This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY.

नई दिल्ली, मई 20 मई 26, 2012 , शनिवार/वैशाख 30-ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

सं. 21]

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, MAY 20- MAY 26, 2012, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 30-JYAISTHA 5, 1934

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

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

भाग II-खण्ड ३ उप -खण्ड (ii)

PART II-Section 3 Sub- section ( ii)

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

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

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

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2012

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012

का.आ. 1732.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली में अभियोजनों , अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों अथवा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीआई ) द्वारा अन्वेषित किए जा रहे मामलों से उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नोक्त वकीलों कोदिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो ) के विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

S.O. 1732.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government herebyappoints the following Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Delhi High Court at New Delhi for conducting the prosecution appeals , revisions or other matter arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment 1. (CBI) .

सर्वश्री

S/Shri

1. आर. वी. सिन्हा

1. R.V. Sinha

2. सुश्री राजदीपा बेहुरा

2.Ms. Rajdipa Behura

3. मनोज ओहरी

3.ManojOhri

4. जितेन्द्र विजय तोमर

4. Jitendra Vijay Tomer

[F. No. 225/09/2012 - AVD- II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

[फा. सं. 225/09/2012-ए.वी.डी.- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव

1706 GI/ 2012

(4145) 4146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[PART IISEC . 3 (ii) )

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2012

Central Government hereby cancels the appointment of Smt. Bimla Singh, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor ofthe Central Bureau of Investigation in the Calcutta High Court at Kolkata and in Sikkim High Court at Gangtok and CircuitBench of Calcutta High Court at Port Blair issued vide this Department Notification No. 225/ 11 /2010-AVD - II dated 4-5-2010.

का. आ. 1733. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय , कोलकाता में अभियोजन अपीलों , पुनरीक्षणों या दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए श्री अशरफ अली , वकील को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[F. No. 225/55/2011 -AVD- II] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

[फा. सं. 225/55/2011 - ए.वी.डी.- II ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2012

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012

S.O. 1733. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Md . AshrafAli , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Calcutta High Court at Kolkata for conducting the prosecution appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI).

[F. No. 225/55/2011 -AVD -II]

का.आ. 1735.-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 कां प्रयोग करते हुए , केरल राज्य सरकार, गृह (एम ) विभाग , तिरुअन्नतपुरम कीदिनांक 21-11-2011 की अधिसूचना जी ओ ( एमएस ) सं. 259/2011 /गृह द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 307 के अंतर्गत पुलिस स्टेशन कोट्टकारा , जिला कोलाम , केरल में श्री कृष्णकुमार, अध्यापक , रामा विलसम वोकेशनल हायर सैकेंडरी स्कूल , वालाकम, कोट्टकारा पर कथित हमले के संबंध में अपराध सं. 1990/2011 तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या उससे सम्बद्ध प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा अन्य अपराध या उसी संव्यवहार में किया गया अपराध या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भुत अपराध का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण केरल राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।

RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2012

[फा. सं. 228/78/2011 - ए,बी.डी.- II ]

राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012 का.आ. 1734. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 काअधिनियम सं. 2 ) जनरल क्लाजिज एक्ट , 1897 ( 1897 का अधिनियम सं. 10 ) की धारा 16 के साथ पठित धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय , कोलकाता और सिक्किम उच्च न्यायालय , गंगटोक और कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय , पोर्टब्लेयर की सर्किट शाखा में इस विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 225/11 /2010- एवीडी- II दिनांक 4-5-2010 द्वारा जारी श्रीमती बिमला सिंह, वकील को केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो में विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूपमें की गई नियुक्ति को एतद्वारा रद्द करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/ 55 /2011- ए.वी.डी.- II ]

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 10th May, 2012

S.O. 1734. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974) , read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act , 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897), the

S.O. 1735.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) ofSection 5 read with Section 6 ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Kerala Home ( M ) Department , Thiruvananthapuram , vide Notification G.O. (Ms. ) No. 259/ 2011/Home, dated 21-11-2011 , hereby extends the powers andjurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation of Crime No. 1990/2011 under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) registered at Police Station Kottarakkara , Kollam District, Kerala relating to the alleged attack on Sri Krishnakumar , Teacher , Rama Vilasom Vocational Higher Secondary School , Valakam , Kottarakkara and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offence committed in 4147 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

सितम्बर, 2011 से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 1/ 1/2010-बीओ-I ]

1 [F. No. 228/78/2011 -AVD- II] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

वित्त मंत्रालय

New Delhi , the 8th May, 2012

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 1 मई , 2012

S.O. 1737.Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services , Notification No.1 / 1/2010-BO- I dated the 20th September , 2011 , published inPart II , Section 3( ii) of the Gazette of India, has been partially modified and may be read as under:-

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Dipankar Gupta, to be Director ofthe Central Board ofDirectors ofReserve Bank of India for a period of four years with effect from 20th September, 2011 .

का.आ. 1736. राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम, 1987 ( 1987 का 53 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड (ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , शहरी आवास और गरीबी उन्मूलन मंत्रालय के संयुक्त सचिव श्री सुशील कुमार को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक श्री अरुण कुमार मिश्रा , सचिव , शहरी आवास और गरीबी उन्मूलन मंत्रालय के स्थान पर राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप. में नामित करती है ।

[ F. No. 1 /1/2010-BO- I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

[फा. सं. 24/17/2010- आईएफ- II ] रमण कुमार गौड़ , अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई , 2012

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi , the 1st May, 2012

का.आ. 1738,-भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग की 17 अक्तूबर , 2011 की भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या 1/ 1 / 2010- बीओ- I को आआंशिक रूप से आशोधित किया गया है और इसे निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए :-

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री एम. वी. राजीव गौड़ा को 17 अक्तूबर, 2011 से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के दक्षिणी क्षेत्र स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।

S.O. 1736. In exercise of the powers , conferred by clause (e) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 ( 53 of 1987 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Susheel Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Housing Urban & Poverty Alleviation as Director on the Board of Directors of the National HousingBank in place of Shri Arun Kumar Misra , Secretary, Ministry of Housing Urban & Poverty Alleviation with immediate effect until furthers orders .

[फा. सं. 1 /1 /2010- बीओ- I ]

[F. No. 24/ 17/2010- IF - II ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

RAMAN KUMAR GAUR, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2012

नईदिल्ली, 8 मई , 2012

S.O. 1738. Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services , Notification No.1/ 1/ 2010-BO- I dated the 17th October , 2011 , published in Part II , Section 3 ( ii ) of the Gazette of India , has been partially modified and may be read as under:-

का.आ. 1737. भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग की 20 सितम्बर , 2011 की भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या 1 / 1 / 2010- बीओ -1 को आंशिक रूप से आशोधित किया गया है और इसे निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए:-

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 8 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , श्री दीपांकर गुप्ता को 20

Inexercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (1) ofSection 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act , 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri M.V. Rajeev Gowda , to be the Member of the Southern Area 4148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Local Board of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years with effect from 17th October, 2011 .

प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री नजीब जंग को 22 सितम्बर, 2011 से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[F. No. 1/ 1/2010-BO- I ]

[फा. सं. 1 / 1/2010-बीओ -1 ] VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy,

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली , 8 मई , 2012

New Delhi , the 8th May, 2012

S.O. 1740.-Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services , Notification No. 1 / 1 / 2010- BO - I dated the 22nd September , 2011 , published in Part II Section 3 (ii) of the Gazette of India, has been partially modified and may be read as under: - का. आ. 1739. भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग की 23 सितम्बर , 2011 की भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या 1 / 1 / 2010- बीओ- I को आंशिक रूप से आशोधित किया गया है और इसे निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934 ) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Najeeb Jung, to be Director of the Central Board ofDirectors of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years with effect from 22nd September, 2011 .

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री किरण कार्णिक को 23 सितम्बर , 2011 से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के पश्चिमी क्षेत्र स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[F. No. 1/1 /2010-BO-I ] [फा. सं. 1/1 /2010- बीओ- I ]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली , 8 मई , 2012

New Delhi , the 8th May, 2012

का, आ. 1741.-भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग की 23 सितम्बर , 2011 की भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या 1/1/2010- बीओ- I को आंशिक रूप से आशोधित किया गया है और इसे निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए : -

S.O. 1739. Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services , Notification No. 1/1 /2010-BO- I dated the 23rd September , 2011 , published in Part II Section 3 ( ii) of the Gazette of India , has been partially modified and may be read as under : -

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री अनिल काकोदकर को 23 सितम्बर , 2011 से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के उत्तरी क्षेत्र स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (1) of Section 9 ofthe Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Kiran Karnik, to be the Member ofthe Western Area Local Board ofReserve Bank of India for a period of four years with effect from 23rd September, 2011 .

[फा. सं. 1 / 1/2010- बीओ -1 ] [F. No. 1/ 1 /2010-BO- I ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 8 मई , 2012

New Delhi , the 8th May, 2012

S.O. 1741. Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Financial Services , Notification No.1/ 1 /2010-BO- I dated the 23rd September, 2011 , published inPart II Section 3 ( ii) of the Gazette of India , has been partially modified and may be read as under: -

का. आ. 1740. भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग की 22 सितम्बर , 2011 की भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II खण्ड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या 1 /1/2010- बीओ- I को आंशिक रूप से आशोधित किया गया है और इसे निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए:

Inexercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (1) ofSection 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Anil भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 8 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का 4149 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

उक्तअनुसूची में -

Kakodkar, to be the Member of the Northern Area Local Board of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years with effect from 23rd September , 2011 .

[ F. No. 1/ 1 /2010-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 8 मई , 2012

(क) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] के अन्तर्गत " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान , विश्वविद्यालय बैंगलौर " के सामने " पंजीकरण " के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कालम (3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः:-

एम एस ( आर्थोपेडिक्स )

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (आर्थोपेडिक्स) "

का. आ. 1742,-भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग की 7 अक्तूबर , 2011 की भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या 1 / 1/2010 - बीओ-1 को आशिक रूप से आशोधित किया गया है और इसे निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए:-

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की. धारा 8 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री यजंदी हिरजी मालेगम को 7 अक्तूबर , 2011 से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 1/ 1/2010- बीओ -1 ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

(यह मई , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद एम वीजे मेडिकल कॉलेज , बैंगलौर में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान , विश्वविद्यालय बैंगलौर द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी )।

New Delhi , the 8th May, 2012

(ख) " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा " अर्हता शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कॉलम (2) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] के अंतर्गत विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय सेलम , तमिलनाडु के सामने पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टिएवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः

S.O. 1742. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services , Notification No.1 / 1 /2010-BO- I dated the 7th October, 2011 , published in Part II Section 3 ( ii ) of the Gazette of India, has been partially modified and may be read as under: -

एम एस ( आर्थोपेडिक्स)

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी

(आर्थोपेडिक्स) "

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Yezdi Hirji , Malegam, to be the director of the Central Board of Directors of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years with effect from 7th October , 2011.

[F. No. 1 /1/2010-BO- I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(यह नवम्बर , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद आरूपडै वीडु मेडिकल कॉलेज एंड होस्पिटल , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध मेंविनायक मिशन, विश्वविद्यालय सेलम, तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल , 2012

(ग) मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट] के अंतर्गत डॉ. आरएमएल अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) के सामने पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः

का. आ. 1743. भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श क्ररके एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः 4150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

डिप्लोमा इन आर्थोपेडिक्स

डीआर्थो.

(यह सितम्बर , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद इराज लखनऊ मेडिकल कॉलेज एवं अस्पताल , लखनऊ ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. आरएमएल अवध , विश्वविद्यालय फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

सभी के लिए टिप्पणी

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

University of Health Sciences , Bangalore in respect of students being trained at M. V.J. Medical College, Bangalore , Karnataka on or after May,2011 .

(b) against " Vinayaka Mission's University, Salem, Tamil Nadu " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' (hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely: -

MS ( Orthopaedics) "Masterof Surgery (Orthopaedics) "

1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अवधि5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।

2. उप-खंड 4 की आवश्यकता के अनुसार मान्यता को समय पर नवीकरण कराने में विफल होने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे ।

[सं. यू. 12012/19/2012 - एमई ( पी- II ) ]

अनिता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department ofHealth and Family Welfare)

New Delhi , the 19th April , 2012

S.O. 1743. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical CouncilAct, 1956 ( 102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely: -

In the said schedule-

(a) against " Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore" under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' (hereinafter referred to as column(3) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely: -

MS (Orthopaedics ) "Master of Surgery

(Orthopaedics)"

be a

(This shall

medical

recognised

when

qualification

grantedby Rajiv Gandhi

a (This shall be recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka Mission's University, Salem , Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College , & Hospital , Puducherry on or after November, 2011.

(c) aganst " Dr. RML Avadh University, Farizabad, Uttar Pradesh" under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [ hereinafter referred to as column ( 2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' (hereinafter referred to as column(3) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely: -

D. Ortho .

"Diploma in Orthopaedics "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML Avadh University. Faizabad , Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Era's Lucknow Medical College , & Hospital , Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on or after September, 2011 .

Note to all : 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years , upon which it shall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub- clause - 4 shall invariably [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4151

भाग्त का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

[No. U. 12012/19/2012 -ME(P- II)] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

ofMinerals andOres Group- I, namely, IronOre specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government ofIndia in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores , at Goa, subject to the following conditions , namely:-

वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई , 2012

(1) thatM/s. Minerals Lab Services Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, KarmaPaesAvenue, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da gama,Goa-403802, shall give adequate facilities tothe officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 ofthe Export ofMinerals and Ores, Group- I (Inspection) Rules , 1965; and

(ii) thatM/s. Minerals Lab Services Pvt . Ltd. 4th Floor, Karma Paes Avenue , F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da gama, Goa-403 802, in the performance oftheir function under this notification shall be bound by such directions as the Director (Inspection andQuality Control ) ,Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 4/4/2012 -Export Inspection] D. S. DHESI , Jt. Secy.

का. आ. 1744. केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स मिनरल्स लेब सर्विसिज प्रा. लि. , 4 तल, कर्मा पाइस एवेन्यू, एफ एल गोम्स रोड, वास्को- दा गामा, गोवा-403 802 को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क समूह - अर्थात्लौह अयस्क का निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कोंके निर्यात से पूर्व गोवा में निरीक्षण करने के लिए अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है, अर्थात्:-

कृषि मंत्रालय

( कृषि अनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2012

(i ) मैसर्स मिनरल्स लेब सर्विसिज प्रा. लि. 4 , तल , कर्मा पाइस एवेन्यू, एफ. एल. गोम्स रोड, वास्को- दा गामा, गोवा -403 802 खनिजों और अयस्कों, समूह 1 का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन उनके द्वारा अनुसरण की गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की परीक्षा करने के लिए, इस निमित निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगा ; और

का. आ. 1745. केन्द्रीय सरकार, कृषि मंत्रालय कृषि अनुसंध ान एवं शिक्षा विभाग , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियमावली 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय रोपण फसल अनुसंधान संस्थान , कासरगोड , केरल के क्षेत्रीय अनुसंधान केन्द्र, कायम्कुलम , केरल को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

(ii ) मैसर्स मिनरल्स लेब सर्विसिज प्रा. लि. 4 तल , कर्मा पाइस एवेन्यू, एफ एल गोम्स रोड , वास्को- दा गामा , गोवा-403 802 इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में ऐसे निदेशों द्वारा आबद्ध होगा , जो निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं ।

[फा. सं. 13-10/2009- हिंदी/27-52 ] [फा. सं. 4/4/2012- निर्यात निरीक्षण ]

विजय सिंह , अवर सचिव डी. एस . ढेसी, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department ofCommerce)

(Department ofAgricultural Research and Education) New Delhi , the 9th May, 2012 New Delhi, the 16th May, 2012

S.O. 1745.-In pursuance of sub- Rule (4) of Rule 10ofthe Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture , Department of Agricultural Research and Education hereby notifies the Regional Research Centre, Kayamkulam, Kerala ofC.P. C.R.L, Kasaragod, Kerakawhere more than 80 % of staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi.

S.O. 1744. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub- rule(2) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s . Minerals Lab Services Pvt . Ltd. 4th Floor, Karma Paes Avenue , F. L. Gomes Road, Vasco- da gama. Goa-403 802, as an agency for aperiod ofthree years from thedate ofpublication ofthis notification, for the inspection

[No. 13-10/2009 -Hindi/27-52] VIJAY SINGH , Under Secy.

4152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

उपभोक्ता ममाले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च, 2012

का.आ. 1746.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी , एन एम आई, नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी माडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट तथा माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स टॉपटैक सिस्टम्स आईएनसी, 289 हंट पार्क कोव , लोंगवुड , फ्लोरिडा 32750 , यूएसए द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग 0.5 वाले " मल्टीलोड II-आरसीयू II-डीआईवी 2 , मल्टीलोड II- ईएक्सएल एमएल 2 , मल्टीलोड II- एसएमपी " श्रृंखला के इलेक्ट्रोनिक कैलकुलेटर कम लोडिंग बैच कंट्रोलर के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मल्टीलोड II " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स आईडीईएक्स फ्ल्युड एंड मीटरिंग प्राइवेट लि. , 231-1 एंड 2 , पोर इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , पोर- रामांगम्डी, जिला- वडोदरा -391243 द्वारा भारत में बिक्री से पूर्व अथवा बाद में बिना किसी परिवर्तन के बिक्रीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 / 139 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल पानी के अलावा अन्य द्रव्यों की मात्रा के निरंतर और गतिशील माप के लिए मापन प्रणाली का घटक है ।

आकृति-1

आकृति-2 : मॉडल के इंडीकेटर को सीलिंग करने का प्रावधान ।

इन स्विचों में दो अलग- अलग बाह्य मैगनेटिक बोल्ट लगे हुए हैं जिनमें से एक प्रोग्राम मोड का पता लगाने के लिए और दूसरा डब्ल्यू एवं एम परिवर्तन का पता लगाने के लिए है । संबंधित बोल्ट को हटा कर प्रोगाम अथवा डब्ल्यू एवं एम का पता लगाया जा सकता है । प्रत्येक बोक्ट में एक छोटा छिद्र है जिसे अनाधिकृत छेड़खानी से बचने के लिए एक तार और सीसे की सील द्वारा सील किया जा सकता है । दोनों बोल्टो के ऊपर एक बाहरी ढकने वाला कवर है जिसे लोक किया जा सकता है ताकि कोई किसी भी बोल्ट को हटा न सके । प्रत्येक बोल्ट के कार्य को दर्शाने के लिए कवर पर भी ' डब्ल्यू एवं एम ' अथवा ' प्रोग्राम ' लिखा जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 334)/2010 ]

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

4153

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2012

S.O. 1746. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it along with the Model Approval Certificate issued by the NMI , Netherlands is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure givenbelow) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards ofWeights and Measures Act , 1976(60 of 1976 ) and the Standards ofWeights 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 , issued and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of electronic calculator- cum-loading batch controller of series "Multiload II- RCU II - DIV 2, Multiload II - EXL ML2, Multiload II - SMP " with Brand Name "Multiload II " and Accuracy Class 0.5 (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Toptech Systems Inc. , 289 Hunt Park Cove, Longwood , Florida 32750 , USA and sold in India without any alteration before or after sale by M/ s . IDEX Fluid & Metering Private Ltd , 231-1 &2 , Por Industrial Estate , Por- Ramangamdi , Dist . Vadodara - 391243 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 11/139;

The said model is a component for measuring systems for the continuous and dynamic measurement of quantities ofliquids other than water.

Figure-1

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

The switches consist of two separate external magnetic bolts , one for program mode access , and one for W & M change access . Program or W & M access is achieved for removing the corresponding bolt . Each bolt has a small hole that can be sealed with a wire and lead seal to detect unauthorized access . Both bolts are also have an external fold down cover that can be locked to prevent moving someone from removing either bolt. The cover will also be stamped as " W & M " or "Program" to indicate the function of each bolt.

[F. No. WM - 21 (334) /2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

1706 GI/2012-2 4154

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2012

का.आ. 1747.-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 तथा 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 ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स संधु स्कूल क. , गुरुनानक नगर, भवानीगढ़ रोड , समाना ( पंजाब ) -147101 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एसएसटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सुपरस्टार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 11 / 585 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति-1

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, 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 1 × 10 *, 2× 10 *, 5 × 10 के , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 198 ) /2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 4155

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2012

S.O. 1747. 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 ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (ApprovalofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of section 36 of the 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 " SST " and with brand name " SUPERSTAR" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . Sandhu Scale Co , Guru Nanak Nagar , Bhawanigarh Road, Samana (Punjab)-147101 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/585 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type loac cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type ) with a maximum capacity of 30kg. and minimum capacity of100g . 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 230Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1Model

Figure-2: Schematic diagram ofsealing provision ofthe model .

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of the same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. and with number of verification scale inerval(n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg. to 2 g . and with number ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5 × 10% , kbeing 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 ( 198)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 4156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii))

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2012

का.आ. 1748.-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 तथा 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 ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स संधु स्केल क. , गुरुनानक नगर , भवानीगढ़ रोड, समाना ( पंजाब ) -147101 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एसएसपी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सुपरस्टार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 10/ 586 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत-प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , 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. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) 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 ( 198 ) /2010 ]

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

4157

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

-New Delhi, the 16th March, 2012

S.O. 1748. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) of series " SSP" and with brand name " SUPERSTAR" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Sandhu Scale Co , Guru Nanak Nagar, Bhawanigarh Road, Samana (Punjab ) -147101 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/586 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type loac cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 200kg. 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) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

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

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of the same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. up to 5000kg . with number ofverification 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 of 1 × 10% , 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 said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (198)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 4158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नईदिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2012

का.आ. 1749.-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 मेटलर- टोलेडो ए जी, इम लांचचेर , 8606 , ग्रीफेंसी , स्विटजरलैंड द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 1 ) वाले " जेएल " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मेटलर टोलेडो " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) जिसे भारत में मैसर्स मैटलर टोलेडो इंडिया प्रा. लि. , अमर हिल्स, साकी विहार रोड , पोवई , मुंबई-400072 द्वारा विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/303 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रो मैगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पेनसेशन प्रिंसीपल मोनो ब्लाक टैकनोलॉजी पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1510 कैरट है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 0.01 कैरट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1

CAD SEAL

ise 0000

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

इंडीकेटर के दोनों तरफ दिए गए सीलिंग होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 0.01 कैरट या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 1,51,000 तक या उससे कम की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 1510 कैरट 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 ( 125 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 4159 [भाग II-खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

NewDelhi , the 16th March, 2012

S.O. 1749. 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 ofWeights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights andMeasures (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 conferredby sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of SpecialAccuracy (Accuracy class-I) of series " JL " and with brand name "METTLER TOLEDO" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . Mettler Toledo , AG 1m Langacher, 8606 Greifensee, Switzerland and marketed in India by M/s Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd. , Amar Hills , Saki Vihar Road, Powai , Mumbai-400 072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/303 ;

The said model is an electro magnetic force compensation principle with mono block technology based non- automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1510 carats . The verification scale interval ( e) is 0.01 carats . It has a taredevice with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light crystal ( LCD) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

LEAD SEAL

VIEW 2000-

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 . Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section ( 12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydecares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 1510 carats with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 1,51,000 or less for' e ' value of0.01 carats or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10%, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 125)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 4160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2012

का.आ. 1750.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) तथा विधिक माप विज्ञान (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( 6 ) और नियम 11 के उप- नियम( 4 ) के साथ पठित विधिक माप विज्ञान अधिनियम , 2009 ( 2010 का 1 ) की धारा 22 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एक्सिसइलेक्ट्रोनिक्स , जी-72 सलाकी इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया , देहरादून , उत्तराखण्ड द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " पीएलएएक्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " समार्ट इम्पेक्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 11 / 276 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1

Model PLAX

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार विधिक माप विज्ञान ( माडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 2011 के नियम 8 के उप - नियम ( 9 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , 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 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई मान 1 × 10 के, 2× 10 के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 381 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 4161 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

NewDelhi , the 16th March, 2012

S.O. 1750.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ( 1 of2010) and the Legal Metrology(Approval ofModels) Rules, 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sections 22 of the Legal MetrologyAct, 2009 ( 1 of2010) read with sub- rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of the Models) Rules, 2011 , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indicates of medium accuracy (accuracy class- III) of series "PLAX" and with brand name "SMART IMPACT" (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/ s .Axis Electronics, G-72 , Selaqui IndustrialArea, Dehradun, Uttrakhand and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/276:

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type-with'kg to litre conversion facility) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg . and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. Ithas 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-1Model

Model: PLAX

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, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub -rule (9) ofrule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x 10k, 2x10 or 5 × 10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (381 )/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 1706 GI/2012-3 4162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2012

का.आ. 1751.- 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 तथा 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 ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स स्मार्ट टैक्नोलोजी सिस्टम्स, नं. 31 , पांचवा ' सी ' क्रॉस , एम ई एस रोड , शारदाम्बा नगर, जलहाली , बंगलौर-560013 , कर्नाटक द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एसटीएस -03 टीई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्मार्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/10/609 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

आकृति-1

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , 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 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1× 10 *, 2× 10 *, 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 367 ) /2010 ]

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

4163

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

NewDelhi , the 16th March, 2012

S.O. 1751.-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 (Approves 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 "STS - 03 TE " and with brand name " SMART " (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s . Smart Technology Systems , No. 31 , 5th ' C' Cross , MES Road , Sharadamba Nagar, Jalahalli , Bangalore-560013 , Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/609 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type) with a maximum capacity of 30kg . and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 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 230Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

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, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- rule (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make accuracyand performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale inerval (n) in the range of100 to 10000 for ' e' value of 100mg. to 2g. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of5g. 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 (367)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

4164

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2012

का.आ. 1752. 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 तथा 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 ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स स्मार्ट टैक्नोलोजी सिस्टम्स , नं. 31 , पांचवा ' सी ' क्रॉस , एम ई एस रोड, शारदाम्बा नगर , जलहाली , बंगलौर -560013 , कर्नाटक द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एसटीएस -03 पीई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्मार्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/610 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्स मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका 100 प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , 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. से 2 ग्रा. तक या इससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 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 और ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 367 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 4165

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16thMarch, 2012

S.O. 1752. 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 ofWeights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication ofMedium Accuracy (Accuracy class- III) ofseries "STS-03 PE" and with brand name "SMART" (hereinafter referredto as the said model) , manufactured by M/s. Smart Technology Systems , No. 31 , 5th ' C ' Cross , MES Road, Sharadamba Nagar, Jalahalli, Bangalore -560013 , Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/610 ;

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 witha 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- 1Model

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 & 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 decares 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 . and above 5000 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× 10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance withthe same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (367)/2010 )

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 4166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1753. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के. खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह वे स्थापित हो गया है :

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स :

स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

26-04-2012 आई एस 1885 ( भाग 74 ) : 2012/ आईईसी 60050-151 : 2001 विद्युत तकनीकी पारिभाषिक शब्दावली भाग 74 विद्युत चुम्बकीय युक्तियाँ (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

26-04-2012 आई एस 1885 ( भाग 75 ) : 2012/ आईईसी 60050-351 : 2006 विद्युत तकनीकी पारिभाषिक शब्दावली भाग 75 नियंत्रण प्रौद्योगिकी (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ : ईटी 01/टी-40 , टी-41 ] आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रनुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi , the 26th April , 2012

S.O. 1753. In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub- rule (1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date of Establishment No. and Year of the Indian Standards

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

26-4-2012

1. IS 1885 (Part 74) : 2012/IEC 60050- 151: 2001 Electrotechnical Vocabulary, Part 74 Electrical and Magnetic Devices (FirstRevision) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4167

भारत का राजपत्र : मंई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

( 1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

26-4-2012

2. IS 1885 (Part 75) : 2012/IEC 60050- 351: 2006 Electrotechnical Vocabulary, Part 75 Control

Technology

(FirstRevision)

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

[Ref: ET01/T-40, T-41 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 4 मई , 2012

का.आ.. 1754.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये हैं वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिए गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम सं. वापस किए गये मानक ( कों) की

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र भाग II ,

संख्या और वर्ष

खंड 3 , उप-खंड ( ii ) में का. आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1. आईएस 2071 ( भाग 2 ) : 1974

0988 ,06-03-1976

[संदर्भ : ईटी 19/जी-63 (ए) ]

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

New Delhi , the 4th May, 2012

S.O. 1754.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is hereby notified that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter have been cancelled and stand withdrawn:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. No. and Year of the Indian

$. O. No. & Date

Remarks Standards Withdrawn

published in the Gazette ofIndia, Part - II Section-3 , Sub-section(ii)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

0988 dt. 06-03-1976

1. IS 2071 (Part 2) : 1974 Methods ofhigh voltagetesting : Part 2 Testprocedures

(FirstRevision)

[Ref: ET 19/G-63 (A) ]

R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E' & Head (Electrotechnical) 4168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली , 7 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1755.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि, वर्ष/माह

(4)

(1) (2) (3)

1. 3821762 04-04-2012 वी इन्टरप्राईजेज

पॉपुलर मेटल रोलिंग इण्ड, कंपाउण्ड, टैंक रोड, सौभाग्य अस्पताल के सामने भाण्डुप , पश्चिम , मुंबई - 400078

2. 3822259 10-04-2012 गोल्ड ऑयल कार्पोरेशन

(सिलवासा) प्लॉट सं. 5 , सर्वे सं. 207/5 विलेज उमरकोल , दादरा एवं नगर हवेली सिलवासा 396230

3. 3822865 16-04-2012 साई इलेक्ट्रीकल्स, चॉल सं. 104/829 , मोतीलाल नगर सं. 1 , गोरेगाँव -पश्चिम , मुंबई - 401104

भा मा सं./ भाग/खण्ड/वर्ष भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(5)

(6)

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

भामा 335 : 1993 नये विद्युत रोधन तेर

भामा 3854 : 1997 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिएस्विचे

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13: 11 ]

एस. बी. रॉय , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख( एमडीएम III)

नई दिल्ली , 8 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1756.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह वे स्थापित हो गया है :

अनुसूची

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

स्थापित तिथि

(2)

(1)

1. आई एस/आईईसी 62056-21 : 2002 विद्युत मीटरिंग मीटर रीडिंग , शुल्क और लघु नियत्रंण के लिए ऑकडों का विनिमय भाग 21 : प्रत्यक्ष स्थानीय आँकडा विनिमय

(3)

(4)

08-05-2012 4169 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

(2).

(1)

(3)

(4)

2. आई एस/आईईसी 62056-42: 2002

08-05-2012

विद्युत मीटरिंग- मीटर रीडिंग , प्रभार और भार नियत्रंण के लिए ऑकडों का विनियम भाग 42 : कनेक्शन उन्मुखी अतुल्यकालिक आँकडा विनिमय के लिए भौतिक संस्तर सेवाएँ

08-05-2012 आई एस/आईईसी 62056-47: 2006

विद्युत मीटरिंग - मीटर रीडिंग , प्रभार

और भार नियत्रंण के लिए ऑकडों का आदान- प्रदान भाग 47 1Pv4 नेटवर्क हेतु कॉस्म परिवहन

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

[संदर्भ : ईटी 33/टी-47 , टी-49 , टी-54]

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

NewDelhi , the 8th May, 2012

S.O. 1756. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

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

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

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

08-5-2012

1. IS/IEC 62056-21 : 2002 Electricity Metering -Data Exchange for Meter Reading Tariff and load control - Part21 : Direct local data exchange

08-5-2012

2. IS/IEC 62056-42; 2002 Electricity Metering - Data Exchange for Meter Reading Tariff and load control - Part 42 Physical Layer Services and procedures for connection- oriented Asynchronous data exchange

08-5-2012

3. IS/IEC 62056-47: 2006 Electricity Metering - Data Exchange for Meter Reading Tariff and load control - Part 47 Cosem Transport Layers for 1Pv4 Networks

1706G1/2012-4 4170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

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

[Ref: ET- 13/T-47, T-49, T- 54]

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

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1757.-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

स्वीकृति करने की लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता तिथि/वर्ष/माह

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

(2)

(1 )

(3)

(4)

03-04-2012

1. 3821358

हाई - बॉड सिमेंट ( इंडिया) प्रा. लि. , सर्वे नं. 315/316/ 317 , राजकोट- पोरबंदर हाईवे नं. 8 - बी , गोमता पतिया, ग्राम पटीदाद , तालुका गोण्डल , जिला राजकोट , गुजरात

03-04-2012

3821459

हाई-बॉड सिमेंट ( इंडिया ) प्रा. लि. , सर्वे नं. 315 / 316/ 317 , राजकोट- पोरबंदर हाईवे नं. 8 - बी , गोमता पतिया , ग्राम पटीदाद , तालुका गोण्डल , जिला राजकोट, गुजरात

3. 3821964 04-04-2012 एकॉर्ड प्लास्टिक

जीआईडीसी II , प्लॉट

नं. 707 , सब्बलपुर ,

जिला जूनागढ , गुजरात -362037 4.

04-04-2012

3821863

नर्मदा पाईप्स

सर्वे नं. 211 , राजकोट- गोण्डल एनएच वाया भक्तिनगर रेलवे स्टेशन (राजकोट ) , वेरावल (शापर ) , जिला राजकोट गुजरात - 360002

11-04-2012

5. 3822360

वृंदावन मेटल्स

प्लॉट नं. जी- 1362, रोड 1 , जीआईडीसी मेटोदा, राजकोट गुजरात

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामा भाग अनु वर्ष

संख्या

(5)

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

12269

1987 53 ग्रेड की साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना

1489 1- 1991 सीमेंट

4985

2000 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए प्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप

141751 1 1999 सिंचाई उपस्कर- स्प्रिंकलर

पाइप-विशिष्टि भाग 1

पालीएथिलीन पाइप

2347

2006 घरेलू प्रेशर कुकर [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

( 1 ) ( 2)

(3)

(4)

6. 3823160 18-04-2012 अजंता लि.

पी. ओ. बॉक्स नं. 177 , ऑरपेट इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, मोरबी राजकोट हाईवे, मोरबी, जिला राजकोट गुजरात- 363641

7. 3824566 25-04-2012 जॉली रब्बर प्लॉट नं. जी- 904/बी, जीआईडीसी लोधिका, किश्शप्तन गेट , ग्राम मेटोदा, तालुका लोधिका, जिला राजकोट, गुजरात- 360021

8. 3824869 27-04-2012 अंकीता पंप इंडस्ट्रिज मवडी बायपास , धरती पानस्ट्रीट, खोडियार इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , मवंडी, राजकोट, गुजरात- 360004

9. 3824768 27-04-2012 अंकीता पंप इंडस्ट्रिज मवडी बायपास , धरती पानस्ट्रीट, खोडियार इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , मवडी, राजकोट, गुजरात- 360004

10. 3824970 27-04-2012 काठियावाड पंप्स नेहरू नगर , एनएच 8 बी , कामनाथ वेट ब्रिज के पास , राजकोट, गुजरात- 360002

11. 3826267 30-04-2012 श्री शिवशक्ति इंडस्ट्रिज स्ट्रीट नं. 13/10 , सोरठियावाड़ी, संकर मंदिर के समीप राजकोट, गुजरात - 360002

12. 3826065 30-04-2012 आकाश पॉलीप्लस्ट शेड नं. 1 , सर्वे नं. 251 , प्लॉट नं. 1 , ज्योती इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, शापर ( वेरावल) तालुकाकोटदा- संगानी राजकोट, गुजरात- 360024

4171

(5)

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

4250

1980 बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर ( द्रवीकारक और ग्राइंडर) की विशिष्टि

13098

1991 : स्वचल वाहन-वायवीय टायरों के लिएट्यूब- विशिष्टि

14220 1994 खुले कुएं के लिए सवमर्सिबल पम्पसेट

8034

2002 सवमर्सिबल पम्पसेट्स

8034 2002 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसेट्स

8034

2002 सवमर्सिबल पम्पसेट्स

4984

1995 पानी की आपूर्ति हेतु उच्च घनत्व पॉलीइथाइलीन पाइप 4172

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

(4) (3)

(2)

(1)

13. 3825972 30-04-2012 गार्ग कास्टिल्स ( प्रा. ) लि. सर्वे नं. 43/1 , सिहार अहमदाबाद रोड , ग्राम वाडिया, तालुका सिहोर, भावनगर , गुजरात- 364240

30-04-2012

14. 3825568

कृष्णा स्टील प्रोडक्टस सर्वे नं. 222 सिहारे घंघाली रोड , जीआईडीसी 4, घंघाली तालुका सिहोर , जिला भावनगर, गुजरात- 364240

( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

2001

2831

कार्बन इस्पात के बिलेट (साधारण किस्म)

2062

2011 हॉट रोल्ड मेडियम एण्ड हाई टेंसायल स्ट्रक्चरल स्टील

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13: 11 ] एम. राधाकृष्ण, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 8th May, 2012

S.O. 1757.-In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of regulation 4 ofthe 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

$1 . No.

Grant Date

Licences No.

Name and Address ofthe Party

(4) (2) (3)

(1)

03-04-2012

1. 3821358

Hi-Bond Cement (India)

IS No. Part Sec . Year Title ofthe Standard

(6) (7) (8) ( 9) (5)

12269

1987

53 grade ordinary portland cement

Pvt. Ltd. , Survey No. 315/ 316/317 , Rajkot - Porbandar Highway No. 8 -B,Gomta Patia, Village Patidad Taluka Gondal DistrictRajkot Gujarat

03-04-2012

2. 3821459

1489 1 1991

portland pozzolana cement part 1 flyash based

Hi-Bond Cement ( India) Pvt. Ltd. , Survey No. 315/ 316/317, Rajkot-Porbandar Highway No. 8 -B,Gomta Patia, Village Patidad Taluka Gondal District Rajkot Gujarat

04-04-2012 Accord Plastic 3821964

2000

4985

Unplasticized pvc

pipes for potable watersupplies

GIDC- II , Plot No. 707 , Sabalpur , District Junagadh Gujarat-362037 4173

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(2)

(1)

(3)

04-04-2012

3821863

Narmada Pipes SurveyNo. 211 Rajkot-Gondal National Highway via Bhaktinagar Station (Rajkot ) , Veraval (Shapar) Veraval (Shapar) DistrictRajkot Gujarat-360002

11-04-2012

3822360

Vrundavan Metals Plot No.G- 1362, Road 1 . GIDC, Metoda, District Rajkot Gujarat

18-04-2012

6. 3823160

AjantaLtd. PO Box No. 177 Orpat Industrial Estate , Morbi Rajkot Highway, Morbi, District Rajkot Gujarat-363641

25-04-2012

3824566

JollyRubber PlotNo. G 904/B , GIDC Lodhika, Kishan Gate, at VillageMetoda , Taluka Lodhika, DistrictRajkot Gujarat-360021 :

27-04-2012

3824869

Ankeeta Pump Industries Mavdi bypass , Dhartipan Street, Khodiyar Ind, Area , Mavadi, Rajkot i Gujarat-360004

27-04-2012

3824768

Ankeeta Pump Industries Mavdi bypass, Dhartipan Street, Khodiyar Ind ,Area , Mavadi,Rajkot Gujarat-360004

27-04-2012

3824970

10.

Kathiyaward Pumps Nehru Nagar, N. Η. 8-B , NRKamnath Weigh Bridge, Rajkot Gujarat-360002

30-04-2012

3826267

11.

Shree Shivshakti Industries StreetNo. 13/10, Şorthiyawadi , Near Sankar Temple, Rajkot Gujarat-360002

(6) (7) (8 ) (9 ) (5)

1417511- 1999

Irrigation equipment- sprinklerpipes- part - I : polyethylene pipes

2347- 2006

Domestic pressure cookers

1980

4250

Domestic electric food-mixers (liquidizes and grinders)

13098 1991 Automotive vehicles- tubes for pneumatic tyers.

14220 1994

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

2002

8034

Submersible Pumpsets

2002

8034

Submersible Pumpsets

2002

8034

Submersible Pumpsets 4174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ]

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

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

30-04-2012

12. 3826065

4984

1995

High density polyethy- lene pipes for portable water supplies

Akash Poly Plast Shed No. 1 , Survey No. 251 , Plot No. 1 , Jyoti Industrial Estate, Shapar(Veraval) Taluka Kotda- Sangani , District Rajkot Gujarat-360024

30-04-2012

13 3825972

2831

Garg Casteels ( P) Ltd.

2001

Carbon steel cast billet ignots , billets , blooms and slabs for re- rolling into low tensile structural steel

Survey No. 43/1 , Sihor Ahmedabad Road, AtVillageVadiya , Taluka Sihor, District Bhavnagar Gujarat-364240

141 3825568 30-04-2012

2062

2011

Hotrolled medium and high tensile structural steel

Krishna Steel Products SurveyNo. 222 , Sihor Ghanghli Road, Near GIDC IV, at Ghanghli , Taluka Sihor, District Bhavnagar Gujarat-364240

[No. CMD/13: 11]

M. RADHAKRISHNA , Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 8 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1758. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह वे स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

08--05-2012 आई एस/आईईसी 60947-1 : 2007 निम्न-वोल्टता के स्विच गियर और नियंत्रण गियर भाग । सामान्य नियम (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकात्ता, 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 07/टी-52 ]

आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी) 4175

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2012

S.O. 1758. Inpursuance ofclause (b) of sub-rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau ofIndian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablishement Sl.No. No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards

No. andYear ofthe IndianStandards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

08-05-2012

1. IS/IEC 60947-1: 2007 Low Voltage Switchgearand Controlgear Part 1 General Rules (First Revision)

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

[Ref: ET07/T-52]

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

नई दिल्ली, 9 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1759.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एंतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: -

अनुसूची

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30-04-2012 1. आई एस/आई एस ओ 5580 : 1985 अविनाशी परीक्षण औद्योगिक रेडियोग्राफी इल्यूमिनेटर- न्यूनतम अपेक्षाएं

इस भारतीय मानक 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: एमटीडी 21 /टी-76 ]

पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) 4476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th May, 2012

$:0. 1759.-In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS/ISO 5580 : 1985 Non-

30-04-2012

destructive testing-

Industrial radiographic illuminators - minimum

requirements

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

[Ref: MTD 21/T- 76]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' F ' & Head ( MTD)

नई दिल्ली , 9 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1760.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30-04-2012 आई एस 15946 : 2012/आई एस ओ 9539 : 1988 गैस वेल्डिंग , कटिंग एवं संबद्ध प्रक्रियाओं में प्रयुक्त उपकरणों की सामग्रियाँ

इस भारतीय मानक 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 तिरूअनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: एमटीडी 11 /टी -7 ]

पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख (एमटीडी) 4177

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th May, 2012

S.O. 1760.-In pursuance ofclause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl.No. No. andYear ofthe Indian Standards Established

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30-04-2012

1. IS 15946 : 2012/ISO 9539 : 1988 Materials for equipment used in gas welding , cutting and allied processes

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

[Ref.: MTD 11 /T-7 ]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' F ' & Head (MTD)

नई दिल्ली, 10 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1761.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

मार्च 2012 1. आई एस 6873 ( भाग 2/

अनुभाग 1 ) : 2012/सिस्पर 14-1 : 2009 रेडियो व्यवधान लक्षणों की पद्धतियाँ एवं सीमाएं भाग 2 विद्युत चुम्बकीय संगतता ( ई एम सी ) घरेलु साधित्र, विद्युत संयंत्र और समान उपकरणों के लिए अपेक्षाएँ अनुभाग 1 उत्सर्जन ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

दिसम्बर 2011 2. आई एस 8161 ( भाग 5 ) : 2011 / आई ई सी 61123 : 1991 उपस्कर विश्वसनीयता परीक्षण हेतु मार्गदर्शिका भाग 5 सफलता अनुपात के लिए परीक्षण योजना अनुपालन (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

1706 GI/2012-5 4178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

(2)

(3)

(4)

दिसम्बर 2011 आई एस 15037: 2011/ आई ई सी 61078: 2006 डिपेंडेबिलिटी विश्लेषण तकनीकें - विश्वसनीयता ब्लाक डायाग्राम एवं बूलियन विधि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

दिसम्बर 2011 आई एस 15038: 2011/ आई ई सी 61164: 2004 रिलाइअबिलिटी गोथ- सांख्यिकीय परीक्षण एवं निर्धारण विधियाँ ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

दिसम्बर 2011 आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-103: 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-103 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ- परीक्षण धारिता के लिए केबल

दिसम्बर 2011 आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-105: 2006 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-105 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ - परावैद्युत केबल की विद्स्टैंड वोल्टेज के लिए परीक्षण

दिसम्बर 2011 आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-107: 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-107 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ - केबल माइक्रोफोनी चार्ज स्तर के लिए परीक्षण ( यांत्रिकी प्रेरक शोर )

फरवरी 2012 आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-108: 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-108 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ- संरचना प्रतिबाधा, फेज और ग्रुप विलम्ब विद्युतीय लम्बाई और संचारित वेग के लिए परीक्षण

मार्च 2012 आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-111 : 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-111 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ - फेज स्थिरांक की स्थायित्वता के लिए परीक्षण

10.

मार्च 2012 आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-112: 2006 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-112 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ वापसी हानि के लिये परीक्षण ( प्रतिबाधा की समानता )

11.

फरवरी 2012 आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-115: 2006 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-115 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ - प्रतिबाधा की नियमितता के लिये परीक्षण (स्पंद/स्टैप कार्य वापसी हानि) [भाग II---खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4179

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

फरवरी 2012 12. आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-301: 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-301 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ - अंडाकारिता परीक्षण

मार्च 2012 13. आई एस/ आई ई सी62209-1-2005: हस्त- स्थित व इंसानी शरीर आरोपित बेतार संचार युक्तियों से रेडियो आवृति के विकिरण का इंसान पर अनावरण- इंसानी मॉडल , मापयंत्रण व प्रतिक्रयाएं भाग 1 कान के करीब इस्तेमाल होने वाली हस्त- स्थित युक्तियों के लिए ( आवृति श्रृंखला 300 मेगा हर्ट्ज से 3 गीगा हटर्ज ) विशिष्टि अनवेषण दर ( एस ए आर ) को निधारित करने की प्रक्रिया

14.

फरवरी 2012 आई एस/ आई ई सी 60862-2-2002 ध्वनी संबंधी सतह तरंग ( एस ए डब्ल्यू) फिल्टर की निर्धारित गुणता भाग 2 प्रयोग हेतु मार्गदर्शिका

फरवरी 2012 15. आई एस/ आई ई सी 60862-3-2003 ध्वनी संबंधी सतह तरंग ( एस ए डब्ल्यू) फिल्टर की निर्धारित गुणता भाग 3 मानक रूपरेखा

अप्रैल 2012 16. आई एस/ आई ई सी 61196-1-104: 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-104 इलैक्ट्रिकल परीक्षण विधियाँ-परीक्षण धारिता स्थायित्व के लिए केबल आई एस/आई ई सी 62226-1-2004 निम्न मध्यवर्ती आवृति श्रृंखला में विद्युत या चुम्बकीय क्षेत्र का अनावरण- इंसानी शरीर के विद्युत धारा घनत्व और प्रेरित आंतरिक विद्युत को परिकलम करने की विधि भागः । सामान्य

फरवरी 2012 17. आई एस/ आई ई सी 62226-1-2004 निम्न मध्यवर्ती आवृति श्रृंखला में विद्युत या चुम्बकीय क्षेत्र का अनावरण इंसानी शरीर में विद्युत धारा घनत्व और प्रेरित आंतरिक विद्युत को परिकलन करने की विधि भाग । सामान्य

मार्च 2012 18. आई एस/ आई ई सी 62226-2-2004 निम्न मध्यवर्ती आवृति श्रृंखला में विद्युत या चुम्बकीय क्षेत्र का अनावरण- इंसानी शरीर में विद्युत धारा घनत्व और प्रेरित आंतरिक विद्युत को परिकलन करने की विधि भाग 2 सामान्य चुम्बकीय क्षेत्र का अनावरण अनुभाग 12 डी मॉडल

मार्च 2012 19. आई एस/ आई ई सी 62233-2005 इंसान के अनावरण से सम्बन्धित घरेलू साधित्र और समान उपकरणों के विद्युत चुम्बकीय क्षेत्र की मापन पद्धतियाँ

अप्रैल 2012 20. आई एस/ आई ई सी 62369-1 : 2008 0 से 300 गीगा हर्टज की आवृति श्रृंखला पर विविध प्रयोजनाओं में छोटी श्रृंखला की युक्तियोंसे विद्युत चुम्बकीय क्षेत्र के इंसानी शरीर पर अनावरण का मूल्याँकन भाग 1 इलैक्ट्रिॉनिक मदों के निरीक्षण , रेडियो आवृति पहचान और समान प्रणालियों के लिये इस्तेमाल युक्तियों द्वारा उत्पादित क्षेत्र 4180

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

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

[संदर्भ : एलआईटीडी/जी-75]

नरेन्द्र सिंह , प्रमुख ( इलैक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आई टी )

New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012

S.O. 1761. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

March 2012

1 IS 6873 : PART 2 / SEC 1 :2012 Limits and methods ofmeasurements of radio disturbance characteristics Part 2 Electro Magnetic Compatibility (EMC) Requirements for Household Appliances , Electric tools and similar apparatus , Section 1 Emission (Second Revision)

December 2011 2 IS 8161 (Part 5) : 2011 Guide for Equipment ReliabilityTesting Part 5 Compliance Test Plans for Success Ratio ( First Revision)

December 2011 3 IS 15037 : 2011 Analysis Techniques for Dependability- Reliability Block Diagram and BooleanMethods (First Revision)

December 2011 4 IS 15038 : 2011 Reliability Growth - Statistical Test and Estimation Methods (First Revision)

December 2011 5 IS /IEC 61196-1-103 :2005 Coaxial Communication Cables Part 1-103 Electrical Test Methods -- Testfor Capacitance ofCable

December 2011 6. IS/IEC 61196-1-105 :2005 Coaxial Communication Cables Part 1-105 Electrical Test Methods - Test for Withstand Voltage of Cable Dielectric

December 2011 7. IS / IEC 61196-1-107: 2005 Coaxial Communication Cables Part 1-107 Electrical Test Methods Test for Cable Microphony Charge Level (Mechanically InducedNoise)

February 2012 8. IS/ IEC 61196-1-108 :2005 Coaxial Communication Cables Part 1-108 Electrical Test Methods - Test for Characteristic Impedance , Phase and Group Delay, Electrical Length and Propagation Velocity

March 2012

9 IS/IEC 61196-1-111 : 2005 Coaxial Communication Cables , Part 1-111 Electrical Test methods - Test forStability of Phase Constant 4181

भारत का राजपत्र मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

March 2012 10. IS /IEC 61196-1-112 : 2005 Coaxial Communication Cables, Part 1-112 Electrical Test methods - Test for return loss ( Uniformity of impedance)

February 2012 11. IS/IEC 61196-1-115: 2005 Coaxial Communication Cables Part 1-115 Electrical Test methods - Test for Regularity of Impedance ( Pulse/Step

February 2012 Function Return Loss): 12. IS/IEC 61196-1-301 :2005 Coaxial Communication Cables Part 1-301 Electrical Test Methods - Testfor ovality

March 2012 13. IS /IEC 62209: Part 1 Human Exposure to Radio. Frequency Fields - from Hand-held and Body- mounted Wireless Communication Devices Human Models , Instrumentation and Procedures Part 1 Procedure to determine the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Hand- held Devices used inClose Proximityto the Ear (Frequency range of300 MHzto 3GHz)

February 2012 14. IS/ IEC 60862-2 : 2002 Surface acoustic wave (saw) filters of assessed quality Part 2 Guidance on use

February 2012 15. IS /IEC 60862-3 : 2003 Surface acoustic wave (saw) filters of assessed quality Part 3 Standard outlines

April 2012 16. IS/IEC 61196: Part 1 : Sec 104: 2005 Coaxial Communication Cables Part 1-104 Electrical Test Methods - Testfor Capacitance Stability of Cable

February 2012 17. IS/IEC 62226-1 : 2004 Exposure to electric or magnetic fields in the low and intermediate frequency range - Methods for calculating the current density and internal electric field induced in the human body Part1 General

March 2012 18. IS /IEC 62226-2-1 : 2004 Exposure to electric or magnetic fields in the low and intermediate frequency range- methods for calculating the current density and internal electric field induced in the human body Part 2 Exposure to magnetic fields Section 12D Models

March 2012 19. IS/ IEC 62233 : 2005 Measurement methods for electromagnetic fields of household appliances and similar apparatus with regard to human exposure

April2012 20. IS/IEC 62369 : Part 1 : 2008 Evaluation ofHuman Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Short Range Devices (SRDS ) in various Applications over the Frequency Range O GHz to 300 GHz Part 1 Fields Produced by Devices used for Electronic Article Surveillance , RFI and Similar Systems

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

[Ref: LITD/G- 75 ]

NARENDRA SINGH, Head (Electronics & IT) 4182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई, 2012

का.आ. 1762.-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 जिन भारतीय मानक के संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक के संशोधन की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 537: 2011 टालवीन-विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2. आई एस 1448 ( पी: 154 ): 2012/ आई एस ओ 12205: 1995 पेट्रोलियम एवं इसके उत्पादों के परीक्षणों की पद्धतियां( पी: 154 ) मध्यवर्ती आसुत ईंधन की आक्सीजन स्थिरता ज्ञात करना

3. आई एस 11159 ( भाग 4 ) : 2011 /आई एस ओ 6743-3: 2003 स्नेहक , औद्योगिक तेल एवं संबद्ध उत्पाद ( श्रेणी एल ) वर्गीकरण भाग 4 फैमिली डी (संपीडक)

4. आई एस 11159 ( भाग 6 ): 2011/आई एस ओ 6743-5: 2006 स्नेहक , औद्योगिक तेल एवं संबद्ध उत्पाद ( श्रेणी एल ) वर्गीकरण भाग 6 फैमिली टी ( टरबाइंस )

5. आई एस 11159 ( भाग 7 ): 2012/आई एस ओ 6743-6: 1990 स्नेहक, औद्योगिक तेल एवं संबद्ध उत्पाद ( श्रेणी एल ) वर्गीकरण भाग 7 फैमिली सी (गियर )

6. आई एस 15958: 2012 स्वचल वाहनों के लिए संपीडित प्राकृतिक गैस ( सी एन जी)- विशिष्टि

7. आई एस 15770: 2008 लाईट डीजल विशिष्टि (द्विभाषी)

8. आई एस 1448 (पी: 153 ): 2012/आई एस ओ 20847: 2004 पेट्रोलियम एवं इसके उत्पादों के परीक्षणों की पद्धतियां ( पी: 153 ) पेट्रोलियम- उत्पाद आटोमोटिव ईंधन की मात्रा ज्ञात करना- ऊर्जा परिक्षेपी एक्स- रे प्रतिदीप्ति स्पेक्ट्रोमीटरी

9. आई एस 1604: 2012 वायुयानों में प्रयुक्त गैसोलीन- विशिष्टि( चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

10. आई एस 3400 ( भाग 24 ): 2012/आई एस ओ 8033: 2006 वल्कनीकृत रबड़ की. परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 24 रबड़ और प्लास्टिक हौज संघटकों के बीच आसंजन ज्ञात करना ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

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

(3)

(4)

कुछ नही

दिसम्बर 2011

कुछ नही

मार्च 2012

कुछ नही

अगस्त 2011

कुछ नही

अगस्त 2011

कुछ नहीं

मार्च 2012

कुछ नही

मार्च 2012

कुछ नही

मार्च 2012

कुछ नही

अप्रैल 2012

कुछ नही

अप्रैल 2012

कुछ नही

अप्रैल 2012 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4183

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

11.

अप्रैल 2012

कुछ नही

आई एस 9873 ( भाग 2 ): 2012/ आई एस ओ 8124-2: 2007 खिलौनों की निरापदता भाग 2 ज्वलनशीलता ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

अप्रैल 2012

कुछ नही

12. आई एस 11159 ( भाग 5 ): 2012/ आई एस ओ 6743-4: 1999 स्नेहक , औद्योगिक तेल एवं संबद्ध उत्पाद ( श्रेणी एल ) वर्गीकरण भाग 5 फैमिली एच ( द्रव चालित प्रणालियां )

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

[संदर्भ: पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गज. ) ]

डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) विजय मलिक, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( पीसीडी)

New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012

S. O. 1762.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment/ Standards to Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich is givenin the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated :-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. and Year of the

Date of Established No. and year and title of the Indian Standards Established

Indian Standards , if

any, Superseded by

the New Indian

Standards

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

None

December 2011 1. IS 537 : 2011 Toluene - Specification ( Second Revision)

None

March 2012 2. IS 1448(P: 154) : 2012/ISO 12205: 1995 Methods of Tests for Petroleum and its products (P: 154) Determination ofthe Oxidation Stability ofMiddle- Distillate Fuels.

None

August 2011 3. IS11159(Part 4): 2011/ISO 6743-3:2003 Libricafts, lesdustrial Oils and Related Products (Class L ) - Classification Part 4 FamilyD (Compressors)

None

August 2011 4. 1511159(Part 6): 2011/ISO 6743-5:2006 Lubricants, Industrial Oils and Related Products ( Class L) - Classification Part 6 FamilyT (Turbines) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5, 1934

4184

(2)

(1)

5 IS 11159 (Part 7) : 2012/ISO 6743-6: 1990 Lubricants , Industrial Oils and Related Products (Class L) - Classification Part 7 Family C (Gears)

6 IS 15958 : 2012 Compressed - Natural Gas (CNG) for Automotive purposes

7 IS 15770 : 2008 Light Diesel Oil-Specification (Billingual )

& IS 1448 (P: 153 ) : 2012/ISO 20847: 2004 Methods of Tests for Perroleum and its products (P: 153) Petroleum Products- Determination of Sulfur content ofAutomotive Fuels - Energy- Dispersive X - Ray Fluorence Spectrometry

9 IS 1604 : 2012 Aviation Gasoline ----Specification (Fourth Revision)

10 IS 3400 (Part 24) : 2012/ISO 8033 : 2006 Methos ofTest for Vulcanized Rubber Part 24 Rubber and Plastics Hose- Determination of Adhession between components ( First Revision)

11 IS 9873 ( Part 2): 2012/ISO 8124-2 : 2007 Safety ofToys Part 2 Flammability ( Second Revision)

12. IS 11159 (Part 5) : 2012/ISO 6743-4 : 1999 Lubricants , Industrial Oils and Related Products(Class L) - Classification Part 5 Family H (Hydraulic Systems)

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

March 2012

None

March 2012

None

March 2012

None

April 2012

None

April2012

None

April2012

None

April2012

None

April2012

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

[Ref: PCD/G- 7 (Gazette) ] Dr. (Smt . ) VIJAY MALIK, Scientist ' F ' & Head ( PCD ) 4185

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1763.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 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

संख्या लाइसेंस

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि, वर्ष/माह

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

1. 9898932 24-11-2011 नोवल प्रोडक्टस , के 83 , इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सैन्टर , मानसा रोड , भटिण्डा ( पंजाब )

2. 9899631 2-12-2011

वर्ष

अनु

भा. मा. भाग सं.

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(9)

(8) (5)

(6) (7)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

1988

5531

जल , गैस और मलजल के लिए एस्बेस्टस सीमेंट के दाब पाइप हेतु ढलवां लोहे के स्पेशल

आर जी इण्डस्ट्रीज , बैकसाइड फोकल प्वाइंट एक्सटेंशन गॉव फजलपुर , रंधावा मंसदा के पास , जिला जालन्धर ( पंजाब )

3. 9904190 26-12-2011

1979

2052

पशुओं के लिए आहार

राहुल एन्टरप्राइसिज , एन एच 95 , फिरोजपुर मोगा रोड , राधास्वामी डेरे के पास , गाँव व डाकघर लाले , जिला फिरोजपुर ( पंजाब ) . 142050

27-12-2011

9904291

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

फैकलीन वाटर्स, गाँव फतेहपुर , डाकघर एवं तहसील समनाना, जिला पटियाला ( पंजाब ) -147101

3-2-2012

5. 9905091

मीर स्टील रॉलिग मिल्स, इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सैन्टर, लस्सीपोरा , पुलवामा, जिला जम्मू(जे. के. )

6. 9905903 29-12-2011 गर्ग मशीन टूल्स, डी 64/65ए फोकल प्वाइंट , फतेहगढ़ साहिब , मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ़ (पंजाब ) - 147301

9906194

26-12-2011 बी आर एग्रोटेक लिमिटेड , इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , सिडको, कथुआ, जम्मूएवं कश्मीर (जे. के. ) - 184101

8. 9908909 20-01-2012 यूरो इंडिया बेवरेजीस , चौक किशनपुरा जालन्धर सिटी (नार्थ ) जिला जालन्धर ( पंजाब )

1706G1/2012-6

20X.

1786

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य की विरूपित इस्पात छड़े तारें

2006

2347

घरेलू प्रैशर कुकर

डेल्टामैथरिन

14411

9661

200114

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) 4186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

(3)

( 1) (2)

(4)

9. 9909204

20-01-2012 निधि पाईप लिमिटेड , गाँव भांखरपुर , तहसील डेराबस्सी, एस ए एस नगर (मोहाली ) (पंजाब)- 141102

10. 9910690

25-01-2012

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(5)

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

3589

2001 जल , गैस और मलजल के लिए बिजली से वेल्डित इस्पात के पाइप

2830

1992 कार्बन इस्पात के बिलेट

जोगिन्दरा कास्टिंग प्रा. लिमिटेड, जी टी रोड , सरहिन्द साईड , पी ओ मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ़ , जिला फतेहगढ़ साहिब (पंजाब)

11. 9913191 02-02-2012 निधि पाईप्स, गाँव भांखरपुर, तहसील डेराबस्सी, जिला एस ए एस नगर मोहाली , (पंजाब)

12. 9913292

03-02-2012 के एन के कैमीकल्स, आई जी सी , फेज -1 , साम्बा, जिला जम्मू-184121 (जे . के. )

13. 9913801

03-02-2012 श्री साईं मिनरल कारपोरेशन , गाँव व डाकघर मेहलां , तहसील सुनाम , जिला संगरूर ( पंजाब)

4270

2001 पानी के कुएँ के लिएस्टील ट्यूब

1786

2008 कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य की विरूपित इस्पात छड़े और तारें

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

पी. के. मुखोपाध्याय , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012

S.O. 1763. In pursuance of sub -regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

SI . No.

Licence No.

Name and Address oftheParty

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

1. 9898932

24-11-2011 M/ sNovel Products K-83 , Industrial Growth Centre , Mansa Road , Bathinda Distt : Bathinda Punjab

IS No.

Year

Part Sec .

Title of the Standard

(5)

(6)

(7) (8 ) (9)

14543

2004

Packaged DrinkingWater [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4187

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

(4)

(1) (2)

2. 9899631

02-12-2011 M/s . R. G. Industries Backside Focal Point Extension, Village Fazal Pur, Near Randhawan Masandan , Distt: Jalandhar Punjab

3. 9904190

26-12-2011 M/s. Rahul Enterprises N.H. 95, Ferozepur Moga Road Opp . Radha Swami Dera, VPO Lalley, Ferozepur, Distt: Ferozepur Punjab- 142050

27-12-2011

4. 9904291

M/ s . Franklin Waters Village Fatehpur, P.O. & Teh Samana , Distt: Patiala Punjab- 147101

03-12-2012

9905091

M/s. MIR Steel Rolling Mills, Industrial Growth Centre, Lassipora, Pulwama Distt: Jammu

J. K.

9905903

29-12-2011

(5)

(6)

(9)

(7) (8)

5531

1998 Cast iron specials for asbestos cement pressure pipes for water, gas and sewage

1997

2052

Compounded Feeds for Cattle

14543

2004 Packaged DrinkingWater

2008

1786

High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

2006

2347

Domestic Pressure Cookers

M/ s. Garg Machine Tools D-64/65 , Focal Point, Mandigobindgarh

Distt: Fatehgarh Sahib

Punjab- 147301

7. 9906194

26-12-2011

Deltamethrin

14411

1996

M/s . B. R. Agrotech Ltd. Industrial Area , SIDCO , Kathua Distt: Jammu and Kashmir JK- 184101

20-01-2012

8. 9908909

2004

14543

Packaged DrinkingWater

M/s . Euro India Beverages Chowk Kishanpura, Jalandhar City (North)

Distt: Jalandhar , Punjab

9. 9909204

20-01-2012 M/s. Nidhi Pipes Limited VillBhankarpur Tehsil Derabassi , Derabassi

Distt: SAS Nagar (Mohali ) Punjab- 141102

10. 9910690 25-01-2012 M/ s . Jogindra Castings Private Limited G.T. Road, Sirhind Side, P. O. Mandi Gobindgarh , Mandi Gobindgarh , Distt : Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab

2001

3589

Steel Pipes for Water and Sewage

1992

2830

Carbon steel cast billetingots 4188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

11. 9913191

4270

02-02-2012

2001 M/ s. Nidhi Pipes

Steel Tubes Used for Water Wells

Village Bhankarpur ,

Distt: SAS Nagar

Tehsil Derabassi (Mohali ) Punjab

12. 9913292

1786

2008 03-02-2012 M/s . KNK Chemicals

High strength

deformed steel

IGC, Phase - I , Samba

Distt: Jammu

bars and wires

JK- 184121

for concrete

reinforcement

12. 9913801

03-02-2012 M/ s . Shri Sai Mineral

14543

2004

Packaged

Corporation

DrinkingWater

V& P. O. Mehlan

Tehsil Sunam

Distt: Sangrur

Punjab

[No. CMD/ 13: 11 ]

P. K. MUKHOPADHYAY, Scientist- ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1764.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरी एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है : -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम

रद्द करने की तिथ क्र. सं.

व पता

सीएल/एम

लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

9773407

5-12-2011 मिकरान आटोस लिमिटेड,

घरेलूप्रैशर कुकर

डी.47 , फोकल प्वाइंट , इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, डेराबस्सी जिला एस ए एस नगर

(मोहाली) ( पंजाब)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13:13 ]

पी. के. मुखोपाध्याय , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012

S.O. 1764. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :--

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Dateof Cancellation Licence No. CM/L

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

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

(5)

1 . 9773407

M/sMikkron Autos Limited

5-12-2011-

Cookers Domestic Pressure

D-47, FocalPoint ,

Industrial Area ,

DeraBassi

Distt: SAS Nagar (Mohali )

Punjab

[No. CMD/ 13 : 13 ]

P. K. MUKHOPADHYAY, Scientist ' F' & Head 4189

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1. नई दिल्ली , 10 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1765.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

30 अप्रैल 2012 1. आई एस 15950: 2012/ आई एस ओ 14181: 2000 पशु आहार सामग्री- ओरगेनोक्लोरीन कीटनाशी अवशिष्ट ज्ञात करना- गैस क्रोमेटोग्राफिक पद्धति

30 अप्रैल 2012 2. आई एस 15951: 2012/आई एस ओ

14182: 1999 पशु आहार सामग्री- ओरगेनोफास्फोरस कीटनाशी अवशिष्ट ज्ञात करना- गैस क्रोमेटोग्राफिक पद्धति

30 अप्रैल 2012 3. आई एस 15952: 2012/ आई एस ओ 14797: 1999 पशु आहार सामग्री- फुराजोलिडोन की मात्रा का निर्धारण- उच्च दक्षता द्रव क्रोमेटोग्राफी पद्धति

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

[संदर्भ: एफएडी/जी-128 ]

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

New Delhi , the 10th May, 2012

S. O. 1765. In pursuance of Clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established

No. and Year ofthe

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

Indian Standards , if any, Supersededby the New Indian Standards

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30April 2012 1. IS 15950 : 2012/ISO 14181 : 2000 Animal feeding stuffs - Determination of residues of organochlorine pesticides- GasChromatographic Method

30April 2012 2. IS 15951 : 2012/ISO 14182 : 1999 Animal feeding stuffs - Determination of residues of organophosphorus pestidides- GasChromatographic Method 4190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30April 2012

3. IS 15952 :2012/ISO 14797 : 1999 Animal feeding stuffs - Determination of furazolidone content - Method using high -performance liquid Chromatographic

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

[ Ref: FAD/G- 128 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1766. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

स्थापित तिथि

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

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

(1).

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 अप्रैल 2011 आई एस/ आई एस ओ 14020: 2000 पर्यावरण लेबल और घोषणाएं - सामान्य सिद्धांत ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुरशाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं । भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है ।

[संदर्भ : सीएचडी 34/आईएस/ आईएसओ 14020] ई. देवेन्दर , वैज्ञानिक ' जी' एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 11th May, 2012

S.O. 1766. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987. the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. and Year ofthe

Date of Established

No. and Year of the Indian Standard Established

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1April 2011

1. IS /ISO 14020 : 2000 Environmental labels and declarations - General Principles (firstrevision) 4191 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

Copy ofthis standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http: //www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref: CHD 34/ IS/ISO 14020]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist ' G ' and Head (Chemical)

नई दिल्ली , 14 मई, 2012

का.आ. 1767.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

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

अतिक्रमित भारतीय नानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30अप्रैल 2012 1. आई एस 11715 ( भाग 2 ): 2012/ आई एस ओ 3353-2: 2002 वायुयान लीड एवं रनआउट चूडियां भाग 2 आंतरिक चूडियां (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30अप्रैल 2012 आई एस 10494 ( भाग 1 ): 2012/ आई एस ओ

6966-1: 2005 वायुयान ग्राउंड उपस्कर-

2. आधारभूत अपेक्षाएं भाग 1 सामान्य डिजाइन अपेक्षाएं ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

30 अप्रैल 2012 3. आई एस 9067 : 2012/ आई एस ओ 15516: 2006 पोत एवं समुद्री प्रौद्योगिकी- डाविट- लॉन्च किए गए लाइफबोट्स के लिए लांचिग साधित्र ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ : टी ई डी/जी-16]

टी..वी. सिंह , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी )

New Delhi , the 14th May, 2012

S. O. 1767. In pursuance of Clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

4192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

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

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

30April2012

1. IS 11715 ( Part 2) : 2012 /ISO 3353- 2: 2002 Aerospace - Lead and runout threads Part 2 Internal threads (FirstRevision)

30April2012

2. IS 10494 ( Part 1) : 2012 /ISO 6966- 1: 2005 Aircraft ground equipment- Basic requirements Part 1 General design requirements ( First Revision)

30April 2012

3. IS 9067 : 2012/ISO 15516 : 2006 Ships and marine technology- Launching appliances for davit- launched lifeboats

(Second Revision)

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

[Ref: TED/G -16]

T. V. SINGH , Scientist ' F ' and Head (Transport Engg . )

नई दिल्ली , 14 मई, 2012

का.आ. 1768.-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 जिस भारतीय मानक के संशोधन का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

संशोधन संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 .

30अप्रैल 2012

संशोधन संख्या 2

वर्ष 2012

आई एस 14332: 1996 तंबाकू और तंबाकू उत्पाद - हुक्के का तंबाकू पेस्ट - विशिष्टि

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

[संदर्भ : एफएडी/जी-128 ]

डॉ. आर. के. बजाज , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि) 4193

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th May, 2012

S. O. 1768.-In pursuance of Clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it ;

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. and Year of the

Amendment

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

(2)

(1)

1. IS 14332 : 1996 Tabacco and tobacco products - Hookah tobacco paste- Specification

Date ofwhich the Amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

Amendment No. -2

30April 2012

year-2012

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

[Ref: FAD/G- 128 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1769.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम ( 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

क्रम लाइसेंस

सं. संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पताः

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि, वर्ष/माह

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

7-7-2011

1. 3740257

अनु. वर्ष

भा. मा. भाग संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(7)

( 9 )

(8)

(6)

(5)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स आत्मिया इंडस्ट्रीज, प्लाट नंबर 21 , सोहम इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, बी/एस नवागाम उद्योगनगर , एन एच नंबर 8 , पोस्ट कामरेज , सूरत-394185

8-7-2011

2. 3740863

एफ एच हाउस ,

1991

5244

सेफ डिपोज़िट लॉकर केबिनेट

मैसर्स ओरोम्बिका इंजिनियरिंग कम्पनी प्रा. लिमिटेड, न्यूमार्केट यार्ड के सामने, विसनगर , उत्तर मेहसाना- 384315

11-7-2011

3. 3740964

1986

7593 1

पावर ओपरेटिड

मैसर्स राली इंजिन लिमिटेड , एक्सल एस्टेट , वाशीयेर, वलसाद-396001

1706 GI /2012-7

न्यूमैटिक स्परेयर कम डसटर पार्ट 1 नैपसैक टाईप 4194

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

4. 3741360 11-7-2011 मैसर्स सागर एंटरप्राईस , फादर कंपाउंड , जनपथ पेट्रोल के पास , कलोल , गांधीनगर -382 721

5. 3743162 13-7-2011

(5)

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

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर )

कामन प्रुफड केनवस/ 2089 1977

डक तथा पोलिनस ( तारपोलिस )

प्रुफिंग इंडस्ट्रीज , 4701 , मैसर्स शिवम टैक्सटाईल तथा जी आई डी सी ( प्लास्टिक जोन ) सारिगाम , ता अंबरगाँव , वलसाद-396 155

6. 3743465 18-7-2011

2046

1995

मैसर्स रतनाम लैमिनेट्स प्रा . लिमिटेड सर्वे नंबर 116/बी , 1 गाँव सांपा , गांधीनगर , देहगाम

7. 3743667 19-7-2011 मैसर्स नीसा एग्रीटैक तथा फुड्स लिमिटेड, यूनिट 4 , केयर आफ द कैमबे ग्रांड फाईनल प्लाट नंबर 8 , टी पी एस नंबर 2 , थलतेज , अहमदाबाद-380 054

3745570

20-7-2011 मैसर्स गंगा हैल्थकेयर , 573 व 563 प्लाट बाजार , राईस मिल के पास , गाँव संतरामपुर, पंचमहल-389260

9. 3745772 21-7-2011

, डैकोरेटिव थर्मोसैटिंग सिनथेटिक रेसिन बांडिड लैमिनेटिड शीट्स

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर )

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर )

14543 2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर )

मैसर्स यथार्थ एकवा , बी-5/ 1 , जावेरी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, श्याम विला सोसाइटी , सिंगारवा , काठवाडा रोड , काठवाडा , अहमदाबाद

10.1 3744366 21-7-2011

मैसर्स रिद्धी स्टील तथा टयूब प्रा. लिमिटेड , 83/84/85 , गाँव कामोड, पिपलाज, पिराना रोड, अहमदाबाद-382 427

3744467 21-7-2011 मैसर्स क्राउन इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 6 , टारेंट पावर , सब स्टेशन , टौरेंट पावर सब स्टेशन के सामने , शाहवाडी बस स्टाप के पीछे , नारोल , अहमदाबाद -382405

4923

1977 हालो स्टील सैक्शन फार स्टक्चरल यूस

9537

1983

कांडयूटसफार इलैक्ट्रिकल इंस्टालेशन 4195

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

22-7-2011

3744669

12.

मैसर्स जी ए इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड; प्लाट नंबर 1 ए, ब्लाक नंबर 199 ए, गाँव जोलवा, पालसाना, ता सूरत

22-7-2011

13. 3744770

मैसर्स जे जवैलरी , चोकसी बाजार, स्टेशन रोड, मेहसाना-384 001

22-7-2011

14. 3744871

(9) (5)

(8 )

(6) (7)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं 1417 के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मुंहरांकन

1999

के आभूषणों/शिल्पकारी- स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं 1417 शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स जयेशकुमार बबलदास चोकसी , जी- 25-26 , शेठ सांकाभाई मार्केट , स्टेशन रोड, मेहसाना, (उत्तर गुजरात ) -384 001

22-7-2011

3745368

15.

मैसर्स हैल्दी फुड तथा बिवरेज , विष्णु राईस मिल के पास, नाज पिराना रोड , जेतलपुर गांव , ता दसकराय , अहमदाबाद-382 426

22-7-2011

16. 3745469

'मैसर्स रोटोमोटिव पावरड्राइवस इंडिया लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 2102/4 , जी आई डी सी , विठ्ठल उद्योगनगर , आनंद-388 121

25-7-2011

17. 3745671

मैसर्स जोश इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 26 , जी आई डी सीदाभोई , वडोदरा -391 110

3747372

18.

29-7-2011 मैसर्स बालाजी एंटरप्राईस , पावर हाउस के पास, भुरावाव रोड, पंचमहल , गोधरा-389 001

29-7-2011

19. 3747776

मैसर्स शांकुस बाओ साईसिस प्रा. लिमिटेड , सर्वे नंबर 747 , इनडराड, रत्नामणि के पास , होटल पुरोहित के पीछे , मेहसाना अहमदाबाद रोड , ताकलोल-382 715

29-7-2011

3748980

20.

मैसर्स केटलैक्स एंटरप्राईसिस प्रा. लि. , ब्लाक नंबर 117-119, सांतेज वडसर रोड , सांतेज , ता. कलोल , गांधीनगर-382 721

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर )

2004

फलेमप्प्रुफ एनकलोसर्स 2148 फार इलैक्ट्रिकल एपरेटस

1991

13098

ओटोमोटिव विहीकल्स ट्यूबस फार न्यूमैटिक टायर

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर )

2002

1664

मिनरल मिक्सचर फार सपलामैंटिंग केटलफीड्स

2002

5780

इलैक्ट्रिकल एपरेटस फार एकसपलोसिव गैस एटमोंसफेयर इनट्रीनसिक सेफटी " आई "

[सं. सीएमडी 13:11

टी. बी. नारायणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख 4196

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

NewDelhi , the 17th May,2012

S.O. 1769. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

Licences No.

SI. No.

Name and Address of the Party

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

7-7-2011

1. 3740257

ISNo. Part Sec. Year Title ofthe Standard

(5)

(8) (9)

(6) (7)

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)

Atmiya Industries, Plot No. 21 , Soham Industrial Estate , B/S, Navagam Udyognagar, N.H. No. 8 Post Kamrej , Surat-394 185

8-7-2011

3740863

Aurombica Engineering Co. Pvt . Ltd. , F.H. House , Opp New Market Yard , Visnagar North Mahesana, Visnagar-384315

3. 3740964 11-7-2011 Ralli Engine Limited Excel Estate Vashier, Valsad -396001

4. 3741360 11-7-2011 M/ s. Sagar Enterprise Father Compound , Near Janpath Petrol , Kalol Gandhinagar- 382721

5. 3743162

13-7-2011 M/ s . Shivam Textiles and Proofing Industries 4701 , GIDC ( Plastic Zone) Sarigam Tal : Umbergaon , Valsad-396155

6. 3743465

18-7-2011

1991

5244

Safe deposit locker cabinets

7593

1 1986 Power-operated pneumatic sprayer- cum-duster part 1 : knapsack type

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)

2089

1977 Common proofed canvas/ duck and paulins (tarpaulins)

2046

Decorative

1995

M/ s . Ratnam Laminates Pvt . Ltd. , Survey No. 116/B , 1 Village: Sampa, Gandhinagar Dehgam

7. 3743667

19-7-2011 M/ s . Neesa Agritech and FoodsLimited, Unit 4, C/ o The Cambay Grand Final , Plot No. 8, T.P.S. No. 2, Thaltej Amhedabad -380054 themosetting synthetic resin bonded laminated sheets

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water(Other than packaged natural mineral water) 4197

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4) (1)

(3)

(2)

20-7-2011

3745570

(9)

(6)

(7) (8)

(5)

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s. Ganga Health Care 573 and 563 Plot Bazar, Near RiceMillVillage: Santrampur, Tal: Santrampur, Panchamahal - 389260

21-7-2011

9. 3745772

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s. Yatharth Aqua B-5/ 1 , Zaveri Industrial Estate, Opp . Shyam Villa Society, Singarwa, Kathwada Road , Kathwada Ahmedabad

21-7-2011

10. 3744366

1977

4923

Hollow Steel Sections for structural use

M/s. Riddhi Steel and Tube Pvt . Ltd. , 83/84/85 , Vill . Kamod, Piplaj Pirana Road, Ahmedabad- 382427

21-7-2011

3744467

11.

1983

9537

Conduits for electrical installations

M/s. Crown Industries Plot No. 6 , Opp . Torrent Power Sub -station , B/H Shahwadi Bus Stop, Narol , Ahmedabad-382405

22-7-2011

12. 3744669

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . G.A. Insustries Ltd. Plot No. 1A, BlockNo. 199 A, Village Jolva, Palsana Taluka , Surat

3744770 22-7-2011

13.

1999

1417

M/ s . Jay Jwellery Choksi Bazar, Station Road, Mehsana 384001

22-7-2011

3744871

14.

Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking

1999

1417

Gold and gold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking

M/s . Jayeshkumar Babaldas Choksi G-25-26, Sheth Sankabhai Market , Station Road, Mehsana (N.G ) 384001

22-7-2011

3745368

15.

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water(Other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s. Healthy Food and BeveragesNear Vishnu Rice Mill , Naz Pirana Road , Jetalpur Village, Tal : Dascroi , Ahmedabad- 382426

22-7-2011

16. 3745469

2004

2148

Flameproofenclosures for electrical apparatus

M/s. Rotomotive Powerdrives India Limited, Plot No. 2102/4 , GI.D.C. , Vitthal Udyog Nagar, NearAnand - 388121

25-7-2001

3745671

17.

1991

13098

Automotive vehicles- tubes for pneumatic tyres-

M /s . Josh Industries Plot No. 26, GIDC Dabhoi , Vadodara, 391110 4198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

18. 3747372

29-7-2011

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

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

14543

2004

M/s . Balaji EnterpriseNear Power House , Bhuravav Road Panchamahal Godhra-389001

19. 3747776

29-7-2011

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

1664

2002 Mineral mixtures for suplementing cattle feeds-

M/s . Shankus Bio- Sciences Pvt . Ltd. Survey No. 747, Indrad, Near Ratnamani , Behind Hotel Purohit Mehsana-Ahmedabad Road , Tal-Kadi -382715

20. 3748980

29-7-2011

5780

2002 Electrical apparatus explosive gas atmospheres - intrinsic safety " i" -

Katlax Enterprises Pvt . Ltd. Block No. 117-119 , Santej Vadsar Road , Santej Tal Kalol Gandhinagar Santej-382721

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

T. B. NARAYANAN , Scientist - ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1770.-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

क्र. सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

(2)

(3)

(1)

1. 7598506 मैसर्स राधिका ज्वैलर्स , जैन पाठशाला के सामने , स्टेशन रोड, डिमेहसाना-384001

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(4)

(5)

19-7-2011 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 : 1999

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 13 ]

टी. बी. नारायणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2012

S.O.1770.-In pursuance of sub -regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. CM/L-

(2)

(1)

(3)

1. 7598506

M/s . Radhika Jewellers Opposite Jain Pathshala, Station Road, Distt .: Mahesana-384001

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

(4)

(5)

19-7-2011

GoldandGold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking- IS 1417: 1999

[No. CMD/ 13: 13 ]

T. B. NARAYANAN , Scientist ' F ' & Head 4199

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई, 2012

का.आ. 1771. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्रम सं. संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि, वर्ष/माह

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

9-8-2011

1. 3749174

मैसर्स ए सी एस बिवरेज , सर्वे नंबर 24/15 , करेमबैली स्टेशन रोड, मोहन फतक के पास, वालवाड़ा, वलसाद-396105

10-8-2011

3750260

वर्ष

अनु.

भा. मा. भाग संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(7)

(9 )

(6)

(8) (5)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

2004

1659

ब्लाक बोर्ड

मैसर्स शिव रत्ना इंडस्ट्रीज , मेघवी टिम्बर्स मार्केट , 66 के वी सब-स्टेशन के पास, एट कमला , पोस्ट दबहन , खेड़ा, नडियाड-387320

10-8-2011

3. 3751666

मैसर्स अश्विन पोलिमर्स , 12/ए, साकेत इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, गांव मोरैया , सानंद अहमदाबाद, चांगोदर

11-8-2011

4. 3749477

मैसर्स राजेश्वरी ज्वैलर्स, बी/जी, सरदार पार्क- II , जी आई डी सी, अंकलेश्वर-393002

11-8-2011

3749578

मैसर्स श्री रंछोडराय ज्वैर्ल्स, विठठल मंदिर के पास , चोकसी बाजार , वडोदरा दाभोई -390001

3749679 11-8-2011

1983

इंस्टालेशन कांडयूटस फार इलैक्ट्रिकल 9537

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं 1417 के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं 1417 के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1991

ओटोमोटिव विहीकलस 13098 टयूबस चफार न्यूमैटिक टायर

मैसर्स अवी इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 258 , जी आई डी सी , वडोदरा , वाघोडिया-391760

11-8-2011

3752204

1989

पेस्टीसाईड-पैंडीमैथलीन 12751 ई सी-

मैसर्स देवीदयाल ( सेल्स) लिमिटेड , 50/ए , जी आई डी सी, इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , डैरोल कलोल , डि पंचमहल-389330 4200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

12-8-2011

8. 3750462

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(9)

(6) (7) (8)

1999

मैसर्स ठाकोर दास पारेख तथा सन्स बाजार स्ट्रीट, चिखली , नवसारी गुजरात-396521

16-8-2011

9. 3750361

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं 1417 के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1991 ओटोमोटिव विहीकलस 13098 ट्यूबस फारन्यूमैटिक टायर

मैसर्स मैथिल रबर प्रोडक्टस प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 7501 , कर्मातुर चोकडी के पास , जी आई डी सी एसटेट, अंकलेश्वर , भारुच-393002

17-8-2011

10. 3751262

मैसर्स डिलाईट पम्प, 40, तिरुपति एसटेट , अंबर सिनेमा के पास , बापूनगर, अहमदाबाद-380024

17-8-2011

11. 3751565

मैसर्स गिरीराज प्लाई एन बोर्ड इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , सर्वे नंबर 183/10 एवं 183/7 , एट पोस्ट वावडीबजेरग , दाहोद गोधरा रोड, पंचमहल गोधरा -389001

12. 3751767 17-8-2011

1998

8472

पम्पस- रिजैनरेटिव या क्लीयर, कोल्ड वाटर-

ब्लाकबोर्ड

2004

1659

1999

2202 1

वुड फलश डोर शटर (सालिड कोर टाईप ) पार्ट । प्लाईवुड फेस पैनल

मैसर्स श्री गिरीराज प्लाई एन बोर्ड इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , सर्वे नंबर 183/10 एवं 183/7 , एट पोस्ट वावडीबजेरग , दाहोद गोधरा रोड , पंचमहल गोधरा-389001

13. 3750159 17-8-2011

1991 ओटोमोटिव विहीकलस 13098 ट्यूबस फार न्यूमैटिक टायर

मैसर्स यूनिटी रबर इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 4/114 , गांव खाराची , ( भीलवाड़ा) , ता. झागाडिया, भारुच , अंकेश्वर-393001

24-8-2011

14. 3753266

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स श्रद्धा ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर 5 , आकार शॉपिंग सेंटर , प्लाट नंबर 30 , भाईचंदनगर , कटटरगाम रोड , कटटरगाम , सूरत-395004

24-8-2011

15. 3753872

1989 प्लाईबुड फार जनरल 303 परपज

मैसर्स शिव रत्ना इंडस्ट्रीज , मेघवी टिम्बर्स मार्केट , 66 के वी सब स्टेशन के पास , एट कमला, पोस्ट दबहन ,खेड़ा, नडियाड-387320

16. 3754074 24-8-2011 मैसर्स जेपी वानेकबोरी सिमेंट ग्राडिंग यूनिट , वानेकबोरी थर्मल पावर स्टेशन के पास , गांव संगोल , पी ओ सोनीपुर , ता. थासारा , खेड़ा-388245

1987

12269

53 ग्रेड आडिनरी पोर्टलैंड सिमेंट 4201

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3).

(2)

(4)

(1)

25-8-2011

37454276

17.

मैसर्स प्रगति बिवरेज इंडस्ट्रीज , स्टेशन रोड, छोटा उदयपुर, वडोदरा-391165

(9)

(6)

(5)

(7) (8)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

[सं. सीएमडी/13: 11 ]

टी. बी. नारायणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 17th May,2012

S.O. 1771.-In pursuance ofsub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

SI . No.

Licences No.

Name and Address of theParty

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

3749174

98-2011

ISNo. Part Sec . Year Title ofthe Standard

(9)

(7) (8)

(5)

(6)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineral)

M/sACS Beverages , SurveyNo:24/15, Karembele Station Road, Near Mohan Fatak, Valvada, Valsad-396105

10-8-2011

3750260

2004

1659

Block boards

M/sShiv Ratna Industries, Meghavi Timbers Market, Near 66 KV Sub Station, atKamla, Post Dabhan, KhedaNadiad-387320

10-8-2011

3. 3751666

M/s . Aswin Polymers 12/A, Saket Industrial EstateVillage: Moraiya Sanand Ahmadabad, Changodar

11-8-2011

3749477

1983 Conduitsfor 9537 electrical installations

1999

1417

GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts

M/s. Rajeshwari Jewellers B/G-7, Sardar Park- II , GIDCAnkleshwar- 393002

11-8-2011

5. 3749578

M/s. Shri Ranchhodrai Jewellers Near Vithhal Temple, Choksi Bazar, Vadodara Dabhol 390001

11-8-2011

6. 3749679

M/s. Avi Industries . PlotNo. 258 , GI.D.C. Vadodara, Waghodia-391760

11-8-2011

7. 3752264

M/s. Devidayal (Sales) Limited 50/A,GI.D.C. Industrial Estate, Derol-Kalol Dist. Panchmahal- 389330

1706 GI/2012-8

1417

1999 GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- fineness andmarking

1991

13098

Automotive vehicles-tubes for pneumatictyres-

1989

12751

Pesticides- pendimethalin ec- 4202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

3750462

12-8-2011

Thakordas Parkekh and SonsBazar Street, Chikhli , Navsari , Gujarat-396521

9 . 3750361 16-8-2011

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(6)

(5)

(9)

(7) (8)

1417

1999 Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts

13098

1991 Automotive vehicles -tubes for pneumatic tyres-

M/ s . Maithil Rubber Products Pvt . Ltd. , PlotNo. 7501 , Nr. Karmatur Chokdi GIDC Estate, Ankleshwar, Bharuch -393002

10. 3751262

17-8-2011

M/s. Delite Pumps 40, Tirupati Estate, Near Amber Cinema, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad-380024

11. 3751565

17-8-2011

1998

8472

Pumps-regenerative orclear, cold water-

Block boards

1659

2004

M/s. Shri Giriraj Ply-N Board Industries Ltd. , Survey No. - 183/ 10 & 183/7 , at Post Vavdibuzerg , Dahod-Godhra Road, Panchamahal Godra-389001

17-8-2011

12. 3751767

2202 1 1999 Wooden flush door shutters ( solid core type); part 1 plywood face panels

M/s. Shri Giriraj Ply-N Board Industries Ltd. , Survey No. - 183/10 & 183/7 , at Post Vavdibuzerg, Dahod-Godhra Road, Panchamahal Godra -389001

3750159 17-8-2011

13.

13098

1991 Automotive vehicles -tubes for pneumatic tyres-

M/s. Unity Rubber Industries Plot No. 4/114 , Village Kharachi (Bhilwada), Taluka Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ankleshwar-393001

14. 3753266

24-8-2011

1417

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts - fineness and marking

M/ s. Shraddha Jewellers Shop No. 5 , Akar Shopping Center, Plot No. 30 , Bhaichandnagar, Katargam Road , Katargam, Surat-395004

15. 3753872

24-8-2011

303 1989 Plywood for general purposes

M/ s . Shiv Ratna Industries , Meghavi Timber Market, Near 66KV Sub Station At : Kamla P.O. Dabhan , Kheda Nadiad-387320

16. 3754074 24-8-2011

12269

1987 53 grade ordinary portland cement

M/ s . Jaypee Wanakbori Cement Grinding Unit Near Wanakbori Thermal Power Station , Village: Sangol P.O. Sonipur, TA: Thasarqa Kheda -388245

17. 3754276

25-8-2011

M/sPragati Beverages Industries Station Road, Chhota Udaypur, Vadodara Chhota Udaypur-391165

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

T. B.NARAYANAN , Scientist ' F ' & Head 4203

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई, 2012

का.आ.1772.-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 नाम

क्र. सं.

व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(2)

(3)

(1)

7512668

मैसर्स जे मैच इंडस्ट्रीज , 6/2 , जीआईडीसी , अनूप इंजिनियरिंग गली , सीएमसी इंडिया लिमिटेड के सामने , ओढव, अहमदाबाद-382415

2. 0639455

(5) (4)

12-8-2011 स्वीचिस फार डोमैस्टिक तथा सिमिलर परपस आई एस 3854 : 1997

24-8-2011 मालेबल कास्ट आयरन पाईप फिटिंगस आई एस 1879 : 1987

मैसर्स आर एम इंजिनियरिंग वर्क्स (ए डिविजन ऑफ रोहित मिल लिमिटेड ) , 4, जी आई डी सी एस्टेट , वटवा, अहमदाबाद-382445

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13: 13 ]

टी. बी. नारायणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 17thMay, 2012

S.O. 1772. In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) ofthe Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards(Certification) Regulations , 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Name and Address ofthe Licensee

Licence No. CM/L

(3)

(1) (2)

1. 7512668 M/s. J- Match Industries 6/2, GIDC, Anup Engg . Gali ,Opp CMC India Ltd. , Odhav Road, Ahmedabad-382415

2. 0639455 M/s. RM. EngineeringWorks (ADivision ofRohit Mills Ltd. ) 4, GIDC Estate , Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445

Date of

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

(5) (4)

12-8-2011 Switches for domestic and similarpurposes IS 3854 : 1997

24-8-2011 Malleable cast iron pipe fittings IS 1879 : 1987

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

T. B. NARAYANAN , Scientist ' F ' & Head 4204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART IISEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1773.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस

क्रीम

सं. संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

1. 3755876 5-9-2011

वर्ष

अनु.

भा. मा. भाग संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(5)

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

1999

1417

मैसर्स बालूभाई ब्रिजभुखनदास चौकसी, मोटा बाजार , नवसारी -396445

3755977 6-9-2011

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स शांताबेन स्वर्ण आभूषण प्रा. लिमिटेड, बी/82 ग्रांउड फ्लोर पारस सोसाइटी , कटटरगाम रोड, सूरत-395004

3756070

6-9-2011

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकंन

मैसर्स ब्रजलाल लालजीभाई तथा सन्स, एच नंबर 3/335 नवापुरा पारसी स्ट्रीट , चौकसी बाजार , सूरत

4. 3756171 6-9-2011

1991 एसबैस्टोज सिमेंट पाईप 6908 एण्डफिटिंग फार सिवरेज तथा ड्रेनेज

मैसर्स अपूर्वा विनमय प्रा. लि. पी ओ दिग्विजय नगर , रानीप , अहमदाबाद-382470

5. 3756272 7-9-2011

सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट 8034

2002

मैसर्स पापुलर पम्प इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 5 , भाई जी भाई इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , अनिल स्टार्च रोड, नरोडा रोड, अहमदाबाद-380025

3756979 7-9-2011

2001 केबल ट्रॅकिंग तथा डक्टिंग 14927 सिस्टम फार इलैक्ट्रिकल इंस्टालेशन

मैसर्स मार्क इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 78/3 , इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, फेस 1 , जी आई डी सी वाटर टैंक के पास , वटवा , अहमदाबाद-382445

3756777 8-9-2011

13098

1991 आटोमोटिव वहिकल्स ट्यूब्सफार न्यूमैटिक टायर

मैसर्स टाईटैनिक इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 15/9 , जी आई डी सी , दाबोई , वडोदरा -391110

3756878 9-9-2011-

4985

2000 अनप्लास्टिसाइड पीवीसी पाईप्स फार पोटेबल वाटर सप्लाईस

मैसर्स शक्ति पालिमर्स, कुकरवाडा, टिंटोडन रोड , ता. विजापुर, मेहसाना-382830

3757476 13-9-2011

13098

आटोमोटिव वहिकल्स ट्यूब्स 1991 फारन्यूमैटिक टायस्

मैसर्स त्रिदेव रबर प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 55 , माजडा गली , गुप्ता डायनिंग के पीछे, जीआईडीसी , पीपोदरा , गांव पीपोदरा , ता मंगरोल, सूरत-394185 4205

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

10. 3757678 13-9-2011

(9)

(6)

(8)

(5)

(7)

2005

7903

टैक्सटाईल टारपोलिगस मेड फ्राम हाई डॅसिटी पोलथिलीन वोवन फैबरिक

मैसर्स टैक्नो टर्प तथा पालिमर्स प्रा. लिमिटेड प्लाट नंबर 4920/4921 , प्लास्टिक जोन , जी आई डी सी सारीगाम , वलसाद, भिलाड-396155

14-9-2011

11. 3758882

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर 14543

दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स प्रमुख हैल्थ केयर तथा फुड प्रोडक्ट, 199 , कृष्णा एस्टेट , राधेश्याम एस्टेट के पीछे, पाल्म होटल के पास , रिंग रोड सर्कल ओढव , अहमदाबाद -382415

14-9-2011

12. 3757880

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर 14543

दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स डिवाईन इंडिया बाय पास रोड, आर टी ओ आफिस के पास , एट पाराबडा , ता हिम्मतनगर, साबरकांटा-383220

3757981

13.

15-9-2011

15603

2005 अल्फासिपरमैथरिन डब्ल्यूपी

मैसर्स हीरांबा इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड प्लाट नंबर 1503/1 , जी आई डी सी एस्टेट, फेस III , वलसाद वापी

14. 3758983 15-9-2011

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स निंबस बिवरेज , प्लाट नंबर 87 से 91 , स्वामीनारायण इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट , कदोदरा बारडोली रोड , टाटीथया, ता पालसाना सूरत -394315

15. 3757779 15-9-2011 मैसर्स जी के ठक्कर जवैलर्स , तथा 9/140 , वाडी फालिया , खांडवाला स्ट्रीट, भागल सूरत-395003

19-9-2011

16. 3759278

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर 14543 दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स धारा एंटरप्राईस भूलाभाई पटेल फार्म, कर्णावती क्लब के पीछे , माहमदपुरा , अहमदाबाद-380052

17. 3759379 19-9-2011

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर 14543

दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स हानैस्ट मार्केटिंग , 450/बी/ 1 , जी आई डी सी, मकरपुरा , बड़ोदरा -390010

19-9-2011

18. 3759985

694 1990

पीबी सी इंसूलेटिड केबल

मैसर्स लक्ष्मी इंडस्ट्रीज ,

6/6ए, गोतेश्वर एसटेट, गोय

अहमदाबाद-382481

19-9-2011

19. 3760061

2010

15907

(एच डी पी ई) वोवन बैडस फार वर्मीकलचर एग्रो टैक्सटाईल हाई डैसिटीपोलथिलीन

मैसर्स टैक्सल इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 2106 , सांतेज खटराज रोड, शाह स्टील के पास , गांव सांतेज , ता कलोल , सांतेज-382721 4205

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

20. 3760667 20-9-2011 मैसर्स अरावली इंफ्रापावर लिमिटेड, ब्लाक नंबर 76 , सिहोलडी, ता मातर , खेडा, नडियाड-387380

21. 3760263 21-9-2011

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

(5)

(6) (7) (8)

(9)

1996

398

एल्यूमिनियम कंडक्टर फार ओवरहेड ट्रांसमशिन परपस

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर 14543 दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स धार्मिक फूड तथा विवरेज एट पी ओ रानू ता पादरा , डि वडोदरा-391440

22. 3760364 22-9-2011

10204

2001 पोर्टेबल फायर एक्सटिंग्वशिर मकैनिकल फोम टाईप

मैसर्स गनेबो इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर , 1302-1306 , जी आई डी सी इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट, चंपानेर रोड, पंचमहल हलोल-389350

23. 3760465 22-9-2011

940

2003 पोर्टेबल फायर एक्सटिंग्वशिर वाटर टाइप (गैस कार्टेज टाईप )

मैसर्स गनेबो इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर , 1302-1306 , जी आई डी सी इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट , चंपानेर रोड , पंचमहल हलोल-389350

24. 3760566 22-9-2011

2171

1999 पोर्टेबल फायर एक्सटिंग्वशिर ड्राई पाउडर ( कार्टेज टाईप )

मैसर्स गनेबो इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर , 1302-1306 , जी आई डी सी इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट , चंपानेर रोड , पंचमहल हलोल -389350

25. 3760768 22-9-2011

458

2003 प्रीकास्ट कांक्रीट पाईप (विद तथा विदाउट रेनिफोर्समेंट)

मैसर्स गुजरात स्पन पाईप फैक्टरी , एंट तथा पी ओ ढोलकिया , बोडेली, ता. सानखेडा वडोदरा , बोडेली-391135

26. 3760869 22-9-2011

694

1990 पीवीसी इंसूलेटिड केबल

मैसर्स आर आर केबल , आर एस नंबर 201 , 202/1 , 202/2 , 203 तथा 327/3 , खांडा रोड ,वाघोडिया वडोदरा -391760

27. 3761770 23-9-2011

13098

1991 आटोमोटिव वहिकलस ट्यूबस फार न्यूमैटिक टायर

मैसर्स रूशभ इंडस्ट्रीज , 213/ए/ 1 , भारत एसटेट, सोनेरिया ब्लाक के सामने , जनरल हास्पिटल , रोड, बापूनगर , अहमदाबाद-380024

28. 3762065 23-9-2011

694

1990 पीवीसी इंसूलेटिड केबल

मैसर्स एरोलेक्स केबल प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 5 और 6 , महागुजरात इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , मोरैया सरखेज बावला हाइवे , अहमदाबाद-382213 4207

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

3763673

29.

23-9-2011 मैसर्स सिंग तथा कम्पनीस , प्लाट नंबर 3602 , फेस 4, जी आई डी सी, वापी वलसाद-396195

(6) (7)

(9)

(8) (5)

1983

1783

ड्रमस , लार्ज फिक्सड एंडस, पार्ट 2 ग्रेड बी ड्रमस

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11 ]

टी. बी. नारायणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2012

S.O. 1773. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

Licences No.

SL. No.

Name and Address of theParty

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

1. 3755876

5-9-2011

ISNo. Part Sec . Year Title ofthe Standard

(9)

(8)

(6) (7)

(5)

1999

1417

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts

M/s. Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Choksi Moti Bazar, Navsari 396445

6-9-2011

2. 3755977

1999

Gold and gold alloys , 1417 jewellery/artefacts

M/s . Shantaben Swarna Abhushan Pvt . Ltd. B/82Ground Floor Paras Society, Katar Gam Road Surat-395004

6-9-2011

3. 3756070

1999

1417

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts

M/s . Vrajlal Laljibhai & Sons H.No. 3/335 , Navapura, Opp. Parsi Street, Choksi Bazar , Surat

6-9-2011

4. 3756171

1991

6908

M/s. ApurvaVinimay Pvt . Ltd. PO Digvijay Nagar, Ranip Ahmedabad- 382470

7-9-2011

5. 3756272

Asbestos cement pipes and fitting for sewerage and drainage

2002

8034

Submersible pumpsets

M/s.Popular Pump Industries Plot No. 5, Bhaijibhai Ind. Estate, Anil Starch Road , NarodaRoad, Ahmedabad-380025

7-9-2011

3756979

2001

Cable trunking and 14927 ducting systems for electrical Installations

M/s . MARC Industries Plot No. 78/3 , Industrial Estate, Phase 1 , NearGIDC Water Tank , Vatva, Ahmedabad- 382445

3756777 8-9-2011

M/s . Titanic Industries Plot No. 15/9, GI.D.C. Dabhoi , Vadodara-391110

1991

13098

Automotive vehicles- tubes for pneumatic tyres 4208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

(3)

(1) (2)

(4)

8. 3756878

9-9-2011

M/s. Shakti Polymers Kukarwada , Tintodan Road TA Vijapur, Mahesana-382830

9. 3757476 13-9-2011 Tridev Rubber Pvt . Ltd. PlotNo. 55 , Mazda Gali , B/H Gupta Dying GI.D.C. Pipodara Village Pipodara, Tal Mangrol , Surat-394185

10. 3757678 13-9-2011

M/s. Techno Tarp & Polymers Pvt . Ltd. PlotNo. 4920/4921 , Plastic Zone GIDC Sarigaon, Valsad, Bhilad-396155

11. 3758882

14-9-2011

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(9)

(7) (8)

4985

2000 Unplasticized pvc pipesfor potable water supplies

Automotive vehicles - 13098

1991

tubes for pneumatic tyres

2005

7903

Textiles-tarpaulins madefrom high density polyethylene wovenfabric-

2004 Packaged drinking 14543

water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)-

M/ s. Pramukh Health Care & Food Product 199, Krishna Estate, B/H Radheshyam Estate, Near Palm Hotel, Ring Road Circle, Odhav, Ahmedabad- 382415

12. 3757880

14-9-2011

2004

14543

M/s. Divine India by Pass Road , Near R.T.O. Office , At . Parabda TA . Himatnagar Sabarkantha- 383220

13. 3757981

15-9-2011

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)-

2005

15603

Alphacypermethrin , wp

M/s . Heranba Industries Ltd. PlotNo. 1503/1 , GIDC Estate, Phase III , Valsad,Vapi

14. 3758983

15-9-2011 M/s . Nimbus Beverages Plot No. 87 to 91 , Swaminarayan Industrial Estate, Kadodra Bardoli Road, Tatiththya Tal Palsana, Surat-394315

15. 3757779

15-9-2011

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)-

1999 Gold and gold alloys , 1417 jewellery/artefacts-

M/ s . G.K. Thakkar Jewellers 9/140, Wadi Falia Khandwala Street, Bhagal , Surat-395003

16. 3759278

19-9-2011 M/s . Dhara Enterprise Bhulabhai Patel Farm , B/H, Karnavati Club , Mahmadpura, Ahmedabad- 380052

17. 3759379

19-9-2011

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)-

14543 2004

M/ s . Honest Marketing 450/B/1, GIDC, Makarpura, Vadodara-390010

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineralwater)- 4209

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

19-9-2011

18. 3759985

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

1990 Pvc insulated cables 694

M/s . Laxmi Industries 6/6A Goteshwar Estate, Gota, Ahmedabad- 382481

2010

Texel Industries Limited

19-9-2011

19. 3760061

15907

Agro-textiles- high

density polyethylene (hdpe) woven beds for vermiculture

PlotNo. 2106, Santej Khatraj Road , Near Shah Steel, Village Santej , Talkalol Gandhinagar Santej -382721

20. 3760667 20-9-2011

1996

398

Aluminium conduc- tors for overhead transmission purposes

M/s . Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Block No. 76, Siholdi , Taluka Matar,KhedaNadiad-387380

21-9-2011

21. 3760263

2004

14543

M/ s . Dharmik Food and Beverages At . P.O. Ranu , Tal Padra Distt. Vadodara-391440 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)-

2001

10204

M/s . Gunnebo India Pvt . Ltd.

22-9-2011

22. 3760364

Portable fire extinguisher mechanical foam type

PlotNo. 1302-1306, GIDC Industrial Estate, Champaner Road, Panchamahal Halol- 389350

22-9-2011

23. 3760465

940 2003 Portable fire extinguisher, water type (gas cartridge)-

M/ s . Gunnebo India Pvt . Ltd. PlotNo. 1302-1306, GIDC Industrial Estate, Champaner Road, Panchamahal Halol-389350

24. 3760566

2171

1999

Portable fire extinguisher, dry powder (cartridge type)

22-9-2011 M/s . Gunnebo India Pvt . Ltd. PlotNo. 1302-1306, GIDC Industrial Estate, Champaner Road, Panchamahal Halol- 389350

25. 3760768 22-9-2011

2003

458

Precast concrete pipes (with and without reinfoce- ment)

M/s . Gujarat Spun Pipe Factory At & PO Dhokaliya, Bodeli , TA Sankheda, Vadodara Bodeli-391135

22-9-2011

26. 3760869

694 1990 PVC insulated

cables

M/ s . R. R. Kabel R.S. No. 201 , 202/1 , 202/2,203 and 327/3 , Khanda Road , Waghodia Vadodara-391760

23-9-2011

3761770

27.

13098 1991 Automotive vehicles- tubes for pneumatic tyres

M/ s . Rishabh Industries 213/A/ 1 , Bharat Estate , Opp Soneria Block, General Hospital Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad-380024,

1706 GI/2012-9 4210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

(1) (2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(6)

(8)

(7)

(9)

3762065

694

28.

1990 23-9-2011 M/ s . Aerolex Cables Pvt. Ltd. PVC insulated

cables

Plot No. 5 and 6 , Mahagujarat Industrial Estate , Moraiya Sarkhj Bavla Highway, Ahmedabad -382213

29. 3763673

1983 23-9-2011

1783

Drums large, fixed ends, part 2 grade b drums

M/s . Singh and Companies Plot No. 3602 Phase IV, GI.D.C.Vapi . Dist. Valsad -396195

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

T. B. NARAYANAN , Scientist- ' F ' & Head-

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1774.- 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

रद्द करने की तिथि

सं.

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पत्ता

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1. 7004649

14-9-2011

फोम कनसंट्रेट फार प्रोडुसिंग मकैनिकल फोम फार द फाइटिंग

आई एस 4989 : 2006

मैसर्स विमल फायर कंट्रोलस प्रा. लिमिटेड ए.1 , 851 /1- बी, जी आई डी सी , पोस्टबाक्स नंबर 783 , मकरपुरा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , बड़ोदा-390010

2 7998522

28-9-2011 मैसर्स हीमा सेल्स कार्पोरेशन , 4/ए/10 , लक्ष्मी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, पालडी तीन रास्ता, विसनगर ( उत्तर गुजरात ) डिस्ट्रिक्टमेहसाना

कन्डयूटस फार इलैक्ट्रिकल इंस्टालेशन पार्ट 3 रिजिड प्लेन कन्डयूटस आफ प्लेन कन्डयूटस आफ इंसूलेटिंग मैटिरियल आई एस 9537 : पार्ट 3 : 1983

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 13 ]

टी. बी. नारायणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2012

S.O. 1774.-In pursuance of sub- regulation ( 6) ofthe Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Date of Cancellation Licences No. CM/L-

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5)

7004649

14-9-2011

Foam concentrate for producing mechanical foam for fire fighting- IS4989: 2006

M/s. Vimal Fire Controls Pvt . Ltd. A- 1 , 851 / 1 -B , GIDC, Post Box No. 783 Makarpura Industrial Area, Baroda-390010

2. 7998522

28-9-2011 M/s. Hima Sales Corporation 4/A/ 10, Laxmi Ind . Estate , Paldi Three Rasta, Visnagar (N.G) Distt: Mahesana

Conduits for electrical installations : part 3 rigid plain conduits of insulating materials(superseding is : 2509) IS 9537 : Part 3 : 1983

[No. CMD/13 : 13 ]

T. B. NARAYANAN , Scientist ' F ' & Head 4211

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 16 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1775. केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार ने कोयला मंत्रालय कीअधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1920 तारीख 13 जुलाई, 2011 जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड -3 , उप - खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 23 जुलाई, 2011 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट ऐसी भूमि में जिसका माप 7.349 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 18.160 एकड़ ( लगभग ) भूमि में या उस पर सभी अधिकारों 1.368 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 3.38 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की भूमि में सभी अधिकारों और वर्णित 5.981 हेक्टर (लगभग ) या 14.78 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि में खनन अधिकार के, अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और झारखण्ड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि 7.349 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 18.160 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि निम्नलिखित यथा वर्णित ऐसी भूमियों में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार: -

( क) सभी अधिकार अनुसूची- क में वर्णित 1.368 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 3.38 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का, और

(ख) खनन अधिकार इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची- ख में वर्णित 5.981 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 14.78 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि में खनिजों के खनन , खदान बोर करने , उनकी खुदाई करने और तलाश करने , उन्हें प्राप्त करने , उन पर कार्य करने , और उन्हें ले आने के अधिकार अर्जित किया जाना चाहिए ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि:-

(क) अनुसूची-क में वर्णित 1.368 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 3.38 एकड़ (लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का सभी अधिकार , और

(ख ) अनुसूची-ख में वर्णित 5.981 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 14.78 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की भूमि का खनन अधिकार खनिजों के खनन, खदान , बोर करने, उनकी खुदाई करने और तलाश करने , उन्हें प्राप्त करने , उन पर कार्य करने , और उन्हें ले जाने के अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल /एसआईएमएल /एमओयूजेडए/एनओटीआई/06 ए तारीख 16 सितम्बर, 2011 का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त , पाकुड़ के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता ( पिन-700001 ) के कार्यालय में या निदेशक तकनीकी ( संचालन ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सेंकटोरिया , डाकभर- दिसेरगढ़ , जिला- बर्दवान ( पश्चिम बंगाल ) , पिन कोड-713 333 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची-क

सिमलोंग कोल माइनिंग ब्लॉक

जिला-पाकुड़ ( झारखण्ड )

(रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/ एसआईएमएल/एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/06ए तारीख 16 सितम्बर, 2011 )

सभी अधिकार :

टिप्पणियां

जिला

तहसील/थाना"

ग्राम सं. पटवारी हल्का/ जेएल सं. "

क्रम सं.

ग्राम/मौजा का नाम

क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में (लगभग)

भाग

1.230

लिटटी पाड़ा

पाकुड़

1. सिमलौंग पहाड़

भाग

0.138

लिटटीपाड़ा

पाकुड़

बड़ाघाघरी

1,368

कुल:

* राजस्व अभिलेखा के अनुसार 4212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

कुल : 1.368 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 3.38 एकड़ ( लगभग )

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ नं. 05 में अर्जन किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या :

108 , 112भाग , 117 , 171 , 180 , 183 भाग

मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 में अर्जन किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या :

2भाग , 9

अनुसूची-ख

सिमलोंग कोल माइनिंग ब्लॉक

जिला-पाकुड़ ( झारखण्ड)

(रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/एसआईएमएल/एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/06 ए तारीख 16 सितम्बर , 2011 )

खनन अधिकार :

ग्राम सं.

जिला

तहसील/थाना*

क्रम सं.

ग्राम/मौजा का नाम

पटवारी हल्का/ जेएल सं. "

5 सिमलौंग पहाड़

20 बड़ाघाघरी

कुल:

*राजस्व अभिलेख के अनुसार

कुल: 5.981 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 14.78 एकड़ ( लगभग )

टिप्पणियां

क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में (लगभग)

5.334

भाग लिट्टी पाड़ा

पाकुड़

0.647

भाग लिट्टी पाड़ा पाकुड़

5.981

मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ नं. 05 में अर्जन किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या :

१) भाग , 104 भाग , 105 भाग , 106, 107 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 116 , 118 भाग , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 170, 172 भाग , 173 भाग , 175 भाग , 178 भाग , 179 , 181 , 182

मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 में अर्जन किंए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्या :

3भाग , 7, 8

कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 9 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित क्षेत्र ।

सीमा वर्णन ( क-क3 ):

क-क। रेखा मौजा सिमलोंग सं. 05 की थाना लिट्टी पाड़ा , पाकुड़ की प्लाट सं. 99 और 119 की साझा सीमा पर बिन्दु क से शुरू होकर प्लाट सं. 118 उत्तरी पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट सं. 117 पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट सं. 116 , 113 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई प्लाट सं. 112 को पार करती हुई पुनः प्लाट 127, 128 , 129 , 132 , 145 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 5 की प्लाट सं. 145 की उत्तरी - पूर्वी सीमा पर बिन्दु का पर मिलती है ।

क। क2 रेखा मौजा सिमलोंग सं. 05 की प्लाट सं. 145 की उत्तरी सीमा पर बिन्दु का से शुरू होकर , प्लाट सं. 145 , 147 की पूर्वी सीमा से गुजरती हुई 170 की उत्तरी प्लाट सं. 172 , 183 को पार करती हुई प्लाट सं. 184 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई, मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 05 और बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 की साझा सीमा पर बिन्दु क2 पर मिलती है ।

क2 क3 रेखा मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 05 एवं बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 की साझा सीमा पर बिन्दु क2 से शुरू होकर , प्लाट सं. 82 उत्तरी सीमा सं. 7 की पूर्वी और दक्षिण सीमा , प्लाट सं. 8 , 3 की दक्षिणी सीमा से गुजरती हुई , मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 की प्लाट सं. 3 और सिमलढाव सं. 21 की प्लाट सं. 91 की साझा सीमा पर बिन्दु क3 पर मिलती है ।

क -क रेखा मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 की प्लाट सं. 3 और सिमलढाव सं. 21 की प्लाट सं. 91 की साझा सीमा पर बिन्दु क3 से शुरू होकर, मौजा बड़ा घाधरी सं. 29 की 3 , 2 मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 और सिमलौंग पहाड़ सं. 5 की साझा सीमा को पार करती हुई मौजा सिमलौंग पहाड़ सं. 05 की प्लाट सं. 180 , 178 , 175 , 173 , 172 , 104 , 105 , 118 और 99 को पार करती हुई प्लाट सं. 99 और 119 की साझा सीमा पर बिन्दु क पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/1/2009- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ]

ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव 4213

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 16th May, 2012

S.O. 1775.- Whereas by the notification ofthe Government of Indian the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1920 dated the 13th July, 2011 , issued under sub- section (1 ) ofSection 7 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section - 3 , Sub-Section ( ii ) dated the 23rd July, 2011 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands and all rights in or over 7.349 hectares ( approximately ) or 18.160 acres (approximately ) ofthe lands in which , to acquire all rights in or over 1.368 hectares (approximately), or 3.38 acres (approximately) of land and mining rights in the land measuring 5.981 hectares ( approximately) or 14.78 acres (approximately) of land , such lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification;

Government; And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central

Andwhereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Jharkhand is satisfied that the lands measuring 7.349 hectares (approximately ) or 18.160 acres (approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands as described below:-

(a) All right, 1.368 hectares ( approximately) or 3.38 acres (approximately ) of land mentioned in Schedule A, and

(b) Mining right , for mining , quarry bore, dig and search for win , work and carry away minerals in the land measuring 5.981 hectares (approximately) or 14.78 acres (approximately) of land mentioned in Schedule B appended hereto should be acquired.

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) , the Central Government hereby declares that-

(a) All right , 1.368 hectares (approximately) or 3.38 acres (approximately) of land mentioned in Schedule A, and

(b) Mining right , for mining, quarry bore , dig and search for win, work and carry away minerals in the land measuring 5.981 hectares (approximately ) or 14.78 acres ( approximately) of land mentioned in Schedule B are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number ECL/ SIML/MOUZA/NOTI /06A dated the 16th September, 2011 , of the area coveredby this notification may be inspected in the office ofthe Deputy Commissioner, Pakur or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkata ( Pin - 700 001 ) or at the office of the Director Technical (Operation ), Eastern Coalfields Limited , Sanctoria , P.O. Dishergarh , District- Burdwan ( West Bengal ) , Pin Code - 713 333.

SCHEDULE-A

Simlong Coal Mining Block

District -Pakur (Jharkhand)

(Plan bearing number ECL/SIML/MOUZA/NOTI /06A dated the 16th September , 2011 ) AllRight:

Remarks

District

Tahsil/PS *

Patwari Halka/ JL number*

Village Number

Areain Hectares approximately Name ofMouza/ Village *

S. No.

Part

1.230

Pakur

Litti Para

1 Smlong Pahar

Part

0.138

Pakur

LittiPara

2 BaraGhaghri

1.368

Total

* As per revenue records

Total: 1.368 hectares (approximately) or 3.38 acres ( approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza Simlong Pahar No.05 :

108 , 112p, 117, 171 , 180, 183p.

Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza: - Bara Ghaghri No. 20 : 2p,9.

4214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE- B

Simlong Coal Mining Block

District - Pakur ( Jharkhand)

(Planbearing number ECL/ SIML /MOUZA/NOTI /06A dated the 16th September, 2011 )

MiningRight:

Number Village

Patwari Halka/ JL number* Name ofMouza/ Village*

S. No.

5 1 SimlongPahar

20 BaraGhaghri

*As per revenue records

Tahsil/PS *

District

Remarks

Area in Hectares approximately

Part Litti Para

Pakur

5.334

Litti Para

Pakur

0.647

Part

Total

5.981

Total : 5.981 hectares (approximately) or 14.78 acres (approximately )

Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza Simlong Pahar No.05:

99p 104p, 105p, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111 , 113 , 116, 118p, 127 , 128 , 129, 130, 131,132,145 , 146, 147,170, 172p, 173p, 175p, 178p, 179 181, 182.

Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza : - Bara Ghaghri No. 20:

3p,7,8.

Boundary Description ( of the area being notified under Section 9( 1 ) of the CBA ( A& D) Act , 1957 .

Boundary Description (A to A3 ):

A-A1 Line starts from Point A on the common boundary of plot no 99 & 119 in the mouza Simlong No. - 05 Thana Liliti Para dist - Pakur , passes through the northern and eastern boundary of plot no . 118 , eastern boundary plot no. 117, northern boundary of plot no.116 , 113 , cross the plot No 112 , again passes through the northern boundary plot no. 127,128,129,132,145 and meets at point Al on the northern boundary of plot no . 145 of mouza Simlong Pahar no . 05

A1-A2 Line starts from PointA 1 on the northern boundary of plot no . 145 of mouza Simlong Pahar No. 05 and passes through the eastern boundary of plot no . 145, 147, northern boundary of 170, eastern boundary of plot no . 170,171 , cross the plot No 172 , 183 , passes through northern boundary of plot no . 184 and meets at the point A2 on the common boundary of Mouza Simlong Pahar No. 05 and Bara Ghaghari No. 20.

A2-A3 Linestarts from PointA2 on the common boundary of Mouza Simlong Pahar No. 05 and Bara Ghaghari No. 20 .and passes through northern boundary of plot No. 82 , eastern and southern boundary of plot no . 7, southern boundary ofplot no - 8 , 3 and meets at point A3 of the common boundary ofplot No. 3 ofmouza Bara Ghaghari No 20 & plot No.91 of Simaldhab No.21.

A3-A Line starts from Point No. A3 of the common boundary of plot no . 3 of mouza Bara Ghaghari no 20 & plot no 91 of Simal Dhab No.21 . Crosses plot No. 3 , 2 of mouza - Bara Ghaghari No. 20 , common boundary mouza Bara Ghaghari No. 20 and Simlong Pahar No. 05 , plot No. 180, 178 , 175 , 173 , 172, 104, 105,118 , 99 and meets at the pointA on the common boundary of plot no 99 and 119 of mouza Simlong Pahar . No. 05 .

[F. No. 43015/ 1 /2009 - PRIW - I ]

A. K. DAS , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 22 मई, 2012

का.आ. 1776. केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार ने कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2501 तारीख 4 अक्तूबर , 2010 द्वारा , जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड -3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 9 अक्तूबर , 2010 में प्रकाशित 4215

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन करने केअपने आशय कीसूचना दी थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का , पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और झारखण्ड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित 20.38 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 50.36 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिए ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित 20.38 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 50.36 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/आरजेएमएल/एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/ 75 तारीख 7 फरवरी , 2011 का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त, जिला-गोड्‌डा ( झारखण्ड) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता ( पिन-700001) के कार्यालय में या निदेशक तकनीकी ( प्रचालन ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सांकटोरिया, डाकघर- दिसेरगढ़ , जिला- बर्द्धवान (पश्चिम बंगाल ) , पिन कोड -713 333 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

ललमटिया ( भाग ) कोयला ब्लॉक

जिला-गोड्डा (झारखण्ड )

सभी अधिकार :

(रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/आरजेएमएल/एमओयूजेडए/एनओटीआई/75 तारीख 7 फरवरी , 2011 )

टिप्पणी जिला

तहसील/थाना"

पटवारी हल्का/ जेएल संख्या*

ग्राम का नाम

मौजा/ग्राम. का नाम

क्रम संख्या

17 क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में (लगभग)

क्षेत्र एकड़ में (लगभग)

50.36

20.38

भाग

ललमटिया

1. छोटा भोड़ाय

कुल:

*राजस्व अभिलेख के अनुसार

कुल : 20.38 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 50.36 एकड़ (लगभग)

ग्राम छोटा भोड़ाय में अर्जित किए प्लॉट संख्यांक गोड्‌डा

50.36

20.38

13 , 14, 15, 16, 20 , 22, 23 , 24, 33 , 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 40/183, 41 ,42, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 50/184, 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55, 56, 57, 57/180, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63

, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72, 72/185, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 , 99, 100, 101 , 102, 102/178, 103, 103/177, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 भाग, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171 , 172, 172/186, 173, 174 एवं 175.

सीमा विवरण ( ए 1 -ए 6 ):

ए 1 - एं 2 यह रेखा ललमटिया थाना , जिला- गोड्‌डा ( झारखण्ड) के छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 , बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 एवं पहाड़पुर नं. 32 मौजा के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए 1 से आरंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 के साझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए मौजा छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए 2 पर मिलता है ।

ए 2- ए 3 यह रेखा मौजा- छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 , एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 के साझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-2 से आरंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 के प्लॉट नं. 14 के उत्तरी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु ए -3 पर मिलता है ।

ए 3 -ए 4 यह रेखा मौजा - छोटा घोड़ाय नं. 17 के प्लॉट सं. 14 के उत्तरी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु ए 3 से आरंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 प्लॉट सं. 15 , 20 , 24 , 44 , 42 , 41 , 183 , 79 के उत्तरी सीमा प्लॉट सं. 33 के पश्चिमी , उत्तरी एवं पूर्व सीमा , प्लॉट सं. 35 , के उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरते हुए रोड सं. 161 को पार करता है एवं पुनः प्लॉट नं. 107 , 108 के पश्चिमी सीमा एवं प्लॉट सं. 108 के उत्तरी सीमा , प्लॉट नं. 109 के पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लॉट सं. 109 , 178 , 102 , 155 , 156 , 160 के उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरते हुए छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 के साझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-4 पर मिलता है ।

4216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[PART IISEC. 3 (ii) ]

ए 4 - ए 5 यह रेखा छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 के साझा सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-4 से आरंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 के एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 के साझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 एवं केशगडिया सं . 20 मौजा के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-5 पर मिलता है ।

ए 5 - ए 6 यह रेखा छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 , बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 एवं केशगडिया सं. 20 मौजा के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-5 से आरंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 एवं केशगडिया सं. 20 के साझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए छोटा भोकाय नं. 17 , केशगडिया सं. 20 पहाड़पुर सं. 32 के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-6 पर मिलता है ।

ए 6-ए 1 यह रेखा छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 , केशगडिया सं. 20 एवं पहाड़पुर सं. 32 के त्रि - संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-6 से आरंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 एवं पहाड़पुर सं. 32 के साझा सीमा से गुजरते हुए छोटा भोड़ाय नं. 17 , पहाड़पुर सं. 32 एवं बड़ा भोड़ाय नं. 18 के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु ए-1 पर मिलता है ।

[फा.सं. 43015/2/2009-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd May, 2012

S.O.1776. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2501 dated the 4th October, 2010 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3, Sub -section ( ii ) dated the 9th October, 2010, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands and all rights in or over such lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act , has made his report to the Central Government ;

Andwhereas the Central , Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government ofJharkhand is satisfied that the lands measuring 20.38 hectares ( approximately) or 50.36 acres (approximately ) and all rights in or over such, lands as described in Schedule appended hereto should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 20.38 hectares (approximately) or 50.36 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number ECL/RJML/MOUZA/ NOTI/75 dated the 7th February, 2011 , ofthe area covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District- Godda or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata (Pin - 700 001 ) or at the office ofthe Director Technical (Operation) , Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh , District- Burdwan (West Bengal ) , Pin Code-713 333 .

SCHEDULE

Lalmatia (Part) Coal Block

District-Godda(Jharkhand)

AllRight:

(Plan bearing number ECL/RJML/ MOUZA/NOTI/ 75 dated the 7th February, 2011 )

District

Remarks S. Name ofMouza/ Village

Tahsil/PS *

Patwari Halka/ JL number *

Number

No. Village*

Area in Hectares (approximately )

Area in acres ( approximately)

Lalmatia Godda

20.38

1. Chota Bhorai

20.38

Part

20.38

Total

per revenue records

*As

Total: 20.38 hectares ( approximately)

or 50.36 acres (approximately) 4217 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Chhota Bhorai :---

13, 14, 15 , 16, 20, 22, 23 , 24, 33 , 34,35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,40/183 , 41 ,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 50/184, 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55, 56, 57, 57/180, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72, 72/185, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93 , 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102, 102/178, 103 , 103/177, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 , 109, 155 , 156, 157, 158 , 159, 160, 161 Part, 162 , 163 , 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 , 169, 170, 171 , 172, 172/186, 173 , 174 and 175 .

Boundary Description (A1 to A6) :

A1 -A2 Line starts from Point Al at tri -junction pillar of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 , Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Paharpur No.32 ofPS Lalmatia Dist. Godda ( Jharkhand) and passes through the common boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 andBara Bhorai No. 18 and meets at the Point A2 on Common boundary of Mouza Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

A2-A3 Line starts from Point A2 on the common boundary of Mouza Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and passes through the western boundary ofplot No. 14 and meets at point A3 on northern boundary of Plot No. 14 of Chhota Bhorai No. 17.

A3-A4 Line starts from Point A3 on northern boundary ofplot No. 14 ofChhota Bhorai No. 17 and passes through the northernboundary ofplot No. 16, 15 , 20, 24, 44, 42, 41 , 183 , 79; western , northern and eastern boundary ofplot- No. 33 , northern boundary of plot no. 35; crosses the road on plot 161 ; again passes through western boundary of plot No. 107, 108; northern boundary of Plot No. 108; western boundary of 109; northern boundary ofPlot No. 109 , 178, 102, 155 , 156, 160 and meets at Point No. A4 on common boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Bara Bhorai No. 18 .

A4-A5 Line starts from Point No. A4 on common boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Bara Bhorai No.18 and passes through the common Mouza Boundary of Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Chhota Bhorai No. 17, meets at Point A5 on tri -junction pillar of Chhota Bhorai No. 17, Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Keshgaria No. 20.

A5-A6 Line starts from Point No. A5 on tri -junction pillar of Chhota Bhorai No. 17, Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Keshgaria No. 20; passes through the common mouza boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Keshgaria No. 20; and meets at Point A6 on tri -junction pillar of Chhota Bhorai No. 17, Paharpur No. 32 and KeshgariaNo. 20.

A6-A1 Line starts from Point A6 on the tri -junction pillar of Mouza Chhota Bhorai No. 17 , Paharpur No. 32 and Keshgaria No. 20; passes through the common Mouza boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Paharpur No. 32; and meets at Point Al on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Chhota Bhorai No. 17 , Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Paharpur No.32.

[F. No. 43015/2/2009- PRIW- I ] A. K. DAS, Under Secy.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1777.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अनुसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की संख्या का.आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमियों में सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ।

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि पेट्रोलियम और खनिजों के परिवहन के लिए पंजाब राज्य में हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की तहसील तलवाडी साबो व भटिंडा में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है, अतः उस भूमि के बारे में , जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है , मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों को पंजाब राज्य में समाप्त किया जाए ,

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण 1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को पंजाब राज्य में मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों की समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

1706 GI/2012-10 4218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

अनुसूची

का.आ. सं. एवं दिनांक

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील

क्रम सं.

1 .

रामा

2939दिनांक 21-12-2009

जिला

राज्य

प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख

भटिंडा

तलवंडीसाबो

रामसरा 2982दिनांक 27-10-2009

395 ई दिनांक 15-02-2010 बाघा

677दिनांक 23-02-2011 बंगी निहाल सिंह

बंगी रुलदू

कोटबख्तू

नसीबपुरा

2. 2551 दिनांक 15-09-2009 गहरी देवी नगर पंजाब

12-12-2010

भटिंडा

3521 दिनांक 22-12-2009 कोटसमीर

230दिनांक 05-01-2011 कटार सिंह वाला पंजाब

भटिंडा

17-01-2011

[फा. सं. आर-31015/3/2012- ओआर- II ]

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2012

S.O. 1777.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , S.O. Nos . and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub- Section (i ) of Section 6, Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government acquired the Right ofUser in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications .

And Whereas , in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government vested the right of user in the lands free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

And Whereas , the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose oftransportation of petroleum products from Raman Mandi to Bathinda in the State of Punjab has been laid in the said lands and hence the ROU activities may be terminated in Tehsils Talwandi Saboo & Bathinda in the State of Punjab in respect ofthe said lands which in brief are specified in the Schedule annexed to this Notification .

Now, therefore as required under explanation 1 of Rule 4 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Rules, 1963, the Central Government hereby declare the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said schedule as the dates of termination of activities in ROU in the State of Punjab .

SCHEDULE

S.O. No. & Date

Tehsil

NameofVillage SI . No.

1 .

Raman 2939 Date 21-10-2009

District

State Date for Termination ofactivities in ROU

Talwandi

2982 Date 27-10-2009

Ramsara Bhatinda

12-12-2010 Punjab

Saboo

395E Date 15-02-2010 Bagha

677 Date 23-02-2011

Bangi Nihal Singh

Bangi Ruldu

KotBakhtu

Nasibpura 4219

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3 2

2. 2872 Date 15-10-2009 Gehri Devi Nagar

17-01-2011 Bhatinda Punjab

Bhatinda

Kotshamir 169 Date 11-01-2010

230 Date 5-1-2011

Katar Singh Wala

[F. No. R-31015/3 /2012-OR- II ]

LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1778. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अधिसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की संख्या का. आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिष्टि भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमियों में सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ।

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि पेट्रोलियम और खनिजों के परिवहन के लिए पंजाब राज्य में हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की तहसील तलवंडी साबो व सरदूलगढ़ में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है , अतः उस भूमि के बारे में, जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है , मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों को पंजाब राज्य में समाप्त किया जाए ,

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण 1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को पंजाब राज्य में मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों की समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती हे ।

अनुसूची

तहसील

ग्राम का नाम का.आ. सं. एवं दिनांक

क्रम सं

राज्य

जिला

प्रचालन की समाप्ति कीतारीख

7 5

पंजाब

03-01-2011 भटिंडा

तलवंडीसाबो

रामा

3522 दिनांक 22-12-2009

55 ई दिनांक 07-01-2010 फूलोखारी

मलकाना 680दिनांक 28-02-2011

तंगराली

त्यौना पुजारीन

मिरेजयाना

नथेहा

2. 2551 दिनांक 15-09-2009

04-01-2011 पंजाब

मानसा

सरदूलगढ़

कुशला

जाना कला 3521 दिनांक 22-12-2009

230दिनांक 05-01-2011 फत्ता मालुका

अलीके

झन्डोके

बरन

हिरके

[फा. सं. आर-31015/3/2012- ओआर- II ]

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव 4220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2012

S.O. 1778. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & . Natural Gas , $.O. Nos . and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub - section ( i) of Section 6 , Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government acquired the Right ofUser in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications .

And Whereas , in exercise of powers conferred by Sub- section (4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government vested the right of user in the lands free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ILimited.

And Whereas , the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose oftransportation of petroleum products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana has been laid in the said lands and hence the ROU activities may be terminated in Tehsils Talwandi Saboo & Sardulgarh in the State of Punjab in respect of the said lands which in brief are specified in the Schedule annexed to this Notification .

Now, therefore as required under explanation 1 of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Rules , 1963 , the Central Government hereby declare the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said schedule as the dates of termination of activities in ROU in the State of Punjab .

SCHEDULE

S.O. No. & Date

Tehsil

District

State

Name of Village

$ 1. No.

Date for Termination ofactivities in ROU

3522 Date 22-12-2009

Raman

Talwandi

Bhatinda

03-01-2011

Punjab

55 E Date 07-01-2010

Phullo Khari

Sáboo

Maikana

680 Date 28-02-2011

Teona Pujarin Mirziona

Tangrali Nathea

2551 Date 15-09-2009

Kusla

Mansa

Sardulgarh

04-01-2011

Punjab

3521 Date 22-12-2009

Jatana Kalan

230 Date 5-01-2011

Fatta Maluka Jhanduke Heerke Alike Baran

[F. No. R-31015 /3 /2012 -OR - II ]

LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई, 2012

का.आ. 1779,-केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अधिसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की संख्या का. आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिष्टि भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमियों में सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ।

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि पेट्रोलियम और खनिजों के परिवहन के लिए हरियाणा राज्य में हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की तहसील रोहतक व फतेहाबाद में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है , अतः उस भूमि के बारे में . जिसका संगिन विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है , मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों को हरियाणा राज्य में समाप्त किया जाए ।

4221

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण 1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को हरियाणा राज्य में मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों की समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची

जिला

राज्य

तहसील

ग्राम का नाम का.आ. सं. एवं दिनांक

क्रम सं.

प्रचालन की समाप्ति कीतारीख

3 2

25-10-2010 हरियाणा

रोहतक

घडौठी 1. 2548 दिनांक 14-09-09

256दिनांक 18-01-10 घुसकानी

टिटौली 229दिनांक 05-01-11

जिन्दरान

खिडवाली

मकरौली कलां

ब्राहमणवास बसन्तपुर लाढ़ौत

किलौई खास

भालोठ

23-06-2010 हरियाणा

फतेहाबाद

2. 3095 दिनांक 13-11-09

नागपुर 290(अ) दिनांक 04-02-10

1532 दिनांक 30-05-11 अलीपुर बरोटा

भूथन कलां

भूथनखुर्द खेडेवाला

नाढोडी

फूल भुना

बैजलपुर

नहला

[फा. सं. आर-31015/3/2012- ओआर-11 ]

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2012

S.O. 1779. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum &. Natural Gas , S.O. Nos . and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under sub - section ( i ) of Section 6, Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications .

And Whereas , in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section ( 4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government vested the right of user in the lands free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

AndWhereas , the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products from Raman Mandi in the state of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the state of Haryana has been laid in the said lands and hence the ROU activities may be terminated in Tehsils Rohtak & Fatehabad in the State of Haryana in respect of the said lands which in brief are specified in the Schedule annexed to this Notification .

Now, therefore as required under explanation 1 of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963 , the Central Government hereby declare the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said schedule as the dates of termination of activities in ROU in the State ofHaryana.

4222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

SCHEDULE

S.O. No. & Date

Tehsil

Name ofVillage S No.

1. 2548 Date 14-09-09

Ghraothi

Rohtak

256 Date18-01-10

Ghuskani

229 Date 05-01-11

Titouli

Jindran

Khidwali Brahmanwas Basantpur Makrauli Kalan Ladhaut

Kiloi Khas

Bhalaut

2. 3095 Date 13-11-09

Fatehabad

Nagpur

Phool

290(E) Date 04-02-10

1532 Date 30-05-11

AlipurBarota

Bhuthan Kalan

Bhuthan Khurd

Bhuna

Kherwala Nadhauri Baijalpur

Nahla

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

District State Date for Termination ofoperation

Rohtak

25-10-2010 Haryana

23-06-2010 Fatehabad Haryana

[F. No. R- 31015/3 /2012-OR- II ] LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 17 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1780.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अधिसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की संख्या का . आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिष्टि भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमियों में सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित किया था ।

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि पेट्रोलियम और खनिजों के परिवहन के लिए हरियाणा राज्य में हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की तहसील सिरसा , रतिया , बरवाला, नारनौंद , हांसी , जुलाना , महम , सांपला व बहादुरगढ़ में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है , अतः उस भूमि के बारे में, जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है , मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों को हरियाणा राज्य में समाप्त किया जाए;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण 1के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को हरियाणा राज्य में मार्गाधिकार गतिविधियों की समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची

ग्राम का नाम

का.आ. सं. एवं दिनांक

तहसील क्रस सं.

1 .

लोहारहेडी

बहादुरगढ़ 3096 दिनांक 13-11-09 2052दिनांक 04-08-11

दहकोरा

आसौदा सिवान

आसौदाटोडरान

राज्य

जिला

प्रचालन की समाप्ति कीतारीख

झज्जर

हरियाणा

25-05-2011 4223

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

26-09-2011 हरियाणा

रोहतक

सांपला

पाक्समा 2646 दिनांक 22-09-09

कसरेन्टी

मोरखेडी

समचाना

भैसरू खुर्द

भैसरू कलां

नयाबांस

21-09-2011 रोहतक हरियाणा

महम

फरमाना खास 3. 2489 दिनांक 09-09-09

168 दिनांक 11-01-10

फरमाना बादशाहपुर

गुगाहेडी

खरक. जाटान बैन्सी

लाखन माजरा

खरेन्टी

चान्दी

मालवी 2549 दिनांक 14-09-09

23-10-2010 हरियाणा

जींद

जुलाना

21-11-2010 हरियाणा

हिसार

हांसी

भकलाना 2550 दिनांक 15-09-09

मोहला 257 दिनांक 18-01-10

बडछप्पर 1530दिनांक 27-05-11

बास बादशाहपुर

23-11-2010 हरियाणा

हिसार

नारनौंद

लौहारी राधो 2937 दिनांक 21-10-09

मोठ करनेल साहिब

291(अ ) दिनांक 04-02-10

गामडा 1533 दिनांक 30-05-11

मोठ रागंरान

राखी शाहपुर

नारनौंद

औरंग शाहपुर

पेटवाड

पावडा

25-02-2011 हरियाणा

हिसार

बरवाला

3093.दिनांक 12-11-09

ईश्रहेडी 396 ( अ ) दिनांक 15-02:10

1531 दिनांक 27-05-11

भैणी बादशाहपुर

बरवाला

बधावड़

ढाड

ब्याना खेड़ा

22-02-2011

हरियाणा

रतिया

साहरन 8. 2870दिनांक 15-10-09

मंढ

231 ( अ) दिनांक 05-01-11

हडौली

अहरवा

शेखुपुर सोतर

पालसर फतेहाबाद

27-09-2010 सिरसा हरियाणा

सिरसा

9. 2869 दिनांक 15-10-09 सूरतिया सिंधपुरा

[फा. सं. आर-31015/3/2012- ओआर-11 ]

लाल छन्दमा, अवर सचिव 4224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2012

S.O. 1780.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas , S.O. Nos. and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under sub - section ( i ) of Section 6 , Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications .

And Whereas , in exercise of powers conferred by sub- section (4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government vested the right of user in the lands free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

And Whereas, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products from Raman Mandi in the state of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the state of Haryana has been laid in the said lands and hence the ROU activities may be terminated in Tehsils Sirsa , Ratia , Barwala , Narnaund , Hansi , Julana, Maham , Sampla & Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana in respect of the said lands which in brief are specified in the Schedule annexed to this Notification.

SCHEDULE

S.O. No. & Date

NameofVillage SI . No.

1 3096 Date 13-11-09

Loharheri Tehsil

District

State Date for Termination of operation

25-05-2011 Jhajjar

Bahadurgarh

2052 Date 04-08-11

Dhakaura

Asauda Sewan

Asaudha Todran

2 2646 Date 22-09-09

Kisarhanti

MoreKheri

Pakasma Samchana Bhansru Khurd Bhansru Kalan Nayabas

2489 Date 09-09-09

Farmana Khas

168 Date 11-01-10

Farmana Badshapur

Gugaheri Kharak Jatan

Bainsi

Lakhan Majra Khareanti Chandi

4 2549 Date 14-09-09

Malvi

Bhaklana 2550 Date 15-09-09

257 Date 18-01-10

Mohla

1530 Date 27-05-11

Badchhapar

BasBadshapur

Haryana

Rohtak

26-09-2011 Sampla

Haryana

Maham

Rohtak

21-09-2011

Haryana

Julana

Jind

23-10-2010

Haryana

Hansi

Hisar

21-11-2010

Haryana 4225

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3 1

2937 Date 21-10-09

Lohari Ragho

7 4

23-11-2010 Hisar

Narnaund

Haryana

MothKarnial Sahib 291 (E) Date 04-02-10

Gamra 1533 Date 30-05-11

MothRangran Rakhi Shahpur Narnaund Orang Shahpur Petwar

Pabra 7 3093 Date 12-11-09

Iserheri 396(E) Date 15-02-10

1531 Date 27-05-11

25-02-2011 Barwala

Hisar Haryana

Bhaini Badshahpur

Barwala Badhawar Dhad BiyanaKhera

Saharan 8 2870 Date 15-10-09

Madh.

231 Date 05-01-11

Haroli

Ahearwa Shekhupur Sotar Palsar

2869 Date 15-10-09.

Suritiya Singhpura

-22-02-2011 Ratia Fatehabad Haryana

27-09-2010 Sirsa

Sirsa

Haryana

[F. No. R-31015/3/2012-OP. - II ] LAL CHHANDAMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1781.-पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइप लाइन ( भू उपयोग अधिकार अधिग्रहण ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 के 50 ) के खंड 2 की धारा ( क ) के अनुसरण में तथा पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की दिनांक19-11-2010 की अधिसूचना का अधिक्रमण करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री कृष्ण मोहन उप्पू, आईएएस ( एजीएमयू 2009 ) डिप्टी जिला कलेक्टर ( नजफगढ़ ) , राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली को अपने कर्त्तव्यों के अतिरिक्त राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली की सीमा में हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की एमडीपीएल उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के अंग के रूप में बहादुरगढ़ टीकरीकलां स्परलाइंस के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के तहत सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[फा. सं. आर-31015/6/2004 - ओआर 11

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2012

S.O. 1781.- In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. S.O. 2877 dated 19-11-2010, the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Krishna Mohan Uppu , IAS ( AGMU - 2009 ) , SDM (Najafgarh ) Government of NCT of Delhi , to perform the functions of Competent Authority for Bahadurgarh - Tikrikalan spurlines as a part of MDPL product pipeline of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , in addition to his own duties , under the said Act , within the territory of NCT Delhi .

1706 GI/2012-11

[F. No. R -31015/6/2004- OR - II |

LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

4226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल , 2012

का.अ. 1782. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का(4) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ इंजीनियर , आल इंडिया रेडियो ( दूरदर्शन ) एण्ड अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 88/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/19/1996- आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ]

[PART IISEC. 3 ( ii) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOURAND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 25th April, 2012

S.O. 1782. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 88/ 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chief Engineer, All India Radio (Doordarshan) and others and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 25-4-2012 .

[No. L-42012/19/ 1996- IR (DU) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 88 of 1997

SriGulab Singh son of Sri Hari Singh

C/ o Sri Sunhari Lal , B-29 ,

Indrapuri , NewAgra.

And

ChiefEngineer,

All IndiaRadio,

(Doordarshan) & Others

ShamshabadAgra.

AWARD

1. Central Government , Mol , New Delhi , vide notification no. L-42012/ 19/96- IR (DU) dated 23-5-97, has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-

2.Whether the action of Doordarshan Kendra Agra in terminating the services of Sri Gulab Singh Chowkidar with effect from 1-3-95 is legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?

3. Brief facts ofthe case are---

4. It isalleged by the claimant that he was employed bythe opposite party directly as chowkidar at the rate of Rs.700 per month with effect from 3-9-92. After 15-10-92he wasalso assigned night duty from 6.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. for 12 hours . He rendered his duties honestly diligently and withfulldevotion. Due to this his wages were enhanced to Rs. 800 per month with effect from 1-4-93 . It is further alleged by the claimant that since the date of employment he was not given any appointment letter, wage slip, attendance card etc. , payment of wages was made on register with effect from 3-9-92 to 31-5-94 and thereafter on plain paper till the date of termination for the obvious reasons. He was neither given equal pay for equal work nor given payment of overtime wages , when workman demanded the same, suddenly on 1-3-95 Sri Bhikki Lal Assistant Engineer Security verbally stopped the workman concerned from his duties . On query he was informed that employer no . 2 has terminated his services . As such abrupt oral -termination amounts to retrenchment , but employer have not complied with Section 25 F, 25 G and 25 H ofthe Act and rules 76 and 77 of I.D. (Central ) Rules 1957. This termination was done without any prior notice or termination, it was done with malice to deny right full claim oftheworkman. It is by way of victimization and in colorable exercise ofemployers power which amounts to unfair labour practice under Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act . He also served a legal notice on the employer but no reply was given . As the opposite party has not provided any documentary prove pertaining to the employment therefore , he is keeping his right to suitably amend or add his statement of claim; therefore , he has prayed that he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and withfull backwages .

5.Opposite party has filed reply. It is stated by them that the claimant was engaged on oral contract basis for the security of the material of doordarshan kept at the side Ram Bagh Premises on Agra Tundla Road . The contract period was monthly and was renewed receipt of payment ofcontract money was also given by him . Photocopies of the same have been filed by him as Annexure 1. Payment was made on hand receipt and not on register. But it is stated that he was not employed as in employee against any regular post . He was not given any appointment letter. Itisalso stated that the site for the security for which the claimant was engaged has been transferred to Civil Construction Agra to construct the residential quarters . Therefore , the services of the petitioner are no longer required and the contract of engagement came to an end .

6..When he was not an employee , no question of termination is involved . It is not a retrenchment therefore onnotice is required to be served . He was informed at the early stage that when his services were not required by Sri Bhikki Lal , therefore, his services were no longer required. It is also alleged that Doordarshan is not an Industry as defined under the definition of the term Industry. It is further 4227 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

alleged that a SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the point as to whether Doordarshan is an Industry or not and till the issue is decided this court has nojurisdiction to decide the matter and the reference is liable to be rejected on this ground also.

13. It is also stated by the claimant that when he demanded for the overtime wage , his services were dispensedwithby an oral order passed by Sri Bhikki Lal with effect from 1-3-95 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thestatement of workman is believable and acceptable on thispointalso.

7. Rejoinder statement has also been filed but nothing new has been incorporated therein except reiterating the facts already pleaded by the claimant in his statement of claim .

8.Management apart from oral evidence has also fileddocumentary evidence which will be discussed at the time of appreciation of the facts and evidence ofthe case. Management has also produced evidence of Sri Keemat Kumar Asstt . Engineer , Doordarshan , as M.W. 1 , whereas, workman himself has produced in evidence as W.W. I.

9. I have perused the statement of both the parties and the documentary evidence which is in the shape of photocopies filed by the opposite parties. It has been stated by the claimant on oath that he was engaged by the opposite party as chowkidar on 3-9-92 and he was being paid Rs.700 per month in the beginning and later on enhanced to Rs . 800 per month . This fact has not been denied by the opposite party either in the reply or in the oral evidence .

10. It has been stated by the opposite party that he was engaged on the basis of oral contract as a chowkidar and when his services were not required the oral contract came to an end automatically.

14.There is a contention of the opposite party that the site for which the workman was engaged was transferred to Civil Construction Wing Agra to construct the residential quarters, so his services were not required. This contention does not carry any weight. It has boen contendedbytheAR for the claimant that Civil Construction WingAgra is also the branch ofopposite party, therefore, opposite party cannot take this plea that there was no work left for the claimant. For a moment if there was no work left even then the employer was expected to issue him a notice must have paid the retrenchment compensation beforeterminating his services because the claimant was already in the engagement/employment of employer and he has completed 240 days in the calendar year before his termination with effect from 1-3-95, which fact has also not beendisputed by the opposite party. They have also not disputed the continuity of the services of the claimant; therefore, to my view the claimant has accrued a right of protection under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the reply it is also admitted by the opposite party that they have never issued any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation before the termination of the services of the claimant. Therefore , in' any view of the matter it is held that the opposite party has breached the mandatory provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct.

15. The claimant has placed reliance upon a decision-

1. 2011 Vol . II SCC L7S 524 between Kuldeep Singh versus General Manager.

2. 2007 Vol.1 SCC L&S 961 between Sriram Industrial Enterprises versus Mehak Singh & Others.

16. I have considered the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court and I respectfully agree with the same.

11. 1 have examined this fact . Now the burden has shifted to the opposite.party to prove this fact . Opposite party is a public sector undertaking and be known as Doordarshan . It is expected from them that they will follow certain prescribed procedure to engage any person or to employ any person. They have not given any documentary evidence that the claimant was engaged or employed on the basis of a oral contract . There is no such procedure where a person can be employed on the basis of an oral contract that too for years together. The payment receipts filed by the opposite party along with the written statement, if I enter in the depth of these receipts and lift the veil I find thatit is a colorable exercise of managerial power on the part of the employer. Therefore , this cannot be termed as oral contract and it amounts to an unfair labour practice .

17. In both the case the Hon'ble Apex has held that where theworkman has completed 240 days ofcontinuous service preceding 12 calendar months from the date ofhis termination he is entitled to be reinstated in the service.

18. Therefore, considering the overall view as explained hereinabove it is held that the opposite party has breached the provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, consequently the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service of the employer opposite party with 50% back wages and continuity of service. It is further directed that the opposite party shall reinstate theworkman in their service within one month from the date of publication of this award.

12. Opposite party has filed photocopies of attendance register and the same have been perused by me. I find that it is ofno use for the employer as the claimant has himself stated in his claim statement that his attendance was never marked in the attendance register and that he had never been provided with any appointment letter , therefore the statement of the W.W.1 acceptable on the point and that he was engaged by the opposite party on 3-9-92 as chowkidar at the rate ofRs.700 per month which was subsequently enhanced at the rate of Rs.800 per month.

4228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

19. Before parting with the award it may be pointed out here that there is one more contention pleaded by the opposite party that they are not industry within the meaning oftheAct. It is contended by them that there were number ofjudgments ofthe Hon'ble High Court and the CATwhich have held that Doordarshan is an Industry, against this decision the Union of India have gone into the SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court . It is contended by them that the matter is rending before the Hon'ble apex court so this matterbe also dismissed on this ground . I have considered thisaspect of the matter fully. First I would like to say that there is no direct stay of the proceedings of the present case by any higher court, secondly there cannot be any dismissal ofthe case simply on the ground that some matter ispending before a higher court to be decided . A simple paper has been filed by the opposite party which is not supported by any affidavit or in the statement of MW. 1 , therefore, on the above point no cognizance can be taken . It is also not a certified copy of any order of the higher court . Therefore no cognizance can be taken of this document and it is held that the opposite party is an Industry as defined under the definition of Industry under section 2(j ) of the Act .

20. In the end it is finally concluded that the workman should be reinstated in service with 50% back wages with continuity of service .

21. The reference is therefore answered accordingly in favour of the workman and against the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 25 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1783. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जरनल मैनेजर , ग्रे आइरन फैक्ट्री , जबलपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी/एलसी/आर/ 64/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था

[सं. एल -14011 /8 / 1994 आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th April , 2012

S.O. 1783 .---In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/64/96 ) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The General Manager, Grey Iron Factory/ Jabalpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-4-2012 .

[No. L- 14011 /8 / 1994 - IR (DU) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 64/ 96

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

General Secretary,

Workman GIF EmployeesUnion , Grey Iron Factory, Jabalpur

Versus

General Manager,

Grey Iron Factory, Jabalpur

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of March, 2012

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 14011 /8/94- IR ( DU) dated 26-2-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

" प्रबंधतंत्र ग्रे आयरन फाउन्ड्री , जबलपुर के प्रबंधकों द्वारा निम्नलिखित श्रमिकों जो कि फरनेसमेन ( जनरल ) के पद पर कार्यरत हैं , उन्हे दि. 16-10-81 से फरनेसमेन ( जनरल ) सेमीस्कील्ड से स्कील्ड केटेगरी में अपग्रेड न कर वेतनमान 260-440-निर्धारण न करने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं तो संबंधित आवेदकगण किस अनुतोष के हकदार हैं । "

कर्मकारों के नामों की सूची :

( 1 ) श्री हरीशंकर दुबे , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. - 11 दि.न. 1160/1372

(8 ) श्री बाबूसिंह , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. टि.न. 1110/1359 (2) श्री आर.सी. खत्री , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. - 11 टि.न. 1148/1390 (3 ) श्री मोहम्मद गौर , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. - 11 टि.न. 1155/1405 (4) श्री एस.पी. नापित , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. टि.न. 1157/1408 (5 ) श्री एल. पी. सोनकर , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. टि.न. 1125/1409 (6 ) श्री एस.एल. राजपूत , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. टि.न. 1139/1410 (7 ) श्री आर.एन. यादव , एच.टी.ओ. एच. एस. टि.न. 1140/1411 2. The case of the workmen/Union , in short , is that the workmen were appointed as Labourers in 1978. They appeared and passed the trade test for the Furnaceman (General ) and were appointed/ promoted as Furnaceman (General ) in the pay scale of Rs . 210-260 w.e.f. 1-5-1980 . It isstated that in the mean time there was reclassification of Industrial Trades in Ordnance Factories on the recommendation of Expert Classification Committee Report ( inshort EEC report) . Most of the semi - skilled post ofpay scale of Rs.210-260 had been reclassified to skilled grades in the pay scale of Rs . 260 to Rs . 400 w.e.f. 16-10-1981 . Furnaceman trade was also upgraded in other Ordnance Factories e.g. Ordnance Factory, Avadi Tamil Nadu ( in short OFA , Tamil Nadu) but the Grey Iron Foundry Jabalpur 4229

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(in short GIF, Jabalpur) did not upgrade the furnace-man trade from semi - skilled to skilled grade as it was done in other Ordnance Factories . However the management had upgraded similar SubTrade like Furnace - man charger from semis -killed to skilled grade . It is stated that an Anamolies Committee was set up to resolve the dispute of upgradation and principle was laid down which was accepted by the management. On the principle of the Committee , the Furnace-man (General ) was upgraded in OFA, Tamilnadu from semi -skilled to skilled grade w.e.f. 16-10-1981 but the same is denied to Furnace man (General ) at GIF , Jabalpur. It is stated that instead of upgradation the workmen were re -designated as Annealer ( semiskilled) in the same pay scale vide order dated 20-5-85 . It is stated that the workmen were again re -designated as Totol Hardner in the new trade known as Heat Treatment Operative on the basis of Guha Committee Report in 1989. The management then upgraded the workmen as skilled grade only from 12-2-1990 instead the upgradation from the date by which the Furnace- man OFA Tamilnadu was upgraded. It is stated that Guha Committee had been done to minimize/ rectify the anomalies and irregularities caused to wrong implementation of EEC Report . It is stated that Guha Committee Report should be implemented w.e.f. 16-10-1981 to avoid any discrimination. On the basis ofthe above grounds , the reference be answered in favour of the Union/workmen with all consequential benefits .

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management, interalia, is that admittedly these workmen wereappointed as labourers in the year 1978 in GIF, Jabalpur. Thereafter they were promoted to Furnace-man (General ) (Semi - skilled) in the scale ofRs . 210-Rs.290 after qualifying trade test w.e.f. 2-5-1980.The matter of revision/ fixation of pay scale, if any, strictly lies on the pay Commission and. other such bodies after acceptance of the recommendation ofthe Government . The demand for revision of Pay scales ofanytrade cannot be entertained by the General Manager of the Factory as he has no authority to grant any pay scale to any group of employees . It is stated that this issue was raised before various CATs and even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The Hon'ble Apex Court has settled that the job evaluation done by EEC based on the point rating system cannot be held to be arbitrary. It is stated that the EEC has evaluated the job contents of the various trades i.e. Furnace -man (Pourer ) , Furnace- man (General OFA) and Furnace-man (General ) on the basis of point rating system. The Guha Committee was formed to provide avenues of promotion to the incumbents of dead trade by merging them with nearly akin trades after trade test. In the above circumstances, the claim ofthe Union/workmen for treating them as skilled grade in the scale of Rs.260-400 on their Furnace-man (General ) trade is not tenable and is not justified. The Union/ workmen is not entitled to any relief.

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

I. Whether the action of the management in not upgrading the workmen from semi - skilled to skilled category in the pay scale of Rs . 260 to Rs400 w.e.f. 16-10-81 isjustified?

II . To what relief the workmen is entitled?

Issue No. I

Now the important question raised by the Union/ workmen is as to whether the demand of the workmen to upgrade them from semi - skilled to skilled grade in the pay scale of Rs.260 to Rs 400 w.e.f. 16-10-81 is justified and proper. The grounds taken by the Union is that Furnace- man trade was also upgraded in other ordnance factories . It is stated that the Furnace -man , OFA , Tamilnadu was upgraded from semi - skilled to skilled grade in the scale of Rs.260 to Rs 400 w.e.f. 16-10-1981 but the same is denied to Furnace-man General , GIF, Jabalpur and these workmen were in semi - skilled category in the scale of Rs.210 - Rs.260.

6. In support of the facts, the Union/workmen has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The Union has examined three workmen in the case. Shri H.S.Dubey has stated that he appointed as a Labour on 13-2-1978 and was promoted as Furnace - man General after passing Trade Test on 1-1-1981 . He has further stated that the management had not upgraded them in GIF as per EEC report from 16- 10-1981 whereas in other factory under the same management and under the Ministry of Defence , Furnace- man, OFA Tamilnadu were upgraded in the pay scale of Rs.260 - Rs.350 from the pay scale of Rs.210-290, He has stated in his cross -examination that the pay fixation is not to be done by the factory in which he worked rather it is to be done by the Govt . of India . It is argued on behalf of the management that Union, Govt. and Ministry of Defence are not parties to the reference and admittedly General Manager, GIF, Jabalpur has no authority to grant any pay scale to any group of employees from any different date . It is urged that the reference is bad for non -joinder of Union Govt . in the reference . Another witness Shri R.C.Khatri is also examined in the case . He has also corroborated the evidence of Shri H.S. Dubey. He has also stated that their pay fixation/ revision is governed by Central Govt. He has stated that on the basis of Central Pay Commission, the General Manager has power to revise/ fix the pay of the workers . The last witness Shri Babu Singh is also a workman . His evidence is similar as other witnesses have stated in their evidence . Their evidence clearly shows that they have not stated and enumerated the important characteristics of the job of Furnace - man General and furnaceman OFA , Tamil Nadu and the work traits as well as the conditions under which the job was being performed by both the classes of workmen simply nomenclature is same . Thus the evidence ofthe witnesses of the Uniondo not establish that the Furnace- man General of GIF, Jabalpur 4230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

and Furnace -manOFA, Tamil Nadu were doing the work of samejob description with same duties and responsibilities.

7. The Union has filed documents in the case . Exhibit W/l isthe photocopy of the result sheet of the Trade Test of the Furnace-man ( General ) dated 4-1-1980 . This is admitted by the management. This is filed to show that the workmen Shri R.C.Khatri , Md . Gaus , S.P.Napit , S.L.Rajput , L.P Sonkar and R.P. Yadav had passed the Trade Test of Furnace-man ( General ). , Exhibit W/2 is the photocopy of the incomplete ordnance factories and ordnance equipment factories Recruitment Rules , 1979. This document is also admitted by the management . This is filed to show that the payscale ofFurnace -man(General ) was Rs.210-290. It also shows that the following requisites were required for promotion/deputation/ transfer as Furnace - man ( General )-

type designation but their pay scale was revised w.e.f. 16-10-1981 in skilled grade whereas Furnace -man , JIF, Jabalpur was revised from semi - skilled to skilled grade . As discussed above, it is clear that there is no document on the record to show that these workmen were doing the work of same job description with same duties and responsibilities as has been done by Furnace - man , OFA , Tamil Nadu . The learned counsel for the management argued that the ECC has adopted the Point Rating System for job evaluation and the job contents of Furnace -man OFA and Fumace- man ( General ) were evaluated. On the basisofjob evaluation Fumace - man ( OFA ) was given the scale of Rs.260-400 and the Fumace- man ( General ) was giventhe scale of Rs.210-290 . The Union/workmen has failed to show that the job contents are same of these two trades as it were evaluated on the point rating system.

(a) Primary Pass

(b) (i) should have strong physique and be capable of working in hot sections

(ii) Ability of handle heavy pieces such as billets during charging and discharging furnace.

(iii) Ability to operate the furnace and control temperature and ability to light furnace from cold.

(iv) A minimum period of2 years experience in . the trade is necessary. ( Trade Test : Practical demonstration at work . )

It isclear that there is nothing on the record to show that what was the requisites for Furnace - man OFA, Tamil Nadu.

10. On the other hand , the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence in the case . The management witness Shri B. P.Mishra is working as AGM (Administration) . He has stated that the General Manager ofthe Factory has no authority to grant any pay scale to a group of employees from any different date than the dates already fixed by the Govt . of India. The learned counsel for the management argued that Ministry of Defence though Union Govt . is not party to the reference as such the reference is bad on non -joinder of necessary party. I also find from the discussion made above that the Govt. of India is admittedly the competent authority to grant any pay scale to a group of employees from any date . This witness has stated that for rationalisation of trades . and grades in Ordnance Factory, Guha Committee was formed . The basic purpose of Guha Committee was to reduce the number of trades In Ordnance Factories Organisation and to provide avenues to employees in dead end trades by merging them with akin main trades after following the procedure laid down in SRO . On the other hand , the ECC was for the purpose to sort out anomalies arising out of the recommendations of Third Pay Commission . I also agree that Guha Committee is for rationalization of trades and for providing avenues for promotion in dead end trades .

8. Exhibit W/3 is photocopy of specification of Trade Testing. It is also incomplete document . Though it is admitted by the management . This is filed to show that the specification of Trade Test of Furnace -man (General ) are same as has been given Ordnance Factories and Ordnance Equipment Factories Recruitment Rules 1979 . There is nothing to show that the specifications of Trade Test are same to the Furnace man OFA , Tamil Nadu . Exhibit W/4 (Paper No. 14/14 ) is photocopy of incomplete letter of the management dated 14-8-1986 whereby the workmen Shri H.S.Dubey, R.C.Khatri and Babu Singh were promoted to Tool Hardner skilled grade in the pay scale of Rs.260- Rs.400 with re-designated . Paper No. 14/16 is another office order No. 231 whereby the workman Shri R.N. Yadav was promoted to the post of Tool Hardner ( skilled) . This is also incomplete document and is admissible in law.

9. Exhibit W/ 5 is the photocopy of the corrigendum of the sanction letter dated 11-5-1983 of the Ministry of Defence concerning the fitment of pay scales of the industrial workers of Ordnance/Ordnance Eqpt. Factories whereby the pay scale of Furnace - man OFA , Tamil Nadu wasrevisedfrom Rs.210-290 to Rs.260-400 . This is also admitted by the management . This is filed to show that Furnace-man (OFA) were also in the same scale with similar

11. The management has filed the ECC report trades alongwith Guha Committee Instruction which is marked as Exhibit M/ 1 . The said document is admittedby the Union/ workmen . This is filed to show that Point rating method was forjob evaluation . There were four main characteristics for determination , i.e. skill , effort , responsibility and job condition . The report further shows that five grade structures were prepared i.e. unskilled, semi - skilled, skilled, Highly skilled Gr.II and Highly skilled Gr.I and the revised pay was given effect from 16-10-1981 . It also appears that initially Fumace-man General and Fumace - man (OF A) were placed in the same pay scale of Rs.210-290 but subsequently the pay scale of furnaceman ( OFA ) was correctedby corrigendum to Rs.260-400 . Thus it is clear that the pay scale of these two trades were fixed on point 4231

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL vide notification no. L-40012 /51 /2007 - IR(DU) dated 13-11-07, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal- rating system. The Union has failed to show that the point rating system is similar in both trades. Thus it is evident from the discussion made above that the workmen are not justified in demanding the pay scale of skilled w.e.f. 16-10- 1981. This issue is decided against the workmen/Union and in favour of the management.

12. Issue No. I

2.Whether the action ofthe management ofGeneral Manager , BSNL Fatehpur/UP Parimandal E Lucknow, in terminating the service oftheir workman Sri Jageshwar with effect from 14-8-2000 is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?

3. Brief facts are-

Onthe basis ofthe discussion made above, it is clear that the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

13. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1784. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डिस्ट्रिक्ट मैनेजर, बी. एस. एन. एल. फतेहपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

4. It is allegedby the claimant that he was engaged as a Telegram Messenger on 18-5-92, by the officer- in- charge Door Sanchar Bindiki , after seeking permission from Pravar Adhikshak Taar Pariyat Mandal Allahabad . The nature of work against which the claimant was engaged was of permanent nature, but he was engaged in the beginning for three hours and later on after seeing his performance he was asked to work for 4 hours per day. Instead of it he was utilized to perform his duties for 8 hours per day.He was being paid his wage once in a month, Later on when the claimant raised his demand for his regularization, he was victimized on a number ofcounts , he was asked to sign the vouchers in the name of other persons, hewas not paid his full salary, when he raised his voice against his legal demands , his service was dispensed with on 14-8-2000 orally.

[सं. एल -40012/51 /2007- आईआर (डीयू) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th April, 2012

5.He filed a suit before CAT, but it was dismissed for want ofappropriate jurisdiction . He filed a writ petition in theHon'ble High Court, where the Hon'ble High Court had held that the claimant has an effective remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There after he raised his grievance beforethe appropriate government which in turn sentthematter for adjudication by way of present reference order.

S.O. 1784.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management District Manager, BSNL, Fatehpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2012 .

6.After his termination of service Sri Babu Singh, ShivDass and Ramesh Kumar who were junior to him have been retained in the service ofthe opposite party and the opposite party is still taking work from them ..

[No. L-40012/51 /2007 - IR (DU)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 6/2008

7. It is also alleged by the claimant that at the time of termination of his services provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with as it was mandatory to comply the same because he has worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his termination . He has also pleaded that part time worker is workman and there is no distinction between the definition ofworkman as to whether a person has worked full time or part time Sri Jageshwar son ofDaya Ram, Resident of Village Kanspsur Post Kalyanpur District Fatehpur.

And

8.On the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed that since the management has violated the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , therefore , he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full pay and allowance , continuity of service and with consequential benefit .

The District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, District Fatehpur.

4232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

9. Opposite party irrespective of the fact that they put their appearance in the case but they did not file any reply against the claim statement of the workman . Opposite party has further failed to adduce evidence in the case.

10. Claimant has adduced oral as well documentary evidence. In oral evidence he has adduced himselfas W.W.I. Hehas stated on oath that he was employed on 18-5-82 by BSNL as a messenger and he continued to work as such without anybreak or artificial breaks till 14-8-2000 . He stated that he continuously worked during this period as a telegram messenger. He further stated on oath that he was utilized to work continuously for a period of 8 hours per daybut he was being paid his wage only for 4 hours per day on monthly basis.

11. He goes on to state that at the time ofdispensation ofhis services neither he was given any notice , or notice pay or retrenchment compensation.

12. After termination of his services the opposite party has engaged S/Sri Shiv Dass , Ramesh and Babu Singh and these persons are still working in the department . He further stated that he is unemployed and despite sincere efforts he could not get appropriate employment for his survival.

13. He stated on oath that the documents filed numbering 11 / 3-20 relates to his working period . It is also stated that they have moved an application dated 30-7-09, for summoning the original record from the opposite party.

14. 1 have perused the contents of this application. This application was allowed by the tribunal and the opposite party was directed to file the summoned documents . Later on the opposite party failed to put in their appearance, so there was an order of the tribunal that a necessary and proper inference shall be drawn against the management , as they failed to produce the documents.

15. Therefore, considering these facts there is a legal presumption that the original documents were in the custody of the opposite party and they knowingly failed to produce these documents . The photo -copies filed by the claimant bears the stamp of department of Tele- communication along with dispatch number and date and also bear the stamp of Pabhari Taar Ghar Bindiki .

16. Claimant has also filed 13 documents vide list 5-5-08, Some of these are in the original shape . Paper no.06/ 03 is important and relevant document . This is a carbon copy issued in the process , issued by Prabhari Adhikari Doorsanchar Kendra Bindiki . Date ofthis letter is 18-5-92. It relates to the temporary appointment of telegram messenger which is in the name of Jageshwar son of Daya Ram. As such this letter confirms and support the contention ofthe claimant that he was appointed on 18-5-92.

17. Paper no.6/4-9 are the documents which bears the stamp ofthe Prabhari Adhikari DTO Fatehpur and there aretyped paper appears to be original in shape , these paper

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ]

relates to the disbursement of payment to the claimant for theworking period done by him . Paper no. 6/ 10-11 , and 13 are the applications moved by the claimant before the opposite, party for claiming back wages which were sent through registered post .

18. Therefore, I perused the entire documents and the oral evidence. Evidence appears to be believable . It appears that there is a continuity of service of the complainant since the date of his engagement and he had worked continuously for or more than 240 days ofservice preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his termination.

19. Claimant has placed reliance upon a decision Rajasthan High Court, 1996 (74) FLR Page 2459, Managing Director and Another versus Faley Ram. The Hon'ble High Court held -part time worker employed by the employer is a workman within the meaning of I.D. Act . In this case a part time mali was employed.

20.Another ruling has been placed 1997 ( 75) FLR Page 669 Punjab & Haryna High Court , Simla Devi versus Presiding Officer and other. The Hon'ble High Court held that a plain reading of the definition of workman does not exclude the part time workman from the definition of workman . Such exclusion cannot be read into it ipsofacto, except if it is expressly provided or implied that no other interpretation is possible , which is not the case - in -hand. Therefore , a part time worker was considered as a workman.

21. Therefore, considering all the facts ofthe case the claimant falls in the definition of workman and thus he isentitled for the protection of the provisions of theAct . Since the evidence oral as well as documentary lead bythe claimant goes uncontroverted the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the termination of the services of the claimant by the opposite is retrenchment as they failed to comply with the provisions of 25F of the Act in as much as he was neither given any notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation and also the management retained in service persons junior to him.

22. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter it is held that the removal of the workman with effect from 14-8-2000 is neither just nor fair nor proper and nor legal . Consequently he is held entitled to be reinstated in service together with 50 % back wages . The opposite party is directed to comply with the award after within thirty days ofthe publication of the award.

23. Reference is answered accordingly in favour of the workman and the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1785.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर , बी.एस.एन.एल. झांसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके 4233

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 08/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/ 147/2004- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2012

S.O. 1785.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act; 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the The General Manager, BSNL, Jhansi and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 26-4-2012.

[No. L-40012/147/2004- IR (DU) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRAI TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 08 of2005

Between-

Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Ramesh Chand Yadav, Village Fareeda, Post Nagra The . Grontha, District Jhansi .

And

The General Manager B.S.N.L. , Purana Exchange Building, Lalitpur Road, Jhansi.

AWARD

1. Central Government , Mol , New Delhi , vide notification no.L-40012/ 147 /2004 - IR(DU) dated 11-3-2005, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2.Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jhansi refusing the employment to Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav (workman) with effect from 30-4-2004 is legal and justified? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

3. Brief facts of the case are that it is alleged by the claimant that he was engaged by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Hereinafter in short BSNL) Jhansi Division under Muranipur Sub Divisional Officer Gursahai Doorsanchar Kendra on 14-9-2000 to 30-4-04 as temporary casual worker. That soon after when his services were forcibly terminated

1706 G1/2012-12

orally, he raised a dispute before ALC. It is stated that the opposite party without taking any responsibility has denied the claim of the workman before the ALC ( Central ) . It is further alleged by the claimant that the claimant had completed for more than 240 days service in each calendar year during the period he remained in the employment of the opposite party. That due to acute shortage of electricity supply at the place of his working , the opposite party has installed a generator and according to need he was utilized to operate the generator. He was also used to maintain the. diesel consumption register at the place of his working. It is also claimed that neither the names of the persons engaged on regular basis in Rural Gramin Doorbhash Kendra under Mauranipur Mandal have never been sponsored by the employment exchange nor the post was advertized by the opposite party prior to 27-7-02 . The claimant while working under the opposite party has accrued legal right to be absorbed in the service of the opposite party like the persons engaged from outside without their names sponsored by the employment exchange. In response to the letter dated 12-10-98 issued bythe General Manager, Lucknow, some names were sent to the Circle Office of the opposite party as such claimant is entitled for the same benefit . Claimant has further alleged that his name is appearing in the attendance register maintained by the opposite party at the place where he was engaged. It is also ploded by the claimant that he was paid Rs.600 per month after obtaining his signatures on the vouchers which is against the rules of natural justice. It isalso pleaded by the claimant that considering the work 1 the opposite party, opposite party still requires the services ofthe post against which he was engaged. Lastly it is alleged that considering the continuous services of the claimant he is entitled to be reinstated in the services ofthe opposite party from the date from which he was removed from the service with full back wages and continuity of service.

4.Opposite partyhas filed objection against the claim petition wherein it is alleged that the claimant was never employed by the opposite party, there had never been any relationship of master and servant between the opposite party and the petitioner, the claimant has manufactured and fabricated the documents with malafide intention , therefore the documents filed by the claimant are not admitted. The complainant has filed his mark sheet ofHigh School wherein his date of birth is shown as 30-9-84, where as he has claimed that he was engaged by the opposite party on 14-9-2000 , thus he was only about 15 years and 11 months of age and that he was not major on the date of his engagement and he could not have been employed nor was ever employed with the opposite party. The working period as alleged by the claimant has vehemently been disputed by the opposite party and that his name does not find place in the muster roll . It is further denied that the services of the claimant were terminated verbally at any 4234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

point oftime to say on 17-4-05 . As the claimant was never in the employment of the opposite party, question of termination of his services does not arise at all . It is also denied by the opposite party that they are in possession of any documents or record pertaining to the petitioner, therefore, the question of apprehension that the records maybe destroyed is absolutely wrong and appears to be a "Peshbandi " . Since the claimant was never in the employment of the opposite party therefore, he is not a workmanunder the definition of workman appearing under section 2(s) ofthe Act. It is also denied that the claimant Had ever completed 240 days of continuous service . There Has never been any post of Generator Operator in permanent or temporary capacity in the opposite party. As such the aversion that he was creating entries regarding fuel consumption etc. is absolutely wrong and denied and repudiated in its entirety. It is also denied that the opposite party ever advertised any post on 27-2-02 or on any other date for filling up any vacancies . The claimant is a guilty of fabricating the false documents and also using false documents before this Hon'ble Tribunal for his own interest and gains . Lastly it is alleged that the claim petition ofthe petitioner is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost in the interest ofjustice.

5. Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the workman but nothing new has been pleaded therein except reiteration ofthe facts pleaded by him in his claim petition.

6. Both the parties have filed the document . I will discuss the relevancy ofthe documents during appreciation of evidence led by the parties.

7.Heard and perused the record.

8. A short question to be decided in this case is whether any right to the claimant has accrued under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act,

9. Both the parties have produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

10. Claimant has produced himself as W.W. 1 and claimant has also produced Sri Anil Aggrawal , Hand Writing Expertas W.W. 2.

11. Opposite party has produced M.W. I Sri K.N. Shukla SIDO.

12. Both the parties have produced the documentary evidence also.

13. Claimant has produced 5 document vide list dated 6-9-05. These documents are photocopies of attendance register , photocopy of generator/diesel consumption register Gursahaiganj Doorbhash Kendra, Photocopy of the reply filed by the opposite party before ALC Kanpur , Photocopy of the duplicate bill and photocopy of duty chart.

14. Claimant has also filed the report of the hand writingexpert.

15. Opposite party has filed the several registers . These registers were produced on the request of the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

summoning application of the claimant . During arguments I have inquired from the auth . Representative for the claimant that from which register he wants to place reliance . He prayed and conceded that diesel engine register which is produced by the opposite party, which is in original , is relevant for the decision of this case. Attendance register has been filed by the claimant himself along with the report ofthe hand writing expert .

16. From the evidence of both the parties , it is a fact that the claimant was never issued any appointment letter; it is also a fact that he was not issued any termination letter, but from the evidence it has been found that the claimant was engaged as a casual labour , as stated by M.W.1 . He stated that the claimant was engaged in November 2002 and he worked till Feb. 2003 for causal work on daily rate basis . He stated that it is wrong to say thathe worked till 30-9-04 . He stated that he did not work for 240 days continuously before the date of his termination . He stated that there is no post of generator operator either lying or ever existed in the department. He stated that the papers 5/95/26 filed by the claimant are not genuine . Claimant himself admitted in his cross examination that he was engaged as a casual labour and he was not appointed against any sanctioned post .

17. Claimant has placed reliance upon two register i.e. (1 )Attendance Register and (2) is Diesel Engine Register.

18. Regarding attendance register the A.R. of the opposite party contended that the claimant has committed interpolation in the entries of the attendance register. He has added his name Jitendra somewhere in between serial no. 4 , and giving false no. 6 to the person who was given serial no. 5 in the attendance register and somewhere he has entered his name in the end of the serial number.

19. It is also contented by the AR of the opposite partythat it has not been shown by the claimant that how this original attendance register came in his possession and has been filed in the case by him . It is also contended that it was not filed at the earliest stage . It is also contended that the report of the hand writing expert is not genuine because the hand writing expert did not examined the disputed as well admitted signature and hand writing of a person after seeking the permission from the court . What was done in this case , the claimant himself sent the attendance register as well as the dispute and admitted signature of person from himself and the hand writing expert examined the authenticity of the writing and the signatures and submitted his report which have been filed before this court . Therefore under the facts and circumstances under which the report of hand writing expert is obtained and filed before the court is not admissible because the same has not been obtained or filed with the permission of the tribunal . Therefore , the tribunal is not inclined to believe the report of the hand writing expert . This report is against the rules of natural justice because the opportunity has not been given to the opporite party 4235

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

of termination ofhis services as mentioned in the reference order.

to say about the authenticity of the documents or report ofhand writing expert .

20. It is also contended by the MR that the hand writing expert W. W. 2 is not a qualified expert as he has not filed any certificate in this regard . There is a cross examination on this point .

25. It is also contended by the opposite party that the claimant was just 16 years of age at the time of his engagement as admitted by him in his statement. So a person who is below 18 years cannot be appointed or engaged by the department.

21. I have examined the statement of W.W. 2 and find that his statement does not inspire confidence .

26. Therefore there was any engagement that was contrary to the recruitment rules .

22. Now there is left only one register, i.e. Diesel Engine Register though it is being produced from the custody of the management . This register starts from November 2002 till May 2003. At certain places there appears name ofSri Jitendra Kumar. Claimant claims that it ishisname .

27. Opposite party has placed reliance upon a decision 2007 Lab IC 3353 P&H High Court in between Executive Engineer Nuda Gurgaon versus Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Gurgaon. In this case the Hon'ble High Court held mere rendering of240 days service does not give rightte permanence . Section 25 F was found attracted.

28. I have consitlused the whole facts oral as well as documentary evidence , though it has been found that the claimant was engaged but he was engaged only for a short period there does not appear to be any continuity andthe has not rendered 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination , therefore , the evidence adducedby the claimant is not believable and it is further held that he has failed to prove his case , thereby it is held that the claimant is not entitled to any relief pursuant to the present reference.

29. Reference is therefore answered against the workman and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2012

23. For the sake of evidence I presume that it is his name, but the question is whether he has completed 240 days before the date of termination i.e. 30-4-04. Last entry in the name of Jitendra Kumar in this register appears tobe of1704. Last entry in the name of Jitendra Kumar in this register appears to be of21-3-03 . It shows that nowork has been taken from him after 21-3-03 . Claimant has not said any where that any other register was also being maintained regarding diesel engine register. I have also specifioniły inquired during arguments how the workman is completing 240 days preceding 12 months from the date oftermination of his services , but there was no specific reply from the side ofthe claimant . When documentary evidence isthere and reliance is being placed by the claimant himself then no presumption can be drawn after the content of the documents . Similarly even if I take the cognizance of attendance register overlooking the interpolation for a moment this register is up to the period July 2001 , even then this register does not give any help to the workman for establishing that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days of service preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his termination.

का.आ. 1786. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैनेजमैन्ट ऑफ कोल डैम हाइड्रो इलैक्ट्रिक पावर प्रोजेक्ट और अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 175/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/ 282/2010 आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2012

S.O. 1786. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 175/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. 11, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of KOL Dam Hydro Electric Power Project and Others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on26-4-2012.

[No. L-42012/282/2010- IR ( DU )| RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 24. Claimant has also drawn my attention towards the paper no . 5/27. It is a reply filed by the opposite party. before the ALC Kanpur. In this document also the opposite party has stated that the claimant had worked during the periodNovember 2002 and February 2003 as a casual labour on part time basis . I have examined this paper. The claimant is not going to seek any help from the documents as it is his own admitted case that he worked till March 2004but no such documentary evidence have been produced by him to establish the fact that virtually he was in continuous employment with the opposite party till the date of his termination as referred in the reference order. I have also anxiously examined the photocopies ofthe documents filed bythe claimant in support of his claim but on going through the same I find that they are not help full to the claimant in the given circumstances as the claimant himself has palpably failed to establish the fact that he was under the continuous employment with the management for more than 240 days preceding 12 months from the alleged date 4236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2012

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

Present : SRI A.K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

Case ID No. 175/2011

Registered on 24-5-2011

का.आ. 1787.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टी.डी.एम. , फाहासु हाऊस, अलीगढ , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Shri Shyam Lal S/o Sh . Chint Ram , Village Nalin , PO Maloh , Tehsil Sunder Nagar , Mandi (HP)

...Applicant

[ सं. एल -40012/352/1999- आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी Versus

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2012 The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur.

Proj . Manager. Italian Thai Development Co. Ltd. , isoi Damilydro Electric f'ower Project , Village Kayan , PO Slapper, Teh Sundernagar, Mandi .

3. Mis. LK Irirastructure Company Private Ltd. , Village Chamb , Post Office Harnora , Bilaspur.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For theworkman

S.O. 1787.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 35/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the TDM Pahasu House , Aligarh and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-4-2012.

None

For the Management

[No. L-40012/352/ 1999- IR (DU ) ] Sh . V.P. Singh for respondent No. 1 ,

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Sh . Shamsher Singh for respondent No. 2

AWARD

Passed on April 10, 2012

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 35 of2000

Between-

The Central Government vide Notification No.L- 42012/282 /2010 - IR ( DU ) dated27-4-2011 by exercising its power under Section 10 of Sub- sections ( 1) Clause (d) and sub -section ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short Act) has referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal .

Sri Manoj Kumar son of Sri Virender , Bajaria Ram Lal Jain Mandir ke pas ,

Kayamganj ,

Farrukhabad.

And

The TDM Pahasu House ,

Aligarh.

AWARD

" Whether the retrenchment of services of Sh . Shyam Lal S/o Sh. Chint Ram w.e.f. 14-8-2008 by the management of M/ s . U.R. Infrastructure Company Private Limited,Village Chamb , Distt . Bilaspur a sub - contractor of M/ s . Italian Thai Development Public Limited a contractor ofM/s . NTPC Limited without following the principal of 'Last come first go ' is legal and justified? What reliefthe workman is entitled to from the above employer ? "

1. Central Government MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No. L - 40012/352/ 99 / IR- DU dated 9-2-2000 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

After receiving the reference notices were issued to the parties . Workman and respondent No. 3 did not trun up despite notice sent by registered post to them . Notices not received back undelivered . Hence service was presumed on them. Respondent No. 1 and 2 put in their appearances .

2. Whether the action of the management of TDM/ JTO Telephone in terminating the services of their workman Sri Manoj Kumar with effect 7-11-98 and not giving him the salary of six months is legal and justified? It not to what relief the workman is entitled?

As the workman failed to appear and file claim statement a ' No Dispute ' award is passed. Let two copies of the award be sent to Central Government for further cessary action.

3. Brief facts are--

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer 4237

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4. It is alleged by the claimant Sri Manoj Kumar that he 13. Opposite party has specifically stated through its
was working since March 1997 at Telephone witness M.W.1 that the claimant was engaged for
Exchange Sikandara Rau District Aligarh . Thereafter specific job for a short period from 1-9-98 to 30-9-98 as
hewas posted at Akrabad Exchange which falls under adaily rated casual worker and his wages were paid for
Sikandra Rau Exchange . But all ofsudden with effect the same. He was not issued any appointment letter.
from 7-11-98 he was not allowed to work by the In- After the completion of the work his services stood
charge of Sikandra Rau Telephone Exchange . Thus automatically terminated. It is also stated that there is a
his services have been terminated without any relation of claimant employed with the opposite party
notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation. which has been accepted by the clamant also and his
Thus the opposite party has committed breach of name is Sri Raj Kumar who is appointed as a Lineman .
section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was Opposite party has claimed that all these documents
also not paid wages for six month, he was neither filed along with list 17/1 or 18/ 1-2 particularly
given any appointment letter or termination letter. certification of working period as has been described
The work which was being taken from was of a are forged and fictitious . It is alleged that the two
permanent nature. Certain persons are still working certificateswhich are paper No. 12/5-6,which has been
on this work . Their names are Sri Kali Charan son of filed by the opposite party along with the written
Sri Desh Raj Singh, Satya Pal Singh, Rizan and others . statement showing the working period ofthe claimant
5. Thus he has continuously worked for 240 days or are forged and fictitious . It is alleged that the claimant
has made out a case in his statement that he had been
more . He has also taken the plea ofbreach of section
25H of the Act. engaged in service since March 1997 with the opposite
party, whereas the certificate paper No. 12/5, which has
6. On the basis of above it has been prayed by the been filedbythe opposite party along with their written
claimant that he be reinstated in the service with full statement which starts from March 1997 and this
back wages and with all consequential benefits . certificate also shows that there is also entries of
7. The opposite party has filed written statement working period of the workman is there for the period
denying all the averments raised by the claimant in Jan97 and Feb 97 which is self contradictory.
his statement of claim on a number of grounds
14. These certificates have also been filed by the claimant
alleging therein that the claimant was engaged for a
vide list 17/1 . These papers are 17/6 and 17/7 . Paper
short period under special circumstances to complete
the work with effect from 1-9-98 to 30-9-98 as a daily No.17/6 appears to be the same copy which -have
rated casual worker and he was paid for the same . been filed by the opposite party as paper No.12/5,
but what happens again the claimant has filed these
After the completion on this specifically job his
services stood terminated automatically. It is also papers vide list 18/1 and these paper are 18/3-4 . In
denied that after the termination of the services of paper No.18/4 it appears that he has forged and
concocted the entry which relates to the period
the workman the opposite party has inducted any Jan97 and Feb 97 which was being depicted in paper
fresh hands in place of his . Therefore, the opposite
no.12/5 but in paper no . 18/4 filed by the claimant
partyhas claimed that the claimant is not entitled for what has been done , instead of year 1997 he
anyrelief.
mentioned the year as 1998 instead of 1997 , which
8. Rejoinder has also been filed by the workman but appears to be false. Moreover the documents do not
nothing new has been pleaded therein except bear the signature of the competent officer SDO,
reiterating the facts already pleaded by him in his whereas paper no.12/5 and 12/6 it is alleged by the
statement of claim . opposite party that the signatures of JTO and others
9. Claimant has filed 11 documents vide list 17/1 and 34 are forged one which have been obtained by the
documents vide list 18/ 1-2 along with copy of log claimant in connivance with some other officer.
book.
15. Claimant have filed the photocopies of other letter
10. Whereas the opposite party has specifically alleged and copy of log book vide list 18 / 1-2 original is not
in their written statement mainly the certificate on the file . The summoning application of the
regarding the working period which was filed before claimant was rejected by my learned predecessor as
the ALC as well as before the court are fictitious and he has not complied with the direction of the court
forged. therefore , it cannot be said that the opposite party
11. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence . has failed to produce the original documents .
Claimant hasadduced himselfas W.W.1 Sri Manoj Opposite party has specifically stated that all the
Kumar where as opposite party has produced documents filed by the claimant are forged and this
Sri Satya Kumar SDO Telecom as M. W.1 . statement has also been given before the court on
evidence by MW.1 .
12. Heard and perused the record.

4238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

And

General Manager

16. It alleged by the claimant in his statement that his
    wages were being paid through voucher but no such
    copy of voucher has been filed , neither efforts were   Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ,
    made to summon the vouchers from the opposite           Jhansi Division ,
    party by the claimant .                                 Old Exchange Building,

Lilt Pur Road , Jhansi

17. Therefore , there is no cogent documentary evidence on the file wherein it can be proved that the claimant had been working since March 1997 till the date of termination 7-11-98 . On the contrary the evidence filed by the opposite party is believable and there appear no reason to discard the statement of MW.1 . The statement adduced by the workman W. W.1 does not inspire the confidence.

18. Hence considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case it is found that the claimant has failed to prove his case. Consequently the claimant is held entitled for no reliefpursuant to the present reference order .

19. Reference is therefore , answered against the clamant and in favour of the opposite party. RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ.1788.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, वी.एस.एन.एल. झांसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/57/2007 - आईआर (डी.यू. ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2012

$.O. 1788. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager , BSNL, Jhansi and theirworkman , which was received by the Central Government on26-4-2012.

[No. L-40012/57 /2007 - IR ( DU) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS , PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOR COURT, KANPUR. Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 2008

Between:

Sri Mahendra Kumar Ahirwar, Son of Sri Moti Lal , Village Hati , Post Nohta, District Jhansi

AWARD

1. Central Government MoL , New Delhi , vide notification No. 40012/57/ 2007 - IR ( DU) dated 31-12- 2007has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jhansi in terminating the services of their workman Sri Mahendra Kumar Ahirwar with effect from 10-7-2005 is legal and justified? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the clamant was engaged by the opposite party as a casual labour on 1-5-2001 and had worked at Katera and Uldan Doorsanchar Kendra under Mauranipur. His services were dispensed with by the opposite party by an oral order dated 10-7-05 . It is alleged by the claimant thathe worked continuously for more than 240 days during the intervening years and had performed the

work on the oral instructions of the officer of the opposite party. Temporary employees working under the opposite party have been given the benefit of regular and permanent employees . It is also alleged that the names of casual employees working under Jhansi Division has been sponsored for regular and permanent employment to the General Manager's office in pursuance of letter dated 12-10-98 , but his name was not forwarded for consideration . It is also alleged that the claimant was being paid his wages at Rs.1200 per month after obtaining his signature at the reverse of the vouchers . The records relating to hisemployment is in the possession of the opposite party. It is further pleaded by the claimant that for efficient service generator set were installed at the telephone exchanges and the applicant used to operate the generator, used to make entries in the relevant register regarding consumption ofdiesel and to attend the complaints of the customers on telephone etc. The claimant vide its letter dated 21-5-05 addressed to the General Manager made a request for payment of arrears of wage which annoyed the management and he was forcibly terminated by

the opposite party without any orders in writing . Lastly it is alleged by the claimant that after the termination of the services of S/ Sri Dilip Kumar and Narenda Kumar from 30-3-03 who were engaged on casual basis , the claimant was asked to perform the work at their place at the place of their posting but he 4239

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

was not paid his wages at enhanced rate . On the the opposite party has failed to produce any witness
basis of above it has been prayed that the opposite in the court to say that all these documents are forged,
party be directed to reinstate the claimant with whereas the claimant has filed several documents
continuity of service and back wages . someofwhich are in original shape . Paper nos.1 to 16
4. The claim of the claimant has been vehemently some ofwhich are printed copy of the original . These
deniedby the opposite party on a number ofgrounds , are filed service report regarding the diesel engine
inter alia, that it is wrong to allege by the claimant repair and checking and most of these reports bears
thathe ever worked at the places as disclosed by him the signature of claimant Mahendra Kumar showing
in his claim as a casual worker under Jhansi Division him to be engaged and posted at Doorbhash Kendra
of the opposite party or his services were ever Uldan . These are of the different period of the years
removed by the opposite party on 10-7-05 by oral 2003 and 2004. Opposite party has put in several
order. It is also denied that the claimant was ever questions ill the cross on the papers that is how it
engaged by the opposite party as casual worker nor came in his hands . It has been explained by him in
he worked under them at any point of time . No the cross saying that the record was kept in the office
relationship of master and servant exists between and one of the clerk of the office has provided him
theopposite party and complainant . It is alleged that these documents . There is also original diesel engine
the claimant had never been appointed or engaged, register of Gursai Kendra Jhansi and also bears the
so question of termination do not arise by an oral seal of the office . It has been stated by him on oath
order. It is reiterated that the workman has not worked that in this register he has recorded a number of entries
even for a single day. He has not worked for 240 regarding the consumption of diesel . He has also
days. It is wrongto say that the workman was being stated on oath that this register was checked by SDO
Sri K. N. Shukla on 10-12-02 and on different dates
paid Rs.1200 per month after putting his signature
on the back of the vouchers . Whatever records have andby Sri C.L. Awasthi JTO on 2-4-03 and on different
been filed by the workman is false and forged. There dates. It is specifically stated that they have put
is no attendance register of the employees in their signatures on this register. It is also stated that
Doorbhash Kendra; therefore , the attendance register there is signature of the workman on this register. I
filed by the workman is forged one . Therefore the have examinedthis register . In the year 2002 there is
claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed being signature of Sri Mahendra Kumar and on other dates .
devoid ofmerit. Prima- facie it appears that this register is not forged
one when he is specifically stating the names of
5. Claimant has filed several documents , some of the these officer of the opposite party. Now it was
documents alleged to be in the original shape and incumbent upon the opposite party to produce these
the rest documents are photocopies vide list dated officers in evidence who could have challenged the
23-3-2010 . The relevancy of the documents will be authenticity ofthis register. They have not explained
discussed during the course of appreciation of the that this register is also false . I have examined the
evidence.
cross of the witness on this point also . There is
6. One register which is alleged to diesel engine register nothing in the cross which may be lie his statement
which was filed in I.D. Case No. 8 of 2005, Jitendra onthis point.
Kumar Yadav versus General Manager has also been 9. Claimant has also filed several other papers like paper
summoned ; photocopies of the same are also filed. nos.17 to 32. Most of these are the application in
7. Claimant has produced himself in evidence as W.W.1. original . It has been stated on oath by the claimant
asa witness . There is no oral or documentary evidence that he was asked to remove the telephone complaints
adduced by the opposite party. sometime with the permanent staff of telephone
8. I have perused the statement of W. W.1 . He has stated exchange and sometime independently. Out of these
on oath that he was engaged on 1-5-2001 as a casual papers some ofthe paper is on the printed form of
labour at sub -division Mauranipur and Jhansi by a the opposite party like paper No. 22. It also bears the
competent officer. It is also stated that he was being stamp of the office. It is statedby W. W.1 that these
sent on duty at Uldan Doorbhashs Kendra and Gursai telephone numbers were out of order and he was
Doorbhash Kendra by SDO Mauranipur, there he asked to look after and it bears his name also . Ihave
used to work to operate the diesel engine . He used to also examined the paper nos 37 to 54. It is also stated
record the reading of diesel engine , he was also asked by him that under the orders of the officers he used
to attend the telephone complaints along with the to obtain articles from the store .
permanent employees . This is a fact that opposite 10. Therefore , in my view the claimant has filed the
party has not adduced any oral or documentary documentary as well as oral evidence to prove his
evidence. They have alleged in their w.s. that the case . The documents show that he was engaged by
documents filed by the claimant are forged one but the opposite party. If all the documents are forged

4240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/ 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2012.

one as alleged by the opposite party it was incumbent upon them to have produced the witness specifically the officers who have been named by the claimant in his evidence . Despite several opportunities the opposite party has failed to produce any oral evidence or documentary evidence to deny the version of the claimant . Therefore in such circumstances , there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of the claimant .

[No. L- 12012/366/ 1997 - IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 57/98

Between:

VicePresident,

11. From the evidence oral as well as documentary it can so be inferred that there is continuity in his engagement as a casual labour because most of the papers are of the period of2004 , therefore , it cannot be said that there is no continuity in the service of the complainant .As such the version of the applicant can be accepted on this point that his services were removed by the opposite party by an oral order on 10-7-05.

UCO Bank StaffAssociation , C/o U.P. Bank Employees Union, 10/2 Patrika Marg, Civil Lines , Allahabad . And

12. Therefore , from the evidence of the workman it is clear that he has been able to prove that he had worked contentiously and had worked for more than 240 days preceding 12 calendar months i.e. 10-7-05 thatis the date of removal of his service .

The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, 23 , Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Central Government , MoL , New Delhi vide notification no. L- 12012/366/97 /IR-( B - 11 ) dated 31-3-98 , has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication-

13. It is also admitted fact that the workman has neither been given any notice , notice payor retrenchment compensation by the opposite party prior to his termination of service thus the opposite party have breached the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Under the circumstances a right has been accrued in hisfavour for his reinstatement in the service of the opposite party.

2. Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the service of Sri Munna Singh Yadav with effect from 10-5-97 is legal and justified ? If not to what reliefthe said workman is entitled and from what date ?

3. Brief facts are--

14. Accordingly it is held that the action of the opposite party in dispensing with the service of the workman w.e. f. 10-7-05 is neither legal nor justified accordingly the opposite party is directed to reinstate the workman in the service with back wages @ of 50% and continuity of service .

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 27 अप्रैल , 2012 का.आ. 1789. 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 , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/366/1997- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2012

$.O. 1789.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central

4. It is alleged by the claimant that there was a sanctioned strength of 3 subordinate staff viz . , one Daftry, One cash peon and one peon at Chopan Branch of UCO Bank. In course of time the peon and later on the daftry being transferred on promotion , vacancies of two hands were fell vacant in the aforesaid branch . In order to cope up with the work the Manager Chopan Branch designated the cash peon Sri Tej Bali as Daftary and appointed Sri Munna Singh Yadav as temporary peon from 30-6-92 . In course of employment he was required to perform all the duties of a peon in the bank. He was required to work for full office hours . Despite this , instead of being paid the salary prescribed for a peon in this bank , he was paid Rs . 25 per day excluding Sundays and holidays . The payments were usually made on weekly basis . In this way the bank had indulged in unfair labour practice . Не continued to work since 30-6-92, but the bank did not absorb him in the permanent service of the bank. Under the circumstances he submitted a representation on 4241

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

11. I have heard the arguments of the contesting parties at length and have also gone through the file carefully.

12. The short question to be decided in the case is whether any right has accrued to the claimant Sri Munna Singh under the provisions of I.D. Act and if yes whether the opposite party has Committed breach of any of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

25-4-97 , requesting to absorb him in permanent service of the bank. Instead of considering the request the bank terminated the service of the bank with effect from 10-5-97, without assigning any reason and without issuing any notice or without making payment of retrenchment compensation . Thus he had worked continuously since 1992 to 10-5-97 . Therefore , he worked for more than 240 days every year including one year preceding the date of his termination . In this way provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act have been breached by the opposite party bank.

5.On the basis of above grounds it has been prayed that the action of the opposite party bank in terminating the services of the claimant be held illegal and the claimant is liable to be reinstated in the service of the bank with full back wages , continuity of service and with other consequential benefits .

13. It has been admitted by the opposite party that the claimant was engaged on 30-6-92 for fetching the water and for doing other similar misc . work . His disengagement on 10-5-97 has also not been disputed. Claimant in his oral evidence as W.W. 1 Sri Munna Singh. Yadav and his witness W.W.2 Sri Avdhesh Narain Lal has specifically stated on oath that Sri Munna Singh was appointed on 30-6-92 ơn the post ofpeon and he was doing the work of peon for the wholeday.

14. But he has admitted that he was being paid daily wags charge initially at the rate of Rs.25 per day and later on Rs.45 per day.

15. The next point in this respect to be determined is whether he was appointed against any sanctioned post through a regular procedure . The claimant has admitted that he was not. issued any appointment letter or termination letter , his name was not called from employment exchange, there was no advertisement . Opposite party is a public sector body. For recruitment they have their own set of procedure to fill up the regular vacancies , the branch manager does not have the power to deviate the procedure .

6. Opposite party had filed the written statement. It has been stated by them that Sri Munna Singh was engaged for fetching water in the branch or other similar misc . work. He was engaged according to the need of the work . His work in the branch was hardly for two to three hours a day. For this , purpose he was paid the compensation on daily basis by the branch . The post of fetching water etc. , is not a sanctioned post within the purview of Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 . He was engaged on contractual basis for fetching water as the bank is engaging other persons for other nisc , work like repair of furniture etc. The work contract started from the time he started doing the same and it was ended no sooner it was completed. Thus his case is governed by section 2(oc ) (bb) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

16. The opposite party has adduced two witnesses by name Sri Yogesh Kumar M. W. I who is Branch Manager and W.2 Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastva . I have examined the : oral evidence . From the evidence it is inferred that Sri Munna Singh was not appointed against a sanctioned post on temporary basis by following the recruitment process .

17. Now the question is whether any right has accrued to the claimant under the provisions of section 25F of 1.D. Act .

7. He was never appointed in the bank service in subordinate cadre at Chopan branch ofthe bank with effect from30-6-92 on temporary basis against permanent vacancy of subordinate staff where he worked til ! 10-5-97 . He was never paid the salary from time to time . He never worked for more than 240 days in 12 consecutive months . Recruitment in the bank is made under a set procedure laid down . When he was not recruited the question of termination of his service on 10-5-97 does not arise . Therefore , the bank has not committed any breach of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act .

8.Therefore , the bank has stated that the claim ofthe claimant is not maintainable being devoid of merit and is thus liable to be rejected without granting any relief to him as claimed in the claim petition .

9. Claimant has also filed rejoinder in the case but nothing new has been pleaded therein except reiterating the facts already pleaded by him in the claim petition .

18.Claimant has filed 5 document viz list 17/1 and these are copy of application given by the claimant to the bank, copy of vouchers , copy of joint representation of the staff and other documents in the shape of photocopies . Butthe important document is joint inspection report which is Ext. W - 6 on which both the parties have relied . M.W.2 has stated that this joint inspection report bears his signature; therefore this document is having great import and is readable in evidence . I have examined this document . This document shows the continuity of his engagement since 4-7-92 to 13-5-97. Thus on the basis of this documentary evidences as well as oral evidence it can very easily be inferred that the workman had been in continuous employment for more than 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date ofhis termination that is 10-5-97 . The 10. Claimant has filed oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his case , whereas opposite party has adduced oral evidence in support of his pleadings. There is also a joint inspection report which is paper no . 9/ 1-5 which exhibit W- 6 on which both the contesting parties have relied.

1706 GI /2012-13 4242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

considered view the opposite party has committed breach of section 25F of I.D. Act . Therefore , the point as well as the reference is decided in favour of the claimant and against the opposite party.

heading of this document is - Details of Payments made to Sr Munna Singh Yadav in connection with his employment against sanctioned vacancy in the bank . The A.R. of the claimant has stressed that Sri Munna Singh was appointed against a sanctioned vacancy, but I have already given my finding that there does not appear to be any cogent evidence from which it can be inferred that he was appointed against a sanctioned post after following a prescribed procedure laid down for regular recruitment .

24. The claimant is entitled to be reinstated in service . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case he is also held entitled for wages at the rate of 50 % . Opposite party is directed to comply with the direction of the award accordingly preferably within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

25. Therefore , the reference is answered accordingly in favour of the workman and against the opposite party. RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल , 2012

19. The claimant has placed reliance upon a decision 2001 Lab IC 649 SC I the case of Gujarat Agriculture University versus Rathod Labhu Bechar . I respectfully agree with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court . That case mostly relates to the regularization of workers who had put in long service and there was also a proposed scheme for regularization of such workers .

20.Butconsidering the facts and circumstances of the present case I find that the claimant cannot take any help of this ruling because there is no such scheme to regularize the temporary employees or casual employees who had put in long service.

का.आ. 1790.-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 कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/67/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th April , 2012 21. Opposite party has also placed reliance upon a decision 1997 ( 76 ) FLR page 237 in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi versus State Bihar and others . In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that service of a daily wager, a temporary employee is terminated , he had no right to the post . His disengagement held not arbitrary. His case cannot be treated under the Industrial Disputes Act . I respectfully agree with the decision of the Hon'ble Court .

22. The A.R. of the claimant stated that this case was not considered as a case under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. In this decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that every department of government cannot be treated to be an industry.

S.O. 1790. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 58/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Kanpur 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 16-4-2012.

[No. L- 12011 / 67/2002 - IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No.58 of 2002

Between-

The President , UCO Bank StaffAssociation , C/ o Sri B. P. Saxena , 426 -W- 2 , Basant Vihar , Kanpur. And

The Regional Manager,

UCO Bank,

Regional Office, 23 Vidhan Sabha Marg ,

Lucknow

23. But considering the facts and circumstances of the present case I am of the view that the opposite party is an Industry within the definition of section 2 (j ) of the Act . The opposite party has categorically admitted the engagement of the complainant continuously. Now the burden has shifted on the opposite party that the claimant was engaged on contractual basis and his work has ceased on the expiry of the terms of contract . But the opposite party has not produced any cogent evidence that the claimant was engaged on contractual basis for fetching water. They have specifically admitted that he was also engaged for similar other works . Claimant has stated on oath that he was engaged for the whole day. Therefore , the claimant has been able to prove that he was engaged as a temporary employee / labour on daily wage basis and he has completed 240 days preceding 12 calendar month from the date of his termination therefore , his case is fully protected underthe provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , because opposite party has not issued any notice or paid retrenchment compensation at the time dispensing the services of the claimant , therefore , in my 4243 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

AWARD

therefore , the punishment imposed upon the claimant is liable to be set aside .

1. Central Government MoL , New Delhi vide notification No.L- 12011 / 67 /2002 IR (B - II ) dated 12-7-02 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in imposing the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect upon Sri L. M. Bajpai, clerk is justified and legal? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

3. Brief facts are-

6. The claim of the claimant was contested by the opposite party on a number of grounds but factual position of the case is confined only up to the extent of the competency of the authority which has awarded punishment. It is stated that Regional Manager ( Branches) is a duly appointed disciplinary authority in terms of administrative order dated 11-9-98 , passed the Chairman and Managing Director and circulated vide head office circular dated 8-10-98 . The Chief Officer is the duly appointed disciplinary authority in terms of administrative orderdated 21-6-2000 passed by the Executive Director as Principal Officer of the bank and circulated to all the branches vide circular dated 23-6-2000 . It is absolutely incorrect to allege that the punishment of warning has been enhanced in to stoppage of one increment . All the contention raised by the claimant in reply to the show cause notice have duly been considered by the disciplinary authoritybefore effecting final punishment on the claimant. Thecontention contrary to the above raised by the claimant are denied vehemently. Lastly it is prayed that the claim of the claimant is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit .

7. The opposite party along with the reply they filed charge sheet dated 9-10-99 in original which is paper no.8/ 2, proposed punishment order dated 30-1-2001 in original which is paper no.8 /4-5 , final order dated 14-3-2001 paper no.8/6-9 , Appellate order dated 6-6-2001 paper no.8 / 10-12 . Apart from above the opposite party vide list dated 7-1-2005 have also filed 52 documents paper no. 13/1-13 . These documents are the exhibited documents and have been filed before the enquiry by the management. Register in which inquiry proceedings have been recorded have also been filed .

8. Whereas the claimant has examined himself as W.W.1 , management has examined its witness Sri V. N. Nigam as M.W.I.

9. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length and have perused the records carefully.

10. As I have found above that the representative for the claimant has conceded before the tribunal that he is not challenging the fairness of the inquiry but he will confine his arguments only on the point of appointment of disciplinary authority. Therefore , in view of it , I am not entering in to the merits of fairness of the inquiry, and accordingly it is held that the inquiry held by the opposite party against the claimant is just proper and fair.

4. The present claimant Sri Lalit Mohan Bajpai is presently posted as clerk at Dhauli Pieu Branch Mathura of opposite party bank. It is stated that prior to his transfer from Kanpur to Mathura he was posted at banks Armapore Branch where he was served with charge sheet dated 9-10-99 . The enquiry officer commenced the inquiry on 11-1-2000 and concluded the same on 29-11-2000 , where after he received show cause notice no .... dated 30-1-2001 and the workman also attended personal hearing . It is stated that a perusal of the proposed punishment and the punishment inflicted will reveal that the same are incongruous . Apart from above it has also been pleaded that the charge sheet is invalid and illegal being signed by the Regional Manager ( Branches) . It is stated that in terms ofparagraph 3 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 31-10-79, the Chairman & Managing Director of the bank appointed the Regional Manager as Disciplinary authority vide his order dated 28-9-97. Subsequent to the above Deputy General Manager vide circular dated 19-6-98 advised to all concerned that the Regional Manager (Branches ) shall be responsible for all the duties and functions as handled by erstwhile Regional Manager. Since Regional Manager Branches has not been appointed as Disciplinary Authority interms ofparagraph 3 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 31-10-79 , the charge sheet is invalid and illegal . Show cause notice and punishment inflicted by Chief Officer is illegal and invalid as he was not appointed as disciplinary authority by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank . In the show cause notice punishment of warning was proposed but as against it in the final order of punishment stoppage of one increment was inflicted and since the punishment cannot be enhanced in the manner done, therefore, punishment deserves to be set aside . There are various other grounds raised by the claimant but during the course of final argument it was conceded by the authorized representative that he will confine his arguments only on the point of competency of the authority which hasinflicted the punishment upon the claimant, was argued therefore , there appears no need to givé further factual details raised by the claimant in his statement of claimant.

11. It was argued by the representative for the claimant that the Chief Officer has not been appointed a disciplinary authority by the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank, the show cause notice proposing the punishment and the final order of the punishment both passedby him are invalid and illegal .

5. Lastly it is prayed that the punishment being passed by an authority which was not competent to do so, 4244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

12. Therefore , the short question to be decided is whether the punishment awarded to the claimant was awarded by the competent disciplinary, authority. Both the parties have relied upon the banks circular dated 21-6-2000 which is paper no.8 /9-11 . This is an administrative order passed by the Executive Director /Principal Officer. I would like to reproduce certain paragraphs of this order---

Whereas an order dated October 21 , 1988 , was passed by the Chief Executive Officer ofthe Bank appointing disciplinary authority and appellate authority for the members of the award staff posted indifferent branches.

Whereas consequent upon the merger of certain Regional Office with the Zonal Office as a part ofthe rationalization of the organizational structure ofthe bank, an order dated 10-1-98 was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank appointing disciplinary authority or the members of the award staff posted inbranches

13. Whereas consequent upon reorganization of the banks administrative structure and abolition of zonal tier asjadvised vide office notification no . dated 26-5-2000, itjis necessary to change the disciplinary authority and appellate authority for the members of the award staff posted and working in different branches of the bank . Accordingly, I , in exercise of the powers conferred on me under clause 19.14 of the settlement industrial dispute between certain banking companies and their workman dated 19th October 1966 as amended from time to time make the following appointment of disciplinary authority and appellate authority in supersession of the order dated 10-1-98 , 21st October 1988 and earlier order passed in this connection .

14. Now the question is whether the executive director derived the powers lawfully in terms ofclause 19.14 of thesettlement dated 19-10-66 .

15. I would reproduce the provision of the clause 19.14 ofthe Bipartite Settlement . It states likewise, the Chief Executive Officer, or the Principal Officer in India of a bank on an alternative officer of the Head Office or principal office nominated by him for the purpose shall decide which officer ( i.e. the disciplinary authority) shall be empowered to take disciplinary action in the case of each office or establishment . He shall also decide which officer or body higher in status than the officer authorized to take disciplinary action shall act as the appellate authority to deal with or hear and dispose off any appeal against orders passed in disciplinary matters .

16.According to this the powers have been conferred on four officers viz. ( 1 ) The Chief Executive Officer , (2 ) The Principal Officer in India of a Bank, (3 ) An alternate officer

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

atthe Head Office and (4) Principal office nominated for the purpose.

17. I have examined the order dated 21-6-2000 passed by the Executive Director / Principal Officer. This order has been passed as back as in the year 2000. This order has not been challenged any where either by the Chief Executive Officer or in any other proceedings. Nomination may be by even on the verbal directions of the Chief Executive Officer. This order also provides that the previous orders passed on 10-1-98 and 21st October 1988 stands superseded . Therefore, there is a legal presumption that this order has been passed by competent officer.

18. Therefore, according to the third part , Executive Director comes under the purview of an alternate officer of the Head Office. Executive Director is the person who discharges all the function of the bank at the head office. Similarly the Executive Director has drawn his power from Para 19.14 of the BPS, date 19-10-66 . Therefore , the contention of the opposite party that the disciplinary authority has been lawfully emswered by the bank is tenable. Similar appointment of the appellate authority is lawful and there does not appear to be any breach of the provisions of the BPS as well as in the appointment of the appellate authority.

19. I have gone through the statement of both the witnesses adduced by both the parties . As I have already observed that the inquiry has not been found defective as there was no argument or contention in this respect before me even after specifically enquiring from the auth. Representative for the claimant , therefore , the claimant cannot take any advantage from the statement of W. W. I.

20. Therefore , the contention raised by the claimant that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as he was not competent to impose the punishment as he was not properly appointed is not tenable .

21. Therefore in my considered view of the matter it is held that the punishment inflicted upon the claimant is just, fair and proper as it was inflicted upon by a validly appointed disciplinary authority .

22. Therefore , considering over all facts , circumstances and evidence of the case , I am of the view that there is no illegality or perversity on the action of the bank and the workman has rightly been punished by the disciplinary authority.

23. Accordingly it is held that the action of the management is just and fair and consequent upon the same the claimant is not entitled to any relief.

24. Reference is therefore, answered against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer 4245

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 27 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1791.-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 , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/284/1996- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 27th April, 2012

S.O. 1791.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 40/2006) 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 Allahabad Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2012 .

[No. L- 12012/284/ 1996- IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 40 of 2006

BETWEEN :

Mohd. Mehatab Alam , Son of Mohd . Shaukat Ali , Resident of99/187 , Begam Gunj , PS Bajaria, Kanghi Mohal , Kanpur.

AND

The Assistant General Manager , Allahabad Bank , SwarupNagar, Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government Mol , New Delhi vide notification No. L- 12012/284/96 - IR( B- II ) dated 15-5-06, has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for its adjudication-

2. Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in terminating the service of Sri Mehtab Alam Driver /Peon with effect from 15-6-95 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the disputant concern is entitled?

3. In the instant case after the exchange of pleadings betweenthe parties application paper no . 9/1 was came up for hearing on 23-9-11 , but when the case was taken up none appeared from the side of the workman , therefore , the said application was rejected as not pressed, thereafter the case was fixed for the evidence of the parties .

4. On 4-11-11 when the case was taken up for the evidence of the parties none appeared from the side ofthe workman nor any evidence was led in the case from the side ofthe claimant on this the management representative also submitted before the court that when there is no evidence from the side of the claimant , under these circumstances they also do not file any evidence . Thereafter the case was reserved for award .

5. Considering the above circumstances of the case thetribunal is ofthe firm view that the claimant has palpably failed to adduce evidence in support of his case as also the tribunal is ofthe opinion that it is a case of no evidence , therefore , in the above circumstances it is held that the claimant is not entitled to claim any relief in the case and the reference is bound to be decided against the claimant and in favour of the management .

6. Reference is answered accordingly.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1792.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर (नार्थ ) वी.एस.एन.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40011 /01 /2010 - आई आर ( डी यू) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2012

S.O. 1792. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 11/2010) of the 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 Manager (North ) BSNL and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 27-4-2012 .

[No. L-40011/01 /2010 - IR (DU ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 4246

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii )]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday, the 20th April , 2012

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2010

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of BSNL and their Workman ]

BETWEEN

: 1stParty/Petitioner SriNi Kirupalan

Vs.

The General Manager (North) : 2nd Party/Respondent

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Chennai Telephones

No. 39 , Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600001

Appearance:

: Sri V. Ajoykhose , Advocate For the 1st Party/ Petitioner

: M/s . B. Mohan , Advocate For the 2nd Party/ Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour and Employment vide its Order No. L-40011 / 1 / 2010 - IR (DU ) dated 25-3-2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager (North) , BSNL , Chennai in terminating the services of their workman Sri N. Kirupalan w.e.f. 12-10-2007 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as I.D. 11/2010 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim and Counter Statement as the dase may be.

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

The petitioner who joined service' under the Respondents as a Casual Labour on 1-8-1975 and regularized as Group "D" employee on 20-12-1979 was removed from service by order dated 12-10-2007 for unauthorized absence . He had already rendered 30 years ofunblemished service . He stood promoted as Liftman on 20-9-1980 , promoted as LDC on 17-2-1987 , promoted as Telecom OfficeAsstt. (General ) on 9-9-1992, promoted as Senior Telecom Office Asstt . ( G) on 1-05-1996 and promoted as Section Supervisor Officiating Asstt . ( SSO) on 17-2-2003 . In his entire career he never received any memo or punishment . He received appreciation from one and all . He was workaholic and punctual in work which did not require any supervision or control for being carried out. Though affected with Hydrocele he could not avail remedy due to financial constraints in his big joint family. He had his four daughters , sister and mother - in -law apart fromhiswife , a chronic patient residing with him . His Sister and Mother- in - law died one after the other who had been taking care of his wife's health and other domestic needs . Thereafter he himself had to take care of everything . He was put in mental and financial pressures and crisis and was forced to take leave on certain occasions to cope up with the adverse family circumstances . Though he sent letters when he had to take leave after April 2004 , nine charge memos were issued to him by the Respondent alleging unathorized absence ultimately imposing. punishment of reduction in pay by 2 stages for 3 years . He was also forced to take leave during October, November and December, 2005 due to continued adversity. He was allowed to rejoin duty after the leave periods only on satisfaction of the reasons for his inability to attend duty. However he was issued a Charge Memo for unauthorized absence without leave and intimation on :

6days (i) 10-10-2005 to 15-10-2005 =

(ii) 25-10-2005 to 29-10-2005 = 5 days

(iii) 3-11-2005 to 24-11-2005- 22 days

35 days (iv) 27-11-2005 to 31-12-2005 =

A one day enquiry was commenced and concluded holding the charges proved . Memo was issued treating the period as Dies Non which was without giving notice or calling for his explanation . His above leave was at a time when his wife became ill after the death of his Sister and Mother- in-law necessitating his having to take his wife to Hospital over and above his own Hydrocele problem . Over and above Dies Non for the very same misconduct he was removed from service on 12-10-2007 . His appeal was rejected on 9-4-2008. ID raised having ended in a failure report the reference is occasioned . Extreme penalty of removal is illegal and unjust and the same is to be set aside . The Enquiry Officer should have allowed the petitioner to let in evidence in support of his case negation of which is against principles of natural justice vitiating the enquiry. Finding is biased and perverse.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934 4247
There is no application of mind by the authorities . The Points ( i) & (ii)
explanation of the petitioner had neither been denied nor 7.Heard with sides. Perused the records , documents
disputed. The authorities had taken into account new facts and evidence . Contentions advanced on behalf of the
and the allegations which were not mentioned in the Charge petioner are squarely in terms ofthe averments in the Claim
Memo, behind his back , which is illegal and violative of Statement . It is argued that the petitioner has had given
principles of natural justice . His long unblemished record intimation or letter when he had to go on leave without
of service was not at all considered vitiating the applying for the same in advance which is due to his
punishment . Alleged unauthorized absence subsequent adverse family crisis including sickness of his wife who is
to the charge memo was relied on without any fresh charge a chronic patient and himself suffering from Hydrocele
memo or enquiry therefor. These extraneous factors coupledwith his financial constraints at his big joint family.
weighed with the authorities to conclude a grave There also supervened the unexpected death of his sister
misconduct committed by the petitioner to impose and mother - in - law who had been residing with him
shockingly disproportionate punishment . The action lacks attending on his sick wife . The reasons for his absence
bonafides amounting to factual and legal victimization have not been disputed or denied. He has had undisputed,
apart from unfair labour practice and prohibited under unblemished service of 32 years . In the meantime he
Section-25 (T) and punishment under Section -25 ( U ) of the superannuated by 30-04-2009 . He has never been
ID Act. The conduct of the Disciplinary Authority to have indifferent in his duty. It was due to his inability to give an
sought for opinion of higher authority to impose explanation then and there that he did not do so which he
punishment is biased and malafide which is legally has fairly conceded before the Enquiry Officer. Ofthe two
impermissible and unsustainable in law. Imposition ofmore enquiries he had already disclosed his adverse
than one punishment is especially liable to be interfered circumstance in the earlier enquiry. His absence once after
with under Section - 11A. While so, he attained the age of having been treated as Dies Non meaning No Work ; No
superannuation on 30-4-2009 and has been without Pay is no longer to be visited with any other punishment .
employment thereafter . Hence he is to be given a paper Due to unavoidable and compelling reasons he has had to
reinstatement with all benefits with his entitlement for all remain absent without applying in advance for leave but it
terminal benefits including pension , arrears thereof with was after having given intimation or sent letters. His
interests and costs . conduct of having absented without advance leave is not
4. The Counter Statement averments briefly read as to be stretched to too a blameworthy conduct for imposing
follows: the impugned punishment of removal from service
forfeiting a part of his terminal benefits . He is to be
Petitioner is only Senior Telecome Oprg . Asstt . and reinstated and allowed to superannuate on 30-4-2009 with
not a Section Supervisor. He had been proceeded against entitlement for all terminal benefits including pension and
for similar misconduct even on earlier occasions which
pension arrears with interest and costs .
resulted in his termination of service . No intimation of
absence was given by him and only because of that he 8. Contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent
was charge sheeted. Allowing to join duty after his are that there has not been any forfeiture of his retiral
unauthorized absence does not vest a right on him. benefits . What is disallowed is his service rendered prior
Management adhered to the principles of natural justice to his absorption in BSNL from being reckoned with for
and process of law. No explanation for the unauthorized pension . His reasons by way of explanation for his, conduct
absence was given by the petitioner despite due were without any details regarding his constraints and
opportunity given . Punishment is commensurate to the were non - speaking so as to convince the management
gravity ofthe misconduct . Provisions of extant rules have regarding his difficulties . It shows his attitude towards
been strictly adhered to by the Management . The claim is the management . Whether they are genuine or bonafiide
to be dismissed with costs . reasons were not brought home . For an earlier similar
misconduct there was an enquiry held in which after
5. Points for consideration are :
finding him guilty of misconduct he was punished with a
(i) Whether the termination of services of the lenient punishment with stoppage of increment against
petitioner w.e.f. 12-10-2007 by the Management which no appeal was preferred . In the second enquiry
is legal and justified? after granting the time sought for also there was no reply.
Hence , the enquiry was started . He cannot say that he has
(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is
entitled? had no chance to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry
washeld on 29-3-2006 and not on 24-8-2006 as deposed to
6. Evidence consists of the testimony of WWI and byhim . No much indulgence needs to be given to petitioner.
Ex . W1 to Ex . W16 on the petitioner's side and Ex . Ml to Hisexplanations had been available to him even from the
3 Ex . M6 on consent but with no oral evidence adduced on inception , if they are true, which he is projecting now as
the Respondent's side an afterthought . His 32 years of unblemished service is

4248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

not a premium for his misconduct . No credence can be given to his version . It is an instance of mere pleading with no proof of the alleged crucial aspects .

9. Reliance was placed on the following decisions onbehalf of the petitioner in :

KRUSHNAKANT . B. PARMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( 2012-3 - SCC - 178 ) wherein Supreme Court held " 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful . Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence , butitdoes not always mean willful . There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness , accident, hospitalization , etc. , but in such the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a government servant" .

THE CHAIRMAN -CUM - MANAGING DIRECTOR, COAL INDIA LTD . VS. MUKUL KUMAR CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS (2009 - IV- LLJ - 672 ) wherein Supreme Court held "28.Applying the doctrine of proportionality and following CCSU , VENKA TACHALIAH , J. (as His Lordship then was) observed: " The question of the choice and quantum ofpunishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court martial . But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender, It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh . It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to sock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias . The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is , otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial , if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic , then the sentence would not be immune from correction . Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds ofjudicial review" .

JAGDISH SINGH VS. PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND OTHERS (2009 - III- LLJ - 373 ) wherein Supreme Court held "Absence- Unauthorized absence- Disproportionate punishment- Major punishment of dismissal from service imposed on petitioner after receipt of report of inquiry officer that workman is guilty of alleged charge of unauthorized absence -Not a case ofhabitual absenteeism- Absence due to problem in daughter's family- Having regard unblemished record of appellant punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority modified to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect . "

[PART II-SEC , 3( ii))

the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held " For Continuous absence of workman from duty Health condition of workman known to management - Discharge of workman , not proper - Award of Labour Court in favour of workman, merited no interference " ,

The judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 12-8-2008 in Writ Appeal No. 801/2008 and NB No. 1/2008 rendered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyaya (ashis Lordship then was ) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhanabalan it was held " We are not inclined to accept such a submission of the TNSTC , as no person can ask for prior leave if he falls ill , as the illness does not come giving notice to a person" .

10. On an analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions advanced on either side and having due reference to the decisions relied on behalf of the petitioner I am led to the conclusion that the punishment of removal is illegal and unjust. There is an element of double jeopardy in inflicting the punishment over and above treating the periods of absence as being "Dies Non ". The enquiry also cannot be said tobe fair and proper . There is violation of principles of natural justice resulting in the enquiry being vitiated. Petitioner has had long unblemished record of service which should have weighed consideration with the Management for a lesser punishment. The punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct too. Needless to say the punishment is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to be ordered to be reinstated into service and deemed to have continued till 30-4-2009 on which date he attained the age of superannuation and it is so ordered .

1. Resultantly the petitioner is ordered to be deemed reinstated into service forthwith w.e.f. the date of his removal and deemed to have continued in service till 30-4-2009 without back wages but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits together with his entitlement for the terminal benefits in full including pension counting the period prior to absorption under BSNL and arrears thereof but with no interest and costs .

12. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 20th April , 2012)

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WWI , Sri N. Kirupalan

For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

MADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ( PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION ) , MANALI , CHENNAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, IST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER (2006 - III - LLJ - 123 ) 4249

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ex.W1

26-4-1989 Certificate oftraining course issued by the Department of Telecommunication

3-1-2007

Ex.W2

Certificate of training course issued by the NIIT.

28-12-2001

Ex.W3

Certificate of training course issued by BSNL

11-1-2002

Ex.W4

Certificate of training course issued by BSNL

Ex.W5 21-10-2005 Order treating the period from 10-10-2005 to 15-10-2002 as dies-non

8-11-2005

Fx.W6

Order treating the period from 25-10-2005 to 29-10-2005 as dies-non

26-11-2005

Ex.W7

Order treating the period from 3-11-2005 to 24-11-2005 as dies-non

8-3-2006

Ex.W8

Notice of enquiry

29-3-2006

Ex. W9

Proceedings of the enquiry

12-10-2007

Ex.W10

Order removing the 1st Party from service

Ex.W11 26-12-2007 Appeal filed by the 1st Party

Ex.W12 26-3-2008 Order passed by the Appellate Authority in the Appeal

9-4-2008

Ex.W13

Letter communicating the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal

8-8-2008

Ex.W14

Appeal filed by the 1st Party the Chief General Manager (North)

12-8-2008

Ex.W15

Order declaring to consider the review petition filed by the 1st Party

20-5-2005

Ex.W16

PreviousEnquiry Report

On the Management's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

26-5-2005

Ex. M1

Forwarding letter of enquiry report of earlier disciplinary proceedings held against Ist Party

10-6-2005

Ex.M2

Reply of Ist Party to letter dated 26-5-2005

26-7-2005

Ex.M3

Punishment order passed on the 1st party on the earlier occasion

1706 Gł/ 2012-14

6-1-2006

Ex..M4

Memorandum of Charges issued on the second occasion to 2nd Party

17-1-2006

Ex.M5

for Reply - cum- request extension oftime by 2nd Party on Memo of Charges dated 06-01-2006

18-1-2006

Ex. M6

Order by 2nd Party granting time to Ist party as requested

नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2012

का.आ. 1793.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947.(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिकं अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या (04/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -41012/ 250/99- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2012

S.O. 1793. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 04/2000 ) of Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 26-4-2012.

[No. L-41012/250/ 99 -IR ( B - I ) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

अनुबंध

न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण ,

कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज./पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , आर.एच.जे.एस. निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांकःऔ.

न्या./केन्द्रीय/-4/2000

दिनांक स्थापित : 17-2-2000

प्रसंगः भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल. 41012/250/99- आई आर ( बी -1 ) दि. 15-12-99

निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 मध्य

छगनलाल पुत्र श्री किशोरीलाल ।

प्रार्थी श्रमिक

एवं

डिविजनल रेलवे मैनेजर , वेस्टर्न रेलवे , कोटा ।

...... अप्रार्थी नियोजक

4250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

उपस्थित

प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः-

[ PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

श्री अरूण कुमार शर्मा

श्री श्याम गुप्ता

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि:

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 25-1-2012

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के उक्त प्रासांगिक आदेश दि. 15-12-99 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 का अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है :-

"Whether the action of the Western Railway, Kota Division in terminating the services of Shri Chagganlal former Gangman w.e.f. 16-9-85 is just reasonable and legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. निर्देश/विवाद , न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को नोटिस /सूचना विधिवत जारी कर अवगत करवाया गया

3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश किया गया जिसमें यह वर्णित किया गया कि प्रार्थी पश्चिम रेलवे में रेलपथ निरीक्षक , भवानीमण्डीके अधीन गैंगमैन के पद पर दि. 29-6-84 से कार्यरत था तथा गैंग संख्या 22 में धुआखेड़ी स्टेशन पर कार्यरत था । अप्रार्थी ने 16-9-85 से मौखिक आदेश से प्रार्थी को हटा दिया एवं हटाने से पहले ना तो कोई नोटिस दिया गया ना ही धारा 25 - एफ अधिनियम के तहत कोई मुआवजा दिया गया तथा यह मौखिक आश्वासन दिया कि जब भी उच्चाधिकारियों के आदेश आयेंगे उसे नौकरी पर रख लिया जायेगा । अप्रार्थी ने अन्य श्रमिकों को सेवा में रख लिया परन्तु प्रार्थी को नहीं रखा । प्रार्थी की सेवायें 120 दिन की पूरी होने पर उसे अस्थायी दर्जा देना था वह भी नहीं दिया तथा रेलवे स्थापना निमयावली के अनुसार प्रार्थी को प्राथमिकता के आधार पर नौकरी दिया जाना था परन्तु अप्रार्थी ने इसकी भी अवहेलना की तथा अन्य श्रमिकों को नौकरी दे दी तथा प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कई श्रमिकों को नियमित कर दिया परन्तु प्रार्थी को नहीं बुलाया गया । इस बाबत रेल मंत्री ने भी निकाले गये श्रमिकों को लेने का आदेश 1997 में दिया जिसकी भी अप्रार्थी ने पालना नहीं की । अप्रार्थी का 16-9-85 से प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाने का कृत्य अवैध व अनुचित है । अतः अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के माध्यम से प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के इस कृत्य को अवैध व अनुचित घोषित करने के साथ ही उसे पुनः सेवा की निरन्तरता के साथ बहाल किये जाने व उसी अनुरूप सभी परिणामिक लाभ प्रदान किये जाने का निवेदन किया ।

4. इसका जवाब अप्रार्थी की ओर से दिया गया जिसमें यह वर्णित किया गया कि प्रार्थी को आकस्मिक कार्य के लिए गैंगमैन के पद पर 29-6-84 को नियुक्त किया गया तथा आकस्मिक कार्य पर जो श्रमिक उपस्थित होता है उसे कार्य पर नियोजित किया जाता है । बाद में प्रार्थी श्रमिक स्वेच्छा से अनुपस्थित रहता था एवं अप्रार्थी के नियोजन कार्य पर उपस्थित नहीं हुआ तथा अप्रार्थी ने अन्य कौन से कनिष्ठ श्रमिकों को नियोजित किया है , इसका भी उल्लेख नहीं किया है । प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के यहां कोई प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश नहीं किया है । प्रार्थी स्वेच्छा से ही अपने कार्य पर उपस्थित नहीं हुआ तथा उसने किसी एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में लगातार 240 दिन तक काम नहीं किया । अतः अपने जवाब के माध्यम से अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी का क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की ।

5. इसके पश्चात् साक्ष्य प्रार्थी में प्रार्थी छगनलाल स्वयं का शपथ-पत्र पेश हुआ । अप्रार्थी द्वारा उससे जिरह की गयी । तत्पश्चात अप्रार्थी की ओर से एन. के.सैनी का शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ, प्रार्थी की ओर से उससे जिरह की गयी । प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 लगा. डब्ल्यू. 6 तक के कागजात प्रदर्शित कराये गये । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम. । पेश किया गया ।

6. उभयपक्ष की साक्ष्य समाप्ति के पश्चात बहस अन्तिम सुनी गयी । प्रार्थी की ओर से बहस के दौरान दलील दी गयी कि प्रार्थी ने 29-6-84 से 16-9-85 तक लगातार अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्य किया है, अतः एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन से ज्यादा का काम हो जाता है । प्रार्थी को हटाने से पहले कोई नोटिस या नोटिस वेतन या मुआवजा आदि नहीं दिया गया । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कई श्रमिकों को नियमित कर दिया था । प्रार्थी आज भी अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्य करने का इच्छुक है । प्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थी के यहां 240 दिन से ज्यादा का काम करना प्रदर्श एम. 1 से जाहिर होता है । प्रार्थी के 29-6-84 से 15-9-85 तक काम करने के तथ्य को अप्रार्थी ने भी अपने पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 2 में स्वीकार कर लिया है , अतः प्रार्थी सेवा में पुनः स्थापित होने का अधिकारी है । इस सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी की ओर से " जितेन्द्र सिंह राठौर बनाम श्री वैद्यनाथ आयुर्वेद भवन लि. व अन्य ( 1984 ) 3 एस.सी.सी. 5 " के न्यायनिर्णय को उदृत किया गया है । इस मामले में प्रतिपादित किया गया है कि जहाँ कर्मकार का दुराचरण साबित हो जाता है तो ऐसे मामले में अधिकरण द्वारा पूर्व के आधे वेतन के साथ पुनर्स्थापना को उचित नहीं माना गया तथा पूरा एवं अर्ध वेतन अंलग -अलग प्रकार से दिलाया गया । एक और न्यायनिर्णय " जिला प्राथमिक शिक्षाधिकारी बनाम धनंनजय कुमार शुक्ला-2008 ( 116 ) एफ.एल. आर. 728 ( एस.सी. ) " का उदृत किया गया । इस मामले में यह प्रतिपादित किया गया कि जहाँ जो तथ्य पक्षकारों द्वारा स्वीकार कर लिये जाते हैं तो उन्हें साबित किये जाने की आवश्यकता नहीं है । एक और न्यायनिर्णय " डायरेक्टर मतस्य सीमान्त खण्ड बनाम भीखूभाई . मेघाभाई चावडा- एआईआर 2010 एस.सी. 12.36 " का उधृत किया गया । इस मामले में प्रतिपादित किया गया कि जहाँ कर्मकार ने यह अभिकथन किया कि उसने 240 दिन काम किया है तो उसका खण्डन करने या नासाबित करने का भार नियोक्ता पर होगा । एक और न्यायानिर्णय " भोगपुर कॉपरेटिव शुगर मिल्स लि. बनाम हरमेश कुमार-2006 ( III ) एफएलआर 1202 " का उदृत किया गया । इस मामले में यह प्रतिपादित किया गया कि अधिकरण को अपना क्षेत्राधिकार रेफ्रन्स की परिसीमा के अन्दर ही काम में लेना चाहिए ना कि उसके परे तथा वरिष्ठता सूची अलग वर्ग के लिए अलग से संधारित की जानी चाहिए ताकि अन्त में आये पहले जाये सिद्धांत की पालना 4251

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

बाबत छंटनीशुदा श्रमिकों को प्राथमिकता मिल सके । इसी प्रकार एक और न्यायनिर्णय " हरजिंदरसिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य भण्डारण निगम- एआईआर 2010 एस.सी. 1116 " को उदृत किया गया । जिसमें यह प्रतिपादित किया गया कि यह कर्मकार को साबित नहीं करना है कि उसने गत 12 कलेण्डर महीनों में 240 दिन काम किया । श्रम न्यायालयों को संविधान की दार्शनिकता व नीति निर्देशक तत्वों के अनुसरण में क़ानून का निर्वचन करना चाहिए । इसी प्रकार एक और न्यायनिर्णय " नरसिंहपाल बनाम यूनियन आफ इण्डिया-( 2000 ) 3 एस.सी.सी. 588 का उदृत किया गया इस मामलें में प्रतिपादित किया गया कि जहाँ किसी कर्मकार को अस्थायी दर्जा प्राप्त हो जाता है तो वह अन्य बातों के अलावा संविधान के अनुच्छेद 311 के तहत संरक्षण प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होता है ।

7. अतः उक्त दलीलों व न्यायनिर्णयों को उद्धृत करते हुए : उन्होंने कार्यभार का स्टेटमेन्ट आफ क्लेम स्वीकार कर उसमें मांगा गयाःअनुतोष प्रदान किये जाने का निवेदन किया ।

8. इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी की ओर से दलील दी गयीं कि प्रार्थी कर्मकार ने यह मामला करीबन 13 वर्ष की देरी से उछाया है । कर्मकार स्वयं ही अपने काम पर उपस्थित नहीं हुआ, काम छोड़कर चला गया तो ऐसे में दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक को तो जो काम पर आता है उसे रख लिया जाता है । चूंकि प्रार्थी काम पर ही उपस्थित नहीं हो रहा था अतः उसे सेवा से हटाने का या धारा 25 - एफ कजी की पालना का प्रश्न ही पैदा नहीं होता । प्रार्थी द्वारू कभी भी अप्रार्थी के यहाँ 120 दिन या 260 दिन काम नहीं किया गया, ऐसा अप्रार्थी के गवाह एनः के.सैनी ने जिरह में स्वीकार किया है । प्रार्थी द्वारा मामला देरी से उठाने पर रेलवे ने पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू । भी जारी किया जिसमें इसी तथ्य का उल्लेख किया गया । प्रार्थी द्वारा रेलवे के यहाँ नियुक्त हेतु प्रार्थना- पत्र पेश किये जाने से ही वह उसका अधिकारी नहीं हो जाता एवं अभी तो यह भी साबित नहीं है कि प्रार्थी जिन प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 3 व डब्ल्यू 04 को पेश किया जाना बता रहा है वे वहाँ पेश भी हुए या नहीं क्योंकि इन पर कोई दिनांक भी अंकित नहीं है एवं कई आवश्यक कॉलम भी खाली छूटे हुए हैं । इसके अलावा प्रदर्श एम.1 प्रार्थी के 260 दिन काम करने का विनिश्चयात्मक सबूत नहीं है क्योंकि इसमें वर्णित किया गया कि इसका सत्यापन मण्डल लेखाधिकारी , कोटा के कार्यालय में जमा पेङः बाऊन्चर मस्ट्रौल के आधार पर किया जाना सम्भव है । अतः इससे भी यह तथ्य पूर्ण रूप से साबित नहीं हो जाता है । अप्रार्थी ने जो गैंगमैन का एक हाजिरी रजिस्टर पेश किया है , उसमें अवश्य उसके नाम का उल्लेख है , परन्तु प्रार्थी का उसमें कहीं पर भी लम्बी अवधि तक काम किया जाना प्रकट नहीं होता है । अतः प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है , लिहाजा क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट खारिज किया जावे ।

हमने उभयपक्ष द्वारा दी गयी दलीलों तथा उदृत किये गये न्यायनिर्णयों में प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों पर मनन किया एवं पत्रावली पर आयी हुई साक्ष्य व सामग्री का भी परिशीलन किया ।

9. अब जहाँ तक प्रार्थी कर्मकार के अप्रार्थी के यहाँ 29-6-84 से 15--9-85 तक लगातार कार्यरत होने का सवाल है, इस सम्बन्ध में प्रदर्श डबल्यू. 2 जो भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय का असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन है उसमें यह उल्लेख है कि प्रबन्धन ने प्रार्थी कर्मकार के 29-6-84 से 15-9-85 तक काम किये जाने के तथ्य को स्वीकार कर लिया है । इसके अलावा जो स्टेटमेन्ट प्रदर्श एम.1 प्रबन्धन की ओर से पेश किया गया उसमें भी 20-7-84 से 20-6-85 तक प्रार्थी का कुल 260 दिन तक काम किया जाना प्रकट होता है । अतः श्रम मंत्रालय के असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन से तथा प्रबन्धन द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपस्थिति रजिस्टर प्रदर्श एम.1 से भी यह बात भली - भांति साबित हो जाती है कि प्रार्थी कर्मकार की सेवा समाप्ति से पहले उसने विगत कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन काम किया है एवं इस तथ्य को कपोलकल्पित या असत्य मानने का कोई आधार नहीं है । इसकी पुष्टि तो स्वयं प्रदर्श एमः। व प्रदर्श डबल्यू. 2 से भली- भांति हो रही है ।

10. अब जहाँ तक इस बिन्दु का कि क्या प्रार्थी कर्मकार को सेवा से हटाया गया या कर्मकार ने स्वेच्छा से डयूटी पर जाना बन्द कर दिया, इस सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी कर्मकार को सेवा से हटाने का कोई आदेश पेश नहीं किया गया है एवं ना ही ऐसा कोई आदेश अप्रार्थी की ओर से पेश किया गया है । केवल मात्र असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन प्रदर्श 2 व रेलवे का उपस्थिति रजिस्टर प्रदर्श एम. । है । यदि किसी कर्मकार को वर्ष 85 सें हटाया गया है तो करीबन 12-13 साल तक उसके द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही नहीं किया जाना इसी संभावना को बल देता है कि कर्मकार स्वयं ही इस मामले में अपने नियोजन के प्रति गम्भीर नहीं था या एक प्रकार से अनिच्छुक था , अन्यथा तो क्रोई भी बेरोजगार व्यक्ति 13 वर्ष की लम्बी अवधि तक विवाद उठाने में देरी नहीं करेगा वह तो तत्काल ऐसे विवाद को उच्छायेगा । प्रार्थी की ओर से यह भी अन्य किसी गवाह से साबित कराने का प्रयास नहीं किया गया कि वह कब - कब अप्रार्थी के यहाँ डयूटी पर उपस्थित हुआ तथा अप्रार्थी ने किन-किन श्रमिकों या कर्मचारियों की मौजूदगी में उसे डयूटी पर लेने से मना कर दिया या प्रार्थी ने इस बाबत कोई लिखित में भी कार्यवाही की हो अपितु जिरह में स्वयं प्रार्थी कथन करता है कि नौकरी से हटाने के बाद मैंने कहीं भी शिकायत नहीं की तथा मजदूरी लाईन पर जहाँ काम करता था वहीं दी जाती थी एवं मस्ट्रौल पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में काम करता था । मैंने लिखित में नहीं पूछा कि मुझे क्यों हटाया गया । अतः प्रार्थी के इन सभी अभिकथनों से यह स्पष्ट प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को किसी लिखित्त आदेश से नौकरी से नहीं हटाया गया एवं प्रार्थी ने भी स्वीकार किया कि उसे कोई लिखित आदेश नहीं दिया गया । इसके अलावा प्रार्थी को हटाने के तुरन्त बाद प्रार्थी ने उस बाबत कोई आपत्ति या शिकायत अप्रार्थी के समक्ष की हो , इससे भी प्रार्थी ने इन्कार किया है । अतः एक बेरोजगार व्यक्ति के हटाने के बाद करीब 13 वर्ष तक कोई कार्यवाही नहीं करना इसी बात का द्योतक है कि प्रार्थी ने स्वयं ने ही अप्रार्थी के यहाँ कार्य करने से निवृत्ति ले ली । यदि प्रार्थी को हटाने से आपत्ति रही होती एवं उसने इस बाबत किसी भी साथी कर्मकार या अधिकारी के समक्ष कोई कार्यवाही की हो, ऐसा भी कोई तथ्य साबित नहीं करवाया । अप्रार्थी के गवाह ने मुख्य परीक्षण शपथ- पत्र में यह कथन किया कि श्रमिक स्वेच्छा से ही कार्य पर उपस्थित होता था तथा स्वेच्छा से ही कार्य से अनुपस्थित रहता था तथा श्रमिक अस्थायी [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 4252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

गैंगमेन था और गैंगमेन का कार्य तो अभी भी हो रहा है ।

(New ) ITC 26/1999 (Old) ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/216/98- आई आर ( बी -1) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2012

S.O. 1794. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [ Ref. No. CGITA of 149/2004 ( New ) ITC 26/1999 ( Old ) ] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-4-2012.

[No. L- 12012/216/98 - IR (B- 1) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Binay Kumar Sinha,

11. यदि अप्रार्थी के संस्थान में गैंगमेन के पद पर उस समय भी कार्य मौजूद था , वर्तमान में भी मौजूद हैं, प्रार्थी कर्मकार के विरुद्ध अप्रार्थी को कोई शिकायत भी नहीं थी तो फिर क्योंकर अप्रार्थी अकारण ही प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटायेगा । प्रार्थी के प्रति कोई दुर्भावना, दुराशय व रंजिश भी प्रकट नहीं हुई है , अतः इसके बिना ही प्रार्थी कर्मकार को अप्रार्थी द्वारा सेवा से हटा दिया जाना कतई साबित नहीं होता है । प्रार्थी का भी 13 वर्ष तक इस मामले में चुप रहना यह स्पष्ट प्रकट करता है कि प्रार्थी ने स्वयं ने ही अप्रार्थी के यहाँ कार्य पर जाने से स्वेच्छापूर्वक निवृत्ति ले ली थी क्योंकि वह दैनिक वेतन भोगी आकस्मिक श्रमिक था एवं जहाँ कोई दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में आकस्मिक कर्मकार स्वेच्छापूर्वक कार्य से निवृत्ति ले लेता है तो धारा 2(ओओ ) अधिनियम में किसी कर्मकार द्वारा स्वेच्छा से निवृत्ति लेना छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है । अतः हस्तगत मामले में भी जब प्रार्थी कर्मकार ने स्वयं ने ही स्वेच्छा से कार्य से निवृत्ति ले ली तो उसके इस प्रकार से कार्य पर उपस्थित नहीं होने व कार्य से निवृत्ति लेने के तथ्यों को छंटनी की श्रेणी में नहीं माना जा सकता एवं जब अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी की छंटनी ही नहीं की गयी है तो फिर प्रार्थी का यह अभिकथन कि उसे अप्रार्थी द्वारा दुर्भावनापूर्वक सेवा से हटा दिया गया एवं धारा 25 - एफ अधिनियम की पालना नहीं की गयी , कतई स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है एवं इन परिस्थितियों में प्रार्थी कर्मकार कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं बनता है ।

PresidingOfficer,

CGIT-cum- Labour Court,

Ahemedabad, Dated 10-4-2012

Reference : CGITA of 149 of 2004 (New)

Reference : ITC 26/1999 (Old)

The Dy. General Manager ,

State Bank of India ,

FirstParty

Zonal Office , Gandhinagar.

12. इस प्रकार ऊपर किये गये समस्त विवेचन के आधार पर इस न्यायाधिकरण की राय में हस्तगत मामले में अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा प्रार्थी कर्मकार की दिनांक 16-9-85 से सेवा समाप्त किया जाना कतई साबित नहीं होता है अपितु यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी स्वयं ने हीअप्रार्थी के यहाँकाम पर जाना बन्द कर दिया, अर्थात स्वेच्छापूर्वक काम करने से निवृत्ति ले ली । अतः इन परिस्थितियों में प्रार्थी कर्मकार किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

And their workman

Shri Natvarbhai C. Parmar

.... Second Party

Atpresent, House No. 12, Gayatri Row House , Nr. Water Tank, Nr . Anand Vihar , East Region , Kalol , Gandhinagar.

For the first party Shri Bhushan K. Oza , Advocate , परिणाम स्वरूप भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा आदेश सं. एल . 41012/250/99- आईआर ( बी-1 ) दिनांक 15-12-99 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश ( रेफ्रेन्स) को अधिनिर्णित कर इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी कर्मकार छगनलाल की अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा दि. 16-9-85 से सेवा समाप्त किये जाने का तथ्य किसी भी रूप में साबित नहीं होता है अपितु प्रार्थी स्वयं ने ही कार्य पर जाना बन्द कर दिया, अतः वह कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

For the second party Shri S.S. Shah , Advocate

AWARD

प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1794.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में. केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच. अनबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या CGITA of 149/2004

As per order dated 7-1-1999 the Appropriate Government/Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, Shram Shakti Bhawan , Rafi Marg , New Delhi by notification No. L-12012/ 216/98 - IR (B - I ) in exercise of power conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad for adjudication , formulating the terms of reference under the schedule as follows :-

4253

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHDEULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Gandhinagar is justified in terminating the services of Shri Natvar C. Parmar w.e.f. 01-5-1997 without following the procedure of retrenchment etc. ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled for? "

2.Bothparties appeared to make contest in this case by filing statement of claim and the written statement .

3. The case of the second party workman as per statement of claim at Ext. 9 is that the workman was serving in the first party bank since many years and since December , 1989 he was serving as Peon- cum- Messenger. He was serving honestly, faithfully and with his hard work. He temporarily served as Peon- cum- Messenger and the Bank Manager of State Bank of India has issued certificates to that effect . But suddenly he was terminated through an oral order dated 1-5-1997 illegally without issuance ofany kind of show cause notice . Such action on part of the management of Bank is against the principle of natural justice and also as per violation of the provision of 25 F of the ID Act . Further case is that he was getting Rs . 2400 per month along with annual bonus of Rs . 3000 from the Bank. The period of service as well as working days are described for the concern years- 1990 six months , 1991-120 days , 1992-110 days , 1993-274 days , 1994-90 days , 1995-1996 199days (from4-10-1995 to 19-4-1996), 1996-1997 115 days (from 1-11-1996 to 30-4-1997 ) . Further case is that he (workman) was doing service in the employment of the State Bank of India at its Kadi Branch and Kalol Branch . Further case is that even on his complete working days of 240 days in the year 93-96 he was terminated through oral order without giving any notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Further case is that pleaders notice ( legal notice ) was issued to the management ofbank on 3-1-1998 demanding for his reinstatement in the service ofthe Bank with the remuneration and has also laid claim of the amount of Rs . 28 , 800from 1-5-1997 up to 30-5-2002 on 12 months basis for 48 months claiming total amount 1,15,200 . On these grounds prayer has been made for his reinstatement withback wages of 86,400 after deducting the amount of Rs . 28,800 for the days loose from 8-2-2000 to 16-2-2000 as per order passed by the tribunal in Misc . Application No. 6/2000 in ITC 26/99 by Ext . 4 wherein the reference case had been restore to its original file after setting aside the dismissal order of the reference .

of the first party that the workman was not permanent employee of the Bank rather was daily rated worker and thathe never completed 240 days of work in calendar year in 1993-1996 and so there was no question for issuing notice under section 25 ( F) of ID Act and no provision in this regard has been breached by the Request of the workman through legal notice for making order to pay outstanding salary amount of Rs . 1,15,200 for 48 months is illegal , unreasonable and without any basis . Further case is that the work related to the Bank is having various branches in Gujarat state and allover country and having its head office at Mumbai and having local head office in Gujarat at Lal Darwaja in Ahmedabad and there also subordinate zonal office of this local head office and all branches of the State bank of concerned area are subordinate to the zonal office . The number of permanent employee of various branches of the bank have been fixed and accordingly different type of permanent employee such as Peon , Watchman , Clerk , Officers and Managers are doing work therein . Generally bank recruits employee on permanent basis only after publishing public notice in daily newspaper and name of the candidates filled through employment exchange office and after getting examination of such employee in writing and arranged oral interview of passed candidate then successful candidates with rank are recruited in various branches as per requirements . But the workman was never given permanent designation and he was not appointed through Bank's Rules and Regulations . Rather when any concern branch ofthe Bank in case of leave of permanent employce on such post Hamal , Peon and Watchman or in case of creation of miscellaneous work in view of exigency of other work then the Bank simply employed some employees in stop gap arrangement and accordingly the first party bank had employed the workman as routine employee on probation on necessity in Kalol and Kadi branch of SBI and the workman was employed on necessity whenever arises for daily remuneration of Rs . 15 and sometime the workman was doing work as temporary messenger in place of absence of permanent employee and for his work he has been paid salary in respect of pay scale from time to time or has been paid payment for the days whatever the work as a routine employee . Further case is that since after 30-4-1997 the first party Bank has had no necessity for work of the workman and so the workman has not been called for work either on probation basis or as daily worker . Onthese scores prayer has been made to dismiss the reference with cost since claim of the workman for his reinstatement and backwages and consequential benefits

areall illegal and unjustified.

5. Following issues are taken up for discussions and determination in view of the pleadings of the parties .

ISSUES

(1) Is the reference maintainable ?

4. The case of the first party management as per written statement at Ext . 12 pleading inter -alia is that the reference is not maintainable , the workman has no cause of action to raise the dispute , facts stated at para 1 and 2 of the statement of claim are not correct . It has been denied that the workman was doing service in the Bank since December , 1989 , it has been denied that the Bank had terminated the workman orally w.e.f. 1-5-1997 . It is the case 4254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(II ) Has the workman got valid cause of action to raise Industrial Dispute ?

( III) Whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in calendar year preceding his termination w.e.f. 1-5-1997 ?

(IV) Whether the workman ( second party ) entitled to the relief as claim ?

(V) What orders are to be passed ?

FINDINGS

6. ISSUE NO . III

1990, 90 days, total number of days of employment in 1991- 120 days . Ext . 19/2 is another certificate of Branch Manager, Kadi Branch that the workman has worked in the Branch on daily wages basis for 6 months on different occasions in 1990. Ext . 19/3 is the certificate issued by Chief Manager of Kalol Branch of SBI to the effect that workman (Natvarbhai C. Parmar ) has served as a temporary messenger for 99 days during the period from 4-10-1995 to 19-4-1996 at this branch . Ext . 19/4 is another certificate granted by Chief Manager of SBI , Kalol Branch (District Mehsana) . It is to the effect that the workman has served as temporary messenger for 115 days from 1-11-1996 to 30-4-1997 at this branch . No any certificate has been filed onbehalf ofthe workman to show his working days in the year 1993 in which the workman has claimed that he completed more than 240 days of work . From going through the oral evidence of the workinan at Ext. 16 and the documentary evidence at Ext . 19/1 to 19/4 it appears thatthe certificate issued by the first party Bank is for the year 1990-1991 , 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 up to 30-4-1997 there is no any certificate garding the working days ofthe workman in the year 1993 but there is oral evidence in support ofhis claim that he worked for more than 240days in the year 1993. More so , calculating the period of work for 1995-1996 taking up to average days ofwork of 22 days forNovember and December- 1996 from Ext. 19/4 the total working days during the 95-96 comes to more than 240 days that also go to support the pleadings together with evidence of the workman that he completed more than 240 daysofwork in the year 1996. As per Ext . 19/5 , it is proved to this extent that interview letter dated 30-12-1991 was issued to the workman at his address at Post Kadi , Distt- Mehsana calling him for interview on , 8-6-1992 at 10.30 . am for recruitment in the Bank this interview letter also speaks that the interview letter was issued to the workman since he had performed temporary works in the Bank . This letterwas issued from Zonal Office of the SBI , Gandhinagar , this interview letter at Ext . 19/5 also speaks in favour of the workman's claims that though he had not been appointed as per rules and regulations of the Bank, but he was continuing in temporary service of messenger as per certificate issued by the Bank of Kadi Branch and Kalol Branch . From scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the workman side it appears that initial onus has been discharged by the workman that he completed 240days of work in the calendar year preceding hisoral termination w.e.f. 1-5-1997.

The second party workman has adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim the workman Natvarbhai C. Parmar examined in oral evidence at Ext. 16 deposing that he was doing service as messenger in State Bank of India, Kadi Branch since December , 1989 he also worked at Kalol Branch , State Bank of India as messenger. However admitting that post was temporary but stated that he was doing service honestly , faithfully and with hard work . He was not given any show cause notice from the Bank for his termination but suddenly he was terminated w.e.f. 1-5-1997 . He was not given notice pay. At the time oftermination his monthly salary was Rs . 2400 he also claimed that he was getting Rs . 3, 000 as bonus, further deposed that bank has issued him certificates for his work and he has submitted the same in this case . His further evidence is that he has raised dispute in this reference for his reinstatement and for salary of loosing days and he is ready to go for service in the Bank on his reinstatement. He further deposed that he is not doing any work and presently he is unemployed . During cross - examination by the lawyer ofthe first party Bank , it has come that his work was of temporary nature the workman in his evidence during cross -examination admitted that he was not appointed as per rules of the Bank and that he was deployed on work as per necessity of the Bank on daily wager or scale . He further stated that he sent notice to the Bank under Rule 10 (5) wherein also shown and that notice contain his signature at Ext . 10. He further deposed that in the notice he has shown working days of 365 days in the year 1996 but admitting that there is no any certificate granted by the Bank to that effect . He further deposed that he has shown work of 274 days in the year 1993 but he has no documentary evidence to that effect . He admitted during cross-examination that he maintained his family through miscellaneous labour works since after termination and he is getting 1, 200 per month through casual labour works . On behalf of the first party Bank no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced for discarding the claim of the second party workman for denying the claim of the workman , as per written statement at Ext. 12 on behalf of the second party workman some documents have been filed with list at Ext. 19. Ext . 19/1 is the certificate granted by Branch Manager of Kadi Branch that the workman Natvarbhai C. Parmar has worked on daily wages basis for about 6 months on different occasions in 1990 and 1991 showing total number of days of employment in

7. As against this there is only pleading of the first party Bank as Ext . 12 in denial that the workman never completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. Whereas the onus had shifted upon the first party Bank to disprove the position by producing the relevant documents viz the vouchers , attendance register, muster roll etc that the workman and never completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. The denial as per pleadings is not substantive piece of evidence .

4255

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

section 25 F of the I.D. Act but the management of first partyBank failed to comply with that provision and so the workman is entitled for his reinstatement to the status on which he was working prior to his termination . In this connection reliance has been placed upon a case law reported in 2010 LAB IC (NOC) 435 Bombay and LAB IC 1105 Himachal Pradesh . On the other hand Shri B.K. Oza Learned counsel of the first party has argued that even if the workman is found to have completed 240 days of work in some calendar years , he as a matter of right cannot claim for reinstatement because the status of workman is ofdaily rated worker who was getting wages on calculation ofdays ofwork in a month . Also that there is no evidence onbehalf of the workman that he was getting other benefits other then daily rated wages at par with the permanent employee like bonus , increment etc. It has been further argued that at best the workman can get compensation due tonon -compliance ofprovision ofSection 25 (F) by the first party. In this regard the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtdecided on 26, August, 2010 in Civil Appeal No. 3815 of 2010 in the case of Senior Superintendent , Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal V/ s Santosh Kumar Seal reported in 2010 (0) GLHEL - SC 48285 has been referred . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that relief of reinstatement and back wages tothe workman who worked hardly for two or three years cannot be said to be justified and in stead of monitory compensation could subserve the ends of justice .:

11. Upon consideration of this issue in view of the case law discesssed above , 1 am of the . considered view that the second party workman is not entitled for his reinstatement and back wages and other benefits in thìs case. In stead of he is found entitled for getting compensationfrom the first party Bank due to non- compliance of the provision of Section 25 ( F ) of the ID. Act.Whereas he is completed 240 days of work for couple ofyear. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case an amount of Rs . 20,000 as compensation will meet the ends of justice . This issue is accordingly decided . 12. ISSUE NO . I , II , V

8.The second party workman filed as per his written argument at Ext . 23 in Gujarati and thereafter also filed written argument in English at Ext . 24 on behalf ofthe first party, its lawyer Shri B.K. Oza has relied upon the case law reported in 2006 ( I ) LLJ Supreme Court page 268 in the case of Surendranagar Panchayat and another and Jethabhai Pitambhai regarding the Burden of Proof of completion 240 days service in one year. There is no dispute by stating this Shri B.K. Oza has also cited another case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Range Forest Officer V/s . S.T. Hadimani in 2002 - I- LLJ 1053 on the same point that the initial onus is upon the workman that he completed 240 days of work . These two case laws are good laws that the actual onus is upon the workman side to prove that he completed 240 days of work in calendar year. From the evidence as discussed above it has come that the second party workman has successfully discharged the initial onus through oral and documentary evidence that he completed 240 days of work in calendar year. So, now the further onus to disprove such evidence of the workman is upon the management side (employer) by adducing evidence that the workman never completed 240 days but the first party has not adduced oral evidence nor filed any documents to discard the claim and evidence of the workman side . On the other hand the second party workman side has relied upon the case law reported in 2010 Lab IC 1803 ( Bombay High Court ) and 2010 Lab IC (NOC) 168 Karnataka-2009 ( 6) AIR Karnataka R. 443 , and 2010 Lab IC (NOC) 895 Allahabad- 2010 (3 ) ALJ 604 only first case law 2010 Lab IC 1803 appears to be applicable to the case ofthe second party workman whereas the subsequent case laws 2010 LAB IC (NOC) 168 Karnataka and 2010 LAB IC (NOC) 895 Allahabad are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case . The second party has also relied upon a case law reported in 2010 ( III ) LLJ 564 Bombay 2009 ( 111) on point of Section 2 (s) that the Second party workman comes under the definition of workman and also on point of Section 25 F that there was necessity for issuing retrenchment notice under Section 25 F ofthe ill Act against the workman and also on the point as to claim of reinstatement ofthe Second party workman due to violation

of provision of Section 25 ( F) of the ID Act .

Inview of the findings given to issue No.III & IV in the forgoing paragraph , I further find and hold that the reference is maintainable and the second party workman has valid cause of action and the workman is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000 .

Thisreference is allowed in part .

9. As per discussions made above , I am of the considered view that the second party workman has been able to prove that he was working in Kadi and Kalol Branch ofSBI , Distt- Mehsana as temporary messenger and has completed more than 240 days of work in the year 1993- 1996. So , this issue is decided accordingly in favour of the workman.

Accordingly the terms of reference is answered in negative against the first party and the second party workman is found entitled for getting compensation of Rs. 20,000 from the first party.

10. ISSUE NO . IV

First party is directed to pay the compensation of Rs . 20,000 within 60 days of this award , failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum .

This is my award .

The learned counsel of second party workman has argued that since the workman completed 240 days of work in calendar year so there was requirement for issuing retrenchment notice or notice pay under provision of

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer 4256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1795.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/48/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/1/2004- आई आर ( बी- II) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 30th April, 2012

S.O. 1795. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. CGIT/ NGP / 48 / 2004 ) 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 Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2012 .

[No. L - 12012/1/2004- IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR

No. CGIT/NGP/ 48 of 2004

Date 19-3-2012

Party No. 1 : Regional Manager Central Bank of India , Regional Office, Victoria Bldg. , Kamptee Road , Nagpur -440001 V/s

Party No. 2 : Shri Vitthal S/ o . Shrawan Thengne R/ o . Maregaon Post & Tah . Maregaon , Distt . Yavatmal, Maharashtra

The record is put up today on the strength of the advance petition filed by the advocate for the petitioner to take the record on board . Copy of the application has been served on the advocate for the Central Bank of India .

2. Advocate for the petitioner and advocate for the bank are present. The petitioner is also present in person .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ofthe post in the bank , in which he was working and the bank has put a condition that the workmen whose cases are pending before the different courts should withdraw their case first for consideration of their application for absorption and in view of such communication, he has filed the application for withdrawal of the reference pending before this Tribunal.

5. Perused the record . The Central Government has referred the Industrial Dispute for adjudication in regard to the legality or otherwise of the termination of the services ofthe petitioner orally in April 2003. As the petitioner has received the communication from the bank regarding filling ofthe post and in view the possibility of his absorption in service by the bank he wants to withdraw the case . The bank has also no objection for such withdrawal . Hence , in the interest of natural justice , I think it proper to allow the application filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of the case .Hence , it is ordered :-

ORDER

The application filed by the petitioner is allowed. The reference be treated as withdrawn . The application filed by the applicant supported with affidavit and the copy ofthe documents filed along with the same be made part of the order .

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer BEFORE THE HON'BLE P.O. CGIT, NAGPUR

Ref No. 48/2004 Central Bank of India Vs.

Vithal Thengre

APPLICATION FOR TAKING THE CASE ON TO DAY'S BOARD & PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE CASE BE GRANTED

The Party - No . 2 workman submits as under :

1. That the above matter is fixed for 5-12-11 for argument on merit of the workman ( Cross )

2. That the Party No. I management has issued a communication for filling of the post in the Bank in which the workman was working . However they have put a condition that the workman whose case is pending before the different Courts . They should withdraw their cases first. Then only their application would be consider.

3. In view of this workman wants to withdraw his reference No. Filed and pending before this Hon'ble Court .

Prayer : It is therefore prayed that this matter may be taken on today's Board and permission to withdraw the case may kindly granted in the interest ofjustice .

Nagpur

28-11-2011

3. The petitioner has filed an application supported with an affidavit for withdrawal of the reference . Copy of the application has been served on the advocate for the Bank, who has made endorsement on the body of the application itself of having no objection for withdrawal of the case.

4. The case of the petitioner is that management of CentralBank of India has issued a communication for filling

Sd/ Illegible

Sd/ Illegible [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4257

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

SOLEMN AFFIRMATION

1 , Vithal S/o Shrawan Thengre , Aged above 42 years , oce- presently NIL R/ o Maregaon Taluka Maregaon Distt.- Yavatmal , presently, Nagpur, do hereby take oath and State on Solemn affirmation that the contents of above affidavit in para 1 to 3 are true to my knowledg & information .

18 to 26 years ( relaxable in eligible categories as per rules ) when they were engaged as casual/temporary workers . The present age should not be more than 45 years irrespective of category. They should be able to produce the satisfactory evidence /proof acceptable to Bank in support of having worked with bank on temporary basis . Their registration with Employment Exchage may be preferred but not an essential condition .

Hence verified & signed on this 28th day of November 2011 at Nagpur .

I Know & indentifly the depondent

Sd/

All such candidates must withdraw the cases filed bythem before different forums/courts immidiately prior to applying for the post .

( R.N. SEN) Advocate Illegible

Deponant

Please let us know the number of such candidates who conform to the above eligibility.

Central Bank of India

Please treat this as Most Urgent and comply with

immediately.

Branch Maregaon

RO/HRD/2011-12/ 1179 dtd . 14-11-2011

Regards

Date : 26-11-2011

नागपुर क्षेत्र की सभी शाखाएं To,

MR. VITHAL SHRAWAN THENGANE

NB Rajguru

R / O MAREGAON

कृपया, उपरोक्त परिपत्र का अवलोकन कर तद्नुसार कारवाई की पुष्टी करे ।

Asstt . General Manager-HRD

ह. अपठनीय Req. your eligibility for ptsk cum substore Ref: Ro Letters No. RO/ HRD/2011-12/ 1179 Dated 14-11-2011

महा. क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1796.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कॉरपोरेशन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल- 12012/4/2008- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी Regarding the above we would like to inform you that in reference to letter RO/HRD/ 2011-12 / 1179 dated 14-11-2011 our RO has asked for the no . of eligible , candidates in our branch . But we see from the branch record that you have filed a case against our bank . As per the RO circular you have to withdraw the said case , so as to make eligible yourself for the said post prior to applying for the post . For your sake you please get through the circulor and reply according/ take necessary steps regarding the matter immediately. We hereby attach the said circular . We look forward a quich reply because we have to inform RO about your eligibility as early as possible.

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2012

Enc . Circular

Sd/ Illegible

Sirs.

S.O. 1796.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.14/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Corporation Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-4-2012.

[No. L- 12012/4/2008- IR( B - II ) ] Weinvite your kind reference to our communication No. CO /HRD / R &P/ 2011-12/656 dated 21-6-2011 whereby we had advised to initiate the process for recruitment of Safai Karamchari cum sub-staff in branches under regions so as to provide the services of at least one safai karamchari sum sub staff can be provided to each branch . However the said process was kept in abeyance for administrative reasons vide our mail dated 4-8-2011 .

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

We have now to request you to provide us the number of temporary / casual workers ' who have worked in branches/offices under regions and conform to the following criteria:

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SATNAM SINGH , PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- II , KARKARDOOMA , DELHI

ID No. 14/2008

Candidate should have put in minimum 45 days service during a period of 12 months as a temporary sub- staff and / or PTSK . Their age should have been between

1706 GI /2012-15 4258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

In the matter between :

Shri K. Shivnathan , E- 299, J.J. Colony, Inderpuri , Delhi- 110012

....Workman

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 37/2002) 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 UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2012 .

VERSUS

[No. L- 12011 /38/2002 - IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

TheAsstt . General Manager , Corporation Bank, 16/10, Ist Floor , Main Arya Samaj Road , Karol Bagh , New Delhi - 110005 .

.....Management

AWARD

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 37 of 2002

Between-

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L - 12012/ 4/2008 - IR(B - II ) dated 22-4-2008 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

" Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Sh . Shivnathan, personal car driver w.e.f. June , 2001 is legal andjustified. ( ii) To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to ?"

The President, UCO Bank StaffAssociation, C/ o Sri B P Saxena, 426-W- 2 , Basant Vihar, Kanpur And The Regional Manager, UCO Bank,

Regional Office, 23 Vidhan Sabha Marg., Lucknow

AWRD

1. Central Government MOI , New Delhi vide notification No. L- 12011 / 38 /2002 - IR( B - II ) dated 18-6-02 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in awarding the punishment of reduction of basic pay of Sri Uma Shanker Dubey by one stage by one year with effect from 27-1-01 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief he is entitled for?

3. Brief facts are-

2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman to which the written statement was filed by the management. Thereafter, replication was filed by the workman . Vide orders dated 16-4-2010 the case was posted for recording evidence of the workman but the workman has not given his evidence in this case so far. In fact , he has not been attending the proceedings for the last so many dates of hearing . On 22-7-2011 he was granted last opportunity to pursue his case but despite such an order the workman has not bothered to pursue his case. It is thus evident that he is not interested in the outcome of this reference . In these circumstances there is no way out except to conclude that he is not interested in the outcome of this reference . A no dispute award is accordingly passed in this case . The reference sent by the Central Govt . to this Tribunal stands disposed of accordingly.

Dated: 9-4-2012

SATNAM SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2012

4. It is an admitted fact that Sri Uma Shanker Dubey was employed at UCO Bank Armapore State Branch Kanpur as a award staff. When he was in service he was served with a show cause notice due to his misconduct which was signed by Chief Officer/Disciplinary authority. In show cause notice at page No. 1 the facts were disclosed and on page no . 2 it was stated that in terms of Para 19.12 (e) of BPS it was proposed to inflict the following punishment without any domestic inquiry-

workman. Reduction of basic pay by two stages of the का.आ. 1797.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूकों बैंक के प्रबंधितंत्र 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 37/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

5. Show cause was also proposed on the proposed punishment--

[सं. एल-12011 /38/2002- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2012

6. Though the workman did not make voluntary admission of the guilt yet the chief officer/disciplinary authority inflicted the following punishment- S.O. 1797.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central

Reduction of basic pay by one stage for one year.

4259

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

13. Claimant has produced in evidence himself as W.W. 1 and the opposite party has not adduced any evidence.

7. Being aggrieved the workman made an appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved the workman approached the union which raised the instant dispute.

14. Heard and perused the record .

15. During the arguments the auth . Representative for the claimant Sri B P. Saxena confined total arguments only on a legal point i.e. that the punishment awarded by the officer was not , duly appointed as a disciplinary authority and therefore , the punishment awarded is illegal . He has not raised any other issue regarding the merits of the case or the enquiry held by the disciplinary authority.

8. It has also been alleged that the charges levelled against the claimant were vague . It is also alleged that the Chied Officer has not been appointed as disciplinary authority in terms of Para 19.14 of BPS dated 19-10-66 as modified by Para 3 ( b ) of BPS dated 31-10-89 . It is alleged that according to the terms the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority are to be nominated by the Chief Executive Officer i.e. the Chairman and Managaing Director. It is further reiterated that as there was no voluntary admission of the guilt no action can be taken by the management, therefore , the order ofthe punishment is illegal and unjustified and is liable to be set aside and release the increments stopped by the management.

16. Therefore, the short question to be decided is whether the punishment awarded to the claimant was awarded by the competent disciplinary authority. Both the parties have relied upon the banks circular dated 21-6-2000 which is paper no . 8 /9-11 This is an administrative order passed by the Executive Director/ Principal Officer. I would like to reproduce certain paragraphs ofthis order-

Whereas an order dated October 21 , 1988 , was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank appointing disciplinary authority and appellate authority for the members of the award staff posted indifferent branches .

Whereas consequent upon the merger of certain Regional Office with the Zonal Office as a part of the rationalization of the organizational structure of the bank , an order dated 10-1-98 was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank appointing disciplinary authority or the members of the award staff posted in branches ......

9. Opposite party has filed the written statement denying vehemently the claim of the claimant on a number ofgrounds, inter- alia, alleging that the claimant has sought voluntarily retirement from the bank's service and pursuantly stands relieved/ retired on 31-5-2001 and thereafter he is no more in the service of the bank therefore, he does not come under the definition of workman as per section 2(s ) , therefore , reference order is bad in law. It is stated that the claimant has conducted a grievous misconduct so he was issued charge sheet/show cause notice. The claimant has fully participated, the disciplinary authority has given him full hearing in the name of personal hearing and after considering the entire matter a very mild punishment was awarded to the claimant which is fully legal valid in the eyes of the law. Appeal filed by him was duly considered by the appellate authority which wasrejected.

Whereas consequent upon reorganization of the banks administrative structure and abolition of zonal tier as advised vide office notification no . dated 26-5-2000, it is necessary to change the disciplinary authority and appellant authority for the members of the award staff posted and working in different branches of the banks . Accordingly, I , in exercise of the powers conferred on me under clause 19.14 of the settlement industrial dispute between certain banking companies and their workman dated 19th October , 1966 as amended from time to time make the following appointment of disciplinary authority and appellate authority in supersession of the order dated 10-1-98 , 21st October , 1988 and earlier order passed in this connection.

10. It is stated that the allegation raised by the claimant are false vague . The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is fully justified and legal , appointment of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority was proper and valid in view of provisions of theBPS as provided under Para 19.14 . It is also stated that after seeking voluntarily retirement claimant ceased to be aworkman under the definition ofworkman and therefore, he has no authority or right in the eye of law to press this claim or to seek any relief from this tribunal pursuant to the present reference order as such the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

17. Now the question is whether the executive director derived the powers lawfully in terms of clause 19.14 of the settlement dated 19-10-66 .

11. Both the parties have filed the documentary evidence . Chaimant has filed letter dated 30-12-2000 , which is a show cause notice , copy of appellate order , order of punishment and UCO Bank circular dated 21-6-2000 .

18. I would reproduce the provision of the clause 19.14 of the Bipartite Settlement . It states likewise, the Chief Executive Officer , or the Principal Officer in India of a bank or an alternative officer of the Head Office or principal office nominated by him for the purpose shall decide which officer ( i.e. the disciplinary authority ) shall be empowered to take disciplinary action in the case of each office or establishment . He shall also decide which 12. Opposite party has filed charge sheet/show cause notice, copy of punishment awarded, copy of order of rejection of appeal and original register of personal hearing.

4260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2012 officer or body higher in status than the officer authorized to take disciplinary action shall act as the appellate authority to deal with or hear and dispose of any appeal against orders passed in disciplinary matters .

19. According to this the powers have been conferred on four officers viz . , ( 1 ) The Chief Executive Officer, (2) The principal Officer in India of a Bank, (3 ) An alternate officer at the Head Office and (4) Principal office nominated for the purpose.

का.आ. 1798.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011/ 74/2006- आई आर ( बी- II) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2012 20. Therefore , according to the third part and Executive Director comes under the purview of an alternate officer ofthe head office . Executive Director is the person who discharges all the funtion of the bank at the head office. Similarlythe Executive Director has drawn his power from Para 19.14 of the BPS , dated 19-10-66 . Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that the disciplinary authority has been lawfully empowered by the bank is tenable. Similarly appointment of the appellate authority is lawful and there does not appear to be any breach ofthe provisions of the BPS as well as in the appointment of the appellate authority.

S.O. 1798.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 90/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2012.

[No. L - 12011 /74/2006- IR ( B - 11 ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer 21. I have gone through the statement of W. W. 1. In his statement he has simply stated that he was served with show cause notice and he was also given a personal hearing and thereafter a punishment was imposed as such there is nothing more in the statement.

22. Therefore, the contention raised by the claimant that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as he was not competent to impose the punishment as he was not properly appointed is not tenable .

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference U/ S 10( 1 ) ( d ) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disptues Act , 1947 Reference No. 90 of 2006

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda .

AND Their Workman

23. There is also contention of the opposite party that the claimant has sought the volunatary retirement therefore he ceases to be a workman as defined under section 2( s) of the Act becomes redundant when already it has been held by the tribunal that the punishment awarded to the workman by the disciplinary authority is just and fair. Therefore , this contention needs not to be gone into by the tribunal .

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer Appearances :

For the Employers : Shri Dinesh Kumar , Sr. Manager (HRM)

24. Therefore in my considered view of the matter it is held that the punishment inflicted upon the claimant is just fair and proper as it was inflicted upon by a validly appointed disciplinary authority.

For the workman : Shri B. Prasad, General Secretary, Bank Employees Federation , Bihar .

State : Jharkhand Industry: Bank Dated , the 13th April 2012 AWARD

25. Therefore , considering over all facts , circumstances and evidence of the case , I am of the view that there is no illegality or perversity on the action of the bank and the workman has rightly been punished by the disciplinary authority.

26. Accordingly it is held that the action of the management is just and fair and consequent upon the same the claimant is not entitled to any relief.

By Order No. L - 12011 / 74 / 2006 - IR ( B - II ) dated 13-9-2006 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 :

27. Reference is therefore , answered against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda , Patna in not regularising the services of 4261

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Shri Ajay Kumar Jha, Casual Sweeper/Peon Zero Mile, Begusarai Branch, Bank of Baroda is legal and justified? If not, what relief Shri Ajay Kumar Jha is entitled to?"

basis. While engaging the services of the concerned workman, the Branch Manager has neither notified the vacancy nor he was sponsored by Employment Exchange. Hence, his engagement and continuation is unathorised and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award dismissing the claim of the concerned workman .

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

5. The management has not produced any oral evidence.

The concerned workman examined himself as WW- 1 and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W-10.

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was appointed by the management to discharge the duties of a peon/ sweeper at ZERO mile , Begusarai Branch w.e.f. 17-1-1991 . During the period 17-1-1991 to 1-10-1996, the werkman was allowed to work with some artificial breaks and from 3-10-1996 the workman uninterruptedly discharged all the duties of a peon . After appointment he was discharging the duties of opening the Bank's gate; sweeping , cleaning the branch premises ; taking out registers/ledgers from the almirah, placing the same on table , counters and vice- versa; carrying token Book , scroll register from cash Deptt. to Accounts Deptt ; posting of mails whenever required , stitching of currency notes/ vouchers whenever required and serving water, tea to the member ofstaffetc. He used to discharge the above duties from 10 A.M. to 6 P. M. regularly and sometimes even beyond that as per requirement . He was used to be paid his wages on most of the time through transfer vouchers . He worked for more than 15 years with the management as Peon/Sweeper . In terms of the scheme formulated by the management , the name of the concerned workman was forwarded to the Higher Authorities of the Bank for regularising his services in Bank's Subordinate Cadre, but no positive step was taken by them . Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C) , Patna which ended in failure . So , the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour referred the dispute for adjudication before the Hon'ble Tribunal .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he has worked with the management from time to time as casual sweeper/peon withthe management at Begusarai Branch from 17-1-91 to 1-10-96. During his service he discharged duties of opening the Bank's gate, sweeping , cleaning the branch premises , taking out registers/ ledgers from the almirah , placing the same on table, counters and vice -verse ; carrying token Book, scroll register from cash Department to Accounts Department and vice - versa; posting of mails wherever required , stitching of currency notes/vouchers whenever required , serving water, tea to the member of staff and he used to work from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. regularly and sometimes even beyond that as per requirement . The management issued guidelines for regularisation of subordinate cadre . The name of the workman was forwarded to the Higher Authorities of the Bank for regularising his service in Bank's Subordinate Cadre. So, hisservices should be regularised as full time sweeper.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as a full time sweeper/peon retrospectively and payment of due wages for the period of his working .

7. The management representative argued that he waspart-time sweeper and performing the job in the Bank on casual basis and he connot be regularised. It has been argued that public employment cannot be given in such way for regularisation of casual workers .

8. In this respect the concerned workman stated all things in his evidence as WW- 1 . In management's circular (Ext. W- 1 ) some guidelines have been issued . As per Ext . W- 1, Tripartite Settlement at para 2 which mentions that casual temporary peons/sweepers who have worked for 240 daysormore in consecutive 12 months between 1-1-1991 and 1996 and are still working will be absorbed during financial year 2009-09. It shows that the concerned workman has worked upto 1-10-1996 with the management and as per Tripartite Settlement Para 2 he is entitled to regularised as perBank'scircular.

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman has been engaged intermittently on casual basis at Zero Mile Branch by the Branch Head without any authority. He was engaged by the Branch head without following the rules of engagement of temporary employees including calling for sponsorship from Employment Exchange . Hence , his engagement is illegal . Any appointment in the subordinate cadre has to be made by an authority competent to make such appointment within the sanctioned vacancies and also subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria for such appointment . In the normal course, employment of persons in sub - staff cadre in the Bank can be done only through Employment Exchange . In terms of the guidelines issued by the Bank any appointment in sub - ordinate either permanent or temporary is to be made only with the prior permission/ sanction from General Manager ( HRM) . The Branch Manager has no athority to engage sub - staff/sweeper either on temporary/permanant

9.The management's representative argued that the concerned workman is not still working . He worked from 17-1-1991 to 1-10-1996 with intermittent breaks . But the 4262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

concerned workman worked upto 1-10-1996 with the management . At the time of Tripartite Settlement he was working with the management and he should be absorbed and the circular will have to follow. As per Ext. W- 2 the concerned workman's name has been referred by the Regional Manager to Sr./Branch Manager for his regularisation and as per Ext . W-3 his name has been recommanded from Br. Manager to Regional Manager for regulalrisation and Ext. W-4 , the circular issued by the management for empanelment for engagement . In this respect in the circular it has been mentiond the list of persons , who have completed 90 days and more upto 29-2-96 as approved by the Head Office can be utilised in leave vacancy of permanent peon and not otherwise . It only shows that the concerned workman has worked for more than 90 days and he should be regularised as per Ext . W-4. Ext . W-4/ 1 is letter from Regional Manager to Sr. Branch Manager asking information regarding casual who isworking prior to 27-2-96. Ext. W-5 dated 9-9-01 has beencertifiedbythe Br. Manager that the concerned workman is a staff of the Branch . His name has also been mentioned by the Regional Manager , as per Ext . W-6 for working 90 days upto 29-2-96 . As per Ext . W- 7 information has been given by the Branch Manager to Regional Manager in which the concerned workman's name has been mentioned which shows that he has worked 90 days or more upto 29-2-96 and as per Ext . W- 8 School Leaving Certifcate and Employment Exchange Card ofthe concerned workman has been demanded by the Regional Manager from Branch Manager and as Ext . W-9 reference has been made regarding the concerned workman and Ext . W- 10 dt . 9-4-96 data has beenwantedby Zonal Office for engagement of of sub -staff engaged for 90 days and above upto 29-2-96.

When there is circular and there is Tripartite Settlement with the management then the management is bound to follow the settlement . As per Tripartite Settlement ithas been found that the concerned workman has worked for more than 90 days upto 1-10-1996.

10. The management referred 2004 Superme Court Cases (L & S) 918 , 2006 Superme Courts Cases ( L & S) 190, 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 253 , & 2006 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S) 1152. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that public employment cannot be given to the casual workers . But in the present case there is a Tripartitle Settlement between the union and the management and also circular for absorbing the persons who had worked as part time peon/ sweeper upto 29-2-1996 and worked for more than 90 days . The concerned workman worked for more than 90 days upto 29-2-1996 and as per circular and Tripartite Settlement , he is entitled to be regularised as a full timesweeper/Peon .

11. In the result, I hold that the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Patna in not regularising the services of Shri Ajay Kumar Jha, casual Sweeper /Peon , Zero Mile , Begusarai Branch , Bank of Baroda is not legal

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]

and justified. Hence, the concerned workman is entitled to be regularised in the service with retrospective effect.

ThisismyAward.

H. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2012

का.आ. 1799.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/49/2009- आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th April , 2012

S.O. 1799.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 43/ 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure inthe 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 17-4-2012.

[No. L- 12011 /49/2009- IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated: 4th April 2012 PRESENT SHRIS . N. NAVALGUND PRESIDING OFFICER

C. R. No. 43/2009

I PARTY

11. PARTY

The General Manager, Bank ofMaharashtra , 15, Police Station Road, Baswangudi , Bangalore-560064 The Joint Secretary, Bank of Maharashtra EmployeesUnion (AIBEA) C/o Bank ofMaharashtra, No. 343, 3rd Main , SFS 407 , 4thPhase, Yelahanka New Town , Bangalore-64

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section( 1 ) and Sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No.L - 12011/49/ 2009- IR ( B - II ) dated 12-8-2009 for adjudication on the following Schedule :-

4263

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

29/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/ 140/2008- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2012 Whether the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Officer , Basavanagudi , Bangalore werejust and proper in awarding punishment of ' CENSURE ' in respect of misconduct under Clause 19.7 (d) and Clause No. 19.7 (j ) ofthe Bipartite Settlement and also simultaneously ordering the recovery of Rs.62,500 from the salary of Shri Shashidhar Rao Mułki , ComputerOperator, isjust and proper? To what relief is the delinquent workman entitled to?

S.O. 1800.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government herebypublishestheAward (Ref. No.29/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-4-2012.

[No. L- 12011 / 140/2008- IR (B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SATNAM SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

ID No.29/2009

2.After receipt of the reference when notices were issued to both the sides the Second Party entered its appearance through Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate. Since the first party did not appear inspite of service of notice through RPAD after providing him number of opportunities to appear and file claim statement the second partywas called upon to file the statement substantiating the impugned action against the first party. Inspite of providing several opportunities to the second party the second party also since failed to file any statement substantiating the impugned action , today i.e. on 4-4-2012 there being no representation for the second party taking that second party has no statement to file substantiating the impugned action , I proceed to pass this award .

In the matter between:

TheGeneral Secretary,

All India Punjab National Bank Workers Federation , CentralOffice: Punjab National Bank, L-Block, New Delhi - 110001 Workman

VERSUS

3. Since as per the schedule of reference the burden is lying on the second party to justify awarding the punishment of ' Censure ' and also simultaneously ordering the recovery of Rs.62,500 from the salary ofShri Shashidhar RaoMulki , Computer Operator, in the absence of filing any statement in substantiating the same I have no other go except to pass an award that second party having failed to justify its action . Hence I pass the following award .

AWARD

TheGeneralManager (HRD) , Punjab National Bank, HeadOfficeBhikaji Cama Place , New Delhi - 110066.

...Management.

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide order No.L- 12011 /140/2008 - IR (B- II ) dated 24-3-2009 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

The reference is allowed and awarding punishment of ' Censure ' in respect of the alleged misconduct under Clause No.19.7(d) and 19.7 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement and also simultaneously ordering the recovery ofRs.62,500 from the salary of Shri Shashidhar Rao Mulki , Computer Operator holding as not just and proper. If already the recovery of Rs.62,500 has been made from the salary of Shashidhar Rao Mulki , Computer Operator same has tobe refunded to him by the management.

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, New Delhi not promoting the workmen as these workmen had already passed the test held on 17-12-2006, is legal and justified. " (Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4-4-2012)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2012

2. Statement of claim was filed by the General Secretary Mr. J.K.Sawhney on behalf of all the affected workmen. Written statement was filed by the management bank . Today, i.e. 12-3-2012 when the case was fixed for filing rejoinder from the side of the workmen, Shri J.K.SawhneyGeneral Secretary of the workmen has made a statement stating therein that all the affected workmen who had passed the test held on 17-12-2006 have been promoted to their satisfaction as well as to the satisfaction of the Union and no grievance of any kind is left now. As the का.आ. 1800.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

12012/ 2/2005 - IR (B - II) dated 26-5-2005, with the following schedule:-

grievance of the workmen has already been redressed by the management bank and no grievance of any kind has remained in this case , a no dispute award is passed in this case and the reference sent by the Govt. of India to this Tribunal stands disposed of accordingly.

Dated 12-3-2012 SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2012

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Nagpur Region , Nagpur (MS ) in terminating the service of shri Haridas S/o . Gopal Vaidya, Ex- Safai karamachari at the Asgaon Branch ofthe Bank is proper & justified? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman concerned is entitled ? "

2.Onreceipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shr Haridas Valdya , (" the workman " in short ) , filed the statement of claim and the management of the Central Bank of India, (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .

का.आ. 1801.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/48/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/2/2005- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th April , 2012

S.O. 1801. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/48/2005) 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 Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2012 .

[No. L- 12012/2/2005 - IR ( B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CaseNo.CGIT/NGP/48/2005

Date: 11-4-2012

PartyNo.1 : The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

VictoriaBuilding, Near Bharat Talkies , Kamptee Road, Nagpur ( MS) -440001

Versus

PartyNo.2 : Shri Haridas S/o . Gopal Vaidya, R/ o. Mangli (Chauras ) , Tah , Paoni , Distt. Bhandara (MS)

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was engaged by party no . 1 at Asgaon Chouras branch on monthly wages of Rs . 175 P.M. for cleaning the premises and bringing water and he rendered continuous service from 1-6-1991 till 15-5-1993 and his duty hours were from 9.A.M. to 5 P.M. and as he repeatedly asked for enhancement of wages , the party no. 1 became annoyed and terminated his services orally on 15-5-1993 , saying that his services were no more required and termination ofhis services was patently for false reason and by way of victimization and not in good faith , but in colourable exercise of right and before termination ofhis services , the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act were not complied with by party no . 1 and as such , termination ofhis services was illegal and though he sent a legal notice on 28-5-1993 to the party no . I no reply was given to such notice by party no . 1 and he had filed a complaint under M.R.T.U & P.U.L.P Act , 1971 , before the Labour Court , Bhandara and the Labour Court allowed the application and directed to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages , but the party no . 1 filed Revision ULP No. 34/2002, before the Industrial Court , Bhandara and the revision was allowed on 8-6-2004 and in the writ petition no. 4252/2004 filed before the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur Bench by him against the order of the Industrial Tribunal , the Hon 'ble High Court directed to agitate the matter before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and in obedience to the order of the Hon'ble High Court , he filed application before the ALC ( C ) , Nagpur for conciliation and as the conciliation failed , the ALC ( C) submitted the failure report to the Central Government and Central Government has referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication.

AWARD (Dated: 11thApril , 2012)

It is further pleaded by the workman that the work which he was performing was and is regular nature ofwork and it was incumbent upon the party no . 1 to regularize his services , but instead of doing so , the party no . 1 terminated his service in colourable exercise of power and the party no. 1 also did not display any seniority list as required by Section 25 -G of the Act and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes( Central) Rules , 1957 ( " the Rules " in short ) and Injexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-Section ( 1 ) and sub - Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , Shri Haridas Vaidya , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

4265

sweeping, cleaning toilets , filling water, he was also doing all the work of a peon.

several juniors were retained in service and new employees were engaged after his termination and he is entitled for re- instatement under Section 25 -H of the Act and one Mr. Mohan Ramteke was appolated in his place , by illegally terminating his services and from the date ofhis termination from services , he is not gainfully employed elsewhere . The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

5.Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence, the workman examined himself as a witness , in support of his claim. In his examination- in -chief, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder. However, in his cross- examination , the workman has admitted that no written appointment order was given to him by the bank and he was working on daily wages in Asgaon Chouras branch of the bank and for the first time, he was engaged as a daily wager in the month ofJune , 1991 and he was paid monthly on vouchers and he had never signed any muster roll like other employees of the Bank and he had worked as per oral orders of the Manager. The workman in his cross- examination has further stated that he cannot say if Shri Mohan Ramteke was only sponsored by the employment exchange for 1 /3rd part time safai karmachari and the said post was for S.C. candidate only and Shri Ramteke was appointed against the said post .

6. One Shri Kamalakar R. Nandgaonkar , an Asstt . Regional Manager of the party no . 1 has been examined as awitness on behalf of the party no. 1. His evidence is also in the same line of the defence taken by party no . 1 in the written statement . It is necessary to mention here that as neither the workman nor anybody else appeared on behalf ofthe workman to cross - examine the witness for the party no.1 , " no cross " order was passed and as such , the evidence of the witnesses for the party no. 1 remained unchallenged . It is also necessary to mention here that as per order dated 8-2-2012 , the case proceeded ex-parte against the workman .

7. Inview ofthe stands taken by the parties , I think it apt to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard , before embarking upon the discussion of the merit of the case .

The Hon'ble Apex court , in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC - 75 (Employees , Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that :----

3. The party no.1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged by it as a part time daily wager on purely temporary basis, for cleaning the branch premises , fetching and storing of drinking water etc. as and when required and the workman was being paid a lump sum amount of Rs . 175 per month towards his remuneration and the workman was engaged as such for the first time on 1-6-1991 and he was never engaged as a regular employee of the Bank and he worked intermittently atAsgaon Chauras Branch and the period of his work as a daily wager is annexed as annexure ' A' to the written statement and the workman worked upto January, 1993 only and that too, intermittently and the workman was required to work hardly for 1.00 to 1.30 hours and there was no question of providing full day's work and when his service was no more required by it , the workman was not engaged , so there was no question of termination of his services on 15-5-1993 illegally or colourable exercise of power or due to victimization and the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act are not applicable to his case . The party no . I has not disputed the filing of the case by the workman under MRTU and PULP Act and revision by it, before the Industrial Court and filing of Writ no. 4252/2004 by the workman and the results there of, as mentioned in the statement of claim . However , it is pleadedby the party no. 1 that there was and is absolutely no industrial dispute between it and the workman , for the simple reason that the workman was never employed by it as its regular employee and the provisions of Sections 25 - G and 25 - H are also not applicable at all to the case of the workman and Model Standing Orders etc does not apply to it in view of the facts that the service conditions of all regular and permanent employees are governed by the provisions of Bi - partite Settlements and Shri Mohan Ramteke was recruited by the Regional Office by following the guidelines and recruitment procedure to fill the post of 1 / 3rd part time safai karmachari at Asgaon Chauras branch , which was reserved for schedule caste candidate and shri Ramteke is a regular and permanent 1 / 3rd PSTK of the Bank and as the workman was a temporary part time daily wager and his engagement was as and when required , he has absolutely no case for regularization in service and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. In the rejoinder , the workman has pleaded that the annexure ' A' submitted by the party no . 1 is not correct and even or holidays , he was required to accompany the Manager and ther Bank officers for recovery and besides

"Though Section 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 a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled . The definition of " Continuous Service " need not be read into Section 25 - B . The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year . The amended Section 25- B only consolidates the provisions of Section 25 ( B ) and 2( eee) in one place , adding some other matters . The purport of the new provisions , however, is not different. In fact, the amendment of Section 25 - F of the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the words " for every completed year of continuous

1706 GI/2012-16 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] 4266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/ JYAISTHA 5, 1934

8.The present case at hand is now to be considered with the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'bleApex Court and it is to be found out, ifthe workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for240 days in ayear preceding his termination . According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 15-5-1993 . So, it is necessary for the workman to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 15-5-1993, he had worked for 240 days.

service" has removed a discordance between the unamended Section 25 B and the unamended Cl . (b ) ofSection 25- F no uninterrupted service is necessary ifthe total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these . The only change in the Act is that thie service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made . The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended Section 25 -B " .

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC - 1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/ s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. ) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that ,

"Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947 ) . Section 25 - B (1 ) and (2 )- Continuous service -Scope of sub - Sections ( 1 ) and (2 ) is different , (words and phrases - Continuous Service)

9. In this case, the workman has filed the copy ofthe legal notice sent by him, copy of orders passed by Labour Court, hisdeposition before the Labour Court, order passed by Industrial Court and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. He has not filed any document in support of his claim that hehad infact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date ofhis alleged termination of services i.e. 15-5-1993 . On the other hand , party no . 1 has filed the copy of the vouchers , under which the workman was paid wages . Such vouchers do not show that the workman worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of 15-5-1993 . As the workman has failed to prove that he had infact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 15-5-1993 , the provisions of Section 25- F ofthe Actare not applicable to his case. There is also no evidence on record to show that party no.1 violated the provisions ofSection 25 -G and 25 -H ofthe Act . Hence , the workman is not entitled to any relief. It is ordered:-

ORDER

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25- F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service . Section 25- B as the dictionary clause for the expression " continuous " . Both in principle and are precedent itmustbe held that Section 25 - B (2 ) comprehends a situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months , but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment . If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Section 25 -B and chapter V- A" .

The action of the management of Central Bank of India, Nagpur Region, Nagpur (MS ) in terminating the service of shri Haridas S/o . Gopal Vaidya, Ex - Safai karamachari at the Asgaon Branch of the Bank is proper & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC - 38 ( M/s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar ) has held that:-

नई दिल्ली , 2 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1802.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/49/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Industrial Disputes Act ( 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 of proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding histermination . "

[सं. एल-12012/60/2001- आईआर ( बी-11 ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

S.O. 1802. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/49/2001 ) 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 So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'bleApex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of Section 25- F of the Act , it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman . So , keeping In view the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court , now, the present case at hand is to be considered.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4267

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2012.

[No. L- 12012/60/2001 -IR(B- II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/49/2001

Date:21-3-2012

PartyNo.1 : The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kingsway, Nagpur-440001

Versus

PartyNo. 2 : Shri Ashwin Dadarao Bhaisare, R/o. Budhanagar, Unit II , Near Anand Budha Vihar, Indora, Nagpur.

AWARD (Dated: 21st March , 2012)

In exercise 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 Punjab National Bank and their workman Shri Ashwin Bhaisare , for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 12012/60/2001 - IR ( B- II) dated 10-7-2001 , with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of the Punjab National Bank represented by Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank , Nagpur ( ii) The Branch Manager, P.N.B. Branch Khamla, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Ashwin Dadarao Bhaisare R/ o . Budha Nagar, Indora, Nagpur w.e.f. 20-10-2000 is legal , proper and justified ? If not,to what reliefthe said workman is entitled to and from what date? "

2.On receipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Ashwin Bhaisare, (" the workman " in short ), filed the statement of claim and the management of the Punjab National Bank (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he entered into the service of the party no. 1 on 1-1-1997 on temporary basis and though no appointment order was issued , he was directed orally to perform the duties as a peon and initially he was posted to Khamla Branch of the Bank, but on 2-1-1997, he was transferred to extension counter at K.D.K. College, Nandanwan, Nagpur and though his appointment was on temporary basis , he was required to work for full working hours and his services were utilized for all the working days in a month and though he was working at par with other peons, he was being paid a meager salary of Rs . 175 per month,whereas the peons employed in the Bank were drawing salary ofRs . 4000 per month and he was entrusted withthe duties ofclearance ofcheques from main branch, clearingand sweeping of the Bank and to bring cash from the main branch to extension counter and he worked continuously with the party no . 1 from the date of his appointment and completed 240 days of services and acquired permanent status and in October, 2000 , he approached the Branch Manager , requesting to increase his salary and to give benefits available to the peons working in permanent establishment , which enraged the party no. 1, so party no . 1 by oral order, terminated his services w.e.f. 20-10-2000 without issuing any notice of termination or payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice, as contemplated under section 25 - F of the Act and no termination benefits as required under was given to him and there are eighteen branches of the party no.1 in Nagpur and number of posts of peon are vacant and party no . 1 retainedjuniors in service, while terminating his services andthe principles of " last come first go " was not followed andhe is the sole bread earner ofthe family and termination ofhis services has rendered the whole family to starvation and poverty and the oral termination dated 20-10-2000 is illegal and arbitrary and while terminating his services , the party no.1 did not take into consideration his past unblemished service record and the order impugned is also unsustainable on that ground.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages , continuity in service and all the consequential benefits .

3.Inthewritten statement, the party no. 1 has pleaded inter-alia that at no point of time , the workman was appointed as a peon by it and the workman was engaged as a sweeper as stop gap arrangement and he was not appointed on regular basis, by following the due procedure and he was required to work for about two hours and the nature of work was cleaning and sweeping the branch premises and admittedly, no appointment order was issued in favour of the workman and there was no question of appointment and posting and on few occasions , his services were used for the work of delivery of dak, for which, conveyance was paid to him and as the wokman was engaged for about two hours per day for cleaning and sweeping the branch premises , purely as a stop gap arrangement, he was paid a sum of Rs . 175 per month as agreed and the allegations about completion of 240 days of continuous service are irrelevant , as the basic engagement of the workman was purely on temporary and adhoc basis and appointment of part time employees in the Bank is governed by settlement arrived at during the course ofconciliation proceedings and the permanent vacancy of part time employees ( sweepers) is filled up in terms of the PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) 4268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2012 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act and Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 were not complied with and in the decision reported in (2009 ) -S- SCC- 556 ( Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Casttribe Rajya Parivahan Sangathan ), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that Karmacharı once a labour has completed 240 days in a year, then irrespective of the judgment in Umadevi's case , he is entitled to benefits under 1.D. Act , before terminating of his services and workman included even a part time/temporary worker and therefore the workman is a workman and the termination ofhis services amounts retrenchment and the party no . 1 has not produced the rele ant documents and the termination of the services of the workman is illegal due to non-compliance of the provision of Section 25 ( F ) and 25(G) of the Act and Section 60 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

sald settlement, in the stop gap arrangement for a specific period a person can be engaged to do cleaning and sweeping work on payment at agreed rate and the workman had never approached the Bank Manager to increase his salary and to give benefits available to the peons working in permanent establishment and there was no question of the workman approaching the Manager for the same and he knew very well that the Manager cannot increase the salary and to extend other benefits and the banking service has its own rules about engagement of employees and as there was no appointment , there was no question of termination of the services of the workman and there was also no question of the workman acquiring permanent status and junior to the workman were never retained in service and there was no unfair labour practice as alleged and the discontinuation of the workman cannot be treated as termination and no show cause notice was required to be served on the workman , as there was no misconduct and the concept of 240 days of continuous service for the regularization cannot be made applicable to case of the workman , as there is no such provision in the Bi - partite Settlement , which governs the ' service conditions of the employees of the bank and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

7. On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that the workman was never appointed as a peon and he was engaged as the sweeper on stop gap arrangement and he had not completed 240 days ofwork and he was paid Rs . 175 per month as agreed and the provision of section 25 -F of the Act and Bombay Shops and Establishment Act are not applicable and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have led oral evidence , besides placing reliance on the documentary evidence , in support of their respective claims . The workman has examined himselfas a witness . In his examination- in- chief, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . In his cross - examination , the workman has admitted that he was not given any appointment letter. It is also necessary to mention here that during his cross- examination , the workman has tried to show that there was an examination for his engagement and he had also received a call letter for the examination . However, in absence of any pleading in the statement of claim and in absence of any evidence on record in that respect, such statement of the workman cannot be believed .

8.At this juncture , I think it proper to mention about the submission made by the learned advocate for the workman regarding the application of Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act . There is no pleading in the statement of claim that the provisions of Bombay shops and Establishment Act are applicable to party no . 1 . No evidence has been adduced in that respect . Hence , the submission that provision of Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act are applicable to the case of the workman has no force . Hence , with respect , I am ifthe opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the learned advocate for the workman has no application in the present case .

5. One Shri Sudhir M. Ardhapurkar , a Senior Manager (Personnel) of party no . 1 has been examined as a witness by party no. 1. This witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned by the party no . 1 in the written statement, in his evidence . In his cross - examination , the witness for the management has admitted that the workman was not working during his tenure and he has filed his affidavit on the basis of the record .

9. It iswell settled that employees employed on part time basis but under control and supervision of employer is a workman and he would be entitled to benefit of continuous service under section 25 - B and protection of section 25 - F of the Act. Hence , even if, the plea taken by the party no . I that the workman was engaged as part time sweeper is believed , still then , the workman can be said to be a workman as defined under section 2(oo) of the Act .

It is also well settled that before a workman can be considered to have one year of continuous service in an industry, it must be shown first that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and next that during the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of termination had worked for not less than 240 days .

6.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that , the workmán came to be appointed by party no . 1 on 1-1-1997 and he continued in employment till his oral termination w.e.f. 20-10-2000 with a meager salary of Rs . 175 per month and He had completed 240 days of work and the evidence adduced by the workman including Exts . W- 1 and W-2 , which have been admitted by party no . 1, clearly shows that the work man was working since January, 1997 and the 4269

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 2 मई , 2012 It isalso well settled that the initial burden is on the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his date of termination ..

का.आ. 1803.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/70/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/73/2004- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

S.O.1803 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT / NGP/ 70/2004 ) 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 India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2012 .

10. In the case , the workman besides filing his evidence on affidavit has also filed the documents , Exts . W- l and W-2 to prove that he worked for 240 days preceding the 12 calendar months of the date of his termination . The documents , Exts . 1 and 2 have been admitted in to evidence on the admission of party no . 1. Exts . 1 and 2 show that workman was working for full day from January, 1997 with party no.1 . Party no . 1 has also not denied in the written statement that the workman did not work for 240 days in a year , though it has been stated that the concept of 240 days of continuous service for the purposes of regularization is not applicable in the case of the workman . From the evidence on record , it is found that the workman has been able to show that he worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of 20-10-2000 . Hence , the termination of the services of the workman can be said to be retrenchment . As admittedly, the provisions of section 25- F of the Act i.e. one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workman before termination of his services , such termination is held to be illegal .

[No. L- 12012/73/2004- IR (B - II )] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer ANNEXURE

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

Date: 29-3-2012

Case No.CGIT /NGP/70 /2004

PartyNo. 1 : The Asstt . General Manager , Bank of India, Nagpur Zone , Zonal Office , S. V. Patel Marg, Post Box No. 4 , Nagpur- 440001 Versus

PartyNo. 2 : Shri Nathuji Vithuji Dayalwar , R/o & Post-Manora , Tah - Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS) 11. Now the moot question for consideration is as to whatrelief or reliefs the workman is entitled to. Admittedly, the workman was appointed temporarily about 15 years back. His appointment was not in accordance with instant recruitment rules ofparty no. 1. In such a case , the reliefof reinstatement cannot be justified . Hence the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service . Instead of. reinstatement , monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice . Taking into consideration the period of service of the workman and the facts and circumstances of the case in a whole , in my considered opinion , monetary compensation of Rs . 50,000 ( Rupees Fifty thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just and equitable .Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

AWARD (Dated: 29thMarch , 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman Shri Nathuji Dayalwar, for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 12012/ 73 / 2004 - IR (B - II ) dated 19-7-2004, with the following schedule:-

The action ofthe management ofthe Punjab National Bank represented by Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank, Nagpur, ( ii ) The Branch Manager , P.N.B. Branch Khamla, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Ashwin Dadarao Bhaisare R/ o Budha Nagar, Indora , Nagpur w.e.f. 20-10-2000 is illegal , improper and unjustified. The party no . 1, the Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank, Nagpur is directed to pay monetary compensation of Rs . 50,000 (Rupeesfifty thousand only ) to the workman, Shri Ashwin Dadarao Bhaisare . The award be given effect to by the party no . 1 , within one month of the date of publication of the award in the Official Gazette.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Nathuji Vithuji Dayalwar , Safai Kamgar , Bank of India , Branch Manora , Tah - Ballarpur, Distt . Chandrapur (MS ) on 4270

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

27-6-2003 is legal and justified? If not, what is the relief to which the workman is entitled?

2.On receipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Nathuji Dayalwar, (" the workman" in short) , filed the statement of claim and the management of Bank of India (" Party No.1 " in short ) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he came to be appointed with party no . 1 in the year 1996, as a safai kamgar and from the date ofhis appointment , he worked continuously with party no.1 and he was never served with any charge sheet or memo during his entire service carrier , but he was terminated from services by party no.1 orally, w.e.f. 26-6-2003 and before termination of his service, neither any notice nor notice pay in lieu of the notice or retrenchment compensation was given to him and the termination of his service was without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25 -F of the Act and there was also violation of section 25 -G of the Act, as the party no.1 did not display any seniority list and the post in which he was working is still vacant and as the termination of his service amounts to retrenchment and such retrenchment was without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25- FoftheAct , the same is illegal , arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service, as per the provisions of Section 25-Hofthe Act.

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter alia that there was no employer and employee relationship between it and the workman and the workman was never appointed as safai kamgar by it in 1996 and as such, there was no question of termination of the services ofthe workman w.e.f. 26-6-2003 orally and no post of safai kamgar is vacant with it and the workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

referred by the Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he could not be entitled to any relief.

In this case also , the workman has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim . Therefore , the workman is not entitled for any relief and the reference cannot be answered in his favour. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Nathuji Vithuji Dayalwar , Safai Kamgar, Bank of India, Branch Manora, Tah-Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur ( MS) on 27-6-2003 is legal & justified . Theworkman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 2 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1804.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यू इंडिया एश्योरेंस कं. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/30/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -17011 /4/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

S.O. 1804. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/30/2004 ) 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 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 12-4-2012.

[No. L- 17011/4/2002- IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/30 /2002

Date: 16-3-2012

PartyNo.1

4. It is necessary to mention here that even though the workman had filed his evidence on affidavit, in support ofhis claim, he did not appear for cross -examination , even though, he had been given number of opportunities for the same . As the workman did not appear for his cross- examination, by order dated 7-4-2011 , his evidence on affidavit was expunged and the evidence was closed from hisside. It is also necessary to mention here that the party no. I did not adduce any oral evidence in support of his case.

: The Regional Manager , New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. Gopalkrishna Bhavan , Near Rani Jhansi Square , Sitabuldi , Nagpur-440012

Versus

Party No. 2

5. It is well settled that when a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of his services , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce evidence , the dispute : The Secretary, TheGeneral Insurance Emplys . Union , W.Z. Branch , 15 AD , Complex , Mount Rd . Sadar, Nagpur-440012.

4271 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

AWARD

(Dated: 16th March, 2012)

In exercise 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 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and their workman Shri Arvind Jeevan Singh , for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 17011 /4/2002 - IR (B-II) dated 7-5-2002, with the following schedule:-

scope and jurisdiction of the government and in this case , the workman has claimed regular employment and the dispute has been referred by the Government assuming certain facts which do not exist and the government has already decided that there is employer - employée relationship between it and the workman and the claim for regular employment is to be adjudicated and decided , which isfactually incorrect and the reference has been made mechanically, without application of mind and no employer- employee relationship exists , as the workman was never appointed by it as alleged, hence the claim for regularization is not maintainable .

"Whether the action of the management of the New India Assurance Co. through its Regional Manager , Nagpur is justified in not regularizing Shri Arvind Jeevan Singh as Staff Car Driver w.e.f. 29-4-1998 ? If so, what relief is the said workman entitled to?"

The further case of party no . 1 is that though the disputewas raised by the union , the statement of claim has been filed by the workman and this is not a reference under Section 2A of the Act and as such, the workman has no locus standi to file the statement of claim and for that the statement of claim cannot be considered and the reference is to be answered in its favour.

2..On receipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Arvind Jeevan Singh , (" the workman " in short) filed the statement ofclaim and the management of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (" Party No. I " in short) filed its written statement .

The case of the workman as projected by the workman in the statement of claim is that he is working with party no. I since 29-4-1998 as a staff car driver on dailywages basis and he has already worked for more than 1000 days and inspite of working for more than 1000 days , hisservices have not been regularized and wages is being paid to him on vouchers and cheques and he was being paidRs . 90 per day upto September, 1999 , Rs . 133 per day inOctober and November, 1999 and Rs . 150 per day from December, 2000 onwards and he had made representations, but he did not receive any reply or positive response from party no. 1 and he has the required qualifications and valid driving license for his appointment as a driver and as he has already worked for more than 1000 days as staff car driver , he is eligible to get permanency and regular appointment as the staff car driver.

It isfurther pleaded by the party no. 1 that the workman was never appointed by it as staff car driver and infact , the services of the workman was utilized by it purely on as and when required basis and there was need for driving the staff car and the workman was engaged on day today basis and as such the question of his regularization does not arise and there is also no vacancy of driver in its Regional Office and it is a Government of India undertaking and it has well defined recruitment policy for class III and IV cadre employees and to get regular employment with it , a person has to undergo the process of selection and the case of the workman cannot be considered for regularization , as he has never employed as per its laid downprocedure and process of selection . The further case of the party no . 1 is that the workman was not regularly engaged and his service is being utilized on day to day requirement basis and wages on daily basis is being paid tohim either through vouchers or cheques and since it has no vacancy of driver and there is no policy to regularize and recruit employees through back door , it is not possible to offer regular employment to the workman and there is no merit in the dispute and the same is liable to be answered in its favour.

The workman has further pleaded that he was employed by the party no . 1 on 29-4-1998 and since then he is regularly and continuously working as a driver and hehas completed more than 240 days ofwork in every year and therefore , he has become a confirmed employee and is entitled to be regularized as a driver.

The workman has prayed to direct the party no. 1to. regularize his service as the staff car driver and to payback wages and all other consequential benefits .

4. In his rejoinder, the workman has further pleaded that the party no . 1 has regularized the services of many casual employees who were initially working as daily rated employees including Miss . Durga Mahule , who was regularized in 1994 , Mr. Santosh Wahikar, who was regularized in 1999 , Mr. Shankar Yerkantiwar, who was regularized in 1988 , Mr. Rajesh Gujarkar, who was made permanent in 1997 , Mr. Rajesh Shewere , who was made permanent in 1994 , Mr. Hemraj Ade and Chandrakant Sawarkar in 2003 .

5. Both the parties have led oral evidence in support 3.The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter -alia that the reference is not maintainable as the reference as well as the terms of the reference are patently illegal , as the government has gone into disputed question of fact, while making the reference, which is beyond the 4272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

of their respective claims , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence . The workman has examined himself as a witness in support of his claim.

The examination- in- chief of the workman is on affidavit. In his evidence , the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and rejoinder. However , in the cross - examination , the workman has admitted that no order in writing was issued and no interview was taken and he was not sponsored by Employment Exchange and he does not know how appointments are made in party no.1 and he was engaged on daily wages basis and as the work of driver was not regular, he was doing the work of peon in the office at times.

6. One Vishwas Bansi Gaikward has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party no.1 . His evidence is also in the line of the stands taken by party no.1 in the written statement . During his cross -examination , it was tried onbehalf of the workman to prove that the workman was not working as a daily wager. But, in view of the specific pleading of the workman in the statement of claim and due to the admission made by him in his evidence that his engagement by party no . I was on daily wage basis , such attempt lis of no help to the workman .

7.In the written notes of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the management had kept the workman on temporary basis for year together without regularizing his services and the post of driver is vacant and party no. I has regularized many workers, who were initially appointed on temporary basis and there was discrimination and the workman is entitled for regularization .

8. Percontra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the reference is bad in law as government has gone into disputed question of fact while making the reference and the services of the workman was untilised as and when required, basis on daily wages and day to day basis and his engagement was not in accordance with the recruitment rules of party no . 1 and as such , the case of the workman cannot be considered for regularization . In support of such contentions , learned advocate for the party no . 1 has placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1996(2) SLR- 321 ( State of Himacha! Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma) , 2007-1 - LJ - 1042 (Accounts Officer (A & 1 ) , APSRTC Vs. K. V. Ramana), (2005) 4 SCC -209 ( Binod Kumar Gupta Vs. Ram Ashray Mahato ) , AIR 2005 ( SC)-1790 ( Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh ) , AIR 1997 ( SC) -3657 ( Himanshu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar), 19941 LLJ - 5 ( Zakir Hussain Vs. Engineer- in- chief, Irrigation Department) , AIR 1992 SC-2070 ( Director, institute of Management Development Vs. PVS Smt . Puspa Srivastav ) , 1999 LLR - 439 ( State of UP Vs. Labour Court) , 2009-17 SCC - 473 (Bangalore Metropolitan Transpor . Corporation Vs. T.V. Anandappa) and some others .

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]

9. Inthe decision reported in 1996(2 ) SLR- 321 (Supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that, " appointment on daily wages basis is not an appointment to a post according to the Rules ."

10. In thedecision reported in 2007 - I -LLJ - 1042(Supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that , " Regularisation of contractual or casual employees dehors rules not to be granted by Courts . Their working for a long period not ground for regularization . "

11. In the decision reported in (2005 ) 4 SCC -209 (Supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that , " Merely because applicants were working in the post for 15 years , they cannot be allowed to continue in service . "

12. In the decision reported in AIR 2005 ( SC) 1790 (Supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that , " Daily wager- Regularisation of ServiceCompletion of240 days of continuous service in year-May not itselfbe ground for directing regularization in services-Particularly in cases when workman had not been appointed in accordance with extent rules . "

13. In the decision reported in AIR 1997 SC- 3657 (Supra) , the Hon'hie Apex Court have held that , " Daily wage employees-Appointment made on basis of need of work -Termination of their services Cannot be construed to be retrenchment- Same is not arbitrary as they are not entitled to post . "

14. In the decision reported in 1994-1 - LLJ -5 ( Supra ) , the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad have held that , " Regularisation Person appointed on adhoc basis on daily wages-Has no right to be regularized -Such person cannot claim to be regularized as a matter of right . "

15. In the present case at hand, it is clearfrom the evidence on record that the workman was engaged on daily wages basis as and when required. It is also clear from the record that the employment of the workman was not in accordance with the Rules of recruitment of party no.l. So , applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court mentioned above to the facts and circumstances of this case it is found that the workman is not entitled to claim regularization in service and he has no right to claim regularization in the post of staff car driver. Hence , it is ordered:--

ORDER

The action of the management of the New India Assurance Co. through its Regional Manager , Nagpur is justified in not regularizing Shri Arvind Jeevan Singh as Staff Car Driver w.e.f. 29-4-1998 . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4273

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 2 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1805.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 181/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 33-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -12011/72/2008- आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

Circular dated 8-8-2005 was issued in that regard . Eligible employees were called for test and interview for promotion to the aforesaid posts . Special Assistant , namely, Shri Kanti Rathi was also called for interview on 26-8-2005 . Since the enquiry was pending against him, he was not approved for promotion . He made representations dated 7-9-2005 and 27-9-2005 to the bank inthat regard . Since his representations were not answered favourably, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings failed and on consideration of failure report the Appropriate Government referred the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II , New Delhi , for adjudication vide order No.L- 12011 /72 /2008 - IR( B - II ) New Delhi , dated 22-10-2008 , with following terms:-

S.O. 1805.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 181/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2012.

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in disapproving candidature of the employee Shri Kanti Rathi , Special Assistant, Industrial Area Branch , Muzaffar Nagar, for promotion in Junior Management Grade Officers Scale- I with effect from 26-8-2005 is legal and justified ? What relief the concerned employee is entitled to and from which date ? "

[No. L- 12011/72/2008- IR (B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 181/2011

2.Claim statement was filed by Shri Rathi pleading therein that he is an activist of Trade Union movement, who espouses causes of his fellow employees . Being a dedicated and committed Trade Union worker he has raised strong voice against harassment, victimization as well as corruption of senior officers and in that process has to bear the burnt of those officers . The bank's policy and procedure for promotion of clerks and special assistants as officers are governed by settlement dated 29-10-1998. Seniority of an employee is determined on the basis of priority marks . These priority marks are given for services rendered in the bank as well as for educational qualifications , acquired by an employee . For promotion seniority and merit go together.

Shri Kanti Rathi through The Executive Member, Akhil Bhartiya PNB Workers Organisation, 898 , New Sadak , Chandni Chowk , Delhi- 110006

Claimant

Versus

The Regional Manager ,

Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, LIC Building, Prabhat Nagar, Saket , Meerut, U.P.

Management

AWARD

3. Shri Rathi asserts that on 8-8-2005 communication issued by the bank highlighted that 19 vacancies in Meerut , Muzaffar Nagar, Moradabad and Saharanpur regions of the bank were identified for promotion of eligible employees in Junior Management Scale - I through seniority cum absence of demerit basis . He was called for interview on 26-8-2005 along with other eligible employees . When result was declared he was shocked to notice that employees possessing lesser priority marks and having lesser length of service and qualification were promoted as officer. He was not approved for promotion as officer. He made representations dated 7-9-2005 and 27-9-2005 , but to no avail . The bank has discriminated him , on account ofhislegitimate trade union activities . He claims that an award may be passed to the effect that he was entitled for promotion as an officer with effect from 26-8-2005 , besides granting him consequential benefits .

1. A special assistant, working in Industrial Area , Muzaffar Nagar Branch , Punjab National Bank ( in short the Bank) was served with a charge-sheet dated 18-6-2005 . His reply to the said charge -sheet was found to be unsatisfactory, hence departmental enquiry was constituted against him . During the pendency of the said enquiry, 19 vacancies for promotion to Junior . Managemen . Grade- I were identified in Meerut, Muzaffar Nagar, Moradabad and Saharanpur Regions of the Bank .

1706GI /2012-17 4274

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

4. Claim was demurred by the bank pleading that for want of espousal by the union the dispute is not an industrial dispute . It has been agitated that promotion or non-promotion is a management function and no one can claim promotion as a matter of right . Issuance of communication dated 8-8-2005 has not been disputed. The bank projects that charge-sheet dated 18-6-2006 was served on the claimant and on the date of interview an enquiry was pending against him . The enquiry resulted in award of punishment to the claimant and he was brought down to two lower stages in the scale of pay, vide order dated 10-1-2008 .

5. The bank asserts that an employee under suspension or against whom a departmental enquiry for gross misconduct pends or who has been charge- sheeted for gross misconduct can sit in written test and interview but shall not be eligible for promotion till he is exonerated of the charges . If ultimately he is found no guilty of gross misconduct and has been approved for promotion the bank shall promote him from the date of the decision given by the disciplinary authority In case ofpunishment being awarded for gross misconduct he shall not be promoted and will not be eligible for being considered for promotion and for officiating as an officer for two years from the date of punishment. Since the departmental enquiry was pending and ultimately Shri Rathi was punished for misconduct , he was neither eligible for being considered nor entitled to be promoted as Junior Management Scale - I officer . His claim is devoid of merits , hence may be discarded, presents the bank.

6. Vide order No. Z- 22019 / 6/2007 - IR ( C - IJ ) dated 2-3-2011 the appropriate Government transferred the case to this Tribunal for adjudication .

7. Claimant has examined himself in support of his case . Shri Sanjay Sur, Manager, was brought in the witness bok by the bank . No other witness was examined by either ofthe parties .

8. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Satish Chhabra, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri Rajat Arora, authorized representative , presented his point of view on behalf of the bank. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:-

9. The claimant concedes in his testimony that on 28-8-2005 a departmental enquiry was pending against him . He does not dispute that on conclusion of that enquiry he was punished for misconduct on 10-1-2008 . He also admits that in case an employee lacks merit , the bank has a right not to promote him . Shri Sanjay Sur also projects in his testimony that the claimant was found unfit for promotion , since a departmental enquiry was pending against him at, that time. He projects that no post was kept vacant for Shri Rathi in view of the circular Ex . WW- 1/2 .

10. From the facts deposed by Shri Rathi and Shri Sur, it emerges over the record that a charge- sheet was served on Shri Rathi on 18-6-2005 for gross misconduct . An enquiry was constituted. Enquiry proceedings culminated into a proposition that Shri Rathi had committed gross misconduct . After considering the facts presented by Shri Rathi, he was awarded a punishment of bringing him down to two lower stages in scale of pay, vide order dated 10-1-2008 . During the pendency of the said enquiry, the bank identified 19 vacancies in Meerut , Muzaffar Nagar , Moradabad and Saharanpur Regions for promotion in Junior Management Scale - I through seniority cum absence of demerit and circular dated 8-8-2005 was issued in that regard . Shri Rathi was called for interview on 26-8-2005 , but not approved for promotion on account of pendency of the enquiry referred above . Policy Ex WW1 /2 was framed for promotion of clerks and special assistants as officers by way of tripartite settlement , during the course of conciliation proceedings . Clause 3 (b ) of the said policy is relevant for consideration in the present controversy. For sake of convenience the same is reproduced as follows:-

"3 (b) An employee under suspension or against whom departmental enquiry for gross misconduct is pending or who has been charge sheeted for gross misconduct , may sit in the written test and interview but shall not be eligible for promotion till he is exonerated of the charge. If ultimately he is found to be not guilty of misconduct and has been approved for promotion , the bank shall promote the said employee from the date of the said decision has been given by the disciplinary authority. In case of punishment being awarded for gross misconduct he shall not be promoted and will not be eligible for being considered for promotion and officiating for two years from the date of punishment . "

11. As conceded by Shri Rathi on 26-8-2005 , the date when he was called for interview, an enquiry for alleged commission of gross misconduct was pending against him . He was called for interview by the bank but not approved for promotion , in view of first part of clause 3 (b) of policy Ex - WW1 /2 , which was applicable to his case with all force . It is also an admitted fact that the bank could establish charges against Shri Rathi and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment to him , vide his order dated 10-1-2008 . Since the enquiry culminated in award of punishment to Shri Rathi , consequently it is evident that Shri Rath was not eligible for promotion in August 2005. The said enquiry resulted in award of punishment to Shri Rathí in January 2008 and second limb of clause 3 (b ) of the above settlement came into operation also . Therefore for next two years Shri Rathi was not eligible for being considered for [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4275

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

promotion in Junior Management Scale- I Officer of the bank. Consequently it is clear that the bank was justified in not approving Shri Rathi for promotion. There is no illegality in denial of promotion to Shri Rathi in August 2005.

12. In view of reasons detailed above , promotion was rightly not granted to Shri Rathi in August 2005. He has no claim in that regard . Award is , accordingly, passed in favour of the bank and against Shri Rathi . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 12-3-2012

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1806.-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 , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-4-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।.

[सं. एल -12012/79/2008- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

S.O. 1806. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11 / 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-4-2012 .

[No. L - 12012/79/2008 - IR (B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 29th day of February, 2012 Industrial Dispute No. 11/2009

Between :

Sri M. Behur,

Petitioner H. No. 10-4-C/48 , Addagutta, Secunderabad

AND

The General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce , Regional Office, No. 103 , H. No. 8-2-248A , Maharsh House, Road No. 3 , Banjara Hills , Hyderabad- 500 034 APPEARANCES : ...Respondent

For the Petitioner : Nil

For the Respondent : Nil

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12012/ 79 /2008 - IR (B - 11 ) dated 16-2-2009 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman . The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of. M/s . Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hyderabad ini regularizing the services of the some of the workman oferstwhile Global Trust Bank , Hyderabad and not regularizing the services of Shri M. Benhur, ex- runner is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled?"

The reference is number is this Tribunal as I.D. No. 11/2009 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. Petitioner as well as Respondent called absent on the date of hearing. Petitioner is not responding to the notices even after more than two years after receipt of the reference, as such , the matter is closed . Hence, ' Nil ' Award is passed in absence of claim statement and parties .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day of February, 2012 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the Respondent

the Petitionere Nil Nil

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil

Documents marked for the Respondent Nil 4276

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 2 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1807.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधातंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या CGITA of105 of2004 New, Ref: ITC 74/1998 Old) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41012/45/1998- आईआर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

A dispute was raised by the second party regarding strucking off the name of Shri J.K. Ved from muster roll w.e.f. 11-12-1993 without serving the transfer order dated 10-12-1993 on the employee concern , whereas the ALC (C) (Conciliation Officer) sent failure report to the Appropriate Government , and thereafter the Appropriate Government/Central Government , Ministry of Labour considering Industrial Dispute exist between the employer in relation to the management of Western Railway, Mumbai and their workman by its order No. L-41012/45/ 1998 - IR ( B - I ) New Delhi dat: 117-8-1998 in exercise of power conferred by clause (d ) of sub -section 1 of sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabd on formulating the terms of reference under the schedule as follone

SCHEDULE

S.O. 1807. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CGITA of 105 of 2004 New, Ref : ITC 74/1998 Old) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman , received by the Central Government on 1-5-2012 .

[No. L-41012/45 / 1998 - IR ( B -I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

"Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager, Baroda in strucking off the name of Shri J.K. Ved from the muster roll w.e.f. 11-12-1993 without serving the transfer order No. E/EL/2620 dated 10-12-1993 on the employee concern and also denying him to join duties at Godhara is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha ,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT- cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 3rd April , 2012

(2) On registering of the case by the Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabd the parties to the case were notice for appearance and also for filing respective- statement of claim and written statement . Both the workmen second party and the employer first party appeared and filed their respective pleadings in this case .

Reference : CGITA of 105 of 2004 (New)

Reference : ITC . 74/1998 (Old)

1. The General Manager ,

Western Railway, Churchgate , Mumbai -400001

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda ( Gujarat )

...First Party

3. Senior Electrical Foreman (Power) , Western Railway, Godhra- 389001

And their Workman

Shri . K. Ved ,

Sinduri Mata Devasthan ,

S. T. Nagar Road, Godhara

Second Pty

(Gujarat)-389001

For the first party Shri H. B. Shah , Advocat

(3) The case of the second party workman as per Ext . 2 is that he was initially appointed as a Casual Fitter on 31-7-1980 under Electric Chargeman , Godhra . Thereafter he was appointed as casual Khalasi at Godhara in Railway Electrification Project , Overhead Equipment Group No. 42 on 22-8-1981 . Subsequently he was given temporary status on 1-1-1984 and was also given all benefits as that of a permanent employee . Súbsequently he was given revised pay scale from 22-08-1981 and he performed continuous duties up to 10-12-1993 . His screening was done by the first party and on passing at the screening he was absorbed as a permanent employee . He was working as a temporary Khalasi under Assistant Traction Foreman , Dahod in T.R.D. from where he was relieved on 19-7-1987 to

For the second party Shri Vikaram Mashar , Advocate 4277

[ भाम II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

resume duties at Godhara under Assistant Traction 11-12-1993 and the act of the first party in
Foreman and he resume duties at Godhara on showing in the remarks column against the name
20-7-1987 . Further case is that since he (second of the second party that he absconded after
party) was absorbed as a permanent employee he struck off his name from muster roll . Further case
gained protection provision of articles 311 (a) as is that on 13-12-1993 first party exhibited one
well as 14, 16 of the constitution of India and Hindi version notice on the second party's
also under provisions of Industriai Dispute Act . Railway Quarter No. 328 /A GL. Yard informing to
Further case is that he was promoted to the post the second party to come to office and collect
of a Senior Khalasi and was absorbed in the transfer order and transfer pass . Then the second
grade of Rs . 870/1150 at Godhara . Subsequently party filed complaint registered as Complaint No.
he proceeded for long leave for carrying studies 2/93 in Labour Court , Godhra, under section 33A
and also passed B.A. examination as an external ofthe I.D. Act 1947 on 13-12-1993 making prayer
candidate and also passed L.L.B. examination for issuing interim injunction against opponent
through evening college . Further case is that he Railway Management . Further case is that an
was also working as Honorary Secretary of interim stay order was passed on complaint No.
General Workmen's Union . And was also involved 2/93 against the opponent party (Management
in various union activity taking cause of retired of Railway) on 13-12-1993 and the said order was
Railway Employees having its registration No. served on the Railway Management on
G/4347 dated 9-2-1988 . Further case is that seeing 14-12-1993 and the workman reported for duty on
union activity of the second party workman 14-12-1993 but Senior Electrical Foreman , power ,
taking up cause of the retired railway employee Godhra, Western Railway, did not allow him
the management of first party was biased and (workman) to resume duty by giving in writing
started carrying the malicious intention against on his letter that his name is not there now in
him , the President of the union had informed the muster roll of Godhra and so he should proceed
management of first party by registered post to Viramgam to appear before the Divisional
a/d. to notify the second party workman as a Personnel Officer and to join duty at Viramgam
protected worker . Further case is that in view of as per his transfer order. Thereafter the second
such past activities of the second party workman , party workman on 21-1-1995 filed Criminal Complaint
the management of first party took a decision and under sections 188 , 352, 504, 506 (2) of the IPC
planned for removing the second party from against Shri Fakrumiya Usmannmiya Malek Senior
Godhara by making order of transfer on Electrical Foreman power Godhra Railway Station
10-12-1993 regarding his transfer from Godhra to and the copy of complaint was sent for
Viramgam and the said order was handed over investigation by Police and thereafter chargesheet
to an officer at Baroda and directing to him to. was submitted and the case was pending in the
serve the same personally upon him (second Court of Railway Magistrate , Godhra, as case No.
party) . Further case is that the said transfer order 1017/1995 . Subsequently the said complaint case
was not personally served upon him since the was withdrawn after conciliation was arrived
second party was on earned leave 9/ 10-12-1993 between workman and the first Party No. 3
and his leave was sanctioned and was to resume Fakrumiya Usmannmiya Malek on 8-10-1997.
duties on 11-12-1993 but the health of his wife Further case is that the management of first party
was not good and so he filed an application for filed original application 175/1995 before the CAT
extending leave for 10 days more . Further case against the ad interim injunction issued by the
is that on 11-12-1993 he was not present and so Labour Court , Godhara , in which order was
the transfer order and relieving order of the passed that Labour Court Godhara should proceed
management of first party was not served upon the matter at an earliest. Thereafter on final
him and transfer pass was not issue to him . hearing of the complaint case No. 2/93 Labour
Further case is that the management of first party. Court Godhara dismissing complaint under section
prepared transfer order and relieving order on 33 A of the I.D. Act on the ground that without
11-12-1993 the copy of aforesaid relieving memo pendency of any reference case the complaint
has not yet been served on the second party by under section 33A of Industrial Dispute Act
any means and the first party illegally have cannot be entertained. Thereafter on rejection of
strucked off his name from the muster roll from the complaint No. 2/93 , the second party filed

4278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012 / JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Special Civil Application No. 7734/1995 before the emoluments vide office order No. DRM ( E) dated
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which was 10-3-1993 and was relieved from SEF Godhara
dismissed on the ground that as per provision dated 11-12-1993 , but the second party because
of section 28 of the Industrial Dispute Act , the of knowledge of transfer evaded the process of
High Court has no jurisdiction . Thereafter the service of relieving memo. The relieving memo
Industrial Dispute was raised by the second could not be served upon the second party and
party before the ALC ( C) and on failure report hence therefore the relieving memo was pasted
the reference was sent for adjudication by the at the authorised residence of second party on
Appropriate Government . Further case is that the 13-12-1993 . The second party has had knowledge
order of transfer of the second party from Godhara of his transfer and every steps taken against him
to Viramgam was passed with malicious intention by the management of first party and so on
and vengeance and the first party had not taken receiving of the transfer order, the second party
care whether the second party is junior or senior had obtained stay against transfer from Labour
Khalasi and in the whole division singly passed Court , Godhara and was served on DRM ( E)
order of his transfer. On these grounds prayer Western Railway Baroda on 15-12-1993 . It is the
has been made that struck off the name of the case of the first party that the transfer order
second party workman J.K. Ved w.e.f. 11-12-1993 against the second party was duly implemented
in the muster roll at Godhara be declared illegal , and stay is after implementation of transfer order
null and void , and for reinstating the workman and so the transfer order having valid effect .
from 11-12-1993 and all other wages and bonus Further case is that while implementing the transfer
money be also ordered to be paid by the first order against the second party workman all
party to the second party and also making prayer necessary formalities were observed and complete
for cost of this case . by the first party. Further case is that the
(4) The case of the management of first party as per impugned transfer order is rotational - regular
transfer. It is not with malafide intention or
its written statement at Ext . 6 pleading inter - alia
is that present reference referred for adjudication transfer by victimisation . The hardship is not a
in not maintainable , the dispute referred for ground to challenge the impugned transfer order
adjudication is barred by delay, latches and passed by the authority competent to issue
transfer order . The transfer is not violative of the
acquiesces and that the delay defeat rights and
remedies and so present reference is not statutory rules , the second party is having no
maintainable under the law. The case of the vested right to remain at Godhara and so the
management of first party is that on 11-12-1993 second party cannot challenge the said transfer as
there was not termination of the service on the a matter of right . The incident and syllabus submitted
second party rather the second party was by the second party does not effect the right of
transferred in the interest of administration from the first party to transfer as per statutory rules ,
transfer is made and on transfer , name of the second
Godhara and was posted at Viramgam , and so due
to transfer of the workman his name was struck party struck off from the muster roll , does not fall
off from the muster roll at Godhara and so within the purview of the Industrial Dispute . More
strucking off the name of the workman is not a so, the impugned transfer is a discretion. Transfer
termination nor a retrenchment and so this at other place in the same grade , post is permissible
reference is also not maintainable . On these under the law and is a right of the employer and
scores and is fit to be dismissed. The management the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
interfere in such trasnfer. The transfer of the second
of first party have categorically denied all the
allegation made parawise by the workman in his party workman was made purely on administrative
statement of claim and also stated that the grounds. And the said transfer order is fully
second party workman is required strict proof of implemented on 13-12-1993 , the second party had
the allegations made in the paras No. 1 to 28 of already been served at Godhara for more than 5
the statement of claim (Ext . 2) . It is the cases of years. The second party is junior most senior
Khallasi . The transfer order was served upon the
the management of first party that the second
party workman Shri J.K. Ved was working as second party by affixing at his residential quarter
Senior Khalasi under SEF Godhara, was transferred and the second party was relieved from 11-12-1993 .
from Godhara to Viramgam on the same post and The second party is not protected workman , the

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4279

भारत का सजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

union is not a recognized union . The name of the second party was struck off from the muster roll of SEF. Godhara after implementing the transfer order. So, it not correct to allege by the second party that the action to struck off name from muster roll is illegal . Further case is that struck of name of the second party from the muster roll is not due to termination but due to his transfer and so there is no termination by way of retrenchment of the second party. Hence the second party is not entitled for reinstatement at original post i.e. at Godhara in view of the terms of reference itself. Further case is that due to knowledge of the transfer the second party was evading the process of service and so by following the prescribed mode of service, the said transfer order is served upon the second party by affecting the same at his known residential address and thereafter action to struck off his name from muster roll is not violative in law or contrary to law . On these scores prayer has been made to dismiss the reference with cost .

(5) In view of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken for discussion and determination in this case .

ISSUES

(i) Whether the reference is maintainable ?

(ii) Has the workman ( second party) got valid cause of action to raise dispute?

( iii) Whether the workman is protected workman and whether he has right to be posted at Godhara by ignoring his transfer being a periodical/regular and whether the workman was not a railway services to face incident of transfer ?

( iv) Whether the management of first party has no right to affect any transfer of so called protected workman in the interest of administration .

(v) Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager Baroda in strucking off the name of the workman Shri J.K. Ved from muster roll w.e.f. 11-12-1993 by transfer order No. E/EL/2620 dated 10-12-1993 is justified and legal ? Whether the second party workman has knowledge about his transfer order dated 10-12-1993 ? Whether the transfer order was duly served at the residential quarter of the second party workman on 13-12-1993 by mode of service of pasting of the order at this residence ?

(vi) Whether the interim injunction order passed by the Labour Court, Godhara in complaint No. 2/93 against RailwayAdministration has got any bearing upon the transfer order of the workman considering. also that the said complaint case was filed by the workman without having any reference case pending that finally resulted in its dismissal can go to create any right upon the second party workman Shri J. K. Ved for his reinstatement at Godhara ?

(vii) Whether the transfer order of the second party workman is legal and justified ?

(viii) Whether the second party workman is entitled to get any relief in this case ?

( ix) What orders are to be passed ?

FINDINGS

(6) Issue No. III

The case of the second party workman as per statement of claim at Ext. 2 is that the working President of his union has sent the name of the second party workman in the office of the first party for treating the second party as protected workman . Whereas the first party in its written statement clearly denied such status as of the second party workman Shri J.K. Ved . On the ground that union of the second party workman is not recognized by the Railway Administration . The second party workman in his oral evidence at Ext . 13 has simply stated in examination- in -chief that he was working Secretary of General Workmen's union and so defending the railway employees through union but has not stated that his status was of a protected workman . Even he has not stated as per statement of claim that working President of the General Workman's union had sent his name being protected workman to the first party. There is also no such evidence of the second party workman thatthe Railway Administration has ever considered him as protected workman he was thoroughly cross - examined by the lawyer of the first party. During the cross- examination the second party workman had admitted that this reference was made for deletion of his name from muster roll at Godhara through he further stated showing ignorance that he does not know as to whether his name was deleted on account of his transfer from Godhara to Viramgam . Further he denied that his transfer was made from Godhara to Viramgam as per transfer order. He also admitted that he has not taken charge at Viramgam . Taking such ground that he has not been relieved though he denied that his transfer order and relieving order was not served upon him by affixing at the address of his house but he admitted that he obtained stay order from the Labour Court Godhara against his order of transfer by the first party. The management witness namely Rajendra Prasad an officer O.S. serving at DRM office , Western Railway, Baroda in his oral evidence at Ext. 18. Stated that the workman J.K: Ved was serving as Senior Khalasi in Electrical Foreman at Godhara which falls within Baroda Division of Western Railway and that at the time of transfer of the workman vide order dated 4280

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

Godhara to Viramgam in the same office and on the same post and pay scale . Further evidence is that it is not true that due to union activities of the second party, management had with a view to punish/victimize second party had ordered to transfer. Further evidence is that the second party has not raised any dispute about transfer and instead of challenging transfer the second party has raised dispute about the strucking off his name from muster roll . The management witness was thoroughly cross - examined by the lawyer of the second party. It has come during the cross - examination that relieving order and duty pass were given to Shri J.K. Ved ( second party workman) but same were not personally served upon to him because he had left the duty place on 11-12-1993 without seeking permisson amd the same were served Shri J.K. Ved by affixing at his house . During cross- examination nothing could have been gained by the workman to show that he was a protected workman.

(7) From scrutinizing the evidence , I am of opinion that the second party workman Shri J.K. Ved though Hononary Secretary of General Workman's Union is not protected workman so second party workman is not entitled for privileges of a protected workman to be posted forever at Godhara by ignoring the incidents of transfer of a Railway Servant as per Railway Manuals and Rules governing the transfer of Railway servant in the interest of administration . This issue is therefore decided against the second party workman.

(8) ISSUE NO . IV & V

Since the second party workman has utterly failed to prove that his status is of being a protected workman . So, in that view of the matter, the management of first party has every right to affect the transfer of Shri J.K Ved second party workman in the interest of administration as per Railway Establishment Manual . Chapter- V which provides regarding general conditions of service also dealing with the different kinds of transfer. More so , as per transfer order dated 10-12-1992 Annexure-A to the evidence of management witness it is crystal clear that the transfer of Shri J.K. Ved was issued in the interest of administration with immediate effect . The workman was in the scale of Rs . 800-1750 (RP) work under SEF /GDA . He was transferred in the same scale and pay and posted at Viramgam under SELC/ VG against existing vacancy. Admittedly the workman was serving as class - IV staff at Godhara and he was posted at Godhara for considerable long period of more than 5 years and so the Railway Administration had every right for his tmnsfer in the interest of administration . More so , the order of transfer is very much clear in the 3rd paragraphs of the transfer order, it has been mentioned " he (Shri J.K. Ved) be relieved immediately. He should avail 10 days joining time , TA , DA etc. after resuming at Virarngam under advice to this office" Annexure - B attached with transfer order, Annexure - A attached with 10-12-1993 Godhara and Viramgam Railway Stations both were falling within the Baroda division , presentably on formation of new Ahmedabad Division Viramgam now comes within the jurisdiction Ahmedabad division . Further evidence of management witness is that on administration ground the second party was transferred from Godhara to Viramgam on the same post , office and on the same pay scale and that the transfer order was issued by the competent authority and the transfer order was issue in the interest of administration and with immediate effect and that Shri J.K. Ved was relieved at Godhara on 11-12-1993 vide relieving memo No. EL/ GLE/ 20 ( 1 ) dated 11-12-1993 ( mark-B) . His further evidence is that but due to knowledge of transfer on 11-12-1993 , the workman had left the employment place without permission and so the relieving memo could not be personally served on the workman during duty hours on 11-12-1993 . Further evidence is that the Railway Administration had tried to serve personally the transfer memo upon Shri J.K. Ved , but was not available at his house that time and so his father was informed to send hirm to office to accept and receive the relieving memo and duty pass . Further evidence is that by mode of service the relieving memo was pasted at the place of residence of the second party on 13-12-1993 atler following due procedure and that relieving memo was posted at the residence of the second party in presence of Chief Electrical Foreman , Senior Electrical Foreman , Electrical Foreman , Electrical Fitter grade one ( P) on 13-12-1993 as per ( Marked- C) . Further evidence is that. the second party workman failed to attend office to receive relieving memo and duty pass to carry out his transfer and that fully knowing about transfer order and relieving memo , the second party workman had approached Labour Court at Godhara for stay of his transfer. His further evidence is that the interim stay order of Labour Court was served in the office DRME (Western Railway Baroda) on 15-12-1993 . Whereas the second party workman had already been relieved from Godhara for joining to Viramgam . At para 17 the management witness has given evidence regarding three modes as per Railway Establishment Manual , Chapter- V provides general conditions of service . ( I ) Railway employee can be transferred on promotion , ( II ) Railway employee can be transferred in the interest of Administration , ( III ) Railway employee can be transferred on request . Further evidence is that the transfer of the second party is routine transfer in the interest administration and not as a punishment . Further evidence is that the second party workman had worked at Godhara for the last 5 years and he had no vested right to serve atGodhara ony forever and that the transfer is incident of service of Railway Employee . Further evidence is that the second party workman was junior mest senior Khalasi at the time of his issuing transfer orde . Further evidence is that the second party was transfered from [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : माई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5, 1934

4281

relieving memo with transfer duty pass etc. there is only evidence of the workman in denial that as yet the transfer order dated 10-12-1993 and relieving memo dated 11-12-1993 and the duty pass had not been served upon him . Whereas such action on part of the second party workman that he filed complaint case 2/93 u/s 33A of ID. Act, before Labour Court, Godhara without having any reference case pending u/s 10 of Industrial Dispute in connection with his transfer order and making attempt by filing the said complaint case No. 2/93 on 13-12-1993 and application for interim injunction and also getting interim injunction order for stay of transfer speaks a volume that it was quite within knowledge of the second party workman that he has been transferred in the interest of administration from Godhara to Viramgam vide transfer order dated 10-12-1993 and to avoid receiving the copy of transfer order and relieving memo with transfer duty pass . On 11-12-1993 the workman knowingly and purposely left the duty place unauthorisely and without seeking permission and thereafter sent application for 10 days leave through his daughter without seeking for personal interview in the office of the Electrical Foreman also speaks a vohume that the workman from the very beginning was in fighting mood with the Railway Administration and for that purpose wrongly approached the Labour Court, Godhara , and filed complaint case No. 2/93 under section 33 A of the I.D. Act without any pendency of reference case and obtained an interim order of injunction regarding stay of his transfer . All such efforts on part of the second party workman and the papers also filed on behalf of the second party workman in stead of proving his such plea that their had been no personal service of transfer order and relieving memo with copy of transfer duty pass itself go to prove that it was well within knowledge of the second party workman that he has been transferred and also relieved w.e.f. 11-12-1993 and even then illegally approached Labour Court , Godhara on 13-12-1993 by filing complaint case 2/93 uls 33 of ID Act which ought not have to be entertain in the Labour Court, Godhara , in view of the admitted position that their had been no any reference case pending against the order of transfer at that time.

the oral evidence of the management witness at Ext . 18, is the relieving order dated 11-12-1993 incorporating about the transfer order E/EL/2620 dated 10-12-1993 of DRM (E) Baroda. through it was informed to the workman that " his application for leave from 11-12-1993 for 10 days is being rejected and he is being relieved from duty at Godhara and is also directed to approach to chargeman Viramgam as to reporting for duty and also attaching the transfer duty pass No. F340390 dated 11-12-1993 from Godhara to Viramgam for his journey " . There is endorsement at foot of the Annexure-B incorporating in. the note that he and Shri Santosh Kumar, Electrical Chargeman on 11-12-1993 at about 15.00 hours went to the quarter of the workman Shri J.K. Ved to serve the transfer order and memo containing duty pass and the relieving order dated 11-12-1993 to Shri J.K. Ved but he was not found at his house to receive it . Further as per Annexure- C attached to the oral evidence of the management witness at Ext . 18 is the noting of the Senior Electrical Foreman , Western Railway, Godhara. dated 13-12-1993 as per EL/GDA/20 address to the workman J.K. Ved Senior Khalasi ( P) Godhara, Quarter No. 328/ L/ A type ( 1 ) GR, Godhara , on the subject of promotion , demotion and transfer of 4th grade Railway Employee with reference to DRM ( E) Baroda . letter No. E/EL/ 2010 dated 10-12-1993 . From going through this noting it appears that on 11-12-1993 at 8 AM the workman Shri J.K. Ved had arrived in the office of Senior Electrical Foreman , Godhara for duty and at 9.15 am he left the duty place unauthoriselly and without getting permission from the Foreman and for the search of Shri J.K. Ved, Shri Gomes B. and Shri B.M. Vyas were sent but he (workman) was not in office or anywhere at duty place and that subsequently an application was sent by Shri J.K. Ved through her daughter for 10 days leave but the workman had not himself submitted the leave application nor appeared for getting permission for leave and so the leave application sent through his daughter was rejected also in that view that his transfer has already been affected by DRM order dated 10-12-1993 with relieving memo and transfer duty pass directing report to the Senior Electrical Foreman, Viramgam and that the workman since had also been relieved from forenoon of 11-12-1993 vide GDA/20 dated 11-12-1993 . The said Note also contains the factum of affecting service of the transfer memo and relieving order on 13-12-1993 by pasting at the workman's residential quarter on 13-12-1993 at 8.50 hours in presence of N.H. Chanchalani , Shri F.U. Malek , Shri Subhash Kumar and Shri Sikandar U. containing their signatures dated 13-12-1993 also attached with copy of the muster roll showing strucking off name of the second party workman w.e.f. 11-3-1993 due to his transfer from Godhara to Viramgam . As against the over welling evidence of the first party regarding the transfer of the workman in the interest of administration and about the mode of service of transfer order and

(9) Upon consideration of the evidence and the materials discussed above and also taking in view all the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the management of first party has every right to affect transfer of Shri J.K. Ved who was not a protected workman in the interest of administration . I further find and hold that since transfer is incident of service of Railway Employee so the action of the Senior Electrical` Foreman ( first party No. 3) in strucking off the name of the workman from muster roll at Godhara w.e.f. 11-12-1993 is just and proper . So the issue No. IV is decided accordingly in favour of the first party that the first party had every right to affect transfer of the second party workman in the interest of administration . Likewise issue

1706 GI/ 2012-18 4282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

No. V is also decided in favour of the first party that the action of the first party in strucking off the name of workman in muster roll at Godhara w.e.f. 11-12-1993 isjust and proper in view of incident of transfer of the second party workman from Godhara to Viramgam and such strucking off the name of the second party workman was not tantamount to termination or retrenchment of the 'second party workman.

(10) ISSUE Nos . VI & VII

office (E) it appears that 10 days joining time had been given to the second party workman after he being relieved immediately, the workman was relieved on 11-12-1993 , thereafter the workman appeared before the Senior Foreman , Godhara on 14-12-1993 on the basis of alleged interim stay of his transfer order, and asking to allow him to join at Godhara and on that day the workman was also made to know that he has been relieved on 11-12-1993 . and his name from the ntuster roll has been strucked off since he has to join at the transfer place Viramgam and the service of the transfer order with relieving memo etc. have been affected on 13-12-1993 but even than on 14-12-1993 the second party workman could not show any repentance rather remained imbolden with the interim stay order granted by the Labour Court, Godhara, but infact the Labour Court , Godhara was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the complain case No. 2/93 u/s 33 A of ID Act since no reference case was pending, that resulted in final dismissal of the complaint case . So , in that view of the matter any interim injunction order so passed in non maintainable complaint case No. 2/93 shall having no bearing affect against the transfer order dated 10-12-1993 followed by the relieving memo from duty and strucking off his name from muster roll at Godhara Issue No. VI is , therefore , also decided against the workman . In view of the findings given above, I further find and hold that the transfer order of the workman Shri J.K. Ved is legal and just so the terms of reference as per schedule is answered in favour of the first party that the action of the Divisional Railway Manager , Baroda, in strucking off the name of Shri J.K. Ved from the muster roll w.e.f. 11-12-1993 is legal , just and proper. Since the order of transfer with memo etc. had been effectively served upon the workman and the workman had every knowledge of his transfer order that he has been relieved from duty by strucking off his name from muster roll on 11-12-1993 .

( 11 ) ISSUE Nos . I , II & VIII

In view of the findings given to issue Nos . III, IV, V, VI & VII in the forgoing paragraphs , I further find and hold that the reference is not maintainable and the second party workman has no valid cause of action to raise dispute at such belated stage and so the workman is not entitled to get the relief for his reinstatement by his posting at Godhara since after strucking off his name from muster roll at Godhara . on 11-12-1993 .

( 12) ISSUE NO . X

This reference is dismissed on contest with cost ofRs . 500 .

This is my award .

Such evidence of the workman as per his oral deposition at Ext. 13 that after obtaining injunction order of the stay of his transfer, he went to the office of Electrical Foreman , Godhara for joining duty on 14-12-1993 has no leg to stand because interim injunction order of the Labour Court , Godhara, passed on 13-12-1993 in connection with the complaint Case 2/93 had itself got no any bearing upon the transfer order of the workman since the filing of complaint No. 2/93 in the Labour Court, Godhara was not at all maintainable because of having no any reference case pending . So , admittedly taking such view finally the complaint case No. 2/93 was dismissed as not maintainable , the result of dismissal of the complaint case No. 2/93 certainly with the effect that even having an interim order of injunction passed by the Labour Court , Godhara , on 13-12-1993 against the Railway Administration in that complaint case that order was not binding upon the Railway Administration , because the workman had not challenged his transfer order by raising an Industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer in the year 1993 , on issue of the transfer order dated 10-12-1993 . So, there had been no any reference case challenging the transfer order and so there had been no any case as to change of service condition of the workman . Infact there was no any Industrial Dispute pending on the date of issuing of the transfer order dated 10-12-1993 or on issue relieving order of the workman with struck off his name from muster roll on 11-12-1993 . The entire action of the workman right from filing unwarranted complaint case No. 2/93 u/s 33 A of I.D. Act and thereafter approaching to the Hon'ble High Court for redressal that also went in vain by dismissal of the writ application so file by the applicants , itself go to speak a volume that by hook and by crook the second party workman was adamant to resist illegally as to his incident of transfer which was to be observed by the Railway Servant as per Railway Establishment Manual Chapter - V providing condition of service including also dealing with the different kind of transfer including transfer of Railway Employee in the interest of administration . From very perusal of the transfer order dated 10-12-1993 issued from the Divisional

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer 4283 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 2 मई , 2012

Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the General Secretary, North Eastern Railway Shramik Sangh , 96/196, Old Ganeshganj , Lucknow and the Sr. Section Engineer ( Railpath ) , North Eastern Railway, Sitapur ( U.P. ) and the Assistant Engineer, NorthEastern Railway, Sitapur ( U.P. ) for adjudication.

2.The reference under adjudication is:

का.आ. 1808.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर - पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41011 /24/2006- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

"Kya Prabandhan Purvottar Railway Sitapur Dwara Shri Abdul Hamid Putra Shri Jalaluddin Senior Track Man Ko Purv Main Niyojan Ki Tithi Se Lagataar Hammerman Ka Kary Liye Jaane Ke Upraant Dinank 11/02/93 Se Hammerman Ka Pad Laabh May Vetan Sahit Na Diya Jaana Va Kanishth Kanukaaren Se Upar Variyatanusaar Varishthata Ka Nirdharan Kar Samast Laabh Na Pradaan Kiya Jana Nyayochit Even Vaidh Hai? Yadi Nahi To Kaamgaar Kis Rahat ko Pane Ka Adhikaari Hai ? "

S.O. 1988.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 7/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-5-2012.

[No. L-41011 /24/2006- IR (B-1)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXERE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EIDUSTIMAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. MANJU NIGAM , PresidingOfficer

I.D. No. 07/2007

3. The case ofthe workman's union , in brief, is that theworkman, Abdul Hamid was engaged on 10-2-1974 as temporaryHammer man/black smith and he worked as such till 15-3-1977 . The details of the same were mentioned in his Casual Labour Card; but he has been denied of the benefits available to the post. It has further been submitted that the workomen was given temporary status from 16-9-1981 and was made regular with given posting on 16-4-87 . The workman's union has alleged that the railway management tookwork ofHammerman ; but he was deprived of post and salary associated to the post and instead he was given postand pay ofGangman , which is violative of the labour laws . Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that the workman be promoted from Gangman to Artisan Khalasi/Helper w.e.f. 11-2-1993 and be given consequential benefits.

Ref. No. L-41011 /24/206- IR (B - 1 ) dated: 10-4-2007

BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary, North Eastern Railway Shramik Sangh 96/196, Old Ganeshganj , Lucknow (Espousing cause of Shri Abdul Hamid)

AND

1. The Sr. Section Engineer (Railpath) North Eastern Railway Sitapur(U.P.)

4.The management of the railways has disputed the claim ofthe workman by filing its written statement wherein it has submitted that the workman was granted temporary status after completion of 120 days as casual labour w.e.f. 16-9-1981 as per his eligibility and norms . It further submitted that the workman worked from 16-9-1981 to 15-4-1987 in the time scale , thereafter he was regularly i appointed on the post of Gangman w.e.f. 16-4-87 and in fact he never worked as a Hammerman , at any point oftime. Atpresent the workman is working on the post of Senior Trackman and as such cannot be promoted /selected to the post of Artisan-Helper. Accordingly, the management of the railways has prayed that he claim of the workman's union be rejected without any claim to the workman concerned.

2. The Assistant Engineer North Eastern Railway Sitapur(U.P.)

AWARD

5. The workman's union has filed rejoinder whereby ithas only reiterated its averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new fact.

6. The workman's union has filed photocopies of certain documents vide list of documents dated 15-6-2009 1. By order No. L -41011 /24/ 206 - IR ( B- 1 ) dated: 10-4-2007 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the 4284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

and subsequent vide list dated 1-11-2010 , in support of his case whereas the management filed none.

workman's union that workman worked as Hammerman but was denied pay and privileges attached to the post. This claim has been denied by the management ; therefore, itwas for the workman's union to lead evidence to show thathe actually worked as Hammer man and he was entitled to get benefits available to the post . The workman's union though filed documentary evidence vide list dated 8-4- 2011 ; which included photocopy of various documents , the few of them are illegible ; moreover it did not turn up to prove the photocopy of the documents filed , in evidence before this Tribunal .

7.After completion of pleadings on behalf of the parties , the parties were called upon to file documentary evidence in support of their respective case and accordingly, the workman's union filed documents vide list dated 8-4-2011 and the management of the railways filed none. Thereafter, 5-1-2011 was fixed for evidence of the workman'sunion but it did not file any . The workman's union was given opportunities , time and again to file its evidence on affidavit on several dates but it failed to comply with the directions ; and accordingly, the management was afforded opportunity to file its evidence on 15-5-2012 and it too did not make any effort to file its evidence in support of its case.

13. In 2008 ( 118) FLR 1164 M/ s. Uptron Powertronics Employees' Union , Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ( 11 ) , Ghaziabad & others , Hon'ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex Court in 1979 (39 ) FLR 70 ( SC ) Sanker Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd .. 19" 9 ( 39 ) FLR 70 (SC) V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and others , 1984 (49 ) FLR 38 Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and others and 1996 (74) FLR 2004 ( ALLd. ) Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others ; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

8. It is noteworthy to mention that in the instant case the authorized representative of the workman's union made his last appearance on 30-5-2011 and since then he is not turning up to contest its case . The authorized representative of the opposite party also is not taking pain in contesting the case for last several dates . When none turned up from the workman's union in spite of the notice, the case was reserved for award as it pertained to the year2007.

"thatin absence of any evidence ledby or on behelf ofthe workman the reference is bound to be answered by the Court against the workman . In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all . The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation . The test would be , who would fail if no evidence isled."

9. The case of the workman's union was that the railway management took work of Hammerman from the workman; but he was deprived of post and salary associated to the post and instead he was given post and pay ofGangman and that the workman be promoted from Gangman to Artisan Khalasi/ Helper w.e.f. 11-2-1993 and be given consequential benefits .

10. Per contra, the management of the railways has contested that the workman was granted temporary status after completion of 120 days as casual labour w.e.f. 16-9-1981 and further that the workman worked from 16-9-1981 to 15-4-1987 in the time scale , thereafter he was regularly appointed on the post of Gangman w.e.f. 16-4- 87 and in fact he never worked as a Hammerman , at any point of time. Hence , he is entitled to the post or the benefits associated to it .

11. In view of rival contentions of the parties , I have scanned entire material placed on the file.

14. In the present case the workman's union has not turned to substantiate his case by way of filing any oral evidence .Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was obligatory on the part of workman's union to come forward with the case that the workman worked as Hammerman and he was deprived of the benefits available to the post; but the workman's union failed to forward any evidence in support of its claim , as it did not turn up for filing its evidence before this Tribunal . There is no reliable material for recording findings that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the action of the management of North Eastern Railway in denying the workman the benefits of the post of Hammerman is illegal andunjustified.

15. Accordingly , the reference is adjudicated against the workman's union ; and as such , I come to the conclusion that the workman , Abdul Hamid is not entitled to any of the relief claimed .

16. Award as above .

Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer

Lucknow 19-4-2012

12. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of action , the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the action and if no evidence is produced by the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court, must fail . In the present case burden was on the workman's union to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the action ofthe management in denying the workman the post of Hammerman and salary associated to the post; and to prove that the action of the management in denying the benefits ofthe said post was illegal . It was the case of the [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4285

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012/ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 2 मई , 2012

का.आ. 1809.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कस्टम एयरपोर्ट 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 397/2004, 398/2004,402/2004 और 415/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 192/2003- आईआर ( सीएम -11 ) ,

सं. एल-42012/194/2003- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) , सं. एल-42012/193/2003- आईआर ( सीएम-11 ) , सं. एल-42012/195/2003- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

S.O. 1809.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. Nos . 397/ 2004, 398/2004, 402/2004 and 415/2004) ofthe Cent . Govt . Indus. Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Custom (Airport ) , Custom ( Airport ) , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on2-5-2012.

[No. L-42012/ 192/2003 - IR( CM - II ),

No. L-42012/ 193 /2003 - IR(CM- II ),

No. L -42012/194/2003- IR (CM- II ),

No. L-420 12/ 195/2003 - IR(CM - II ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 24th April , 2012

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

I.D. Nos . 397, 398, 402 and 406 of 2004

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), between the Management of Commissioner of Customs ( Airport) and their workmen]

IDNo.

S. No.

Reference No. and Date

Name of the 2nd Party

Name ofthe

IstParty

1 . 397/2004

Sri R. Panneerselvam

L-42012/ 192/2003 - IR (CM- II ) dated 2-8-2004

2. 398/2004

1. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport ) , Custom(Airport) , Custom House , 33 , Rajaji Salai , Chennai - 600001

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport) , Custom ( Airport ) , Chennai AirportMeenambakkam , Chennai - 600027

Sri S. Jagannathan

L-42012/ 193/2003 - IR (CM - II) dated 2-8-2004

3. 402/2004

1. The Commissioner of Customs (Airport ) . Custom (Airport), Custom House, 33 , Rajaji Salai , Chennai - 600001

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport) , Custom (Airport ) , Chennai AirportMeenambakkam , Chennai - 600027

Sri P. Rajagopal

L-42012/194/2003 - IR (CM- II ) dated 2-8-2004

4. 415/2004

1. The Commissioner of Customs ( Airport ) . Custom (Airport ) , Custom House, 33 , Rajaji Salai , Chennai -600001

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport ) , Custom ( Airport ) , Chennai AirportMeenambakkam, Chennai - 600027

Sri S. P. Arunraj

L-42012/195/2003 - IR (CM- II)dated 14-2-2005

1. The Commissioner of Customs ( Airport ) . Custom (Airport) , Custom House , 33. Rajaji Salai , Chennai - 600001

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Airport ) , Custom ( Airport ) , Chennai AirportMeenambakkam , Chennai - 600027 4286

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/ JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

Appearance :

Forthe 1st Party/ Petitioner

M/s . K. V. Krishnaswami , Advocate Sri C. Durai , Advocate

For the 2nd Party /Management

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour and Employment vide the above order of references referred the IDs mentioned above to this Tribunal for adjudication;

2. The schedule mentioned in the order of reference in the above IDs are as under :

ID 397/2004

"Whether the action of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport ) in terminating the services of Sri R. Paneerselvam with effectfrom 5-2-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

ID 398/2004

"Whether the action of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport ) in terminating the services of Sri S. Jagannathan witheffect from 5-2-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

ID 402/2004

"Whether the action of the Commissioner of Customs ( Airport) in terminating the services of Sri P. Rajagopal with effectfrom 5-2-1999 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ?"

ID 415/2004

"Whether the action of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) in terminating the services of Sri S. P. Arunraj with effect from 5-2-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

3. After the receipt of Industrial Disputes , this Tribunal has numbered it as I.D. 397 , 398 , 402 and 415 of 2004 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim and Counter Statements as the case may be .

4 In all these cases , the claims of the petitioners are common. On behalf of the petitioners , a memo was filed to the effect that since the issues are the same , common set of documents is adopted . Memo is recorded . The petitioner has also adduced evidence in common for all the IDs .

5. The averments in the separate Claim Statements butcommon or the same in all briefly read as follows:

enquiry CBI officials sent them back saying that departmental enquiry has been recommended . But no enquiry was held by the Customs Department . On the contrary they were denied employment from the next day. They were advised to wait for some time for employment as they were expecting instructions from higher authorities , but in vain, despite their further efforts . ( i) R. Govindarajan , Superintendent , ( ii ) Anburaj , Officer now promoted as . Superintendent , ( iii ) Kirupa Ramanan , Superintendent now promoted as Asstt. Commissioner at Kolkata , Nagi , Officer now promoted as Superintendent , Venkatesa Kurup , Officer now promoted as Superintendent at Airport , Romy, Senior Officer now Superintendent, Gunalan , Superintendent ( now retired) , Anbalagan , then Asstt . Commissioner now promoted as Joint Commissioner at Hyderabad and Hemavathi , then Asstt . Commissioner and now promoted as Joint Commissioner at Chennai were the persons involved in the said CBI raid on 5-2-1999 and they were only responsible for the seized goods and foreign currencies . Custom Department did not conduct enquiry fearing action against the Officers . Hence they simply kept quiet making petitioners as scapegoats and jobless . Petitioners are innocent and have not been involved in any offence . They as labourers had only to obey the orders and instructions of their higher authorities . The goods and foreign currencies were seized from the lockets of the rest room of the Officers of the Customs Department . They were simply and silently sent out of employment to save the customs officials . The ID raised having ended in a failure report the reference is occasioned. The action in terminating their services is illegal , unlawful and opposed to the principles of natural justice and the same is to be set aside and the petitioners be reinstated with all benefits .

The petitioners viz . S/Sri R. Paneerselvam , S. Jagannathan , P. Rajagopal and S.P. Arunraj joined the service of the Respondent . R. Paneerselvam joined the service of the Respondent in the year 1990 and worked till 5-2-1999 . S. Jagannathan joined the service of the Respondent on 24-3-1982 and worked till 5-2-1999 . P. Rajagopal joined the service of the Respondent in March 1982 and worked till 5-2-1999 and S. P. Arunraj joined the service ofthe Respondent in the year 1985 and worked till 5-2-1999 , all of them as labourers under R1 and R2 . Their services were continuous without any blemish and they were paid a consolidated amount of Rs . 2,500 each per month. In a CBI raid on 5-2-1999 whereby foreign currency and goods worth more than Rs . 50.00 lakhs were seized by CBI officials the responsible custom officials pointed out the petitioners and 6 others , all of whom had been working withthem as labourers to CBI officials viz . ( i ) Raghu Kumar, DSP, (ii ) Suresh Kumar, Inspector , (iii ) Salam , Inspector and (iv) Kuruvilla, Inspector who took them to custody and detained at CBI office , Shastri Bhawan , Chennai . After oral

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934
4287
6. The averments in the separate Counter Statements , Points (i) and( ii)
but the same and common , in contents are as follows:
10.Heardboth sides . Perused the records , documents
Customs Department does not fall within the and the evidence and written arguments on either side .
categories of industries under Section (j ) of the I.D. Act, Contentions on behalf of the petitioner are that the co-
1947. Hence the I.D. is not maintainable . The department is petitioners had been working continuously as Casual
a wing under the Central Government to do a ministerial Labour from 1982 onwards until 5-2-1999 with a consolidated
function which is quasi -judicial . The nature of its work is salary of Rs . 2,500 per month , that they were not being
enforcement oriented and not profit oriented. Its allowed tojoin duty on 6-2-1999 in the wake of a CBI raid
functioning is mainly revenue oriented and enforcement. on 5-2-1999 seizing foreign currency and other goods . The
for the implementation of the laws of the land . The petitioners are not involved in any manner in relation to
petitioners are not workmen under Section -2 (s) ofthe I.D. the seized articles and are innocent who are always at the
Act, 1947. There is no manufacturing process or any beck and call of their higher superiors . They were simply
manufacture under the department . There is no employee- made scapegoats . The seizure of the goods is not disputed
employer relationship between the parties . The petitioners but is admitted yet only its quantum is disputed by the
are not employed with the Respondents and hence they Respondent . There is trading activity involved in the
are not entitled to any relief. Petitioners were certain functioning of the Customs Department. It is an industry
errands on their own like supplying tea, coffee , snacks as and I.D. Act is applicable and the I.D. is maintainable . The
Officers were working at the Airport round the clock . admitted case of the Respondent in the Counter that the
Petitioners would have been paid some wages by them petitioners were doing certain errands indicates that they
from their pockets for the service. Contention that they were acting on the command of his Officers which again
were getting monthly salary of Rs . 2,500 per month is false shows Master - Servant relationship interse. For doing the
errands they are issued Identity Cards/Pass which is not
far from being mischievous . They were not in the pay rolls issued to any stranger. In Ex . W42- letter dated 15/22-7-2002
of the Customs Department at any point of time with any
remuneration paid by it. There was a raid by the CBI seizing of the Commissioner of Customs to Sri Jagannathan , a
petitioner it is stated , though in a subdued manner, that
foreign currency and foreign liquor totally valued at petitioner has been engaged prior to February, 1999 for
Rs . 2.77 lakhs only and not otherwise any way. After facilitating whose entry into the Airport his name was
investigation action was taken against 6 Customs Officers sponsored to BCAS for issuing entry pass, which was
which culminated in orders holding that charges were not issued after Police Verification . No evidence has been
proved which was opined as reasonable by ChiefVigilance adduced by the Respondent by way of document or oral
Commissioner . No action was initiated against the evidence examining any Officers to rebut the case of the
petitioners. They were not at all employed by the Customs petitioner and substantiate their contentions . Ex . W43 finds
Department . The very fact of no action against them itself mention in it that the petitioners whom the Management
establishes their non - employment . Petitioners never signed describes as unauthorized persons were discontinued after
any Attendance Register nor was any salary paid to them CBI raid, after which one Sri Lakshmipathy has been
by the Respondents . The action is evidently a blackmailing engaged issuing Ex . W43 - Entry Pass . The Entry Passes
one from the part of the petitioners . The claim is to be issued to the petitioners are as casual labour. Against the
dismissed with exemplary costs. case of petitioner that they used to sign Attendance
7. Points for consideration are: Register and receive wages signing on revenue stamps ,
evidently such documents are or can be only in the custody
(i ) Whether the termination of the services of the of the Respondent . The Respondent/Management cannot
petitioners by the Commissioner of Customs be heard to say that the petitioners were paid from the
(Airport) w.e.f. 5-2-1999 is legal andjustified? pockets of Officers . What is broadly probable in view of
(ii) To what relief the concerned workmen are the circumstances is that the petitioners are employees of
entitled? the Respondent . Somehow to cover the misdeeds of
Officers and save them , with malafide and in victimization ,
8. Petitioner filed a memo praying to permit common the petitioners are being made mere scapegoats . There is
evidence to be adduced and common trial held in respect no denial ofthe case of the petitioners that they were taken
ofall the IDs 397,398,402 and 415 of 2004 which was not bytheCBI in custody. When there is a case of petitioners
opposed and was allowed and accordingly common being discontinued from the service by the management it
evidence was recorded in I.D. 397/2004 . is a virtual admission that they were employed . The
discontinuance amounts to termination . The case of no
9. Evidence consists of the testimony of WWI and appointment or termination of the petitioners by the
Ex . W1 to Ex . W44 in common for all the IDs with no evidence management carries no meaning. When the service and
adduced on the side of the Respondent . some relationship is proved the question of non-

4288

[ PART II - SEC . 3 (ii) }

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2012 /JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

appointment is not criteria to hold that the petitioners are not workmen. The action in terminating them is motivated in victimization , unlawful and against all canons ofnatural justice and they are to be reinstated after setting aside the termination with all benefits .

11. Contra contentions on behalf of the Respondent are that mere entry passes will not confirm employee status to the petitioners . Customs Department itself does not engage in trading or dispose seized goods for profit or whatever. It only carries out statutory functions of Government of India. It is not an industry. The ID is not maintainable . The services of the petitioners were unauthorized and their entry into the airport by way of passes issued by SCAS was only to cater to the needs of certain employees ofthe Department . There is no continuity in the issuance of entry pass as could be seen from the entry pass issued in the name of Sri R. Paneerselvam on 8- 10-1992 . They are not regular even to the so - called errand. Regular employees are issued passes permanently without police verification . The Customs Department has no role in the issuance passes to the petitioners . There are no records to show that the names of the petitioners have been sponsored through SCAS for issuance of passes . Lakshmipathy was working with Contractor and pass was issued to him to work as Helper in 2002. Petitioners not being employees of the department had to obtain police verification to obtain entry pass . Their entry pass was not issued by the Customs Department . The claim of the petitioners is only to be dismissed . Therefore the Department ofCustoms having units severable as industries could still be industries under which the employees could still be workman . Therefore , the contention that the petitioners are not workmen or that the Respondent/ Management is not at all an industry are only to be rejected. Somuch so, the contention that the ID Act is not applicable or that the dispute is not maintainable is also only to be disallowed.

12. On behalf of the petitioners reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras dated 4-2-2011 in Writ Appeal No. 1881/2010 (A. Kajendran ) Vs. Presiding Officer , CGIT-cum - Labour Court, Shastri Bhawan , Chennai ( ii ) General Manager , Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi wherein it is held that " 14. By applying the " dominant nature test " as evoled by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case , even departments discharging sovereign functions , if they are units , which are industries and they are substantially severable , they can be considered to come within the Section - 2 (j ) of the Act . Admittedly, the appellant was only a Civil Motor Driver in the second respondent organization , therefore , even if the second respondent factory exclusively produces equipments for the Defence Department , the nature of employment of the appellant is clearly severable and the appellant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act questioning his removalfrom service " . There needs no more doubt to be entertained regarding the aspect that a department of Government of India whether it discharges sovereign functions or commercial functions it may still be treated as an industry according to the nature of the duty performed by it under its separate units which are severable as such . So even under a department of the government exercising sovereign functions , units which are industries and are substantially severable they can be considered to come within the 2(j ) of the ID Act.

13. The next question is whether the petitioners in the batch of IDs have been terminated from the service of the Respondent/Management ? While the case of the Respondent is that the petitioners were not employed under the Respondent , it is still admitted that they were certain errands for supplying tea , coffee , snacks , etc. to the Officers oftheCustoms in the Airport who were working round the clock . Without advancing a definite or clear cut stand regarding the remuneration paid to them what is pleaded bytheRespondent is that they would have been paid some wages by the said Officers from their own pockets which is adopting a presumptive stand . It makes it clear that the Management is not able to categorize any clear suggestion regarding the remuneration paid to the petitioners . That there was a CBI raid on 5-2-1999 is the common case of both the petitioners as well as the Respondent . What is marginally discrepant between the two versions is only regarding the quantum . The seizure of some contraband items thus remains fully established . Though action was taken against six Customs Officers it is the case of the Management that the charges were not proved . Opinion regarding that finding by ChiefVigilance Commission ( CVC) as being reasonable may even apt to be a self- serving stand ofthe CVC in the absence of anything to be proved to the contra . The case of the petitioners that they were taken into custody by the CBI officials though , discharged on the same evening indicates that they were also suspects at least in the commission of the offence . True , they have not been proceeded against . Why it is so it is for the Management to prove . That they were not proceeded against by way of action as averred by the Respondent cannot be a material to conclude that they were not at all employed under the Management. If they were guilty it is for the CBI to proceed against them. If they are not guilty it is also for the CBI to exonerate them under the general law ofthe land in detecting and investigating crimes . In their case the CBI was recommending the petitioners for being proceeded against by way of disciplinary action but which the department was forbearing from doing for their own reason not disclosed . In other words it is not shown that the department was leaving them scot free despite they being guilty. There is nothing to show that they were being given a sympathetic treatment by the Management and were being discharged from the liability or from being proceeded against due to mercy. When there is the un- [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4289

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26, 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

the burden is especially on the Respondent . But the Management has not come to the box to discharge that burden. In other words when a matter is especially within the special knowledge of a particular person the burden to prove that fact is upon him. While the case ofthe petitioners is that they were working under the Respondent as direct employees and that being controverted by the Management stating that it is not so actually but it is in a different manner that fact is to be especially proved by the Management . It is to be noted that law cannot be oblivious to what is obvious to others . But in order to remove the oblivious elements of the aspects the person or persons to whom it isnot so oblivious but is obvious has/have to come forward and discharge that function which is not done here . Then only it is possible for the Court to remove the oblivious and come to know the actual situation centering round it 'without compliance thereof it cannot be said law cannot be oblivious to what is obvious is others until the concerned persons appear and remove the obscurity. From the admissions in the pleadings of the Respondent it could well be found that the petitioners had been employed under the Respondent, somehow, for definite years of periods and have eventually been terminated in violation of Section- 25F ofthe ID Act even without an enquiry which is illegal and void . From the some materials by way ofevidence and the admissions of the Respondent the case of the petitioners could be said substantially proved though petitioner have not been able to individually prove it in all aspects by themselves . The said termination amounts to retrenchment . The same is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to some reliefs by way of reinstatement with or without benefits or by way of compensation.

14. Resultantly, the termination of the petitioners not being legal and justified the same is set aside . The other question is whether they have to be reinstated into service or should be made to rest content with award of some compensation . It is to be noted that in all cases of illegal termination reinstatement is not to follow automatically. In the case of casual labourers it may well be answered with an order to pay compensation . In the result it is ordered thatthe Respondent shall pay the petitioners in ID 397/ 2004, 398/2004, 402/2004 and 415/2004 compensation amounting as follows .

ID 397/2004- Rs . 1,25,000

ID 398/2004-

Rs.1,75,000

ID402/2004

Rs. 1,75,000 and

ID415/2004- Rs. 1,50,000/-

with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award until the amounts are duly paid but without costs.

traversed case that they were taken into custody by the CBI officials the Management cannot be heard to say that no action was taken against them and that the said fact shows that they were not employed under it . It is well to presume that they may have escaped from being prosecuted or arraigned in disciplinary action because of they being innocent in the criminal act . Though they were not in the payrolls of the Customs Department or never paid any remuneration by it, that they never signed the Attendance Register as averred by the Respondent and the action on the part ofthe petitioners are characterized as blackmailing the Respondent against the case of the petitioners to the contra. Petitioners have a case of their employment for definite periods from definite points oftime by way oftenure which ran continuous and regarding payment by way of consolidated sum of Rs . 2,500 . The case of the Respondent is that no payment has been made by it at all . But the same isleft to be conjecture and surmise . In as much as the fact that the petitioners stood employed in some way by some Officers of the Management, if not by the Management itself, though without an appointment order the fact remains that there was service purchased from the petitioners and there is some relationship between the petitioners and the Officers of the Respondent , if not with the Management itself. There is admittedly a case of the petitioners service having been discontinued after the date of the admitted CBI raid on 5-2-1999 . The said discontinuance of the services of the petitioners is not in accordance with law. The discontinuance is evidently occasioned as a consequence of the CBI raid on 5-2-1999 which tends to show that petitioners have been put to bear some unwholesome liability out of the CBI raid though they are not even proceeded against but have been exonerated by theManagement. An element of motivated victimization is discernible in the action of the Management against them. The same is unlawful and against all canons of natural justice. One of the petitioner has deposed in terms of his case as well as for his counterpart petitioners . Though they do not elevate the case of the petitioner to the realm of proof with adequate materials , yet they furnish some materials to prove that their case is substantially true regarding their employment , its continuity, nature ofwork, though not regarding the quantum of remuneration. When the case of the petitioners is that it is continuous lasting for years , the antiquity of commencement of service of one or two of them relating back to say 1982 or so going upto 5-02-1999 , thus lasting for several years , regarding the very aspect there is not even a murmur in the pleadings of the Respondents . The engagement of the petitioners by the officials ofthe Management, if not by the Management itself, goes virtually admitted . The cessation of their engagement is also not out of the volition of the petitioners themselves . The engagement came to end by discontinuance at the instance of the Management as is admitted. Regarding the nature of the engagement of the petitioners to prove that it is not as claimed by the petitioner,

1706 GI /2012-19 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

4290

Ex. W25

Entry pass pertaining to P. Rajagopal 15. The reference is answered accordingly.

Ex. W26

Entry pass pertaining to P. Rajagopal

Ex.W27

Entry pass pertaining to P. Rajagopal (Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th April , 2012)

Ex. W28

Entry pass pertaining to P. Rajagopal

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Ex. W29

Witnesses Examined:

Character Certificates issued by the Inspector of Police

Ex. W30

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1 . Sri S. P. Arunraj

Character Certificates issued by the Inspector of Police

For the 2nd Party/ 1st Management : None

Ex. W31

DocumentsMarked:

Character Certificates issued by the Inspector ofPolice

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. W32

Date

Ex. No.

Description

Character Certificates issued by the Inspector ofPolice

Ex. W33

(4innumber)

---Character Certificates issued by the Inspector ofPolice

EX.W1 ( Series) - Entry passes issued to the petitioners by Dy . Commissioner of Police , Security and Anti -Hijacking

Ex.W34

Ex.W2

-Entry pass issued to Paneerselvam

Police Verification Letter issued bythe Superintendent of Police in respect of Rajagopal

Ex.W3

--Entry pass issued to Paneerselvam

Ex. W35

Ex. W4

-Entry pass issued to Paneerselvam

Authorization letter issued to S.P.Arunraj

Ex. W5

Entry pass issued to Paneerselvam

Ex. W36

Entry pass issued to S.P. Arunraj

Ex. W6

Ex. W37 -Entry pass issued to S.P. Arunraj Police Verification Letter issued by the Superintendent of Police

Ex. W38

Ex . W7

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Ex.W8

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

-Police Verification Letter issued by the Superintendent of Police in respect of Arunraj

Ex. W9

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Ex. W39

Ex.W10

--Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Letter written jointly by the petitioners to the Commissioner of Customs regarding reinstatement

Ex. W11

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Ex. W40

Ex. W12

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

-Letter from the 'Additional Commissioner to the petitioners regarding refusal of employment Ex. W13

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Ex. W41

Ex. W14

-Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Ex. W15

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Letter from Jagannathan to the Commissioner of Customs regarding employment

Ex. W16

Ex. W42

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Letter from the Commissioner of Customs to the petitioners

Ex. W17

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Ex. W43

Entry pass issued to one Lakshmipathy

Ex. W18

Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Ex.W44

Ex . W19

-Entry pass issued to Jagannathan

Original temporary passes of all the petitioners.

Ex. W20

On the Management's side

Date Description

Ex. No.

-Character Certificate issued by the Inspector of Police , Pazhavanthangal to Jagannathan

N/A

Ex.W21

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई , 2012

Police Verification Letter issued by the Superintendent of Police , Chennai - 16

Ex. W22

Entry pass pertaining to P. Rajagopal

का.आ. 1810. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डबल्यू. सी.

Ex. W24

Entry pass pertaining to P. Rajagopal [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4291

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 26 , 2012 /ज्येष्ठ 5 , 1934

एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 272/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/460/1998- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd May, 2012

S.O. 1810. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 272/99 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-5-2012 .

No. L-22012/460/ 1998- IR (C- II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

2. The case of the Union/workman in short is that Shri Bhurelal Sanodia was appointed as Mining Sardar on 26-7-79 and was promoted as Safety-Cum-Production Assistant (in short SPA) w.e.f. 1-10-91 . It is stated that on 17-7-95 at about 10 AM, he came in the office of Safety Officer Shri D.K. Chandrakar and threw his helmet on the table which was broken in pieces and threw the pieces on the officer causing injury to him and abused and threatened him . On complaint of the Safety Officer, a departmental enquiry was conducted. Shri ID .Zakyani was appointed asEnquiry Officer and S.K.Bismillah was appointed as Management Representative. The delinquent workman participated in the enquiry proceeding and was assisted by the co -worker Shri R.Prasad . After enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of the charges . It is stated that criminal case was also lodged but the same was ended in acquittal . The Disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report passed the order of punishment on 18-5-96 whereby he was reverted from Grade B to Mining Sardar Grade C. The workman preferred appeal but the same was dismissed on 26-11-2001 . The workman filed several representation after acquittal in criminal case but of no effect . It is submitted that the punishment order dated 18/20-5-96 be set aside and the workman be restored in his position with all his difference of wages.

JABALPUR

No. CGIT /LC/R/272/99

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

TheSecretary,

Workman

Indian National Mines Overman Sirdar & ShatFires Association, INMOSSA Bhavan , PO Pathakhera, Distt. Betul(MP)

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, PO. Pathakhera, Distt. Betul (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day ofApril , 2012

3 : The management appeared in the reference case and filed Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia, is that the workman was initially appointed as Mining Sardar on 26-7-79 and was promoted as SPA on 1-10-91. It is stated that on 17-7-95 he came in the office of Safety Officer shouted on him and abused him . Thereafter he threw broken pieces of helmet on Shri Chandrakar causing him injury on left wrist . A departmental proceeding admittedly initiated against him . He had been given full opportunity to defend himself who was assisted by Defence Representative . The Enquiry Officer after enquiry submitted the enquiry report dated 18-8-95 holding him guilty of the charges . The Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report, representation of the workman , evidence on record took a lenient view and passed the order of punishment on 18-5-96 whereby he was demoted from the post of Safety-Cum- Production Assistant Grade B toMining Sardar Grade C. It is submitted that the action of the management is just and legal and the award be passed in favour of the management .

4.Onthe basis of the pleadings the following issues are framed-

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012 /460/ 98 /IR( CM - II ) dated 30-7-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

I. Whether the Departmental Enquiry conducted bythe management against the workman is legal and proper?

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Western Coalfield Ltd. Indemoting Shri B.L.Sanodia from Grade " B " to Grade " C" is justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

II . Whether the action of the management in demoting Shri B.L.Sanodia Grade B to Grade C isjustified?

4292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 , 2012/JYAISTHA 5 , 1934

III . To what other relief the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

This issue is taken up as a preliminary issue . After hearing the parties and after perusing the evidence on record, it is held that the departmental enquiry conducted bythe management against the workman is legal and proper vide order dated 8-2-2010 . This order is not reversed by any competent court as yet . Thus this issue is, already, earlier decided .

6. Issue No. II

The learned counsel for the workman has raised question that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and therefore the punishment was passed without any application ofmind. There is no fresh evidence adduced in the case. The parties have relied the evidence adduced by the management and delinquent workman before the Enquiry Officer . On perusal of the evidence adduced in the enquiry proceeding which is marked as Exhibit M/8 and the copy of the Enquiry report which is marked as Exhibit M/ itis clear that on the alleged date and time the workman went in the office of the Safety Officer for complaining of his old helmet which was broken by the workman either by pressing on the table or by throwing it on the table which appears to be an act to unbecoming a govt . servant . It is also admitted that the Safety Officer sustained injury at that very time. The only question is that the Safety Officer sustained injury in the manner as has been alleged by the

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

complainant or not. The evidence of the witnesses shows that the complainant sustained injury by throwing pieces of helmet on the body of the complainant . There is minor contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses which is obvious by way different manner of expression of the witnesses and by lapse of the time . This shows that the witnesses were not tutored and the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perversed .

7. The order of punishment dated 18/20-5-96 which is marked as Exhibit M / 12 shows that the management had taken a lenient view and instead of dismissal , he was simply demoted from Grade B to Grade C for giving him a chance to improve his conduct . I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the management which appears to bejust and proper. This issue is accordingly decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

8. Issue No. III

Onthe basis of discussion made above , I find that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

9. In the result the award is passed without any order to costs .

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , PresidingOfficer

Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.