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.