jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 23]
ubZ fnYyh, twu 3—twu 9] 2012] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 13—T;s"B 19] 1934
No. 23 ]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 3—JUNE 9, 2012, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 13—JYAISTHA 19, 1934
Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
fof/ vkSj U;k; ea=kky;
(fof/ dk;Z foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2012
dk- vk-1888-—dsanzh; ljdkj naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973
(1974 dk 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Jh jkts'k nslkbZ] Jh 'kkgth vkj- ¯'kns] Jherh
mek iylqysnslkbZ vkSj Jh fgrsu ,l- osusxkodj vfèkoDrkvksa dks
eqEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; esa Hkkjr ljdkj dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh vfHk;kstu]
vihy ;k vU; fof/d dk;Zokfg;ka] ftlds varxZr nkafMd iqujh{k.k
vkSj funsZ'k Hkh gSa] djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh
gksus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'k
rd] tks Hkh igys gks] bl 'krZ ds vè;/hu jgrs gq, vij yksd
vfHk;kstd fu;qDr djrh gS fd Jh jkts'k nslkbZ] Jh 'kkgth vkj-
¯'kns] Jherh mek iylqysnslkbZ vkSj Jh fgrsu ,l- osusxkodj
vfèkoDrkx.k eqacbzZ mPp U;k;ky; esa Åij fu£n"V fdlh nkafMd
dk;Zokgh esa Hkkjr ljdkj ds fojQ¼ milatkr ugha gksaxsA
2- ;g vf/lwpuk jkti=k esa blds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls
izHkkoh gksxh A
¹iQk- la- 23 (1)@2012&U;k;-º
lqjs'k pUæ] la;qDr lfpo vkSj fof/d lykgdkj
1894 GI/2012
(4469)
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(Department of Legal Affairs)
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2012
S. O.1888.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby
appoints Shri Rajesh Desai, Shri Shahji R. Shinde,
Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai and Shri Hiten S. Venegavkar,
Advocates as Additional Public Prosecutors for the
purpose of conducting any presecution, appeal or other
legal proceedings including criminal revisions and
references on behalf of the Government of India in the
High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, for a period of three
years from the date of publication of this notification or
until further orders, whichever is earlier, subject to the
condition that Shri Rajesh Desai, Shri Shahji R. Shinde,
Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai and Shri Hiten S. Venegavkar,
Advocates shall not appear against the Government of
India in any criminal proceeding referred to above in the
High Court of Judicature at Mumbai.
2. This notification shall come into effect from the
date of its publication in the official Gazette.
[F .No. 23(1)/2012-Judl.]
SURESH CHANDRA, Jt. Secy. and Legal Adviser
4470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk-1889-—jk"Vªifr] Hkkjr ds mPpre U;k;ky; esa
ofj"B vf/oDrk Jh foosd ds- rU[kk dk Hkkjr ds egklkWfyflVj
(izR;{k dj) ds in ls fnukad 11 vizSy] 2012 (vijkÉ) ls
R;kxi=k Lohdkj djrs gSa A
¹iQk- la- 18 (5)@2009&T;wfMf'k;yº
lqjs'k pUæ] la;qDr lfpo ,oa fof/d lykgdkj
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2012
S. O. 1889.—The President is pleased to accept the
resignation of Shri Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Advocate as
Additional solicitor General of India (Direct Tax) in the
Supreme Court of India with effect from 11th April, 2012
(AN).
[ F. No. 18(5)/2009-Judl.]
SURESH CHANDRA, Jt. Secy. and Legal Adviser
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 21 ebZ] 2012
dk- vk-1890-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 (1949
dk 10) dh /kjk 53 (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,]dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh fliQkfj'k ij] ,rn~}kjk]
;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd cSasddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949 dh
èkkjk 19(2) ds mica/] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgka
rd bldk laca/ flMch osapj dSfiVy fyfeVsM (,lohlh,y) dh
c<+h gqbZ bfDoVh esa blds 40» dh i.k/kfjr ds vf/xzg.k ls gSA
¹iQk- la- 7@164@2011&chvks,º
,e- ,e- nkSyk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2012
S. O. 1890.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 53 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
(10 of 1949) the Central Government, on the
recommendation of Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares
that the provision of Section 19(2) of the said Act shall not
apply to the State Bank of India in so far as they relate to
its acquisition of 40% stake in the expanded equity of
SIDBI Venture Capital Limited (SVCL).
[ F. No. 7/164/2011-BOA]
M.M. DAWLA, Under Secy.
'kgjh fodkl ea=kky;
(lekjksg vk;kstu [email protected] izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2012
dk- vk-1891-—,rn~}kjk ;g vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd
MkW- d.kZ ¯lg] jkT; lHkk lnL; dks MkW- (Jherh) dfiyk okRL;k;u
ds LFkku ij jkt?kkV lekf/ vf/fu;e] 1951 (1951 dk 41) dh
/kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (i) ds [k.M (?k) ds vuqlkj jkt/kV lekf/
lfefr ds lnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k gS A
¹la- 25011@7@85&MCY;w 2º
vfuy dqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(CEREMONIAL SECTION/WORKS DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2012
S. O. 1891.—It is hereby notified that Dr. Karan
Singh, Member of Rajya Sabha has been elected as
Member of the Rajghat Samadhi Committee in accordance
with the clause (d) of sub-section (i) of Section 4 of the
Rajghat Samadhi Act, 1951 (41 of 1951) in place of Dr.
(Smt.) Kapila Vatsyayan.
[ No. 25011/7/85-W2]
ANIL KUMAR, Under Secy.
lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;
(nwjlapkj foHkkx@jktHkk"kk izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ebZ] 2012
dk- vk- 1892-—dsUæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 (;Fkk&la'kksf/r 1987) ds
fu;e 10 (4) ds vuqlj.k esa lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;]
nwjlapkj foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa]
ftuesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d
Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS A
1- eq[; vfHk;ark (fo|qr) dk dk;kZy;] Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] lkarkØqt] eqEcbZ&400054-
2- v/h{k.k vfHk;ark (fo|qr) dk dk;kZy;] Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] lkarkØqt] eqEcbZ&400054-
3- v/h{k.k vfHk;ark (flfoy) dk dk;kZy;] Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] lkarkØqt] eqEcbZ&400054-
¹la- bZ- 11016@1@2009&(jk-Hkk-)º
Hkkjr Hkw"k.k dkSjk] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Telecommunications)
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2012
S.O. 1892.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official
Language (Use for Official Purpose of the Union), rules,
1976 the Central Government hereby notifies following
offices under the administrative control of Ministry of
Communications and I.T., Department of Telecom-
municatios where of more than 80% staff have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi.
1. Office of the Chief Engineer (Electrical), B.S.N.L.,
Santacruz, Mumbai-400054.
2. Office of the Superintending Engineer (Electrical),
B.S.N.L., Santacruz, Mumbai-400054.
3. Office of the Superintending Engineer (Civil),
B.S.N.L., Santacruz, Mumbai-400054.
[ No. E. 11016/1/2009 (O.L.)]
BHARAT BHUSHAN KAURA, Jt. Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4471
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)
'kqf¼&i=k
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2012
dk- vk-1893-—bl foHkkx ds fnukad 1&12&2010 dh vfèklwpuk la- ;w- 12012@180@2010&,ebZ (ih&II) ds vuqlj.k esa vkSj
dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèku djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—
mDr vuqlwph esa—
¶iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i (dkWye 3) 'kh"kZd ds varxZr ¶bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;@N=kifr lkgwth egkjkt esfMdy
;wfuo£lVh] y[kuÅ] mÙkj izns'k¸ ds lkeus] ,eMh ({k;jksx ,oa 'okljksx@Nkrh jksx) vgZrk ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g
,e-,y-,u- esfMdy dkyst] bykgkckn] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds ckjs esa 1978 ds ctk; uoEcj] 1977 esa vFkok
mlds ckn bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;@N=kifr lkgwth egkjkt esfMdy ;wfuo£lVh] y[kuÅ] mÙkj izns'k }kjk iznku dh xbZ gksA¸
¹la- ;w- 12012@180@2010&,ebZ (ih&II)º
vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2012
S. O. 1893.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No. U.12012/ 180/20l0-ME (P. II) dated 1-12-2010,
and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of
1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments
in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule —
“against “Allahabad University/Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh”,
under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ (column 3), the MD(Tuberculosis & Respiratory/Chest Diseases)
qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Allahabad University/Chhatrapati Shahuji
Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at M.L.N. Medical College,
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh on or after November, 1977 instead of 1978”.
[ No. U. 12012/180/2010-ME (P. II)]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1894-—dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj
la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—
mDr vuqlwph esa—
(d) ¶jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky; caxykSj¸ ds le{k ¶ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk¸ ¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds
:i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds varxZr vkSj ¶iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k¸ ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds varxZr
fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %—
2
3
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (iSFkksykth)¸
,eMh (iSFkksykth)
(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g fot; uxj
LokLF; foKku laLFkku] osYykjh] dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
fo|k£Fk;ksa ds ckjs esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;
caxykSj }kjk o"kZ 1985 esa vFkok mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ gksA)
4472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¶fDyfudy iSFkksykth esa fMIyksek¸
Mhlhih
(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g fot; uxj
LokLF; foKku laLFkku] osYykjh] dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
fo|k£Fk;ksa ds ckj esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;
caxykSj }kjk o"kZ 1984 esa vFkok mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ gksA)
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (ck;ksdsfeLVªh)¸
,eMh (ck;ksdsfeLVªh
(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g xouZesaV
esfMdy dkyst] eSlwj] dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa
ds ckjs esa jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky; caxykSj }kjk o"kZ
1995 esa vFkok mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ gksA)
([k) ¶eSlwj fo'ofo|ky;] dukZVd¸ ds le{k ¶ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk¸ ¹blds ckn dkWye (2) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº
'kh"kZd ds varxZr vkSj ¶iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k¸ ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir
fd;k tk,xk] tSls %—
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMlu (ck;ksdsfeLVªh)¸
,eMh (ck;ksdsfeLVªh)
(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g xouZesaV
esfMdy dkyst] eSlwj] dukZVd esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa
ds ckjs esa eSlwj fo'ofo|ky;] dukZVd }kjk o"kZ 1995 esa vFkok
mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ gksA )
(x) ¶nh rfeyukMq MkW- ,ethvkj esfMdy ;wfuo£lVh] psUubZ ds le{k ¶ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk¸ ¹blds ckn dkWye (2)
ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds varxZr vkSj ¶iathdj.k ds fy, la{ksi.k¸ ¹blds ckn dkWye (3) ds :i esa lan£Hkrº 'kh"kZd ds varxZr
fuEufyf[kr var%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr%—
¶MkWDVj vkWiQ esfMflu (tujy esfMflu)¸
,e-Mh- (tujy esfMflu)
(;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g ds , ih
fo'oUkkFku dkyst f=kph] rfeyukMq esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs
fo|k£Fk;ksa ds ckjs fn rfeyukMq MkW- ,ethvkj esfMdy ;wfuo£lVh]
psUubZ }kjk ekpZ] 2010 esa vFkok mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ gksA)
lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh % 1- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe dks iznku dh xbZ ,slh ekU;rk dh vf/dre vof/ 5 o"kks± ds fy, gksxh ftlds mijkUr
bldk uohdj.k djkuk gksxk A
2- ekU;rk dks mi&[k.M 4 dh vko';drk ds vuqlkj le; ij uohdj.k esa foiQy gksus ds ifj.kkeLo:i lacaf/r
LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe esa izos'k vfuok;Z :i ls can gks tk,axsA
¹la- ;w-12012@37@2011&,ebZ (ih&II)º
vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2012
S. O. 1894.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the
following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said 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:—
2
3
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4473
2
3
“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”
MD (Pathology)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellary,
Karnataka on or after 1985.
“Diploma in Clinical Pathology”
DCP
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at
Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellary,
Karnataka on or after 1984.
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”
MD (Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Govt.
Medical College, Mysore, Karnataka on or after 1995.
(b) against “Mysore University, Karnataka” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter
referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely: —
“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”
MD (Biochemistry)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Mysore University, Karnataka in respect of
students being trained at Govt. Medical College, Mysore,
Karnataka on or after 1995.
(c) against “The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai” under the heading ‘Recognised Medical
Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading
‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-
“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”
MD (General Medicine)
(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University,
Chennai in respect of students being trained at KAP
Vishwanathan Govt. Medical College, Trichy, Tamil Nadu
on or after March, 2010.
Note to all:
1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon
which it shall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage
of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[ No. U. 12012/37/2011-ME (P-II)]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
4474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
'kqf¼&i=k
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2012
dk- vk- 1895-—bl foHkkx ds fnukad 27&7&2009 ds [k.M&I dh vfèklwpuk la- ;w 12012@25@2009&,ebZ (ih&II) ds
vuqlj.k esa vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; vk;q£oKku ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djus ds ckn mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèku
djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&
mDr vuqlwph esa&
iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i (dkWye 3) 'kh"kZd ds varxZr ¶jktLFkku fo'ofo|ky;@jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]
t;iqj¸ ds lkeus] ,eMh (jsfM;ks Mk;Xuksfll) vgZrk ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh tc ;g vkj-,u-Vh- esfMdy dkyst mn;iqj]
esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds ckjs esa tqykbZ]1993 ds ctk; 1980 esa vFkok mlds ckn jktLFkku fo'ofo|ky;@jktLFkku LokLF;
foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj }kjk iznku dh xbZ gksA
¹la- ;w- 12012@25@2009&,ebZ (ih&II)[k.M&Iº
vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2012
S. O. 1895.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No.U.12012/ 25/2009-ME(P.II) Vol. I dated 22-7-
2009, and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102
of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further
amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule -
“against “Rajasthan University/Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur”, under the heading ‘Abbreviation
for Registration’ (column 3), the MD (Radio Diagnosis) qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when
granted by Rajasthan University/Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur in respect of students being trained at
R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur on or after1980 instead of July, 1993”.
[ No.U. 12012/25/2009-ME (P-II) Vol. I]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
jlk;u vkSj moZjd ea=kky;
(moZjd foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk- vk- 1896-—dsUæh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¶la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx¸ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa jlk;u ,oa moZjd ea=kky;] moZjd foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu izkstsDV~l ,.M MsoyiesaV bafM;k fyfeVsM
(ihMhvkbZ,y)] dksydkrk dk;kZy; ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr
djrh gS A
¹la- bZ&11011@4@2008&fgUnhº
lrh'k paæ] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS
(Department of Fertilizers)
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S. O. 1896.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language “Use for official purposes of the
Union” Rule, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the Projects and Development India Limited
(PDIL), Kolkata under the administrative control of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizers
whereof more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[ No. E.-11011/4/2008-Hindi]
SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4475
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;
(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2012
dk-vk-1897-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ D;ksjfou bathfu;lZ] lh&150] cdnkoj jkeuxj] bankSj] eè; izns'k }kjk fofu£er fo'ks"k ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ I) okys ¶lhbZ&VhVh¸
Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶D;ksjfou¸ gS (ftls blesa
blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@451 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh
djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d bySDVªks eSxusfVd iQkslZ dEisuls'ku ¯izfliy ij vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) gS A
bldh vf/dre {kerk 1000 xzk- gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 1 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 10 fe- xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr
gS ftldk 'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A ,y bZ Mh@,ylhMh iznZ'k rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gSA midj.k
230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 1 fe-xzk- ;k vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 50000 ;k vf/d rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky
(,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed
iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (112)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2012
S.O. 1897.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument
(Table top type) with digital indication of special accuracy (accuracy class-I) of series “CE-TT” and with brand name
“CUREWIN” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Curewin Engineers, C-150, Bakdavar Ramnager,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/451;
The said model is electro magnetic force compensation principle based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table
Top Type) with a maximum capacity of 1000g. and minimum capacity of 1g. The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg. It has
a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. LED/LCD 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 on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A calibration switch has also been provided in mother board to
disable access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with
verification scale interval (n) in the range of 50000 or more for ‘e’ value of 1mg. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0k, 2 ×10k
or 5×l0k, 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 (112)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4477
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1898-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ D;ksjfou bathfu;lZ] lh&150] cdnkoj jkeuxj] bankSj] eè; izns'k }kjk fofu£er fo'ks"k ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ¶lhbZ&lhvkj¸
Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Øsu Ldsy) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶D;ksjfou¸ gS (ftls blesa blds
i'pkr mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@452 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh djrh
gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Øsu Ldsy) gSA bldh vf/dre {kerk 5
Vu vkSj U;wure {kerk 20 fd-xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 1 fd-xzk- gSA blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr
O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gSA midj.k 230 oksYV
vkSj 50 gVZt izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqMs+ gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 5 xzk- ;k vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky
(,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 30 Vu rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k
Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (112)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2012
S.O. 1898.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument
(Crane Scale) with digital indication of special accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “CE-CR” and with brand name
“CUREWIN” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Curewin Engineers, C-150, Bakdavar Ramnagar,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/452;
The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Crane Scale) with a
maximum capacity of 5 tonne and minimum capacity of 20kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 1kg. It has a tare device with
a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) 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 on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. and up
to 30 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of
1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, 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 (112)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4479
ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1899-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ
D;ksjfou bathfu;lZ] lh&150] cdnkoj jkeuxj] bankSj] eè; izns'k }kjk fofu£er ;FkkFkZrk oxZ XIII ;k (okbZ) , okys ¶lhbZ&lhMCY;w¸
Ük`a[kyk ds Lopkfyr dSp osbax midj.k (pSd Ogh;j) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶D;ksjfou¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr
ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@540 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy lhvj che Vkbi dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr Lopkfyr dSp osbax midj.k gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk 150 fd-xzk- vkSj
U;wure {kerk 400 xzk- ds lkFk lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 20 xzk- gSA ,ybZMh@,ylhMh rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gSA midj.k 230
oksYV vkSj 50 gVZt izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA
vkÑfr
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dh lh¯yx ds fy, ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
Lis'ky LØw ij fn, x, gksy vkSj ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj bl ok;j ds var esa yhM lhy yxkbZ xbZ gS tSlk fd Åij
LdSp esa fn;k x;k gSA
midj.k esa dsfyczs'ku ds fy, ckgjh igqap gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi fLop
Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 100 fe-xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku
varjky (,u) lfgr 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50
fd-xzk- ls 5000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed
iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (112)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2012
S.O. 1899.—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 Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the said model is
likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of automatic catch weighing instrument
(Check weigher ) belonging to accuracy class XIII or Y(a) of “CE-CW” series with brand name “CUREWIN” (herein
referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Curewin Engineers, C-150, Bakdavar Ramnager, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/540;
The said model is a shear beam type load cell based automatic catch weighing instrument. It has maximum capacity
150kg. and minimum capacity of 400g. with verification scale interval ‘e’ 20g. The LED/LCD display indicates the weighing
results. The instrument operates on 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Sealing diagram of the sealing provision of the model.
A Sealing wire is passed through the body & hole provided at the special screw and a lead seal is applied at the end
of this wire sketch as given below.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with capacity above 50kg. and up to 5000kg. and with
number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. 2g. and with number of
verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value 1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k,
k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with
the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (112)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4481
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1900-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ
daVªksy daiuh] 4455 jsDl jksM] ÚsaM~loqM] VSDlkl 77546] ;w,l, }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ -III ) okys ¶3475¸ Ük`a[kyk
ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Liwu Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶fMthVy Lirqyk¸ gS (ftls blesa
blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls eSllZ FkeksZ fiQlj lkbafVfiQd bafM;k izkbosV fyfeMsV 403&404] MsYiQh ch ¯ox] ghjkuankuh
fctusl ikdZ] iksobZ] eqacbZ&400076 }kjk fcØh ls igys ;k ckn esa fcuk fdlh ifjorZu ds Hkkjr esa foi.khr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftls vuqeksnu
fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@528 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Liwu Vkbi) gSA bldh vf/dre {kerk
300 xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 2 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 0-1 xzk- gSA blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr&izfr'kr
O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gSA fyfDoM fØLVy (,ylhMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gSA midj.k 3 oksYV Mhlh ij
dk;Z djrk gSA
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
Ldsy ,d vkbZlh fpi }kjk fu;af=kr fd;k tkrk gS] ftls izksxzke fd;k x;k gS vkSj ljiQsl dks ¯izfVM l£dV cksMZ ij [kM+k fd;k
tkrk gSA izksxzke dks cnyus vFkok Ldsy ds dsyhczs'ku dks cnyus dk dksbZ rjhdk ugha gSA ;fn vkbZlh fpi dks ihlhch ls gVk fn;k tkrk gS
rks iw.kZ Ldsy vdk;kZRed gks tk,xkA e'khu ds diViw.kZ iz;ksx dks jksdus ds fy, laiw.kZ rkSy iz.kkyh dh lhy dks rksM+us ls igys ckâ;
dsyhczs'ku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA LiSpqyk dh fiNyh rjiQ pkj uV gSa tks vkbZlh fpi dks doj djrh gSA gSaMy dks lh¯yx IokbaV~l ds :i
esa iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gS A
ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA ckâ; dsyhczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, enjcksMZ esa ,d
fMi&Lohp Hkh yxk;k x;k gSA
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(279)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2012
S.O. 1900.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Spoon type)
with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “3475” and with brand name “Digital Spatula”
(hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Control Company, 4455 Rex Road, Friendswood, Texes
77546, USA and marked in India without any alteration before or after sale by M/s. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private
Limited, 403-404, Delphi B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076 and which is assigned the approval
mark IND/09/11/528.
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Spoon type) with a
maximum capacity of 300g. and minimum capacity of 2g. The verification scale interval (e) is 0.1g. It has a tare device with
a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) indicates the weighing result. The
instrument operates on 3V DC.
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
The scale is controlled by an IC chip which has been programmed and surface mounted to a printed circuit board,
there is no way to alter the program or alter the scale’s calibration. If the IC chip is removed from the PCB the entire scale will
be non-functional. The external calibration cannot be done before breaking the seal of the whole weighing system to
prevent fraudulent use of the machine. The back side of the spatula has four screws which covers the IC chip. The handle
can be used as sealing points.
A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above. A dip switch has also been provided
in mother board to disable access to external calibration.
[F. No. WM-21 (279)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4483
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1901-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku
(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy
;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, eSllZ fLoax flLVEl] ua- 59@1] uatkjsM~Mh dkyksuh] FkMZ Økl ,;jiksVZ jksM] dsEi iQksVZ ds ikl] eq:xs'kiY;k] ,p , ,y iksLV]
caxyq#&560017 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ-III) okys ¶VhVh¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k
(VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶Vks;ksVks¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu
fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@535 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) gSA bldh vf/dre
{kerk 30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gSA blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr
izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gSA midj.k
230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~Zt izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqMs gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 100 fe- xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku dh fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku
varjky (,u) vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr
50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds ;k 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU;
ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(301)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2012
S.O. 1901.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby 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 “TT” and with brand name “TOYOTO”
(hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Swing Systems, No. 59/1, Nanjareddy Colony, 3rd Cross
Airport Road, Near Kemp Fort, Murugeshpalya, H.A.L. Post, Bangalore-560017 and which is assigned the approval mark
IND/09/11/535;
The said model is 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 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure-1
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with
verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 100g. to 2g. and with verification scale interval (n)
in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, 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(301)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4485
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1902-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku
(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy
;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, eSllZ ¯Lox flLVEl] ua- 59@1] uatkjsM~Mh dkyksuh] FkMZ Økl ,;jiksVZ jksM] dsEi iQksVZ ds ikl] eqjQxs'kiY;k] ,p , ,y iksLV]
caxyqjQ&560017 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ¶Vhih¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k
(IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶Vks;ksVks¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu
fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@536 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre
{kerk 1000 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 4 fd-xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 200 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk
'kr&izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A
midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kUr] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky
(,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed
;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(301)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2012
S.O. 1902.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument
(Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “TP” and with brand name “TOYOTO”
hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Swing Systems, No. 59/1, Nanjareddy Colony, 3rd Cross
Airport Road, Near Kemp Fort, Murugeshpalya, H. A. L. Post, Bangalore-560017 and which is assigned the approval mark
IND/09/11/536 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a
maximum capacity of 1000kg. and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. 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 on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. and up
to 5000kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of
1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, where 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 (301)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4487
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1903-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud
(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy
;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ leqnjk flLVEl] ch&2] y{eh Iyktk] vYiQk ykoy bafM;k ds lkeus] iq.ks&eqacbZ jksM] dsljokMh] iq.ks&411031 }kjk fofu£er eè;e
;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ¶VhVhMCY;w,l¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) ds ekMy
dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶lke&VªksfuDl¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u
Mh@09@11@541 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre
{kerk 30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk
'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A
midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksnu ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 100 fe-xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku
varjky (,u) vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50
fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds
lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (285)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2012
S.O. 1903.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby 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 “TTWS” and with brand name “SAM-
TRONICS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Samudra Systems, B-2, Laxmi Plaza, Opposite
Alfa Laval India, Pune-Mumbai Road, Kasarwadi, Pune-411031 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/541 ;
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-1 Model
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with
verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. to 2g. and with verification scale interval (n)
in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, where 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 (285)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4489
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1904-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku
(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy
;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj
fu;e 11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, eSllZ leqnjk flLVEl] ch&2] y{eh Iyktk] vYiQk ykoy bafM;k ds lkeus] iq.ks&eqacbZ jksM] dsljokMh] iq.ks&411031 }kjk fofu£er
eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ¶ih,eMCY;w,l¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds
ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶lke&VªksfuDl¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u
Mh@09@11@542 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre
{kerk 500 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 1 fd-xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 50 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk
'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A
midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqMs gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku
varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks
/ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (285)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
vkÑfr&1
4490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2012
S.O. 1904.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument
(Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “PMWS” and with brand name
“SAM-TRONICS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Samudra Systems, B-2, Laxmi Plaza,
Opposite Alfa Laval India, Pune-Mumbai Road, Kasarwadi, Pune-411031 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/
11/542 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a
maximum capacity of 500kg. and minimum capacity of 1Kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with
a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The
instrument operates on 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Sealing is done on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. and up
to 5000kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of
1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, 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 (285)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4491
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1905-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku
(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy
;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj
fu;e 11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, eSllZ ¯gnqLrku osbax Ldsy] vkj tsM&50,] bZLV mÙke uxj] bafnjk ikdZ ,DlVsa'ku] mÙke uxj] ubZ fnYyh&110059 }kjk fofu£er
eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ¶,pMCY;wch¸ Üka`[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) ds
ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶fyvkslSu¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u
Mh@09@11@557 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) gS A bldh vf/dre
{kerk 50 Vu gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 fd-xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 5 fd-xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk
'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k
230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqMs gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksnu ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky
(,u) lfgr 5 Vu ls 200 Vu rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k
Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (292)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
4492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2012
S.O. 1905.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (electronic
weighbridge) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “HWB” and with brand name
“LEOSAIN” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Hindustan Weighing Scale, RZ-50A, East
Uttam Nagar, Indra Park Extn., Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/557 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (electronic Weigbridge)
with a maximum capacity of 50 tonne and minimum capacity of 100kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 5kg. It has a tare
device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing
result. The instrument operates on 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Sealing is done on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typital
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 mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with
verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0k, 2 ×10k or
5×l0k, 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 (292)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4493
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1906-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ ¯oizks flLVEt] #57@3] dksV~VhxsiY;k] ekaxMh eSu jksM] caxywjQ&560091 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys
¶,pMhVh¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) ds ekMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶gks.Mk fMth¸
gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr ekMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@551 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu
izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre
{kerk 30 fd-xzk- gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk
'kr&izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A
midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksnu ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 100 fe-xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku
varjky (,u) vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50
fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds
lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (300)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2012
S.O. 1906.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby 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 “HDT” and with brand name “HONDA DIGI”
(hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Winpro Systems, #57/3, Kottigepalaya, Magadi Main
Road, Bangalore-560091 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/551 ;
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 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The
instrument operates on 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
Sealing is done on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typital
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 mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with
verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. to 2g .and with verification scale interval (n)
in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, 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 (300)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4495
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1907-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ ¯oizks flLVEt] #57@3] dksV~VhxsiY;k] ekaxMh eSu jksM] caxywjQ&560091 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys
¶,pMhih¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶gks.Mk fMth¸
gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr ekMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@552 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu
izek.ki=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre
{kerk 1000 fd-xzk- gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 4 fd-xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 200 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk
'kr&izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A
midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksnu ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku
varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks
èkukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (300)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2012
S.O. 1907.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument
(Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “HDP” and with brand name
“HONDA DIGI” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Winpro Systems, #57/3, Kottigepalaya,
Magadi Main Road, Bangalore-560091 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/552 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type) with a
maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. It has a tare device with
a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The
instrument operates on 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
Sealing is done on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. and up
to 5000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of
1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, 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 (300)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4497
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1908-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ th Vh VsDuksykWthl]# 131@,] diqetyq] dksMkuxS iksLV] foV~Vy iMuqj foyst] caroky rkyqdk] nf{k.k dUuMk&574243] dukZVd }kjk
fofu£er ;FkkFkZrk oxZ] X(x) tgka x=1 okys ¶,y,iQ,e¸ Ük`a[kyk ds Lopkfyr xzsfoesfVªd fiQ¯yx midj.k (fyfDoM fiQ¯yx e'khu) ds
ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶thVh¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u
Mh@09@11@554 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr Lopkfyr xzsfoesfVªd fiQ¯yx midj.k (fyfDoM fiQ¯yx e'khu) gS A
bldh vf/dre {kerk 50 fd-xzk- vkSj Mh osY;w 5 xzk- ds lkFk mRikn dh ek=kk vkSj izÑfr ij fuHkZj djrs gq, bldh ckjEckjrk 10 fiQYl
izfr feuV gS A e'khu dks lHkh izdkj ds izQh rjy inkFkks± dks tSls ikmp] Vhu] dSu bR;kfn ds fy, fMtkbu fd;k tkrk gS A izdk'k mRltZd
Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk
gS A
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksnu ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs ftudh vf/dre {kerk 50 fd-xzk- rd gksxh A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (302)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2012
S.O. 1908.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of automatic gravimetric filling instrument
(liquid filling machine) belonging to accuracy class, X(x) where x=1 of series “LFM” and with brand name “G T” (hereinafter
referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. G. T. Technologies, #131/A, Kapumajalu, Kodangai Post, Vittal
Padnoor Village, Bantwal Taluka, Dakshina Kannada-574243, Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark
IND/09/11/554 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic gravimetric filling instrument (liquid filling
machine). It has maximum capacity of 50kg. and d value of 5g. with a frequency of 10 fills per minute depending upon the
quantity and nature of the product. The machine is designed for filling all types of liquid materials in pouch, can, tin etc. 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.
On the rear side of the indicator, a leaded sealing wire is fastened through two bored screws, passing over the
cover and bracket, for receiving the verification stamp and seal. The indicator can not be opened without tampering the seal.
A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in a/d Card/mother board
to disable access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. 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 (302)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4499
ubZ fnYyh] 13 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1909-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009(2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa
dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk
cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ th Vh VsDuksykWthl# 131@,] diqetyq] dksMkuxS iksLV] foV~Vy iMuqj foyst] caroky rkyqdk] nf{k.k dUuMk&574243] dukZVd }kjk
fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ¶bZMCY;wch¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud
osfczt&eYVh yksM lSy Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶thVh¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls
vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@555 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt&eYVh yksM lSy Vkbi)
gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk 80 Vu vkSj U;wure {kerk 400 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 20 fd-xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu
;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr
djrk gS A midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj
VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼
Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A
midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gSA ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus osQ fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi
fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky
(,u) lfgr 5 Vu ls 200 Vu rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed
iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(302)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
4500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2012
S.O. 1909.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed
authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the
provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the
said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied
conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read
with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central
Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument
(electronic weighbridge-multi load cell type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series
“EWB” and with brand name “G T” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured By M/s. G. T. Technologies,
#131/A, Kapumajalu, Kodangai Post, Vittal Padnoor Village, Bantwal Taluka, Dakshina Kannada-574243, Karnataka and
which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/555 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (electronic weighbridge-
multi load cell type) with a maximum capacity of 80tonne and minimum capacity of 400kg. The verification scale interval (e)
is 20kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display
indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts, 50Hertz alternative current power supply.
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.
Sealing is done on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by
whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical
schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in mother board to disable
access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)
Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the
weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with above 5tonne and up to 200tonne with
verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0k, 2 ×10k or
5×l0k, 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 (302)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4501
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1910-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku
(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy
;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, eSllZ ,MokalM flLVsd izkbosV fyfeVsM] 299@300] th vkbZ Mh lh] edjiqjk] cMksnjk&390010] }kjk fofu£er ;FkkFkZrk oxZ 0-3 okys
^^Mh,y&6000** Ük`a[kyk ds cSp daVªksyj ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^LekVZyksM** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k
gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@548 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d bySDVªkfud ekiu iz.kkyh gS ftldk iz;ksx fyfDoM Ýyks ehVjksa vkSj VSadj] Vªd] jsy VSad vkSj VSad cSjst tSls
V£euy LVksjst Vsadksa ls fjiQkbaM gkbMªksdkcZu mRiknksa tSls rjy inkFkks± dks Hkjus ds fy, fyfDoM cSp fMfycjh flLVe esa iz;qDr vU; midj.kksa
ds lkFk fd;k tkrk gS A ;g Ýyks ehVj ds iYl Ïksr ls bySDVªkWfud iYl dks izkIr djrk gS vkSj fxurk gS rFkk mUgsa oksY;we esa cnyrk gS A
ijh{k.k dks vksvkbZ,e,y vkj 117] ^ikuh ds vykok vU; rjy ds fy, ehVj* ds vuqlkj lapkfyr fd;k x;k Fkk A
ekWMy dks lhy djus dh Ldhe dk fp=k Åij fn;k x;k gS vkSj blls Li"V irk pyrk gS fd lhy dsoy lwpd ds fy, ugha yxkbZ
xbZ cfYd iwjh ;wfuV] ftls cSp daVªksyj dgrs gSa] ds fy, yxkbZ xbZ gS A ekWMy dh ckMh ds Nsn ls ,d rkj dks vkSj ckV vkSj eki dh@fLop
ls xqtkj dj lhy fd;k x;k gS] tSlk fd fp=k esa fn[kk;k x;k gS ftldk iz;ksx ekWMy ds egRoiw.kZ iqtks± dks ykWd djus@NsM+NkM+ dks jksdus
ds fy, fd;k tkrk gS A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (05)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
4502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2012
S.O. 1910.—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 Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the said model
is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010)
read with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the
Central Government hereby approves, issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of batch controller of
series “DL-6000” with Brand Name “Smart Load” and accuracy class 0.3 (hereinafter referred to as the said model),
manufactured by M/s. Advanced Systek Private Limited, 299/300, GIDC, Makarpura, Vadodara-390010 and which is assigned
the approval mark IND/09/11/548.
The said model is an electronic measuring system used along with the liquid flow meters and other devices used
in liquid batch delivery system for the liquid like refined hydrocarbon products from loading terminal storage tanks such as
tanker trucks, rail tank and tank barges. It receive and count the electronic pulses from the pulse source of the flow meter
and convert them into volume. The test was conducted as per OIML R117, “Meters for liquids other than water”.
Figure-1
A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above and it clearly indicates that the
sealing is done not for the indicator alone but for the whole unit called batch controller. The sealing is done by passing wire
through hole on the body of the model and through the weights and measure key/switch indicated in the diagram which is
used to lock/prevent access to vital components of the model.
[F. No. WM-21 (05)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
Figure-2 : Schematic Diagram of the sealing provision of the model.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4503
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk-1911-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] Lyksod baLVhV~;wV vkiQ ehVjksykWth }kjk tkjh ekWMy vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k lfgr nh xbZ fjiksVZ
ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e]
2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS
fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e
11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 ds nwljs ijarqd }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ ,ysaVh ,aM vksfjvkWu ,ch] LohMu }kjk fofu£er ;FkkFkZrk oxZ 0-3 okys ^^vksfj¯yd** Vkbi ds ikuh ds vykok vU;
nzO;ksa ds fy, ekiu i¼fr (vkW;y ehVj) vadd lwpu lfgr gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls Mk;ukdksiZ
bathfu;¯jx izk-fy-] 23] fot; fdju vikVZesaV] fVMds dkyksuh jksM] ukfld&422002 }kjk fcØh ls igys ;k ckn esa fcuk fdlh ifjorZu ds
Hkkjr esa vk;kr fd;k x;k vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@13@11@368 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh vkSj izdkf'kr
djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy rsy vkSj fge fujks/h feJ.k ds forj.k ds fy, bySDVªkfud ekiu vkSj fu;a=k.k iz.kkyh gS A blds vf/dre izokg nj
dh jsat 10 yhVj izfr feuV ls 15 yhVj izfr feuV gS A blds U;wure izokg nj dh jsat 0-1 yhVj izfr feuV ls 10 yhVj izfr feuV gS A ;g
U;wure 0-5 yhVj dh ek=kk eki ldrk gS A blds vkl&ikl dh rkieku lhek 0° ls- ls 50° ls- gS A bldk mi;ksx eq[;r% 8 ls 2000
,e,e2@,l dh 'kq¼xfrd foLdkflrk (ØkbusesfVd foLdksflVh) Lusgd dh ek=kk] eksVj nzoh;] d¯Vx vkSj vU; rsy vkSj fgefujks/ feJ.k
dks ekius vkSj fu;af=kr djus ds fy, fd;k tkrk gS A
;g rhu izdkjksa esa miyC/ gS vksjh¯yd ihlh] vkW;yeksu 800 vFkok vkW;yeksu ihlh] tksfd dsoy viuh lajpuk esa
vyx&vyx gSa A
tSlkfd fp=k esa fn[kk;k x;k gS ehVj dks lhy fd;k x;k gS A ,e Mh ih ,e ekWM~;wy esa (ds) lSV vi ykWd tEij ij yxk gqvk
gS A ,d ckj l£dV cksMZ ls tEij ds gV tkus fp=k , vkSj ,e Mh ih ,e ekWM~;wy dks nLrh:i ls lhy fd;k tk, fp=k ch rks l£dV cksMZ
ls NsM+NkM+ ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj tEij ugha yxk;k tk ldrk rFkk mldh {kerk dks cnyk ugha tk ldrk A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21 (104)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A
4504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2012
S.O. 1911.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it along with the model
approval certificate issued by the Slovak Institute of Metrology, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see
the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal
Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained
use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to section 22 of the Legal Metrology
Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of
Models) Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby approves, issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model
of Measuring System for Liquid Other Than Water (Oil Meter) with digital indication of Accuracy Class 0.3 (hereinafter
referred to as said model) of Type “OriLink ”, manufactured by M/s. Alentec & Orion AB, Sweden and imported in India
without any alteration before or after sale by M/s. Dynacorp Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 23, Vijay Kiran Apartment, Tidke Colony
Road, Nashik-422 002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/13/11/368;
The said model is an electronic measuring and control system intended for dispensation of oils and anti-freeze
mixtures. Its maximum flow rate range is 10 lpm to 15 lpm. Its minimum flow rate is 01 lpm to 10 lpm. It can measure minimum
amount 0.5 litre. Its ambient temperature limit is 0°C to 50°C. It is mainly used to measure and control the volume of
lubricating, motor, hydraulic, cutting and other oil and anti-freeze mixture with kinematic viscosity of 8 to 2000 mm2/s.
It is available in three versions OriLink PC, OilMon 800, or OilMon PC, which differ in their configuration only.
The meter is sealed as shown in figure. The MDPM module has (K) setup lock jumper, once the jumper is removed
on circuit board in Figure A and the MPDM module in Figure B is sealed physically the circuit board cannot be accessed in
turn the jumper cannot be inserted and calibration cannot be changed.
[F. No. WM-21 (104)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Sealing Diagram
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4505
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vizSy] 2012
dk-vk- 1912-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd
mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976 (1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud
(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy
;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,
eSllZ ,evkj ds gSYFkds;j] ch4@ch5] ckbdqyk l£ol baMLVªht] Mh ds ekxZ] lqlsDl jksM] ckbdqyk] eqacbZ&400027 }kjk fofu£er eè;e
;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ^^,uMCY;w&01** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud O;fDr ckFk:e
Ldsy) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^uwykbiQ** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ
,u Mh@09@11@23 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A
mDr ekWMy ,d foo`Qr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud O;fDr ckFk:e Ldsy) gS A
bldh vf/dre {kerk 150 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 2 fd- xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 100 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu
;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A ,y bZ Mh@,y lh Mh izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A
midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A
Ldsy dh ckVe IysV esa Nsn cuk dj] bu Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A LVkfEiax ds fy, Ldsy dh ckMh
esa ls yhM lhy ds lkFk lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj LVkfEiax IysV tksM+h tkrh gS A ekWMy ds lh¯yx izko/ku dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke Åij fn;k
x;k gS A
midj.k esa dsfyczs'ku ds fy, ckgjh fu;a=k.k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku fu;a=k.k dks fuf"Ø; djus ds fy, fMi fLop fn;k x;k gS A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu
ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj
dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky
(,u) lfgr 300 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10 ds] 2×10 ds] ;k 5×10 ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed
iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A
¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(16)@2011º
ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku
vkÑfr&1
vkÑfr&2 % ekWMy ds lh¯yx izko/ku dk lh¯yx Mk;xzke A
4506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 17th April, 2012
S.O. 1912 .—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,
is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of
the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of
Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render
accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby approves and issues the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing
instrument (Electronic Personal Bathroom Scale) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series
“NW-01” and with brand name “NULIFE” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. MRK
Healthcare, B4/B5, Byculla Service Industries, D. K. Marg, Sussex Road, Byculla, Mumbai-400027 and which is assigned the
approval mark IND/09/11/23.
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Personal
Bathroom Scale) with a maximum capacity of 150 kg. and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g.
It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The LED/LCD indicates the weighing results. The
instrument operates on 230V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply.
Sealing is done through the hole, made in the bottom side of the scale, and then sealing wire is passed through
these holes. Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of the scale with lead seal, to get the
stamping. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.
The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board
to disable access to external calibration.
Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of
similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 300kg. with verification scale interval
(n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0k, 2 ×10k or 5×l0k, 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 (16)/2011]
B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology
Figure-1 Model
Figure-2 : Sealing Diagram of the sealing provision of the model.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4507
(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1913-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa ,rn~}kjk vf/
lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS os jí dj fn, x, gSa vkSj okil ys fy;s x;s gSa %
vuqlwph
Øe
jí fd;s x;s ekud dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
Hkkjr ds jkti=k Hkkx 2] [kaM 3]
fVIi.kh
la-
mi[kaM (ii) esa dk-vk- la[;k
vkSj frfFk izdkf'kr
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 940 % 2003 lqoká vfXu&'kked ikuh
dk-vk- la[;k 3325
—
Vkbi (xSl dkjrwl)&&fof'kf"V (pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)
fnukad 06&12&2003
2-
vkbZ ,l 2171 % 1999 vfXu&'kked] 'kq"d ikmMj
dk-vk- la[;k 1468
—
(dk£Vt okys)—fof'kf"V (pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)
fnukad 29&05&1999
3-
vkbZ ,l 6234 % 2003 lqoká vfXu&'kked]
dk-vk- la[;k 0397
ikuh okys (HkaMkfjr nkc) —fof'kf"V
fnukad 21&02&2004
—
(nwljk iqujh{k.k)
4-
vkbZ ,l 10204 % 2001 lqoká vfXu&'kked]
dk-vk- la[;k 3252
;kaf=kd >kx okys—fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)
fnukad 01&12&2001
—
5-
vkbZ ,l 13849 % 1993 lqoká vfXu&'kked]
dk-vk- la[;k 1360
'kq"d ikmMj Vkbi (HkaMkfjr nkc)—fof'kf"V
fnukad 18&06&1994
—
6-
vkbZ ,l 15397 % 2003 lqoká vfXu&'kked]
dk-vk- la[;k 0397
(HkaMkfjr nkc) ;kaf=kd >kx okys—fof'kf"V
fnukad 21&02&2004
—
¹lanHkZ % lhbZMh@jkti=kº
Mh- ds- vxzoky] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (flfoy bathfu;jh)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2012
S. O. 1913 .—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 Standards, Particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter, have been
cancelled and stand withdrawn.
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year of the Indian
S. O. No. and Date published
Remarks
No.
Standards Cancelled
in the Gazette of India, Part-II,
Section-3, Sub-section (ii)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 940 : 2003 Specification for portable fire
S. O. No. 3325
—
extinguishers, water type (gas cartridge)
Dated 06-12-2003
(fourth revision)
4508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
IS 2171 : 1999 Specification for portable fire
S. O. No. 1468
—
extinguishers, dry powder (cartridge type)
Dated 29-05-1999
(fourth revision)
3.
IS 6234 : 2003 Specification for portable fire
S. O. No. 0397
—
extinguishers, water type (stored pressure)
Dated 21-02-2004
(second revision)
4.
IS 10204 : 2001 Specification for portable fire
S. O. No. 3252
—
extinguisher, mechanical foam type
Dated 01-12-2001
5.
IS 13849 : 1993 Specification for portable fire
S. O. No. 1360
—
extinguisher, dry powder type
Dated 18-06-1994
(stored pressure)
6.
IS 15397 : 2003 Specification for portable fire
S. O. No. 0397
—
extinguisher, mechanical foam type
Dated 11-02-2004
(stored pressure)
[Ref : CED/Gazette]
D. K. AGRAWAL, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1914-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk la'kks/u fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS A
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k]
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn
dksbZ gks ] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
la'kks/u la[;k 1 vkbZ ,l 9471 Hkkx 7 % 2000
—
ekpZ 2012
ekM;wyh v/ vax gM~Mh ?kVd fof'kf"V Hkkx 7
gM~Mh /M+ V[kuk o ?kqVuk (mijh o fuEu)
2-
la'kks/u la[;k 4 vkbZ ,l 11708 % 1986 gkFk
—
ekpZ 2012
;kaf=kd ij
3-
la'kks/u la[;k 2 vkbZ ,l 11646&2 % 1986 n`f"V
—
ekpZ 2012
fodykaxksa ds fy, dsu Hkkx 2 eqM+us okyh
bl ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxyq:] Hkksiky Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUurkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ % ,e ,p Mh@th&3% 5º
jkds'k dqekj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (,e ,p Mh)
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2012
S. O. 1914. —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 of Indian Standards, particulars of which is given in the
Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4509
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the Indian Standards
No. and year of Indian Standards,
Date of establishment
No.
Established
if any, superseded by the new Indian
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
Amendment No. 1 to IS 9471 (Part 7) : 2000
—
March 2012
Modular lower limb orthotic components—
specification Part 7 Orthotic joint bars,
ankle and knee (Upper and lower)
2.
Amendment No. 4 to IS 11708 : 1986 Speci-
—
March 2012
fication for hand, mechanical
3.
Amendment No. 2 to IS 11646—2 : 1986
—
March 2012
Specification for cane for visually handi-
capped Part 2 Folding type
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 : MHD/G-3 : 5]
RAKESH KUMAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (MHD)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1915-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [k.M ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x, gSa A
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k]
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn
dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 11979&1 % 2006 us=k jksx
vkbZ ,l 14323 % 1996
ebZ 2012
laca/h jksi.k&&baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal Hkkx 1 'kCnkoyh
2-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 11979&2 % 1999 us=k jksx
vkbZ ,l 14323 % 1996
ebZ 2012
laca/h jksi.k&&baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal Hkkx 2 vkWfIVdy
izksiVhZt ,oa ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡
3-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 11979&3 % 2006 us=k jksx
vkbZ ,l 14323 % 1996
ebZ 2012
laca/h jksi.k&&baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal Hkkx 3 eSdsfudy
izksiVhZt ,oa ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡
4-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 11979&5 % 2006 us=k jksx
vkbZ ,l 14323 % 1996
ebZ 2012
laca/h jksi.k&&baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal Hkkx 5 ck;ksdEisfVfcfyVh
5-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 11979&9 % 2006 us=k jksx
vkbZ ,l 14323 % 1996
ebZ 2012
laca/h jksi.k&&baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal Hkkx 9 eYVhiQksdy
baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal
4510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 11979&10 % 2006 us=k jksx
vkbZ ,l 14323 % 1996
ebZ 2012
laca/h jksi.k&&baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal Hkkx 10 iQksfdd
baVªkvkWD;wyj ySal
7-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 18369&1 % 2006 vksIFksyfed
vkbZ ,l 13767 % 1993
ebZ 2012
vksifVDl&&daVsDV ySal Hkkx 1 'kCnkoyh] oxhZdj.k
vkbZ ,l 13903 % 1993 vkSj
flLVe ,oa ysc¯yx gsrw vuq'kaflr fof'kf"V;k¡
vkbZ ,l 13928 % 1993
8-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 18369&3 % 2006 vksIFksyfed
vkbZ ,l 13767 % 1993
ebZ 2012
vksifVDl&&daVsDV ySal Hkkx 3 ekiu i¼fr;k¡
vkbZ ,l 13903 % 1993 vkSj
vkbZ ,l 13928 % 1993
9-
vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks 18369&4 % 2006 vksIFksyfed
vkbZ ,l 13767 % 1993
ebZ 2012
vksifVDl&&daVsDV ySal Hkkx 4 daVsDV ySal lkefxz;ksa
vkbZ ,l 13903 % 1993 vkSj
dh fiQftdksdsfedy izkiVhZt
vkbZ ,l 13928 % 1993
bl ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxyq:] Hkksiky Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUurkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ % ,e ,p Mh@th&3% 5º
jkds'k dqekj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (,e ,p Mh)
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2012
S. O. 1915.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule
hereto annexed have been issued
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the Indian Standards
No. and year of Indian Standards,
Date established
No.
if any, superseded by the new
Indian Standards
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS/ISO 11979-1 : 2006 Ophthalmic implants—
IS 14323 : 1996
May 2012
Intraocular lenses Part 1 Vocabulary
2.
IS/ISO 11979-2 : 1999 Ophthalmic implants—
IS 14323 : 1996
May 2012
Intraocular lenses Part 2 Optical properties
and test methods
3.
IS/ISO 11979-3 : 2006 Ophthalmic implants—
IS 14323 : 1996
May 2012
Intraocular lenses Part 3 Mechanical properties
and test methods
4.
IS/ISO 11979-5 : 2006 Ophthalmic implants—
IS 14323 : 1996
May 2012
Intraocular lenses Part 5 Biocompatibility
5.
IS/ISO 11979-9 : 2006 Ophthalmic implants—
IS 14323 : 1996
May 2012
Intraocular lenses Part 9 Multifocal intraocular
lenses
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4511
6.
IS/ISO 11979-10 : 2006 Ophthalmic implants—
IS 14323 : 1996
May 2012
Intraocular lenses Part 10 Phakic intraocular
lenses
7.
IS/ISO 18369-1 : 2006 Ophthalmic optics—
IS 13767 : 1993,
May 2012
contact lenses Part 1 Vocabulary, classification
IS 13903 : 1993 and
system and recommendations for labeling
IS 13928 : 1993
specifications
8.
IS/ISO 18369-3 : 2006 Ophthalmic optics—
IS 13767 : 1993,
May 2012
contact lenses Part 3 Measurement methods
IS 13903 : 1993 and
IS 13928 : 1993
9.
IS/ISO 18369-4 : 2006 Ophthalmic optics—
IS 13767 : 1993,
May 2012
contact lenses Part 4 Physicochemical properties
IS 13903 : 1993 and
of contact lens materials
IS 13928 : 1993
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 : MHD/G-3 : 5]
RAKESH KUMAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (MHD)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1916-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [k.M ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa A
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k]
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn
dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 15898 (Hkkx 1) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
vkbZ ,l 9163 (Hkkx 1) % 1979
30&4&2012
9555&1 % 1994 [kqys pSuyksa esa nzo izokg ekiu&&
vifjorhZ izokg ekiu dh Vªslj Mkbyw'ku i¼fr;ka
Hkkx 1 lkekU;
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡a Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;
dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]
xqokgVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://
www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV }kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A
¹lanHkZ % MCY;w vkj Mh 1@Vh&27º
ts- lh- vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (ty lalk/u foHkkx)
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2012
S. O. 1916.—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 of Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in
the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
4512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. , Title and Year of the Indian Standards
No. and Year of the Indian Standards, Date of establishment
No.
Established
if any, superseded by the new Indian
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 15898 (Part 1) : 2012/ISO 9555-1 : 1994
IS 9163 (Part 1) : 1979
30-4-2012
Measurement of liquid flow in open channels
—Tracer dilution methods for the measurement
of steady flow—Part 1 : General
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. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http ://www.standardsbis.in.
[ Ref : WRD1/T-27]
J. C. ARORA, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1917-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [k.M ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa A
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k]
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn
dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 15927@(Hkkx 1) % xSlh; b±/u dh iw£r
—
31&05&2012
ds fy, ikfybZFkkbfyu ikbiksa ds lkFk iz;ksx ds fy,
ikfybZFkkbfyu fiQ¯Vxsa—fof'kf"V
Hkkx 1 rIr vkStkjksa ds iz;ksx ls lkWdsVksa dh fiQ¯Vxsa
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %
ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ % lhbZMh@jkti=kº
Mh- ds- vxzoky] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (flfoy bathfu;jh)
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2012
S. O. 1917.—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.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4513
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year of the Indian Standards
No. and year of the Indian Standards,
Date of established
No.
Established
if any, superseded by the new Indian
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 15927 (Part 1) : 2012 Polyethylene Fittings
—
31 May, 2012
for Use with Polythylene Pipes for the Supply
of Gaseous Fuels—Specification Part 1 Fittings
for Socket Fusion using Heated Tools
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref : CED/Gazette]
D. K. AGRAWAL, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1918 -—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, ekud (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd, x, gSa %—
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k]
la'kks/u dh la[;k vkSj frfFk
la'kks/u ykxw gksus
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
dh frfFk
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 1554 (Hkkx 2) % 1988 dh la'kks/u
4 vizSy] 2012
08&05&2012
la[;k 4
2-
vkbZ ,l 7098 (Hkkx 1) % 1988 dh la'kks/u
5 vizSy] 2012
08&05&2012
la[;k 51
bu Hkkjrh; la'kks/uksa dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;
dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]
xqokgVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ % bZVh 09@Vh&13] Vh&43º
vkj- ds- =ksgu] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2012
S. O. 1918.—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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in
the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :—
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year of the Indian Standards
No. and year of the amendment
Date from which the
No.
Amendment shall have
effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 1554 (Part 2) : 1988 Specification for PVC
04 April, 2012
8-5- 2012
insulated (Heavy duty) electric cables, Part
2 For working voltages from 3.3 Kv up to and
including 11 kV
2.
IS 7098 (Part 1) : 1988 Specification for cross-
05 April, 2012
8-5-2012
linked polythylene insulated thermoplastic
sheathed cable, Part 1 For working voltages
up to and including 1100 Volts
4514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 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-110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune, and Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref : ET 09/T-13, T-43]
R. K. TREHAN, Scientist ‘E’ & Head (Electrotechnical)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1919-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS %&
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh la[;k]
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn
dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 15915 % 2012 fo"k;Kku izcU/u—
—
30 vizSy] 2012
ikfjHkkf"kd 'kCnkoyh
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %
ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgVh]
gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ % ,e ,l Mh@th&8 vf/lwpukº
fueZy dqekj iky] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (izcU/ ,oa ra=k foHkkx)
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2012
S. O. 1919.—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 has been established on the date indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year of the Indian Standards
No. and year of Indian Standards,
Date of Established
No.
Established
if any, superseded by the New Indian
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 15915 : 2012 Glossary of terms in
—
30 April, 2012
knowledge management
Copy of the above Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices at Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also
Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune, and Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref : MSD/G-8 Notification]
NIRMAL KUMAR PAL, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Management and Systems Department)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4515
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1920-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa ,rn~ }kjk
vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS os jí dj fn, x, gSa vkSj okil ys fy;s x;s gSa %
vuqlwph
Øe
jí fd;s x;s ekud (dksa) dh la[;k]
Hkkjr ds jkti=k Hkkx II] [kaM 3]
LFkkfir frfFk
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
mi[kaM (ii) esa dk-vk- la[;k
vkSj frfFk izdkf'kr
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 13360 (Hkkx 9) vuqHkkx 4) % 1997&
0326
12&09&2011
vkbZ ,l vks 183 % 1976 IykfLVd&ijh{k.k
14&02&1998
i¼fr;k¡ Hkkx 9 izdkf'kr xq.k/eZ vuqHkkx 4
jaxd Ïko dk xq.kkRed ewY;kadu
¹lanHkZ % ihlhMh@th&7 (xtV)º
MkW- (Jherh) fot; efyd] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (ihlhMh)
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S. O. 1920.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
it is, hereby notified that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule hereafter, have been
cancelled and stand withdrawn :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year of the Indian Standards
S. O. No. & Date published
Date of Established
No.
Cancelled
in the Gazette of India, Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 13360 (Part 9/Sec 4) : 1997/ISO 183 : 1976
0326
12-09-2011
Specification for Plastics—Methods of Testing
14-02-1998
Part 9 Optical properties Section 4 Qualitative
evaluation of the bleeding of colorants
[ Ref : PCD/G-7 (Gaz.)]
Dr. (Mrs.) VIJAY MALIK, Scientist ‘F’ and Head (PCD)
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk-1921-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [k.M ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekud ds la'kks/u ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %—
4516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ds la'kks/u dh la[;k]
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la-
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn
dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 9873 (Hkkx 1) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
vkbZ ,l 9873 (Hkkx 1) % 2001
ebZ 2012
8124&1 % 2009 f[kykSus dh fujkinrk Hkkx 1
;kaf=kd xq.k/eks± laca/h fujkinrk igyw (nwljk
iqujh{k.k)
2-
vkbZ ,l 15320 (Hkkx 1) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
vkbZ ,l 15320 (Hkkx 1) % 2003
ebZ 2012
15403&1 % 2009 izkÑfrd xSl&okguksa ds fy,
laihfMr b±/u ds :i esa iz;qDr gksus okyh izkÑfrd
xSl Hkkx 1 xq.krk ds vfHkeku (igyk iqujh{k.k)
bl Hkkjrh; la'kks/u dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&10002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa%
ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]
gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ % ihlhMh@th&7 (xtV)º
MkW- (Jherh) fot; efyd] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (ihlhMh)
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S. O. 1921.—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 Standard, particulars of which is
given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year and title of the
No. and year of Indian Standards,
Date of established
No.
Indian Standards Established
if any, superseded by the new Indian
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 9873 (Part 1) : 2012 ISO 8124-1 : 2009 Safety
IS 9873 (Part 1) : 2001
May 2012
of Toys Part 1 Safety Aspects Related to
Mechanical and Physical Properties (Second
Revision)
2.
IS 15320 (Part 1) : 2012 ISO 15403-1 : 2006
IS 15320 (Part 1) : 2003
May 2012
Natural Gas—Natural Gas for Use as a Com-
pressed Fuel for Vehicles Part 1 Designation
of the Quality (First Revision)
Copy of this Amendment/Standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai
and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,
Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[ Ref : PCD/G-7 (Gazette)]
Dr. (Mrs.) VIJAY MALIK, Scientist ‘F’ and Head (PCD)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4517
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1922-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e (4) ds mi&fu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %—
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
LohÑr djus
ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh;
Hkk- ek-
Hkkx vuq-
o"kZ
la-
la[;k
dh frfFk o"kZ@
ekud dk
la[;k
ekg
'kh"kZd
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
1-
3763774
3&10&2011
eSllZ Lo;a jcj baMLVªht]
vkVkseksfVo foghdy&
13098
µ
µ
1991
21] ?ku';ke baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
V;wcl iQkj U;weSfVd
HkkX;ksn; gksVy ds lkeus]
Vk;j
yk,ok] okluk] lkuan]
vgenkckn&382170
2-
3763875
4&10&2011
eSllZ dY;k.k ToSYl izk- fy-]
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ
1417
µ
µ
1999
49] lqij eky] yky caxyk
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa
ds ikl] lh th jksM]
f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk
vgenkckn&380009
,oa eqgjkadu
3-
3764170
4&10&2011
eSllZ nkfxuk]
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ
1417
µ
µ
1999
14&15] okbZV gkml]
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa
iSysl jksM] ikyuiqj]
f'kYidkj 'kq¼rk
culdkaBk]
,oa eqgjkadu
mÙkj xqtjkr&385001
4-
3764271
4&10&2011
eSllZ dfiy ToSylZ]
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ
1417
µ
µ
1999
th 8] Hkxorh pSEclZ]
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa
LokfLrd Økl jksM]
f'kYidkj 'kq¼rk
lh th jksM]
,oa eqgjkadu
vgenkckn&380009
5-
3764574
5&10&2011
eSllZ Jh fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
Cykd uacj 744] jduiqj]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
rk dyksy] fM xka/huxj
uspqjy feujy okVj)
6-
3764473
7&10&2011
eSllZ 'kkfUr ToSylZ]
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ
1417
µ
µ
1999
;w@32@33] vij xzkmaM Ýyksj]
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa
tkWyh 'kkW¯ix ikb±V]
f'kYidkjhµ'kq¼rk
,u vkj th&3 'kks#e]
,oa eqgjkadu
xksM MksM jksM] lwjr&395007
7-
3764675
10&10&2011
eSllZ ,eVhdks Vk;j rFkk
vkVkseksfVo Oghdy&
15636
µ
µ
2005
jcj (izk-) fyfeVsM]
V;wCl iQkj U;weSfVd
losZ uacj 251] 252]
Vk;j iQkj de'kZy
xkao y{ehiqjk] esglkuk
Oghdy&Mk;xuy
uanklu&382715
rFkk jsfM;y IykbZ
4518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8-
3796486
10&10&2011
eSllZ ,eVhdks Vk;j rFkk
vkVkseksfVo Oghdy&
15627
µ
µ
2005
jcj (izk-) fyfeVsM]
U;weSfVd Vk;j iQkj
losZ uacj 251] 252]
Vw rFkk Fkzh ohyM
xkao y{ehiqjk] esglkuk
eksVj foghdy
uanklu&382715
9-
3764978
11&10&2011
eSllZ vejnhi ikbZIl]
vuIykfLVdlkbM
4985
µ
µ
2000
IykV uacj 843@3]
ih oh lh ikbZi iQkj
vkse baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
iksVscy okVj lIykbZl
fudh dscy ds ikl]
jduiqj] xka/huxj]
dyksy&382721
10-
3765374
11&10&2011
eSllZ ikiqyj iEi baMLVªht]
vksiuoSy lce£lcy
14220
µ
µ
1994
IykV uacj 5] HkkbZthHkkbZ
iEilSV
baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] vfuy LVkpZ
jksM] ujksMk jksM]
vgenkckn&380025
11-
3766982
14&10&2011
eSllZ tSue dscy fyfeVsM]
Økal¯ydM iksyhFkyhu
7098
1
µ
1988
jksM uacj] 1] yky njoktk]
balwyfVM ih oh lh
mMokMk ikfj;k jksM]
'khFkM dscy
ih vks mMokMk] jsyos LVs'ku]
xkao ljks/h] rkyikjMh]
oylkn] m/uk&396185
12-
3767782
14&10&2011
eSllZ :nzk okVj izkslSl]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
ch@86] ch@87] Jh jke ,LVsV]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
vks<o pksdMh ds ikl]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
¯jx jksM] vgenkckn&38241`5
13-
3767681
18&10&2011
eSllZ lksge ,aVjizkbZl]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
79@1@1] lkxj Mkb±x ds ikl]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
Mkuw VSDLVkbZy jksM]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
Nkouhokyk dEikmaM]
cgjeiqjk] vgenkckn&380022
14-
3766780
18&10&2011
eSllZ xqtjkr bulSfDVlkbZMl
Vªk;tksiQksl beyfoiQk;scy 14937
µ
µ
2001
fyfeVsM]
dulaVsªV
IykV uacj 805&806]
th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV]
vadys'oj] Hkk:p&393002
15-
3767984
19&10&2011
eSllZ ikue ve`r feujy okVj]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
larjkeiqj jksM] dkukckfj;k
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
uk eqokMk] rk yqukokMk]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
iapegy&389230
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4519
16-
3774678
20&10&2011
eSllZ vf'ou ikfyelZ]
dscy Vaª¯dx rFkk
14927
2
µ
2001
12@,] lkadsr baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
M¯DVx fllVe
xkao eksjS;k lkuan]
iQkj bySfDVªdy
pkaxksnj] vgenkckn
baLVkys'ku
17-
3769180
21&10&2011
eSllZ Ñ".kk fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
2] Hkkjr ,LVsV] lksukfj;k
(vnj nSu iSdstM
ds lkeus] Cykd 5]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
ckiwuxj] vgenkckn
18-
3768582
21&10&2011
eSllZ iVsy iksVZySaM flesaV]
53 xzsM vk£Mujh iksVZySaM 12269
µ
µ
1987
IykV uacj 9@,] oklsVh
flesaV
xkao] rktiqj jksM]
rk gyksy] iapegy&389350
19-
3769685
21&10&2011
eSllZ t; vacs baMLVªht]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
IykV uacj 3001] isQl 4]
(vnj nSu iSdstM
th vkbZ Mh lh] oVok]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
vgenkckn
20-
3768683
24&10&2011
eSllZ vks'kks daiksuSaV~l]
lsiQVh] izksVSfDVo rFkk
15298
2
µ
2002
,@1] 447]
vkD;wis'kuy iqQVoh;j
th vkbZ Mh lh vadys'oj]
iQkj izksiSQ'kuy ;wl
Hkk:p&393002
21-
3768885
24&10&2011
eSllZ ydh IykbZ ySfeusV~l]
oqM iQy'k Mksj 'kVj
2202
1
µ
1999
losZ uacj 29@3] ih&1@ih&1]
(lkfyM dksj VkbZi)
,u ,p uacj 8]
xkao ykyokMk] oylkn]
vacjxkWo&396105
22-
3768986
24&10&2011
eSllZ ydh IykbZ ySfeusV~l]
Cykd cksMZ
1659
µ
µ
2004
losZ uacj 29@3] ih&1@ih&1]
,u ,p uacj 8]
xkWo rkyokMk] oylkn]
vacjxkao&96105
23-
3769079
24&10&2011
eSllZ ydh IykbZ ySfeusV~l]
eSfju IykbZoqM
710
µ
µ
2010
losZ uacj 29@3] ih&1@ih&1]
,u ,p uacj 8]
xkWo ykyokMk] oylkn]
vacjxk¡o&396105
24-
3769281
24&10&2011
eSllZ ty/kjk fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
IykV uacj 605]
(vnj nSu iSdstM
th vkbZ Mh lh] ikyst]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
fM&Hkk:p] ikyst&392220
¹la- lh,eMh@13%11º
Vh- ch- ukjk;.ku] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
4520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S.O. 1922.—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
Sl.
Licences
Grant Date
Name and Address of
Title of the
IS No.
Part Sec. Year
No.
No.
the party
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
1.
3763774
3-10-2011
M/s. Swayam Rubber
Automotive vehicles-
13098
- -
1991
Industries,
tubes for pneumatic
21, Ghanshyam Industrial
tyres
Estate, Opp. Bhagyodaya
Hotel, Lyava, Vasana Sanand,
Ahmedabad-382170
2.
3763875
4-10-2011
M/s. Kalyan Jewels Private
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
Limited,
alloys, Jewellery/
49, Super Mall, Near Lal
artefacts—fineness
bunglow, C.G. Road,
and marking
Ahmedabad-380009
3.
3764170
4-10-2011
M/s. Dagina,
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
14-15, White House,
alloys, Jewellery/
Palace Road,
artefacts—fineness
Palanpur Banaskantha,
and marking
N. Gujrat Palanpur-385001
4.
3764271
4-10-2011
M/s. Kapil Jewellers
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
G-8, Bhagwati Chambers,
alloys, Jewellery/
Swastik Cross Road,
artefacts—fineness
C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380009
and marking
5.
3764574
5-10-2011
M/s. Shree beverages,
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
Block No. 744,
water (other than
Rakanpur Taluka Kalol,
packaged natural
Distt. Gandhinagar
mineral water)
6.
3764473
7-10-2011
M/s. Shanti Jewellers
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
U/32/33, Upper Ground Floor,
alloys, Jewellery/
Jolly Shopping Point,
artefacts—fineness
NR G-3, Showroom,
and marking
Ghod Dod Road,
Surat-395007
7.
3764675
10-10-2011
M/s. Emtico Tyre &
Automotive vehicles - 15636
- -
2005
Rubber 1 (P) Ltd.
pneumatic tyres for
Survey No. 251, 252,
commercial vehicles -
Village Laxmipura,
diagonal and radial ply
Maheshana, Nandasan-382715
8.
3796486
10-10-2011
M/s. Emtico Tyre &
Automotive vehicles - 15627
- -
2005
Rubber 1 (P) Ltd.
pneumatic tyres for
Survey No. 251, 252,
two and three-wheeled
Village Laxmipura,
motor vehicles
Maheshana,
Nandasan-382715
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4521
9.
3764978
11-10-2011
M/s. Amardeep Pipes
Unplasticized PVC
4985
- -
2000
Plot No. 843/3, Om Industrial
pipes for potable
Estate, Near Niki Cable,
water supplies -
Rakanpur, Gandhinagar,
Kalol-382721
10.
3765374
11-10-2011
M/s. Popular Pump Industries
Openwell submersible
14220
- -
1994
Plot No. 5, Bhaijibhai Ind.
pumpsets -
Estate, Anil Starch Road,
Naroda Road,
Ahmedabad-380025
11.
3766982
14-10-2011
Zenium Cables Ltd.,
Crosslinked
7098
- -
1988
Shed No. 1, Lal Darwaja,
polyethylene
Udwada-Paria Road,
insulated PVC
P.O. Udwada Railway
Sheathed cables
Station, Village Sarodhi,
Talpardi, (DT), Valsad,
Udwada-396185
12.
3767782
14-10-2011
M/s. Rudra Water Process
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
B/86, B/87, Shree Ram Estate,
water (other than
Near Odhav Chokdi, Ring
packaged natural
Road, Ahmedabad-382415
mineral water)
13.
3767681
18-10-2011
M/s. Soham Enterprise
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
79/1/1, Near Sagar Dyeing,
water (other than
Danu Textile Road,
packaged natural
Chhavniwala Compound,
mineral water)
Behrampura,
Ahmedabad-380022
14.
3766780
18-10-2011
M/s. Gujarat Insecticides
Triazophos emulsifiable
14937
- -
2001
Limited,
concentrate
Plot No. 805-806, GIDC
Industrial Estate, Ankleshwar,
Bharuch-393002
15.
3767984
19-10-2011
Panam Amrut Mineral Water
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
Santrampur Road, Near
water (other than
Kanabaria NA Muvada,
packaged natural
Taluka Lunawada,
mineral water)
Panchamahal-389230
16.
3774678
20-10-2011
Ashwin Polymers
Cable trunking and
14927
2 -
2001
12/A, Sanket Industrial
ducting systems for
Estate, Village Moraiya
electrical installations
Sanand Ahmedabad,
Changodar
17.
3769180
21-10-2011
Krishna Beverages
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
2, Bharat Estate,
water (other than
Opp Sonariya, Block-5,
packaged natural
Bapunagar, Ahmedabad
mineral water)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
4522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18.
3768582
21-10-2011
Patel Portland Cement
53 grade ordinary
12269
- -
1987
Plot No. 9/A,
portland cement
Vaseti Village, Tajpur Road,
Tal Halol,
Panchamahal-389350
19.
3769685
21-10-2011
Jay Ambe Industries
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
Plot No. 3001, Phase IV,
water (other than
G.I.D.C. Vatva,
packaged natural
Ahmedabad
mineral water)
20.
3768683
24-10-2011
M/s. Osho Components
Safety, protective and
15298
2 -
2002
A/1, 447, G.I.D.C.,
occupational footwear
Ankleshwar,
for professional use
Bharuch-393002
21.
3768885
24-10-2011
Lucky Ply Laminates
Wooden flush door
2202
1 -
1999
Survey No, 29/3, P-1/P-1,
shutters (solid core
N.H. No. 8, Vill Talwada,
type)
Valsad, Umbergaon-396105
22.
3768986
24-10-2011
Lucky Ply Laminates
Block Boards
1659
- -
2004
Survey No, 29/3, P-1/P-1,
N.H. No. 8, Vill Talwada,
Valsad, Umbergaon-396105
23.
3769079
24-10-2011
Lucky Ply Laminates
Marine plywood
710
- -
2010
Survey No, 29/3, P-1/P-1,
N.H. No. 8, Vill Talwada,
Valsad, Umbergaon-396105
24.
3769281
24-10-2011
Jaldhara Beverages
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
Plot No. 605, G.I.D.C. Palej,
water (other than
District Bharuch,
packaged natural
Palej-392220
mineral water)
[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]
T. B. NARAYANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk-1923-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa
Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k
x;k gS %µ
vuqlwph
Ø-
ykblsal la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk
ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe
jí djus dh frfFk
la-
lh,e@,y
lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1-
3744467
eSllZ Økmu baMLVªht]
dUM;wV iQkj bySfDVªdy baLVkys'ku
19&10&2011
IykV uacj 6] VksjsaV ikoj lc LVs'ku ds
ikVZ 3 fjftM Iysu dUM;wV vkiQ
lkeus] 'kkgokMh cl LVki ds ihNs]
balwysfVM eSfVfj;y
ukjksy] vgenkckn&382405
vkbZ ,l 9537 % ikVZ 3 % 1983
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4523
2-
7438480
eSllZ Jh y{eh oqM baMLVªht]
oqMu Ýy'k Mksj 'kVj (lksysM dksj VkbZi)
05&10&2011
mtsfM;k jksM] ,V rFkk ih- vks- egh;ky]
ikVZ 1 IykbZoqM isQl isuy
rk- rkyksM] fMfLVªDV lkcjdkaVk&83215
vkbZ ,l 2202 % ikVZ 1 % 1999
3-
7490482
eSllZ e.khjRuk vkjukeSaVl (vkbZ) izk- fy-]
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa
11&10&2011
'kkWil uacj 1] 'kads'oj dkEiySDl]
f'kYidkjhµ'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu
oh ih jksM] fMfLVªDV oylkn&396001
vkbZ ,l 1417 % 1999
4-
7627685
eSllZ lqij lkYVl izk- fyfeVsM]
vk;ksMkbTM lkYV
04&10&2011
xk¡o exukM] rk- tacwlj]
vkbZ ,l 7224 % 2006
fMfLVªDV Hkk:p&392150
5-
7643279
eSllZ ek iqQM rFkk fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
19&10&2011
IykV uacj 11] eqfuÑik jkbZl fey ds
(vnj nSu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj)
ikl] cynso Mkslk] vkbZ gkfLiVy ds
vkbZ ,l 14543 % 2004
lkeus] th vkbZ Mh lh] lkuan]
vgenkckn
6-
7805178
eSllZ jhxy flesaV izk- fyfeVsM]
53 xzsM vk£Mujh iksVZySaM lhesaV
25&10&2011
losZ uacj 68] IykV uacj 59&,@1]
vkbZ ,l 12269 % 1987
ihiksnjk] th vkbZ Mh lh rk- eaxjksy]
lwjr
¹la- lh,eMh@13%13º
Vh- ch- ukjk;.ku] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S.O. 1923.—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.
Licences
Name and Address of the
Article/Process with relevant Indian
Date of
No.
Licensee
Standards covered by the licence
Cancellation
CM/L-
cancelled
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
3744467
M/s. Crown Industries
Conduits for electrical installations :
19-10-2011
Plot No. 6, Opp. Torrent Power
Part 3 rigid plain conduits of
Sub-Station, B/H Shahwadi Bus
insulating materials
Stop, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405
IS 9537 : Part 3 : 1983
2.
7438480
M/s. Shree Laxmi Wood Industries
Wooden flush door shutters
05-10-2011
Ujediya Road, At. and P.O. Mahiyal,
(solid core type) : Part 1
Tal. Talod,
plywood face panels
Distt : Sabarkantha-383215
IS 2202 : Part 1 : 1999
3.
7490482
M/s. Maniratna Ornaments (I)
Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/
11-10-2011
Pvt. Ltd.
artifacts - fineness and making -
Shop No. 1, Shankeshwar Complex,
IS 1417 : 1999
VP Road, Distt : Valsad-396001
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
4524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
7627685
M/s. Super Salts Pvt. Ltd.
Iodized salt
04-10-2011
Village : Magnad,
IS 7224 : 2006
Taluka : Jambusar,
Distt. : Bharuch-392150
5.
7643279
M/s. Maa Foods and Beverages
Packaged drinking water
19-10-2011
Plot No. 11, Near Munikrupa Rice
(other than packaged natural
Mill, Opp. Baldev Dosa Eye
mineral water) —
Hospital, GIDC Sanand,
IS 14543 : 2004
Distt. : Ahmedabad
6.
7805178
M/s. Regal Cement Pvt. Ltd.
53 grade ordinary portland cement
25-10-2011
Survey No. 68, Plot No. 59-A/1,
IS 12269 : 1987
Pipodra GIDC, TA : Mangrol.
Distt. : Surat
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. B. NARAYANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1924-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %—
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
LohÑr djus
ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh;
Hkk- ek-
Hkkx vuq-
o"kZ
la-
la[;k
dh frfFk o"kZ@
ekud dk
la[;k
ekg
'kh"kZd
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
1-
3770973
01&11&2011
eSllZ uksoy toSYl]
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ
1417
µ
µ
1999
;w&29] xksYMu ikdZ] vkuan
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.k
egy jksM] vMktu]
f'kYidkjhµ'kq¼rk
lwjr&395001
,oa eqgjkadu
2-
3771773
02&11&2011
eSllZ 'kqHk ,aVjizkbZl]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
20] y{eh baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
[ksjkyw jksM] foluxj]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
esglkuk&384315
3-
3771874
03&11&2011
eSllZ Jh xksihukFk toSylZ
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ
1417
µ
µ
1999
izk- fyfeVsM]
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.k
'kkWi uacj 1&2] lw;kZ 'kkW¯ix
f'kYidkjhµ'kq¼rk
lSaVj] lsokJe jksM]
,oa eqgjkadu
Hkk:p&392001
4-
3772371
04&11&2011
eSllZ jksVkseSd iEil]
lce£lcy iEilSV
8034
µ
µ
2001
IykV uacj 3055] isQl 3]
Nrjky th vkbZ Mh lh ,LVsV]
xkao Nrjky] rk- dyksy]
xka/huxj&382729
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4525
5-
3772270
08&11&2011
eSllZ f'kok bathfu;lZ]
lce£lcy iEilSV
8034
µ
µ
2002
13] vj¯on ,LVsV] xkao izeq[k
iSysl] vkj ts fdujokyk ds
ikl] ckiwuxj]
vgenkckn&380025
6-
3774779
09&11&2011
eSllZ Hkokuh ekdsZ¯Vx]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
161] [kkVksMkjk] th vkbZ Mh lh]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
lctsy ds ihNs] [kkVksMkjk
uspqjy feujy okVj)
¯Vx jksM] lwjr&395002
7-
3773676
11&11&2011
eSllZ ts MSfy'k izksMDVl]
doM bySDVªksM iQkj
814
µ
µ
2004
IykV uacj 803@,@2] iVsy
eSu;wy eSVy vkdZ
,;j VSEi fyfeVsM] lksyk
oS¯YMx vkiQ dkcZu
lkarst jksM] rk- dyksy]
rFkk dkcZu eSxsuhl
xkao jduiqj]
LVhy
fMfLVªDV xka/huxj&372721
8-
3773777
15&11&2011
eSllZ f'ko jRuk baMLVªht]
oqMu Ýy'k Mksj 'kVj
2202
1
µ
1999
es/oh fVEclZ ekdsZV]
(lksysM dksj VkbZi)
66 ds oh lc LVs'ku ds ikl]
ikVZ 1 IykbZoqM isQl
,V deyk] iksLV nkHku]
iSuy
[ksMk ufM;kM&387320
9-
3773474
15&11&2011
eSllZ ljtw beiSDl fyfeVsM]
flyaMj iQkj vksu cksMZ
15490
µ
µ
2004
IykV uacj tSM@13] nkgst lst
LVksjst vkiQ dkEijSLM
fyfeVsM] losZ uacj 596@ih]
uspqjy xSl ,l iQ;wy
602@ih] 603@ih] 604@ih]
iQkj vkVkseksfVo
nkgst] vacsFkk] ok;xjk]
Oghdy
fM- Hkk:p&392130
10-
3773575
15&11&2011
eSllZ xqtjkr bulSfDVlkbM
DyksjiQkbZjhiQkl
8944
µ
µ
1978
fyfeVsM]
beylhiQk,cy
IykV uacj 805@806]
dalaVsªV
th vkbZ Mh lh baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
Hkk:p] vadys'oj&393002
11-
3774577
16&11&2011
eSllZ ,e ch ,p iEil
vksiuoSy lce£lcy
14220
µ
µ
1994
(xqt-) izk- fyfeVsM]
iEilSV
14] th vkbZ Mh lh ujksMk
baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] ujksMk]
vgenkckn&382330
12-
3774476
17&11&2011
eSllZ x#M flesaV izksMDVl]
izhdkLV daØhV ikbi
458
µ
µ
2003
uacj 76] th vkbZ Mh lh
(fon rFkk fonkmV
baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] isQl 1]
fjbuiQkslZeSaV)
,iQ jksM] oVok]
vgenkckn&382445
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
4526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13-
3775074
17&11&2011
eSllZ f'kolkxj fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
6@7] izHkq ,LVsV] t; ekrkth
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
dEikmaM] ,V xkao pkaxksnj]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
rk- lkuan] fM- vgenkckn
14-
3776682
23&11&2011
eSllZ [kksfM;kj ToSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ
1417
µ
µ
1999
Mh@16] jkty{eh lkslkbVh]
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.k
vfHkyk"kk pkj jLrk]
f'kYidkjhµ'kq¼rk
U;w lkek jksM]
,oa eqgjkadu
oMksnjk&390002
15-
3776783
23&11&2011
eSllZ 'kqHke toSylZ
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ
1417
µ
µ
1999
39]460 ikjluxj] ikVZ 3]
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.k
lksyk jksM] ukjk;.kiqjk]
f'kYidkjhµ'kq¼rk
vgenkckn&380013
,oa eqgjkadu
16-
3777280
23&11&2011
eSllZ Jh vafcdk thvksVSDl
VSDlVkbZy Vkjiksfyul
7903
µ
µ
2005
izk- fyfeVsM]
esM Úke gkbZ MSaflVh
15] lStiqj 'kkgokM+h jksM]
iksyfFkyhu oksou
lStiqj xksikyiqj] ukjksy]
iSQcfjd
vgenkckn&382405
17-
3770266
23&11&2011
eSllZ f'kYih ,aVjizkbZfll
iSdsTM uspqjy
13428
µ
µ
2005
izk- fyfeVsM]
feujy okVj
;wfuV II] losZ uacj 316@5]
rkjkiqj ekxZ] jhojlkbZM Ldwy
ds ikl] ,;jiksVZ jksM ds
lkeus] lh ,l Mh fMiks ds
ikl] xkao galksy]
vgenkckn&380003
18-
3777583
24&11&2011
eSllZ feÙky LVhy baMLVªht]
dkcZu LVhy dkLV
2830
µ
µ
1992
IykV uacj 1] Cykd uacj 382]
fcySV buxksVl] fcySV
pkaxksnj baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
cywe rFkk LySc iQkj
f=kos.kh ekcZy ysu]
fj jks¯yx baVw LVhy
lj[kst ckoyk gkbZos]
iQkj tujy LVªDpjy
pkaxksnj] vgenkckn&382213
ijil
¹la- lh,eMh@13%11º
Vh- ch- ukjk;.ku] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S.O. 1924.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in
the following schedule :—
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licences
Grant Date
Name and Address of
Title of the
IS No.
Part Sec. Year
No.
No.
the party
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
1.
3770973
01-11-2011
M/s. Novel Jewels
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
U-29, Golden Park,
alloys, Jewellery/
Anand Mahal Road,
artefacts—fineness
Adajan, Surat-395001
and marking
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4527
2.
3771773
02-11-2011
M/s. Shubh Enterprise
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
20, Laxmi Industrial Estate,
water (other than
Kheralu Road, Visnagar,
packaged natural
Mahesana-384315
mineral water)
3.
3771874
03-11-2011
M/s. Shree Gopinath
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
alloys, Jewellery/
Shop No. 1-2, Surya
artefacts—fineness
Shopping Centre,
and marking
Sevashram Road,
Bharuch-392001
4.
3772371
04-11-2011
M/s. Rotomech Pumps
Submersible
8034
- -
2002
Plot No. 3055, Phase-3,
pumpsets
Chhatral GIDC Estate,
Village Chhatral, Taluka-
Kalok, Gandhinagar-382729
5.
3772270
08-11-2011
M/s. Shiva Engineers
Submersible
8034
- -
2002
13, Arvind Estate, Near
pumpsets
Pramukh Palace, Near
R.J. Kinariwala, Bapunagar,
Ahmedabad-380025
6.
3774779
09-11-2011
M/s. Bhavani Marketting
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
161, Khatodara GIDC,
water (other than
Behind Subjail, Khatodara
packaged natural
Ting Road, Surat-395002
mineral water)
7.
3773676
11-11-2011
M/s. J Dalishh Products
Covered electrodes
814
- -
2004
Plot No. 803/A/2, Near
for manual metal arc
Patel Air Temp. Ltd.
welding of carbon
Sola-Santej Road, Tal Kalol,
and carbon
Vill. Rakanpur,
manganese steel
Distt. : Gandhinagar-372721
8.
3773777
15-11-2011
M/s. Shiv Ratna Industies
Wooden flush door
2202
1 -
1999
Meghavi Timbers Market,
shutters (solid core
Near 66KV Sub Station,
type)
At. Kamla, Post Dabhan
Kheda, Nadiad-387320
9.
3773474
15-11-2011
M/s. Sarju Impex Limited
Cylinders for on-board 15490
- -
2004
Plot No. Z/13, Dahez Sez Ltd.,
storage of compressed
Survey No. 596/P 602/P, 603/P,
natural gas as a fuel
604/P, Dahez, Ambhetha,
for automotive
Vagra Dist Bharuch-392130
vehicles
10.
3773575
15-11-2011
M/s. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd.
Chlorpyrifos
8944
- -
1978
Plot No. 805/806, GIDC
emulsifiable
Industrial Estate, Bharuch
concentrates
Ankleshwar-393002
11.
3774577
16-11-2011
MBH Pumps (Guj) Pvt. Ltd.
Openwell submersible
14220
- -
1994
14, GIDC Naroda Industrial
pumpsets
Estate, Naroda,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
4528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ahmedabad-382330
12.
3774476
17-11-2011
Garud Cement Products
Precast concrete pipes 458
- -
2003
Plot No. 76, GIDC Industrial
(with and without
Estate, Phase 1, F Road,
reinforcement)
Vatwa, Ahmedabad-382445
13.
3775074
17-11-2011
M/s. Shivsagar Beverages
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
6/7, Prabhu Estate, Jai Mataji
water (other than
Compound, At. Village
packaged natural
Changodar, Tal. Sanand,
mineral water)
Dist. Ahmedabad
14.
3776682
23-11-2011
M/s. Khodiyar Jewellers
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
D/16, Rajlaxmi Society,
alloys, Jewellery/
Abhilasha Char Rasta,
artefacts—fineness
New Sama Road,
and marking
Vadodara-390002
15.
3776783
23-11-2011
Subham Jewellers
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
39, 460 Parasnagar,
alloys, Jewellery/
Part 3, Sola Road,
artefacts—fineness
Naranpura,
and marking
Ahmedabad-380013
16.
3777280
23-11-2011
M/s. Shree Ambica Geotex
Textiles-tarpaulins
7903
- -
2005
Pvt. Ltd.
made from high
15, Saijpur Shahwadi Road,
density polyethylene
Saijpur Gopalpur, Narol,
woven fabric
Ahmedabad-382405
17.
3770266
23-11-2011
M/s. Sheelpe Enterprises
Packaged natural
13428
- -
2005
Pvt. Ltd.
mineral water
Unit II, Survey No. 316/5,
Tarapore Marg, Near
Riverside School, Opp
Airport Road, Near C.S.D.
Depot, Village Hansol,
Ahmedabad-380003
18.
3777583
24-11-2011
Mittal Steel Industries
Carbon steel cast
2830
- -
1992
Plot No. 1, Block No. 382,
billet ingots, billets,
Changodar Industrial
blooms and slabs
Estate, Triveni Marble Lane
for re-rolling into
Sarkhej-Bavla Highway,
steel for general
Changodar,
structural purposes
Ahmedabad-382213
[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]
T. B. NARAYANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1925-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa
Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k
x;k gS %µ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4529
vuqlwph
Ø-
ykblsal la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk
ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe
jí djus dh frfFk
la-
lh,e@,y
lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1-
7574892
eSllZ iSjkxku IykfLVd baMfLVªht]
vuIykfLVlkbTM ih oh lh ikbIl
03&11&2011
102@1] th vkbZ Mh lh]
iQkj iksVscy okVj lIykbZl
edjiqjk] oMksnjk
vkbZ ,l 4985 % 2000
2-
7635482
eSllZ f'kyoh ToSYl izk- fyfeVsM]
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ /krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.k
23&11&2011
20] th ,iQ lqijeky] yky caxyk ds
f'kYidkjhµ'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu
ikl] lh th jksM] uojaxiqjk]
vkbZ ,l 1417 % 1999
vgenkckn&380 006
¹la- lh,eMh@13%13º
Vh- ch- ukjk;.ku] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S.O. 1925.—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.
Licence
Name and Address of the
Article/Process with relevant Indian
Date of
No.
Licensee
Standards covered by the licence
Cancellation
CM/L-
cancelled
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
7574892
Paragon Plastic Industries
Unplasticized PVC Pipes
03-11-2011
102/1, GIDC, Makarpura,
for potable water supplies
Vadodara
IS 4985 : 2000
2.
7635482
Shilvi Jewelles Pvt. Ltd.
Gold and gold alloys jewellery/
23-11-2011
20, G.F. Supermall, Nr. Lal
artifacts - fineness and making -
Banglow, C.G. Road, Navrangpura,
IS 1417 : 1999
Ahmedabad-380 006
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. B. NARAYANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1926 -—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e (4) ds mi&fu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %—
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
LohÑr djus
ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk
Hkkjrh;
Hkk- ek-
Hkkx vuq-
o"kZ
la-
la[;k
dh frfFk o"kZ@
ekud dk
la[;k
ekg
'kh"kZd
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
1-
3779890
01&12&2011
eSllZ thou/kjk baMLVªht]
izhdkLV daØhV ikbi
458
µ
µ
2003
Cykd uacj 32] ,V xks¯oniqjk]
(fon rFkk fonkmV
xkao lku[ksMk] rk- lku[ksMk]
fjbuiQkslZeSaV)
fM- oMksnjk&391135
4530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2-
3780269
02&12&2011
eSllZ ¯Vcj gkse fyfeVsM]
oqMu Ýy'k Mksj 'kVj
2202
1
µ
1999
;w&2] IykV uacj 401&402]
(lksysM dksj VkbZi)
th vkbZ Mh lh] vejsB]
vkuan&388220
3-
3780370
02&12&2011
eSllZ fjyk;al jcj baMLVªht]
vkVkseksfVo Oghdy &
13098
µ
µ
1991
'kSM uacj lh&1@602]
V~;wCl iQkj U;weSfVd
th vkbZ Mh lh] lkfjxke]
Vk;j
fM oylkn&396155
4-
3780976
03&12&2011
eSllZ /hjt okVj baMLVªht]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
3@Mh ds baMfLVª;y ,LVsV]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
vksYM isVªksy iEi ds ihNs]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
ch vkj Vh ,l jksM] m/uk]
lwjr&394210
5-
3784681
03&12&2011
eSllZ lR;k okVj]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
295] euh"kk lkslkbVh]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
xkao dkslkM] rk pks;k'kh]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
lwjr] dkslkM&394107
6-
3781069
05&12&2011
eSllZ iQyksjk okVj]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
IykV uacj 3@,] 'kSM uacj
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
4 ,.M 5] HkkVsuk baMfLVª;y
uspqjy feujy okVj)
,LVsV&1] vatuk
lwjr&395002
7-
3780572
05&12&2011
eSllZ lqij VSd ,xzks baMLVªht]
ikoj Fkzs'kj lsÝVh
9020
µ
µ
2002
losZ uacj 106@107 ih] Cykd
fjDok;jeSaVl
uacj 109] ,V rFkk iksLV
vuklu] ujksMk nsgxke jksM]
rk nldjksbZ] fM
vgenkckn&382330
8-
3780875
05&12&2011
eSllZ vkbZMy iqQMl rFkk fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
ckck nhi¯lg uxj] ,u ,p
(vnj nSu iSdsTM
uacj 08] ,p ih iSVªksy iEi]
uspqjy feujy okVj)
VI&gynj] Hkk#p
9-
3785481
07&12&2011
eSllZ iq"dj baMLVªht]
gkbZ izs'kj lksfM;e osij 9974
1
µ
1981
Cykd uacj 87@1] iq"dj ,LVsV]
ySEil
oklks v¯ynjk jksM] xkao 'khgksyMh
[ksMk] oklks&387380
10-
3781574
07&12&2011
eSllZ vkj vkj dscy fyfeVsM]
Økl¯ydM iksyhFkyhu
7098
1
µ
1988
vkj ,l uacj 201] 202@1]
balwyfVM ih oh lh
202@2] 203 rFkk 327@3]
'khFkM dscy
[kkaMk jksM] ok?kksfM;k
oMksnjk&391760
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4531
11-
3782172
08&12&2011
eSllZ ikVhnkj iqQMl rFkk fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
14543
µ
µ
2004
[kksfM;kj uxj jksM] ykaHkk xke]
(vnj nSu iSdstM
vgenkckn&382405
uspqjy feujy okVj)
12-
3781473
08&12&2011
eSllZ ts vkj 'kkg rFkk dEiuh]
izhdkLV dkaØhV ikbi
458
µ
µ
2003
Vkjxksy ikfV;k] lw;kZxke]
(fon rFkk fonkmV
xk¡o lw;kZ] rk lku[ksMk]
jsfuiQkslZeSaV
oMksnjk
13-
3782273
12&12&2011
eSllZ xqtjkr vydyhl rFkk
cyh¯px ikmMj
1065
µ
µ
1989
dSfedYl fyfeVsM]
LVscy
,V- rFkk iksLV nkgSt] rk okxjk]
Hkk#p&392130
14-
3782475
12&12&2011
eSllZ tSulu fofu;lZ IykbZ]
oqMu iQy'k Mksj 'kVj
2202
1
µ
1999
losZ uacj&475@ih&8] 14] 6]
(lksysM dksj VkbZi)
13] fcihdks baMLVªht ds lkeus]
fcykseksjk fp[kyh jksM]
,V- uankj[kk]
fM- uolkjh&396325
15-
3782677
13&12&2011
eSllZ nqxkZ iSfLVlkbZMl rFkk
eSysfFk;u M¯LVx
2568
µ
µ
1978
dSfedYl]
ikmMj
IykV uacj 901] dsjkyk
baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] ckoyk ds ikl]
dsjkyk] vgenkckn&382220
16-
3782778
13&12&2011
eSllZ eSDloSy baftfu;lZ]
vksiuoSy lce£lcy
14220
µ
µ
1994
lh&1@1215] xkf;=kh eafnj jksM]
iEilSV
isQl IV] th vkbZ Mh lh]
ujksMk] vgenkckn&382330
17-
3782879
13&12&2011
eSllZ okVjiQjslZ iEil]
lce£lcy iEilSV
8034
µ
µ
2002
7] osnkar izHkk ,LVsV] fdj.k
eksVj ds ihNs dEikmaM]
lj[kst lkuan jksM]
vgenkckn&382210
18-
3783275
15&12&2011
eSllZ xuscks bafM;k izk- fyfeVsM] iQk;j ,Dl¯Vxo'kj
13385
µ
µ
1992
IykV uacj 1302&1306]
50 dSisflVh Oghy
th vkbZ Mh lh baMfLVª;y
ekmafVM okVj VkbZi
,LVsV] pkaikusj jksM] iapegy]
(xSl dkVfjt)
gyksy&389350
19-
3783376
16&12&2011
eSllZ pk: toSYl
Lo.kZ rFkk Lo.kZ feJ
1417
µ
µ
1999
th 1] ;wfu;u Lds;j]
/krqvksa ds vkHkw"k.kksa
xksM MksM jksM]
f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk
lwjr&395007
,oa eqgjkadu
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
4532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
20-
3783679
16&12&2011
eSllZ gkbZ&Vsd jcj baMLVªht]
vkVkseksfVo foghdy &
13098
µ
µ
1991
IykV uacj 3110] thvkbZMhlh]
V;wcl iQkj U;weSfVd
lkjhxke] rk mejxke]
Vk;j
oylkn] lkjhxke&396155
21-
3783780
19&12&2011
eSllZ Vh lh ,l jcj baMLVªht]
vkVkseksfVo foghdy &
13098
µ
µ
1991
6@,] Cykd uacj 95] f=kewy
V;wcl iQkj U;weSfVd
,LVsV] lkcj VkbZyl ds
Vk;j
lkeus] [krjkt] rk dyksy]
xka/huxj&382721
¹la- lh,eMh@13%11º
Vh- ch- ukjk;.ku] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S.O. 1926.—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
Sl.
Licences
Grant Date
Name and Address of
Title of the
IS No.
Part Sec. Year
No.
No.
the party
Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
1.
3779890
01-12-2011
M/s Jivandhara Industries
Precast concrete pipes 458
- -
2003
Block No. 32, At. Govindpura,
(with and without
Village Sankheda, Tal
reinforcement)
Sankheda,
Dist. Vadodara-391135
2.
3780269
02-12-2011
M/s Timbor Home Ltd.
Wooden flush door
2202
1 -
1999
U-2, Plot No. 401-402,
shutters (solid core
G.I.D.C. Umreth,
type)
Anand-388220
3.
3780370
02-12-2011
Reliance Rubber Industries
Automotive vehicles - 13098
- -
1991
Shed No. C-1/602,
tubes for pneumatic
G.I.D.C. Sarigam,
tyres
Dist. Valsad-396155
4.
3780976
03-12-2011
M/s Deeraj Water Industries
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
3/D.K. Industries Estate,
water (other than
Behind Old Petrol Pump,
packaged natural
Brts Road Udhna,
mineral water)
Surat-394210
5.
3784681
03-12-2011
M/s. Satya Water
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
295, Manisha Society, Village
water (other than
Kosad, Taluka Choyashi,
packaged natural
Surat, Kosad-394107
mineral water)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4533
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
6.
3781069
05-12-2011
M/s. Flora Water
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
Plot No. 3/A, Shed No. 4 & 5,
water (other than
Bhatena Industrial Estate-1,
packaged natural
Anjana, Surat-395002
mineral water)
7.
3780572
05-12-2011
M/s. Super Tech Agro Industries Power Thresher-
9020
- -
2002
Survey No. 106/107P,
safety requirements
Block No. 109, AT. & Post
Anasan, Naroda-Dehgam
Road, TA Daskroi,
Dist. Ahmedabad-382330
8.
3780875
05-12-2011
M/s. Ideal Foods & Beverages
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
Baba Dipsingh Nagar,
water (other than
N.H. NP 08, Near H.P.
packaged natural
Petrol Pump,
mineral water)
VI-Haldar, Bharuch
9.
3785481
07-12-2011
M/s. Pushkar Industries
High pressure
9974
1 -
1981
Block No. 87/1, Puskar
sodium vapour
Estate, Vaso Alindra Road,
lamps
Village Shiholdi Kheda,
Vaso-387380
10.
3781574
07-12-2011
M/s. R. R. Kabel Limited
Crosslinked
7098
1 -
1988
R.S. No. 201, 202/1, 202/2,
polyethylene
203 and 327/3, Khanda Road,
insulated PVC
Waghodia, Vadodara-391760
sheathed cables
11.
3782172
08-12-2011
M/s. Patidar Foods and
Packaged drinking
14543
- -
2004
Beverages
water (other than
Khodiyar Nagar Road,
packaged natural
Lambha Gam,
mineral water)
Dist. Ahmedabad-382405
12.
3781473
08-12-2011
M/s. J. R. Shah & Company
Precast concrete pipes 458
- -
2003
Targol Patia, Suryagam,
(with and without
Village-Surya, Taluka
reinforcement)
Sankheda, Vadodara
13.
3782273
12-12-2011
Gujarat Alkalies and
Bleaching powder,
1065
- -
1989
Chemicals Ltd.
stable
At. & Post Dahej, Taluka
Vagra, Bharuch-392130
14.
3782475
12-12-2011
M/s. Jenson Veneers Ply
Wooden flush door
2202
1 -
1999
Survey No. 475/P-8, 14, 6,
shutters (solid core
13, Opp. Bipico Industries,
type)
Bilimora Chikhli Road,
At. Nandarkha,
Dist. Navsari-396325
15.
3782677
13-12-2011
Durga Pesticides and Chemicals Malathion dusting
2568
- -
1978
Plot No. 901, Kerala Industrial
powders
Estate, Nr. Bavla, Kerala,
Ahmedabad-382220
4534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
3782778
13-12-2011
M/s. Maxwell Engineers
Openwell submersible
14220
- -
1994
C-1/1215, Gayatri Mandir
pumpsets
Road, Phase IV, G.I.D.C.,
Naroda, Ahmedabad-382330
17.
3782879
13-12-2011
M/s Waterforce Pumps
Submersible
8034
- -
2002
7, Vedant Prabha Estate,
pumpsets
Behind Kiran Motor Compound,
Sarkhej-Sanand Road,
Ahmedabad-382210
18.
3783275
15-12-2011
Gunnebo India Private Limited
Fire extinguisher 50
13385
- -
1992
Plot No. 1302-1306, GIDC
capacity wheel
Industrial Estate, Champaner
mounted water
Road, Panchamahal,
type (gas cartridge)
Halol-389350
19.
3783376
16-12-2011
M/s Charu Jewels
Gold and gold
1417
- -
1999
G-1, Union Squre,
alloys, Jewellery/
Ghod-Dod Road,
artefacts—fineness
Surat-395007
and marking
20.
3783679
16-12-2011
M/s Hi-Tec Rubber Industries
Automotive vehicles-
13098
- -
1991
Plot No. 3110, G.I.D.C.,
tubes for pneumatic
Sarigam Tal Umargam,
tyres
Valsad, Sarigam-396155
21.
3783780
19-12-2011
M/s TCS Rubber Industries
Automotive vehicles-
13098
- -
1991
6/A, Block No. 95, Trimul
tubes for pneumatic
Estate, Opp Sabar Tiles,
tyres
Khatraj Ta Kalol,
Gandhinagar-382721
[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]
T. B. NARAYANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1927-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa
Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jn~n@LFkfxr dj fn;k
x;k gS %µ
vuqlwph
Ø-
ykblsal la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk
ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe
jí djus dh frfFk
la-
lh,e@,y
lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1-
7538282
eSllZ fgYVu gSYFk ds;j bul]
iSdstcan is;ty
08&12&2011
th&1] tketke ikdZ] ngst ck; ikl
(vnj nSu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj)
jksM] djekM] euwckj Øk¯lx jksM]
vkbZ ,l 14543 % 2004
ueZnk vkbZ ih lh ,y ds ikl]
fM&Hkk:p&392001
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4535
2-
3618765
eSllZ ekrkth fcojst]
iSdstcan is;ty
27&12&2011
ohV iSQDVjh rFkk jkbZl fey dEikmaM]
(vnj nSu iSdsTM uspqjy feujy okVj)
ok;l LVs'ku ds ihNs] ,u ,p uEcj 8]
vkbZ ,l 14543 % 2004
,V rFkk ih vks iksj] oMksnjk&391243
¹la- lh,eMh@13%13º
Vh- ch- ukjk;.ku] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2012
S.O. 1927 .—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.
Licence
Name and Address of the
Article/Process with relevant Indian
Date of
No.
Licensee
Standards covered by the licence
Cancellation
CM/L-
cancelled
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
7538282
M/s. Hilton Health Care Inc,
Packaged drinking Water (other than
08-12-2011
G-1, Zamzam Park, Dahej By Pass
Packaged nautral Mineral water)
Road, Karmad Manubar Crossing
IS 14543 : 2004
Road, Nr. Narmada IPCL,
Distt : Bharuch-392001
2.
3618765
M/s. Mataji Beverages
Packaged drinking Water (other than
27-12-2011
Wheat Factory and Ricemill
Packaged nautral Mineral water)
Compound, B/H Bys Station,
IS 14543 : 2004
N.H. No. 8, AT and Po POR,
Vadodara-391243
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. B. NARAYANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1928 -—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS os LFkkfir gks x, gaS %—
vuqlwph
Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
dh la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 10101 % 2012 @vkbZ ,l vks 3297 % 2007
—
31 ebZ] 2012
lwpuk ,oa izys[ku & vUrjkZ"Vªh; ekud J`a[kyk la[;k
(vkbZ ,l ,l ,u) (nwljk iqujh{k.k)
2-
vkbZ ,l 12879 (Hkkx 1) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
—
31 ebZ] 2012
3272&1 % 2003 rduhdh MªkbZx vkSj vU; Mªkbax
dk;kZy; izys[k dh ekbØksfiQ¯Yex & Hkkx 1 %
izpkyu fof/;k¡ (izFke iqujh{k.k)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
4536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3-
vkbZ ,l 15963 (Hkkx 1) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
—
31 ebZ] 2012
12647&1 % 2004 xzkfiQd rduhdh & gkWiQ&Vksu
djy i`FkDdj.k] izwiQ ,oa mRiknu ¯izV ds mRiknu
gsrq izfØ;k fu;a=k.k & Hkkx 1 % iSjkehVj ,oa ekiu
i¼fr
4-
vkbZ ,l 15963 (Hkkx 2) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
—
31 ebZ] 2012
12647&2 % 2004 xzkfiQd rduhd & gkWiQ&Vksu
dyj i`FkDdj.k] izwiQ ,oa mRiknu ¯izV ds mRiknu
gsrq izfØ;k fu;a=k.k & Hkkx 2 % vksiQlsV fyFkksxzkfiQd
izfØ;k,a
5-
vkbZ ,l 15963 (Hkkx 3) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
—
31 ebZ] 2012
12647&3 % 2005 xzkfiQd rduhdh & gkWiQ&Vksu
dyj i`FkDdj.k] izwiQ ,oa mRiknu ¯izV ds mRiknu
gsrq izfØ;k fu;a=k.k & Hkkx 3 % U;wt¯izV gsrq
dksYMlsV vkWiQlsV fyFkksxzkfiQd
6-
vkbZ ,l 15963 (Hkkx 4) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
—
31 ebZ] 2012
12647&4 % 2005 xzkfiQd rduhdh & gkWiQ&Vksu
dyj i`FkDdj.k] izwiQ ,oa mRiknu ¯izV ds mRiknu
gsrq izfØ;k fu;a=k.k & Hkkx 4 % izdk'ku uDdk'kh
¯iz¯Vx
7-
vkbZ ,l 15963 (Hkkx 5) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
—
31 ebZ] 2012
12647&5 % 2001 xzkfiQd rduhdh & gkWiQ&Vksu
dyj i`FkDdj.k] izwiQ ,oa mRiknu ¯izV ds mRiknu
gsrq izfØ;k fu;a=k.k & Hkkx 5 % LØhu ¯iz¯Vx
8-
vkbZ ,l 15963 (Hkkx 6) % 2012@vkbZ ,l vks
—
31 ebZ] 2012
12647&6 % 2006 xzkfiQd rduhd & gkWiQ&Vksu
dyj i`FkDdj.k] izwiQ ,oa mRiknu ¯izV ds mRiknu
gsrq izfØ;k fu;a=k.k & Hkkx 6 % ÝysDlksxzkfiQd ¯iz¯Vx
bu ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa% dksydrk]
p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj]
ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ % ,e ,l Mh@th&8 vf/lwpukº
fueZy dqekj iky] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (izcU/ ,oa ra=k foHkkx)
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2012
S. O. 1928 .—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 give in the Schedule
hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each :—
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4537
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
No. and Year of the Indian
No. and Year of Indian
Date of Established
Standards Established
Standards, if any,
or date of establish-
Superseded by the
ment
New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 10101 : 2012 /ISO 3297 : 2007 Information
—
31 May 2012
and Documentation - International Standard
Serial Number (ISSN) (Second Revision)
2.
IS 12879 (Part 1) : 2012 /ISO 3272-1 : 2003
—
31 May 2012
Microfilming of technical drawings and
other drawing office documents—Part 1 :
Operating procedures (First Revision)
3.
IS 15963 (Part 1) : 2012 /ISO 12647-1 : 2004
—
31 May 2012
Graphic technology—Process control
for the production of half-tone colour
separations, proofs and production prints -
Part 1 : Parameters and measurement
mothods
4.
IS 15963 (Part 2) : 2012 /ISO 12647-2 : 2004
—
31 May 2012
Graphic technology—Process control
for the production of half-tone colour
separations, proofs and production prints -
Part 2 : Offset lithographic processes
5.
IS 15963 (Part 3) : 2012 /ISO 12647-3 : 2005
—
31 May 2012
Graphic technology—Process control
for the production of half-tone colour
separations, proofs and production prints -
Part 3 : Coldset offset lithography on
newsprint
6.
IS 15963 (Part 4) : 2012 /ISO 12647-4 : 2005
—
31 May 2012
Graphic technology—Process control
for the production of half-tone colour
separations, proofs and production prints -
Part 4 : Publication gravure printing
7.
IS 15963 (Part 5) : 2012 /ISO 12647-5 : 2001
—
31 May 2012
Graphic technology—Process control
for the production of half-tone colour
separations, proofs and production prints -
Part 5 : Screen printing
8.
IS 15963 (Part 6) : 2012 /ISO 12647-6 : 2006
—
31 May 2012
Graphic technology—Process control
for the production of half-tone colour
separations, proofs and production prints -
Part 6 : Flexographic printing
Copies of the above Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan,
9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and its Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also
Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref :MSD/ G-8 Notification]
NIRMAL KUMAR PAL, Scientist ‘F ’ & Head (Management & Systems Department)
4538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1929 -—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x;s ekud (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gS %—
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud (dkas) dh la[;k
la'kks/u dh la[;k vkSj frfFk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
1-
vkbZ ,l 7983 % 1994 'kkSpky; lkiQ djus dks
la'kks/u la[;k ua- 1]
31 fnlacj 2011
nzO; inkFkZ & fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)
fnlacj 2011
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh çfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkgtiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110092] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa%
ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] uxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk
baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gS A
¹lanHkZ% lh,pMh 27@vkbZ,l 7983º
MkW- (Jherh) fot; efyd] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa çeq[k (ih lh Mh ,oa lh ,p Mh)
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2012
S.O. 1929 .—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and year of the Indian
No. and year of the
Date from which the amendment
No.
Standards
amendment
shall have effect
1.
IS 7983 : 1994 Toilet Cleaner, Liquid
Amendment No. 1
31 December 2011
Specification (first revision)
December 2011
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bhadur
Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also
Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref : CHD 25/IS 7983]
Dr. (Mrs.) VIJAY MALIK, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (PCD & CHD)
([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1930 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky; ([kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx) ds iz'kklfud
fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfjo`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr
djrh gS %&
1-
dsUnzh; Hk.Mkj.k fuxe]
dsUnzh; HkaMkjx`g]
turk jksM] lgkjuiqj&1]
mÙkj izns'k&247001
¹la- bZ&11011@1@2008&fgUnhº
fxjh'k 'kadj] la;qDr lfpo
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4539
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2012
S.O. 1930.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)
Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food and Public Distribution), where of more than 80% of staff
has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse,
Janta Road,
Saharanpur-1,
U.P.-247001
[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]
GIRISH SHANKAR, Jt. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1931 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky; ([kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx) ds iz'kklfud
fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr
djrh gS %&
1-
dsUnzh; Hk.Mkj.k fuxe]
dsUnzh; HkaMkjx`g]
dqdM+k jksM] eqtÝiQjuxj]
mÙkj izns'k
¹la- bZ&11011@1@2008&fgUnhº
fxjh'k 'kadj] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th May, 2012
S.O. 1931 .—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food and Public Distribution), where of more than
80% of staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse,
Kukda Road,
Muzaffarnagar,
U.P.
[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]
GIRISH SHANKAR, Jt. Secy.
4540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1932-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 33A ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tjuy
eSustj] Vsyhdke iQSDVªh ch- ,l- ,u-,y- nsoukj ds izca/ra=k ds
lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ua-1 eqEcbZ
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- lh-th- vkbZ-Vh- 1@62 vkiQ 2003) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2012&vkbZ vkj (Mh ;w)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 7the May, 2012
S.O. 1932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Complain under
Section 33-A the Central Government hereby publishes
the Award (Ref. No. 1 /62 of 2003) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, No.1 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory BSNL,
Deonar and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 7-5-2012.
[No. L-42025/03/2012-IR (D U)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, MUMBAI
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
Complaint No. CGIT-1/4 OF 2004
(Arising out of Ref. No. CGIT-1/62 of 2003)
Parties :National Federation of Telecom
Employees B.S.N.L. Union .... Complainant
Vs.
Chief General Manager
Telecom Factory
B.S.N.L.
Deonar, Mumbai .....Opposite Party
APPEARANCES :
For the complainant : Sri J.P. Sawant, Adv.
For the opp. party : Sri.M. B. Anchan, Adv.
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 11th day of April 2012
AWARD
The complinant has filed this complaint under Section
33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refered
to as the ‘Act’)
According to the complaint the Central Government
by its order dt.31-10-2003 referred the industrial dispute
that existed between the workmen represented by the
complainant union and the opposite party for adjudication
to this Tribunal and the schedule was that whether the
action of the management of Telecom factory, Deonar,
Mumbai in discontinuing the transport allowance w.e.f.
31-10-2001 to its employees without following any legal
provisions was legal and just or not and to what relief the
workmen were entitled? During the pendency of the above
proceeding in this Tribunal (Ref. No. CGIT-l/62 of 2003) the
opposite party issued a notice dt.31-3-2004 whereby the
subsidised bus transport facility available to the workmen
was also discontinued w.e.f.1-5-2004. It has been stated in
the complaint that the opposite party has sought the above
change in the conditions of service of the workmen
concerning the industrial dispute under adjudication
without permission of this Tribunal in order to frustrate the
interest of the workmen and in order to force the workmen
to surrender their claim for transport allowance as well as
transport facility and thus the opposite party has
contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. The
opposite party has filed written statement wherein it has
stated that this complaint filed by the NFTE, BSNL union
is liable to be rejected summarily on the ground that the
union has no locus standi to file the above complaint and
to represent the matter before this Tribunal. According to
the written statement the main reference is pertaining to
the discontinuity of the transport allowance w.e.f.
31-10-2001 to commuters availing subsidised transport
facility and the present complaint is with regard to
discontinuity of subsidised transport facility w.e.f.l-5-2004
and both the issues are distinct and separate and, therefore,
there is no violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the
Act. Moreover, out of 1,155 total employees only 268 were
availing the said facility. Since the Deonar area was fully
developed and the public transport was easily available as
such the opposite party was not bound to provide transport
facility to a fraction of the employees. The opposite party
has, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Following issues have been framed.
1. Whether the opponent management has
contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act. 1947 by issuing the notice dated 31-3-2004
for discontinuation of subsidised bus transport facility
w.e.f.lst May, 2004 during the pendency of adjudication
proceedings in reference no.CGIT-l/62 of 2003?
2. What orders?
The complainant has filed affidavit of A.G. Kamble,
Circle Secretary of the union who has been cross-examined
by learned counsel for the opposite party and the opposite
party has filed the affidavit of Rajmani Mishra, AGM
(Administration) Telecom Factory, BSNL, Deonar, Mumbai
who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the
complainant.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4541
Heard Shri Jai parakash Sawant, learned counsel for
the complainant and Shri.M.B.Anchan learned counsel for
the opposite party.
ISSUE No. 1: Section 33 of the Act says that during
the pendency of any proceeding before a Labour Court or
Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial
dispute, no employer shall in regard to any matter
connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the
workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of
service applicable to them immediately before the
commencement of such proceeding.
It is not disputed that the Central Government
referred the industrial dispute that existed between the
workmen represented by the complainant union and the
opposite party for adjudication to this Tribunal and the
schedule was that whether the action of the management
of Telecom Factory, Deonar, Mumbai in discontinuing the
transport allowance w.e.f.31-10-2001 to its employees
without following any legal provisions was legal and
justified. It is also not disputed that the above dispute was
referred to this Tribunal by the Central Government by
order dt. 31-10-2003 and the Ref. No.CGIT-1/62 of 2003 came
to be decided on 21-11-2006 and when the above reference
was pending before this Tribunal the opposite party by
notice dt.31-3-2004 discontinued the subsidised bus
transport facility available to the workmen w.e.f.1-5-2004.
The witness of the opposite party Rajamani Mishra has
admitted that the transport facility was available to the
workmen from the year 1968.
I have absolutely no doubt that the withdrawal of
the subsidised bus transport facility avaliable to the
workmen was a matter connected with the dispute regarding
discontinuity of the transport allowance pending in this
Tribunal in reference no. CGIT-1/62 of 2003 and the opposite
party thereby altered, to the prejudice of the workmen, the
conditions of service applicable to them immediately before
the commencement of the above proceeding.
It is thus clear that the opposite party has
contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the Act by
issuing the notice dt. 31-3-2004 for discontinuity of the
subsidised bus transport facility w.e.f.1-5-2004 during the
pendency of the proceeding in reference no. CGIT-1/62 of
2003.
The issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the
complainant.
ISSUE No. 2: The notice dt 31-3-2004 issued by the
opposite party for discontinuity of the subsidised be
transpost facility w.e. f. 1-5- 2004 is set aside as being
inoperative and invalid.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1933-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 2,(2) ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj pS;jeSu&de
eSus¯tx MªkbjsDVj eS- Mªs¯tx dkjiksjs'ku vkiQ bf.M;k fy-
fo'kk[kkiVue ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- ,y-vkbZ-lh-Mh-130@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2012&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2012
S.O. 1933.—In pursuance of Section 2A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LCID
130/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the Management of the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director M/s. Dredging Corporation of India
Vishakhapatnam and Others and their workmen,which was
received by the Central Government on 8-5-2012.
[No. L-42025/03/2012-IR (D U)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of November, 2010
Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 130/2004
[Old I. T. I. D. (C) No. 10/2003 Trasferred from Industrial
Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam]
Between :
Sri K. A. Ramaswamy,
D. No. 27/6 Ayodhyanagar,
Plot No. MIG 127, Madhurawada,
Visakhapatnam. .... Prtitioner
AND
1.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
M/s. Dredging Corporation of India Limited
Visakhapatnam.
2.
Sri A. K. Dhar
Director (Finance),
M/s. Dredging Corporation of India Limited,
Visakhapatnam.
4542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Assistant Manager (P & A),
M/s. Dredging Corporation of India Limited,
Visakhapatnam .... Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/s. A.V. Sambasiva Rao and A.S. Rama
Sarma, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s.K.V. Rama Murty, K. Narasimha
Murty, B.V. Ravi Kumar and
K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocates
AWARD
This petition under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947
filed by Sri K. A. Rama Swamy, an ex-employee of M/s.
Dredging Corporation of India Limited, Visakhapatnam
questioning his dismissal order and for reinstatement with
consequential benefits, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. It was transferred to this
Court in view of the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour's order No. H-11026/l/2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001
bearing I T .I.D( C).No.10/2003 and renumbered in this
Court as L.C.I.D. No.130/2004 and notices were issued to
the parties.
2. It has been stated by the Petitioner that he worked
in management organization for 20 years including two
years of service at the overseas project at Yambo. Prior to
the joining in management organization he worked in the
Army for a short period. His misfortune started in the year
1997 when he was afflicted with a strange disease, which
could not be diagnosed . Due to his explicable disease he
undergone medical treatment and remained absent due to
his ill-health. He was charge sheeted through charge sheet
dated 5-11-1999 to which he submitted his explanation on
23-11-1999 stating that he remained absent due to illness
but the same was not found to be satisfactory though the
Petitioner submitted medical certificates from time to time
to the management.The management ordered enquiry which
was completed by Enquiry Officer without following
procedure. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the
basis of which the management dismissed the services of
the Petitioner vide order dated 8-1-2003 which is under
challenge. The Petitioner filed an appeal which was also
dismissed by order dated 29-8-2000. Therefore, the
Petitioner has filed this claim statement for setting aside
the dismissal order and for reinstatement with back wages.
3. Respondent has filed counter statement wherein
they have stated that the Petitioner workman have absented
from duty from 1-9-1999 to 5-10-1999 and from 14-10-1999
onwards. At the time of his termination he was drawing
Rs.10,846.25 ps as salary. The Respondent management is
a public sector undertaking where the Petitioner was
working as Messenger. The Petitioner was in habit of
remaining absent from duty for long spells without
sanctioned leave. He never assigned private grounds or
medical reasons while seeking sanction.The Petitioner
remained absent unauthorizedly from 20-2-1997 to 5-4-1997,
16-5-1997 to 19-7-1997, and from 20-8-1997 to 22-9-1997.
Therefore, the Respondent was compelled to initiate
disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of
certified Standing Orders and penalty of reduction of next
lower grade for a period of one year commencing from
16-12-1997 was imposed on Petitioner.
4. Despite the disciplinary action and consequent
punishment inflicted on the Petitioner no improvement was
shown in the conduct of the Petitioner and during the year
1999 disciplinary proceeding was started against the
Petitioner for the absence of Petitioner from 14-4-1997 to
18-11-1997, 22-11-1997 to 1-12-1997, 29-4-1998 to 16-5-1998
and from 19-5-1998 to 23-11-1998 and major penalty of
reduction to the lower post of messenger was imposed.
5. It has further been averred that despite frequent
actions, there was no improvement in the attitude of the
applicant. He again absented himself from 1-9-1999 to
5-10-1999 and 14-10-1999 onwards. Hence, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated vide charge sheet dated
5-11-1999. Enquiry Officer was appointed and charges were
served on the Petitioner workman which was acknowledged
by the Petitioner but he did not respond. The Petitioner did
not attend the enquiry proceeding on 12-1-2000, 10-2-2000,
22-2-2000, 3-3-2000 and 10-3-2000. Since the workman was
absent and he failed to attend the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer fixed final date of enquiry on 25-4-2000 for
proceeding ex- parte. On 25-4-2000 also the workman did
not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, management
witnesses were examined before Enquiry Officer, however,
on the same day applicant sent a letter to the Enquiry Officer
requesting for 10 days time on medical reasons, enquiry
was posted for hearing on 4-5-2000. On 4-5-2000 the
workman attended enquiry. He was informed about the
action taken on the previous dates and regarding
examination of the management witnesses, the workman
has also perused the statement of management witnesses
and he stated that he has nothing to examine the witnesses.
He did not adduce any evidence in his defence. The Enquiry
Officer has submitted his report and Disciplinary Authority
passed the order of removal from services from 20-8-2000.
Appeal was also dismissed. The Petitioner workman
remained absent for 212 days in 1997, 229 days in 1998, 167
days in 1999, 236 days in 2000, this show that the workman
was an unwilling worker. His habitual unauthorized
absenteeism has resulted in his dismissal. There is no force
in his claim petition. It is devoid of merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Both the parties filed documentary evidence. The
management has filed 56 documents containing the
disciplinary proceeding record, wherein, there is one
medical certificate dated 22-4-2000 produced by the
workman. No document or evidence has been filed by the
workman.
7. The question of legality and validity of domestic
enquiry was not raised or challenged by the Petitioner
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4543
workman, as such, in absence of challenge, the domestic
enquiry was held to be legal and valid on 29-1-2009 by this
tribunal and arguments heard by both parties under
Sec. II A.
8. I have heard both the parties. Both the parties
have submitted written arguments as well.
9. I have heard parties counsels and I have gone
through the written submissions of the workman. In this
case following points has to be determined by this tribunal:—
(I) Whether the action of the management in
terminating the services of Petitioner workman is legal and
justified?
(II) Whether the Petitioner’s absence from duty was
for any sufficient and valid reason?
(III) To what relief if any the Petitioner workman is
entitled?
9. Point Nos. (1) & (II): Both these questions are
interrelated as such, they are being determined together
with. It is not disputed that Petitioner workman remained
absent from duty during the year 1999, that too from
1-9-1999 to 5-10-1999 and 14-10-1999 onwards. The
Petitioner stated that he was sick. He was suffering with a
mysterious disease which could not be diagnosed. He was
suffering from such disease since 1997 and he has taken
treatment from Doctors. This material fact was not stated
by the Petitioner during the enquiry proceeding. During
enquiry proceeding the Petitioner has submitted only one
medical certificate dated 22-4-2000 wherein it has been
stated that he was suffering from Gastroenteritis and
advised rest from 20-4-2000 to 22-4-2000. This certificate
relates to a period during which enquiry proceeding was
going on. This medical certificate does not relate to the
period for which the Petitioner workman was charge sheeted
and disciplinary proceeding was going on against him.
Had the Petitioner been suffering from any serious disease,
he would have certainly undergone treatment from some
medical expert, but, not a single piece of paper has been
filed by the Petitioner workman either during course of the
enquiry proceeding or before this tribunal to show that the
Petitioner workman was suffering from any illness or any
disease either during the year 1997 or during the charge
sheeted period of 1-9-1999 to 5-10-1999 and 14-10-1999 after
wards. Thus, the contention of the Petitioner that he was ill
or he was suffering from any serious disease does not find
support from any document or even oral evidence of the
Petitioner.
10. So far as the question of departmental enquiry is
concerned, the Petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry
Officer on several dates i.e., on 12-1-2000, 10-2-2000,
22-2-2000, 3-3-2000, 10-3-2000 and 25-4-2000. He simply
appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 4-5-2000 that day
also he did not cross examine the management witnesses
who have stated that Petitioner remained absent
unauthorizedly without any leave or without any leave
application. Thus, there was evidence of the management
before the Enquiry Officer to prove that Petitioner was
absent without any reasonable or sufficient ground during
the charge sheeted period and the charges against the
Petitioner were held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. I
find that there is no ambiguity or perversity in the finding
of the Enquiry Officer holding the charges against the
workman proved. Thus, the management has not committed
any illegality in dismissing the services of the Petitioner
who has been absent during the year 1997 and 1999 i.e.,
prior to the charge sheeted period, for which the action
was taken against the him and he was suitably punished
during the previous occasions. This prove that the workman
was an unwilling and negligent worker. He not only
absented during the charge sheeted period but he remained
absent during the year 1997, 1998 and 1999 as well for
which action was taken and he was reverted to the lower
post, even after punishment no improvement was shown
by him either in his working or towards his attitude on
duties. Thus, the management was constrained to punish
the Petitioner with the punishment of dismissal from service
and thus, punishment is neither unjustified nor illegal.
Absence of Petitioner is found to be unreasonable and
unjustified. Point Nos. (I) and (II) decided accordingly.
11. Point No. (III) From the evidence on record it is
proved that Petitioner has absented from the duty not only
during charge sheeted period but prior to that period also
it is proved that he was habitual absentee and management
has not committed any illegality in terminating services of
the Petitioner. The punishment is neither disproportionate
nor excessive. Petitioner does not deserve any leniency or
sympathy from this tribunal. Petition is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed. Petitioner is not entitled for any
relief. Point No. (III) is decided accordingly.
12. As discussed above, the Petitioner is not entitled
for any relief. Petition is dismissed and hence, this award.
Award passed accordingly, Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant
transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 25th day of
November, 2010.
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
Nil
Nil
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Nil
Documents marked for the Respondent
Nil
4544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2012
dk- vk- 1934-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsanzh; ljdkj ,e-lh-,y- ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;ktdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ua- 1]
ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 92@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 9&05&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@14@2001&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2012
S.O. 1934.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited and their workman, received by the
Central Government on 9-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/14/2001-IR (CM-II)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, DELHI
I.D. No. 92/2011
Shri Ram Lakhan Singh
S/o Shri Ram Avadh Singh,
9, Teen Murti Lane,
New Delhi - 110001.
.......Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,
Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar (Orissa).
........Magaement
AWARD
In May, 1998 Shri Ram Lakhan Singh was kept at 9,
Teen Murti Lane, New Delhi, the official residence of the
then Minister of Coal, Government of India, New Delhi, to
supply items of daily use to the visitors from Mahanadi
Coal Field Ltd. (in short the management), who visited the
Minister here in Delhi. Classification sheet was prepared
wherein Ram Lakhan Singh was described as General
Mazdoor Category “1” and vouchers were submitted to
the Superintending Engineer (E&M), of the management,
who approved those vouchers for payment. Attendance
sheet was initiated at the Guest House located at A-412,
Shahid Nagar, Bhubneshwar, Orissa, which were approved
by the Superintending Engineer. As per attendance sheet
the Mazdoor was meant to be posted at the aforesaid guest
house. However he was based at New Delhi. Vouchers
were prepared for two months or at times monthly. After
approval of vouchers payment was made to Shri Ram
Lakhan from 1-5-1998 till 30-4-2000. No payment was made
to him with effect from 1-5-2000. He raised an industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer at Bhubneshwar.
Conciliating proceedings failed. Thereafter he filed a Writ
Petition bearing number 3598/2001 before High Court of
Delhi. Vide order dated 14-2-2007, Writ Petition was
disposed of with the direction to the Union of India to
reconsider its order dated 16-11-2001 and on examination
of facts to pass appropriate order on the matter. In
obedience to the command made by the High Court, the
appropriate Government referred the dispute to Central
Government, Industrial Tribunal-II, New Delhi, vide order
No.L-22012/14/2001-IR (CM-II), New Delhi, dated 22-3-2007,
with the following terms:-
“Whether the demand of Shri Ram Lakhan Singh for
reinstatement in service is legal and justified? If so, to what
relief is the workman entitled?”
2. On 30-4-2007 vide order No.L-22012/14/2001-IR
(CM-II) New Delhi, corrigendum was issued by the
appropriate Government on the strength of which General
Manager, Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd., Chander Shekhar Pur,
Bhubneshwar, Orissa, was added as a party vice General
Manager Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd., Gruha Nirman Bhawan,
Khavela Nagar, Bhubneshwar,
3. Claim was filed by Shri Lakhan pleading therein
that he was appointed as peon on 1-5-1998 at Mahanadi
Coal Field Ltd., located at A-412, Sahid Nagar, Bhubneshwar,
and was posted at 9, Teen Murti Lane, New Delhi, which
was residence of the then Hon'ble Minster of Coal,
Government of India, New Delhi. He served the management
and was regularly getting his salary by way of cheques
and receipts were issued by him. Suddenly with effect from
1-5-2000 his salary was stopped without any rhyme and
reason. He made representation dated 22-8-2000, but to no
avail. He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer at Bhubneshwar, Orissa. Conciliation proceedings
failed. When he did not hear anything, he filed Writ Petition
No.3598/2001 before High Court of Delhi. In that Writ
Petition a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the
management and he filed his supplementary affidavit before
the High Court, dispelling facts of the counter affidavit.
The High Court directed the management to depute its
Finance Manager to present facts. Accordingly Shri S.K.
Sahu, Finance Manager, appeared before High Court of
Delhi and made his statement on 15-12-2004. Vide order
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4545
dated 14-2-2007, the High Court disposed of the Writ
Petition and in pursuance of the said order the present
reference was made by the appropriate government. He
claims that the management may be directed to reinstate
his services with continuity and full back wages.
4. Claim has been demurred by the management
pleading that the claimant was never engaged, not to talk
of engaging as a peon. It is pleaded that no post of peon
exists with the management. It has further been projected
that at plot No.A/412, Sahid Nagar, Bhubneshwar only a
guest house of the management exists, while its office is
located at Jagrit Vihar, U.C.E. Burla, Sambalpur and a liaison
office at Bhubneshwar. Posts of general mazdoor, sweeper,
cleaning mazdoor and cook etc. are there in the
management. No post of peon exists at the aforesaid gust
house. When there is no post of peon, how the claimant
could be appointed on that post. 1st May, 1998 was a
holiday and hence claim made by the claimant that he was
appointed on that date is false. The claimant has never
rendered any service with the management. No
appoiontment letter was issued in his favour. No service
card, employee number, unique number, medical health card
was issued in his favour. He was neither a member of
pension scheme nor any other scheme operating in the
management, which fact suggest that he has never been
an employee of the management. It has been projected that
since he was never in the employment of the management,
his claim is liable to be discarded.
5. The claimant entered the witness box to
substantiate his claim. Shri G.B. Mohapatra, Personnel
Manager, presented facts on behalf of the management.
No other witness was examined by either of the parties.
6. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(CM-II) New
Delhi, dated 30-3-2011, the appropriate Government
transferred this case to this Tribunal for adjudication.
7. Shri K.G. Kochar, authorised representative,
advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. Shri
G.B.Mohapatra, authorized representative, presented facts
on behalf of the management . I have given my careful
consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and
cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues
involved in the controversy are as follows:—
8. Whether relationship of employer and employee
existed between the parties? For an answer to this question,
it is to be appreciated as to how a contract of service is
entered into. The relationship of employer and employee is
constituted by a contract, express or implied between
employer and employee. A contract of service is one in
which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey
his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty
undertaken. A contract of employment may be inferred from
the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was
intended although never expressed and when there has, in
fact, been employment of the kind usually performed by
the employees. Any such inference, however, is open to
rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties
concerned was on a charitable footing or the parties were
relations or partners or were directors of a limited company
which employed no staff. While the employee, at the time,
when his services were engaged, need not have known the
identity of his employer, there must have been some act or
contract by which the parties recognized one another as
master or servant.
9. In order to establish existence of relationship of
employer and employee between the parties, the claimant
swears in his affidavit dated 20-2-2008 that he was
appointed as peon on 1-5-1998 by the management, having
its office at plot No.A/412, Sahid Nagar, Bhubneshwar and
posted at 9, Teen Murti Lane, New Delhi, residence of
Hon'ble Minister of Coal, Government of India, New Delhi.
He details therein that he served as a peon in the said
office and was getting his monthly wages regularly by way
of cheques and receipts were issued in that regard. His
wages were stopped suddenly with effect from 1-5-2000,
without any rhyme and reason. The management was
reminded for payment of his wages and he sent a
representation dated 22-8-2000 in that regard. He raised a
dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Bhubneshwar, where
authorities of the management did not respond properly. A
failure report was sent. He was constrained to file Writ
Petition No. 3598/2001 before High Court of Delhi. Counter
affidavit was filed by the Chairman -cum- Managing Director
of the management and he filed supplementary affidavit.
High Court of Delhi called upon coal field to depute Shri
S.K. Sahu, Finance Manager, to unfold facts. Shri Sahu
made a statement before High Court of Delhi in that regard,
copy of which statement is annexed with his affidavit.
During the course of his cross-examination, he concedes
that no appointment letter, no unique man number, no
service card, no medical health card, no MCL card was
issued in his favour. He admits that there was no post of
peon with the management. He further admits that he used
to supply tea to the Minister and the officials at 9, Teen
Murti Lane, New Delhi.
10. Shri G.B. Mohapatra swears in his affidavit
Ex.MW1/A that the claimant was never appointed either as
a peon or in any capacity by the management. He projects
that coal field has its rules and procedure for recruitment
for its employees. Recruitment notification is issued
to the employment exchange as well as newspaper for public
at large. Applications are invited, scrutinized and call letters
are issued for written /viva voce and thereafter result of
sesuccessful candidates is communicated. Offer of
appointment is issued. An employee appointed by the
management is given an appointment letter and an identity
card. His joining report is received. The candidate is sent
for initial medical examination and thereafter a posting order
4546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is issued in his favour. Entry in form 'B' for opening of
service sheet is made. Allotment of unique man number,
besides filling of provident fund form and pension scheme
document, is made. No such procedure was followed for
the claimant. Plot No.A/412, Sahid Nagar, Bhubneshwar, is
a guest house of the management and there cannot be a
question of appointment of peon at the said office. No
question of his appointment at 9, Teen Murti lane, New
Delhi, would arise. The claimant was not employed with
the management. Bills in respect of the claimant were raised
based on job basis and payments have been approved
through vouchers and made by cheques, particulars of
which are furnished in the classification sheet. The claimant
never worked at the guest house of the management at
Bhubneshwar, Orissa.
11. Out of the facts projected by the rival parties it
emerges that no post of peon is there in the management.
Posts of general mazdoor, sweeper, cleaning mazdoor and
cook etc. do exist with the management. No case has been
put forward by the claimant that he was employed in any
capacity referred above. When there is no post of peon
with the management it is incumbent upon the claimant to
establish as to how he was employed on the post of peon.
It is not his case that he had sent an application in
pursuance of a recruitment notice and was called for
interview. He concedes that no appointment letter was
issued in his favour. It is also not a disputed fact that
neither unique man number nor identity card nor employee
number was allotted to him by the management. He
concedes that he was not a member of any of the welfare
schemes applicable to the employees of the management.
All these facts are sufficient to conclude that the claimant
nowhere projects that he was an employee of the
management,who entered into its service by ordinary
recruitment process.
12. Claimant projects that he was appointed on
1-5-1998, a holiday. He claims that he was posted at 9, Teen
Murti Lane, New Delhi, official residence of the Minister of
Coal, Government of India, New Delhi. It is not the case of
the claimant that there was a post of peon at 9, Teen Murti
Lane, New Delhi, which was to be filled by the management.
However, it is not a disputed fact that payment of wages
was made from May, 1998 till April, 2000. How those
payments were made have been explained by Shri Sahu in
his statement dated 15-12-2004, made before High Court of
Delhi which has been annexed by the claimant along with
his affidavit. Contents of that statement high-light that the
payments were made to the claimant on the basis of
classification sheet wherein the claimant and one other
person were described as general mazdoor category-I. Apart
from the classification sheet vouchers for payment were
approved by the Superintending Engineer. The attendance
sheet were initiated by the guest house supervisor and
approved by Superintending Engineer (E&M),
Bhubneshwar. Attendance sheet of the claimant and
Niranjan were supported by the vouchers. The attendance
sheets were prepared in Bhubneshwar as the mazdoors
were meant to be posted at the guest house . Shri Sahu
explained that they stationed at New Delhi. At times
vouchers were prepared for two months and at times
monthly. Those vouchers related to the period till 1-5-
1998 to 30-4-2000. The attendance sheets were prepared
by Shri V. K. Samual, guest house Supervisor and were
approved by the Superintending Engineer (E&M), the
competent authority. Shri Sahu explained that he cannot
say as to on what basis Shri Samuel has prepared the
attendance sheet. The attendance sheets were prepared
on the basis that the persons were working at the guest
house. He had never seen the claimant and Niranjan at
the said guest house.
13.The facts unfolded by Shri Sahu, before High
Court of Delhi, were not disputed by the claimant. On the
other hand, he places reliance on those facts. Out of facts
highlighted by Shri Sahu, attendance sheets were prepared
showing that the claimant and one Niranjan worked at the
guest house while they were stationed at 9, Teen Murti
Lane, New Delhi, official residence of Minister of Coal,
Government of India, New Delhi. All these facts make it
clear that unscrupulous persons in the management as
well as at the residence of the then Minister of Coal,
Government of India, New Delhi, entered into a conspiracy
and in furtherance of that conspiracy wrong attendance
record and vouchers were prepared at Bhubneshwar, Orissa.
Those records were verified by Shri V.K. Samuel and
approved by Superintending Engineer (E&M). Bogus
records were prepared, approved and payments sanctioned.
Cheques were prepared and sent to the claimant and
Niranjan for payments here at Delhi. Claimant was well
aware of this conspiracy and not only a beneficiary but a
party to it. He cannot reap benefits of that conspiracy in
the form of his employment by the management. Hence it
cannot be said that the claimant was engaged at any point
of time by the management as its employee. Wrong deeds
of unscrupulous officers would not create relationship of
employer and employee between the claimant and the
management. Taking into account the facts in entirety,
unfolded by the claimant, Shri Mohapatra and those narrated
by Shri Sahu before High Court of Delhi, it is announced
that there is no case in favour of the claimant to make even
a whisper of the fact that the management intended to
engage the claimant in his employment. No relationship of
employer and employee can be concluded between the
parties. It is declared that the criminal acts, referred above,
would not establish any right in favour of the claimant and
liability on the management.
14. When there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the parties, the management was not
duty bound to make payment to the claimant for any month
not to talk of May 2000 and thereafter. Non payment of
alleged wages cannot be termed as stopping claimant from
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4547
rendering his services at 9, Teen Murti Lane, New Delhi.
None from the authorities of the management had stopped
him from rendering his services here in New Delhi. He
cannot claim that he was stopped from rendering his
services, which act would amount to retrenchment. In
absence of relationship of employer and employee between
the parties no case of retrenchment would emerge out of
the facts.
15. In view of given facts and circumstances, at
the cost of repetition it is said that the claimant was never
emploved by the management. Facade, created by way of
preparation of wrong records and approval of payment for
the claimant and Niranjan, cannot lead to a proposition
that the claimant rendered continuous service of more than
240 days in every calendar year. No case of retrenchment
of the claimant emerge out of the facts. When there was no
retrenchment of the claimant, the question of granting
benefit of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on
his alleged continuous service with the management,does
not arise at all.
16. Before parting, disquieting facts remind me of my
duties. As detailed above, it was not a case of back-door
engagement of the claimant and one Niranjan on the post
of general mazdoor category-I at Sahid Nagar,
Bhubneshwar, where a guest house is being run by the
management. They were never deputed to work at the said
guest house. Both of them were working at 9, Teen Murti
Lane, New Delhi, residence of the then Minister of Coal,
Govt. of India, New Delhi. Wrong attendance records,
classification sheets and vouchers were prepared and
approved for payment to the claimant and one Niranjan by
the guest house supervisor and Superintending Engineer
(E&M) respectively. Cheques were prepared and sent to
New Delhi for payment to the claimant and Niranjan. Thus
it is evident that offences of conspiracy, cheating , forgery
and falsification of accounts, besides intentionally suffering
loss of public money were committed. Such serious
offences were committed by persons in authority, which
fact make it more alarming. This Tribunal would fail in its
duty, if it does not command the authorities responsible to
initiate legal action against the perpetrators of crime.
Accordingly, the appropriate Government is called upon
to initiate or cause to be initiated legal action to bring the
offenders to book.
17. As held above, there is no case in favour of the
claimant. His claim is, accordingly, brushed aside. An award
is passed in favour of the management and against the
claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated: 2-4-2012
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1935 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dekfUMx
vkiQhlj ,;j] iQksLkZ LVs'ku bygkckn ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds
iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 183@2000 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 9&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&14012@63@2000&vkbZ vkj (Mh- ;w-)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May , 2012
S. O.1935 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 183 /
2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between Commonding Officer Air Force
Station Allahabad and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 9 -5-2012.
[No. L-14012/63/2000-IR (D U)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT Dr. MANJU NIGAM PRESIDING OFFICER
I. D. No. 183/2000
Ref. No. L-14012/63/2000/1R (DU)) dated: 31-10-2000
BETWEEN
Sh. Syed Mushir Hasan Rizvi
R/o Room No. T/184/A.E.
Manauri, Kaushambi Allahabad (U.P.)
AND
Commanding Officer
Air Force No. 24
E.D. Air Force Station
Manaur, Allahabad (U.P.)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-14012/63/2000/1R (DU)) dated:
31-10-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of 'Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Sh. Syed Mushir Hasan Rizvi,
4548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
R/o Room No. T/184/A.E., Manauri, Kaushambi, Allahabad
(U.P.) and Commanding Officer, Air Force No. 24, E.D. Air
Force Station, Manaur, Allahabad (U.P.) for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of Air
Force Canteen, Manauri, Allahabad in terminating
the services of Sh. Sayed Mushir Hasan Rizvi
w.e.f. 10-05-99 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?”
3. The case of the workman, Syed Mushir Hasan
Rizvi , in brief, is that he was appointed as Casual Labour
Salesman by the management of Air Force Canteen Air
Force Station, Manauri on 11- 03 -1997 and he worked as
such continuously up to 10-05-1999 when his services were
terminated orally without any notice or compensation in
lieu thereof, in violation of Section 25 - F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has further alleged that
the workmen junior to him are still continuing with the
employers; and accordingly, has prayed that he may be
reinstated w.e.f. 10-05-1999 with all back and continuity in
service.
4. The management of the Air Force Canteen Air
Force Station, Manauri has disputed the claim of the
workman by filing its written statement; whereby it has
submitted that the Canteen is not an industry within the
meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has submitted
that the canteen is neither owned nor managed by the Air
Force Authority; rather it is just a public welfare scheme for
the officials working in Station and no aid whatsoever is
given to it. It has further submitted that the canteen is not a
statutory canteen under Section 14 of the Factories Act and
accordingly present dispute is not covered under the
Industrial Disputes Act. It has specifically submitted that
the workman was engaged only on temporary basis as casual
helper and was not full time worker and when there was no
need of his services, he was removed. The management has
reiterated that since the present dispute does not fall within
the purview of 'Industrial Dispute' the provisions of Section
25 - F or that of Section 25 - H, do not attract in this case.
Thus, the management has prayed that the claim of the
applicant be rejected without any relief to him.
5. The workman has field rejoinder, which is just
repetition of his averments in the statement of claim apart
from submission that the Canteen is an industry within the
meaning of I D Act, 1947 and Section 14 of Factories Act
has no relevance in the present case.
6. The parties have filed documentary proof in
support of their respective cases. The workman has
examined himself whereas the management examined
Shri A. Chakraborty, Sqn. Ldr. in support of their respective
stands. It is pertinent to mention that the present case
pertains to year 2000 and since sudden demise of workman's
authorized representative Shri T. B. Singh, the workman is
not being represented since January, 2011; moreover, the
registered notice dated 22-02-2011, issued to the workman
received back in the office un-served. Accordingly, the
oral arguments on behalf of the opposite party were heard
and the case was reserved for award as the case was very
old one taking into consideration the written arguments of
the parties.
7.Heard representative of the opposite party only
and perused evidence on record.
8. It has been contended by the workman in its
written argument that the main objection of the opposite
party is that, that it is not an Industry. In this regard the
workman has submitted that the opposite party itself has
submitted that 'the canteen was just a public welfare scheme
for the officials/war widows' and has relied on verdict of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage
Board etc. vs. A Rajappa & others case; wherein it has
been observed that
“absence of profit motive on gainful objective is
irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or
other sector.”
Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that
“Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-
operation between employer and employee (the direct and
substantial element is commercial (iii) for the production
and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to
satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religions
but inclusive of material things or services geared to
celestial bliss i. e making on a large scale Prasad or food)
prima facie, there is an industry in that enterprise.”
In view of above legal prepositions the argument of
the authoriezd representative of the workman finds
substance that the opposite party is industry.
9. The learned representative on behalf of the
management has contended that the workman was never
appointed by the opposite party in the Canteen against a
clear vacancy and was not being paid salary and his
services were not terminated at any point of time. Rather it
has been argued by the representative of the management
that firstly, the onus lies upon the applicant to substantiate
that he was duly appointed and secondly, that he was
terminated from the service. The management has filed
photocopy of rules regulating the terms and conditions of
service of civilian employees of unit run canteen paid out
of non public fund in support of its case.
10.The workman, Syed Mushir Hasan Rizvi has
examined himself as witness in support of his case; whereby
he has stated that he was appointed as Casual Labour
Sales man on 11-03-97 in Air Force Canteen, Air Force
Station, Manauri and worked continuously up to 10-05-
1999 and his services were terminated without any notice
or compensation in lieu thereof and also that he was getting
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4549
pay @ Rs. 800 per month. In cross-examination he has
stated that he worked as Helper in the Canteen and he was
not given any written appointment letter and his name was
not sponsored from the Employment Exchange. He further
stated that he did not undergo any test of interview. In
support of his statement he had produced photocopy of
only one document i.e. certificate dated 25-5-99, issued by
R. Vanaik, Sqdn. Ldr.
11. In rebuttal, the opposite party has examined Shri
A. Chakraborty, Sqn. Ldr. who stated that the worker was
casual helper who was paid on the basis of daily work; and
it was only a casual arrangement and it was put to an end
when not required any more; accordingly, there involved no
question of retrenchment. He also stated that there was no
termination as such as the worker was simply a casual helper
and was engaged as per need only. In cross-examination he
stated that he was working at Baraikpur from March, 97 to
May, 99 and had never been in-charge of Canteen at Manauri
and he does not know how many persons work in the canteen
and further that he could not tell as to who were working
during year 97 to 99. He also stated that in a Canteen there
is Manager, Officer, Account Clerk, Air Man are permanent
staff members and rest are helpers.
12. In the light of the aforesaid rival statements of
both the sides I have scanned the documents produced by
the either parties. It is settled law that a party invoking
jurisdiction of the court has onus to prove that it worked
sufficient number of days in order to invoke provisions of
Section 25 F. In the instant case the workman has made a
very specific pleading in para (s) 2 & 3 of his statement of
claim that he had been appointed by the opposite party as
Casual Labour Salesman' and worked as such from 11-03-
1997 to 10-05-1999 and has substantiated his averment
through his evidence with the help of work certificate dated
25-05-99, paper No. 2/5, issued by Mr. R. Vanaik, Sqdn. Ldr.
In-charge Canteen.
13. In rebuttal the management has submitted that
the workman was engaged as casual helper as per need;
but has not disclosed as when and for what duration he
was engaged, which is not expected from a model employer
who is engaging a workman/labourer from the market and
paying from the Government funds.
14. In the present case burden was on the workman
to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the
termination order and to prove the termination order was
illegal. The workman well discharged his burden by making
a specific statement in his oral evidence that he worked
from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999 and further by corroborating
the same by filing work certificate dated 25-05-99, paper
No. 2/5. There is no denial on behalf of the management of
Air Force Canteen that the workman did not work for the
alleged period i.e. from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999. The burden,
thus, shifts upon the management, to prove that the
workman had not worked for the period alleged by him by
proper evidence; but the management failed to discharge
the same by denying that the workman was not engaged
for the alleged period i.e. from 11-03-97 to 10-5-99 ,and that
he never worked for 240 days in twelve calander months
preceding the date of alleged termination.
15.The management in its written statement has made
a pleading to the effect that the workman had been engaged
as casual helper as per need. Thus, there is an admission
by the management that workman was engaged as a casual
helper, but there is no denial that the workman had not
worked as alleged by him i.e. from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99
Denial is only with respect that he is not a permanent
employee and this was also not the case of the workman.
The case of workman is simply that he was engaged as
casual labour and worked from 11-03-1997 to 10-06-99
continuously and he was terminated without following the
provisions of law of Section 25F of the Act. There is no
denial from the management that the workman had not
worked from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99. The witness examined
by the management also admits in cross-examination that
he was not posted at Manauri at relevant point of time i.e.
from year 1997 to 1999, therefore, he cannot tell as to who
were working during 97 to 99. Therefore, the evidence
produced by the management is not at all relevant for
considering the fact whether the workman was engaged
from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99 and no other evidence either
oral or documentary was produced by the management.
16. Further, it is admitted fact that the workman had
never been issued any appointment letter, nor his name
was sponsored from the Employment Exchange and that
he was engaged as Casual Helper. There is nothing at the
end of the management that the workman has not worked
from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99. Therefore, there is no reason
to disbelief that the workman had not worked from 11-03-
1997 to 10-05-1999; and in view of the facts and
circumstances that he had completed mandatory period of
240 days, in preceding twelve months from the date of his
alleged termination i.e. 10-05-1999; hence, considering the
latest pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
services of such a workman who is either casual labour,
daily wager or part timer and has completed 240 days
working could not be terminated without following due
procedure laid down in Section 25 F of the 1.D. Act, 1947.
17. Thus, in view of discussions made above, I am of
the consdiered opinion that workman, Sayed Mushir
Hasan Rizvi has worked as Casual Helper in the Air Force
Canteen, Manauri from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999 and his
service had been terminated without following the
provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, which is unjustified.
18. In the instant case, the workman, has prayed that
he be reinstated from to10-05-1999 with full back wages,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (132) FLR 500 Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh has observed as under:
“4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly
laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed
in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act
may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not
be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily
wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.
5. In view of the aforementioned legal position
and the fact that the respondents workmen were
engaged as daily wagers' and they had merely worked
for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief
4550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and
instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends
of justice”
19.Considering law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, in the present case the workman has worked with the
opposite party from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999 and as per his
own statement he was getting Rs. 800 per month when his
services were terminated. The management has not rebutted
this statement of the workman. Accordingly, I am of the
opinion that the ends of justice would subserve, if the
workman is compensated instead of reinstatement. The
management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 (Rupees
Sixty Thousand only) to the workman as a one- time lump
sum compensation towards full settlement of his claim, within
six weeks from the date of notification of this award, failing
which the above amount shall carry interest @ 10% per
annum.
20. Award as above.
Lucknow
18-4-2012
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1936 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dekfUMx
vkiQhlj ,;j iQkslZ LVs'ku bykgkckn ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds
iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 182@2000 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 9&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&14012@62@2000&vkbZ vkj (Mh ;w)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2012
S.O. 1936.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 182 /
2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the Commanding Officer, Air
Force Station Allahabad and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 9-5-2012.
[No. L-14012/62/2000-IR (D U)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 182/2000
Ref. No. L-14012/62/2000 I R (DU)) dated: 31-10-2000
BETWEEN
Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Sharda Prasad
ViiI. & Post - Ahmedpur Pawan, Manauri
Distt. Kaushambi Allahabad (U.P.)
AND
Commanding Officer
Air Force No. 24
E.D. Air Force Station
Manaur Allahabad (U.P.)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-14012/62/2000 IR (DU)) dated: 31-
10-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Sharda
Prasad, ViiI. & Post - Ahmedpur, Pawan, Manauri, Distt.
Kaushambi, Allahabad (U.P.) and Commanding Officer, Air
Force No. 24, E.D. Air Force Station, Manaur, Allahabad
(U.P.) for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of Air
Force Canteen, Manaur, Allahabad in terminating
the sercices of Sh. Sanjay Kumar w.e.f. 10-05-99 is
justified? If not to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
3. The case of the workman, Sanjay Kumar, in brief,
is that he was appointed as Casual Labour Salesman by
the management of Air Force Canteen Air Force Station,
Manauri on 08-06-1996 and he worked as such continuously
up to 10-05-1999 when his services were terminated orally
without any notice or compensation in lieu thereof, in
violation of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The workman has further alleged that the workmen
junior to him are still continuing with the employers; and
accordingly, has prayed that he may be reinstated w.e.f. 10-
05-1999 with all back and continuity in service.
4. The management of the Air Force Canteen Air
Force Station, Manauri has disputed the claim of the
workman by filing its written statement; whereby it has
submitted that the Canteen is not an industry within the
meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has submitted
that the canteen is neither owned nor managed by the Air
Force Authority; rather it is just a public welfare scheme
for the officials working in Station and no aid whatsoever
is given to it. It has further submitted that the canteen is
not a statutory canteen under Section 14 of the Factories
Act and accordingly present dispute is not covered under
the Industrial Disputes Act. It has specifically submitted
that the workman was engaged only on temporary basis as
casual helper and was not full time worker and when there
was no need of his services, he was removed. The
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4551
management has reiterated that since the present dispute
does not fall within the purview of 'Industrial Dispute' the
provisions of Section 25 - F or that of Section 25 - H, do not
attract in this case. Thus, the management has prayed that
the claim of the applicant be rejected without any relief to
him.
5. The workman has filed rejoinder, which is just
repetition of his averments in the statement of claim apart
from submission that the Canteen is an industry within the
meaning of I D Act, 1947 and Section 14 of Factories Act
has no relevance in the present case.
6. The parties have filed documentary proof in
support of their respective cases. The workman has
examined himself whereas the management examined Shri
A. Chakraborty, Sqn. Ldr. in support of their respective
stands. It is pertinent to mention that the present case
pertains to year 2000 and since sudden demise of workman’s
authorized representative Shri T. B. Singh, the workman is
not being represented since January, 2011, moreover, the
registered notice dated 22-02-2011, issued to the workman
received back in the office un-served. Accordingly, the
oral arguments on behalf of the opposite party were heard
and the case was reserved for award as the case was very
old one taking into consideration the written arguments of
the parties.
7. Heard representative of the opposite party only
and perused evidence on record.
8. It has been contended by the workman in its
written argument that the main objection of the opposite
party is that that it is not an Industry. In this regard the
workman has submitted that the opposite party itself has
submitted that ‘the canteen was just a public welfare
scheme for the officials/war widows’ and has relied on
verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in Banglore Water Supply &
Sewerage Board etc. vs. A Rajappa & others case; wherein
it has been observed that
‘‘absence of profit motive on gainful objective is
irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint,
private or other sector. ’’
Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that
‘‘Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by
co-operation between employer and employee
(the direct and substantial element is commercial
(iii) for the production and/or distribution of
goods and services calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes (not spiritual or religions but
inclusive of material things or services geared to
celestial bliss i.e. making on a large scale Prasad
or food) prima facie, there is an industry in that
enterprise. ”
In view of above legal prepositions the argument of
the authorized representative of the workman finds
substance that the opposite party is industry.
9. The learned representative on behalf of the
management has contended that the workman was never
appointed by the opposite party in the Canteen against a
clear vacancy and was not being paid salary and his
services were not terminated at any point of time. Rather it
has been argued by the representative of the management
that firstly, the onus lies upon the applicant to substantiate
that he was duly appointed and secondly, that he was
terminated from the service. The management has filed
photocopy of rules regulating the terms and conditions of
service of civilian employees of unit run canteen paid out
of non public fund in support of its case.
10. The workman, Sanjay Kumar has examined himself
as witness in support of his case whereby he has stated
that he was appointed as Casual Labour Sales man on 08-
06-96 in Air Force Canteen, Air Force Station, Manauri and
worked continuously up to 10-05-1999 and his services
were terminated without any notice or compensation in
lieu thereof and also that he was getting pay @ Rs. 800/ per
month. In cross-examination he has stated that he worked
as Helper in the Canteen and he was not given any written
appointment letter and his name was not sponsored from
the Employment Exchange. He further stated that he did
not undergo any test of interview. In support of his
statement he had produced photocopy of only one
document i.e. certificate dated 25-5-99, issued by R. Vanaik,
Sqdn. Ldr.
11. In rebuttal, the opposite party has examined Shri
A. Chakraborty, Sqn. Ldr. who stated that the worker was
casual helper who was paid on the basis of daily work; and
it was only a casual arrangement and it was put to an end
when not required any more; accordingly, there involved no
question of retrenchment. He also stated that there was no
termination as such as the worker was simply a casual helper
and was engaged as per need only. In cross-eeamination he
stated that he was working at Baraikpur from March, 97 to
May, 99 and had never been in-charge of Canteen at Manauri
and he does not know how many persons work in the canteen
and further that he could not tell as to who were working
during year 97 to 99. He also stated that in a Canteen there is
Manager, Officer, Account Clerk, Air Man are permanent
staff members and rest are helpers.
12. In the light of the aforesaid rival statements of
both the sides I have scanned the documents produced by
the either parties. It is settled law that a party invoking
jurisdiction of the court has onus to prove that it worked
sufficient number of days in order to invoke provisions of
Section 25 F. In the instant case the workman has made a
very specific pleading in para (s) 2 & 3 of his statement of
claim that he had been appointed by the opposite party as
4552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
'Casual Labour Salesman' and worked as such from 08-06-
1996 to 10-05-1999 and has substantiated his averment
through his evidence with the help of work certificate dated
25-05-99, paper No. 2/5, issued by Mr. R. Vanaik, Sqdn Ldr.
In-charge Canteen.
13. In rebuttal the management has submitted that
the workman was engaged as casual helper as per need;
but has not disclosed as when and for what duration he
was engaged, which is not expected from a model employer
who is engaging a workman/labourer from the market and
paying from the Government funds.
14. In the present case burden was on the workman
to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the
termination order and to prove the termination order was
illegal. The workman well discharged his burden by making
a specific statement in his oral evidence that he worked
from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999 and further by corroborating
the same by filing work certificate dated 25-05-99, paper
No. 2/5. There is no denial on behalf of the management of
Air Force Canteen that the workman did not work for the
alleged period i.e. from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999. The
burden, thus, shifts upon the management, to prove that
the workman had not worked for the period alleged by him
by proper evidence; but the management failed to discharge
the same by denying that the workman was not engaged
for the alleged period i.e. from 11-03-97 to 10-05-99 and that
he never worked for 240 days in twelve calander months
preceding the date of alleged termination.
15. The management in its written statement has made
a pleading to the effect that the workman had been engaged
as casual helper as per need. Thus, there is an admission
by the management that workman was engaged as a casual
helper, but there is no denial that the workman had not
worked as alleged by him l. e. from 11.03.1997 to 10.05.99.
Denial is only with respect that he is not a permanent
employee and this was also not the case of the workman.
The case of workman is simply that he was engaged as
casual labour and worked from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99
continuously and he was terminated without following the
provisions of law of Section 25 F of the Act. There is no
denial from the management that the workman had not
worked from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99. The witness examined
by the management also admits in cross-examination that
he was not posted at Manauri at relevant point of time i.e.
from year 1997 to 1999, therefore, he cannot tell as to who
were working during 97 to 99. Therefore, the evidence
produced by the management is not at all relevant for
considering the fact whether the workman was engaged
from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99 and no other evidence either
oral or documentary was produced by the management.
16. Further, it is admitted fact that the workman had
never been issued any appointment letter, nor his name
was sponsored from the Employment Exchange and that
he was engaged as Casual Helper. There is nothing at the
end of the management that he workman has not worked
from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-99. Therefore, there is no reason
to disbelief that the workman had not worked from 11-03-
1997 to 10-05-1999; and in view of the facts and
circumstances that he had completed mandatory period
of 240 days, in preceding twelve months from the date of
his alleged termination i.e. 10-05-1999; hence, considering
the latest pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the services of such a workman who is either casual labour,
daily wager or part timer and has completed 240 days
working could not be terminated without following due
procedure laid down in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
17. Thus, in view of discussions made above, I am
of the considered opinion that, that workman, Sanjay Kumar
has worked as Casual Helper in the Air Force Canteen
Manauri from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999 and his services
had been terminated without following the provisions of
Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is
unjustified.
18. In the instant case, the workman, has prayed
that he be reinstated from 10-05-1999 with full back wages,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (132) FLR 500 Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. VS. Man Singh has observed as
under:
“4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly
laid down that although an order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of
reinstatement should not be passed. This Court
has distinguished between a daily wager who does
not hold a post and a permanent employee.
5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and
the fact that the respondents workmen were engaged as
'daily wagers' and they had merely worked for more than
240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement
cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary
compensation would meet the ends of justice”
19. Considering law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, in the present case the workman has lworked with
the opposite party from 11-03-1997 to 10-05-1999 and as
per his own statement he was getting Rs. 800/ per month
when his services were terminated. The management has
not rebutted this statement of the workman. Accordingly,
I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be sub
serve, if the workman is compensated instead of
reinstatement. The management is directed to pay a sum
of Rs. 60,0001/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the
workman as a one-time lump sum compensation towards
full and final settlement of his claim, within six weeks from
the date of notification of this award, failing which the
above amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum.
20. Award as above.
Lucknow
04-2012.
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4553
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1937-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos ds
izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2000)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&41011@29@94&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2012
S.O. 1937.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70 /
2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Central
Railway and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 11-5-2012.
[No. L-41011/29/94-IR (B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 70/2000
Date : 30-04-2012.
Party No. 1 :
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur.
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Smt. Hemlata Sakharam Bagade
Representative of Hot-Season Workmen,
Central Railway C/o. Tejram Sonkam
Jewellers & Co., Ward No. 68,
Ambedkar Marg, Kamal Chowk,
Nagpur
AWARD
(Dated : 30th April, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (‘‘the Act’’ in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Central Railway and their workmen, Smt.
Hemlata Bagade and others, for adjudication, to Central
Government IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as per letter No. L-41011/29/94-IR (B-I) dated
8-02-2000, with the following schedule:—
‘‘Whether the action of the Divisional Railway
Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur in not regularizing
the service of 229 employees (As per list) is justified?
If not, to what reliefs are the workmen entitled to?"
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this
Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the union, ‘‘Hot Season
Watermen Union, Central Railway, Nagpur’’, (‘‘the union’’
in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the 229
workmen, As per Annexure 'A' attached to the award,
(‘‘workmen’’ in short), and the management of Central
Railway (‘‘Party No.1’’ in short) filed its written statement
respectively.
3. The case of the workmen, as presented by the
union was that all the 229 workmen were casual labours
engaged by party no.1 during hot season for three months
every year between 1979 to 1995 and every workman had
acquired temporary status on completion of 120 days of
continuous employment, in terms of Railway Board’s letter
No. E(NG)II/83/CL/117 dated 21-01-1985 and the Railway
Board is the Apex body of Railway Administration, which
lays down the policy decisions in respect of the service
conditions of Railway employees including casual
labours working in Indian Railways and the party no.1
prepared the seniority list of casual labourers unit wise
and the seniority list of Hot Season Watermen/Women
was prepared for entire Nagpur Division of Central Railways
and after acquiring of the temporary status by the
workmen, the party no. 1was to absorb them against the
regular post, in class IV category (group-D) after holding
screening, as per the instructions contained in letter no.
E(NG)/II/81/CL-17 dated 26-05-82 and letter no. E(NG)/11/
77/CL/4/9 dated 24-07-1979 issued by the Railway Board
and though they had become eligible and legally entitled
for absorption against regular vacancies in group-D service,
party no.1 ignored and avoided to absorb them for the
reasons best known to it and as a matter of fact, after 1985,
all the workmen should have been made regular, but having
found the party no. 1 not serious in considering their claims
for absorption, they made representations personally and
also through the union and when no tangible result came
out, hunger strike notice was given to party no. 1 by Smt.
Hemlata, the representative of the union for redressal in
the month of August, 1992 and on receipt of the said notice,
party no. 1 gave a positive assurance to look into the
grievances of the workmen seriously in accordance with
the rules and hunger strike started from 9-8-1992 and
continued till 27-08-1992 and on 27-08-1992, the hunger
strike came to be withdrawn on the assurance given by
party no.1 to regularize all the workmen working in hot
season and in April, 1993, again the workmen undertook
fast from 7-04-1993 to 19-04-1993, to highlight the grievances
and such hunger strike was withdrawn after the assurance
4554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
given by party no. 1. The further case of the union was that
on 30-06-1993, the president of the union filed an application
requesting party no.1 to appoint her in permanent cadre,
as she was eligible for the post and party no.1 put a remark
on the application that the same be sent to the Chief
Medical Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur to check-
up as to whether Smt. Hemlata had worked as a substitute
against absent safaiwala and it was also endorsed that she
was not a new face of casual labour and had been serving
for a long time and according to the instructions in the
letter
of
the
Railway
Board
dated
20-12-1985, ‘‘Casual Labours, who has put in 6 years of
service, whether continuous or in broken periods are
included in a panel for appointment to group ‘‘D’’post, the
post of permanent nature and are sent for Medical
Examination’’and therefore, the workman are legally entitled
and eligible to get regular service and as no action was
taken by party no. 1 inspite of the assurance, the president
again undertook fast in July, 1993 and the fast continued
from 5-07-1993 to 31-07-1993 in front of the office of party
no. 1 and on 31-07-1993, the senior DCM, Central Railway
intervened in the matter and requested to terminate the
fast and a letter was issued by the DCM informing the
workmen that the matter would be discussed with the
Personnel Manager and the names of the workmen would
be included in the panel, which would be made for
safaiwalas and other categories subject to feasibility and
inspite of issuance of such letter, the party no. 1, did not
regularize the workmen and back out from the assurance
and for that again a hunger strike notice was given on
27-01-1994 and in view of the said notice, the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central) took cognizance of the
matter and started conciliation proceeding and there were
joint discussion between the parties, on several dates, but
due to the adamant attitude of the party no. 1, the
conciliation proceeding ended in failure and when the
Central Government did not take any action on the failure
report of conciliation, the workmen filed O.A. No. 1178/94,
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench
at Nagpur, challenging the legality, correctness and
propriety of the action of party no.1 and vide order dated
7-03-1995, the CAT issued directions to the Government to
consider the report of the conciliation officer dated
27-04-1994, within a period of three months and to decide
as to whether the case of the workmen to be a fit case for
reference to the Labour Court/Industrial Court and the
Government of India referred the industria1 dispute to the
Tribunal for adjudication. It is also pleaded by the union
that the action of party no. 1 in not regularizing the
services of the workmen is highly unjustified, illegal and
contrary to the Rules framed by the Railway Board and the
workmen are entitled for absorption and regularization as
permanent employees of Railways and to get all the
consequential benefits with retrospective effects.
4. The party no.1 in their written statement has
pleaded inter-alia that the workmen had been every year
approaching them to utilize their services as seasonal
casual labour during summer season and depending on
their need, they were engaging some of the workmen during
the summer season as seasonal casual watermen/women
and the maximum period of their engagement was for a
period of 90 days every year and the need to continue
them after summer season had never been there and the
requirement of hot season casual labour and period of
engagement varied from year to year and therefore, it is not
correct to say that all the 229 workmen were engaged every
year and the claim of the workmen that they had acquired
a temporary status is a matter of record and a seniority list
of casual labours, who had been working during summer
season in Nagpur Division of Commercial Department
was maintained, basing on the number of days of services
done by them and from the said list, persons were engaged
as hot season workman as per their seniority in summer
season only and for the purpose of regularization, the
instructions contained in Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)
II/77/CL/N/4 dated 24-07-1979 have to be observed
according to which, the casual labours engaged seasonally
viz., water carrier, watermen/women are to be considered
for screening for absorption alongwith others, based on
their total length of service and for regularization of casual
labours from the seniority list, the procedure prescribed in
Rule 2006 of ‘Indian Railway Establishment Manual’ is
required to be followed and according the said Rule,
‘‘Absorption of casual labour in regular Group 'D'
employment may be considered in accordance with
instructions issued by the Railway Board from time to
time and such absorption is, however, not automatic but
is subject, inter-alia, to availability of vacancies and
suitability and eligibility of individual casual labour and
rules regarding seniority unit method of absorption etc.
decided by Railway Administration’’ and as per the
instructions, casual labours have to be screened,
depending on the regular vacancies and other casual
labours who have put in more casual service than the hot
season casual labour are awaiting regularization against
permanent posts for want of vacancies and the hot season
workmen will be regularized as per the above instructions
on their turn and they have no knowledge about forwarding
of the application of Smt. Hemlata to Chief Medical
Superintendent, Central Railway or the endorsement made
on such application and the circular of the Railway Board
dated 20-12-1985 does not relate to regularization of casual
labour and the instructions quoted in para 6 of statement
of claim in this regard are contained in para 2007 of Indian
Railway Establishment Manual-Vo1. II, under the caption
"Employment of Casual Labour in skilled categories" and
the workmen are not skilled casual labours and hence the
said instructions are not applicable to them and the workmen
are therefore not legally entitled or eligible to get regular
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4555
vacancies permanently on the basis of continued or broken
service as per the said instructions and sub-rule 4(a) of
Rule 2007 is not applicable to the present dispute and the
union is misinterpreting the instructions contained in the
said sub-rule and confusing the court and there is no
provision for grant of, weightage to seasonal or other
casual labours and as per Railway Board’s letter no. E(NG)
II-79-CL/2 dated 03-03-1982, the number of casual labour
to be placed on the panel shall be equal to the actual
number of vacancies and there is no provision in Railways
to issue employment service card and number of days of
service of casual labour is computed from the paid pay
bills and muster rolls relating to the respective stations
where the seasonal labourers were engaged and at this
distant date, it is neither feasible to produce such records
nor it is relevant to the present issue and no service cards
to seasonal labourers were issued at any point of time and
as such, production of service cards of the workmen does
not arise and the demand of production of documents is
irrelevant and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.
5. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,
both the parties led oral evidence in support of their
respective claims. Two witnesses, namely, Smt. Hemlata
Bagde and Sk. Farid were examined on behalf of the
workmen. Party no. 1 examined Chacko Thomas, the
Assistant Personnel Officer, Central Railway, Nagpur as a
witness.
6. It is necessary to mention here that during the
hearing of the reference, it came to light that a large number
of workmen out of the 229 workmen as per the list furnished
with the letter of reference were already regularized by party
no.l. However, this Tribunal after consideration of the
materials on record including the evidence adduced and
the submissions made by the parties passed the award on
21-09-2007, answering the reference in favour of the
workmen and directing the management/Divisional
Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur to absorb the remaining
eligible hot season workmen/women/casual labourers as
per the list in terms of the letters of Railway Board dated
20-12-1985 and 24-07-1979 and Rule 2006 of the Manual
Scrupulously.
7. Being aggrieved by the award, the party no. 1
filed writ petition no.1392 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench and the
Hon’ble High Court by order dated 01-10-2008 was pleased
to quash and set aside the award dated 21-09-2007 and
remanded back the reference for fresh trial in accordance
with law with certain directions and by allowing the party
no. 1 to file appropriate affidavit of competent officer
disclosing all relevant details.
8. As per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court,
party no. 1 filed the affidavit of witness, Ashok Kumar
Nema, the Divisional Personnel Officer, Central Railway,
Nagpur and he was duly cross-examined by the other side.
One Smt. Saroj Ravikumar Gawande was examined as a
witness on behalf of the workmen and was cross-examined
by party no.l.
9. After taking into consideration the evidence on
record and the submissions made by the parties, this
Tribunal passed the Award on 06-11-2009 again, answering
the reference in favour of the workman in the following
terms:-
‘‘The management/Divisional Manager, Central
Railway, Nagpur is directed to absorb all the 229 petitioner
as per list attached with the reference except who are
dead (Whose sl. nos. are mentioned in the award) in terms
of the letter of the Railway Board dated 20-12-1985 and
24-07-1979 (inadvertently mentioned as 24-07-2001 in the
ordering portion of the award) and as per rule 2006 of the
Railway Manual Scrupulously.’’
10. The party no.1 being aggrieved by the award,
again approached the Hon’ble High Court Judicature at
Bombay, Nagpur Bench by filing writ petition no. 2855/
2010 for redress, making only 75 workmen out of the list of
229 workmen as respondents. The Hon’ble High Court by
order dated 01-04-2011 was pleased to quash and set aside
the award only to the extent of the claims of 74 persons.
The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass the following
orders:—
‘‘6. In the result, the Award dated 05-11-2009
impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside only to
the extent of the claims of 74 persons, whose list is placed
on record along with Civil Application no. 2958 of 2010.
The matter is remitted back to the CGIT for decision a fresh
in accordance with law. The R & P be sent back immediately
to the CGIT. Upon receipt of the R & P, the CGIT shall
direct issuance of notices to all these 74 persons by paper
publications. The said persons be permitted by the CGIT
to file their statements of claims supported by the affidavits.
The CGIT shall also permit the petitioner to file his reply to
such statements of claims. There upon, the parties shall be
permitted to lead evidence in support of their claims. After
completion of the pleadings, the CGIT shall decide the
matter in accordance with law, within a period of six months.
The parties are directed to appear before the CGIT on
25-04-2011.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as
to costs.’’
11. As per the direction of the Hon’ble Court in writ
petition no. 2855/2010, notices were issued to the 74
workmen as per list, (attached to the award as annexure
‘B’) by publication of the notice in the local daily newspaper
‘‘Lokmat’’ dated 27-07-2011. In response to such notice,
only 18 (eighteen) workmen, whose names and other
details are furnished below filed individual statements of
claims.
4556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sr.
Name of the workmen
Serial no.
Serial no. in
No.
in the
the list
list of 229
of 74
workers
workmen
furnished
furnished
with the
before
reference
Hon’ble
Court in
WP no.
2855/2010
1.
Chimalnan Hagu More
99
15
2.
Suresh @ Suraj Uddeswar
116
22
Meshram
3.
Saroj Ravikumar Gawande
117
24
4.
Parwatibai Zitru Gaikward
123
29
5.
Hajra Begum D/o.Yasim
124
30
Khan
6.
Shakuntala Banwarilal
127
33
Gupta
7.
Manorama Sadashiv
125
31
Harane
8.
Girijabai Gulab Moon
130
36
9.
Rambhau.S/o. Jaganath
134
39
Shirsat
10.
Raju Yashwantrao Mohite
135
40
11.
Vinod Mangal Yerwar
136
41
12.
Sanjay Kusumba
140
43
Meshram
13.
Devidas Pannalal
150
49
14.
William John
154
50
15.
Akhtar Ansari
156
51
16.
Mohd. Ashfaque
160
53
17.
Ajay Anand Chaudhary
183
60
18.
Arun Nilkanth Iliatkar
212
71
It is necessary to mention here that as the rest 56
workmen neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim,
order was passed on 12-09-2011 to proceed with the case
only in respect of eighteen workmen as mentioned above.
12. Though, the eighteen workmen have filed
individual statement of claim, the contents of all the
statements of claims are exact and the same, except the
period of their working days and in some cases the nature
of the work done by them. For better appreciation, the date
of appointment, nature of work done and total days of
working of the said workman is furnished below in a tabular
form separately. The case of all the eighteen workmen as
per their statements of claims is that as per the circular of
Railway Board, dated 24-07-1979, the casual water carriers
employed during summer season are eligible for temporary
status on completion of 120 days of continuous
employment and in the said letter, it is also mentioned that
every water carrier should be considered for scrutiny for
absorption along with others, based on their total length
of service and it is obligatory on the part of party no. 1 to
maintain casual labour live register division wise and also
to maintain supplementary casual live register and as per
letter, dated 08-12-1988, the regularization will continue as
per turn according to seniority, based on number of days
put in by casual labours and it is also mandatory that in
case of vacancies, the persons should be informed by
registered post with acknowledgement due, to appear for
consideration for absorption by scrutiny in group ‘D’ post
and during the pendency of this reference, the Hon'ble
Railway Minister made a statement in the Parliament for
regularization of 56,000 casual labours and accordingly,
policy decision was taken by Railway Board to regularize
its casual labours and accordingly, out of the 229
workmen, more than 150 workmen were regularized by party
no.1, but they were not regularized and at present, more
than one lac vacancies are there with party no. 1 and
recently around 1000 vacancies of group 'D' were advertised
by party no.l for recruitment and despite the fact that they
are some of the senior most employees, party no.l instead
of taking them in service, took number of workers, who had
put lesser number of days of work than them and letter
issued by party no. 1 dated 08-02-2001 shows that 4
employees having worked for less number of days than
themselves and whose names are also there in the list
submitted with the reference were regularized and their
names were not considered by party no. 1, which shows
arbitrariness and in a similar manner, in last 15 years, party
no. 1 has regularized services of number of junior persons
over looking their legitimate claim of regularization and the
reasons of overage, unsuitability and the other reasons
shown by party no.l for their non-regularization are totally
illegal, unwarranted and baseless and the party no.1 had
regularized other casual workers aged about 50 years and
during the pendency of the reference, the said workmen
have already been retired from service and the action of
the party no. 1 in not regularizing them is arbitrary, unjust
and improper and they are entitled to be regularized in
service from the date of reference and to get all other
benefits at par with permanent employees.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4557
Name of workman/
Date of
Days of
“Specific case of workman
work women
appointment
work
1
2
3
4
Parvatibai Zitru Gaikward
17-04-1983
550
She was called for submitting documents and personal details
which she submitted in June, 1994, but party no.1 shown her
not eligible giving reason that she is overage, but she was
first appointed on 17-04-1983 and at that time she was aged
32 years and she being belonging to Schedule Caste, the age
limit for entry into service was 35 years and she also passed
medical examination conducted by party no.1 and was issued
with a certificate regarding said medical examination and a
certificate was also issued by office to Carriage Wagon
Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur on 01-07-1992
showing that she worked from 15-04-1992 to 25-06-1992 and
similar certificate was issued in her favour for working seasons
1983 to 1989 and in the year 1990, Station Master, Rajura and
she had submitted her caste certificate to party no.1.
Shakuntala Banwarilal Gupta
10-05-1988
283
She appeared for medical examination on 13-02-1989 and she
passed her medical examination and accordingly certificate
was issued to her and she was called for submitting documents
and personal details which she submitted in June, 1994,
however, the party no. 1 shown her not eligible giving reasons
that she was “unsuitable in 1998” and the Chief Medical
Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur issued her certificate
showing that she worked at Central Railway hospital, Nagpur
during 1988 to 1992.
Saroj Ravikumar Gawande
23-04-1983
865
She was called for submitting documents and personal
details, which she submitted on 22-06-2001 but she has been
shown her not eligible giving reason that her name was not
found in the list. She has studied upto12th standard and she
was first appointed on 23-04-1983, when she was aged 23
years. She also passed medical examination conducted by
party no.1 on 01-06-1990 and party no.1 also issued her
certificate regarding her employment and a certificate was
issued by office of Superintendent (Personnel) Central
Railway, Nagpur on 12-07-1983, showing that she worked
during 23-04-1983 to 27-06-1983 and similar certificates were
also issued in her favour for seasons 1984,1985, 1988, 1989
and 1991 and she was asked by party no. 1 to remain present
at Nagpur Station by issuing letter in the year 1990, 1991,
1992 and 1993 and she belonged to Schedule Caste community
and she had submitted her caste certificate to party no.1.
Suresh alias Suraj Uddeshwar
04-04-1986
601
He was called by party no. 1 for medical examination on
Meshram
09-08-90 and he passed the medical examination on
20-08-1990 and he also submitted documents regarding
employment whenever demanded by party no. 1 and Station
Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur issued a certificate
on 10-08-1987 showing that he worked during 04-04-1986 to
25-07-1987 and such certificates were also issued in his favour
for the seasons 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 and he also
submitted his Schedule Caste certificate.
4558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Manorama Sadashiv Harane
26-03-1984
500
She was called by party no. 1 for medical examination on
18-07-90 and accordingly she appeared for such medical
examination and physical fitness certificate was given to her
and she studied upto 7th standard and she was aged about
21 years and a certificate was issued by the office of the
Superintendent (Co-ord.) and PWI (C), Central Railway,
Nagpur in 1984, showing that she worked during 26-03-1984
to 18-04-1984 and similar certificates were issued in her favour
for seasons 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 and she belongs to
Schedule Caste community and had submitted her caste
certificate to party no.l.
William John
4-06-1986
478
He was called for screening on 18-11-1993 as per letter dated
27-10-1993 and he also appeared in the screening and was
asked for submission of documents and personal details
which he submitted on 18-11-1993 and he appeared for medical
examination on 26-07-1988 and passed the medical
examination and the certificate of physical fitness was issued
on the same day and a certificate was issued by office of
Station Superintendent Central Railway Nagpur on 11-10-1987
showing that he worked during 23-04-1987 to 31-07-1987 and
similar certificates were also issued for seasons 1988 to 1991.
Akhtar Ansari
4-06-1986
473
That he has studied upto VIII Standard and he was first
appointed on 04-06-1986, when he was aged about 22 yrs.
and he also passed medical examination conducted by party
no.1 on 01-08-1988 and certificate to that effect was issued
and a certificate was issued by office of Station
Superintendent Central Railway, Nagpur on 29-03-1988
showing that he worked during 04-06-1986 to 28-06-1986 and
similar certificates were also issued for seasons 1987 to 1991.
He belongs to OBC community and he also submitted his
caste certificate to party no. 1.
Mohd. Ashfaque
30-03-1987
476
That he was called for submitting documents and personal
details which he submitted on 13-02-1997 and he has studied
up to 10th standard and he was first appointed on 30-03-1987
when he was aged about 24 years and he also passed medical
examination conducted by party no.1 on 03-08-1988 and
certificate to that effect on the same day. A certificate was
issued by office of Station Superintendent Central Railway,
Nagpur on 19-09-1987 showing that he worked during
30-03-1987 to 31-07-1987 and similar certificates were also
issued for seasons 1988 to 1991.
Vinod Mangal Yerwar
5-04-1986
400
That he was called for submitting documents and personal
details which he submitted on 21-10-2002 and he has studied
upto 8th standard and he was first appointed on 05-04-1986
when he was aged about 18 years and he also passed medical
examination conducted by party no. 1 on 16-04-1990 and
certificate to that effect was issued. A certificate was issued
by office of Chief Medical Superintendent Central Railway,
Nagpur on 28-03-1989 showing that he worked during
27-04-1988 to 30-06-1988 and similar certificates were also
issued for seasons 1989 to 1992.
1
2
3
4
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4559
1
2
3
4
Girijabai Gulab Moon
15-04-1984
400
That she was called for submitting documents and personal
details vide letter dated 26-11-1993 and she submitted the
documents and he also passed medical examination
conducted by party no. 1 on 03-12-1990 and certificate to that
effect issued. A certificate was issued by office of
superintendent (Personnel) Central Railway, Nagpur on
30-06-1986 showing that he worked during 16-04-1986 to
23-04-1986 and similar certificates were also issued for
seasons 1988 to 1992. She belongs to Schedule Caste
community and had submitted her caste certificate to party
no. 1.
Rambhau Jagannath Sirsat
2-04-1983
800
That he was called for submitting documents and personal
details vide letter dated 26-10-1993 and he submitted the
documents on 19-11-1993 and he also passed medical
examination conducted by party no. 1 on 11-02-1989 and
certificate to that effect issued on the same day. He has studied
upto IXth Standard. A certificate was issued by office of
superintendent (Personnel) Central Railway, Nagpur on
13-07-1983 showing that he worked during 2-04-1983 to
27-06-1983 and similar certificates were also issued for seasons
1984 to 1993 by Divisional Medical Officer and Chief Medical
Superintendent. He belongs to Schedule Caste community
and had submitted his caste certificate to party no.1.
Raju Yeswantrao Mohite
23-04-1987
435
He passed medical examination conducted by party no.1 on
19-04-1989 and certificate to that effect issued on the same
day. He has studied upto IXth standard. A certificate was
issued by Chief Medical Superintendent, Central Railway
Nagpur on 22-06-1987 showing that he worked during
23-04-1987 to 19-06-1987 and similar certificates were also
issued for seasons 1988 to 1992.
Sanjay Kusumba Meshram
16-04-1987
500
He passed medical examination conducted by party no.1 on
12-07-1989. A certificate was issued by office of
superintendent (Personnel) Central Railway Nagpur on
26-06-1987 showing that he worked during 15-05-1987 to
19-06-1987 and similar certificates were also issued for seasons
1988 to 1993. He belongs to Schedule Caste community and
had submitted his caste certificate to party no.1.
Ajay Anand Chowdhary
30-03-1986
435
He passed medical examination conducted by party no.1 on
30-07-1988. He has studied upto IXth standard. Certificates
were issued by office of Station Superintendent, Central
Railway, Nagpur showing that he worked during 1987 to 1991.
Hajra Begum
1-04-1984
607
She passed medical examination conducted by party no.1 on
13-02-1989 and certificate to that effect issued. Certificates
were issued by Divisional Medical Officer Central Railway,
Nagpur showing that she worked during 1984 to 1993.
Devidas Pannalal
4-06-1986
400
He passed medical examination conducted by party no.1 vide
medical certificate no. 188470 in 1990. A certificate was issued
by office of Station Superintendent, Central Railway Nagpur
through passenger amenity Supervisor Central Railway,
Nagpur on 21-01-1997 showing that he worked during April
1989 to June 1991.
4560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chimanlal Hagu More
4-06-1986
500
He passed medical examination conducted by party no.1 on
5-09-1991. The party no.1 also called him for interview along
with documents on 27-10-1993. Certificates were issued by
office of Station Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur on
29-03-1989, 26-03-1990 and 5-03-1992 showing that he worked
during April 1988 to June 1991.
Arun Nilkanth Ilaiatkar
21-05-1979
465
That he was called for submitting documents and personal
details on 18-11-1993 and he submitted the documents on the
same day. He also passed medical examination conducted by
party no.1 on 23-07-1988 and certificate to that effect issued
on 05-08-1988 Certificates were issued by office of Work
Inspector, Station Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur
on 4-04-1989, 11-09-1989, 4-03-1990 and 3-03-1992 showing
his work.
13. The party no. 1 also filed separate written
statement in answer to the 18 statements of claims filed by
the workmen. However, the main contentions in all the
written statements are the same. It is pleaded by the party
no. 1 that the scheme of decasualisation was introduced
by the Railway, as per the Railway Board’s letter no.
3-09-1996, for the casual labours who were on roll as on
30-04-1996 and the eligible persons fulfilling the criteria
were called for screening and persons found suitable were
regularised and the circular of the Railway Board dated
8-1-1988 is not applicable to the facts of the cases of the
workmen and the said circular is regarding maintenance of
live register and supplementary live register and the said
live register is required to be maintained for the casual
labours, who had discharged from duties before
1-10-1981 and not re-engaged thereafter and as the
workmen have claimed their engagement after
1-10-1981, the said circular has no application to their cases
and that even assuming, but not admitting that the 18
workmen were working as casual labours as claimed by
them, they are over age as on today, as because, as per the
instruction, the upper age limit for general candidates is 40
years, 45 years in case of SC/ST candidates and 43 years
for OBC and therefore, the workmen are not entitled for
regularization and as per Railway Board’s letter dated
28-02-2001, the casual labours, who were found suitable
as per the condition laid down in the said circular and
according to the said circular, the name of the casual labour
should be available in the register and the upper age limit
should be 40 years for general candidates, 45 years in case
of SC/ST candidates 43 years for OBC candidates and as
the name of the 18 workmen were not in any official record,
the workmen were not called for screening and the
workmen/women, who were eligible as per the scheme
introduced by the Railway Minister for discasualisation
were called for consideration for absorption by scrutiny in
group ‘D’ post and as the name of the workmen were not
found in live register of the Railway Administration at any
point of time, there was no occasion to call them for
regularization and the recruitment to the vacancies to the
regular post of group ‘D’ were advertised by the Railway
Recruitment Board, In consonance with the Rules and
Guidelines and instructions and directions of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in various judgments and the 18 workmen
want for regularization through backdoor entry and the
workmen were not senior most employees and it is not
true that number of workers, who had put in less number
of days of service than them were regularized and its action
was not arbitrary or illegal and the workmen are not entitled
to any relief.
14. Besides placing reliance on the documents, all
the 18 workmen have examined themselves as witnesses
in support of their respective claims. The workmen have
reiterated the facts mentioned in their respective statement
of claim, in their examination-in-chief, which are on affidavit.
They have also proved their respective certificates, copy
of the medical examination certificate and other documents
issued in their favour by the Railway authorities. During
the cross-examination of the workmen, it was tried to show
that no seniority list of watermen/waterwomen was
prepared by the party no. 1 and that the 18 workmen did
not work with party no. 1 and they were not regularized as
their names were not found in the official records and they
all are over aged at present, for regularization and the
documents produced by them are bogus documents.
15. One Shri Narendra Digamber Gangurde, the
Divisional Personnel Officer, Central Railway, Nagpur has
been examined as a witness on behalf of the party no.l.
Witness Shri Gangurde in his examination-in-chief, which
is on affidavit has specifically stated that the written
statement filed on 01-04-1996 by party no. 1 was signed
by Dr. N.C. Meshram, the then Sr. Divisional Personnel
Officer, Central Railway, Nagpur and the contents of the
said written statement are true and correct. This witness
has further stated in his affidavit that the contents of the
1
2
3
4
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4561
affidavit filed by Shri Chako Thomas on 29-01-2001 and
the affidavit of Shri A.K. Nema on 16-01-2009 are true and
correct and the affidavit filed by him (Shri Gangurde) be
treated as in addition to the affidavits filed earlier by the
then Divisional Personnel Officer. This witness has further
reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement, in
his evidence. He has also proved the citculars of Minsitry
of Railways dated 08-12-1988, 25-04-1986 and 28-02-2001
as Exts. M-VIII, M-IX and M-X respectively and the
circular issued by the DRM, Central Railway, Nagpur dated
25-05-2001 as Ext. M-XI. He has also proved some other
documents as Exhibits. In his cross-examination, this
witness avoided to give answers to vital questions put to
him on the pretext of non-availability of the documents in
the office.
It is necessary to be mention here that in the written
statement filed by the party no.1 at the first instance, it
has been mentioned that all the 229 workmen as per the
list furnished with the reference, had been approaching
party no. 1 every year to utilize their services as seasonal
casual labour during summer season and party no.1
depending on the need, engaging the required number of
workmen, out of them during the summer season and the
acquiring of temporary status is a matter of record and
seniority list of casual labours, who had worked during
summer season in Nagpur Division of Commercial
Department was maintained based on the number of days
of services put in by them and from this list, persons were
engaged as hot season workmen in commercial department
as per their seniority in summer season only. It is also
mentioned in the said written statement that the hot season
workmen will be regularized as per the instructions
contained in the circular of Railway Board’s letter no. E(NG)
II/77/CL/N/4 dated 24-07-1979 and the number of days of
service of casual labour was computed from the paid pay
bills and muster rolls relating to seasonal casual labourers
were maintained by the respective Sr. Subordinate of the
respective stations, where they were engaged. It is never
pleaded by party no. 1 that such documents were already
destroyed. The party no. 1 has not produced such
documents. Hence, much importance cannot be attached
to the evidence of the witness examined by party no. 1.
It is clear from the pleadings of the parties, the
evidence on record and the examination-in-chief on
affidavit of witnesses, Chako Thomas and Ashok Kumar
Nema that the eighteen workmen had worked as hot season
waterman/women for more than 120 days in aggregate and
they had acquired temporary status as per letter no. E(NG)
II/83/CL/117 dated 25-01-1985.
16. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the exercise of
decasualisation was to be done in respect of the casual
labours on the roll as on 30-04.-1996 and accordingly
screening of the casual labours was done and persons
found eligible and suitable were regularized and the names
of the present 18 workmen were not in the live register or
any other document, so there was no question of
consideration of their regularization and all the 18 workmen
are already over aged and they are not entitled to age
relaxation, as their names were not at all on roll and the
workman are not entitled for any relief.
17. In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the workmen that in the first written statement filed by
the party no. l, the days of work and the first date of
appointment of the 18 workmen have not been denied and
it is clear from the pleadings made in paras 2, 3, 11 and 13
of the said written statement that party no. 1 has admitted
about the working of the workmen as hot season watermen/
women and though party no. l has pleaded about the
existence of seniority list of watermen/women, muster roll
and pay bills, such documents have not been produced
and maintenance of live register is the responsibility of
the party no. 1 and if such register is not maintained and
even if maintained, but not properly maintained, then party
no. 1 cannot be allowed to take the advantage of its own
wrong and the workmen cannot be punished for such
wrong committed by the party no. 1 and it is clear that all
the 18 workmen were medically examined and found fit for
work and it is also clear from the materials on record that
junior persons than the 18 workmen have been regularized
and as per Railway Board’s letter no. E (NG) II/77/CL/N/4
dated 24-07-1979, E (NG) II-81/CL/117 dated 26-05-1982,
E (NG) II/83/CL/l17 dated 25-01-1985 and Rule 2006 of
Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol.II (“Rule 2006”
in short), the workmen are entitled for regularization in
service after relaxation of their age and the grounds taken
by party no. 1 for their non-regularization are not tenable.
18. Before dealing with the contentions raised by
the learned advocate for the parties, I think it apposite to
mention about the letters and Rule mentioned above.
Railway Board’s letter dated 24-07-1979 provides
that:-
“Subject : Grant of temporary status and screening
of Casual Labour who have more than
120 days Service in broken periods—
Casual Labour in Hot weather
Establishment:—
The question of grant of temporary status after 120
days continuous service and the benefit of screening of
the casual labour in the Hot Weather Establishment has
been under the consideration of the Ministry of Railways
for some time past. Since the casual labour in hot weather
establishment such as watermen, Punkha-pullers etc. are
generally engaged for short durations during summer for
period not exceeding four months, the question of granting
temporary status in terms of Board’s Letter no. PC-72/
RLT-69/3(i) dated 12-03-1973 should not normally arise.
4562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For regular absorption, they may be screened alongwith
others based on the total length of their service as casual
labour in terms of Ministry of Railways letter No.E (NG) II/
76/CL/67 dated 01-12-1977. This is in supersession of
Ministry of Railway’s letter No. E (NG)II/74/CL/7 dated
09-01-1975 addressed to Northeast Frontier Railway. This
also disposes of Northern Railway’s letter no. 220-E/190-
X(EIV) dated 20-08-1978.”
Railway Board’s letter dated 26-05-1982 says that:—
“The Ministry of Railways vide their letter no. E
(NG)II/77/CL/N/4 dated 24-07-79 had decided that casual
labour in hot weather establishment such as waterman,
punkha pullers etc. who are generally engaged for short
durations should be screened for regular absorption
alongwith others based on the total length of service as
casual labours. At the PNM meeting held with AIRF on
19 /20th March 1982, the representatives of the Federation
pointed out that seasonal waterman were not being
absorbed on the Rlys. and vacancies existing in various
sheds and depots are not being filled due to ban on
recruitment of casual labour. The Board wish to reiterate
that eligible seasonal waterman should be screened
alongwith others for regular absorption in class IV.”
Railway Board’s letter dated 25-01-1985 says that:—
‘‘Subject :-Grant of regular scale of pay to casual
labour engaged as watermen during
summer season.
In the meeting held on 12th August, 1983 and
subsequently on 30th July, 1984 with the staff side of the
Department Council of the JCM, the staff side demanded
that services rendered by the casual watermen in spells
every year should be aggregated for the purpose of
eligibility for regular scale of pay etc. Similar proposal has
also been received from some of the Railway
Administrations.
2. The Ministry of Railways has examined the matter
in the light of instruction contained in their No. E(NG)II/
80/CL-25 dated 21-10-80 and 02-04-81. They have now
decided that the casual watermen employed in the summer
seasons should be eligible for temporary status on
completion of 120 days of continuous employment. For
the purpose of counting the total number of days of
continuous employment various spells of engagement as
casual watermen may be aggregated provided the gap
between any two spells of employment has been caused
due to the season being over and/or there being no work
for them in such establishment provided further that if a
person engaged in the previous year is given an
opportunity to work in the same hot weather establishment
in the subsequent year but he fails to avail of that
opportunity, he will have to start afresh in the event of his
being so engaged again on any future occasion.
3. These orders will be effective from the summer
season of the current calendar year (1985). In other words
they will apply only to casual watermen to be engaged
during in summer season of the current year and for such
engagement in future years.
4. This issues with the concurrence of Finance
Directorate of the Ministry of Finance.”
Rule 2006 reads as follows:—
“Absorption of Casual Labour in regular
vacancies.—Absorption of casual labour in regular Group
‘D’ employment may be considered in accordance with
instructions issued by the Railway Board from time to
time. Such absorption is, however, not automatic but is
subject, inter-alia, to availability of vacancies and
suitability and eligibility of individual casual labour and
rules regarding seniority unit method of absorption etc.
decided by the Railway Administration.
(ii) (a) Casual watermen for summer season shall be
eligible for temporary status on completions of 120 days
of continuous employment.
(b) For this purpose, various spells of engagement
as casual water man may be aggregated provided the gap
between two spells of employment has been cause due to
season being over and/or there being no work for them in
such establishment provided further that if a person
engaged in the previous year is given an opportunity to
work in the same hot weather establishment in the
subsequent year but he fails to avail of that opportunity,
he will have to start afresh in the event of his being so
engaged again in future seasons. These provisions are
effective from the summer season of 1985. [E(NG)II/83/CL/
117 dated 25-01-85]
(iii) As long as it is established that a casual labour
has been enrolled within the prescibed age limit, relaxation
in upper age limit at the time of actual absorption should
be automatic and guided by this factor. In old cases where
the age limit was not observed, relaxation of age should
be considered sympathetically. The DRM’s may exercise
such power to grant relaxation in age limit.
19. So far the contentions raised by the learned
advocate for the party no. 1 that the names of the 18
workmen were not found in the live register or any other
document of the party no. 1 and as such their cases for
regularization were not considered is concerned, I find no
force in the said contention. It is already mentioned earlier
that from the pleadings of the parties, documents on record
and evidence of the witnesses examined by the party no.
1 that the eighteen workmen worked as hot season
workmen/women for more than 120 days in aggregate and
they had acquired temporary status. At this juncture, I
think it necessary to mention about the evidence of Shri
A.K. Nema. According to his evidence on affidavit, only
the names of workmen, namely, Suraj Uddeswar Meshram,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4563
Sanjay Meshram and Akhtar Ansari were not in the live
register. It is also mentioned in his affidavit that
workwoman, Girijabai was found suitable but did not report,
workman Devidas Pannalal was not within the zone of
consideration and other 13 workmen were not eligible for
regularization. Such evidence of witness, A.K. Nema shows
that only the names of three workmen were not in the live
register, which demolished the claim of the party no.1.
Moreover, the live register produced by party no. 1, (Ext.
M-VIII) shows only the name of 19 workers, which clearly
shows that the said register has not been properly
maintained so no reliance can be placed on the same. As
the party no. 1 has not produced the required documents
and there is no proper maintenance of the live register, it is
not possible to accept the contentions raised by the
learned advocate for the party no. I. As per rule 2006, the
workmen are also entitled to age relaxation, as they were
enrolled within the prescribed age limit.
From the materials on record and the discussions
made above, it is held that the 18 workmen are entitled for
regularization in service against permanent post from the
date of the regularization of the immediate junior of each
workman, according to the seniority list prepared in respect
of the hot season workmen/women. However, taking into
consideration the facts and circumstance of the case and
the admission of workmen/women about their engagement
in other gainful employment, the workmen are not entitled
to back wages.
As the rest 56 workmen, out of the list of 74 workmen
neither appeared in the case nor filed any statement of
claim nor contested the case, it is necessary to pass a “no
dispute” award against them. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
(1) The action of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur in respect of the 18 (eighteen)
workmen as mentioned in para 11 of the award in not
regularizing their services is unjustified. The said 18
workmen are entitled for regularization in service against
permanent post of group ‘D’ from the date of the
regularization of the immediate junior of each workman,
according to the seniority list prepared in respect of the
hot season workmen/women with continuity. The workmen
are not entitled to any back wages. The workmen who
have attained the age of superannuation be nominally
regularized in service and they be given the retirement
benefits.
(2) In respect of the rest 56 workmen out of the list
of 74 workmen, the award be treated as “no dispute” award.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
Annexure-A
Case No. CGIT/NGP/70/2000
Central Railway
Deptt. Commercial
Nagpur Division
Seniority List of Hot Season Waterman/Waterwoman
Sr.
Name of the Hot season Waterman/Waterwomen
Initial appointment
Total
No.
comm. Dept.
Days
1
2
3
4
1.
Smt. Hemlata Sakharam
12-04-81
1265
2.
Shri Sunil Dhaniram
03-04-82
964
3.
Shri Vinod Dhaniram
27-04-83
937
4.
Smt. Pramila Ramawatar
03-04-82
994
5.
Smt. Sewantabai Manik
17-04-84
659
6.
Shri Devidas Narayan
04-04-84
602
7.
Shri Kisan Laxman
03-04-84
592
8.
Shri Cetanand Pyarelal
06-05-84
600
9.
Shri Sunil Ganpat
28-04-87
584
10.
Shri Naresh Ramawatar
18-05-85
600
11.
Shri Sanjay Namdeo
28-04-87
600
12.
Shri Beniprasad Sukka
19-05-85
584
4564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
Shri Anil Lalji
19-06-85
579
14.
Shri Mahadeo Babulal
19-06-85
579
15.
Shri Ramesh Bapurao
29-03-83
594
16.
Shri Durgaprasad Ramchandra
11-04-85
562
17.
Shri Rajnarayan Ramkharar
05-04-86
556
18.
Smt. Santa Sambha
01-06-84
555
19.
Shri Suresh Soma
06-04-86
555
20.
Shri Mudhir Madhukar
06-04-86
555
21.
Shri Rajeshwar Shamrao
06-04-86
551
22.
Shri Santilal Babulal
02-04-83
550
23.
Shri Suresh Shankar
19-06-84
550
24.
Shri Prabhakar Sambaji
16-04-86
549
25.
Shri Kishor Bapurao
06-04-86
548
26.
Sidheshwar Eknath
10-04-86
549
27.
Shri Kallu Dhannu
06-04-86
549
28.
Shri Tejandra Chitranjan
01-06-86
535
29.
Shri Ramesh Krishnarao
03-06-86
535
30.
Shri Banzamaniprasad Shulka
01-06-86
535
31.
Shri Suresh Brijilal
19-07-83
531
32.
Shri Priyajrao Sambaji
01-04-86
526
33.
Shri Ramesh Waman
01-05-85
525
34.
Shri Johni Michel
06-06-86
521
35.
Shri Madan Ramprasad
01-05-85
520
36.
Shri Ashok Ganpat Lokhande
06--06-86
519
37.
Shri Mahendra Raghunath
18-05-85
518
38.
Balraj Hiraman
04-06-86
516
39.
Shri Kishor Balgoving
02-06-86
514
40.
Shri Ramesh Laxman
05-06-86
514
41.
Shri Ashwini Patel
29-03-87
508
42.
Shri Anand Pundilik
05-06-85
508
43.
Shri Shiviaji Shashikant
06-06-86
507
44.
Shri Devendra Raghunath
01-04-87
-do-
45.
Shri Umeshprasad Raghusingh
01-04-87
-do-
46.
Shri Sk. Zahid Sk. Zashir
05-06-86
-do-
47.
Shri Jawahar Patel
04-06-86
-do-
48.
Shri Abdul Sk . Mussa
05-06-86
-do-
1
2
3
4
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4565
1
2
3
4
49.
Shri Basantkumar Parmanand
01-04-87
507
50.
Shri Nagseh Gyaneshwar
05-06-86
-do-
51.
Shri Anil Dewaji
04-06-86
-do-
52.
Shri Omprakash Battanarayan
04-06-86
-do-
53.
Shri Robinesh Laorus
04-06-86
-do-
54.
Shri Digambar Laxman
04-06-86
-do-
55.
Shri Ruplal Daulat
07-06-86
-do-
56.
Shri Ab. Ali Ab. Raheman
05-06-86
-do-
57.
Shri Rajesh Vithalrao
05-05-86
-do-
58.
Shri Sk. Ismail Sk. Hussain
05-06-86
-do-
59.
Shri Dipak Santosh
01-05-86
-do-
60.
Shri Prakash Tulshiram
04-05-86
-do-
61.
Shri Parkash Yashwant
04-06-86
-do-
62.
Shri Subhash Ramchanera
04-06-86
-do-
63.
Shri Ganesh Shamrao
04-06-86
-do-
64.
Shri Mahendra Singh Sukhdeosing
13-06-86
-do-
65.
Shri Mukesh Madhukar
05-06-86
-do-
66.
Shri Baldeoprasad Ramdulare
04-05-86
-do-
67.
Shri Ravi Sopan
06-06-86
-do-
68.
Shri Uttam Gopalrao
06-06-86
-do-
69.
Shri Rajesh Ramkrishna
04-06-86
-do-
70.
Shri Sanjay Motiram
09-04-85
-do-
71.
Shri Ramesh Laxman Bisne
04-06-86
-do-
72.
Shri Babu Jagat Naidu
04-06-86
-do-
73.
Shri Omprakash Sunderlal
06-06-86
-do-
74.
Shri Chandu Krishnarao
06-06-86
-do-
75.
Shri Manik Dashrath
06-06-86
-do-
76.
Shri Atul Bhaurao
05-06-86
-do-
77.
Shri Ajay Ramnath
19-05-86
-do-
78.
Shri Kishor Kishnrao
19-05-86
-do-
79.
Shri Sk. Afsal Sk. Rafiq
05-06-86
490
80.
Shri Jahir Rehimudullah
26-06-86
-do-
81.
Shri Munna Gyani
05-06-86
-do-
82.
Shri Anil Kashinath
06-06-86
-do-
83.
Sk. Satar Sk. Jaffir
04-06-86
-do-
84.
Shri Rajesh Ramlal
04-06-86
-do-
4566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
85.
Sk. Khalik Sk. Mohd.
04-04-86
490
86.
Shri Robert Eialy
05-06-86
-do-
87.
Shri Nandu Hemchand
04-06-86
-do-
88.
Shri Ravind Nathu
04-06-87
-do-
89.
Shri Rajesh Baratilal
06-03-87
-do-
90.
Sk. Farid Sharif Ahmad
05-06-86
-do-
91.
Shri Surendra Shriram
04-06-86
-do-
92.
Shri Madan Bhaurao
22-03-84
502
93.
Shri Gopi Nathu
04-06-86
-do-
94.
Shri Victor Yesu
04-06-86
-do-
95.
Shri Kashiram Baldeo
03-06-86
-do-
96.
Shri Vijay Kishanrao
03-06-86
-do-
97.
Shri Suresh Bhiwaji
03-06-86
-do-
98.
Shri Sunil Udhebhan
05-05-97
-do-
99.
Shri Chimanlal Heggu
04-06-86
-do-
100.
Shri Gulab Mouj
04-06-86
-do-
101.
Shri Parsaram Bhikka
19-12-83
-do-
102.
Shri Subhash Rambhau
19-06-86
-do-
103.
Shri Sanjay Gopichand
19-06-86
-do-
104.
Shri Sunil Motiram Pikata
07-06-86
-do-
105.
Shri Rubin Yakub
07-06-86
-do-
106.
Shri Ramsundra Dhaniram
17-06-86
-do-
107.
Shri Bharat Gorelal
05-06-86
-do-
108.
Shri Anil Hiralal
19-03-86
-do-
109.
Shri Manoj Udhebhan
05-05-86
-do-
110.
Shri Sunil Jaikisan
23-04-86
-do-
111.
Shri Dadarao Laxman
30-03-86
-do-
112.
Shri Sanjay Niwruti
19-04-86
-do-
113.
Shri Shasikant Naratay
17-06-86
-do-
114.
Shri Yuraj Mahadeo
04-06-86
-do-
115.
Shri Suresh Udeshwar
04-06-86
-do-
116.
Shri Rajesh Sukhdeo
04-06-86
-do-
117.
Smt. Saroj Ravikumar
18-04-83
865
118.
Smt. Nirmal Bapurao
13-04-84
968
119.
Smt. Gulshan Bee
16-04-85
608
120.
Smt Kusum Rajaram Tamskar
01-04-86
584
1
2
3
4
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4567
1
2
3
4
121.
Smt. Bhanumati Jagannath
15-04-84
608
122.
Smt. Sheela Bai Zadeo
01-04-79
1190
123.
Smt. Prarbatbai Zitru
17-05-83
550
124.
Smt. Hajrabegam Yasdmkhan
01-04-84
607
125.
Smt. Manoram Shadashiv
26-03-84
500
126.
Smt. Chandrakala Chindu
14-04-84
500
127.
Smt. Sakuntala Banwarilal
17-04-88
480
128.
Smt. Kasubai Jaysingh
20-05-84
506
129.
Smt. Styabhama Ganpat
14-04-89
400
130.
Smt. Girja Gulab
15-04-84
400
131.
Smt. Girja Shakharam
15-04-84
-do-
132.
Smt. Muliyabai Kunjilal
16-04-84
-do-
133.
Shri Satish Shankar
15-05-87
-do-
134.
Shri Rambhao Jannath
02-04-83
200
135.
Shri Raju Yeswant
23-04-87
400
136.
Shri Vinod Magal
05-04-86
-do-
137.
Shri Kishor Meshram
01-04-85
-do-
138.
Shri Viliyan Jakap Pal
26-05-84
900
139.
Shri Ramesh Dongro
16-04-84
500
140.
Shri Sanjay Meshram
16-04-87
-do-
141.
Shri Chandrakant Kale
16-04-86
400
142.
Shri Manohar Baliram
05-05-84
500
143.
Shri Rajendra Joshi
05-05-84
600
144.
Shri Sk. Aslam Sk. Rafiq
04-06-86
400
145.
Shri Manohar Chaitram
16-04-86
-do-
146.
Shri Subhas Kasinath
04-06-86
-do-
147.
Shri Ramdulare Mukka
04-06-86
-do-
148.
Shri Dewanand Sadeshiv
-do-
-do-
149.
Shri Zenaklal Dendoo
-do-
-do-
150.
Shri Devidas Pannalal
-do-
-do-
151.
Shri Ashok Ganpat Dongre
-do-
-do-
152.
Shri Sk. Salim Sk. Chand
-do-
-do-
153.
Shri Dharampal Jairam
-do-
-do-
154.
Shri Viliam John
-do-
-do-
155.
Shri Shyamsundar Dhaniram
-do-
-do-
156.
Shri Akbar Ansari
-do-
-do-
4568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
157.
Shri Raju Zitruji
04-06-86
-do-
158.
Shri Laxman Motiram
-do-
-do-
159.
Shri Govind Ramchand
-do-
-do-
160.
Shri Mohanand Aspak
30-03-87
-do-
161.
Shri Antony Philips
-do-
-do-
162.
Shri Dilip Laxman
-do-
-do-
163.
Shri Ramesh Laxman Randive
-do-
-do-
164.
Shri Viney Shivshankar
-do-
-do-
165.
Shri Gangaprasad Raghunath
-do-
-do-
166.
Shri Dina Meouji
-do-
-do-
167.
Shri Sanjay Vishwanath
-do-
-do-
168.
Shri Mohd. Nayum
-do-
-do-
169.
Shri Anil Manikrao
-do-
-do-
170.
Shri Kamlesh Balaprashad
-do-
-do-
171.
Shri Durgaprasad Sumer
-do-
-do-
172.
Shri Narayan Rama
-do-
-do-
173.
Shri Ramesh Kumar Mahadeo
30-03-86
-do-
174.
Shri Bharat Kunjilal
-do-
-do-
175.
Shri Jagdish Shrawan
-do-
-do-
176.
Shri Gohendra Shrawan
-do-
-do-
177.
Shri Raju Gendlal
-do-
-do-
178.
Shri Mohansing Bihari Singh
-do-
-do-
179.
Shri Ajaju Rehaman
-do-
-do-
180.
Shri Girish Babulal
-do-
-do-
181.
Shri Girwar Chotalal
01-04-89
-do-
182.
Shri Akram Ali
-do-
-do-
183.
Shri Ajay Anand
30-03-86
-do-
184.
Shri Arun Gyandeo
-do-
-do-
185.
Shri Ramdas Arjun
-do-
-do-
186.
Shri Sanjay Wasudeo
-do-
-do-
187.
Shri Suresh Mehadeo
-do-
-do-
188.
Shri Sunil Chintaman
-do-
-do-
189.
Shri Paul Albert
-do-
-do-
190.
Shri Prahlad Arjun Kale
-do-
-do-
191.
Shri Dilip Shroyare
-do-
-do-
192.
Shri Pramod Bhagwati
-do-
-do-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4569
193.
Shri Ramesh Gulabrao
30-03-1986
400
194.
Shri Vijay Ramkrishna
-do-
-do-
195.
Shri Naresh Ajabrao
-do-
-do-
196.
Shri Raju Narayan
-do-
-do-
197.
Shri Nandlal Chetu
-do-
-do-
198.
Shri Ramesh Motiram
-do-
-do-
199.
Shri Suresh Buddhaji
-do-
-do-
200.
Shri Sitaram Ramlal
-do-
-do-
201.
Shri Ashok Raja
-do-
-do-
202.
Shri Arun Tulshiram
-do-
-do-
203.
Shri Anand Uttamrao
-do-
-do-
204.
Shri Sanjay Namdeo
01-04-087
-do-
205.
Shri Naresh Maroti
01-05-89
-do-
206.
Shri Sidhrath Meghraj
01-04-86
-do-
207.
Shri Baban Chendrabhan
01-04-86
-do-
208.
Shri Mukundlal Gorakhanath
03-08-87
-do-
209.
Shri Mahanand Bavichand
-do-
-do-
210.
Shri Bablu Edwed
-do-
-do-
211.
Shri Sunil Suryabhan
03-08-87
400
212.
Shri Arun Nilkanth
-do-
-do-
213.
Shri Rupchand Babulal
-do-
-do-
214.
Shri Gauttam Shamrao
-do-
-do-
215.
Shri Vijay Babulal
-do-
-do-
216.
Shri Maroti Sukhdeo
-do-
-do-
217.
Shri Ganesh Harichand
-do-
-do-
218.
Shri Manoj Gopichand
30-04-87
-do-
219.
Shri Ravindra Shaligram
-do-
-do-
220.
Shri Shasikar Bapurao
-do-
-do-
221.
Shri Kishor Amrut
-do-
-do-
222.
Shri Mukesh Ramchand
-do-
-do-
223.
Shri Laxman Bapurao
-do-
-do-
224.
Shri Mangal Nathu
-do-
-do-
225.
Shri Arun Vithalrao
-do-
-do-
226.
Shri Mahendra Sambhaji
-do-
-do-
227.
Shri Kairsingh Arjunsingh
-do-
-do-
228.
Shri Tuilsidas Mishralal
-do-
-do-
229.
Shri Manohar Pundalik
-do-
-do-
229 and all other Waterman working in under Nagpur Division, Nagpur, Centre Railway.
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
1
2
3
4
4570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Case No. CGIT/NGP/70/2000
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur
Versus
Smt. Hemlata Sakharam Bagade & others
ANNEXURE - B
1.
Smt. Hemlata Sakharam Bagade
Representative of Hot Season Waterman,
Central Railway,
C/o Tejram Sonkwar Jewellers & Co.
Wand No. 68, Ambedkar Marg,
Kamal Chowk, Nagpur.
2.
Durgaprasad Ramchandra
3.
Ranjanarayan Ramkharan
4.
Prabhakar Sambhaji
5.
Anand Pundlik
6.
Devendra Raghunath
7.
Basant Kumar Parmanand
8.
Omprakash Badrinarayan
9.
Prakash Yashwant
10.
Rajesh Ramkrishna
11.
Sk. Khalik Sk Mohd.
12.
Nandu Hemchand
13.
Kashiram Baldeo
14.
Sunil Udaybhan
15.
Chimanlal Haggu
16.
Gulab Moujke
I7.
Anil Hiralal
18.
Manoj Udhebhan
19.
Dadarao Laxman
20.
Sanjay Nivruti
21.
Shasikant Narstay
22.
Suresh Udheshwar
23.
Rajesh Sukhdeo
24.
Saroj Ravikumar
25.
Gulshan Bee
26.
Kusum Rajaram Tamaskar
27.
Bhanumati Jaganath
28.
Sheela Bai Yadeo
29.
Parbatabai Zitru
30.
Hajrabegum Yasimkhan
31.
Manoram Shadashiv
32.
Chandrakala Chindu
33.
Sakuntala Banwarilal
34.
Kasubai Jaysingh
35.
Satyabhama Ganpat
36.
Girja Gulab
37.
Girja Shakharam
38.
Muliyabai Kunjilal
39.
Rambhao Jannath
40.
Raju Yashwant
41.
Vinod Magal
42.
Viliam K. Pal
43.
Sanjay Meshram
44.
Chandrakant Kale
45.
Manohar Baliram
46.
Manohar Chaitram
47.
Ramdulare Mukka
48.
Zanaklal Dendoo
49.
Devidas Pannalal
50.
Viliam John
5l.
Akbar Ansari
52.
Govind Ramchand
53.
Mohammed Aspak
54.
Sanjay Vishwanath
55.
Kamlesh Balaprashad
56.
Durgaprasad Kumar
57.
Gohendra Shrawan
58.
Raju Gendlal
59.
Mohansingh Bihari Singh
60.
Ajay Anand
61.
Arun Gyandeo
62.
Ramdas Arjun
63.
Paul Albert
64.
Pramod Bhagwati
65.
Suresh Buddaji
66.
Ashok Raja
67.
Arun Tulsiram
68.
Sanjay Namdeo
69.
Naresh Maroti
70.
Sunil Surabhan
71.
Arun Nilkanth
72.
Rupchand Babulal
73.
Mukesh Ramchand
:74.
Mangal Nathu
75.
Manohar Pundlik
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4571
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1938-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksfj;sUVy
cSad vkWiQ dkelZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 16@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@04@2005&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º
'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2012
S.O. 1938.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2005)
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 Oriental Bank of Commerce and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 03-5-2012.
[No. L-12012/04/2005-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. 16 of 2005
Between :
Sri Hari Om Babu Kashyap,
S/o Shri Kailash Chand Kashyap,
R/o 17/97-H Raj Nagar,
Loha Mandi, Agra.
And
The Assistant General Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Ispat Bhawan,
IInd Floor, 85/4 Sanjay Place,
Agra.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification no.L- 12012/04/2005-IR(B-II) dated 30-5-2005,
has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this
tribunal—
2. It is alleged by the claimant Sri Kashyap that he
was engaged as a car driver by the opposite party and
worked from 12-10-98 to 30-04-03 continuously and he
was being paid Rs. 2200 per month. When he raised a
demand to increase the wages he was removed from
service on 01-05-2003 without any reason and without
entering into any departmental inquiry or even without
making compliance of section 25 F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. After dispensation of his services the
opposite party engaged another driver at monthly rate of
Rs. 3000, thus the opposite party has breached the
provisions of section 25H of the Act. Accordingly it is
prayed by the claimant that he be reinstated in the service
with full back wages, continuity of service and other
consequential benefits.
3. Opposite party has filed their reply alleging therein
that there was no relationship of employer and employee
between the opposite party and the claimant, that he was
never engaged by the opposite party against any
sanctioned post after following due selection process. It
is also denied by the opposite party that the claimant was
never paid any regular salary as are being paid to the
regularly employees of the opposite party.
4. It is stated by the opposite party that the claimant
was the personal driver of the Regional Head
Sri L. K. Dham and he was paid the emoluments by the
said officer which was subsequently reimbursed to him
by the bank. Therefore under these facts and circumstances
of the case the workman cannot be termed to be the
employee of the bank. lt is also denied by the opposite
that they at any point of time have breached the provisions
of section 25F or H of the Act.
5. It may be pointed out here that after perusal of the
record it reveals that despite availing of the opportunity
the worker has failed to adduce evidence in support of his
case whereas the opposite party has adduced the evidence
in support of their claim.
6. Even none appeared from the side of the claimant
to cross examine the witness of the opposite party;
therefore, the evidence adduced by the management
remains uncontroverted and thus cannot be disbelieved.
7. Considering over all facts and circumstances of
the case along with evidence available on the record of
the case, the tribunal is of the confirmed opinion that the
claimant has miserably failed to establish his case before
the tribunal either on the fact that he was ever in the direct
employment of the opposite party or that the opposite
party has breached the provisions of section 25F and H of
the Act.
8. Thus having failed to prove the case for want of
proper and convincing evidence, it is held that the claimant
is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in his claim
statement
9. Accordingly reference is answered against the
workman and in favour of the opposite party.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
4572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1939.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@1993)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 9&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@31@93&vkbZvkj(ch&I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2012
S.O. 1939.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/1993
) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 9-5-2012.
[No. L-12011/31/93-IR (B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR
Present :
Shri Raghubir Dash, O.S.J.S. (Sr.Branch),Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.
Industarial Dispute Case No. 42 of 1993 (Central).
Dated, Bhubaneswar the 9th April, 2012
Between :
The management of State Bank of India Stationery
Department, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar-751001
......First party-management
And
Their workmen, S/Sri Trilochan
Sethi, Manoranjan Pradhan,
Brajakishore Panda, Prafulla Kumar
Barik & Alok Kumar Sahoo,
C/o. Shri N.K. Mohanty,
Plot No. 32, Ashokanagar, Bhubaneswar.
........Second Party-Workmen
APPEARANCES:
Sri M.N. Ray ..... For First Party- Management
Chief Managar (Procurement)
Sri Bikram Keshari Mohanty, .....Second Party-Workman
Advocate
himself.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of
Labour in exercise of powers conferred upon them by
clause of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , (14 of 1947) have
referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their
Order No.-L12011/31/93-IR-B-I dated 7-12-93.
“Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India, Circle Stationery Deptt., Cuttack Road ,
Bhubaneswar, in discontinuing engagement of S/Shri
Trilochan Sethi, Manoranjan Pradhan, Brajakishore
Panda, Prafulla Kumar Barik and Alok Kumar Sahoo
w.e.f.22-1-93 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workmen are entitled?”
2. This case was posted to today for hearing. The
workman Sri A.K. Sahu appeared in persoon alongwith
his Advocate. The management entered appearance
through its representative Sri M. N. Ray, Chief Managar,
(Circle & Stationery Deptt.) Bhubaneswar.
3. A joint petition is filed by the parties narreting
therein that as in the meanwhile the workman has been
promoted to the post of clerk, the parties to the dispute
are no more interested to proceed further in the matter and
accordingly they have prayed to pass an Award.
4. In the present reference, an Award had already
been passed on 7-10-1997 . The said award having been
challenged by one of the workman namely, Alok Kumar
Sahu, the Hon’ble High Court while disposing of the W. P.
(C) No. 8893 of 2003 have observed as follows:—
“In that view of the matter, so for as the present
petitioner is concerned, the case should be readjudicated
and, if necessary, as the Tribunal has already come to the
finding that the disengagement/re-trenchment is illegaly
necessary orders for reinstatement of the petitioner
should be passed. Since this requires examination of the
records, the matter is remitted back for this limited purpose
to the Presding Officer, IndustrialTribunal, Bhubaneswar
to decide afresh whether the petitionaer has rendered the
reuisite number of days in the preious year and if the was
or was not absorbed in the permament cadre of the oppesite
Party-Bank and what specific orders should have been
given to the management in the interest of Justice.
The opposite party is given liberty to raise all the
issues that were raised before this court in the counter
affidavit and additional counter affidavit.”
Accordingly, the I.D. case was remanded to this
tribunal for readjudication of the matter only in respect of
Sri Alok Kumar Sahu. On being noticed by this Tribunal
for readjudication of the matter both sides have appeared.
5. When the matter stands thus the parties to the
dispute have filed the aforesaid joint petition. On being
asked, the workman as well as the Management’s
representative stated that the dispute for which the Hon’ble
High Court have remanded the matter is no more there and
accordingly thery have prayed for disposal of the case by
way of passing an Award. The Parties having voluntarily
arrived at a compromise, no fruitful purpose woud be
served by keeping this case pending any more.
Accordingly, the Award is modified only in respact of Alok
Kumar Sahu in terms of the compromise arrived at between
him and the First Party. The compromise petition do form
part of the Award.
R. B. DASH, Presiding Officer
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ORISSA, BHUBANESWAR
I.D. Case No. 42/93 (i).
IN THE MATTER OF :
S.B. I. Circle Stationery Deptt., Bhubaneswar
1st Party Management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4573
Versus
Shri Trilochan Sethi & Others
2nd Party Workman
(Only Alok Kumar Sahoo)
JOINT PETITION FILED BY THE ABOVE NAMED
PARTIES
1. That in the meanwhile the 1st Party Management
promoted the 2nd Party workman namely Alok Kumar
Sahoo to the Post of Clerk
2. That in view of such development the 2nd Party
workman does not wants to proceed with the matter further.
3. Hence, this petition is jointly file to Pass an award
in terms of aforesaid settlement
Bhubaneswar
9-4-2012
Sd/-
M. N. Ray
for First Party Management
Chief Manager,
S.B.I. Circle Stationery Department,
Bhubaneswar
Sd/-
Alok Kumar Sahoo
2nd Party Workman
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1940.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2009)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@11@2009&vkbZvkj(ch&II)º
'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2012
S.O. 1940.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2009 )
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2012.
[No. L-12011/11/2009-IR (B-II)]
SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
Present : Dr. MANJU NIGAM Presiding Officer
1.D. NO.10/2009
Ref. No. L-12011/11/2009-IR(B-II) dated: 29-04-2009
BETWEEN
The General Secretary Union Bank Employees Union
(UP) Regional Office, 628/M-33, Murari Nagar, R.S.M. Nagar
Post, Faizabad Road, Lucknow - 226 016 (Espousing cause
of Shri Ant Raj)
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager
Union Bank of India
Regional Office, Begum Bridge Road
Meerut (U.P.)
2.The Zonal Manager
Union Bank of India
Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-12011/11/2009-IR(B-II) dated:
29-04-2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between the General Secretary, Union
Bank Employees Union (UP), Regional Office, 628/M-33,
Murari Nagar, R.S.M. Nagar Post, Faizabad Road, Lucknow
and the Dy. General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional
Office, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut and the Zonal
Manager, Union Bank of India, Kapurthala Complex,
Aliganj, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjodication is:
"Whether the action of the management of Union
Bank of India in denying officiating allowance of
clerical cadre to Shri Ant Raj, daftari, Kavi Nagar
branch, Ghaziabad (UP) for working in clerical cadre
during the period w.e.f. 08-07-2004 to 2
9-11-2006 is legal and justified? What relief the
concern workman is entitled to and from which date?”
3. The case of the workman's union, in brief, is that
the workman, Ant Raj is sub-staff (Daftary) in Kavi Nagar
Branch, Ghaziabad of the Union Bank of India and his services
were utilized by the Bank as receiving cashier from
8-07-2004 to 29-11-2004, which is purely clerical job; but was
denied officiating allowance for officiating in the clerical cadre
as per para 9.11 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966
in spite of representation dated 12-12-2006, moved by the
workman. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that
the management of the Bank be directed to pay officiating
allowance to the workman for the period 8-07-2004 to
29-11-2004 with interest @ 18% per annum.
4. The claim of the workman's union has been
disputed by the management by filing its written statement;
wherein it has submitted that the workman was never been
authorized by virtue of any written orders to perform the
work of cashier or head cashier on regular basis between
8-07-2004 to 29-11-2004. Furthermore, it has pointed out
towards Clause 9.10 of the Bipartite Settlement dated
19-10-1966, which provides that ‘wherever a Bank requires
a workman to officiate in a post in higher cadre, it will so by
an order in writing’. The Bank management has specifically
submitted that a person who is appointed on a particular
post does not become entitled to get the benefits of
superior post unless specifically instructed and authorized
to do so by the person competent to do so by virtue of
written orders. Accordingly, the management of the Bank
has prayed that the claim of the workman’s union liable to
4574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the rejected without any relief to the workman
concerned.
5. The workman's union has filed rejoinder whereby
it has only reiterated its averments in the statement of claim
and has not introduced any new fact. There is no specific
submission from the workman’s union that the workman
had been entrusted with the work of cashier, as claimed by
him, through some written order.
6. The workman's union has filed photocopies of
certain documents vide list of documents dated 15-06-2009
and subsequent vide list dated 1-11-2010, in support of his
case whereas the management filed none.
7. After completion of pleadings on behalf of the
parties the workman’s union was called upon to file its
evidence on 23-12-2011; but the workman's union did not
file any. The workman's union was again given opportunity
to file its evidence on affidavit on several dates but it failed
to comply with the directions.
8. It is noteworthy to mention that in the instant
case the concerned workman never put up his appearance
before this Tribunal; rather the authorized representative of
the workman's union had been contesting the case on its
behalf, who made his last appearance on 23-08-2010. When
it come into the notice of this Tribunal that the authorized
representative of the workman has expired, it had ordered to
issue registered notice to the workman's union; and
accordingly, registered notice was issued to the workman's
union, intimating the expiry of their authorized representative
and calling it to contest their case further before this Tribunal
either themselves or through their authorized representative;
but none turned up from the workman's union till date. 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
year 2009.
9. The case of the workman's union was that the
workman officiated in clerical cadre but was denied officiating
allowance for the period he officiated and that he is entitled
for officiating allowance as per provisions contained in para
9.11 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966.
10.Per contra, the management of the Union Bank of
India has made a specific pleading that a person who is
appointed on a particular post does not become entitled to
get the benefits of superior post unless specifically instructed
and authorized to do so by the person competent to do so by
virtue of written orders and in this regard it has made a mention
of the provisions contained in towards Clause 9.10 of the
Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966, which provides that
‘wherever a Bank requires a workman to officiate in a post in
higher cadre, it will so by an order in writing’ .
11. In view of rival contentions of the parties, I have
scanned entire material placed on the file.
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 of the management in
denying officiating allowance to the workman for the period
8-07-2004 to 29-11-2006; and to prove that the action of the
management in denying the official allowance to the
workman was illegal. It was the case of the workman’s union
that workman officiated in clerical cadre but was denied
officiating allowance for the period be officiated and that
he is entitled for officiating allowance as per provisions
contained in para 9.11 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-
10-1966. This claim has been denied by the management;
therefore, it was for the workman's union to lead evidence
to show that his category was actually officiated in clerical
cadre and was entitled for officiating allowance as per
provisions contained in para 9.11 of the Bipartite Settlement;
but he failed to do so either through documentary or oral
evidence before this Tribunal.
13. In 2008 (118) FLR 1164 M/s. Uptron Powertronics
Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs.
Presiding .Officer, Labour Court (II), 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., 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC) V.K. Raj Industries vs.
Labour Court and others, 1984 (49) FLR 38 Airtech Private
Limited vs. State of U.P. and others and 1996 (74) FLR 2004
(Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others; wherein
it was observed by the Apex Court.
“That in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf
of the 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 is led.”
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 officiated in clerical cadre and
was entitled for officiating allowance as per norms; 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 Union Bank of India in denying
officiating allowance of clerical cadre to the workman, Ant Raj
is illegal and unjustified.
15. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the
workman's union; and as such, I come to the conclusion that
the workman, Ant Raj is not entitled to any of the relief(s)
claimed.
16. Award as above.
Lucknow.
16-4-2012
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1941.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ olksZok
vk;ju ekbZUl vkj-,e- Mh- lsy lqUnjx<+ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4575
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 52@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&4&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&26011@2@99&vkbZvkj (,e)º
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2012
S.O. 1941.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/2001)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar-2 as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Barsua Iron Mines RMD, SAIL
(Sundargarh) and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 11-4-2012.
[No. L-26011/2/99-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri J. Srivastava,
Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 52/2001
Date of Passing Award - 21st March, 2012
Between:
The General Manager,
Barsua Iron Mines, RMD, SAIL,
P.O. Tensa, Dist. Sundargarh -770041.
....1st Party-Management
And
Their workmen represented through the
Secretary ,United Mines Mazdoor Union,
At. Smruti Sadan, P.O. Barsua, Sundargarh.
.....2nd Party- Union
Appearances:
Shri R.C. Tripathy,
Manager (Law) ..........For the 1st Party-
Management.
None. ...... For the 2nd Party -Union.
AWARD
An industrial dispute with regard to the management
of Barsua Iron Mines RMD, SAIL and their workman has
been referred to this Tribunal/Court by the Government of
India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide
their letter No. L-2601l/2/99-IR(M), dated 22-3-1999.
2. The dispute as shown under the schedule of the
letter of reference is quoted below:—
“Whether the demand of United Mines Mazdoor
Union for payment of production and incentive
bonus to the contractor workers engaged in perennial
nature of work i.e. related to production (mining
operation) and clerical and. other regular office staff
of Barsua Iron Mines, Raw Materials Division, SAIL,
w.e.f . 1989 is justified? If so, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?”
3. In pursuance of the letter of reference the 2nd
Party-Union filed its statement of claim alleging that Barsua
Iron Mines is a Mines under R.M.D. SAIL Limited and it
has been engaging workmen through contractors besides
having regular employees to do perennial nature of work
such as cleaning, mechanical repair and maintenance in
ore handling plant, mining, exploration of minerals, repair
and maintenance in civil and electrical engineering section,
operation, repair and maintenance of jigging units etc. There
has not been a single day when none of the contractor
workers was engaged in the aforesaid work/jobs. The
names, date of working and work order number of these
contractor workers have been given in Para-5 of the
statement of claim. The workmen under the 1st Party-
Managememt are governed by the Rules and Regulations
formulated by the Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL Limited
including the Certified Standing Order as amended from
time to time. Since the aforesaid contract workers have
been engaged in perennial nature of jobs/work and
discharging the same duties as those of the regular
employees of the 1st Party- Management they are entitled
to get bonus, production and incentive bonus and pay like
regular employees. They cannot be deprived of these
benefits as they come under the definition of “employees”
under the Payment of Bonus Act, as well. These workmen
through Secretary, United Mines Mazdoor Union, Barsua
submitted a representation before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Rourkela on 17-11-1997 and
25-12-1997 and raised and industrial dispute which was
admitted for conciliation, but ended in failure. The denial
of the Ist Party-Management in paying production and
incentive bonus to the contractor workers engaged in
perennial nature of work is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence
they demand for payment of production and incentive
bonus to the contractor workers from the year 1989 with
12% interest till the payment is made.
4. The Ist Party-Management in its written statement
has stated that thereference is not maintainaible for non-
joinder of necessary parties to the dispute and for non-
existence of master and servant relationshipbetween the
Ist party-Management and the 2nd Party- workmen. The
dispute is beyond the purview of Industrial Disputes Act,
4576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1947 and therefore this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon it. The contract workers engaged in Barsua
Iron Mines are not workmen of Barsua Iron Mines as defined
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. None of the
contract workers has been engaged in jobs which are
permanent and perennial in nature. Deliberately the names
of the conractors and the period for which the concerned
workmen had worked have not been disclosed. It is the
contractor employer wo is to ensure payment to the workers
engaged by him. In the absence of the concerned
contractors the claims made by the 2nd Party- Union cannot
be determined.
5. In the rejoinder the 2nd Party-Union has alleged
that the Ist Party-Management is the principal employer
and it is the ultimate authority responsible for payment to
the 2nd Party-workman. The dispute can well be
adjudicated in presence of the existing parties to the dispute.
The Statement of claim and its annexures amply reveals the
names of the workers involved in the dispute who are
entitled for payment. To make the matters crystal clear a
list of workers involved in the dispute is enclosed with the
rejoinder in the Annexurer-A. These workers have been
working uninterruptedly under the 1st Party- Management.
6. In the case following issues were framed on the
basis of the pleadings of the parties:
ISSUES
1. Whether the reference is maintainable?
2. Whether the demand of United Mines Mazdoor
Union for payment of production and incentive
bonus to the contractor workers .engaged in
perennial nature of work i.e. related to production
(mining operation) and clerical and other regular
office staff of the 1st Party-Management w.e.f. 1989
is justified?
3. If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
7. The case lingered, for several years for the
evidence of the 2nd Party-Union, but the 2 Party-Union
failed to file any evidence. Ultimately the case was ordered
to proceed exparte against the 2nd Party-Union on
3-3-2008 and the case was fixed for exparte evidence of the
1st Party-Management.
8. The 1st Party-Management filed sworn affidavitof
Shri Bhubaneswar Mishra, Deputy Manager (P & A) SAIL,
RMD, Rourkela in exparte evidence with photostat copies
of certain documents.
9. As the case is proceeding exparte against the 2nd
Party-Union there is no need to deal with the case issue-
wise.
10. It is an admitted case of the 2nd Party-Union that
the workers named in Para-5 of the statement of claim are
contract workers, but the 2nd Party- Union has not arrayed
the contractors as parties to the dispute who had engaged
these workers in the Barsua Iron Mines under the 1st Party-
Management. The 1st Party-Management can only be said
to be the principal employer and they are only responsible
for any legitimate payment to the contract workers, if the
said payment is not made to them by their contractors. It is
not the case of the 2nd Party-Union that the contractor
workers involved in the case were direct employees of the
1st Party-Management. They might have been engaged in
permanent or perennial nature of work though nor proved,
but they cannot be treated as regular employees of the 1st
Party-Management. It has also not been disclosed in the
statement of claim that these workers have been working
under the 1st Party-Management in the capacity of
contractor workers uninterruptedly from the date mentioned
against their names in Para-5 of the statement of claim and
who was their contractor?
11. The 1st Party-Management has alleged that the
contractor workers are not covered under the Modified
Incentive Scheme, 1988.This scheme is applicable to the
personnel employed in regular establishment. Copies of
the circular dated 23-8-1988 and office order dated
9-7-2010 regarding performance Award Scheme 2010/2011
have been filed by the 1st Party-Management along with
the affidavit of Shri Bhubaneswar Mishra. It has also been
stated in this affidavit that no permanent/perennial job in
the mines is contracted for carrying out through contract
labourers.
12. To controvert the evidence led by the Ist Party
Management no evidence on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union
has been adduced. Hence it cannot be said that the alleged
contractor workers have been engaged in Barsua Iron Mines
for carrying out permanent or perennial nature of work as is
being performed by the regular employees of the 1st Party-
Management and they are entitled to any, production and
incentive bonus from the 1st Party-Management like regular
employees of the 1st Party-Management. Hence the claim of
the 2nd Party-Union is not legal and justitied and the contract
workers are not entitled to any relief as claimed for. The
reference is also not maintainable on the pleas raised by the
1st Party-Management.
13. The reference is answered accordingly.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1942.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2006)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@84@2003&vkbZ vkj(lh ,e&II)º
Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4577
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2012
S.O. 1942.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL, WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 11-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/84/2003-IR (CM-II)]
D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer
Annexure
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER. CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT , NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/23/2006 Date: 04-05-2012.
Party No. l (a) :
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post : Khadsanghi, Tah -Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) :
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Shri Baba S/o Motiram Soyam,
R/ o Murpar, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur,
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated : 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Baba S/o
Motiram Soyam, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/
84/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21-03-2006, with the following
schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Baba S/o Motiram
Soyam, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he
is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Baba S/o
Motiram Soyam, (“the workman” in short) and the
management of the WCL (“Party No.1” in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine
at Murpar, which is known as “W.C. Ltd., Murpar Project”
and the same is under the control and supervision of party
no. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party
no. 1 (a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
(“B.G.M.L.” in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road upto the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the party no.1(a) also engaged party no.1 (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05-01-1997 and till
party no.1(b) is working with party no. 1(a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General
Mazdoor on 24-06-1993 and he continued to work till
2-07-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party
no.1 (b) w.e.f. 03-02-1998 continuously till 28-12-2001 and
he is a workman/employee of party no.1 (a) and party no.1
(a) is the principal employer and his appointment by both
the contractors was oral and the party no.1(b) terminated
his services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and he had worked for
more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while
terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section
2S-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one
month’s notice, nor one month’s wages in lieu of notice,
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties
no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than
700 workers were working with parties no. 1(a) and (b),
they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all
the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to
the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance
of section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services
amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his
retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also,
plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b),
but they did not re-employ him in violation of section 25-H
of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he
alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before
the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services
with many other workers were terminated and wages for
December 2001 was not paid to him and as party no.1 was
the principal employer and party no.1 (b) was the contractor
of party no.1 (a), for each and every act of the party no.1
(b), the party no.1 (a) was responsible and as such, the
party no.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The
workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
3. The party no.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that in
spite of notice, party no.1 (b) neither appeared in the case
nor contested the claim.
4578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In its written statement, the party no.1 (a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also awarded another contract to party no.l
(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01-01-1997 and
28-02-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to party no.l (b) for construction
of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates
of commencement and completion of the said contract were
29-05-1999 and 01-12-2001 respectively and it party no.l (a)
was related to party no.1 (b) only as per the terms of contract
and it was not at all responsible for providing employees
to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to
appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded
by the party no. 1 (a) that as per the provisions of the
Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal
employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or
in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by party no. 1 (b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon ‘ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanti [ 2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. 1 (a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no. 1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no.1 (a) to
cross-examine the workman, on 24-08-2011, “no cross” order
was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no.1(a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on
14-01-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and
written notes of argument were not supplied to the
management, an application for grant of permission to cross-
examine the workman and setting aside the exparte order,
an application for dismissal of the reference on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC
1806, a pursis stating that the Tribunal has not framed the
preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the
proceeding and that the proceeding is not maintainable as
there existed no employer-employee relationship between
WCL and the workman and another pursis stating that
case nos. 4/2006 to 23/2006 were fixed for filing of
appropriate application for setting aside exparte order and
advocate (Shri Nirbhay Chawhan colleague of the counsel)
was present in the first half, however the matters were
posted for passing of award on 04-05-2012 and the counsel
himself was present in the second half, but the Bench Clerk
informed him that as the matter had already been fixed for
award, the appropriate applications cannot be taken up on
board and as such, the same were being sent by RPAD
(Speed Post), signed by the advocate for party no.1(a)
were received by Speed Post. Copies of the applications
and pursis were not served on the other side. However, the
said applications and pursis were rejected as neither the
advocate nor anybody else on behalf of party no.1 appeared
to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 (a) had
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 24-06-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and
the workman was again appointed by party no. 1 (b) from
03-02-1998 to 28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for
vocatiorial training by Party no, 1 (a) and as such, the
workman was the employee of party no.1 and party no. 1(a)
is the principal employer and the appointment of the
workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
and the services of the workman were terminated by party
no.1(b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
more than 240 days with the party no.1 (b), preceding his
termination and before the termination of the services of
the workman, mandatory provisions of section 25- F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice,
nor one month's pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4579
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no.1(a) and 1 (b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in this
case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no.1 (a) and 1 (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar Colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him
from 24-06-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and
that he was again engaged by party no. 1 (b), another
contractor from 03-02-1998 to 28-12-2001. It is never the
case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by
party no. 1 (a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
“contract labour”,“establishment” and “workman” does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word “workman” is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
“establishment” and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no.1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the party no. 1 (a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no.1 (b) is concerned; I think it
necessary 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:-
“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 come other matters. The purport of
the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the
amendment of Section 25F of the principal Act by
substituting in clause (b) the words “for every completed
year ot contInuous service” has removed a discordance
between the unamended Section 25 B and the unamended
Cl. (b) of Section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the 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 this 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).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 it must be 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
4580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
“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/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a
year preceding his termination-Claim denied by
management-Onus lies upon workman 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 his
termination.”
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon 'hIe Apex 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
12. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus the workman has
failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in Section 25-F read with Section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1943.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2005)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@9@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º
Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2012
S.O. 1943.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2005 )
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Rajur Sub-area of
western coalfields Limited, Wani North Area of Western
coalfieds Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 11-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/9/2004-IR (CM-II)]
D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/03/2005 Date : 26-04-2012.
Party No. 1 (a) :
The Sub Area Manager,
Rajur Sub Area of WCL , PO. Rajur,
Tehsil Wani,
Distt. Yavatmal (MS)
Party No. 1 (b) :
(b) :
The General Manager
Wani North Area of WCL,
Post Ukni, Tehsil. Wani,
Ditt. Yavatmal (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
Shri J.N. Pandey, President,
Koyla Shramil Sabha (HMS),
Br. Wani North Area, Tilak Nagar,
Wani, Post & Tehsil, Wani Distt. Yavatmal (MS).
AWARD
(Dated : 26th April, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-Section (1) and sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Wani North Area of WCL and their workman
Shri Surender Sahu, for adjudication, as per letter
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4581
No. L-22012/09/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 24-11-2004, with the
following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management in relation
of Wani North Area of Western Coalfields Limited in
terminating the services of Shri Surender Sahu, through
office order no. WCL/SAMSAR/PER/89-90/3834 dated
24-03-1990 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief his
dependants are entitled?"
“Whether the demand of Smt. Vimala Devi Sahu wife
of late Shri Surendra Sahu, Electrician Helper, Rajur Colliery
for employment as a dependant of Shri Surendra Sahu
consequent upon legal declaration of death of Shri Surendra
Sahu on 06-12-1995 is legal and justified? If so, to what
relief Smt. Vimala Devi Sahu is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, “Koyla Shramik
Sabha(HMS)”, (“the union” in short) on behalf of the wife
of the deceased workman, Surendra Sahu (“the deceased
workman” in short), filed the statement of claim. and the
management of the WCL, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its
written statement.
The case as presented by the union in the statement
of claim is that the deceased workman was in the
employment of Party No.1 w.e.f. 19-06-1984 as Underground
Tub Loader at Rajur Underground Mine and he was
officiating as an Electrical Helper and he applied for casual
leave w.e.f. 06-12-1988 for proceeding to his home town in
Bihar and the leave was duly sanctioned by the Competent
Authority and on completion of one month, when the
workman did not turn up, Shri Hiralal Sahu, the brother in
law of the deceased workman vide letter dated 13-01-1989
informed the Party No.1 regarding missing of the deceased
workman, lodged a FIR in Wani Police Station on
14-01-1989 regarding the missing of the deceased workman
and thereafter he also made publication regarding the
missing of the deceased workman in the daily news paper,
(Nav Bharat) on 14-02-1989 and a charge sheet dated
04/05-02-1990 came to be issued by the Party No.1
against the deceased workman and Hiralal Sahu filed
reply to the said charge sheet on 24-03-1990 intimating
the Party No.1 regarding missing of the deceased
workman and that a FIR had been lodged in the Police
Station by him in that regard on 14-01-1989 and that
there had been publication of the missing of the
deceased workman in the daily news paper and it was
also requested by Hiralal not to take any disciplinary
action against the deceased workman.
The further case of the union is that a regular Civil
Suit bearing no. 140/ 1995 for declaration that Surendra
Sahu be presumed to be dead was filed by the wife, daughter
and father of the deceased workman, before the Joint Civil
Judge, (Junior Division), Wani and the suit was decided on
26-11-1996, whereby it was declared that Surendra Sahu
S/o Rajendra Sahu is presumed to be dead as a matter of
Law of rebuttable presumption on expiry of 7 years from
06-12-1988 to 06-12-1995 and the wife of the deceased
workman applied for monitory benefits and employment
on compassionate ground to the Party No.1, but no heed
was paid to her request, so she approached the Sub Area
Manager, Rajur Sub Area, Chief General Manager, Wani
North Area and Director Personnel of Western Coalfields
Limited, but her case for compassionate appointment was
not considered by the Authorities and thereafter she
approached the union and the union raised the industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Authority for amicable
settlement and as the matter ended in the failure, the
Conciliation Authority submitted failure report to the Central
Govt. and the Central Govt. referred the dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication. It is also pleaded by the union
that submission of the charge sheet and termination of the
services of the deceased workman are bad in law, as
because, the same were issued against a missing person
and in the charge sheet, the local address or permanent
address of the deceased workman was not mentioned and
the Party No.1 issued an office order dated 24-03-1990
stating that Surendra Sahu, Electrical Helper was granted
leave from 04-01-1989 to 10-01-1989 and ever since, he did
not return to his duties and the where abouts of the Surendra
is not known and as such, he is declared as a “Deserter”
and his name is struck off from the colliery rolls and when
the deceased workman was missing from 06-12-1988 then
how it was possible to take leave by him from 04-01-1989 to
10-01-1989 and the said order is also contradictory from
the allegations made in the charge sheet, wherein, it was
alleged that Surendra was absenting from duty w.e.f.
09-01-1989 and the said order was passed without any
departmental enquiry and there is no law for striking off
the name of a missing workman and therefore, the action of
the Party No.1 is illegal and the wife of the deceased
workman is entitled for compassionate appointment, treating
the workman to have died in harness. The union has prayed
to declare the deceased workman to be in service from 1990
till the date of declaration of his legal death and to treat the
workman to have died in harness on 06-12-1995 and to
provide compassionate appointment to Smt. Vimala Devi,
the wife of the deceased workman as per the provisions of
the NCW A and to pay the monitory benefits @ Rs. 3,000/-
per month from the date of her application for her
appointment till she is actually employed.
3. The Party No. 1 in its written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the reference is highly belated in as much as
the termination had taken place in the year 1990, whereas
industrial dispute was raised in the year 2002 and the
reference was made in the year 2004, after a gap of nearly
12/14 years and such belated reference is not maintainable
in the eyes of law and the union cannot raise an industrial
dispute suo moto, without having authority from the
workman and as the workman had already died in the year
4582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1996 in the eye of law, he could not have given authority to
the union to raise the industrial dispute in the year 2002
and therefore, the reference is not only in fructuous, but
also illegal, void and not maintainable in the eyes of law.
The further case of the Party No.1 is that the
deceased workman was working as an Electrical Helper at
Rajur Colliery and he had taken leave and gone to his home
town and he had been absenting from his duty w.e.f.
07-01-1989 without obtaining any sanctioned leave and
therefore he was charge sheeted on 04/05-02- 1990, under
the relevant provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of
the colliery and Hiralal Sahu, Mining Sirdar and brother-in-
law of the deceased workman vide his letter dated 23-03-1990
replied and informed the management that the deceased
workman was not traceable since 06-12-1988 and he had
informed about the same to the management on 12-01-1989
and to the police on 14-01-1989 and he also requested not
to take any action against the deceased workman and to
provide job to the son of the deceased workman in his place
and in view of such facts and circumstances, the management
did not proceed with the charge sheet by holding further
enquiry and such action was rational and logical, as no
useful purpose would have been served, when the workman
was not traceable and the management waited for more than
a year for the return of the deceased workman, but when he
did not return back and report for duty, it was concluded
that he had deserted his job and therefore, In accordance
With the provisions of the Standing Orders, the name of the
deceased workman was struck off from the rolls of the colliery
with immediate effect, by order dated 24-03-1990, by treating
him as a deserter and this order was not challenged either by
the workman or his family members till the industrial dispute
was raised in the year 2002 and it is found from further facts
of the case that the workman was declared dead through the
legal proceedings in the year 1996 and as such, its action
was perfectly justified and legal.
4. The further case of the Party No.1 is that
providing employment to the dependent of the deceased
employee is conditional and according to the NCWA, such
employment can only be given to the dependent, when an
employee dies in harness, in other words while in service
and in this case, at the time of the deemed death of the
workman in the eyes of law in 1996, he was not in the
employment of the WCL and his services had already been
terminated in the year 1990 as a deserter, in accordance
with the Standing Orders and as such, the wife of the
deceased workman was not entitled for job in his place.
5. It is necessary to mention here that on 16-06-2011,
advocate for the petitioner withdrew his power filed in favour
of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, fresh notice was
sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledge
due. The notice was served personally on the petitioner.
Inspite of sufficient service of the notice, neither the
petitioner nor anybody else appeared on his behalf. No.
evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner.
It is also necessary to mention here that as neither
the petitioner nor anybody else on his behalf appeared.
26-11-2011, the date of hearing of argument, order was
passed to proceed with the case exparte against the
petitioner .
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and 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 party fails to appear or
file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute
referred by the Govt. cannot be answered in his favour and
the party would not be entitled to any relief. In this case,
the petitioner has failed to appear and to adduce evidence
in support of his claim and as such, the reference is to be
answered in negative. Hence it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management in relation of Wani
North Area of Western Coalfields Limited in terminating
the services of Shri Surendra Sahu, through office order
No. WCL/SAMSAR/PER/89-90/3834 dated 24-03-1990 is
legal and justified. The demand of Smt. Vimala Devi Sahu
wife of late Shri Surendra Sahu, Electrician Helper, Rajur
Colliery for employment as a dependant of Shri Surendra
Sahu consequent upon legal declaration of death of Shri
Surendra Sahu on 06-12-1995 is illegal and unjustified. Smt.
Vimala Devi Sahu is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1944-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj McY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 102@2003)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@146@2002&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º
Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2012
S.O. 1944.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 102/
2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Nagpur
Area of Westren Coalfields Ltd., Saoner Sub Area of
Westren Coalfields Ltd, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 11-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/146/2002-IR (CM-II)]
D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4583
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 102/2003
Date : 23-04-2012.
Party No. l
(a) The General Manager,
Nagpur Area of WCL, Jaripatka
Nagpur-440014.
(b) : The Sub Area Manager,
Saoner Area of WCL, PO : Saoner
Distt. Nagpur.
Versus
Party No. 2
Shri Maroti Ghonge
R/o At. Borgaon, PO : Adasa,
Tah. Kalmeshwar,
Distt. Nagpur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated : 23rd April, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Maroti
Ghonge, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/146/
2002-IR (CM-II) dated 13-02-2003, with the following
schedule:—
‘‘Whether the action of the management of Saoner Sub
Area of WCL, Saoner, Post Saoner, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
in awarding the punishment of termination from services
to Shri Maroti Motiram Ghonge, Ex-Roof Sticking Crew
Cat. IV w.e.f. 25-12-2001 is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief is the said workman entitled?’’
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri Maroti
Ghonge, (‘‘the workman’’ in short) filed his statement of
claim and the management of WCL, (‘‘the party no. 1’’ in
short) filed its written statement.
3. The case of the workman is that while he was
working in the underground of Saoner Coal Mine in the
first shift, he met with an accident and mixture of cement
and harting fell on his face, as a result of which, vision of
his both eyes was damaged permanently and he immediately
sent for medical treatment to Walni hospital of WCL for
treatment and as there was no facility for treatment of eye
injury at Walni hospital, he was referred to Govt. Medical
College and hospital, Nagpur for specialized treatment
and he was under treatment of Govt. Medical College and
hospital from 11-02-1998 till 06-04-1998 and at the time of
his discharge from the said hospital, it was advised by the
medical authorities to provide him surface work and in
pursuance to the medical advice, the party no. 1 provided
him surface duty during the month of April and May 1998
only and thereafter, he was malafidely declared fit for duty
by the Chief Medical Officer, Jawaharlal Nehru hospital
stating of his having zero per cent disability and such
declaration was in total disregard to the medical certificate
issued by the medical college and hospital, Nagpur and as
he disputed the medical report of Jawarharlal Nehru
Hospital, the party no. 1 sent him to the Apex medical board
and he was examined by the board on 09-05-2000 and the
report of the medical board was communicated to him on
30-05-2000. The further case of the workman is that a charge
sheet dated 11-04-1998 was issued against him on the
allegation of his remaining absent from duty for more than
ten days and the charge sheet was vague, as it did not
indicate from which date, he remained absent and the charge
of habitual absenteeism was also not levelled against him
and he replied to the said charge sheet denying the charges
and on perusal of the enquiry proceedings, it can be found
that charges for habitual absenteeism had been proved
and the charge of remaining absent from duty for more
than 10 days had not been proved and he was on leave
without pay, till he was dismissed from service and when
an employee is on leave without pay, at no stretch of
imagination, it can be said that he was unauthorizedly
and habitually absent or was absent for more than 10 days
from duty and the entire enquiry was conducted in a very
strange and unlawful manner and the findings of the
enquiry officer are perverse and the enquiry officer failed
to take cognizance of the telegram sent to him requesting
to adjourn the enquiry proceedings and as the enquiry
officer and the presenting officer were of the same rank
and were collogues, both were interested persons and as
such, even though, the charge of habitual absence was
not levelled, the same was held to be proved against him.
4. The party no. 1 pleaded inter-alia, in his written
statement that the workman did not meet with any accident
in underground mine and due to his own negligence, some
cement particles appeared to have entered into his eyes,
while he was on duty on 11-2-1998 and he did not report
about the incident immediately, as required under the
Mines Rules, but on 14-2-1998, for the first time, he disclosed
about some cement particles entering into his eyes and
causing problem for him and the workman was sent to
Walni hospital, where, he was provided the treatment and
the workman was regularly treated by the doctor at Walni
hospital and as per the request of the workman, he was
referred to the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur,
for second opinion and as it has its own' medical board, the
opinion of Govt. medical hospital board, Nagpur is not
4584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
binding on it and the workman was not treated at Govt.
Medical Hospital, Nagpur from 11-02-1998 to
06-04-1998 and he visited the said hospital only once on
17-03-1998 and the workman reported back for duty on
25-03-1998 and it was not advised to give surface duty to
the workman by the medical authorities and the workman
was not given surface duty in April and May 1998 and the
workman was found fit to work in his original post by the
Medical Officer, Jawaharlal Nehru hospital and by the Apex
Medical board and the workman was issued with charge
sheet for remaining unauthorized absent for more than 10
days and the workman submitted his reply to the same and
the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse and the
workman did not object to the appointment of the enquiry
officer or the presenting officer and the workman has not
disputed the fairness of the enquiry.
5. As this is a case of termination of the workman
from services, after holding a departmental enquiry, the
validity of the departmental enquiry was taken for
consideration as a preliminary issue and vide order dated
19-07-2011, the departmental enquiry held against the
workman was found to be legal, proper and in accordance
with the principles of natural justice.
6. At the time of argument, it was contented by the
learned advocate for the workman that charge sheet dated
11-04-1998 issued against the workman, was vague and in
the said charge sheet, it was alleged that the workman was
absent from duty for more than 10 days, but the charge did
not indicate as to from which date, the workman remained
absent and the charge of habitual absenteeism was not
levelled and form the enquiry proceedings, it can be found
that the charge of habitual absenteeism has been proved
and the charge of absence from duty for more than 10 days
prior to 11-09-1999 was not at all proved and party no. 1
was well aware about the fact that the workman was
injured during the course of his employment and he had
protested against the report of the Medical board and
form the pay slips issued by the party no. 1, it can be seen
that the workman was on leave without pay till he was
dismissed from service and if the workman was on leave
without pay, it cannot be said that he was unauthorisedly
and habitually absent or remained absent for more than 10
days from duty and from the said facts, it can be held that
the enquiry was held in a strange way and unlawful manner
and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and as
per the certified standings orders, the approval of the Sub
Area Manager was required to be taken, before dismissal
of the workman, but such approval was not taken, so the
order of dismissal from services in respect of the workman
is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no. 1 that vide order dated
19-07-2001, it has already been held that the departmental
enquiry conducted against the workman to be legal, proper
and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and
the workman in the statement of claim has not pleaded
anything at all as to how the findings of the enquiry officer
are perverse and the workman had failed to prove that the
findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the injury
sustained by the workman on 11-02-1998 in his eye was
due to his own negligence and from the facts of the case,
it can be held that the injury was not grave and the
workman did not inform about sustaining of such injury to
the management immediately and informed about the same
only on 14-02-1998 and though management provided him
best medical facilities, he on his own took treatment out of
the management’s hospital and that too he visited only
once the medical hospital, Nagpur on 17-03-1998 and
thereafter reported for duty on 25-03-1998 and the
workman refused to perform his original duty w.e.f.
11-04-1998, without any reason and on the request of the
workman, he was sent to the Medical Board for examination
and the Medical Board certified the workman to be fit to
resume his original duty and his case is a case of
“Malingering” meaning to pretend illness or to produce or
protact disease in order to escape duty and the workman
was not ready to do the original job and the punishment
imposed against the workman is quite proportionate to the
proved charges in a properly held departmental enquiry
and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
The learned advocate for the party no. 1 placed
reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1994 SC-1241
(Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another).
8. Perused the record including the documents
produced by the workman and so also the documents
relating to the departmental enquiry held against the
workman. From the documents, it is found that the workman
was charged under clause 26.30 of the certified standing
order for remaining unauthorized absent for more than 10
days without intimation or sanctioned leave. In the charge
sheet, it has been mentioned that the workman remained
such absent from 11-04-1998. During the enquiry, evidence
was adduced regarding the workman remaining
unauthorized absent from 11-04-1998 to 01-09-2000, without
intimation or sanction leave. It is also found from the record
that the enquiry officer has based his findings on the
evidence adduced in the enquiry proceedings and has
assigned cogent reasons in support of his findings. Hence,
the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be
perverse. Serious misconducts of remaining unauthorized
absence have been proved against the workman in a
properly conducted departmental enquiry.
On perusal of the record, it is found that there is no
material to support the contentions raised by the learned
advocate for the workman that the evidence adduced by
the management has proved habitual absenteeism and has
not proved unauthorized absence exceeding ten days or
that the workman was on leave without pay. Hence, the
submission made by the learned advocate for the workman
on that score fails.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4585
The punishment imposed against the workman is
not shockingly disproportionate to the serious charges
proved against him in a properly conducted departmental
enquiry, requiring interference by this Tribunal. Hence, it
is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Saoner Sub Area
of WCL, Saoner, Post Saoner, Distt. Nagpur (MS) in
awarding the punishment of termination from services to
Shri Maroti Motiram Ghonge, Ex-Roof Sticking Crew Cat.
IV w.e.f. 25-12-2001 is legal & justified. The workman is not
entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1945-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj McY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2005) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@93@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º
Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2012
S. O. 1945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15 /
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s
Western Coalfields Ltd., Saoner Sub Area and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/93/2004-IR (CM-II)]
D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/ 15/2005
Date: 23-04-2012.
Party No. 1
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited, Jaripatka,
Nagpur- 440014.
The Sub Area Manager,
Saoner Sub Area, of WCL, PO: Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur.
Versus
Party No. 2
Shri Homraj S/o Marotrao Kekatpure,
R/o Near Gram Panchayat, Sillewada,
PO : Sillewada,
Distt. Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated : 23rd April, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Homraj
Kekatpure, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/93/
2004-IR (CM-II) dated 17-01-2005, with the following
schedule:-—
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Western Coalfields Limited, Saoner Sub Area,
Saoner, Distt. Nagpur (MS) in awarding the
punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f.
28-01-2003 to Shri Homraj S/o Marotrao Kekatpure,
General Mazdoor, Saoner Mine no.2 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri
Homraj Kekatpure, (‘‘the workman” in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL (“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 1982, as a casual labourer and was
posted at Walni, Patansawangi mine and he was
regularized in service as per order dated 08-10-1997 as a
General Mazdoor and he was in continuous service of
party no.1 from the date of his initial appointment with
clean and excellent service record till the date of his illegal
dismissal from service and he was working at Saoner mines,
before his such dismissal and he was never served with
any charge sheet or memo, during the tenure of his service.
The further case of the workman is that he was illegally
dismissed from services retrospectively vide order dated
30-01-2003, on the charges of unauthorized absenteeism
and in the order dated 30-01-2003, it has been mentioned
that he was served with a charge sheet dated 24-06-2002,
for unauthorized absenteeism, but in fact, no such charge
sheet was served on him and he was never supplied with
any statement of allegations, documents or any kind of
information regarding the conduct of departmental inquiry
against him and he was even not aware of initiation of the
4586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
departmental enquiry against him and it was only after
receipt of the dismissal order dated 30-01-2003, he came to
know that a departmental enquiry was conducted against
him and he was dismissed retrospectively from services. It
is also pleaded by the workman that no sincere efforts
were made by party no. 1 to intimate him about the enquiry
and it can be found from the conduct of party no. 1 that
party no. 1 was in a hurry to finish the enquiry against him
and the enquiry was conducted without his knowledge
and behind his back, in total disregard to the principles of
natural justice and as such, the enquiry is unfair and illegal
and the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the
enquiry officer was not supplied to him and the enquiry
officer was a person of party no. 1 , so he was not impartial
and the enquiry report was prepared by the enquiry officer
according to the direction of party no. 1 and looking to the
charges leveled against him, the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate and the order of punishment
has been passed by an incompetent person.
It is also pleaded by the workman that he was
suffering from chest pain and hypertension and was
required to undergo medical treatment regularly and had
time to time submitted leave applications to the concerned
authority and he had also submitted medical certificate,
whenever he had taken medical treatment and whenever
he had submitted leave application on medical ground,
the concerned officer used to intimate him that his
applications for leave had been granted, but in fact, the
concerned officer had never forwarded the leave
applications to the higher authorities and at number of
times, he was told orally by the superintendent, Mines
that he was suspended from duties and he was not allowed
to sign the muster register and he being an illiterate person
could not understand the same and never raised any
objection against such action and due to suffering from
chest pain and hypertension, he was facing difficulty in
working underground, so he made representations to
party no. 1 to allot him work on surface and he was also
advised by the Medical officer to perform light work and
to avoid strenuous and heavy manual work and he had
also applied for voluntary retirement, but his application
was malfidely rejected by letter dated 21-04-2002 issued
by the party no. 1 and thereafter, immediately charge sheet
was issued with malafide in ten tion against him and false
enquiry was conducted against him and he was illegally
dismissed from services and from the date of illegal
dismissal, he is out of employment.
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in
service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Party no.1 in its written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that as the workman started remaining absent
from duty from the year 1999 and worked only for few
days from the year 1999 and continuously remained absent
since 6-10-2001, it (Management) was constrained to issue
the charge sheet against the workman and the workman
refused to accept the charge sheet, so the same was sent
to the office address to his wife, where she was working
and even after intimation by the post authorities, the
workman failed to claim the notice issued by it and in the
year 1997-98, the workman was warned for remaining
absent without any leave and the workman had not replied
to such warning letter and even though the workman
refused to receive the charge sheet, he was well aware of
the issuance of the charge sheet against him and the
wife of the workman by her letter dated 29-06-2002 had
submitted leave letter of intimation intimating the workman
to have been suffering from mental illness and admission
of the workman in mental hospital on 20-06-2002, after
suffering from mental stroke on 18-06-2002 and such letter
was received by it on 5-7-2002 and as the workman failed
to submit his reply to the charge sheet even after two
months of issuance of the charge sheet, it had left with no
option, but to appoint enquiry officer and accordingly, by
order dated 18-7-2002, Shri S.V. Ramteke was appointed
by it as the enquiry officer to make the enquiry and the
enquiry officer issued notice of the enquiry on 20-7-2002
intimating both the parties to hold the enquiry on
26-07-2002 and the workman refused to claim such notice
and he also did not appear before the enquiry officer on
26-07-2002, so the enquiry officer in order to give one
more chance to the workman to appear in the enquiry, sent
letter dated 6-08-2002 intimating the workman of holding
the 2nd sitting of the enquiry on 9-08-2002 and the
workman failed to claim the notice and the workman also
did not appear before the enquiry officer on 19-08-2002,
so the enquiry officer passed orders to proceed ex-parte
against the workman and the enquiry was concluded on
19-08-2002 and the enquiry officer submitted his report on
03-10-2002, holding the workman guilty of the charges
leveled against him. It is further pleaded by the party no. 1
that to give one more opportunity to the workman to put
his case before it, the second show cause notice along
with enquiry report and all other documents was sent to
him in all the three known addresses, but such envelops
were returned back by the postal authorities, as the
workman failed to claim the same and as the workman
failed to respond even to the second show cause notice,
the Disciplinary Authority considered the service record
of the workman and the enquiry report and passed the
order dated 30-01-2003, dismissing the workman from
services with effect from 28-01-2003 and the workman
during the entire service tenure had never submitted any
kind of representation requesting for providing surface
work to him, on the ground of suffering from any kind of
ailment and he had also never submitted any leave
application intimating it about his suffering from any
medical ailment and the workman was in habit of remaining
absent from duties without intimating the superior officers
and without taking leave from the concerned officers and
taking into consideration the service record, charge sheet
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4587
was issued against him and it had taken all the initiatives
and care to see that charge sheet was duly served upon
the workman and the enquiry officer had also taken utmost
care to serve notice of the enquiry proceedings on the
workman, but the workman failed to claim the charge sheet
and notices and the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry
officer, by observing all principles of natural justice and
the workman worked for 106 days, 122 days and 7 days in
the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively and
continuously remained absent after 06-10-2001 and it was
the workman, who was responsible for the misconducts
committed by him, which were intentional and the workman
did not want to continue in service and the plea taken by
him is an afterthought and the workman neither in the
application filed before the Asst. Labour Commissioner
nor in the statement of claim had disclosed about his
sickness and the day of recovery and the workman was
not suffering from any kind of chest pain and hypertension
and he was not required to undergo medical treatment
regularly and the workman was never intimated that he
was suspended from his duty and therefore, he was not
allowed to sign the muster roll and the workman was not
eligible for consideration to VRS and as such, his
application for VRS was rejected and it had never asked
the workman to submit application for re-employment and
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. As the punishment of dismissal of the workman
from services was passed by the management after holding
of a departmental enquiry against him, the validity of the
departmental enquiry was taken for consideration as a
preliminary issue and by order dated 5-11-2009, the
departmental enquiry was held to be valid and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the enquiry
conducted against the workman was without compliance
of the provisions of law and in utter disregard and violation
of the principles of natural justice and the letter dated
29-06-2002 submitted by the wife of the workman regarding
the illness and treatment of the workman in the hospital
was placed on record by the management during the
enquiry and marked as Ext. M-3 and from the said
document, it is clear that management was fully aware
about the illness and treatment of the workman in the
hospital and it is clear from materials on record that from
the initial stage of the enquiry, the management and so
also the enquiry officer was quite aware that the workman
was undergoing treatment at Mental hospital, Nagpur, but
inspite of the same, notices of the enquiry were sent to the
workman in different addresses and no honest and sincere
steps were taken by the management or the enquiry officer
to contact the workman at Government Medical hospital,
where he was taking treatment and Ext. M-3 shows that
the workman was suffering from mental illness, even
before the issuance of the charge sheet and as such, the
same cannot be said to be afterthought and the documents
regarding the treatment of the workman were misplaced
and subsequently the documents were traced out and filed
along with the affidavit of the workman, after the order on
the validity of the enquiry was passed, but the Tribunal
did not allow the same to be admitted in evidence, on the
ground of having no scope of introducing new evidence,
after passing of order on the validity of the enquiry in
favour of the management and the documents regarding
the treatment of the workman cannot be said to be
introducing new evidence and the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against
the workman and as the enquiry was conducted illegally
against the workman, the findings given by the enquiry
officer cannot be accepted in the eyes of law and are
therefore liable to be quashed and set aside and the
punishment imposed on 30-01-2003 with retrospective
effect, basing on such enquiry report is also liable to be
quashed and set aside and the workman is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was habitual
absentee and he used to remain unauthorized absence
from duty, without any intimation or sanctioned leave and
the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be harsh or
disproportionate and the workman had never submitted
any representation intimating the management about his
suffering from any disease or ailment, during his entire
service tenure and the charge sheet for the misconduct of
unauthorized absence was served on the workman on
24-06-2002 and had it been the case that the workman was
suffering from any ailment, then he himself or his wife
should have applied for leave immediately and should not
have waited till submission of the charge sheet and for the
first time on 29-06-2002, the wife of the workman submitted
leave letter intimating the workman to have been suffering
from mental illness and he had mental stroke on
18-06-2002 and that he had been admitted in mental
hospital on 20-06-2002, which clearly indicated that such
plea was an afterthought to gain sympathy and even if,
for the sake of argument, it is admitted that the workman
suffered from brain stroke on 18-06-2002, still then, the
workman had not given any explanation for his absence
from 6-10-2001 to 18-06-2002 i.e. the period of unauthorized
absence mentioned in the charge sheet and for similar
charges of remaining unauthorized absence in 1997-98,
the workman was given a warning letter and the fairness
of the enquiry has already been answered in favour of
party no. 1 and commission of grave misconduct has been
dully proved against the workman and as such, the
punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the
workman cannot be said to be disproportionate and the
punishment so imposed is legal, proper and justified and
there is no scope to interfere with the punishment and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In support of such contentions, the learned advocate
for the party no. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 2006(108) FLR-367 (Larson and Toubro Grahak Sahakari
Sanstha Vs. Tanaji Kashinath Vishwe), 2005 (104) FLR-
1018 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. D. N.
Vidhate) and (2006) 1 SCC-589 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Mohd. Ayub Naz).
7. The argument advanced by the learned advocate
for the workman is almost regarding the fairness of the
enquiry. At the cost of repetition, it is necessary to be
mentioned here that by order dated 05-11-2009, it has
already been held that the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman is valid and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. Hence, there is no scope to
consider again the submission made by the learned
advocate for the workman regarding the fairness of the
enquiry. So far the contention regarding adducing of
evidence by the workman to disprove the findings given
in the departmental enquiry is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that the order regarding the validity of the
departmental enquiry has been passed in favour of the
party no.1 and as such, there is no scope of adducing
new evidence to disprove the findings given in the
departmental enquiry. Section 11 A of the Act also provides
that in any proceedings under section 11-A, the Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,
shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not
take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.
8. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found
that this is not a case of no evidence or that on the materials,
the conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer cannot be
that of a reasonable man. The findings given by the enquiry
officer are based on the materials available on the record
of the departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer has
analyzed the evidence in a rational manner and has
assigned cogent reasons in support of his findings. Hence,
the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be
perverse.
9. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, serious misconduct of unauthorized absence
from duty for a long period has been proved against the
workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry.
Hence, the punishment of dismissal from services imposed
against the workman cannot be said to be disproportionate.
In view of the discussions made above and applying the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble courts in the decisions
cited by the learned advocate for the party no.1 to the
case at hand, it is held that there is no scope to interfere
with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence,
it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Western
Coalfields Limited, Saoner Sub Area, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur
(MS) in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service
w.e.f. 28-01-2003 to Shri Homraj S/o. Marotrao Kekatpure,
General Mazdoor, Saoner Mine no. 2 is legal and justified.
The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1946 .—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh, vkWiQ 183 vkiQW 2004 U;w@vkbZVhlh ua- 90@1999
vksYM) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 9&5&2012
dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&41012@123@98&vkbZ vkj (ch-I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2012
S.O. 1946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. CGITA
of 183 of 2004 New ITC No. 90/1999 Old) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 9-5-2012.
[No. L-41012/123/98-IR (B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
PRESENT:
Binay Kumar Sinha,
Presiding Officer
CGIT-cum- Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 26-03-2012
Reference: CGITA of 183 of 2004 New
Reference: ITC 90/1999 (Old)
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Kothi Compound,
Rajkot (Gujarat)- 360001.
2. The Divisional Operating Manager,
Western Railway, Kothi Compound,
Rajkot (Gujarat)-360001 ...First Party
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4589
And their workman
Shri S.S. Pathan
Through The Chairman,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
7, Mahudi Mahavir, D cabin Area, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad-380019. . ...Second Party
For the first party : Shri H.B. Shah, Advocate
: Shri Janak R. Pandya, Advocate
For the second party : Shri S.B. Nigam, Member
Executive body of PRKP
AWARD
The dispute was referred for adjudication by
Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, by the Central
Government/Ministry of Labour, Shram Mantralaya, Shram
Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi by its order No. 41012/
123/98-IR (B-1) dated 17-03-1999 considering the dispute
exists between the employers in relation to the management
of Western Railway and their workman by formulating the
terms of reference under schedule as follows.
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the Railway Administration
the penalty of reduction to one stage in the same
scale with future effect on Shri S.S. Pathan, Station
Suptdt Nandol Dehgam vide order No. ET/308/92/
X5/09 dated 13-03-1995 is just and legal? If not what
relief the concern employee is entitled to?’’
(2) On registering of the case notices were sent to
the parties for submitting statement of claim and written
statement. In response to the notice the second party
workman through representative of the PRKP appeared
and submitted statement of claim at Ext. 5 attached with the
copy of the enquiry papers. The second party admitted to
the propriety of the domestic enquiry and also admitted to
the findings of the enquiry report but disputed regarding
the punishment imposed upon him by the disciplinary
authority. The second party did not adduce oral evidence
rather relied upon all the enquiry papers itself and
thereafter filed closing pursis at Ext.-10, also filed the
documents copy of chargesheet dated 22-09-1982,
statement of management witness Shri S.K. Fadke,
findings of the enquiry officer dated 17-04-1994, the notice
of imposing penalty dated 13-03-1995, copy of extract
rules and copy of the railway receipt under the list at Ext. 7.
The first party (western railway) also appeared through
lawyer, did not file any written statement. Rather filed
closing pursis at Ext. 12 on the ground that the domestic
enquiry held against the delinquent workman is admitted.
Thereafter the case was fixed for hearing argument on the
materials available on the record both sides the second
party and the first party filed their respective written
arguments at Ext. 12 and 19 respectively.
(3) The case of the second party as per statement of
claim is that Shri S. S. Pathan Assistant Station Master
working at Nandol/Dehgam/Railway Station of Rajkot
Division delivered round iron, steel consignment under
the R. R. to the consignee. Thereafter he was served with a
chargesheet No. ET/308/92/AS/9 of 21-09-1992 for serious
misconduct as he failed to maintain absolute integrity and
devotion to duty by contravening Railway services
conduct rules with the following charges (a) he has
delivered the materials on the forged railway receipt. No.
836271 dated 06-07-1991, (b) he failed to give cognizance
to the charged Kms. i.e. 1526 instead of 1280 Kms., (c)
being a self Railway Receipt must be endorsed by the Bank,
(d) delivered 6 bundles instead of 5 bundles, ( e) failed to
observe the rules in paras 916, 965, 1440 and 2146 of Indian
Railway Commercial Manuals. The management of first
party appointed Traffic Inspector, Sabarmati as an Enquiry
Officer and the railway gave the list of witnesses which
included Shri S.K.Phadke, Station Supdt, Nandol-Dehgam
Station, Mr. Pari Divisional Commercial Inspector Rajkot
and H.S. Raval Sr. Commercial Inspector Head Quarter.
Shri M.R Pari was the man who conducted the fact finding
enquiry. Shri S.K.Phadke was examined and he gave his
statement before the enquiry officer wherein he admitted
that all the rules were followed by the delinquent
workman. The management of first party, Western Railway
failed to produce other two key witness Mr. M.R. Pari and
H.S.Raval who had investigated the case and so their non-
appearance before the enquiry officer confirms that they
were not supporting allegation under the charge leveled
against delinquent. Further case is that those two witnesses
were important as they conducted the preliminary enquiry.
Further case is that after concluding the enquiry, the enquiry
officer after going through the oral and documentary
evidence produced on behalf of the management of railway,
submitted his report and findings dated 17-04-1994 and the
conclusion of the fmdings as follows. ‘‘The charges leveled
against Shri S. S. Pathan ASM, Nandol Dehgam are not
proved. However as the consignment was valuable, even
if the identification was not required as per rules he would
have taken the identification of the party before delivering
the consignment which he has failed. As the ITA-AS V and
sectional CMI-ADI (MG) have also not raised this point in
their visit, so before imposing the penalty this may please
be kept in view.’’ Contention of the second party further is
that the enquiry officer is supposed to enquire the
allegations and give the fmdings with reasons if the same
is proved or not. But the enquiry officer is not supposed to
give his view or judgment regarding imposing punishment.
Further case is that the findings of the enquiry officer have
clearly stated that the charges are not proved. So, the
Disciplinary Authority if disagreed with the E.O, he should
give reasons as to why he disagree with the report of E.O.
and ought to have given his findings before imposing the
penalty. But this has not been done as per order of
punishment. Further case is that the chargesheet was issued
4590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for serious misconduct. But the misconduct was not proved
in the enquiry, which is also obvious from the management
of first party's Written comments submitted before the ALC
(C) Ahmedabad During conciliation efforts wherein the
railway agrees that the delinquent has been penalised for
negligence and carelessness. On these grounds prayer has
been made that the punishment order dated 13-03-1995
imposed upon the delinquent workman Shri Pathan be set
aside and delinquent workman be paid his full dues with all
consequential benefits. As if no chargesheet was issued.
With further relief as to damages for mental torture and
cost of this case and to any other relief to which the
workman is found entitled. Both sides during argument
agreed that there is no scope for adducing oral evidence in
this case and prayed for passing the award on the
documentary evidence viz the entire enquiry papers and
the punishment order.
(4) In view of the argument advanced on behalf of
the both sides and also considering the contention of the
second party as per statement of claim the following
issues are taken up for determination.
ISSUES
(I) Whether the reference is maintainable?
(II) Has the workman Shri S.S. Pathan through its
union PRKP has got valid cause of action?
(III) Whether the disciplinary authority has given
reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the
enquiry officer wherein enquiry officer has not found
any of the charges proved against the delinquent
workman?
(IV) Whether the penalty of reduction to one stage
in the same scale with future effect imposed upon
the delinquent workman Shri S. S.Pathan by the
disciplinary authority by its order dated
13-3-1995 comes under the minor penalties or major
penalties?
(V)Whether the delinquent workman is entitled to
the relief as prayed for?
FINDINGS
(5) ISSUE NO. III
It has been argued on behalf of the second party
that delivering of the consignment round steel, iron rods
on 29-08-1991 had been made by the delinquent workman
after taking all precautions and verifying the R.R. and more
so said transaction regarding delivery of consignment had
been inspected by the commercial inspectors and inspectors
account on 3-09-1991 who have not raised any question of
violating the railway rules or regarding carelessness and
negligence on part of the delinquent workman. It has been
further argued that without serving with the copy of any
complaint with regard to said delivery of consignment under
R.R., the workman was served with charges of serious
misconduct and the chargesheet was issued by Divisional
Commercial inspector, Rajkot, on the basis of complaint.
It has been further argued that the chargesheet was issued
on the basis of preliminary investigation of the allegation
under complaint but during enquiry the document
regarding complaint against the delinquent has not been
produced and the officer who made the complaint has not
also been examined for substantiating the charges. It has
been further argued that Mr. Pari Divisional Commercial
Inspector, Rajkot and Shri H.S. Raval Sr. Commercial
Inspector, Head Quarter were the key witnesses but they
have not been examined in the domestic enquiry. Whereas
it was necessary to produce the complainant during the
enquiry and also to examine the complainant and when the
complaint against the workman was not produced before
the enquiry officer then it vitiates the enquiry held against
he delinquent workman. Pointing towards the findings of
the enquiry officer in his enquiry report dated 17-04-1994,
the learned representative of the second party submitted
that the enquiry officer clearly gave findings that, first
charge regarding the delivery of consignment on forged
R R. have clearly opined that as per the prosecution witness
and the delinquent employee statement this charge has
not been proved regarding a forged R.R TIA-ASI has
inspected the station on 3-09-1991 but did not point out
any violation. It has been further argued that regarding the
second charge of failing to give cognizance of difference
in k.m. by verification in actual and charge k.m the finding
has been given that the difference in railways interest and
as per prevailing rules and that it was the responsibility of
the forwarding station and the R.R. was ‘‘paid’’ R.R. so this
charge has also not been proved against Shri S.S. Pathan.
It has been further argued pointing towards the 3rd charge
against the delinquent it has been mentioned in the findings.
On going through the statement of claim of prosecution
witness and delinquent employee statement as per the rule
no such endorsement of bank on ‘‘self paid’’ R.R. is
necessary. And so this charge is also not proved against
the Shri Pathan. Pointing towards the 4th charge as per
enquiry officer’s findings it has been incorporated that
charge to the effect of delivery of 6 bundles instead of 5
bundles as per R.R., on examining the labels which clearly
reads ‘‘lose’’, the steel is heavy consignment loose iron
bars might have been placed partly in both the wagons
and as such the labels have shown 3 bundles whereas
actually it was not so. And thus accepting the statement of
delinquent workman Shri Pathan that had their been any
excess bundle message come from SBI TP which was not
there as such allegation goes in negative. Further arguing
pointing towards the findings of the E.O. to charge No.5 as
to allegation for not observing paras 916, 965, 1440 and
2146 of the I.R.C.M. (Indian Railway Commercial Mannual),
it has been give clear findings that those rules are not
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4591
applicable in connection with the said R.R. Further
pointing out that the enquiry officer has clearly mentioned
that the prosecution witnesses and the delinquent
employees statement have the same view that there were
no suspicious points on the R.R. which may required for
identification of the consignee. It has been further argued
that on going through the DCMI-CMI joint report it
reveals that practically they have also rejected those points
which have been examined in the above findings as the
DCMS report is silent as to whether these labels of wagon
were changed. If the inward number taker book and
outward number taker book at marshalling stations would
have been tallied for the wagon the mischief would have
been detected and wrong delivery could have been avoided,
had there been any message from that station, about wrong
dispatch of wagon. It has been pointed towards the
conclusion findings as per enquiry report that it has been
clearly mentioned by the enquiry officer that the charges
levelled against Shri S.S. Pathan ASM-Nandol Dehgam
are not proved. It has been further argued that when any of
the charges have not been proved as per findings of the
enquiry officer in its enquiry report, there was no question
for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer in
respect of the charges and the action on part of the
disciplinary authority for penalizing the delinquent workman
for negligence which was not a misconduct enumerated
under any of the charges and so when there was no proved
misconduct on part of the delinquent workman then
charges as per charge sheet itself should be treated as
unwarranted and the penalty so imposed cannot be said to
be tenable. It has also been argued that the findings of the
disciplinary authority as per punishment order is clearly
outside scope of the charges leveled against the delinquent
workman.
(6) On the other hand it has been argued by the
learned counsel of the first party that the penalty of
stoppage of one increment with future effect is minor
penalty imposed on the delinquent workman and so
provision of section 11 A of the I.D. Act is not attracted for
either quashing the order of penalty or for its modification.
It has been argued that the enquiry was not challenged by
the second party workman on the ground of malafide or
violation of principle of natural justice rather only
challenged the order of imposing the minor penalty on the
ground that the disciplinary authority had exercised
jurisdiction contrary to enquiry report. It has been further
argued that it is prerogative of the competent authority to
consider enquiry report of enquiry officer and on
scrutinizing the record shall come to decision to impose
penalty. It has been argued that this tribunal has no
jurisdiction to alter, amend or modify the penalty except
there is violation of principle of natural justice and fair play
and that appeal and disciplinary rules provide appeal,
revision against order of punishment but no such steps
have been extorted by the second party. The arguments
advanced by Shri H.B. Shah, learned Advocate for the 1st
party are not at all tenable. The disciplinary authority has
himself violated the principle of natural justice and fair
play in imposing major punishment to the delinquent
whereas the E.O. as per its report had clearly exonerated
him from all charges as not proved.
(7) From perusal of the chargesheet dated 21-09-1992
it is evident that the delinquent workman was served with
chargesheet for committing serious misconduct for the
charges but in domestic enquiry no any charge was proved
against the delinquent workman as per report of the enquiry
officer but the enquiry officer in the concluding line has
given his views regarding imposing punishment which was
not within the domain of the enquiry officer rather duty of
the enquiry officer can be said to be examined the evidence
coming during the enquiry and gave findings to each of
charges that charge have been proved or not proved but
for not suggesting as to imposing penalty. From going
through the punishment order dated 13-03-1995 passed by
the disciplinary authority, it has been mentioned that the
delinquent employee has failed in taking adequate
precaution before giving delivery of the consignment the
distance verification in the shown in the R.R. and the actual
distance has not been taken cognizance when the charges
had already been received by the issuing station of the
delivery as paid, R.R. for self, there was no scope for taking
other view while delivering the consignment to the
consignee a proper consignee having found no suspicious
or fake or forged R.R. From going through the materials on
the record including chargesheet with memorandum of
charges and the findings of the enquiry officer and also
penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, I come to
the conclusion that there was no any cogent ground for
disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer dated
17-04-1994 by the disciplinary authority. More so, when
none of the charge had been proved during enquiry and
when the officer who made complaint and conducted
preliminary enquiry into the allegation have not been
examined during the enquiry and the Station Suptd.
Shri Phadke examined only as management witness
accepted in his evidence that there have been no violation
of the rules and regulation in making delivery of the
consignment by the delinquent workman and the evidence
of the management witness and the statement of the
delinquent workman are on the same pattern that there had
been no violation of any rules and regulations nor
observation that forged R.R. had been submitted by the
consignee and also considering these aspects that no any
complaint was received to this effect that the consignment
was delivered to a fake person other then the consignee.
So, in that view of the matter there was no ground for the
disciplinary authority to take different views by disagreeing
with the findings of the enquiry officer so in that view of
the matter the delinquent workman ought to have been
exonerated from the charges rather than imposing the
4592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
punishment as per order dated 13-03-1995. This issue is
decided against management of first party.
(8) ISSUE NO. IV
The learned counsel for the first party has argued
that the penalty awarded to the delinquent workman
comes under the category of minor penalties and so such
minor penalties cannot be questioned by the delinquent
workman by raising the industrial dispute. On the other
hand the representative of the second party has argued
that the punishment of reduction to one stage lower in the
same time scale for one year with future effect was imposed
upon the delinquent workman is major penalties as per
discipline appeal and conduct rules 1991 described- under
the category of Vth major penalties which enunciate
‘‘reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a
specified period with further direction as to whether on the
expiry of such period, this will or will not have effect of
postponing the future increment of his pay. Extract of the
chapter- IV regarding penalties from the B.S. Mainee’s book
Discipline, appeal Conduct Rules, 1991and also extract
Swami's Manual from Disciplinary Proceedings 1987
edition have been filed which clearly go to show that the
penalty imposed by the delinquent workman come under
category of major penalties whereas no any of the charge
levelled against the delinquent workman was proved during
domestic enquiry. So, I find and hold that the penalty
imposed upon the delinquent workman as to reduction to
one stage in the same scale with future effect is major
penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority even when
none of the charges levelled against the delinquent
workman has been proved as per findings of the enquiry
officer in its report. At best disciplinary authority should
have taken recourse of either giving warning or censoring
delinquent workman for not taking extra precaution of
resorting to identification of the consignee though generally
rules does not permit when R.R. as self paid and other
factors have already been examined carefully by the
delinquent workman. So, penalty imposed by the delinquent
workman is without any basis or without any proof of the
charge. This issue is also decided accordingly against the
fIrst party.
(9) ISSUES NO. I, II and V
As per findings given to issue No. III and IV, I further
find and hold that this reference is maintainable and the
delinquent workman raising dispute through the union
PRKP has got valid cause of action and the delinquent
workman is entitled for the relief as to setting aside of the
order dated 13-03-1995 and for his entitlement of full dues
with all consequential benefits as if no charges was issued
against him.
The reference is allowed in view of above finding. It
is held that the action of the railway administration in
imposing of reduction of one stage in the same scale with
future effect on Shri S.S. Pathan (delinquent workman)
Station Suptd. Nandel Dehgam dated 13-3.1995 is illegal
and unjustified and so the same is set aside. The first party
is directed to pay all the dues to the delinquent workman
with consequential benefits within 2 months of this order,
failing which the amount of dues will carry interest @ 9%
per annum. The first party is also directed to pay Rs. 500
towards of cost to the second party workman.
This is my award.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1947.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ lh vkbZ
lh vkbZ cSad fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2011
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12011@02@2010&vkbZ vkj (ch-I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2012
S.O. 1947 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
ICICI Bank Limited and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 14-5-2012.
[No. L-12011/02/2010-IR (B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NO. 1,
MUMBAI
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-34 OF 2011
Employers in relation to the management of
ICICI Bank Ltd.
And
Their workman (Shri B. Kamtekar & 119 ors)
Shri R. S. Pai, Adv. present for the Management
Shri Babu Kamtekar, workman present 20-4-12.
The workman has filed reply of the application dated
29-3-2012 filed on behalf of the Management heard.
Hon’ble High Court by order dt. 8-2-2012 has set
aside the reference orders dt. 31-10-2011 by consent of the
parties. In view of this order this reference does not survive.
The application is therefore, allowed and the
reference stands disposed of as above.
Award is passed accordingly.
Sd/- Illegible, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4593
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1948-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2007)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@172@2006&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2012
S. O. 1948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16 /2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 14-5-2012.
[No. L-12012/172/2006-IR (B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/16 OF 2007
Employers in relation to the management of
State Bank of India
And
Their workman (A. S.Abnave)
Appearances:
For the Management
: Shri M. G. Nadkarni, Adv.
For the workman
: Shri M. B. Anchan, Adv.
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated : 24th April, 2012
AWARD PART-II
This is a reference made by the Central Government
in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference given in the
schedule are as follows:
Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India is justified and proper by discharging Shri A. S.
Abnave from his duties w.e.f. 8-7-2004 and the punishment
imposed on him is proportionate or not ? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to ?
It is not necessary to narrate the facts here because
the facts have been stated in detail in the Award Part-I
passed by this Tribunal on 18-4-2012.
Following issues were framed:
(1)
Whether the enquiry conducted into the
charges framed against the second party workman is fair
and proper and whether the findings of the enquiry are
valid ?
(2) Whether the punishment of discharge from
service imposed on the second party workman is
proportionate to the charges proved against the workman?
(3) What relief the second party workman is entitled
to ?
(4) What order ?
Issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the Bank
and against the workman by Award Part-I.
Heard rival submissions on Issues nos. 2 to 4.
ISSUE NO. 2: The charges against the workman are
unauthorised absence without application and without prior
permission for 632 days during the period from
7-7-1999 to 31-7-2002 and outside borrowings and issuing
cheques without maintaining proper balance in the account.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24-4-2001 in
which he held that both the charges were proved against
the workman. A show cause notice dt.24-11-2003 was issued
to the workman by the Disciplinary Authority calling upon
the former to show cause as to why the proposed penalty
of dismissal without notice should not be imposed upon
him. The workman submitted his reply dt.17-12-2003 and
sought personal hearing. Accordingly the Disciplinary
Authority granted personal hearing to the workman on
8-1-2004. The workman made a submission for one more
chance and for putting him under observation for a period
of six months. The Disciplinary Authority acceded to the
request and decided to review the matter after six months.
During the observation period of six months from January,
2004 to June, 2004 the workman again remained absent
unauthorisedly without giving leave application for a period
of 36 days. It was also found that even on the days the
workman was present he was missing from his desk for
1 to 2 hours without permission. In these circumstances,
the Disciplinary Authority passed his final order on
7-7-2004 and imposed a penalty of discharge from service
with superannuation benefits and without disqualification
for future employment.
The question is that whether the punishment of
discharge from service imposed on the workman is
proportionate to the charges proved against him.
The conduct of remaining absent for long periods
without obtaining leave is a grave misconduct. In this case
the workman has remained absent unauthorisedly for as
many as 632 days within a span of about three years.
Moreover, the workman has also been guilty of outside
4594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
borrowings and issuing cheques without maintaining proper
balance in the account which is infringement of rules of
conduct and which also amounts to gross misconduct.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the
matter I am clearly of the opinion that the Disciplinary
Authority has shown leniency in the matter by imposing
the punishment of discharge from service with
superannuation benefits instead of dismissal without
notice. The punishment imposed on the workman is not at
all disproportionate.
ISSUE NO. 2 is, therefore, decided in favour of the
Bank and against the workman.
ISSUE NO. 3 : The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
ISSUE NO. 4 : The punishment of discharge from
service imposed against the workman A.S.Abnave is
proportionate to the charges levelled against him and the
action of the Bank is held justified and proper.
Award Part-II is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1949-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2006)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@83@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º
Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2012
S.O. 1949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22 /2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL, WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 14-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/83/2003-IR (CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT /NGP /22/2006 Date: 4-5-2012.
Party No. l (a) :
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of
WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b):
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar
Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road,
Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Shri Shalik Manik Kosare,
R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh. -Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Shalik Manik
Kosare, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/83/2003-
IR (CM-II) dated 21-3-2006, with the following schedule:-
‘‘Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating
the services of Shri Shalik Manik Kosare, is legal and
justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?’’
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Shalik Manik
Kosare, (‘‘the workman’’ in short) and the management of
the WCL (‘‘Party No. 1’’ in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine
at Murpar, which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project"
and the same is under the control and supervision of party
no. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party
no. 1 (a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short)
for the purpose of preparing underground road upto
the border of coal for the said coal mine and the contract of
the said work was from 1992 to 1996 and the party no. 1 (a)
also engaged party no. 1 (b), M/s. Singh & Sons in its work
w.e.f. 5-1-1997 and till party no. 1 (b) is working with party
no. 1 (a) for the purpose of preparing the underground
roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was
engaged by B.G.M.L as a General Mazdoor on 7-8-1993 and
he continued to work till 2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services
were utilized by party no. 1 (b) w.e.f. 5-11-1997 continuously
till 28-12-2001 and he is a workman / employee of party no.
1 (a) and party no.1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the party
no. 1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001
and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by parties no.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4595
of his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination, more than 700 workers were working with
parties no.1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of Section 25-G of the Act and
the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment
and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was
available and now also, plenty of work is available with
parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in
violation of Section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by
the workman that he alongwith other workers had
submitted charter of various demand to the parties no.1 (a)
and 1 (b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a
dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and
for the said reason, his services with many other workers
were terminated and wages for December, 2001 was not
paid to him and as party no.1 was the principal employer
and party no.1(b) was the contractor of party no.l (a), for
each and every act of the party no.1 (b), the party no.1 (a)
was responsible and as such, the party no.1 (a) is
responsible for his illegal termination. The workman has
prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and
full back wages.
3. The party no.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, party no.1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no.1 (a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B. G. M. L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also awarded another contract to party no. 1
(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 1-1-1997 and
28-2-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another
contract was given to party no.l (b) for construction of
drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of
commencement and completion of the said contract were
29-5-1999 and 1-12-2001 respectively and it (party no.1(a))
was related to party no.1(b) only as per the terms of
contract and it was not at all responsible for providing
employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the
contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It
is further pleaded by the party no. 1 (a) that as per the
provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show
that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by party no.1(b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006
(2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no.l(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no.l (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no. 1 (a) to
cross-examine the workman, on 24-8-2011, ‘‘no cross’’ order
was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no. 1 (a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on .
1 4-1-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and written
notices of argument were not supplied to the management,
an application for grant of permission to cross-examine
the workman and setting aside the exparte order, an
application for dismissal of the reference on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC
1806, a pursis stating that the Tribunal has not framed the
preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the
proceeding and that the proceeding is not maintainable as
there existed no employer-employee relationship between
WCL and the workman and another pursis stating that
case nos. 4/2006 to 23/2006 were fixed for filing of
appropriate application for setting aside exparte order and
advocate (Shri Nirbhay Chawhan colleague of the counsel)
was present in the first half, however the matters were
posted for passing of award on 04-05-2012 and the counsel
4596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
himself was present in the second half, but the Bench Clerk
informed him that as the matter had already been fixed for
award, the appropriate applications cannot be taken up on
board and as such, the same were being sent by RPAD
(Speed Post), signed the by advocate for party no.1(a)
were received by Speed Post. Copies of the applications
and pursis were not served on the other side. However, the
said applications and pursis were rejected as neither the
advocate nor anybody else on behalf of party no. 1 appeared
to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no.1(a) had
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 7-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the
workman was again appointed by party no.1(b) from
5-11-1997 to 28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for
vocational training by party no.1(a) and as such, the
workman was the employee of party no.1 and party no. 1
(a) is the principal employer and the appointment of the
workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
and the services of the workman were terminated by party
no.1(b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
more than 240 days with the party no.1(b), preceding his
termination and before the termination of the services of
the workman, mandatory provisions of section 25- F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice,
nor one month's pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no.1(a) and 1(b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in
this case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no.1(a) and 1(b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar colliery by party no.1(a) and BGML engaged him
from 7-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that
he was again engaged by party no.1(b), another contractor
from 5-11-1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the case of the
workman that he was engaged or appointed by party
no.1(a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
‘‘contract labour’’, ‘‘establishment’’ and ‘‘workman’’ does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no.1(a) and he was employed by
contractors and the party no.1(a) was not controlling. or
supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no.1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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 :-
‘‘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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4597
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 service’’ has removed a discordance
between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended
Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the 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 this 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).
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 it must be 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 Hon ’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
‘‘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/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a
year preceding his termination- Claim denied by
management-Onus lies upon workman 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 his
termination.’’
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
'the Hon’ble Apex 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
12. Except his oral evidence on affidavit and a Xerox
copy of certificate issued by M/s. Singh that he worked as
a temporary contingent labour from 5-1-1997 to 3-2-1998,
the workman has not produced any other evidence in
support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240
days in the preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus the
workman has failed to discharge the burden which was
upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1950-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 17@2006) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@28@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º
Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2012
S.O. 1950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.17 /2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL, WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 15-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/28/2003-IR (CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
4598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT /NGP /17/2006 Date: 4-5-2012.
Party No. 1 (a) :
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of
WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b):
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar
Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road,
Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Shri Suresh Patruji Meshram,
R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh. -Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (‘‘the Act’’ in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Suresh Patruji
Meshram, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/28/
2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21-3-2006, with the following
schedule:-
‘‘Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating
the services of Shri Suresh Patruji Meshram, is legal and
justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?’’
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Suresh Patruji
Meshram, (‘‘the workman’’ in short) and the management
of the WCL (‘‘Party No.1’’ in short) filed its written
statement.
2. The case of the workman is that there is a coal
mine at Murpar, which is known as ‘‘W.C. Ltd. Murpar
Project’’ and the same is under the control and supervision
of party no.1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project
and party no. 1 (a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,
Karnataka, (‘‘B.G.M.L.’’ in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road upto the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the party no.1 (a) also engaged party no.l (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 5-1-1997 and till party
no. 1 (b) is working with party no. 1 (a) for the purpose of
preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General
Mazdoor on 19-9-1993 and he continued to work till
2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party
no. 1(b) w.e.f. 5-1-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and
party no.1 (a) sent him for vocational training from time to
time and he had under gone the said training successfully
and as such, he is a workman /employee of party no.1 (a)
and party no.1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the party
no. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and
he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month's notice, nor one month’s wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by parties no.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination
of his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination, more than 700 workers were working with
parties no. 1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the
termination of his services amounted, to retrenchment and
at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available
and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no.
1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of
section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman
that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of
various demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they
did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending
before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as party
no.1 was the principal employer and party no.1(b) was the
contractor of party no.1 (a), for each and every act of the
party no.1 (b), the party no.1(a) was responsible and as
such, the party no.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The party no.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that in
spite of notice, party no.1 (b) neither appeared in the case
nor contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no.1 (a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G. M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3
1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also' awarded another contract to party no.
1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 1-1-1997 and
28-2-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4599
contract was given to party no. l (b) for construction of
drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of
commencement and completion of the said contract were
29-5-1999 and 1-12-2001 respectively and it [party no.l (a)]
was related to party no. l (b) only as per the terms of contract
and it was not at all responsible for providing employees
to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to
appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded
by the party no. 1 (a) that as per the provisions of the
Mines Act, every person, whether employed by the principal
employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or
in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by party no.1(b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs.Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanti 2006 (2) SCALE 115 and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. 1 (a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and each
and every contract is an independent contract, which cannot
be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus between
the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract given to party
no. 1 (b), as they were of having different legal entities and if
they had engaged the same workman for doing separate works,
the workman did not become permanent or entitle for
regularization and there was never any relationship of employer
and employee between it and the workman and he was never
in its employment and as such, there was no question of
compliance of the principles of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the
Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the
workman is not entitled for any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no. 1 (a) to
cross-examine the workman, on 24-8-2011, ‘‘no cross’’ order
was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no. 1 (a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on
14-1-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and
written notes of argument were not supplied to the
management, an application for grant of permission to cross-
examine the workman and setting aside the exparte order,
an application for dismissal of the reference on the basis
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC
1806, a pursis stating that the Tribunal has not framed the
preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the
proceeding and that the proceeding is not maintainable as
there existed no employer- employee relationship between
WCL and the workman and another pursis stating that
case nos. 4/2006 to 23/2006 were fIxed for filing of
appropriate application for setting aside exparte order and
advocate (Shri Nirbhay Chawhan colleague of the counsel)
was present in the first half, however the matters were
posted for passing of award on 4-5-2012 and the counsel
himself was present in the second half, but the Bench Clerk
informed him that as the matter had already been fixed for
award, the appropriate applications cannot be taken up on
board and as such, the same were being sent by RPAD
(Speed Post), signed the by advocate for party no.1(a)
were received by Speed Post. Copies of the applications
and pursis were not served on the other side. However, the
said applications and pursis were rejected as neither the
advocate nor anybody else on behalf of party no.1 appeared
to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no.1 (a) had
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 19-9-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the
workman was again appointed by party no.1 (b) from
5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for
vocational training by party no.1 (a) and as such, the
workman was the employee of party no.1 and party no. 1
(a) is the principal employer and the appointment of the
workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
and the services of the workman were terminated by party
no.1(b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
more than 240 days with the party no.1 (b), preceding his
termination and before the termination of the services of
the workman, mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month’s notice,
nor one month’s pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no.1(a) and 1 (b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
4600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in
this case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no.1(a) and 1(b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar colliery by party no. 1(a) and BGML engaged him
from 19-9-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that
he was again engaged by party no.1(b), another contractor
from 5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the case of the
workman that he was engaged or appointed by party no.1
(a). The only claim of the workman is that party no.1(a) had
sent him for vocational training and he had under gone the
training successfully. In support of such claim, the workman
has filed the Xerox copy of the certificate granted in his
favour for undergoing the vocational training from
2-9-1993 to 29-9-1993. It is necessary to mention here that it
is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of party no.1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by party no.1(a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
‘‘contract labour’’, ‘‘establishment’’ and ‘‘workman’’ does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship.The word ‘‘workman’’ is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no.1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the party no. 1 (a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no. 1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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 :—
‘‘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 service’’ has removed a discordance
between the unamended section 25-B and the unamended
Cl. (b) of Section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the 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 this 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, 1947 (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).
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 it must be 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4601
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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
‘‘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/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a
year preceding his termination-Claim denied by
management-Onus lies upon workman 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 his
termination.’’
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
13. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus the workman has
failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in Section 25-F read with Section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman.
The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1951-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj McY;w- lh-
,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2006)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@79@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º
Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2012
S. O. 1951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.18 /2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL, WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 15-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/79/2003-IR (CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP /18/2006 Date : 4-5-2012.
Party No. l (a) :
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of
WCL, Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b):
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road,
Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Shri Ganpat Lahanuji Neware,
R/o Murpar, Post : Khadsangi,
Teh. -Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated : 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (‘‘the Act’’ in short), the
Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between
the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and
their workman Shri Ganpat Lahanuji Neware, for adjudication,
as per letter No.L-22012/79/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21-3-2006,
with the following schedule:—
‘‘Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Ganpat Lahanuji
Neware, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief
he is entitled ?’’
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
4602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Ganpat
Lahanuji Neware, (‘‘the workman’’ in short) and the
management of the WCL (‘‘Party No.1’’ in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine
at Murpar, which is known as ‘‘W. C. Ltd. Murpar Project’’
and the same is under the control and supervision of party
no.1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party
no. 1 (a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
(‘‘B.G.M.L.’’ in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the party no.1 (a) also engaged party no.1 (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 5-1-1997 and till party
no.1 (b) is working with party no.1 (a) for the purpose of
preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G. M.L as a General
Mazdoor on 8-10-1992 and he continued to work till
2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party
no.1 (b) w.e.f. 5-1-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and he
is a workman/employee of party no.1 (a) and party no.1 (a)
is the principal employer and his appointment by both the
contractors was oral and the party no.1 (b) terminated his
services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and he had worked for
more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while
terminating his services, mandatory provisions of Section
25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one
month’s notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice,
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties
no.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than
700 workers were working with parties no. 1 (a) and (b),
they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all
the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to
the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance
of Section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his
services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his
retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also,
plenty of work is available with parties no. 1 (a) and 1 (b),
but they did not re-employ him in violation of Section 25-H
of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he
alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before
the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services
with many other workers were terminated and wages for
December 2001 was not paid to him and as party no.1 was
the principal employer and party no.1(b) was the contractor
of party no.1 (a), for each and every act of the party no.1
(b), the party no.1(a) was responsible and as such, the
party no.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The
workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
3. The party no.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that in
spite of notice, party no.1 (b) neither appeared in the case
nor contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no.1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also awarded another contract to party no. 1
(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 1-1-1997 and
28-2-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months, another
contract was given to party no.l (b) for construction of
drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of
commencement and completion of the said contract were
29-5-1999 and 1-12-2001 respectively and it party no. 1 (a)
was related to party no.1 (b) only as per the terms of contract
and it was not at all responsible for providing employees
to the contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to
appoint the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded
by the party no.1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines
Act, every person, whether employed by the principal
employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or
in permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by party no.1(b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanty [2006 (2) Scale 115] and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. 1 (a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no. 1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4603
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no. 1 (a) to
cross-examine the workman, on 24-8-2011, ‘‘no cross’’ order
was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no.l(a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on
14-1-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and
written notes of argument were not supplied to the
management, an application for grant of permission to cross-
examine the workman and setting aside the exparte order,
an application for dismissal of the reference on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC
1806, a pursis stating that the Tribunal has not framed the
preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the
proceeding and that the proceeding is not maintainable as
there existed no employer- employee relationship between
WCL and the workman and another pursis stating that
case nos. 4/2006 to 23/2006 were fixed for filing of
appropriate application for setting aside exparte order and
advocate (Shri Nirbhay Chawhan colleague of the counsel)
was present in the first half, however the matters were
posted for passing of award on 4-5-2012 and the counsel
himself was present in the second half, but the Bench Clerk
informed him that as the matter had already been fIxed for
award, the appropriate applications cannot be taken up on
board and as such, the same were being sent by RPAD
(Speed Post), signed by the advocate for party no.1(a)
were received by Speed Post. Copies of the applications
and pursis were not served on the other side. However, the
said applications and pursis were rejected as neither the
advocate nor anybody else on behalf of party no. 1
appeared to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 (a) had
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 8-10-1992 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the
workman was again appointed by party no. 1 (b) from
5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001, and the workman was sent for
vocational training by party no. 1 (a) and as such, the
workman was the employee of party no. 1 and party no. 1
(a) is the principal employer and the appointment of the
workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
and the services of the workman were terminated by party
no.1(b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
more than 240 days with the party no.1(b), preceding his
termination and before the termination of the services of
the workman, mandatory provisions of section 25- F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice,
nor one month's pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in
this case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G. M. L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him
from 8-10-1992 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that
he was again engaged by party no.1(b), another contractor
from 5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the case of the
workman that he was engaged or appointed by party no. 1
(a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
‘‘contract labour’’, ‘‘establishment’’ and ‘‘workman’’ does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word ‘‘workman’’ is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
‘‘establishment’’ and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant or master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no.1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the party no. 1 (a) was not controlling
4604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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 :—
‘‘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 service’’ has removed a discordance
between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended
Cl. (b) of Section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the 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 this 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, 1947 (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).
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 it must be 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
‘‘Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) S.25-F,
10- Retrenchment compensation—Termination of services
without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal-—Case
of workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a
year preceding his termination—Claim denied by
management—Onus lies upon workman 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 his termination.’’
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above
that for applicability of section 25- F of the Act, it is
necessary to prove that the worman 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon ’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
13. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus the workman
has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4605
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1952-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/
ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@JeU;k;ky;]
ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@80@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&IIº
Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2012
S.O. 1952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL, WCU Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 15-5-2012. .
[No. L-22012/80/2003-IR(CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/19/2006
Date: 4-05-2012
Party No. l (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
Shri Yadav Bakaram Pendam,
R/o Murpar, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Yadav Bakaram
Pendam, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/80/2003-
IR (CM-II) dated 21-03-2006, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Yadav Bakaram
Pendam, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Yadav
Bakaram Pendam, (“the workman” in short) and the
management of the WCL (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine
at Murpar, which is known as “W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project”
and the same is under the control and supervision of party
no. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party
no. 1 (a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
(“B.G.M.L.” in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road upto the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the party no. 1 (a) also engaged party no. 1 (b),
M/s. Singh and Sons in its work w.e.f. 5-01-1997 and till
party no. 1 (b) is working with party no. 1 (a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General
Mazdoor on 8-10-1992 and he continued to work till
2-07-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party
no. 1 (b) w.e.f. 5-1-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and he
is a workman/employee of party no. 1 (a) and party no. 1 (a)
is the principal employer and his appointment by both the
contractors was oral and the party no. 1 (b) terminated his
services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and he had worked for
more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while
terminating his services, mandatory provisions of Section
25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one
month's notice, nor one month’s wages in lieu of notice,
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties
no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination more than
700 workers were working with parties no. 1 (a) and (b),
they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all
the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to
the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance
of Section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his services
amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his
retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also,
plenty of work is available with parties no. l(a) and l(b), but
they did not re-employ him in violation of Section 25- H of
the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that he
alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before
the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services
with many other workers were terminated and wages for
December, 2001 was not paid to him and as party no.1 was
4606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the principal employer and party no.1(b) was the contractor
of party no.1 (a), for each and every act of the party no. 1
(b), the party no. 1 (a) was responsible and as such, the
party no.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The
workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
3. The party no.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that in
spite of notice, party no.1 (b) neither appeared in the case
nor contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no.1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also awarded another contract to party no. 1
(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar Project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 1-1-1997 and
28-02-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to party no.l(b) for construction
of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar Project and the dates
of commencement and completion of the said contract were
29-05-1999 and 01-12-2001 respectively and it [party no. 1
(a)] was related to party no. 1 (b) only as per the terms of
contract and it was not at all responsible for providing
employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the
contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It
is further pleaded by the party no.1 (a) that as per the
provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer. or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show
that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by party no.1(b) for contract works at Murpar
Project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006
(2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. 1 (a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no. 1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of Section 25- F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no.1 (a) to
cross-examine the workman, on 24-08-2011, “no cross” order
was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no. 1 (a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on
14-1-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and written
notes of argument were not supplied to the management,
an application for grant of permission to cross-examine the
workman and setting aside the exparte order, an application
for dismissal of the reference on the basis of the judgment
of .the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, a pursis
stating that the Tribunal has not framed the preliminary
issue regarding the maintainability of the proceeding and
that the proceeding is not maintainable as there existed no
employer-employee relationship between WCL and the
workman and another pursis stating that case nos. 4/2006
to 23/2006 were fixed for filing of appropriate application
for setting aside exparte order and advocate (Shri Nirbhay
Chawhan colleague of the counsel) was present in the first
half, however the matters were posted for passing of award
on 4-05-2012 and the counsel himself was present in the
second half, but the Bench Clerk informed him that as the
matter had already been fixed for award, the appropriate
applications cannot be taken up on board and as such, the
same were being sent by RPAD (Speed Post), signed by
the advocate for party no.1(a) were received by Speed Post.
Copies of the applications and pursis were not served on
the other side. However, the said applications and pursis
were rejected as neither the advocate nor anybody else on
behalf of party no. 1 appeared to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 (a) had
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 8-10-1992 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the
workman was again appointed by party no. 1 (b) from
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4607
5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for
vocational training by party no. l (a) and as such, the
workman was the employee of party no. l and party no. 1
(a) is the principal employer and the appointment of the
workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
and the services of the workman were terminated by party
no.1(b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
more than 240 days with the party no. 1 (b), preceding his
termination and before the termination of the services of
the workman, mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice,
nor one month’s pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in this
case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar colliery by party no.1 (a) and BGML engaged him
from 8-10-1992 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and
that he was again engaged by party no.1 (b), another
contractor from 5-01-1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the case
of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by party
no.1 (a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
“contract labour”, “establishment” and “workman” does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word “workman” is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
“establishment” and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidait that he was never
employed by the party no. 1 (a) and he was employed by
the contractors and. the party no. l (a) was not controlling
or supervising tile work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no.1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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 :—
“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 service” has removed a discordance
between the unamended Section 25 B and the
unamended Cl. (b) of Section 25-F. No uninterrupted
service is necessary it the 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 this 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”.
4608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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).
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 it must be 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that :
“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/workman that he
had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination-Claim denied by management- Onus
lies upon workman 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 his termination.”
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above
that for applicability of Section 25-F of the Act, it is
necessary to prove that the workan 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
13. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus the workman has
failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with Section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1953-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2006) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@81@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&IIº
Mh- lh- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2012
S.O. 1953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2006) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 15-5-2012.
[No. L-22012/81/2003-IR(CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/20/2006
Date: 04-05-2012.
Party No. l (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4609
Versus
Party No. 2
Shri Niranjan Manik Kosare,
R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsanhgi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Niranjan
Manik Kosare, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/
81/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21-03-2006, with the following
schedule :—
“Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Niranjan Manik
Kosare, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he
is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Niranjan
Manik Kosare, (“the workman” in short) and the
management of the WCL (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine
at Murpar, which is known as “W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project”
and the same is under the control and supervision of party
no. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party
no.1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
(“B.G.M.L” in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road upto the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the party no. 1 (a) also engaged party no. 1 (b),
M/s. Singh and Sons in its work w.e.f. 5-1-1997 and till
party no. 1 (b) is working with party no. 1 (a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a Driller
on 24-6-1993 and he continued to work till 2-7-1996 and
thereafter, his services were utilized by party no. 1 (b) w.e.f.
5-11-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and he is a workman/
employee of party no. 1 (a) and party no. 1 (a) is the principal
employer and his appointment by both the contractors
was oral and the party no. 1 (b) terminated his services
orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and he had worked for more than
240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating
his services, mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month’s notice,
nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was paid to him by parties no.1 (a) and (b)
and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though
at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were
working with parties no. 1 (a) and (b) they did not prepare
and publish final seniority list of all the workers including
himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as
provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of
the Act and the termination of his services amounted to
retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of
work was available and now also, plenty of work is available
with parties no. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not re-employ
him in violation of Section 25- H of the Act. It is further
pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers
had submitted charter of various demand to the parties
no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not fulfill the same and for
that a dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur
and for the said reason, his services with many other
workers were terminated and wages for December 2001
was not paid to him and as party no.1 was the principal
employer and party no. 1 (b) was the contractor of party
no.1 (a), for each and every act of the party no.1 (b) the
party no. 1 (a) was responsible and as such, the party no.1
(a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The workman
has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity
and full back wages.
3. The party no.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that in
spite of notice, party no.1 (b) neither appeared in the case
nor contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no. 1 (a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
3 ½ months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also awarded another contract to party no. 1
(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 1-1-1997 and
28-02-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to party no. l (b) for
construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project
and the dates of commencement and completion of the
said contract were 29-5-1999 and 1-12-2001 respectively
and it [party no.1(a)] was related to party no.1(b) only as
per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible
for providing employees to the contractors and it was the
duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per
their need. It is further pleaded by the party no.1 (a) that as
per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
4610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show
that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by party no. 1 (b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006
(2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no. 1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no.1(a) to cross-
examine the workman, on 24-8-2011, “no cross” order was
passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no. 1 (a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on
14-1-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and written
notes of argument were not supplied to the management,
an application for grant of permission to cross-examine the
workman and setting aside the exparte order, an application
for dismissal of the reference on the basis of the judgment
of' the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, a pursis stating
that the Tribunal has not framed the preliminary issue
regarding the maintainability of the proceeding and that
the proceeding is not maintainable as there existed no
employer-employee relationship between WCL and the
workman and another pursis stating that case nos. 4/2006
to 23/2006 were fixed for filing of appropriate application
for setting aside exparte order and advocate (Shri Nirbhay
Chawhan colleague of the counsel) was present in the first
half, however the matters were posted for passing of award
on 4-5-2012 and the counsel himself was present in the
second half, but the Bench Clerk informed him that as the
matter had already been fixed for award, the appropriate
applications cannot be taken up on board and as such, the
same were being sent by RPAD (Speed Post), signed the
by advocate for party no.1(a) were received by Speed Post.
Copies of the applications and pursis were not served on
the other side. However, the said applications and pursis
were rejected as neither the advocate nor anybody else on
behalf of party no.1 appeared to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no.1 (a) had
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 24-6-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a driller and the workman
was again appointed by party no. 1 (b) from 5-11-1997 to
28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for vocational training
by party no. 1 (a) and as such, the workman was the
employee of party no. 1 and party no. l (a) is the principal
employer and the appointment of the workman by both the
contractors was oral appointment and the services of the
workman were terminated by party no. 1 (b) w.e.f.
29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for more than 240
days with the party no. 1 (b), preceding his termination and
before the termination of the services of the workman,
mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not
complied with and neither one month’s notice, nor one
month’s pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in this
case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him
from 24-6-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a driller and that he was again
engaged by party no. 1 (b), another contractor from 05-11-
1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the case of the workman that
he was engaged or appointed by party no.1 (a).
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4611
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
“contract labour”, “establishment” and “workman” does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word “workman” is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
“establishment” and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no. 1 (a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the party no.1 (a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no.1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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 :—
“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
service” has removed a discordance between the
unamended Section 25 B and the unamended Cl.
(b) of Section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is
necessary it the 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 this 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).
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 it must be 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported
in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev
Kumar) has held that :
“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/workman that he
had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination- Claim denied by management-Onus
lies upon workman 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 his termination.”
4612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
13. Except his oral evidence on affidavit and a Xerox
copy of certificate issued by M/s. Singh that he worked as
a temporary contingent labour from 05-01-1997 to
03-02-1998, the workman has not produced any other
evidence in support of his claim that he had actually worked
for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001.
Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which
was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in Section 25-F read with Section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1954-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2006) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&05&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@82@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&IIº
Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2012
S.O. 1954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
and their workman, received by the Central Government
on 15-05-2012.
[No. L-22012/82/2003-IR(CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/21/2006
Date : 04-05-2012.
Party No. l (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post : Khadsanghi, Tah.-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Shri Suresh Janbaji Shrirame,
R/o. Minzhari Post: Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur,
Maharahtra.
AWARD
(Dated : 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Suresh Janbaji
Shrirame, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/82/
2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21-03-2006, with the following
schedule :—
“Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Suresh Janbaji
Shrirame, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Suresh Janbaji
Shrirame (“the workman” in short) and the management of
the WCL (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal
mine a Murpar, which is known as “W.C. Ltd.
Murpar Project” and the same is under the control
and supervision of party no. 1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area
Manager, Murpar Project and party no.1 (a)
engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
(“B.G.M.L.” in short, for the purpose of preparing
underground road upto the border of coal for the
said coal mine and the contract of the said work
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4613
was from 1992 to 1996 and the party no.1(a) also
engaged party no. 1(b), M/s. Singh and Sons in
its work w.e.f. 05-01-1997 and till party no. 1(b) is
working with party no. 1(a) for the purpose of
preparing the underground roads for functioning
of the said coal mine and he was engaged by
B.G.M.L as General Mazdoor on 11-07-1993 and
he continued to work till 02-07-1996 and thereafter,
his service were utilized by party no. 1(b) w.e.f.
05-11-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and he is
a workman/employee of party no. 1(a) and party
no. 1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and
the party no. 1(b) terminated his services orally
w.e.f. 29-12-2001 an he had worked for more than
240 days preceding to his termination and while
terminating his services, mandatory provisions
of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with
and neither one month’s notice, nor one month’s
wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was paid to him by parties no. 1(a)
and (b) and as such, termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination,
more than 700 workers were working with parties
no. 1(a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including
himself, at least seven days prior to the
termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there
was no compliance of Section 25-G of the Act and
the termination of his services amounted to
retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment,
plenty of work was available and now also, plenty
of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b),
but they did not re-employ him in violation of
Section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by
the workman that he alongwith other workers had
submitted charter of various demand to the parties
no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not fulfill the same
and for that a dispute was pending before the
ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated
and wages for December 2001 was not paid, to
him and as party no.1 was the principal employer
and party no. 1(b) was the contractor of party no.
1(a), for each and every act of the party no. 1(b),
the party no. 1(a) was responsible and as such,
the party no.1(a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his
reinstatement in service with continuity and full
back wages.
3. The party no. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, party no. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no. 1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3½
months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months
and it also awarded another contract to party no. 1(b) for
construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through
sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V
at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and
completion were 01-01-1997 and 28-02-1998 respectively
and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given
to party no.1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft
at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and
completion of the said contract were 29-05-1999 and
01-12-2001 respectively and it [party no. 1(a)] was related
to party no. 1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it
was not at all responsible for providing employees to the
contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint
the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the
party no.1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act,
every person, whether employed by the principal employer
or the contractor, whether in casual capacity or in
permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by party no.1(b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanti [2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no.1(b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of section 25- F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no.1 (a) to
cross-examine the workman, on 24-08-2011, “no cross” order
was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no. 1 (a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on
14-01-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and
written notes of argument were not supplied to the
management, an application for grant of permission to cross-
examine the workman and setting aside the exparte order,
an application for dismissal of the reference on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC
1806, a pursis stating that the Tribunal has not framed the
preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the
proceeding and that the proceeding is not maintainable as
there existed no employer-employee relationship between
WCL and the workman and another pursis stating that
case nos. 4/2006 to 23/2006 were fIxed for filing of
appropriate application for setting aside exparte order and
advocate (Shri Nirbhay Chawhan colleague of the counsel)
was present in the first half, however the matters were
posted for passing of award on 04-05-2012 and the counsel
himself was present in the second half, but the Bench Clerk
informed him that as the matter had already be fixed for
award, the appropriate applications cannot be taken up on
board and as such, the same were being sent by RPAD
(Speed Post), signed the by advocate for party no.1 (a)
were received by Speed Post. Copies of the applications
and pursis were not served on the other side. However,.
the said applications and pursis were rejected as neither
the advocate, nor anybody else on behalf of party no.1
appeared to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 (a) had
eng M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a Government
of India Enterprises for preparation of underground roads
upto the boarder of coal in Murpar Coal Mine and the said
contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said
company had appointed the workman from 11-07-1993 to
02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the workman was
again appointed by party no. 1 (b) from 05-11-1997 to
28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for vocational training
by party no. 1(a) and as such, the workman was the employee
of party no. 1 and party no. l (a) is the principal employer
and the appointment of the workman by both the
contractors was oral appointment and the services of the
workman were terminated by party no. 1 (b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001
and the workman had worked for more than 240 days with
the party no. 1 (b), preceding his termination and before
the termination of the services of the workman, mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month’s notice, nor one month’s pay
in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment compensation was
given to the workman and as such, the termination of the
workman is illegal and such termination amounts to
retrenchment and party no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) did not prepare
and publish the seniority list as required under Rule 77 of
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even though more
than 700 workers were working with them in various
category and as such, there was violation of the provisions
of Section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the workman is
entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full
back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in this
case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract the construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar Colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him
from 11-07-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and
that he was agair engaged by party no. 1 (b), another
contractor from 05-11-1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the
case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by
party no. 1 (a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
“contract labour”, “establishment” and “workman” does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word “workman” is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combind reading of the terms
“establishment” and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no. 1 (a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the party no. 1 (a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4615
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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 :—
“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 service” has removed a discordance
between the unamended Section 25-B and the
unamended Cl. (b) of Section 25-F. No
uninterrupted service is necessary it the 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 this
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).
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 it must held that section 25-B (2)
comprehends a situation when workman to not in
employment for a period of 12 calendar months,
but has rendered for a period of 240 days within
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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported
in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev
Kumar) has held that:
“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/workman that he
had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination—Claim denied by management—
Onus lies upon workman 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 his termination.”
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
13. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim tha he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus the workman
has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in Section 25-F read with Section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
4616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1955-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2006) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@27@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&IIº
Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2012
S.O. 1955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL,WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 15-5-2012. .
[No. L-22012/27/2003-IR (CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/16/2006
Date : 4-5-2012.
Party No. l (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
Shri Shatrughan Govinda Dhdake,
R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsanghi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Shatrughan
Govinda Dhdake, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/
27/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21-3-2006, with the following
schedule :—
“Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of shri Shatrughan
Govinda Dhdake, is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief he is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Shatrughan
Govinda Dhdake, (“the workman” in short) and the
management of the WCL (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine
at Murpar, which is known as “W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project”
and the same is under the control and supervision of party
no.1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party
no. 1 (a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
(“B.G.M.L.” in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the party no. 1 (a) also engaged party no.1 (b),
M/s. Singh and Sons in its work w.e.f. 5-1-1997 and till
party no.1 (b) is working with party no. 1 (a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General
Mazdoor on 17-8-1993 and he continued to work till
2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party
no. 1 (b) w.e.f. 5-1-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and
party no.1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to
time and he had under gone the said training successfully
and as such, he is a workman/employee of party no. 1 (a)
and party no. 1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the party
no.1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and
he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month’s notice, nor one month’s wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by parties no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination
of his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination more than 700 workers were working with
parties no. 1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of Section 25-G of the Act and the
termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and
at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4617
and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. l
(a) and l (b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of
Section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman
that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of
various demand to the parties no. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they
did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending
before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as party
no. 1 was the principal employer and party no.l(b) was the
contractor of party no. 1 (a), for each and every act of the
party no.l (b), the party no. 1(a) was responsible and as
such, the party no. 1 (a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The party no. l (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that in
spite of notice, party no.l (b) neither appeared in the case
nor contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no. l (a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months
and it also awarded another contract to party no. 1 (b) for
construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through
sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V
at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and
completion were 1-1-1997 and 28-2-1998 respectively and
after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to
party no. l (b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at
Murpar Project and the dates of commencement and
completion of the said contract were 29-5-1999 and
1-12-2001 respectively and it [party no. 1 (a)] was related to
party no. 1 (b) only as per the terms of contract and it was
not at all responsible for providing employees to the
contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint
the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the
party no. 1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act,
every person, whether employed by the principal employer
or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in
permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by party no. 1 (b) for contract
works at Murpar Project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi Union Public Service Commission Vs. Grish
Jayanti 2006 (2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. 1 (a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no. 1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim. It is necessary to mention here that
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no. 1 (a) to
cross-examine the workman, on 24-08-2011, “no cross” order
was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the
case ex-parte against the party no. 1 (a).
It will not be out of place to mention here that on
14-1-2012 a pursis stating that copies of affidavit and written
notes of argument were not supplied to the management,
an application for grant of permission to cross-examine
the workman and setting aside the exparte order, an
application for dismissal of the reference on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC
1806, a pursis stating that the Tribunal has not framed the
preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the
proceeding and that the proceeding is not maintainable as
there existed no employer-employee relationship between
WCL and the workman and another pursis stating that
case nos. 4/2006 to 23/2006 were fixed for filing of
appropriate application for setting aside exparte order and
advocate (Shri Nirbhay Chawhan colleague of the counsel)
was present in the first half, however the matters were
posted for passing of award on 4-5-2012 and the counsel
himself was present in the second half, but the Bench Clerk
informed him that as the matter had already been fIxed for
award, the appropriate applications cannot be taken up on
board and as such, the same were being sent by RPAD
(Speed Post), signed the by advocate for party no. 1 (a)
were received by Speed Post. Copies of the applications
and pursis were not served on the other side. However, the
4618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
said applications and pursis were rejected as neither the
advocate nor anybody else on behalf of party no.1 appeared
to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 (a) had
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 17-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the
workman was again appointed by party no.1 (b) from
5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001and the workman was sent for
vocational training by party no. 1 (a) and as such, the
workman was the employee of party no. 1 and party no. l(a)
is the principal employer and the appointment of the
workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
and the services of the workman were terminated by party
no.1(b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
more than 240 days with the party no. 1(b), preceding his
termination and before the termination of the services of
the workman, mandatory provisions of Section 25- F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month’s notice,
nor one month’s pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no.1(a) and 1 (b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in this
case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no. 1 (a) and l (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar Colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him
from 17-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that
he was again engaged by party no. 1 (b), another contractor
from 5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the case of the
workman that he was engaged or appointed by party no. 1
(a). The only claim of the workman is that party no. 1 (a)
had sent him for vocational training and he had under gone
the training successfully. In support of such claim, the
workman has filed the Xerox copy of the certificate granted
in his favour for undergoing the vocational training from
2-9-1993 to 29-9-1993. It is necessary to mention here that it
is obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of party no.l (a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by party no.1(a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
“contract labour”, “establishment” and “workman” does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought
about such relationship. The word “workman” is defined
in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour
is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
“establishment” and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no.1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the party no. 1 (a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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 :—
“Though Section 25-F speaks of continuous
service for not less than one year under the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4619
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
service” has removed a discordance between the
unamended Section 25 B and the unamended Cl.
(b) of Section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is
necessary it the 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 this 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).
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 it must be 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported
in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev
Kumar) has held that :
“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/workman that he had
worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination- Claim denied by management-Onus
lies upon workman 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 his termination.”
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
12. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in
support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240
days in the preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus
the workman has failed to discharge the burden which
was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in Section 25-F read with Section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1956-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
4620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2006)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15&05&2012 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@26@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&IIº
Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2012
S.O. 1956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2006)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL,WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 15-05-2012.
.
[No. L-22012/26/2003-IR (CM-II)]
D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/15/2006
Date : 4-5-2012.
Party No. l (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post : Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
Shr Dayaram Bhagwan Wate,
R/o Minzhari, Post : Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated : 4th May, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Dayaram
Bhagwan Wate, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/
26/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21-03-2006, with the following
schedule : —
“Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Dayaram Bhagwan
Wate, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Dayaram
Bhagwan Wate, (“the workman” in short) and the
management of the WCL (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine
at Murpar, which is known as “W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project”
and the same is under the control and supervision of party
no.1 (a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party
no. 1 (a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
(“B.G.M.L.” in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road upto the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the party no.1 (a) also engaged party no. 1 (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 5-1-1997 and till party
no. 1 (b) is working with party no.1 (a) for the purpose of
preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a Pump
Khalasi/Loader on 19-7-1993 and he continued to work till
02-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party
no.1 (b) w.e.f. 5-1-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and
party no. 1 (a) sent him for vocational training from time to
time and he had under gone the said training successfully
and as such, he is a workman/employee of party no.1 (a)
and party no. 1 (a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the party
no.1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and
he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month’s notice, nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by parties no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination,of
his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination, more than 700 workers were working with
parties no. 1(a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of Section 25-G of the Act and the
termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and
at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available
and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1
(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4621
Section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman
that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of
various demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they
did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending
before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as party
no.1 was the principal employer and party no.1 (b) was the
contractor of party no.1 (a), for each and every act of the
party no.1 (b), the party no.1(a) was responsible and as
such, the party no.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The party no.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, party no. l (b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the party no. 1 (a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3½
months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months
and it also awarded another contract to party no. 1 (b) for
construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through
sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V
at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and
completion were 01-01-1997 and 28-02-1998 respectively
and after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given
to party no. 1 (b) for construction of drivage of incline
shaft at Murpar project and the dates of commencement
and completion of the said contract were 29-05-1999 and
1-12-2001 respectively and it [party no. 1 (a)] was related to
party no. 1 (b) only as per the terms of contract and it was
not at all responsible for providing employees to the
contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint
the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the
party no. 1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act,
every person, whether employed by the principal employer
or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in
permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by party no. l(b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi Union Public Service Commission Girish
Jayanti [2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of party no. l(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to party no. 1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman. is not entitled for
any relief.
4. The workman besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence, filed his own evidence on affidavit
in support of his claim.
It is necessary to mention here that as nobody
appeared on behalf of the party no.l(a) to cross-examine
the workman, on 24-08-2011, “no cross” order was passed
and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex-
parte against the party no. l (a). It will not be out of place to
mention here that on 14-01-2012 a pursis stating that copies
of affidavit and written notes of argument were not supplied
to the management, an application for grant of permission
to cross-examine the workman and setting aside the exparte
order, an application for dismissal of the reference on the
basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, AIR
2006 SC 1806, a pursis stating that the Tribunal has not
framed the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability
of the proceeding and that the proceeding is not
maintainable as there existed no employer-employee
relationship between WCL and the workman and another
pursis stating that case nos. 4/2006 to 23/2006 were fixed
for filing of appropriate application for setting aside exparte
order and advocate (Shri Nirbhay Chawhan colleague of
the counsel) was present in the first half, however the
matters were posted for passing of award on 04-05-2012
and the counsel himself was present in the second half,
but the Bench Clerk informed him that as the matter had
already been fixed for award, the appropriate applications
cannot be taken up on board and as such, the same were
being sent by RPAD (Speed Post), signed by the advocate
for party no.1 (a) were received by Speed Post. Copies of
the applications and pursis were not setved on the other
side. However, the said applications and pursis were
rejected as neither the advocate nor anybody else on behalf
of party no. 1 appeared to move the same.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that party. no.1 (a) had
4622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
engaged M/s. B.G.M.L, a registered company and a
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
underground roads upto the boarder of coal in Murpar
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
from 19-07-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a Pump Khalasi/ Loader
and the workman was again appointed by party no.1 (b)
from 05-01-1997 to 28-12-2001and the workman was sent
for vocational training by party no.1 (a) and as such, the
workman was the employee of party no.1 and party no. 1
(a) is the principal employer and the appointment of the
workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
and the services of the workman were terminated by party
no.1(b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
more than 240 days with the party no.1(b), preceding his
termination and before the termination of the services of
the workman, madatory provisions of Section 25-F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month’s notice,
nor one month's pay in lieu of the notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was given to the workman and as such, the
termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
amounts to retrenchment and party no. 1 (a) and 1 (b) did
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in
various category and as such, there was violation of the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. So, in this
case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
no.1 (a) and 1 (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman
that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who was given
contract for construction of roads in the underground of
Murpar colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him
from 19-07-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a Pump Khalasi/Loader
and that he was again engaged by party no. 1 (b), another
contractor from 05-01-1997 to 28-12-2001. It is never the
case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by
party no.1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that party
no.1 (a) had sent him for vocational training and he had
under gone the training successfully. In support of such
claim, the workman has filed the Xerox copy of the certificate
granted in his favour for undergoing the vocational training
from 02-09-1993 to 29-09-1993. It is necessary to mention
here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for
any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any
capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of
the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per
the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be
an employee of party no. 1 (a), as because, he was sent for
vocational training by party no.1 (a).
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
“contract labour”, “establishment” and “workman” does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought
about such relationship. The word “workman” is defined
in wide terms. It is a generic form of which conrract labour
is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
“establishment” and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the party no.1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the party no.1 (a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
9. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the party no.1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary 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
wokmen) have held that :—
“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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4623
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 service” has
removed a discordance between the unamended
Section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b) of Section
25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary it the
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
this 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).
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 it must be 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported
in AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev
Kumar) has held that:
“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/workman that he
had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination- Claim denied by management-Onus
lies upon workman 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 his termination.”
10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon’ble Apex 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.
11. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29-12-2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
13. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in
support of his claim that he had actually worked for 240
days in the preceding 12 months of 29-12-2001. Thus
the workman has failed to discharge the burden which
was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in Section 25-F read with Section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1957-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2008)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&05&2012 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@29@2008&vkbZ vkj (ch&Iº
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
4624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2012
S.O. 1957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 40/2008 of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 16-05-2012.
.
[No. L-12012/29/2008-IR (B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT :
Shri J. Srivastava,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I. T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 40/2008
Date of Passing Award—30th April, 2012
Between :
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar
Main Branch, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda (Orissa).
. . . 1st Party-Management.
AND
Their workman Sri Raj Kishore Bharati,
Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar, Unit-3,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
. . .2 Party-Workman.
APPEARANCES :
Shri Alok Das,
. . .
For the 1st Party-
Authorized Representative
Management
None.
. . .
For the 2nd Party-
Workman.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour
has referred the present dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the management of State Bank of
India and their workman under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act vide their Letter No. L-12012/29/2008 - IR(B-
I), dated 02-06-2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication to the
following effect :
Whether the action of the management of State Bank of
India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the
services of Sri Raj Kishore Bharati w.e.f. 30-09-2004, is fair,
legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned
entitled?
2. The 2nd Party-Workman has filed his statement of
claim alleging that he had joined his services as a
Messenger in the month of February, 1989 after succeeding
in interview. He was assured to get permanent appointment
order after one year or on completion of 240 days work in
a calendar year, but despite completion of several years of
continuous satisfactory service and putting in more than
240 days work in each year he was not regularized, instead
terminated and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the
1st Party-Management without any written communication
or payment of compensation. The 1st Party-Management
in refusing employment to him violated all principles of
natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought
the matter into the notice of the C.G..M. and C.D.O. of the
State Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing
nothing, he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated 23-02-
2005. Conciliation proceedings were started, but they failed
and thereupon a failure report was submitted to the
Government and the Govenrment made the present
reference. He is thus entitled to get full back wages and
reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from
30-9-2004.
3. The 1st Party-Management in its reply through
written statement has stated that the present dispute is
misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party-
workman had already raised a similar dispute along with
124 other workers through the State Bank of India
Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar
challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st
Party-Management. In the said dispute the failure report
was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),
Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn referred
the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is
pending before this Tribunal being ID. Case No. 7/2007.
The name of the 2nd Party- workman is appearing at S1.
No. 14 in Annexure-A to the said reference. Thus, raising a
common dispute for same cause of action and again raising
individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an abuse
of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of
litigation. The Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) while
conciliating the individual disputes disregarded the
direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4625
(Central) not to take any further action on the separate
disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of
action. The allegation of the 2nd Party-workman that he
was discontinued from service on 30-9-2004 and was
signing bogus vouchers is not correct. He was engaged
intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to
exigencies of work. He had been allegedly discontinued on
9th April, 1996 and was receiving payment in his own name.
It is denied that he had joined the Bank in the month of
February, 1989 and was performing the duty, which is
regular and perennial in nature. It is further denied that he
was performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty
and to the best of satisfaction of the Authority. The 2nd
Party-workman has never completed several years of
continuous service in the Bank nor he has completed 240
days of continuous service in any calendar year preceding
the date of his alleged telmination. In order to give an
opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex-temporary
employees/daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various
settlements entered into between the All India State Bank
of India Staff Federation and the Management of the State
Bank of India all eligible persons were called for interview.
The 2nd Party-workman was also called for an interview
along with other eligible persons in the year 1993. As he
was not found successful in the said interview he could
not be appointed in the Bank. The Union or the 2nd Party-
workman has never challenged the implementation of the
settlement which has now gained finality. It is further
submitted that some of the wait-listed candidates, who
could not be absorbed in the Bank’s service due to expiry
of the panel on 31 st March, 1997 filed Writ Petitions before
the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa by a common order dated 15-5-1998 passed
in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions
and upheld the action of the Management of the Bank.
This order of the Hon’ble High Court was also upheld by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC—
3082/1999. Hence the above matter has attained finality
and cannot be re-agitated. Since the services of Sri Bharati
were terminated on 9th April, 1996 his claim has become
stale by raising the dispute after lapse of a period of 10
years. It is a settled principle of law that delay destroys the
right to remedy. Thus raising the present dispute after 10
years of alleged termination is liable to be rejected.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed :—
ISSUES
1. Whether the present reference of the individual
workman during the pendency of the I.D. Case
No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue
is legal and justified?
2. Whether the workman has worked for more than
240 days as enumerated under Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act?
3. Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India in relation to their main Branch,
Bhubaneswar, in terminating the services of Shri
Raj Kishore Bharati, with effect from 30-9-2004, is
fair, legal and justified?
4. To what relief is the workman concerned
entitled?
5. The 2nd Party-workman despite giving
sufficient opportunity did not produce any evidence
either oral or documentary in support of his claim and
willingly kept himself out of the proceedings at the
stage of evidence by absenting himself or his Union
representative.
6. The 1st Party-Management has adduced the oral
evidence of Shri Abhay Kumar Das as M.W.-I and filed
documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-J in refutation of the
claim of the 2nd Party-workman.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1
7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party-
Management that a group of 125 employees including the
2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in
I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same relief
which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as referred
to in I.D. Case No.7/2007 is given below for comparison
with the dispute in the present case—
Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not
considering the case of 125 workmen whose
details are in Annexure-A for re-employment as
per Section 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?
8. The name of the 2nd party-workman appears at S1.
No. 14 in Annexure-A to the above reference. In both the
cases the matter of disengagement or so called
retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the
other way and the relief claimed is with regard to
re-employment. But challenge has been made more
specifically against the termination of service of the 2nd
Party-workman in the present case while in ID. Case No. 7/
2007 prayer has been made with regard to consideration of
the case of 125 workmen for re-employment as per Section
25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, in the
latter case the workmen have submitted or virtually
surrendered to their cessation of employment or alleged
termination, whereas in the present case they have
challenged their termination on facts and law. Virtually in
the present case validity and legality of the alleged
termination has to be tested at the alter of facts and legal
4626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
propositions. Therefore it cannot be said that issues
involved in both the cases are same. This case can proceed
despite pendency of I.D. Case No. 7/2007 and the present
reference by the individual workman pending for
adjudication is maintainable being legal and justified. This
issue is therefore decided in the affirmative and against the
1st Party-Management.
ISSUE NO. 2
9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman
has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service
during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date
of his alleged termination or disengagement from service
lies on him, but the 2nd Party-workman has not adduced
any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his
contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim
that he was appointed in the month of February, 1989 and
worked till 30-9-2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis,
but he has not filed any certificate or reliable document
showing the break-up of year-wise service rendered by
him under the 1st Party-Management during the above
period. The 1st Party-Management, on the other hand, has
alleged that “The 2nd Party-workman was engaged
intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to
exigencies of work and he had never completed 240 day’s
continuous service in a calendar year. M.W.-l Shri Abhay
Kumar Das in his statement before the Court has stated
that “the disputant was working intermittently for few days
in our branch on daily wage basis in exigencies.........He
had not completed 240 days of continuous and
uninterrupted service preceding the alleged date of the
termination” . He has denied the allegation that the workman
was discontinued with effect from 30-9-2004, but stated
that “In-fact the workman left working in the Branch since
April, 1996”. The 2nd Party-workman has to disprove the
evidence led by the 1st Party-Management, but he has not
come before the Court to give evidence. A temporary or
daily wage worker has no right to claim reinstatement and
particularly when such an employee had not worked for
240 days continuously during a period of 12 calendar
months preceding the date of his so-called termination.
Thus he is not entitled to get benefit of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is hereby decided
against the 2nd Party-workman for failing to prove that he
had worked for 240 days continuously during a period of
12 calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement
or alleged termination from service.
ISSUE NO. 3
10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove
that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under
the 1st Party-Management during a period of 12 calendar
months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged
termination, he is not entitled for re-employment even in
case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination.
Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/daily wage
employee, His services can be terminated at any time
without assigning any cause by the 1st Party-Management.
He has no legal right to be retained in service for the
extended period, if he was appointed for a certain period or
when no time is specified. The 2nd Party-workman has not
filed any letter of appointment or proof of having rendered
service under the 1st Party-Management for a specified
period against a regular post. The 1st Party-Management
has further alleged that in time of exigencies only the 2nd
Party-workman was employed. It means that with the end
of exigencies his job also came to an end. In view of the
matter the action of the management of State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of
Sri Raj Kishore Bharati with effect from the alleged date of
his termination is fair, legal and justified. This issue is
accordingly decided in the affirmative and against the 2nd
Party-workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
11. In view of the findings recorded above under
Issues No. 2 and 3 the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled to
any relief whatsoever claimed.
12. Reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1958-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 13@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
16&5&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@83@2010&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2012
S.O. 1958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref .No. 13/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of State Bank of Bikaner
and Jaipur and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 16-5-2012.
[No. L-12012/83/2010-IR(B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
PRESENT
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 13/2011
Reference No.L-12012-83-2010-IR(B-I) dated: 12-5-2011
Shri Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Ninnuram,
Anaha Gate, Near Pather Ki Tal,
Bharatpur.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4627
V/s
1. The Branch Manager
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,
B-Narayan Gate Branch Bharatpur
Bharatpur.
2. Managing Director
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,
Head Office, Tilak Marg,
C-Sheme, Jaipur.
AWARD
29-03-2012
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bharatpur in
terminating the services of Shri Satish Kumar w.e.f.
1-10-2009 is legal and justified? To what relief the
workman entitled?”
2. In pursuance of the reference order, registered
notices were issued to both the parties on the address
mentioned in the reference order. The registered notices
issued to the workman were returned twice with
endorsement "address is incomplete."
3. The representative on behalf of the non-applicant
appeared on 21-3-12. He submitted that since, no claim
statement has been filed, “No Claim Award” may be passed
in the matter.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that
registered notices have been issued on the address which
is mentioned in the reference order but notices could not
be served on the said address due to incomplete address.
Under these circumstances, the reference order under
adjudication cannot be adjudicated on merits.
5. Therefore, “No Claim Award” is passed in this
matter. The reference under adjudication is answered
accordingly.
6. Award as above.
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1959-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 59@2008)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&5&2012 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@88@2008&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2012
S.O. 1959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 59/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubneswar as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 16-5-2012.
[No. L-12012/88/2008-IR(B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri J. Srivastava,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 59/2008
Date of Passing Award - 8th May, 2012
Between:
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar :
Main Branch, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda (Orissa).
. . . 1st Party-Management.
(And)
Their workman Sri Braja Bandhu Barik,
Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar, Unit-3,
Bhubaneswar (Orisss).
...2nd Party-Workman
APPEARANCES :
Shri Alok Das,
For the 1 st Party-
Authorized Representative
Management.
None.
For the 2nd
Party Workman
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour
has referred the present dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of
India and their workman under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act vide their Letter No. L-12012/88/2008 - IR(B-
I), dated 6-10-2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication to the
following effect:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in
terminating the services of Sri Braja Bandhu Barik
w.e.f. 30-9-2004 without complying the provisions
of the I.D. Act, 1947, is legal and justified? To
what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”
2. The 2nd Party-Workman has filed his statement of
claim alleging that he had joined his services as a
4628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Messenger on 1-3-1980 after succeeding in interview. He
was assured to get permanent appointment order after one
year or on completion of 240 days' work in a calendar years
but despite completion of several years of continuous
satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days'
work in each year he was not regularized, instead terminated
and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the 1st
Party-Management without any written communication or
payment of compensation. The 1st Party-Management in
refusing employment to him violated all principles of natural
justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought the
matter into the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. of the State
Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing nothing,
he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional, Labour
Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated 29-10-2007.
Conciliation proceedings were started, but they failed and
thereupon a failure report was submitted to the Government
and the Government made the present reference. He is thus
entitled to get full back wages and reinstatement with
continuity of service with effect from 30-9-2004.
3. The 1st Party-Management in its reply through
written statement has stated that the present dispute is
misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party-
workman had already raised a similar dispute along with
124 other workers through the State Bank of India
Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar
challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st
Party-Management. In the said dispute the failure report
was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),
Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn referred
the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is
pending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007.
The name of the 2nd Party-workman is appearing at Sl. No.
50 in Annexure-A to the said reference. Thus, raising a
common dispute for same cause of action and again raising
individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an abuse
of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of
litigation. The Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) while
conciliating the individual disputes disregarded the
direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) not to take any further action on the separate
disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of
action. The allegation of the 2nd Party-workman that he
had joined the Bank on 1-3-1980 and he was discontinued
from service on 30-9-2004 is not correct. He was engaged
intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to
exigencies of work. It is further denied that he was
performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty and to
the best of satisfaction of the Authority. The 2nd Party-
workman has never completed several years of continuous
service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 days of
continuous service in any calendar year preceding the date
of his alleged termination. In order to give an opportunity
for permanent absorption to the ex-temporary employees/
daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various settlements
entered into between the All India State Bank of India Staff
Federation and the Management of the State Bank of India
all eligible persons were called for interview. The 2nd
Party-workman was also called for an interview along with
other eligible persons in the year 1990 and 1993. As he was
not found successful in the said interview he could not be
appointed in the Bank. The Union or the 2nd Party-
workman has never challenged the implementation of the
settlement which has now gained finality. It is further
submitted that some of the waitlisted candidates, who could
not be absorbed in the Bank's service due to expiry of the
panel on 31st March, 1997 filed Writ Petitions before the
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon’le High Court of
Orissa by a common order dated 15-5-1998 passed in O.J.C.
No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions and
upheld the action of the Management of the Bank. This
order of the Hon'ble High Court was also upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC-3082/1999.
Hence the above matter has attained finality and cannot be
re-agitated. Since the services of Sri Barik were terminated
after the penal lapsed on 31-3-1997 his claim has become
stale by raising the dispute after lapse of a period of 10
years. It is a settled principle of law that delay destroys the
right to remedy. Thus raising the present dispute after 10
years of alleged termination is liable to be rejected.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed :—
ISSUES
1. Whether the present reference of the individual
workman during the pendency of the I.D. Case
No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue
is legal and justified?
2. Whether the workman has worked for more than
240 days as enumerated under Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act?
3. Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in
terminating the services of Shri Braja Bandhu Barik
with effect from 30-9-2004 without complying the
provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and
justified?
4. To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?
5. The 2nd Party-workman despite giving sufficient
opportunity did not produce any evidence either oral or
documentary in support of his claim and willingly kept
himself out of the proceedings at the stage of evidence by
absenting himself or his Union representative.
6. The 1 st Party-Management has adduced the oral
evidence of Shri W.V. Lakshman Rao as M.W.-1 and filed
documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-J in refutation of the
claim of the 2nd Party-workman.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4629
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1
7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party-
Management that a group of 125 employees including the
2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in
I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same relief
which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as referred
to in I.D. Case No.7/2007 is given below for comparison
with the dispute in the present case —
Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not
considering the case of 125 workmen whose
details are in Annexure-A for re-employment as
per Section 25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?
.
8. The name of the 2nd Party-workman appears at Sl.
No. 50 in Annexure-A to the above reference. In both the
cases the matter of disengagement or so called
retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the
other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-
employment. But challenge has been made more specifically
against the termination of service of the 2nd Party-workman
in the present case while in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 prayer has
been made with regard to consideration of the case of 125
workmen for re-employment as per Section 25-H of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, in the latter case the
workmen have submitted or virtually surrendered to their
cessation of employment or alleged termination, whereas
in the present case they have challenged their termination
on facts and law. Virtually in the present case validity and
legality of the alleged termination has to be tested at the
alter of facts and legal propositions. Therefore it cannot be
said that issues involved in both the cases are same. This
case can proceed despite pendency of I.D. Case No.
7/2007 and the present reference by the individual workman
pending for adjudication is maintainable being legal and
justified. This issue is therefore decided in the affirmative
and against the 1st Party-Management.
ISSUE NO. 2
9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman
has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service
during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date
of his alleged termination or disengagement from service
lies on him, but the 2nd Party-workman has not adduced
any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his
contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim
that he was appointed in the month of February, 1989 and
worked till 30-9-2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis,
but he has not filed any certificate or reliable document
showing the break-up of year-wise service rendered by
him under the 1st Party-Management during the above
period. The 1st Party-Management, on the other hand, has
alleged that “The 2nd Party-workman was engaged
intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to
exigencies of work and he had never completed 240 days
continuous service in a calendar year. M.W.-l Shri W.V.
Lakshman Rao in his statement before the Court has stated
that “the disputant was working intermittently for few days
in our branch on daily wage basis in exigencies. . . . He had
not completed 240 days of continuous and uninterrupted
service preceding the alleged date of the termination”. He
has denied the allegation that the workman was
discontinued with effect from 30-9-2004, but stated that
“In-fact the workman left working in the Branch after 1993”.
The 2nd Party-workman has to disprove the evidence led
by the 1st Party-Management, but he has not come before
the Court to give evidence. A temporary or daily wage
worker has no right to claim reinstatement and particularly
when such an employee had not worked for 240 days
continuously during a period of 12 calendar months
preceding the date of his so-called tennination. Thus he is
not entitled to get benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is hereby decided against
the 2nd Party-workman for failing to prove that he had
worked for 240 days continously during a period of 12
calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement
or alleged termination from service.
ISSUE NO. 3
10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove
that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under
the 1st Party-Management during a period of 12 calendar
months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged
termination, he is not entitled for re-employment even in
case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination.
Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/daily wage
employee. His services can be terminated at any time
without assigning any cause by the 1st Party-Management.
He has no legal right to be retained in service for the
extended period, if he was appointed for a certain period or
when no time is specified. The 2nd Party-workman has not
filed any letter of appointment or proof of having rendered
service under the 1st Party-Management for a specified
period against a regular post. The 1st Party-Management
has further alleged that in time of exigencies only the 2nd
Party-workman was employed. It means that with the end
of exigencies his job also came to an end. In view of the
matter the action of the management of State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of
Sri Braja Bandhu Barik with effect from the alleged date of
his termination is fair, legal and justified. This issue is
accordingly decided in the affirmative and against the 2nd
Party-workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
11. In view of the findings recorded above under
Issues No.2 and 3 the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled to
any relief whatsoever claimed.
12. Reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
4630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1960-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/z izns'k
xzkeh.k fodkl cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
41@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&5&2012
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@37@2008&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º
jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2012
S.O. 1960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra
Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank and their workman, received
by the Central Government on 16-5-2012.
[No. L-12011/37/2008-IR(B-I)]
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of March, 2012
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 41/2009
Between:
The General Secretary,
Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank
Workers Organization,
Central Office : 5-6-44,
Meher Kuteer, Punyapu Street,
Srikakulam - 532001.
. . . .Petitioner
AND
The Chairman,
Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank,
Head Office, D. No. 2/739/l-3,
1st floor, Old Bus Depot, Ramnagar,
Hanmakonda - 506001.
. . . .Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
Representative
For the Respondent :
Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-12011/37/2008-IR(B-I) dated 18-9-2009 referred
the following dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank and
their workmen. The reference is.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Andhra Pradesh
Grameena Vikas Bank Workers Organization,
Srikakulam for payment of Daftary Allowance to
S/Sri V. Enduvadu, B. Vasudeva Rao, K.K.M.
Swamy and M. Appala Naidi, Messenger-cum-
Sweepers by the management of Andhra Pradesh
Grameena Vikas Bank, is legal and justified? If so,
what relief are the applicants concerned entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 41/2009 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner called absent on the date of hearing
fixed for filing of documents mentioned in claim statement.
Management representative present. Petitioner has not
filed documents even after direction of this Tribunal as
such, the case is dismissed in absence of Petitioner and
non-compliance of order dated 10-2-2012. Hence, reference
is answered in negative. Accordingly a ‘Nil’ Award is
passed, Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant
transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 21st
day of March, 2012.
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Witnesses examined for
for the Petitioner
the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 ebZ] 2012
dk-vk- 1961-µdsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
/kjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eas
vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa
dks bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV]
vf/lwpuk ds tkjh fd, tkus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds
fy, ykxw jgsxhA
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr~ %µ
(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gS] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk, tk,axs_
(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu
,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl
vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ
lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gSa_
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 9] 2012@T;s"B 19] 1934
4631
(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,
tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_
(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e
(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS) izorZeku
Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr
nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 ds
v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha_
(5) fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk 45
dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ fujh{kd
;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU; in/kjh_
(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/ dh
ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir
djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok
(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;
chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj
vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x, Fks ;k ugha_
;k
(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd }kjk fn, x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds iQyLo:i
bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa
vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_
;k
(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/ ds
nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e ds
mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu fd;k
x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr
gksxk %µ
(d) iz/ku ;k vkl fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd og
mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd ;k
vU; in/kjh vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok
([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vkl fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu]
fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj
esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj
mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa
ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls
ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k
vU; in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh
ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d
le>rs gSa_ ;k
(x) iz/ku vkl fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdÙkkZ ;k
lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls
dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa
ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k
gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k
(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj
esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;
nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_
(Ä) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks
tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh
vuqefr ysuh gksxhA
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkiuk@dkj[kkus dk uke
la[;k
1-
eSllZ ch-bZ-,e-,y- fyfeVsM] caxyq# (lHkh bdkb;ka)
2-
eSllZ bZiQdks fy-] ubZ fnYyh (lHkh bdkb;ka@dk;kZy;)
¹la- ,l&38014@13@2011&,l,l&Iº
ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2012
S.O. 1961.—In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/
establishments specified in the schedule from the operation
of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective from the
date of issue of this Notification for a period of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely :—
(1)
The aforesaid establishments wherein the
employees are employed shall maintain a register
showing the name and designations of the
exempted employees' ;
(2)
Not withstanding this exemption, the employees
shall continue to receive such benefits under the
said Act to which they might have become entitled
to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to
the date from which exemption granted by this
notification operates;
(3)
The contributions for the exempted period, if
already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4)
The employer of the said factory/establishment
shall submit in respect of the period during which
that factory was subject to the operation of the
said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),
such returns in such forms and containing such
particulars as were due from it in respect of the
said period under the Employees' State Insurance
(General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
Any Social Security Officer appointed by the
Corporation under Sub-section (1) of Section 45
of the said ESI Act or other official of the
Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,
for the purpose of :—
4632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 9, 2012/JYAISTHA 19, 1934
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
Verifying the particulars contained in any
returned submitted under sub-section (1)
of Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii)
Ascertaining whether registers and records
were maintained as required by the
Employees' State Insurance (General)
Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii)
Ascertaining whether the employees
continue to be entitled to benefits provided
by the employer in cash and kind being
benefits in consideration of which
exemption is being granted under this
notification; or
(iv)
Ascertaining whether any of the provisions
of the Act had been complied with during
the period when such provisions were in
force in relation to the said factory to be
empowered to:
(a) require the principal or immediate
employer to him such information as he
may consider necessary for the purpose
of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,
establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate
employer at any reasonable time and
require any person found in charge
thereof to produce to such inspector or
other official and allow him to examine
accounts, books and other documents
relating to the employment of personal
and payment of wages or to furnish to
him such information as he may consider
necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate
employer, his agent or servant, or any
person found in such factory,
establishment, office or other premises
or any person whom the said inspector
or other official has reasonable cause to
believe to have been an employee; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any
register, account book or other document
maintained in such factory, establish-
ment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other powers as may be
prescribed.
6. In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the
exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled
and then the new entity will have to approach the
appropriate Government for exemption.
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Name of the Establishment/Factory
No.
1.
M/s. B.E.M.L. Limited, Bangalore (All Units)
2.
M/s. IFFCO Ltd., New Delhi (All Units/Offices)
[No. S-38014/13/2011-SS-I]
NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.