल-12012/11/93- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 6. On the other hand , the management has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The management witness Shri Seraj Ahmed is Branch Manager of Shahdol Kshetriya Gramin Bank . He has supported the case ofthe managment. He has stated that he worked on daily wages as part time Messenger Cum Sweeper on exigency of work . He had not worked 240 days in any calendar year between 1986 to 1989. He has admitted in his evidence that the workman marked his presence on attendance register while he was present on duty. The said register is the proof of his total work . The photocopy of the said register is filed which is admitted by the workman and is marked as Exhibit M / 1 . Hisevidence clearly shows that he was engaged on casual basis on exigency of the work and was not appointed against any post .

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2012

S.O.. 1010. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 72/2003 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour 7. Exhibit M/ 1 is the photocopy of the attendance register in 20 sheets of the period of 1986 to 1989. The said attendance sheets show that from March 1988 to Feb. 1989 he had worked only for 208 days and availed 14 leave holidays . This shows that he had not completed 240 days and he shall not be deemed to be in continuous service for

601 G1/2012-33 2472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 15/02/2012.

[No. L- 12012/11/93 - IR (B - I)]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 72/2003 Date: 18.01.2012

PartyNo. 1 : The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of Inda , Zonal Office, Kingsway, Nagpur -440001.

Versus

PartyNo. 2 : The Zonal Secretary, State Bank Workers Organisation , House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg , Congress Nagar , Nagpur - 440 012 .

AWARD

(Dated: 18th January, 2012)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of section 10 of Industrial Diputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the managment of State Bank of India and their workmen Shri V.S. Bhumralkar and Shri P.V. Gade , for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur , as per letter No. L- 12012/ 11 /93 - IR ( B - I ) dated 04.06.1993 , with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the managment of State Bank ofIndia in inflicting the punishment of withholding oftwo increments on Shri V.S. Bhumralkar and P.V. Gade, is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief they are entitled ? "

Subsequently the reference was transferred to this Tribunal for disposal according to law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the Union " State Bank WorkersAssociation " , ( " the Union " in short ) on behalf of the two workmen , Shri V.S. Bhumralkar and Shri P. V. Gade, (" the workmen " in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of the State Bank of India ( " Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .

The Case of the two workmen as projected by the Union in the statement of claim is that the genesis of the

dispute was a demonstration alleged to have been held by 50 or there about employees at Jalgaon Branch of State Bank of India in 1979 and in connection with the alleged demonstration , Party No. I suspended both the workmen alongwith Shri D.S. Joshi , Shri V.S. Naik and Shri V.M. Joshi and identical charge sheets were also issued against all of them and the two workmen were punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect , pursuant to an exparte enquiry and Shri V.S. Naik and Shri V.M. Joshi were also punished similarly but , the Disciplinary Authority for the Aurangabad module with the permission of the Appellate Authority dropped the charges against the said two employees and Shri Naik was also promoted as an officer soon thereafter and Shri D.S. Joshi preferred an appeal against the order of punishment and his appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority and the punishment imposed against him was quashed and the two workmen had also preferred separate appeal against the punishment and the same did not evoke any response from the Appellate Authority and during conciliation , it came to light that as the apeals were belated , the same were not entertained and it was obligatory on the part of Party No. 1 to grant personal hearing to the workmen and the period mentioned for filing appeal is at best a directory provision and Appellate Authority could have looked into the circumstances of the case and entertained the appeal . Itisfurther pleaded by the union that the enquiry was heald exparte, in gross breach of the principles of natural justice and the enquiry was fixed at Jalgaon on 20.02.1984 and as the defence representative , Shri Choudhary was sick , a phonogram was sent on 17.02.1984 to the enquiry officer intimating him about the same and a request was made to adjourn the enquiry, but the enquiry officer did not take into consideration the request for adjournment and closed the enquiry and the refusal of the enquiry officer to adjourn the enquiry antamount to denial of a fair opportunity and therefore , the enquiry proceedings and punishment are vitiated . It is further pleaded by the union that one of the grounds , which persuaded the Appellate Authority to exonerate Shri D. S. Joshi , another employees involved in the alleged demonstration was that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the enquiries held against the workmen were actually second enquiries , as because , in the earlier enquiries one Shri Khan was appointed as the enquiry officer , but the enquiries came to be dropped after two sittings and initiation of a second enquiry is void ab initio and without any authority, in as much as such , a course is not permissible in view of the provisions of the bipartite settlement and there was absolutely no difference between the charges leveled against the five employees , buttwo employees of Aurangabad module were exonerated and the employee , Shri D. S. Joshi from Nagpur Branch was exonerated by the Appellate Authority and therefore , the punishment imposed against the two workmen is discriminatory and the punishment imposed against the workmen is liable to be quashed on that ground alone and

    [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012 /फाल्गुन 20, 1933
                                                                                                                  2473
   the charges leveled against the two workmen do not make      out the case covered under Sastri Award and various Bipartite
   out any case ofmisconduct and at best , the actions alleged  Settlements and particularly Sub-Clause (c) , (e) & (j ) ofclause
   and imputed were a legitimate exercise of the rights ofthe   4 of Paras 521 of Sastri Award and the punishment is just,
  workmen as members of a Trade Union and they could not        proper and legal and the findings of the enquriy officer are
   have been in law, punished for exercising such a right and   not perverse and the punishment imposed is proportionate
   the findings of the enqnuiry officer are perverse and are    tothe gravity ofthe misconduct establishment against them
   based on no evidence and the punishment imposed on           and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in accordance
   the basis of such findings are therefore , liable to be     with the provisions of Bi -partite Settlements and various
   quashed and the punishment imposed is shockingly             award and as per the provisions of law and the workmen are
   disproptrotionate to the misconduct alleged to have been    not entitled to any relief.
  committed andthe financial implication of the punishment
  imposed is astronomical and as such , the punishment is            4. At this juncture , it is necessary to mention that
  illegal.                                                     even though this is not a case of discharge , dismissal ,
                                                               retrenchment or termination of the services ofthe workmen,
        The union has prayed to quash the punishment           still then, the validity of the departmental enquiries held
  imposed against the workmen and to grant all the benefits    aganist the two workmen was taken for consideration as
  consequent to the setting aside of the punishment .          a preliminary issue and by order dated 19.05.1995 , the
        3. the Party No. 1 in the written statement has        departmental enquiry was held to be fair.
  pleaded inter-alia that demonstration was held by 50 to           5. During the course of argument , it was submitted
  60 employees in Jalgaon Branch of State Bank of India, on    bythe learned advocate for the two workmen that a trade
  01.06.1981 and not in 1979 as alleged in the statement of    union study class was arranged at Jalgaon on 31/05/1981
  claim and the two workmen were suspended alongwith           and 01/06/1981 by the organization and as a part of it an
  Shri D.S. Joshi , Shri V.S. Naik and Shri V.M. Joshi and all of illustrative lunch hour demonstration was staged before
  them were charge sheeted and both the workmen were          Jalgaon Branch of SBI , outside the premises , just to give
  punishedwith stoppage of two increments with cumulative      the glimpse of trade union activity to the members of the
 effect, after holding full and proper enquiry and the enquiry union and after 21/2 months of the incidence of
  against Shri V.S. Naik and Shri V.M. Joshi of Jalgaon ,     demonstration, in the middle of August 1981 , the bank
 Aurangabad module was dropped and Shri . D. S. Joshi          suspended the workmen and three others , without charge
 from Nagpur Branch , preferred an appeal against the order   sheet , as an act of vengeance and the union challenged
 ofpunishment and the Appellate Authority set aside the       the order of suspensions and the CGIT No. 2, Bombay in
 punishment imposed against Shri D. S. Joshi and both the     reference number 2/32 of 1982 , decided the same in favor
 workmen also appealed against the order of punishment ,      of the union , holding the orders of suspensions were
 but they did not request for personal hearing and their      illegal and the act of the Bank was discriminatory and by
 appeals were rejected not only, on the ground of delay but   way of victimization amounting to unfair labour partice
 also , after taking into consideration the facts and         and during the pendency of the reference before the
 circumstances of the case and there is no bar of start a
 fresh inquiry, ifthe Disciplinary Authority for any reasons  Tribunal , the departmental enquiries were concluded
 comes to the conclusion that there should be a fresh         exparte against all suspended employees , by the enquiry
                                                              officer, Shri A. A. Khan and the Bank was ready with the
 enquiry and the workmen with their defence
                                                              punishment orders and when the matter was brought to
 representatives appeared and participated in the enquiry     the notice of the Tribunal , bank had given undertaking
 and thereafter remained absent without any intimation to     not to inflict the punishment till the declaration of award
 the enquiry officer and the telegarm dated 17.02.1984 was    and on the back drop of these circumstances , second
 not received by the enquiry officer till the start of the    enquiries were constituted only against the workman
 enquiry on 20.02.1984 and as such , the question of          and the same were concluded exparte by the second
 adjournment of the enquiry did not arise and no that        enquiry officer, Shri D. B. Indule and plain reading of the
ground, it cannot be said that the enquiry was vitiated       enquiry report , reveals that the enquiry officer has
 and the workmen were given full opportunity to defend       submitted the findings on false ground , which has no
themselves and the punishment imposed against the            relevance with the materials surfaced during the course
worken is not discriminatory and the Disciplinary            ofenquiry and the enquiry officer has written down some
Authority and Appellate Authority were different for the     of the contents from the charge and below that he has
different employees and the enquiries were condicuted        given the name of presecution witnesses and finally he
 separately at separate places and as such , it cannt be said has submitted that the charge had been proved and as
that as the incident was common and some of the
employees were exonerated, the workmen and also entitled     such, it cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry
                                                             officer are legitimate and as such the same are not tenable
 for exoneration. It is also pleaded by the Party No. 1 that and it can be held that the charge has not been proved
the charges made out against the workmen clearly make        against the workmen and the findings are perverse and

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20, 1933

2474

workmen along with other 50 to 60 persons blocked the main gate of Jalgaon Branch of the Bank, unauthorizedly entered into the branch , shouted slogans and distributed pamphlets , which resulted disruption of branck work and caused lot of inconvenience to the customers and when their acts were objected, they abused the manager and they also refused to comply the lawful orders of the manager of the bank to vacate the branch premises and such misconducts were enquired into the departmental enquiry and charges against the workmen were proved in a fair and legal enquiry and the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed against them and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and by order dated 19.05.1995 , it has already been held that the departmental enquiry was fair and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide for itself whether the charges framed against the workmen has been established to its satisfaction , but only to see that if the management was justified in coming to the conclusion and the Tribunal has no power to re - appreciate the evidence and set aside the order , on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and strict rules of evidence are not applicagble to disciplinary proceeding and the Tribunal can interfere with the punishment , when it is found that the punishment is unjust , excessive, illegal or it is highly disproportionate to the miscounduct or suggest victimization and as in this case , the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse and the charges have been proved against the workmen in a properly held departmental enquiry and as the punishment is not shockingly disproportinoate , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.

Insupport of such contentions , reliance was placed bythe learned advocate for the party no . 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 1974 ( SC) 555 ( E.P. Royyappa Vs. State of Tamilnadu ) , 1995 ( L & S ) 292 ( Govt . of Tamilnadu Vs. A. Rajapandian ), 2005 SCC (L& C)-298 (Bharat ForgeCo. LTD . Vs. Uttam), 1999 LIC 2819 ( SC ) ( Bank of India Vs. D. Surjanarayana), 1999 SSC ( L& S) 1424 ( R.S. Shini Vs. State ofPunjab) (SC) , 2006 SSC ( L & S ) 1573 ( SBI Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde) , 2005 SSC ( L& S) 940 ( SBI Vs. Belabagchi) , (2010) 2SCC ( & S ) 101 (Administrator UTO Dadar Vs. Gulabhai ) and many others .

out of the 12 witnesses examined by the the management, the first witness, Shri pradhan could be cross -examined and he was the main witness for the management and in hiscorss-examaination , Shri Pradhan had unequivocally accepted that he was not knowing the workmen at that time personally and their names were told by Shri Baviskar, the leader of the recognized union , which clearly shows that the names of the workmen were selected at the instant of Shri Baviskar and there was no complaint on the record from the customer or staff members regarding misbehaviour or otherwise and Shri Pradhan has agreed that the demonstration was peaceful and outside the premises , but the enquiry officer while submitting the findings intentionally over looked the corss - examination and submitted a false report, which was convenient to the managementto fasten the guilt on the workmen and all the witnesses have stated that the demonstration was held between 2.30 to 3.00 PM and it is undisputed that 2.30 to 3.00 PM was the lunch hour of Jalgaon Branch and as managemment has accepted that the demonstration was not violent and the same was peaceful , the same did not amount to any misconduct and as such , the findings of theenqnuiry officer are not only perverse , but also , illegal and the Disciplinary Authority also accepted the illegal and perverse findings of the enquiry officer and without application of mind imposed punishment, which is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct and the appellate authority also rejected the appeals technically and per functionally which caused prejudice to the workmen and the charges against Shri V.M. Joshi and Shri V.S.Naik were dropped and the appeal of Shri D. S. Joshi was decided in his favour by the General Manager (operation) in the capacity ofAppellate Authority and out ofthe 5 employees , three were exonerated from the charges , whereas the workmen were punished and as such , the same is bad in law and the workmen were discriminated and or this count only, the punishment inflicted against the workman is to be set aside and the all the vice departmental enquiries were controlled by the General Manager ( operation ) , LHO , Bombay, either in the roll of administrative head or the Appellate Authority and therefore , imposition ofdifferent punishments for identical charges are not tenable in law and the workmen are entitled for the reliefs claimed .

7 Before delving into the merit of the case, I think it necessary to mention here that on 09.03.2006, " no dispute " award had been passed in this case , due to the absence of the petitioner. However , the petitioner filed writ petition no . 4278 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature ofBombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur challenging the award and the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 02.12.2009 was pleased to quash and set aside the award and to direct for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Insupport ofsuch contentions , the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decisions reported in 1983 -EQ ( SC) -) - 298 (Glassco Laboratories India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , Meerut ) , 1983 EQ- ( SC )- 0-3 ( Rasiklal V. Patel Vs. Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation, (1976 ) LAV- IC- 4 - SC ( Bharat iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai B. Patel ), 1993 LLJ - 1148 (Management of Indian Oil Corpn . Vs. Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court and others ) some others .

8.It is clear from the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that on 01.06.1981 , the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2475

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

that the Tribunal in exercise of review power cannot normally interfere with the punishment imposed by diciplinary/ appellate authority, except where it shocks the judicial conscience in which case it can mould the relief either by directing the authority to reconsider the punishment/penalty imposed or in

failure of the principles of natural justice in the course of domestic enquiry, if the Tribunal finds that dismissal of an employee is by way of victimization of unfair labour practice , it will then have completejurisdiction to interfere with the order of the dismissal passed in the domestic enquiry. In that event the fact that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in the course of the domestic enquiry will absolutely lose its importane orefficacy.

(5) Whether and under what fact and circumstances aTribunal will accept the plea of victimization against the employer will depend upon its judicial discretion . "

AND

exceptional cases , by itself imposing an appropriate punishment recording cogent reasons . The disciplinary authority, and on appeal , the appellate authority , being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline . The are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct . The High Court/Tribunal , while exerising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute their own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.

9. In the decison reported in 1976 LAB I.C. -4 (SC) (Supra). which has been cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:-

"On the principles of law laid down by this court even though there was no defect in the domestic enquiry the Tribunal was entitled to examine the evidence in the domestic enquiry in order to find out whether a prima facie case was made out or if the finding are perverse. The Tribunal was not , however, competent to reappreciate or reappraise the evidence ."

Inthe decision reported in 1968- (SC)-0-129 (Supra), which has been cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:---

"(2) There is a two- fold approach to the problem and if lost sight of, it may result in some confusion . Firstly, in a case where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employee , the Tribunal can interfere with an order of dismissal on one or other of thefollowing conditions:-

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

"Inthis connection , reference was also made to some cases where this court has held that a finding by a domestic tribunal like an enquiry officer can be held to be perverse in those cases also where the finding arrived at by the domestic Tribunal is one at which, no reasonable person could have arrived on the material before the Tribunal . Thus , there two cases where the findings of a domestic Tribunal like the enquiry officer dealing with disciplinary proceedings against a workman can be interfered with , and these two are cases in which the findings are not based on legal evidence or are such as no reasonable person could have arrived at on the basis of the materials before the Tribunal . In each of these cases , the findings are treated as perverse. "

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

Inthe decision reported in 1993 L.L.J. - 1148 ( Supra) , the Hon'ble Court have held that:-

"Disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct- Charge against a number of workman - Identical evidence- Different punishment cannot be meted out to different workman . "

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

So, keeping in view the principles enunciatede by the Hon'ble Courts in the decisions cited by the learned advocates for the parties , the present case in hand is to be considered.

(4) Secondly, in the same case i. e . where there is no

601 GI /2012-34 2476

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

10. During the course of the argument and so also in the written notes of argument, the learned advocate for the petitioner made submissions in regard to the validity ofthe departmental enquiry. At the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned here that as in this case the departmental enquiry has already been held to be fair, as per order dated 19.05.1995 , such submissions cannot be considered again .

11. So far the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that even if the allegations leveled in the charge sheets are accepted to be correct for the sake of argument , yet no misconduct is made out, as because , the demonstration was staged outside the premises of Jalgaon Branch of SBI , as an illustrative lunch hour demonstration has no force at all , as because , in the statement of claim , no pleading was made that the demonstration was staged outside the premises of Jalgaon Branch of SBI as an illustrative lunch hour demonstration . Moreover, it is clear from the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry that the two workmen along with some others entered into the premises of the Bank , gave slogans , distributed pamphlets and they also entered into the Banking hall and caused disruption in the Bank's business and when Shri Manglik and Shri Gurav, the officers of the Bank requested the workmen and others to leave the Bank's premises , they did not leave the place and made arguments and showed arrogant behaviour.

On perusal of the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry, it is found that this is not a case where the findings of the enquiry officer are based on no legal evidence or a case of the nature , where no reasonable person could have arrived at the conclusions on the basis ofthe materials before the Tribunal . Hence , the findings ofthe enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse .

It is also found that the misconducts committed by the workmen is coming under the definition of gross misconduct as given in para 521 (4 ) , (c ), (e ) & (J ) of the Sastri Award , as mentioned by the party no . 1 in the written statement . The misconduct committed by the workmen cannot be said to be legitimate exercise of the rights ofthe employees .

12. Admittedly , the two workmen along with Shri D.S. Joshi from Nagpur branch and Shri V.S. Naik and Shri V.M. Joshi from Jalgaon Branch were charge sheeted for their involvement in commission of the alleged misconduct and the enquiry against V.S. Naik and V.M. Joshi of Aurangabad module was dropped and the punishment imposed against Shri D.S. Joshi was set aside by the appellate authority. The order passed by the appellate authority on the appeal of Shri D.S. Joshi have been filed on record . On perusal of the said order it is found that the appellate authority set aside the order of punishment on the ground of non - examination of the most important witness Shri M.S. Pradhan . Shri M.S. Pradhan has been examined as a witness for the management in the departmental enquiries held against the workmen . Hence , itcannot be said that the evidence adduced against the workmen in the departmental enquiries was identical to the evidence adduced against Shri D.S. Joshi . Hence , with respect , I am of the view that the judgment reported in 1993 LLJ 1148 (Supra ) has no application to the present case at hand .

13.On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that the punishment imposed against the two workmen is not shockingly disproportionate to the serious misconduct proved against them in properly held departmental enquiries . Hence , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workmen . Hence , it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action ofthe management of State Bank of India in inflicting the punishment of withholding to two increments on Shri V.S. Bhumralkar and P.V. Gade , is legal andjustified . The workmen are not entitled for any relief.

J.P.CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2012

का० आ० 1011.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोलकाता पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियाजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.01.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था

د [सं० एल-32011/9/2004- आई आर ( बी-11) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th February, 2012

S.O. 1011. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , KOLKATA now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of KOLKATA PORT TRUST and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19/01/2012 .

[No. L - 32011 /9/2004 - IR(B - II) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 36 of 2004

Parties

Employers in relation to the management of Kolkata Port Trust [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2477

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

AND

Theirworkmen

PRESENT:

Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE:

: Mr. M.K. Das , Industrial Relations Officer.

Onbehalf of the Management

Onbehalf ofthe Workmen

: Mr. Gostha Gopal Roy, the workman concerned in person.

State: West Bengal

Industry: Port & Dock

Dated: 3rd January, 2012.

AWARD

By Order No. L- 32011 / 9/ 2004- IR( B - II ) dated 27.09.2004 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1) ( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Kolkata Port Trust in denying upgradation of pay of Shri Gostha Gopal Roy, Clerk ( UDS) of Traffic Department, KOPT to the pay scale of Rs . 5500- 11380from 02.08.2000 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? "

2. The workmen union in its written statement of claim has stated that the workman , Gostha Gopal Roy was appointed under the management of Kolkata Port Trust on27th January, 1976 in the scale of pay of Rs . 4640-9500 (revised) and that after couple of years ' service his pay was upgraded to the scale of Rs . 5000-10850 (revised) on and from 07.05.1980 . Subsequently the workman was brought back in the former scale of pay of Rs . 4640-9500 on and from 05.03.1993 without assigning any reason though the workman enjoyed the pay scale of Rs . 5000- 10850 during the period from 07.05.1980 to 14.03.1993. It is further stated that in terms of clause 31 of the wage settlement arrived on 02.08.2000 between the management ofMajor Port Trusts and labour unions , the employees were entitled to get benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme with effect from 02.08.2000 . Accordingly, the workman claimed for ACP benefit which was not acceded to by the management Port Trust . However, the workman submitted that after introduction of the ACP Scheme, the workman was allowed only one upgradation ofpay scale under the scheme though he was to get two upgradations having completed more than 24 years of service in the same scale (Revised scale of Rs . 5000-10,850 ) without regular promotion . In the conciliation proceeding the representative of the management submitted that in course ofhis initial posting at Haldia , he was promoted in 1980 and it continued in the said promotional post for more than 12 years and so he was allowed only one ACP witheffect from 02.08.2000 as per rules. It is further claimed by the workman that if the management representative made submission of same fact , then the workman concerned should have been allowed to continue in the pay scale of Rs . 5000-10850 till 01.08.2000 cr prior to the implementation ofthe ACP Scheme from 02.08.2000. It is further stated that since ACP Scheme means upgradation ofpay scale from the existing one , the claim of the workman for upgradation should be considered from the pay scale ofRs . 5000-10850 and he should be given with the pay scale of Rs . 5500-11380 with effect from 02.08.2000 . It is further claimed that the representative of the management stated that he was already allowed two ACP upgradations and so no question of further upgradation is there as per rules and the Applicant was asked to go to Haldia . So the workman brought the matter of such denial , to the notice of the union which tried to settle the issue through local avenues and when it also failed to get any amicable settlement , the union took up the matter with the conciliation machinery which tried its best to settle the dispute amicably and that as the dispute could not be settled due to adamant attitude of the management thus ending in failure before the Conciliation Officer , the matter was referred to this Tribunal for decision .

3. In their writtern statement of reply, management ofKolkata Port submitted that the workman , Gostha Gopal Roy was appointed as Puncher- cum- Verifier in the Electronic Data Processing ( EDP ) Unit of Haldia Dock Complex on 27.01.1976 with the revised pay scale of Rs .4640-9500 and was subsequently promoted to the post ofMachine Operator with effect from 07.05.1980 with the pay scale of Rs . 5000-10850 . Subsequently in the year 1991 , the EDP unitat Haldia Dock Complex was closed down and the concerned personnel attached to the said unit had no work to perform and when the suitable redeployment of the workers was under consideration , Shri Gostha Gopal Roy ( workman) alongwith three others holding the post of Puncher- cum-Verifier sitting idle at thattime, applied for their transfer to any department under Kolkata Dock System foregoing their seniority and on the basis of their such appeal , those workers were transferred to Traffic Department of Kolkata Dock System as Lower Division Clerks with pay protection since the scale ofpay of Lower Division Clerk was lower than the scale of pay held by them at Haldia Dock Complex. After joining in the Traffic Department of KDS ( Kolkata Dock System) , these workers including the present workman made representation before the managment for scale protection and the Calcutta Port Shramik Union took up the issue on their behalf with the administration which subsequently turned down the representation of the workmen and at thattime, the administration , in consideration ofthe financial loss of these workmen , suggested them to go back to 2478

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012 / PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

with effect from 02.08.2000 . Fact remains that the workman joined in the service of the managinent as Puncher - cum- Verifier on 27.01.1976 in the pay scale of Rs . 4640-9500 and though the upgradation to pay scale of Rs . 5000-10850 with effect from 07.05.1980 has been admitted by the workman concerned, the management side defined that upgradation in the nature of promotion of the workman to the post ofMachine Operator from the date . The workman expressed his innocence about his bringing back to the initial pay scale of Rs . 4640-9500 on and from 15.03.1993 which was without assigning any reason from the side of the management. On the other hand , the management side explained that situation by stating that such reversion to the initial pay scale was due to posting of the workman as Lower Division Clerk in the Traffic Department of the Kolkata Dock System in the said pay scale and that the said posting ofthe workman as Lower Division Clerk was done on the representation made in that behalf by the workman himself on his own volition consenting to the loss of seniority he has already earned in the Electronic Data Processing ( EDP) Unit at Haldia Dock Complex . Such representation by the workman was made when the EDP Unitat Haldia Dock Complex was closed down in the year 1991 and the workman alongwith other employees in that unit remained without any work.

HaldiaDock Complex where they would be able to continue intheir existing pay scale there , but the workman concerned alongwith other workers did not opt to go back to Haldia Dock Complex and continued to make representations before the Kolkata Port Trust Administration and in consideration thereof the management considered them to be adjusted against vacancy of Upper Division Clerk in such a way so that they become junior -most in the cadre of U.D. Clearks and thus their transfer to the Traffic Department from Haldia Dock Complex stood modified to the extent that their transfer would be to the post of Upper Division Clerk with pay protection . The management has described the promotional hierarchy of clerical posts in the Traffic Department of KDS in paragraph 7 of their written statement keeping the post of Lower Division Clerk at the bottom , an upward hierarchy thereafter was nientioned as UDC , UD( Selection Grade) Clerk , Head Clerk andOffice Superintendent in different scales of pay having gradual higher scale as per hierarchy. It is further submitted that the workman who was then holding the post of U.D. Cleark in the scale of Rs . 4640-9500 became eligible for his second upgradtion to the next higher scale of Rs . 5000- 10850 taking into consideration his total length of service under the Port Trust . In accordance with the promotinal avenue in the Traffic Department, the workman , Gostha Gopal Roybecame eligible to the normal promotion to the postofUpper Division (Selection Grade) Clerk in the scale ofpay of Rs. 5000-10850 and was accordingly adjusted to the same with effect from 01.07.2002 and again promoted to the post of Head Goods Clerk in the scale of Rs . 5500- 11380. The National Union of Waterfront Workmen(I) wrote a letter to the Traffic Manager on 06.03.2003 over the alleged denial of benefit under ACP Scheme to the present workman and subsequently raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation machinery, but the union did not take into consideration that the ACP Scheme as laid down in the memorandum of settlement provided for financial upgradftion in the next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a particular cadre/ group of posts and in the case of the workman , such claim should confine to the clerical cadre of the Traffic Department . The management claimed that on being promoted to the post ofHead Goods Clerk with effect from 08.04.2004 the workman lost the position of workman as defined in Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground thathe performed supervisory nature of work and was in receipt ofwages exceeding Rs . 1600 per month .

4. A rejoinder was filed by the workmen union reiterating the story as made in the written statement of claim followed by denial para- wise made in the written statement of reply by the management .

6.Theworkman, Gostha Gopal Roy claimed that sincė he was already provided with the pay scale of Rs . 5000- 10850 with effect from 07.05.1980 on upgradation , he should have been given upgradation under ACP Scheme to the scale ofpay of Rs . 5500-11380 with effect from 02.08.2000 . Astonishingly it is found that the workman concerned completely suppressed about his posting as Lower Division Clerk in the Traffic Dekpartment of Kolkata Dock System and that such posting was made on his own representation expressing his consent by loosing seniority he earned during his attachment with the EDP Unit at Haldia Dock Complex . But , in his rejoinder the workman concerned has categorically admitted that sometimes in 1991 when the EDP Unit of Haldia Dock Complex became inoperative and closed down as per administrative decision, the workman alongwith others of EDP Unit were idling at Haldia Dock Complex and then they applied to the Chairman ofthe Kolkata Port Trust for their transfer to KDS for proper utilization of their skilled service in any department of KDS and the workman was also ready to forego his seniority in the Haldia Dock Complex but would retain his pay protection and pay scale though he defined his joining at the Traffic Manager's Office in the Kolkata Port Trust on and from 15.03.1993 in his own way when continued to work as Machine Operator there drawing the pay in the same pay scale which he was enjoying before coming to the Traffic Department and rather he denied the claim of the management that his transfer to Kolkata Dock System as Lower Division Cleark was with pay protection. He also claimed in his rejoinder that his pay and pay scale 5. Now in view of the issue in the schedule in the order of reference , it is to be seen in the present reference whether the workman , Gostha Gopal Roy was entitled to getupgradation of pay in the pay scale of Rs . 5500-11380

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20 , 1933 2479
was subsequently reduced to Rs . 4300-8120 (revised) after Division Clerk which is a promotional post from the feeder
his transfer to Kolkata Dock System from Haldia Dock post of L.D. Clerk that cannot be treated as an act of
Complex , However, the workman has further claimed that promotion in the case of the workman since that
when his pay scale was reduced to the pay scale of L.D. upgradation was made to protect the workman concerned
Clerk with a partial pay protection , he made an appeal to inrespect ofhis previous position and pay scale . But , it is
the Chairman on 01.12.1993 and requested to allow his to also found that the workman concerned was promoted to
continue in the pay scale of Machine Operator which he the post of Upper Division (Selection Grade) Clerk with
was enjoying before his transfer to Kolkata Dock System , effect from 02.08.2002 and that he was subsequently
though such appeal was not considered by the upgraded to the post of Head Goods Clerk which the
management and directed him to go back to Haldia Dock workman admitted as was doing the said job on the date
Complex to enjoy the earlier pay scale of Machine Operator of hisdeposition in the present reference .
pending adjustment against suitable vacancy. When the
8. ACP Scheme in the Kolkata Port Trust on and
workman , Shri Roy was preparing himself to go back to
Haldia , the transfer order in his name to Haldia was directed from 02.08.2000 , provided two upgradations under ACP
to be kept pending for the time being . But the workman Scheme in the service career provided the employee does
not get any promotion during the period of the said
subsequently admitted that on his appeal on 28.02.1995
upgradation . It is fact that on the date of introduction of
he was adjusted against the vacancy of Upper Division
ACP Scheme in the Kolkata Port Trust the workman
Clerk in the Kolkata Dock System and his pay was adjusted
in the pay scale of U.D. Clerk being Rs . 4640-9500 or rather concerned already worked for 24 years and naturally he
took the opportunity of being considered for the ACP
in the same pay scale in which he was appointed on
witheffectfrom 02.08.2000 , Management side has stated
27.01.1976 even though it was lower than the pay scale of
Rs . 5000-10850 in which he was working at Haldia Dock. that he was upgraded to the higher scale of Rs . 5000-
10850 with effect from 02.08.2000 under the ACP Scheme
Complex till before his transfer to KDS and that he was
when such scheme was introduced with effect from that
adjusted to the pay scale of Rs . 5000-10850 with effect
date and the workman concerned claimed that he was
from 02.08.2000 on implementation of the ACP Scheme .
promoted to the post of Upper Division (Selection Grade)
7. In course ofhis cross - examination as WW- 01 , the Clerk in the year 2002.
workman, Gostha Gopal Roy has admitted that on the date
of his cross -examination he was posted as Head Goods 9. The principle of ACP Scheme is the upgradation
Clerk under the Traffic Department since 2004 in the pay of an employees from the existing scale he was enjoying
scale of Rs . 5500-11380. He also admitted that on his to the next higher scale and not to the more higher scale
by passing the next higher scale in the hierarchy.
transfer to Kolkata Dock System , he was ultimately adjusted
asU.D. Clerk though feeder post to U.D. Clerk was Lower Admittedly, the workman concerned was doing clerical
Division Clerk and that in the year 2002 he was promoted job in the Traffic Department on his transfer as per his
to the post of Selection Grade Upper Division Clerk . own seeking and before 02.08.2000 he was enjoying the
Thereby it is revealed that the workman concerned first pay scale of Rs . 4640-9500 and if upgradation under ACP
Scheme is to be entertained it will become Rs . 5000-10850
got a promotion as Machine Operator in the pay scale of
which was allowed to the workman concerned with effect
Rs . 5000-10850 in course of his posting in the EDP Unit at from02.08.2000.
Haldia Dock Complex . It is also found that his transfer
from Haldia Dock Complex to Kolkata Dock System was 10. It is also admitted that the workman concerned
onhis own volition after closure of the EDP Unit at Haldia was promoted to the post of Head Goods Clerk in the year
DockComplex and on his remaining idle for the time being 2004 in the pay scale of Rs . 5500-11380 . But the workman
and for better utilization of his skill at any post at Kolkata claimed that such scale he was to get by way of upgradation
Dock System . It is also found from the respective parties ofpay scale under ACP Scheme with effect from 02.08.2000.
case that in the year 1993 he was transferred to the post of But, since the workman concerned was placed in the pay
Lower Division Clerk in the Traffic Department of the scale of Rs . 4640-9500 immediately before the date
Kolkata Dock System as equivalent post of Machine 02.08.2000 , his natural claim of upgradation would be in
Operator was not available at Kolkata Dock System as per the pay scale of Rs . 5000-10850 and not to the pay scale of
submission from the side of the management and the Rs . 5500-11380 . The second upgradation which the
workman concerned accepted that transfer and joined as workman was to get under ACP Scheme as per his service
L.D. Clerk at K.D.S. Further, it is found that on his appeal careerwould be on and from 02.08.2000 or from the date of
he was given with the pay protection as well as he was introduction of the ACP Scheme in the Kolkata Port Trust
placed in the post of Upper Division Clerk to compensate and that was considered by the management of Kolkata
him the loosing of seniority in the previous posting in a Port Trust by placing him in the pay scale of Rs . 5000-
higher scale . Though it is claimed by the management that 10850 though the workman was receiving the said pay
the workman concerned was placed in the post of Upper scale with effect from 07.05.1980 during his posting in the

2480

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10 , 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

EDP Unit ofHaldia Dock Complex , but that plea cannot be entertained here to consider the workman to be upgraded to the pay scale of Rs . 5500-11380 with effect from 02.08.2000 since the workman concerned hać. foregone the benefit of the said pay scale and seniority he earned during his posting in the Haldia Dock Complex: at its EDP Unit and he joined in the Traffic Department of the Kolkata Dock System in some inferior post with lower pay scale of Rs . 4640-9500 (which he was getting at the initial stage of hisjoining the post of Puncher - cum- Verifier at the EDP Unit ofHaldia Dock Complex) .

11. In view of all the discussions made above , I an of the view that the claim of the workman concerned for upgradation to the pay scale of Rs . 5500-11380 with effect from 02.08.2000 cannot be entertained and refusal from the side of the management of Kolkata Por: Trust for such upgradation with effect from that date is found to be legally done and justified. So , the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

MANIK MOHAN SARKAR JUSTICE , Presiding

Officer

The 3rd January, 2012 नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2012

का० आ० 1012.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स अब्दुल करीम स्टोन कान्ट्रेक्टर माईन आनर लाईम स्टोन माईन्स कोटा के प्रबंध ातंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 02/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17/2/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था

[सं० एल -29012/ 57/2003- आई आर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव ।

New Delhi , the 17th February, 2012

S.O. 1012 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court Kota now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s Abdul Karim Stone Contractor, Mine Owner, Lime stone Mines ( Kota ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17/02/2012 .

[No. L -29012/57 /2003 - IR ( M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary

अनुबंध

न्यायाधीश, औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज०/ पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , आर० एच०जे ० एस०

निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक: औ ०न्या०/केन्द्रीय/ -2/2005

दिनांक स्थापितः 6/9/05

प्रसंग

: भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल०-29012/57/2003 ( आईआरएम ) दि० 27/2/04

निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ)

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

मध्य

मोहम्मद हनीफ पुत्र श्री मोहम्मद शफीक

निवासी मकान नं० 6 - एच 30, विज्ञान नगर विस्तार योजना, कोय/राज०/

-प्रार्थी नियोजक

एवं

मै० अब्दुल करीम स्टोन कॉन्ट्रेक्टर , माईन ऑनर, लाईम स्टोन माईन्स, मोड़क स्टेशन, कोटा/राज०/

-प्रार्थी श्रमिक

उपस्थित

प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि : श्री नरेन्द्रसिंह चौधरी

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि : श्री राजवीर शर्मा

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक: 16/12/11

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली के उक्त प्रासंगिक आदेश/ अधिसूचना दि० 27/2/04 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश/विवाद, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है:-

"Whether the contention of the claimant Sh . Mohd . Hanif S/o Mohd. Shafik that he was worked as Driver in the Kukra Mines of M / s Abdul Karim Stone Contractor, Morak Station from 1/1/1984 to 6/6/2003 is correct ? If yes , whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the claimant w.e.f. (6/6/2003 is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date ? "

2. निर्देश/विवाद, न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना/नोटिस विधिवत जारी कर अवगत करवाया गया ।

3. प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट प्रस्तुत कर संक्षिप्त अभिकथन किया गया कि वह अप्रार्थी के यहां 1/1/84 से ड्राईवर के पद पर [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2481

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 10 , 2012/फाल्गुन 20, 1933

क्लेमस्टेटमेन्ट के समर्थन में कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं करने तथा मामले को साबित करने में विफल रहने से वह कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है, अतः इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है ।

प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया, न्यायधीश

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2012 2000/- रु० प्र० माह वेतन पर कार्यरत था, किन्तु उसे दो माह का वेतन जो नहीं दिया गया था, की मांग करने पर दि० 4/6/03 को मौखिक आदेश से हटा दिया गया । इस प्रकार उसे 1/1/84 से 3/6/03 तक लगातार अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्य किया, किन्तु बिना नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व क्षतिपूर्ति भत्ता दिये मौखिक आदेश से हटा दिया जो अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ के विपरीत है । प्रार्थी का कार्य स्थायी प्रकृति का है तथा आज भी अप्रार्थी प्रार्थी की जगह नया ड्राईवर रखकर कार्य करवा रहा है जो अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एच के विपरीत है । अन्त में क्लेम के माध् यम से पिछले सम्पूर्ण वेतन व सेवा की निरन्तरता सहित सेवा में बहाली के अनुतोष की मांग की है जो अप्रार्थी से दिलवायी जावे ।

का० अ० 1013.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मसूद अहमद पुत्र श्री सुल्तान अहमद लाईम स्टोन खदान मालिक रामगंज मण्डीजिला कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17/2/2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-29011 /48/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th February, 2012 4. अप्रार्थी की ओर से उक्त क्लेम का जवाब प्रस्तुत कर यह अभिकथन किया गया है कि उनके द्वारा प्रार्थी को 1/1/84 से ना तो ड्राईवर के पद पर नियुक्त किया गया एवं ना ही उसका वेतन 2000/- रु성 मासिक था , ना वह ऐसी योग्यता धारित करता था । यह कहना भी गलत हैकि उसने 1/1/84 से 3/6/03 तक निरन्तर अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्य किया । वास्तविकता यह है कि वह स्वयं स्वेच्छा से नौकरी छोड़कर चला गया इस कारण अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना का कोई प्रश्न ही नहीं था । अन्त में जवाब के माध्यम से प्रार्थी का क्लेम निराधार होने से सव्यय निरस्त किये जाने की प्रार्थना की ।

S.O. 1013. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour CourtKota now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the maragement of M/ s Masoud Ahmed Stone Contractor , MineOwner, Lime stone Mines ( Kota) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17 /02/ 2012.

[No. L-29011/48/2000- IR (M)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secretary

अनुबंध

न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोय/राज०/ पीटासीन अधिकारी- श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया, आ ०एच०जे०एस०

निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक: औ०न्या०/केन्द्रीय/-15/01 5. पत्रावली के अवलोकन से प्रकट होता है कि दि० 25/7/08 के बाद से पत्रावली साक्ष्य प्रार्थी हेतु नियत की जाती रही है एवं 29/4/09 कोप्रार्थी कास्वयं का शपथ- पत्र पेश हुआ एवं उसके बाद से आज दिन तक लगातार करीबन 8-9 सुनवाई तिथियों से पत्रावली प्रार्थी की जिरह हेतु नियत की जाती रही है परन्तु प्रार्थी उपस्थित नहीं आया । इस प्रकार करीबन पौने तीन वर्ष से मामला प्रार्थी की जिरह हेतु नियत किया जाता रहा है । आज भी प्रार्थी के उपस्थित नहीं आने बाबत उसके प्रतिनिधि ने कोई कारण प्रकट नहीं किया, अतः पौने तीन वर्ष की अवधि जिरह हेतु दिये जाने व करीबन साढ़े तीन वर्ष की अवधि साक्ष्य हेतु दिये जाने के बावजूद भी प्रार्थी द्वारा जिरह हेतु उपस्थित नहीं होने से अब और अवसर दिये जाने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है एवं प्रार्थी का जिरह का अधिकार बन्द किया गया एवं अब कानूनन प्रार्थी का शपथ- पत्र साक्ष्य में पढ़े जाने योग्य नहीं होगा । अप्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि भी प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य के अभाव मेंकोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं करना चाहते हैं एवं उन्होंने भी अपनी साक्ष्य बन्द की।

दिनांक

स्थापित: 6/7/01

प्रसंग

भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल०-29011/ 48 /2001 आईआर ( एम) दि० 18/6/01

निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ )

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

मध्य

6. इसके पश्चात् उभयपक्ष को सुना गया । चूंकि इस मामले में प्रार्थी को अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में वर्णित तथ्यों को साक्ष्य से साबित करना था एवं इस हेतु उसका जो स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र पेश किया वह जिरह के अभव में कानूनन पढ़ने योग्य नहीं है , अतः एक प्रकार से कहा जा सकता है कि प्रार्थी अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में वर्णित तथ्यों को किसी भी प्रकार से साक्ष्य से साबित करने में विफल रहा है । अतः इन परिस्थितियों में प्रार्थी अब किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं बनताहै ।

जनरल सेक्रेट्री, राष्ट्रीय मजदूर संघ ( इन्टक ) रामगंज मण्डी, जिला कोटा ।

परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश/ अधिसूचना सं ० एल -29012/57/2003 ( आईआरएम ) दि० 27/2/04 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा

-प्रार्थी श्रमिक यूनियन [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 10, 2012/PHALGUNA 20 , 1933

2482

एवं

मसूद अहमद पुत्र सुल्तान अहमद; लाईम स्टोन खदान मालिक, रामगंज मण्डी, जिला कोटा ।

--अप्रार्थी नियोजक

4. अप्रार्थी संस्थान की ओर से उक्त क्लेम का जवाब प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिवाद किया गया है कि संस्थान 1999-2000 में घाटे में रहा है तथा इससे पूर्व में भी लगातार 4-5 वर्ष से घाटे में चल रहा है जिसकी जानकारी श्रमिकगण को है इसके बावजूद भी गलत तथ्यों पर आधारित यह कार्यवाही की गयी है अतः जवाब के माध्यम से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक खारिज किये जाने का निवेदन किया गया ।

उपस्थित

:- कोई उप० नहीं

प्रार्थी श्रमिक यूनियन की ओर से

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से

:- कोई उफ नहीं

दिनांक: 7/12/11

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली के उक्त प्रासंगिक आदेश दि० 18/6/01 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश/विवाद, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है:-

5. आज प्रकरण में प्रार्थी यूनियन के कोई प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित नहीं आये । अप्रार्थी की ओर से भी कोई उपस्थित नहीं है । कई बार आवाज लगायी गयी परन्तु उभयपक्ष की ओर से ना तो कोई व्यक्ति उपस्थित आया व ना ही उनके कोई विधिक प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित आये । आदेशिका दि० 23/11/10 के अनुसार भी पक्षकारों के कोई प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित नहीं थे । इसके बाद दि० 26/4/11 व 4/8/11 को न्यायिक कार्य का बहिष्कार होने से कोई उपस्थित नहीं आया । आदेशिका दि० 16/4/08 के अनुसार प्रार्थी की ओर से साक्ष्य पेश करने हेतु अवसर चाहा गया । उसके बाद से अब तक मामला साक्ष्य प्रार्थीगण में चल रहा है । जहां पक्षकार या उनके प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित नहीं आ रहे हैं तो न्यायाधिकरण अपनी स्वप्रेरणा से या स्वयं की पहल पर मामले को अनिश्चितकाल तक लम्बित नहीं रख सकता। अतः इन परिस्थितियों में साक्ष्य प्रार्थी बन्द की गयी । अप्रार्थी की ओर से भी कोई उपस्थित नहीं आने से उनकी साक्ष्य बन्द की गयी । इस प्रकार मामले में प्रार्थीगण व अप्रार्थी, दोनों की ओर से कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं हुई है ।

" क्या राष्ट्रीय मजदूर संघ ( इन्टक ) रामगंज मण्डी द्वारा प्रबन्धन श्री मसूद अहमद पुत्र सुल्तान अख्तर लाईम स्टोन खदान मालिक रामगंज मण्डी जिला कोय ( राज० ) से उसकी खान में कार्यरत कर्मकारों के लिए वित्तीय वर्ष 1999-2000 के लिए 20% बोनस भुगतान करने की मांग उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि हां , तो संबंधित कर्मकार कितने प्रतिशत बोनस भुगतान के हकदार हैं ?

6. चूंकि प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक को अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के समर्थन में साक्ष्य पेश कर उसमें वर्णित तथ्यों को साक्ष्य से साबित करना था परन्तु कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं हुई, अतः इतना ही कहना पर्याप्त है कि वे क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के समर्थन में कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं किये जाने से हस्तगत निर्देश में कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी नहीं बनते हैं । अतः निर्देश नकारात्मक रूप से उत्तरित होने योग्य है ।

परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा आदेश/ अधिसूचना सं० एल -29011 / 48 /2001 आईआर ( एम ) दि० 18/6/01 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थीगण द्वारा क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के समर्थन में कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं करने तथा मामले को साबित करने में विफल रहने से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है, अतः इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है ।

प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया, न्यायाधीश [औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोटा( राज॰ ) ] 3. प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक यूनियन राष्ट्रीय मजदूर संघ ( इन्टक ) रामगंज मण्डी जिला कोटा द्वारा अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्यरत श्रमिकों के सम्बन्ध में क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट प्रस्तुत कर संक्षिप्तः यह अभिकथन किया गया है कि अप्राथर्थी संस्थान में कार्यरत श्रमिकों के लिए वित्तीय वर्ष 1999-2000 के लिए 20% बोनस की दर से दीपावली 2000 से पूर्व अप्रार्थी से भुगतान किये जाने बाबत एक मांग- पत्र प्रार्थी यूनियन ने दिया था , किन्तु अप्रार्थी ने संस्थान में लगातार हानि बताकर बोनस भुगतान नहीं किया जो सही नहींहै । अप्रार्थी संस्थान में आशा से अधिक उत्पादन होकर लाभ कमाया है । अतः क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के माध्यम से उक्त दर से उक्त वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए बोनस राशि ब्याज सहित दिलाये जाने के अनुतोष की मांग की गयी।

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road. Mayapuri . New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054.