This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली, जून 17 जून23 , 2012 , शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 27-आषाढ़ 2 , 1934 NEW DELHI , JUNE 17 -JUNE 23 , 2012 , SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 27- ASADHA 2, 1934 सं. 25] No. 251

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

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

भाग ।। - खण्ड -उप - खण्ड ( ii) PART 11-Section 3-Sub - section ( ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय

(विधि कार्य विभाग )

शुद्धि-पत्र

May, 2012 accepting resignation of Shri Vivek K. Tankha , Senior Advocate as Additional Solicitor General of India (Direct Taxes) in the Supreme Court w.e.f. 11-4-2012 , the date of acceptance of resignation may be read as 16-4- 2012, instead of 11-4-2012.

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2012

[No. F. 18 (5)/2009-Judl . SURESH CHANDRA, Jt . Secy. and Legal Adviser

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 12 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2048. भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय में भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर ( प्रत्यक्ष कर ) के पद से श्री विवेक के. तन्खा, वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता का तारीख 11-4-2012 से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार किए जाने के बारे में जारी की गई इस विभाग की तारीख 30 मई , 2012 की अधिसूचना सं. एफ. 18 ( 5 )/2009 न्यायिक में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए , त्यागपत्र स्वीकार किए जाने की तारीख 11-4-2012 के स्थान पर 16-4-2012 पढ़ी जाए।

[सं. एफ. 18 (5 )/2009-न्यायिक ] सुरेश चन्द्र, संयुक्त सचिव एवं विधि सलाहकार

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs )

CORRIGENDUM

का.आ. 2049.-बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत सरकार , भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर , एतद्द्वारा , घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उप- खण्ड ( झ ) के उपबंध ओरियंटल बैंक आफ कामर्स पर लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक श्री एस. एल. बंसल के केनरा एचएसबीसी ओग्यिंटल बैंक ऑफ कामर्स लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड के बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष (गैर कार्यपालक ) के रूप में नामिद होने से है।

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2012

[फा. सं. 13/2/2012- बीओ 11 विजय मल्होत्रा , अदर सचिव S.O. 2048. -In partial modification of this Department's Notification F.No. 18 (5)/2009 - Judl . , dated 30th

(5023 )

2081 G1/2012 5024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi , the 12th June , 2012

S.O. 2051. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (b) ofsub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the National Housing BankAct, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons to be the directors on the Board ofDirectors of National Housing Bank (NHB) for a period of three years with effect from the date of issue of thisnotification:

(i) Dr. Santosh Chandra Panda, Expert-Economics , Prof. of Economics , Delhi School of Economic and ED , Centre for Dev. Economics , Delhi School ofEconomics .

S.O. 2049. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 ofthe Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions ofsub -clause (i ) of clause (c) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Oriental Bank of Commerce in so far as it relates to the nomination of Shri S.L. Bansal , Chairman and Managing Director of the bank as a nominee director ( non - executive ) on Board of Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

[F. No. 13 /2/2012-BO- I ] VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 13 जून , 2012

(ii) Dr. Neelima Risbud, Head Dept. of HousingCo- ordinator , National Resource Centre , Ministry of HousingandUrban PovertyAlleviation, New Delhi--- [F. No. 24/17/2010- IF- 11 ]

RAMAN KUMAR GAUR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2012 का.आ. 2050.-भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 की धारा 8 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के साथ पठित उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , डॉ. के. सी. चक्रबर्ती ( जन्म तिथि: 27-6-1952 ) को 14 जून, 2012 के बाद तीन महीने की आगामी अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के उप - गवर्नर के रूप में पुनर्नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 7/ 1/2012 - बीओ -1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th June , 2012

का.आ. 2052.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप - खंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा (3 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्वारा , बैंक आफ महाराष्ट्र के. महाप्रबंधक श्री एस. डी. आर्य ( जन्म तिथि : 25-9-1956 ) को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-9-2016 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , युनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2011-बीओ-1 | विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव S.O. 2050. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) read with sub - section (4) of Section 8 ofthe Reserve Bank of IndiaAct, 1934, the Central Government hereby re - appoints Dr. K.C. Chakraborty (DoB: 27-6-1952), as Deputy Governor , Reserve Bank of India for a further period of three months beyond 14th June, 2012 or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

New Delhi , the 18th June , 2012 [ F. No. 7/ 1 /2012-BO- I ] VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2051 .-- राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम , 1987 (1987 का53 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार ,एतद्वारा , इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक ( एनएचबी ) के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :-

S.O. 2052. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3 ) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri S.D. Arya (DoB: 25-9-1956) , General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra asExecutive Director, United Bank of India, with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post till 30-9-2016, i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

( i ) डॉ. संतोष चन्द्र पाण्डा, विशेषज्ञ अर्थशास्त्री , प्रोफेसर , अर्थशास्त्र, दिल्ली, स्कूल ऑफ इकोनॉमिक्स और कार्यकारी निदेशक , सेंटर फॉर डेव. इकोनॉमिक्स, दिल्ली स्कूल ऑफ इकोनॉमिक्स।

[ F. No. 4 /5 /2011 -BO-I ]

VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 18 जून , 2012.

( ii ) डॉ. नीलिमा रिस्बद , अध्यक्ष , हाउसिंग कोआर्डिनेटर विभाग , राष्ट्रीय संसाधन केन्द्र आवास एवं शहरी गरीबी उन्मूलन मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली।

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

का.आ. 2053.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप - खंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप-खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन 5025

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

asExecutive Director, Bank of India, with effect from the date ofhis taking over charge ofthe post till 31-7-2016 , i.c. the date of his superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 4 /5 /2011 -BO-I ] VIJAYMALHOTRA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2012

एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात , एतद्वारा , आन्ध्रा बैंक के महाप्रबंधक श्री पी. श्रीनिवास ( जन्म तिथि : 10-6-1956 ) को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-6-2016 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

? [फा. सं. 4/5/2011 - बीओ -1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th June, 2012

का.आ. 2055.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप-खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खंड (क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात , एतद्वारा , देना बैंक के महाप्रबंधक श्री साधु राम बंसल ( जन्म तिथि : 3-1-1956) कोउनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-1-2016 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2011- बीओ -1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th June , 2012

S.O. 2053. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section (3 ) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri P. Srinivas (DoB : 10-6-1956) , General Manager , Andhra Bank as Executive Director, Bank of Baroda, with effect from the date ofhis taking over charge of the post till 30-6-2016, i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5 /2011 -BO- I ] VIJAYMALHOTRA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 18 जून , 2012

S.O. 2055.--In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section (3 ) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal (DoB : 3-1-1956), General Manager , Dena Bank asExecutive Director, Punjab National Bank , with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post till 31-1-2016 , i.e. the date ofhis superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[ F. No. 4/5/2011 -BO-1 ] VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2054.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप -खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात , एतद्वद्वारा , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के महाप्रबंधक श्री बी. पी. शर्मा ( जन्म तिथि 1-8-1956 ) को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-8-2016 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख तक़ अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2011 - बीओ-1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th June , 2012

का.आ. 2056. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड के उप- खंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बबैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1 :980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात , एतद्द्वारा , देना बैंक के महाप्रबंधक श्री सुधीर कुमार जैन ( जन्म तिथि: 21-7-1960 ) को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[ का. सं. 4/5/2011 - बीओ ।। fवजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव S.O. 2054. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings)Act, 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank ofIndia, hereby appoints Shri B. P. Sharma (DoB: 1-8-1956) , General Manager, Punjab National Bank 5026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

New Delhi, the 18th June,2012

कार्पोरेशन बैंक के महाप्रबंधक श्री के . रामदास शेनॉय (जन्म तिथि 31-10-1955 ) को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-10-2015 तक अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने कीतारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , विजया बैंक के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2011- बीओ -1 ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th June , 2012 SO. 2056. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 3) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings )Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain(DoB:21-7-1960), General Manager, DenaBank asExecutive Director, Bank of Baroda, with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post for a period of five years , or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 4/5 /2011 -BO-I ]

VIJAYMALHOTRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2012

S.O. 2058. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings )Act, 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri K. Ramadas Shenoy(DoB:31-10-1955 ) , General Manager , Corporation Bank as Executive Director, Vijaya Bank , with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post till 31-10-2015 , i.e. the date of his superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2011 -BO- I ] VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

अन्तरिक्ष विभाग

बैंगलूर , 11 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2057.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप-खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा (3 ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात , एतद्वारा , बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के महाप्रबंधक श्री अरुण तिवारी ( जन्म तिथि 1-7-1957) को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , इलाहाबाद बैंक के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2011- बीओ -1 ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th June, 2012

का.आ. 2059. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अन्तरिक्ष विभाग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयं , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है।

1. अमोनियम परक्लोरेट परीक्षणात्मक संयंत्र ( एपीईपी ) , आलुवा-683112

2. इसरो जडत्वीय प्रणाली यूनिट ( आईआईएसयू) तिरुवनन्तपुरम -695013

[फा. सं. 8/1/10/201 । हिं.।

एन. पट्टाभि रामन , अवर सचिव

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore , the 11th June , 2012 S.O. 2057. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub-section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies(Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings)Act, 1970/1980 read with sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Arun Tiwari (DoB: 1-7-1957), General Manager, Bank of Baroda as Executive Director , Allahabad Bank with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post for a period of five years , or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5 /2011 -BO- I ]

VIJAYMALHOTRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2012

S.O. 2059. In pursuance of Sub- rule ( 4) ofthe Rule 10. of the Official Language ( use for official purpose of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government , hereby notifies the following Offices of the Department of Space , whereof more than 80 percent staff have acquared the working knowledge of Hindi .

1. Amonium Perchlorate Experimental Plant (APEP),

Aluva-683 112

2. ISRO Inertial Systems Unit (IISU ) Thiruvananthapuram -695013

का.आ. 2058. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1940 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक से पामर्श करने के पश्चात , एतद्वारा ,

[F. No. 8/ 1 / 10/2011-11 ] N. PATTABHI RAMAN, Under Secy.

5027 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग)

dated the 20th December 1965 , prior to export of said minerals and ores at Goa , subject to the following conditions , namely :-

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2012

(i) M/ s . Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, No. 02 & 03 , First Floor, Classic Building , Opposite Ricone Hotel , Vasco-da -Gama, Goa-403802, shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine themethod of inspection followed by them in granting the" Certificate of Inspection " under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I ( Inspection ) Rules, 1965;

(ii) M/s . Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation , No. 02 & 03 , First Floor , Classic Building , Opposite Ricone Hotel , Vasco -da-Gama , Goa -403802 , in the performance oftheir function under this notification shall be boundsby such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ) may give in writing from time to time.

का.आ. 2060.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स थैराप्यूटिक्स केमिकल रिसर्च कार्पोरेशन , नं. 02-03 , प्रथम तल , क्लासिक बिल्डिंग ,अपोजिट रायकोन होटल , बास्को-दा -गामा , गोवा-403802 को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक, का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिजों तथा अयस्कों ग्रुप -1 अर्थात् लौह अयस्क और मैगनीज अयस्क, मैगनीज डाइआक्साइड को छोड़कर उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों के निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन गोवा में, निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है, अर्थात्:-

[F. No. 4/13/2011 -Export Inspection ]

D. S. DHESI , Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2012

( i ) मैसर्स थेराप्यूटिक्स केमिकल रिसर्च कार्पोरेशन , नं. 02-03 , प्रथम तल , क्लासिक बिल्डिंग , अपोजिट रायकोन होटल , वास्को-दा-गामा, गोवा-403802 खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप -1 (निरीक्षण) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाणपत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति परीक्षण करने के लिए , इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामित अधिकारियों को प्रर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी ,

(ii ) मैसर्स थैराप्यूटिक्स केमिकल रिसर्च कार्पोरेशन, नं. 02-03 , प्रथम तल , क्लासिक बिल्डिंग , अपोजिट रायकोन होटल , वास्को-दा- गामा, गोवा-403802 इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।

[फा. सं. 4/13/2011-निर्यात निरीक्षण ]

डी. एस. ढेसी , संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department ofCommerce)

का.आ. 2061. केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के साथ पठित निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, " मैरीन आफिस काम्पलेक्स" मोहसिन इस्टेट ,ऊपरी मंजिल , डी नं. 23-3-6,75 फीट रोड ( पुराना बस स्टैंड के निकट) विशाखापत्तनम-530001 , को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक , का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में यथाविनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क समूह । , अर्थात् लौह अयस्क, मैंगनीज अयस्क और फैरोमैंगनीज का निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए विशाखापत्तनम में उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है , अर्थात्:-

New Delhi , the 8th June, 2012

( i ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, " मैरीन आफिस काम्पलेक्स" मोहसिन इस्टेट ,ऊपरी मंजिल , डी नं. 23-3-6 , 75 फीट रोड ( पुराना बस स्टैंड के निकट ) विशाखा- पत्तनम-530001 , खनिज और अयस्क समूह 1 का निर्यात (निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाणपत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण पद्धति का परीक्षण करने के लिए , इस निमित्त निर्याव निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्देशित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और

S.O. 2060. In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ), read with sub- rule (2) ofrule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises , M/ sTherapeutics Chemical Research Corporation, located at No. 02 & 03 , First Floor, Classic Building, Opposite RiconeHotel , Vasco- da-Gama, Goa-403802, as an Agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification , for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group- I , namely, Iron Ore and Manganese ore excluding Manganese Dioxide , specified in the Schedule annexed to theMinistry of Commerce notification number S.O. 3975

(ii ) मैसर्स मित्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, " मैरीन आफिस काम्पलेक्स" मोहसिन इस्टेट, ऊपरी मंजिल , डी नं. 23-3-6 , 75 फीट रोड ( पुराना बस स्टैंड के निकट ) 5028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

विशाखापत्तनम -530001 , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में ऐसे निर्देशों से आबद्ध होगी जो , निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं ।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2012-निर्यात निरीक्षण

कालावधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क, ग्रुप -1 अर्थात्लौह अयस्क के निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कोंका नालदा में, निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है , अर्थात्: -

डी. एस. ढेसी, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2012

(i ) यह कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड , नालदा , क्योंझार , उड़ीसा 758042 खनिजों और अयस्कों, समूह -1 का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन उनके द्वारा अनुरक्षण की गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति का परीक्षण करने के लिए , इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और

( ii ) यह कि मैसर्स सुपरिंटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट) लिमिटेड , नालदा , क्योंझार , उड़ीसा 758042 , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) द्वारा समय -समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगी।

[फा. सं. 4/6/2012 निर्यात निरीक्षण ] $.O. 2061. -In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ), read with rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M /s Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd. located at Mohsin Estates , Top Floor , ' Marine OfficeComplex', Door No. 23-3-6, 75 Feet Road (Near Old Bus Stand), Visakhapatnam - 530 001 , as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group- I , namely, Iron Ore , Manganese Ore and Ferro Manganese , specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam , subject to thefollowing conditions, namely:---

डी. एस. ढेसी, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2012 (i ) that. M/s Mitra S.K. Pvt . Ltd. , Mohsin Estates, Top Floor; 'MarineOffice Complex' , Door No. 23-3-6, 75 FeetRoad (Near Old Bus Stand), Visakhapatnam - 530 001 , shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores , Group- 1 ( Inspection) Rules , 1965 ; and

( ii ) that M /s Mitra S.K. Pvt . Ltd. , Mohsin Estates , Top Floor, 'Marine Office Complex' , Door No. 23-3-6 , 75 Feet Road (Near Old Bus Stand), Visakhapatnam - 530 001, in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directions as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

S.O. 2062. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Contro! and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub- rulc (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M/sSuperintendence Company of India ( Private ) Ltd. , P.O. Nalda, Keonjhar , Odisha- 758042, as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazatte , for the inspection of Minerals andOres Group - I , namely, Iron Ore , specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce , number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965 , prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Nalda, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

[ F. No. 4/2/2012 -Export Inspection]

D. S. DHESI , Jt . Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2062. केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण

(i ) thatM/ s Superintendence Company of India ( P) Ltd., P.O. Nalda, Keonjhar , Odisha - 758 042 , shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the ExportInspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores, Group - I ( Inspection ) Rules , 1965; and

(ii ) ,that M/ s Superintendence Company of India ( P ) Ltd. , P.O. Nalda , Keonjhar, Odisha- 758 042 , in the performance of their function under this notification और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963का 22) 'की धारा 7 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड, पी.ओ. नालदा , जिला क्योंझार ,उड़ीसा -758042 को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की 5029

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

shall be bound by such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council maygive in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 4/6/2012 -Export Inspection ]

annexed to the notification of the Government of India in theMinistry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20thDecember, 1965 , prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam , subject to the following conditions , namely:-

D. S. DHESI , Jt . Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 8 जून , 2012

(i) that M/s Italab Private Limited, " Sai Sadhan " , 24-3-6. Main Road, Near Old Post Office , Visakha- patnam - 530 001 shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followedby them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores , Group - I (Inspection) Rules , 1965 ; and

(ii) that M/s Italab Private Limited, " Sai Sadhan " , 24-3-6, Main Road , Near Old Post Office , Visakha- patnam- 530001 , in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directions as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time .

का.आ. 2063. केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स ईटालैब प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, " साईं सदन " , 24-3-6, मेन रोड, पुराने पोस्ट आफिस के निकट , विशाखा- पत्तनम-530001 को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क समूह -1 , अर्थात् लौह अयस्क के निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का विशाखापत्तनम में, निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्:-

[F. No. 4/ 1 /2012 - Export Inspection ] D. S. DHESI , Jt . Secy.

वस्त्र मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2064.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए राजभाषा नियम , 1976 के नियम 100 के उपनियम 4 के अनुसरण में , वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है :

( i ) मैसर्स ईटालैब प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, ' साईं सदन " , 24-3-6, मेन रोड , पुराने पोस्ट ऑफिस के निकट , विशाखा- पत्तनम -530001 खनिजों और अयस्कों, समूह । का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाणपत्र अनुदत्त करने के लिए उनके द्वारा अनुसरण की गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति का परीक्षण करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगा; और

1. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , राष्ट्रीय हथकरघा विकास निगम लिमिटेड , नं. 30/38 प्लाट नं. 6 , टी एन यू डी पी कालोनी गांधी , मानगर, पीलामेडू पोस्ट कोयम्बटूर 641004 ( तमिलनाडु ) ।

[सं. ई-11016/1/2011 - हिन्दी । सुनयना तोमर , संयुक्त सचिव ( ii ) मैसर्स ईटालैब प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , ' साईं सदन " , 24-3-6 , मेन रोड , पुराने पोस्ट ऑफिस के निकट , विशाखापत्तनम-530001 , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में ऐसे निर्देशों द्वारा आबद्ध होगा जो , निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय-समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं।

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES New Delhi , the 11th June , 2012

[फा. सं. 4/1 /2012- निर्यात निरीक्षण ]

डी. एस. ढेसी, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2012

S.O. 2064.- In pursuance of sub - rule ( 4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for the official purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government , hereby. notifies the following office of the Ministry of Textiles , more than 80 % staff whereof have acquired working knowledge ofHindi :

1. Regional Office , National Hindloom Development Corporation Ltd. , No.30/38 lot No.6, TN UDP- Colony Gandhi , Maanagar Pilamedu Post Coimbatore-641 004 (Tamil Nadu) .

[No. E- 11016/1 /2011- Hindi SUNAINA TOMAR . Jt . Secy.

S.O. 2063. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M / s Italab Private Limited located at " Sai Sadhan " , 24-3-6 , Main Road , Near Old Post Office , Visakhapatnam - 530001 , as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification , for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group - I , namely, Iron Ore , specified in the Schedule 5030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART I-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नईदिल्ली, 8 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2065.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 9299 ( भाग1 ) : 1979

8 6 2012 1 . आई एस/आई ई सी 60371-1 : 2003 अभ्रक आधारित उष्मारोधी सामग्री की विशिष्टि- भाग -1 : परिभाषाएँ और सामान्य अपेक्षाएँ [ आई एस 9299 ( भाग 1 ) का प्रथम पुनरीक्षण ]

8 6 2012

आई एस 9299 ( भाग 3/अनुभाग 1 ): 1979

2. आई एस/ आई ई सी 60371-3-1: 2006 अभ्रक आधारित उष्मारोधी सामग्री की विशिष्टि भाग -3: एकल सामग्री की विशिष्टि शीट । दिकपरिर्वतक विलगंनक और सामग्री [ आई एस 9299 ( भाग 3 / अनुभाग । ) का प्रथम पुनरीक्षण ।

8 6 2012 3. आई एस/ आई ई सी 60371-3-4: 1992 अभ्रक आधारित उष्मारोधी सामग्री की विशिष्टि- भाग-3: एकल सामग्री की विशिष्टि- शीट 4 बी स्टेज ऍपाक्सी रेजिन बाइंडर सहित पोलीस्टर फिल्म पृष्ठित अभ्रक पेपर

आई एस 9299 ( भाग 3/अनुभाग 6 ) : 1993 8 6 2012 4. आई एस/ आई ई सी 60371-3-6: 1992 अभ्रक आधारित उष्मारोधी सामग्री की विशिष्टि- भाग-3: एकल सामग्री की विशिष्टि- शीट 6 बी स्टेज ऍपाक्सी रेजिन बाइंडर सहित काँच पृष्ठित अभ्रक पेपर

आई एस 9299 ( भाग 3/अनुभाग 3 ) : 1982 8 6 2012

आई एस 9299 ( भाग 3 /अनुभाग 5 ): 1992

5. अभ्रक आधारित उष्मारोधी सामग्री की विशिष्टि भाग-3 एकल सामग्री की विशिष्टि- शीट 7 एकल चालक टेपिंग के लिए ऍपाक्सी रेजिन बाइंडर सहित पोलीस्टर फिल्म अभ्रक पेपर [आई एस 9299 ( भाग 3/अनुभाग 7 ) का प्रथम पुनरीक्षण ]

8 6 2012 6. अभ्रक आधारित उष्मारोधी सामग्री की विशिष्टि भाग-3 एकल सामग्री की विशिष्टि- शीट 8 ज्वाला प्रतिरोधी सुरक्षा केबल के लिए अभ्रक पेपर टेप

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

[ संदर्भ : 02/टी-38 , टी -40 , टी-185 , टी 139 , टी -186 , टी 178 आर. के. त्रेहन, वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( बिद्युत तकनीकी) 5031 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS )

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2012

S. O. 2065. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, it ishereby notifies that these Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn :-

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl .No. No. & Year of the Indian Standards

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

8-6-2012

IS 9299 ( Part 1 ) : 1979 Insulating materials based on built-up mica ortreated mica paper : Part 1: Definitions and general requirements

1. IS/IEC 60371-1 : 2003 Specification for insulating materials based on mica-Part 1 : Definitions and general requirements

8-6-2012

2. IS/IEC 60371-3-1 : 2006 Specification for insulating materials based on mica- Part 3 : Specifications for individual materials Section 1 Commutator separators and materials

IS9299 ( Part 3 / Sec 1 ) : 1979 Insulating materials based on built- up mica or treated mica paper : Part 3 : Specifications for individual materials Section 1 Rigid mica material for commutator separators

8-6-2012

3. IS /IEC 60371-3-4 : 1992 Specification for insulating materials based on mica-Part 3: Specifications for individual materials Section 4 Polyester film -backed mica paper with a B - stage epoxy resin binder

8-6-2012

4. IS/IEC 60371-3-6 : 1992 Specification for insulating materials based on mica-Part 3 : Specifications for individual materials Section 6 : Glass- backed mica paper with a B - stage epoxy resin binder

IS 9299 ( Part 3 /Sec 6 ) : 1993 Insulating materials based on built -up mica or treated mica paper : Part 3: Specifications for individual materials Section 6 Glass - backed mica paper with a B - stage epoxy resin bond

8-6-2012

IS 9299(Part 3 / Sec 3 ) : 1982 Insulating

materials based on built- up mica

or treated mica paper : Part 3:

Specifications for individual materials

Section 3 flexible mica flake tape for

insulation of electrical machines

5. IS/IEC 60371-3-7 : 1995 Specification for insulating materials based on mica -Part 3 : Specifications for individual materials Section 7 Polyester film mica paper with an epoxy resin binder for single conductor taping

IS9299 (Part 3 / Sec 5) : 1992 Insulating materials based on built - up mica ortreated mica paper : Part 3 Specifications for individual materials Section 5 flexible mica materials in sheet form

8-6-2012

6. IS /IEC 60371-3-8 : 1995 Specification for insulating materials based on mica-Part 3 : Specifications for individual materials Section 8 : Mica paper tapes for flame- resistant security cables

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

2081GI /12-2 5032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

[ PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bengalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref : ET 02/T- 38 , T-40, T- 185 , T- 139, T- 186 , T-1781

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

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2066. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

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

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

(1)

(2):

(3)

(4)

31 मई , 2012 आई एस 16019 : 2012 खाद्य रिटेल प्रबन्ध- आधारभूत अपेक्षाएं

31 मई, 2012 आई एस 16020 : 2012 खाद्य सुरक्षा प्रबन्ध- बेहतर स्वच्छता रीतियों की अपेक्षाएं

31 मई , 2012 आई एस 16021 : 2012 बेहतर उत्पादन की रीतियां (जी एम पी ) खाद्य प्रसंस्करण क्षेत्र में संगठन की अपेक्षाएं

इन भारतीय मानक (कों) की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , ५ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ : एफएडी/जी-128 ]

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

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2012

S. O. 2066. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :--

SCHEDULE

Sl .No.

No. and Year of

Date of Established No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards Established

Indian Standards , if

any, Superseded by theNew Indian Standards

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31May, 2012

1. IS 16019 : 2012 Food Retail Management- Basic Requirements

31May, 2012

2. IS 16020 : 2012 Food Safety Management- Requirements for Good Hygiene Practices

31 May, 2012

3. IS 16021 : 2012 Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)- Requirements For Organizations in the Food Processing Sector

Copy of these standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai 5033

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bengalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: FAD/G-128]

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

नई दिल्ली , 12 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2067.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

वर्ष

भाग खण्ड

भामा.सं.

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं.

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

(9)

(8)

(7)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1983

9537

विद्युत संस्थापनों के

11-5-2012

3830157

1 .

लिए नलिकाएं : भाग

3 विद्युत रोधी सामग्री

के दृढ सादी नलिकाएं

प्रिसिजन यूपीवीसी मोल्डर्स प्रा.लि. सर्वे सं. 441/5,442/ 1 एवं 2 444/1 एवं2, विलेज : दावेल , नानी दमन दमन एवं दीव 396210

2008

11552

75 लीटर तक की

11-5-2012

3830258

क्षमता के द्रव

प्रिसाईज व्हॅक्युम सिस्टम प्रा.लि. एच-39 , एमआयडीसी , अंबड ,

नाइट्रोजन आधान

जिला : नासिक-422010

2003

277

जस्तीकृत इस्पात

18-5-2012 पोस्कोमहाराष्ट्रा स्टील प्रा. लि.

3832969

प्लॉट सं. सी -1 , विले बागड , कीचादरें ( सादी एवं नालीदार )

एमआयडीसी इण्ड. एरिया ,

मानगाँव ,

जिला : रायगढ़ 402106

1994

14182

अप्लास्टकित

किसान मोल्डिंग लिमिटेड

25-5-2012

3836472

पॉलीविनाइल

प्लॉट 63/1,64/1,70,71,72

क्लोराइड प्लास्टिक

विलेज : महागाँव , बोइसर ( पूर्व ) ,

तालुका : पालघर ,

उपयोग हेतु विलायक

जिला : थाने 401501

एवं फिटिंग के साथ सीमेंट

2006

15683

सुबाह्य अग्निशामक

सीओ2 फायर फायटर कं. ,

29-5-2012

3837979

निष्पादन और संरचना

एफ-220 , अटलास मिल्स

कंपाउण्ड,

रे रोड, मुंबई - 400010

[सं. केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 11 ]

डॉ. एस. एल . पालकर, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख प्रमाणन विभाग

New Delhi , the 12th June, 2012

S.O. 2067.-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 :-- 5034

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

SCHEDULE

GOL Date Licensee Name and Address SI . No.

CML No

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

3830157

11-5-2012

IsProduct

IS No. Part Sec . Year

(6)

(5)

(9)

(7) (8)

9537 3

1983 Conduits for Electrical

Precision UPVC Moluders Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 441/5 , 442/1 & 2,444/1 & 2, Village Dabel , Nani Daman , Daman & Diu 396210

2. 3830258 11-5-2012

Installations : Part3 RigidPlain conduits of instulating materials

11552

2008 LiquiedNitrogen Vessels of Capacity up to 75 Litres

Precise Vacuum Systems Pvt. Ltd. H- 39 , M.I.D.C. , Ambad Distt: Nashik 422010

3. 3832969

18-5-2012

277

2003 Galvanized Steel Sheets ( Plain and Corrugated)

Posco Maharashtra Steel Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. C - 1 , Vile Bhagad MIDC Ind . Area , Mangaon, Distt-Raigarh -402106

3836472

25-5-2012

14182

1994 SolventCement

for use with unplasti- cized Polyvinylchlo ride Plastic Pipes and Fittings

KisanMouding Limited Plot63/1 , 64/1 , 70 , 71 , 72 Village:Mahagaon , Boisar(E), Tal: Palghar, Distt : Thane 401501

5. 3837979 29-5-2012

15683

2006

CO2Fyr Fyter Co. , F-220 Atlas Mills Compound Reay Road , Mumbai -400010 Portable Extinguishers, Performance and Construction

[No. CMD/13:11 ]

Dr. S. L. PALKAR, Director & Head ( MDM - II )

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2068.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

( 1 ) (2)

(3)

(4)

1 . 6809787 20080402 आर्याज्वेलर्स

भामा.सं. भाग अनु. वर्ष भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(5)

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

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण

1999

451-405 , पोस्ट आफिस रोड करीम नगर -505001 आन्ध्रप्रदेश

2. 6809888 20080408 अम्बिका ज्वेलर्स 7-2-325 , पॉट मार्केट, अशोक नगर सिकंदराबाद - 500003 आन्ध्रप्रदेश मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन - विशिष्टि

1417

1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन- विशिष्टि 5035

भारत का राजपत्रं : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

20080417

6813071

(9)

(8)

(6)

(7)

(5)

1999

1417

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

चंदना रमेश ज्वेलर्स प्रा.लि. डोर नं. 18-1-501 से 509 , वी वी महल रोड , भवानी नगर , चित्तूर-517501 , तिरूपती आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080416

4. 6813980

1999

1417

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

कलानिकेतन सिल्कस प्रा.लि. डोर नं. 40-1-1 , एम जी रोड विजयवाडा कृष्णा जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080416

6814073

1999

1417

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

देवीज्वेलर्स एम आइ जी-15/24/238 , केपीहेचबीकालोनी मेसन रोड, रामदेव प्लाजा, कूकटपल्ली हैदराबाद-500072 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080614

6814174

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन विशिष्टि

चंदना ज्वेलर्स शॉप नं.12 , एएमसी कामप्लेक्स , रंगाचारी स्ट्रीट गवर्नरपेट , विजयवाडा-520002 कृष्णा जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080417

6814275

मस्ताना ज्वेलर्स 22-6-207 , पत्तरगटटी हैदराबाद-500002 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080416

6814376

1999

1417

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

1999

1417

साइ चरन ज्वेलर्स डोर नं.8-1533/ए , गांधी चौक सततेनपल्ली, गुंटूर -522403 आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080430

6818384

1999

1417

महालक्ष्मी ज्वेलर्स हा.नं. 4-1-305 , टावर सर्क्स करीमनगर -505001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080430

6818485

10.

1999

1417

मनोज ज्वेलर्स 7-1-58 , ग्राउन्ड फ्लोर , कॉनकर्स हाउस एस बी आइ के पाख , मेरिहडयन प्लाजा के सामने , आमीरपेट , हैदराबाद -500016 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20080430

6818687

11.

1999

1417

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

कीर्तीलाल कालीदास ज्वेलर्स प्रा. लि. 38-8-7 , दत्ता टावर्स , आल इंडिया रेडियो केसामने , एम जी रोड , विजयवाडा-520010 कृष्णा जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश 5036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6) (7)

(9)

(8 )

12. 6818889 20080430 ओमकार ज्वेलर्स

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण

1417

1999

27-23-114 , गोपाल रेडिड रोड गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाडा- 520002 कृष्णा जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

13.

20080430

6818990

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण

1999

मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन- विशिष्टि

सुरजभान एण्ड कं ज्वेलर्स शाप नं.बी 4, डोर नं.5-9-279. मयूर कुशाल कामप्लेक्स, गनफौन्ड्री, आबिड्स हैदराबाद, आन्ध्रप्रदेश

14. 6817786 20080416

1664

2002

पशु आहारों के संपूरक खनिज मिश्रण

नियास्पार्क ड्रग्स एण्ड केमिकल्स प्रा. लि. यूनिट- 11 , प्लाट नं. 64/बी, फेस 1 , आइडीए , जीडिमेट्ला हैदराबाद -500055 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

15. 6815782 20080424

2830

1992

कार्बन इस्पात के बिलेट ( मानक किस्म)

तिरूपति उद्योग लिमिटेड सर्वे नं. 142-156 , इन्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , 132 केविए सब स्टेशन केपास , कोतूर विलेज -509228 महबूबनगर जिल्ला, आन्ध्रप्रदेश

6817887

16.

20080416

1992

5672

कुक्कट आहार के संपूरक 'खनिज मिश्रण विशिष्ट

नियास्पार्क ड्रग्स एण्ड केमिकल्स प्रा. लि. यूनिट-11 , प्लाट नं.64/बी, फेस 1 , आइडीए , जीडिमेट्ला, हैदराबाद -500055 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

17. 681046920080403

9968 भाग ।

इलेस्टोमर रोधित केबल भाग: 1 1100 वो. तक कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए

रेडियन्ट केबल्स एडिविशन आफ रेडियन्ट कार्पोरेशन प्रा. लि. बी 1 , 2 , 4 एण्ड 6 , इण्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, संतनगर ,

18. 6817685 20080424

13488

1991

सिंचाई उपस्कर- उत्सर्जकी पाइप पद्धतियाँ

-हैदराबाद -500018 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश गोदावरी पॉलिमर्स प्रा. लि. 153 बी , सी , इ एण्ड एफ , फेस 2 , आइ डीए चेर्लापल्ली, हैदराबाद -500051 रंगा रेड्डि जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

19. 6812473 20080415

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

बीआरटी आक्वा प्रोडक्टस एण्डबीवरेजस सर्वे नं. 72 , कडतल विलेज अमन्गल मंडल , महबूब नगर आन्ध्रप्रदेश

20.

20080416

6814780

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

मित्रा मिनरल्स प्लाट नं. 3 , सर्वे नं.419 इ , कोडंगल रोड पर्गी मंडल , रंगा रेडिड-501501 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश 5037

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(8) ( 9)

(5)

(7)

(4)

(2)

(6)

(3)

(1)

2004

14543

6812978 20080417

21.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

चन्दना बींवरेजस सर्वे नं. 177 , प्लाट नं. 44/1 , अमीनपुर विलेज मियापुर , हैदराबाद-502032 मेदक जिला , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

2004

14543

6814881 20080416

22.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

श्री वेंकट लक्ष्मी साईं इन्डस्ट्रीज शंखवरम विलेज , प्रकाशम कनिगिरी मंडल , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

2004

14543

6815883 20080417

23.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

तिरूमला इन्डस्ट्रीज हा. नं. 5-77/4 , साईं गणेश नगर कालोनी , कायीबुग्गा , एनुमामुल्ला विलेज , वरंगल आन्ध्रप्रदेश

2004

14543

6816077 20080416

24.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) -

साईं उषा आक्वा इन्डस्ट्रीज सर्वे नं. 1/1505 , गान्धी नगर , एमिगनूर कर्नूल -518 360 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

2004

14543

6820573 20080424

25.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

सुभाशिनीप्रोडक्ट्स प्लाट नं. 199 , रेवेन्यू कालोनी , नन्द्याल रोड , कर्नूल , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11 ]

पी . एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2068. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

ISNo. Part Sec . Year GrantDate

Title ofthe Standard

Licences No.

SI . No.

Name and Address of theParty

(6)

(9)

(5)

(7) (8)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

1999

1417

GoldandGold

2-4-2004

1. 6809787

M/s. Arya Jewellers 4-1-405, Post Office Road, Distt : Karimnagar Andhra Pradesh , 505001

Alloys, Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

1417

1999 8-4-2008

6809888

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewllery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/s. Ambica Jewellers 7-2-325 , Pot Market Ashoknagar , Secunderabad Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh , 500003 5038

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

(3)

(4) (2)

(1 )

17-4-2008

6813071

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

(6)

1417.

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/ s . Chandana Ramesh Jewellers (P) Ltd. D.No. 18-1-507 to 509 VV Mahal Road Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati Distt: Chittor Andhra Pradesh- 517501

16-4-2008

6813980

1417

1999 GoldandGold

Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/ s. Kalanikethan Silks Pvt. Ltd. D.No. 40-1-1 , MG Road , Vijayawada Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

5. 6814073

16-4-2008

1417

1999 Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

Devi Jewellers MIG - 15 /24/238 , KPHB Colony Main Road , Ramdev Plaza, Kukatpally, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500072

16-4-2008

6. 6814174

1999

1417

Gold and Gold

Chandana Jewellers Shop

Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

No. 12, AMC Complex R.G. Chari Street Governorpet Vijayawada Krishna Distt: Andhra Pradesh- 520002

17-4-2008

6814275

1417 1999 Gold and Gold

M/ s. Masthana Jewellers 22-6-207, Pathergatti , Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500002

16-4-2008

8. 6814376

Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

1417

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery /Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/s . Sai Charan Jewellers D.No. 8-1-33 /A Gandhi Chowk, Sattenapalli Distt: Guntur Andhra Pradesh- 522403

30-4-2008

9. 6818384

1417

1999 Gold and Gold

Alloys ,

M/s . Mahalaxmi Jewellers Η.Νο.4-1-305 , Tower Circle Distt: Karimnagar Andhra Pradesh- 505001

30-4-2008

6818485

10.

Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

Gold.andGold

1999

1417

Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/ s . Manoj Jewels 7-1-58 , Ground Floor Concurse House Beside SBI , Opp:Meridian Plaza Ameerpet Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500016 5039

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

30-4-2008 6818687

11 .

(9)

(6)

(7) (8)

(5)

1999

1417

Goldand Gold

Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/ s. Kirtilal Kalidas Jewellers Pvt . Ltd. 38-8-7 , Datta Towers Opp: All India Radio , MG Road, Vijayawada Distt : Krishna Andhra Pradesh- 520010

30-4-2008 6818889

12.

1999

1417

Gold and Gold

Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/s . Omkar Jewellers 27-23-114, Gopal Reddy Road Governorpet, Vijayawada Distt: Krishna - Andhra Pradesh- 520002

30-4-2008 6818990

13.

1999

1417

Goldand Gold

Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/s. Surajbhan & Co. Jewellers Shop No. B -4 , Door No. 5-9-279 Mayur Kushal Complex, Gunfoundry Abids Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh

16-4-2008 6817786

14.

2002

1664

cattle feeds Mineral Mixtures for supplementing

M/s. Neospark Drugs & Chemicals Pvt . Ltd. Unit- II , Plot No.64/B Phase - I , IDA , Jeedimetla Hyderabad-500 055 Distt:Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh- 500055

24-4-2008 6815782

15.

1992

2830

Carbon steel cast

billetingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes

M/ s . Tirupati Udyog Ltd. , Survey No. 142-156, Indl . Area , Near 132 KVA sub station , Kottur Distt: Mahbubnagar Andhra Pradesh- 509228

16-4-2008 6817887

16.

1992

5672

MineralMixtures for supplementing

poultry feeds

M/ s. Neospark Drugs & Chemicals Pvt . Ltd. Unit - II , Plot No.64/B Phase - 1 , IDA , Jeedimetla Hyderabad -500 055 Distt:Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh- 500055

3-4-2008 6810469

17 .

1988

Elastomer insulated 9968 cables:part 1 for working voltages upto and including 1100v

M/s. Radiant- RSCC Specialty Cable Private Limited, B- 1,2,4 & 6 Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar Hyderabad -500018 Distt:Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh

2081 GI /12-3 [PART II Sec. 3(ii )]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5040

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

24-4-2008 6817685

18.

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

(6)

13488

1992

Emittingpipes system

M/ s. Godavari Polymers (P) Ltd. , 153 B , C, E& F, Phase 2, IDACherlapally, Hyderabad

Distt:Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh- 500051

6812473 15-4-2008 19 .

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . BRT Aqua Products and Beverages , Sy. No. 72, Kadthal Village Amangal Mandal ,

Distt: Mahbubnagar Andhra Pradesh ,

20. 6814780 16-4-2008

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s . Mithra Minerals , Plot No. 3, Survey No.419E Pargi Mandal , Kodangal Road Pargi , Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh -501501

17-4-2008 21. 6812978

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . Chandana Beverages , S. No. 177 , Plot No. 44/1 , Ameenpur Village Miyapur , Hyderabad - 502 032 Distt: Medak Andhra Pradesh

16-4-2008 6814881

22.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . SreeVenkata Lakshmi Sai Industries , Sankhavaram (V), Kanigiri (M) Distt: Prakasam , Andhra Pradesh

23.

17-4-2008 6815883

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s . Thirumala Industries , H.No. 5-77 /4 , Sai Ganesh Nagar Colony Kashibugga Enumamula(Vill), Distt: Warangal , Andhra Pradesh

16-4-2008 24. 6816077

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/ s . Sai Usha Aqua Industries , S. No. 1/1505 , Gandhi Nagar Yemmiganur, Distt: Kurnool Andhra Pradesh , 518360

24-4-2008 25. 6820573

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/s . Subhashini Products , PlotNo. 199 , Revenue Colony Nandyal Road , Distt: Kurnool Andhra Pradesh

[No. CMD/ 13: 11 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head 5041

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाम II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2069.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपनियम (6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है : -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम

व पता

क्र. सं. सीएम/एल

(2)

(3)

(1)

6508874

हारती एन्टरप्राइजेस , मेदक

2. 6680078 एस आर एस मिनरल प्रोडक्टस , गुन्तकल

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(5) (4)

22-4-2002 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

28-4-2008

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2069. In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. CM/L-

(2)

(1)

1. 6508874 Harathi Enterprises , Medak

6680078

SRS Mineral Products , Guntakal

Date of

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

(5) (4)

22-4-2008

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

28-4-2008

Packaged drinkingwater (other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/ 13 : 13 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2070.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

लाइसेंसधारी का लाइसेंस

नाम व पता

संख्या

क्रम सं.

(3)

(1) (2)

अनुसूची

भामा.सं. भाग अनु. वर्ष भारतीय

मानक का शीर्षक

(6) (7) (8)

(5)

(4)

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण

वैभवज्वेलर्स ,

1. 6818788

6-1-208 , मल्लाम्मस सेंटर मेइन रोड, गुंटूर-522601 नरसारावपेट, आन्ध्र प्रदेश मिश्र धातुएं , आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि 5042

[ PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

( 1) (2)

(3)

2 6823276

एस जे ज्वेलरी प्रा. लिमिटेड, शाप नं. 4 एण्ड 5 एन आर प्लेस , श्री साई कालोनी , हैदराबाद -500 037 रंगा रेडिड जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

3. 68213377_

तरूनी ज्वेलर्स प्रा. लि. , शाप नं. 1 एण्ड 2 भाग्यनगर कालोनी , ए डी आर एस्टेट , के पी हेच बी कूकटपल्ली, हैदराबाद, आंध्र प्रदेश

4. 6823478

तरूनी ज्वेलर्स , डोर नं.1-57/5 , शाप नं. जी ।। तुलसीराम चेंबर्स , मदिनागुडा हैदराबाद -500072, आंध्र प्रदेश

5. 6823579

बालाजी स्वर्ण मेहल , नं.18-51 , बाजार स्ट्रिट, पलमबेर चिततूर -517408 , आंध्र प्रदेश

6. 6823680

श्री साई कृष्णा ज्वेलर्स , डोर नं. 5-37-30, 4/2ब्राडीपेट, गुंटूर -522002, आंध्र प्रदेश

7. 6823781

श्री रोहिनी ज्वेलर्स , डोर नं. 6-9-106 (ए) जैन टेम्पल स्ट्रीट तेनाली , गुंटूर-522001 , आंध्र प्रदेश

8. 6826787

शगुनज्वेलर्स, (आउटलेट ऑफ ए- स्टार ज्वेलरी ) 6-3-927/ए एण्ड बी, सोमाजीगुडा, राज भवन रोड , हैदराबाद - 500082 , आंध्र प्रदेश

9. 6821474

हरियाना स्टील सेंटर ( के डि एम ) प्रा. लिमिटेड, 6-4-454/3 , भोलकपूर , हैदराबाद - 500003 , आंध्र प्रदेश

(7)

(5) (6)

(8) (4)

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण

मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1999

1417-

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन विशिष्टि

1417

1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1417

1999 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1417

1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1417

1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1985

1786

कंक्रीट प्रबला के लिए उच्चसामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात छड़ और तार 5043

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

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

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

2006

2062

6821575

10.

तप्त बेल्लित अल्प , मध्यम एवं उच्च तयता के संरचना इस्पात :

नारा इस्पात उद्योग , हाउस नं.2-3-42/ 52 एण्ड 52/1 शाप नं.11 ए , मैत्री आर्केड नं.58 एम जी रोड , सिकंदराबाद , आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

14151

11. 6826686

सिंचाई उपस्कर- स्प्रिंकलर

पाइप , भाग 2क्विक कपल्ड

पालिइथिलिन पाइप्स

सचिन प्लास्टिक्स, 8/4/343 , बी 11 एर्रागडडा, हैदराबाद -500018 , आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

12. 6641472

2004

14543

16. 6827486

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

शांती राम इन्डस्ट्रीस , सर्वेनं.233/7 ताटिचेर्लाविलेज -523356 कोम्मारोलू मंडल

2004

14543

6828185

17.

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

राघावेन्द्रा बीवरेजस प्लाट नं. 358 , सर्वे नं. 207/1 बाग हयत नगर , रंगा रेडिड, आंध्र प्रदेश -501505

2004

14543

6828488

18.

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

गेग बीवरेजस , इ डब्ल्यूएस 1133 , तीसरा फेज के पी हेच बी कालोनी, हैदराबाद रंगा रेडिड , आंध्र प्रदेश 5044

[PART THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

(3)

(2)

(4)

(1)

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

6823882

19 .

14543

श्री गुरु बीवरेजस गानियपुरम विलज कर्नुल, आंध्र प्रदेश

वैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्रकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

20. 6824581

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

श्री लक्ष्मी नरसिम्हा बीवरेजस प्लाट नं. 34 , अनुपमा नगर हस्तिनापुर,एल बी नगर हैदरान्तद-500074 , आंध्र प्रदेश

2. 6822375

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिगरल जल के अलावा )

संतृप्ती फूड एण्ड बीवरेजस प्रा.लि. सर्वे नं. 575 , उटलला विलेज जिन्नारम मंडल-530012 मेदक जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

6822476

22.

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

श्री वेंकटेश्वरा बीवरेजस श्रीदेवी एस्टेट , प्लाट नं. 49 एण्ड 50 , सदापुरम विलेज, आदोनी मंडल कर्नुल, आंध्र प्रदेश

23. 61819790

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

श्री. लक्ष्मी गणपती इन्डस्ट्रीस सर्वे नं. 31/2 ए पेडोर्नाला विलेज एण्ड मंडल प्रकाशम, आंध्र प्रदेश

14697

6824985

1999

24.

एसी स्थेतिक ट्रांसफार्मर चालित वाट घंटे एवं वी ए आर घंटे मीटर

होली मीटर्स इंडिया प्रा. लि. 4-7-18/ 1 , इ सी आई एल रोड सघवेंद्रनगर , नाचारम हैदराबाद 500076 , आंध्र प्रदेश

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2070.-In-pursuance of sub -regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

ISNo. Part Sec . Year

Title ofthe Standard

Licences No.

Sl . No.

Name and Address of theParty

(4)

(6)

(3)

(5)

(7) (8) (9) (2)

(1)

1417

2-5-2008

1999 6818788

1 .

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Vaibhav Jewellers 6-1-208 ,Mallamma Centre , Main Road , Narasaraopet Distt: Guntur Andhra Pradesh , 522 601

1417

1999 15-5-2008

6823276

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/s . S. J. Jewellery Pvt . Ltd. Shop No. 4 & 5 , N. R. Palace Sri Sai Colony, Chintal , Hyderabad - 500 037 Distt: Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5045

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

3. 6823377

15-5-2008

(5)

(9)

(6) (7) (8)

1417

1999 Gold andGold Alloys, Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/s.Taruni Jewellers Pvt . Ltd. , Shop No. 1 & 2, Bhagyanagar Colony ADR Estate , KPHB Kukatpally Distt: Hyderabad-500 072 Andhra Pradesh

4. 6823478

15-5-2008

1417

1999 Gold andGold Alloys , Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s.Taruni Jewellers D.No.1-57/5 , Shop No. G- 11 , Tulasi Ram Chambers Madinaguda , Distt: Hyderabad -500 072 Andhra Pradesh

15-5-2008

5. 6823579

1417

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/s . Balaji Swarna Mahal No.18-51 , Bazaar Street, Palamaner Distt: Chittoor - 517 408 Andhra Pradesh

6. 6823680

15-5-2008

1417

1999

M/ s . Sri Sai Krishna Jewellers D. No. 5-37-30 4/2 , Brodipet , Distt: Guntur- 522 002 Andhra Pradesh

15-5-2008

6823781

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

1417 1999 Gold andGold Alloys, Jewllery/ Artefacts-Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Sri Rohini Jewellers D. No. 6-9-106(A) JainTemple Street , Tenali- 522 201 Distt: Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

8. 6826787

28-5-2008

1417 1999 Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/s . Shagun Jewels (Outlet ofA- Star Jewellery) 6-3-927/A & B Somajiguda Raj Bhavan Road , Distt: Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh -500082

9. 6821474

13-5-2008

1786 1985 High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

M/s . Hariyana Steel Centre (KDM) Pvt . Ltd. 6-4-454/3 Bholakpur, Secunderabad Distt: Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh -500003

10. 6821575

13-5-2008

2062 2006 Steel for general structural purposes

M/ s . Nara Ispat Udyog H.No. 2-3-42/52 & 52/1 Shop No. 11A, Maitri Arcade No. 58 , M. G. Road , Secunderabad Distt:Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh-500003

6826686

26-5-2008

11 .

2925

1999 Industrial Safety helmets

M/ s . Sachin Plastics 8/4/343 , В - 11 Еrragadda , Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh -500018 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5046

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

30-5-2008 12. 6828791

(9) (5)

(6)

(7) (8)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/ s . Marhaba Marketing Sy. No. 341 , Opp : MRO Office Near Bus Stand Chinnamandem Village & Mandal , Distt .: Cuddapah Andhra Pradesh-516214

30-5-2008 13. 6829389

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . Ice Mouten Packaged DrinkingWater Sy. No. 60 /A/ 1 , Karmanghat Saroornagar Mandal Distt.: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh

13-5-2008 14. 6825179

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s . Pavana Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Industries Sy. No. 77, Gannevaripalli ColonyGannevaripalli GP, Tadipatri Mandal , Distt.: Anatapur Andhra Pradesh

30-5-2008 15. 6827385

: 2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/s . GVG Aqua Industries D.No. 2-7 Tirupati Main RoadMurakambattu Village &Post - 517001 , Murakambattu Village & Post, Distt.: Chittoor Andhra Pradesh- 517001

30-5-2008 16. 6827486

2004

14543.

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s.Santhi Ram Industries Sy.No. 233/7, Taticharla Village- 523 356 Komarolu Mandal , Taticharia Distt.: Prakasam Andhra Pradesh- 501505

30-5-2008 17. 6828185

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s. Raghavendra Beverages Plot No. 358 , Sy. No. 207/1 Bagh Hayath Nagar, Distt.: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh-501505

30-5-2008 18. 6828488

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s . GAG Beverages EWS 1133 , 3rd Phase KPHB Colony, Hyderabad Distt.: Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh

13-5-2008 19. 6823882

2004

14543

M/ s . Sri Guru Beverages Andhra Pradesh GargeyapuramVillage, Distt.: Kurnool ,

13-5-2008 20. 6824581

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . Sri Lakshmi Narsimha Beverages Plot No. 34, Anupama Nagar , Hastinapuram , L. B. Nagar, Distt.: Hyderabad - 500074, Andhra Pradesh 5047

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(1) (2)

13-5-2008

21. 6822375

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s. Samtrupti Food& Beverages Pvt . Ltd. , Sy. No.575, Ootla Village Jinnaram Mandal , Distt.: Medak, Andhra Pradesh

13-5-2008

6822476

22.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Beverages Sridevi Estate , Plot No.49 & 50 Sadapuram Village Adoni Mandal , Distt.: Kurnool , Andhra Pradesh

1-5-2008

6819790

23.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Industries Sy. No. 31 /2A, Pedda Dornala Village and Mandal , Pedda Dornala Distt.: Prakasam , Andhra Pradesh

14-5-2008

6824985

24.

1999

14697

Ac static transformer operated watthour and var - hour meters , class 0.2 s and 0.5

M/s.Holley Meters India Pvt. Ltd. , 4-7-18 / 1 , ECIL Road Raga- vendra Nagar Nacharam , Hyderabad - 500076 Distt.: Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh

[No. CMD/13 : 111

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2071.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :---

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम लाइसेंस संख्या

क्र.

व पता

सं.

(3)

(2)

(1)

6514667

महेश्वरी बीवरेजस रंगारेड्डिजिला

2. 6681383 ए आर इन्डस्ट्रीस रंगारेड्डिजिला

6701767

श्री लक्ष्मी नरसिम्हा प्यूरिफाइड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर , चेन्नापाडू

4. 6726985 ज्योति फूड एण्ड बीवरेजस

वरंगल

2081 G1/124

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

(5) (4)

6-5-2008 पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

6-5-2008 पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

23-5-2008 पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

6-5-2008 पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख 5048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART 11 Sec .3 (it)]

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2012

8.0.2871. In praece ofsub- regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Gentification) Regulations, 1968, have been of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are givenbelow ot from the date indicated against cath

SCHEDULED

Sl .No.

Name and Address ofthe

Date of Cancellation Licence No CM/L

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

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1. 6514667

6-5-2008 Maheshwari Beverages R. R. District

Packaged drinkingwater (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

2 6681383

6-5-2008 A'R. Industries Rangareddi

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

6701767

23-5-2008 Sri Lakshmi Narasimha purified Drinking water Chennupadu

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

4. 6726985

6-5-2008 foods & Beverages Warangal

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

P.M. PANTULU , Director Scientist 'F ' & Head

नईदिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

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

क्रम

वर्ष

अनु.

लाइसेंस सं. संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

भारतीय मानक का

भा. मा. भाग संख्या

शीर्षक

( 1 ) (2)

(3)

(4)

(8)

(5) ( 6) ( 7 )

1.6838188-

1994

एल्यूमिनीयम मिश्रधातु के 3984 चालक ( एल्यूमिनीयम मैग्नीशियम सिलिकॉन

टाइप)

अच्यूता इलेक्ट्रिकल्स प्रा. लि. भेड नं 5 बी , प्लाट नं 47 सी आई इ एक्सटेन्शन , मांधीनगर

हैदराबाद 500037,

आंध्र प्रदेश

26833077

श्री बालाजी सेरामिक्स

लवण से ग्लेज किये

2007

651

स्टोनवेयन पाइप

औरफिटिंग

हा. उ. नं4-53/1 नियर अन्नपूर्णा लाज मंचीरियल पी ओ एण्ड मंडल कारले अदिलाबाद-504208

आंध्र प्रदेश 5049 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(8)

(6) (7)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1976

710

3. 6831 3

समुद्री उपयों के लिए

पलाईवुड

मनसन ट्रेकसिम प्रा. लि. ए-4/1 , आई डी ए, नाचारम सर्कल नाचारम इन्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया रंगा रेड्डि-500076 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999 6830879

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं 1417

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी

शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-

विशिष्टि

लेटेस्टसुमतीज्वेलर्स शाप नं 11 , ए एम सी कामप्लेक्स राजगोपालाचारी स्ट्रीट, गवर्नरपेट विजयवाड़ा - 520002 कृष्णा जिला

1999 6830980

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं 1417

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी

शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-

विशिष्टि

श्री नागार्जुना ज्वेलर्स डोर नं 8-337 , एस बी आई के पीछे कातुरू रोड , वुरूयूर - 521165 कृष्णा, आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं 1417

6838390

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी

शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-

विशिष्टि

वसुंधराज्वेलर्स 27-23-115 , गोपालरेड्डि रोड, गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाडा -52:0002 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं 1417

7. 6838491

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी

शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-

विशिष्टि

जवहरातुल उस्मान 5-9-189/जी/1/ए, जी 1 , ग्राउन्ड फ्लोर , लेनैन एस्टेट , अबिद हैदराबाद-500001 आंध्र प्रदेश

1987

12269

53ग्रेड ओ पी सी

6838087

वासवी महा इन्डस्ट्रीस सर्वे नं 46 , रेड्लाकुंटा विलेज कोदड मंडल , नल्गोंडा, आंध्र प्रदेश

12269

53 ग्रेड ओ पी सी

9. 6837691

पी आर सिमेट्स वेपला माधवरम विलेज मेल्लाचेरूवू मंडल , नलगोंडा--500003 आंध्र प्रदेश

1990

12823

6834483

10.

वुडप्राडक्ट्सप्री.

लेमिनेटेड पार्टीकल

बोर्ड्स

पद्यावती प्लाई प्रा . लि. सर्वे नं 267 एण्ड 268 गगनपहाड, राजेन्द्रनगर -501323 रंगारेड्डि आंध्र प्रदेश 5050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART IIac .3 ( i ))

(8) (3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7) (1) (2)

2004

14543

11. 6833986

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

अक्षया मिनरल्स एण्ड फुड्स प्रा. लि. आर एस नं 240 पेद्दपल्लीपाका विलेज पेनमलूरू मंडल, कृष्णा , आंध्र प्रदेश

2004 12. 6833178

14543

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

क्रिएटिव ओजोनाईज्ड इंडस्ट्रीस , सब स्टेशन के पीछे मुटक्की विलेज- 522303 गुंटूर, आंध्र प्रदेश

14543

2004 1β. 6837994

रवी आक्वामिनरल्स सर्वे 792/2 लिंगापुरम पी ओ-522426 गुंटूर, माचेर्ला मंडल , आंध्र प्रदेश

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

14543

2004 14. 6835081

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

महेश मार्केटिंग हा. नं. 1951-878 , देवी बाग , बहादुरपूरा नगर , रंगा रेड्डि आंध्र प्रदेश

14543

2004 15. 6835283

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

हासिनी एलक्ट्रानिक्स प्लाट नं. 4 बी, फेज II एक्सटेन्शन आई डी ए , चेर्लापल्ली, घटकेसर मंडल , रंगा रेड्डि

2004

14543

6827486

16.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

श्री विनायका मिनरल वाटर प्रो डोर नं 27-122,123 कोत्तपेटा, पल्नाडू रोड, विनूकोन्डा-522647

17. 6828589

14543

2004 गुंटूर, आंध्र प्रदेश अरूहा इन्डस्ट्रीस डोर नं 14/113,

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

तिरूपती रोड , एन टी आर कालोनी , नंदिमंगलम तुत्तूर 517583 , आंध्र प्रदेश

18.

14543

6828690.

2004 साई साबर बीवरेजस प्रा. लि. प्लाट नं 117 , फेज III , आई डी ए पशमैलारम , मेडक आंध्र प्रदेश

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

19. 6840579

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

यूनिवर्सल ट्रेडिंग कंपनी 16-6-194, मुस्लिममेटर्निटी अस्पताल उस्मानपुरा , हैदराबाद , चादरघाट, आंध्र प्रदेश

[सं. सीएमडी/13: 11 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख 5051

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2072. 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 ofwhich are given in the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

Licences No.

Sl. No.

Name and Address of the Party

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30-6-2008

6838188

Year

Part Sec .

IS No.

Title ofthe Standard

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

1994

M/sAchyuta Electricals Pvt. Limited, Shed No. 5B, Plot No.47 CIE(Expn) Gandhinagar Balanagar, Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500037

05-06-2008

6833077

2007 Aluminium Con- 398 ductors for overhead transmission purposes part4 aluminium ally standed conductors (aluminium magnesium silicon type) 651

Saltglazed stone- ware pipe and fittings

M/ s Sri Balaji Ceramics H. No. 4-63/ 1 , Near Annapuran Lodge Mancherial PO & Mandal Distt:Adilabad Andhra Pradesh-504208

06-06-2008

6831073

1976

710

Marine Plywood

M/sMansanTrexim Private Limited A-4/1 , IDA Nacharam Circle Nacharam Industrial Area, Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh

09-06-2008

6830879

1999

1417

GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/sLatest Sumati Jewellers , Shop No. 11 , AMC Complex , Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet , Vijayawada - 520002 Distt:Krishna Andhra Pradesh

09-06-2008

6830980

1999

1417

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness andMarking

M/s Sri Nagarjuna Jewellers , D. No. 8-327, Beside SBI , Katuru Road, Vuyyuru Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh - 521165

27-06-2008

6838390

1999

1417

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s Vasundhara Jewellers 27-23-115 , Gopalareddy Road, Governorpet , Vijayawada -520002 Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

27-06-2008

6838491

1999

1417

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/ s Jawaharatul-Osman 5-9-189/G/ 1 /A, GI, Ground Floor, Lenaine Estate, Abids , Hyderabad Distt:Hyderabad- 500001 Andhra Pradesh 5052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

6838087

2008 (5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

12269 0 1967 53 grade ordinary Portland cement

M / s Vasavi Matha Industries , Sy. No. 46 , Redlakunta Village, Kodad Mandal

Distt: Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

6837691

20-06-2008

12269

1987 53 grade ordinary Portland cement

M/sP. R. Cements Vepala Madhavaram Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal

Distt: Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

10. 6834483

09-06-2008

12823

1990 Wood products- prelaminated particles boards

M/ s Padmavati Ply Private Limited, 'Sy. No. 267 & 268 Gaganpahad, Rajendra Nagar,Distt:

Rangareddi - 501323 Andhra Pradesh

11. 6833986 16-06-2008

2004

14543

M/ s Akshaya Minerals & Food Pvt . Ltd.

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

Rs . No. 240, Peddapu- lipakaVillage Penamaluru Mandal Peddapulipaka Village

Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

12 6833178 11-06-2008

2004

14543

Packageddrinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ sCreative Ozonised Industries , Beside Sub- Station Nutakki Village- 522-303 Mangalagiri Mandal

Distt:Guntur -522303

Andhra Pradesh

13 6837994 16-06-2008

14543

2004

M/ s Ravi Aqua Minerals Sy.No. 792/2 Lingapuram P.O. -522426 Macherla Mandal

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Distt: Guntur-522426 Andhra Pradesh

14 6835081 10-06-2008

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water fother than ipsokaged natural mineral water)

M/ s Mahesh Marketing H. No. 19-1-878 , Devil Bagh Bahadurpura , Nagar

Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh

15 6835283

16-06-2008

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s Haeshihi Electronics Plot No. 4B, Phase II Extension IDA, Cherlapally, Ghatkesar Mandal , Distt:Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh 5053 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(8) (9) (1) (2)

(7)

16. 6832277

2004

14543

11-06-2008

Packageddrinking water (other than packagednatural mineralwater)

M/ s Sree Vinayaka Mineral Water Products Door No. 27-122, 123 Kothapet Palanadu Road Vinukonda - 522647

Distt:Guntur

Andhra Pradesh-522647

17. 6828589

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

05-06-2008 M/s Aruha Industries D. No. 4/113 , Tirupati Road, N.T.R. Colony Nandimangalam Puttur - 517583

Distt: Chittoor Andhra Pradesh

05-06-2008

2004 18. 6828690

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s Sai Sagar Bewerages Pvt. Ltd. , Plot No. 117 , Phase III, IDA , Pashamylaram,

Distt: Medak Andhra Pradesh

27-06-2008

2004 19. 6840579

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/ s Universal Trading Company, 16-6-194, Behind Muslim Maternity Hosiptal Osmanpura, Chaderghat

Distt:Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2073.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस

भारतीय

लाइसेंसधारी का

भा. मा. भाग अनु. वर्ष

नाम व पता

संख्या

क्रम सं. संख्या

मानक का शीर्षक

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

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

455

1. 6848801

1989

पोर्टलैंड धातुमल सीमेंट

पेन्ना सिमेंट इन्डस्ट्रीस लि. प्लाट नं 703 , श्रीनिकेतन कालोनी, रोड नं. 3 , बंजारा हिल्स , हैदराबाद

आंध्र प्रदेश

1999 2. 6844991

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , 1417 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि

श्री बालाजी ज्वेलर्स एण्ड एक्सपोटर्स , 22-6-1069 , कालिकमान रोड नियर गुल्जार हाउस , हैदराबाद - 500002 आंध्र प्रदेश [PART I-Sac. 3(u)] GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5054

(5) (3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

1999

3. 6845185

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धप्ता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि

वेंकटेश्वरा डायमंड्स एण्ड ज्वेलर्स, 4-2-80, नियर कमान , पटेलपुरा मेदक सिद्दिपेट- 502103 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999 4. 6845286

गट्टू जगदीश्वरा ज्वेलर्स 5-2-40, मेइन रोड सिद्दिपेट

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी विशिष्टि स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-

आंध्र प्रदेश

1999 5. 6845387

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि आभूषण/शिल्पकारी

काम्प्लेक्स, एच एम टी नगर के सामने, लक्ष्मी श्री बालाजी ज्वेलर्स शाप नं 12 , साई दुर्गा स्टार्च कालनी , नाचारम हैदराबाद-500076 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

6. 6846692

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- बिशिष्टि

श्री विमल ज्वेलर्स मेन रोड ब्राडीपेट , गुंटूर -520002 आंध्र प्रदेश 5-98-40 , रघु मेन्शन्स,

1999 7. 6839493

श्री लक्ष्मी नवीना ज्वेलर्स शाप नं 1 , श्री जैहिंद काम्प्लेक्स , राजगोपालाचारी स्ट्रीट , गवर्नरपेट विजयवाडा - 500002 कृष्णा , आंध्र प्रदेश

1999 8. 6839594

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि

कल्यान ज्वेलर्स डोर नं 16-3-04 श्राफ बाजार गुंटूर -522201 तेनाली, आंध्र प्रदेश

1999 9. 6839695

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि

एम शेरमल जैन ज्वेलर्स 7-2-762 , पॉट मार्केट , हैदराबाद - 500003 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417

10. 68

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-

विशिष्टि

खजाना ज्वेलरी इंडिया प्रा. लि. नं 344 , एम आई जी, 267 एण्ड 268 के पी हेच बी कालोनी , कूकटपल्ली हैदराबाद 500072 ,. आंध्र प्रदेश [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5055

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(2)

(3)

(1)

11. 6844789

श्री दुर्गाज्वेलर्स बी 6, मयूर कुशाल काम्प्लेक्स, गनफौन्ड्री, हैदराबाद - 500001 आंध्र प्रदेश

12. 6844890

आदित्या ज्वेलर्स एण्ड फैनेन्शीयर्स , फ्रेन्ड्स प्लाजा, बिसाइड्स रवी टेक्सटाइल्स मेयन रोड, गुडिवाडा, कृष्णा जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

13. 6849702

आर्बिट प्लास्टिक सेफ्टी एक्विपमेंट्स इंडिया प्रा. लि. 100/सी, कट्टेडान इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट हैदराबाद - 500077 रंगा रेड्डि

14. 6835081

पेन्ना सिमेंट इन्डस्ट्रीस लि. प्लाट नं 703 , श्रीनिकेतन कोलानी, रोड नं 3 बंजाराहिल्स हैदराबाद

15. 6843181

(6) (7) (8) (4)

(5)

1999 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि

औद्योगिक सुरक्षा हेल्मेट 2925

8112

1989 43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सिमेंट

8249

1994 जिंक सल्फेट हेप्टाहैड्रेट अग्रिकल्चरल ग्रेड

अंबिका इन्डस्ट्रीस प्लाट नं 162 एण्ड 163 , आई डी ए , मल्लापूर हैदराबाद - 500076 आंध्र प्रदेश

16. 6848797

पेन्ना सिमेंट इन्डस्ट्रीस लि. प्लाट नं 703 , श्रीनिकेतन कालोनी , रोड नं 3 बंजाराहिल्स

हैदराबाद

17. 6851584

12269

1987 53 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सिमेंट

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

श्री साई सद्‌गुरू मिनरल वाटर प्लॉट , सर्वे नं 217/ए, जंगल्लापल्ली मेडिपल्ली विलेज, रामगुंडम मंडल करीमनगर,

आंध्र प्रदेश

18. 6849601

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक

मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

कृष्णा पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिग वाटर डोर नं 14-460 - ए-1 , हिंदुपूर रोड, नियर टी वी टावर कदिरी , अनंतपूर, आंध्र प्रदेश

2081 Gl /12-5 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

5056

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2004

14543

6848191

19.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

विजय इन्डस्ट्रीस फेज III, शेड नं 4 जवाहर आटो नगर, विजयवाडा- 520007 आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

6847391

20.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

श्री साई अमृता एन्टरप्राइजेस प्लाट नं 60 , आई डी ए, फेज II , ( पद्यानगर ) , जीडिमेट्ला, कुतबुल्लापूर मंडल, रंगा रेड्डि आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

6847694

21 .

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

साई आक्वाइन्डस्ट्रीस सर्वे नं 773 , सूर्यापेट टवुन एण्ड मंडल , नल्गोंडा आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

21. 6847694

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

साई आक्वाइन्डस्ट्रीस सर्वे नं 773 , सूर्यापेट टवुन एण्ड मंडल , नलगोंडा आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

6847290

22.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

तिरूमला मिनरल्स सर्वे नं 220 , नियर होटेल गेस्ट लेन मंगला रोड , तिम्मीनायडुपालेम तिरूपती अर्बन , चित्तूर जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

23. 6846288

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

एस एस बीवरेजस 3-4-98/2/177 , बी आई सी ट्रान्सपोर्ट लेन के बगल में मल्लापूर , रंगा रेड्डि आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

6846389

24.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

रेवती इन्डस्ट्रीस 18/139/ए 53 अपस्टैर्स, नेहरू रोड, कर्नूल , आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

684486

25.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

त्रिभुवन एन्टरप्राइजेस सर्वे नं 464, प्लाट नं 18 दम्माइगुडा, नागारम -500062 कीसरा मंडल , रंगा रेड्डि आंध्र प्रदेश 5057

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(8)

(7)

(5) (6)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2004

14543

26. 6840680

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

जैत्रा फुड्स प्रा. लि. जैत्रा रेसिडेंसी , ह उ नं 5-5-1 , प्लॉट नं 101 , कूकटपल्ली, हैइराबाद-500072 , आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

27. 6841177

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

एस वी एन्टरप्राइजेस सर्वे नं 236-ए पाडिपेटा विलेज-530012 तिरूपती रूरल मंडल चित्तूर-530012 , आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

14650

6841278

28.

पुनर्वल्लन के लिए कार्बन इस्पात ढलियाँ इंगाट

एम एम जी स्टिल्स प्रा. लि. प्लॉट नं 14 , आई डी ए (मियापूर ) बोल्लारम , जिन्नारम मंडल मेदक , हैदरान्नाद

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2073. 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

Part Sec . Year

IS No.

Grant Date

Title ofthe Standard

Licences No.

SL No.

Name and Address of the Party

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

22-07-2008

1. 6848801

M/s . Penna Cement Industries Limited Plot No. 703 , Sriniketan Colony Road No. 3 , Banjara Hills , Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh ,

1999

1417

15-07-2008

6844991

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness andMarking

M/s. Sri Balaji Jewellers &Exporters , 22-6-1069, Kalikaman Road, NearGulzar Houz, Distt:Hyderabad- 500002

Andhra Pradesh,

1999

1417

15-07-2008

6845185

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

M/ s . Venkateswara Diamonds and Jewellers 4-2-80, Near Kaman , Patelpura, Siddipet- 502103 Distt: Medak, Andhra Pradesh , 5058

[PART IH-SEC . 3( i)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

4. 6845286

15-07-2008 M/ s . Gattu Jagadeshwar Jewellers 5-2-40, Main Road, Siddipet Distt: Medak Andhra Pradesh,

5. 6845387 15-07-2008

(5)

(6)

(9)

(7) (8)

1417

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness andMarking

1417

1999 GoldandGold

Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts -Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Sri Balaji Jewellers Shop No. 12 , Sai Durga Complex, Opp: HMT Nagar, Laxmi Starch Colony, Nacharam, Distt: Hyderabad- 500076 Andhra Pradesh ,

6. 6846692- 22-07-2008

1417

1999 Gold andGold

Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness andMarking

M/s . Sri Vimal Jewellers 5-98-40, Raghu Mansions , MainRoad , Brodipet, Distt:Guntur-522002 Andhra Pradesh , 522002

7. 6839493 03-07-2008

1417

1999 Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/s . Sri Lakshmi Naveena Jewellers , Shop No.1 , Sri Jaihind Complex , Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada, Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh , 522002

03-07-2008

8. 6839594

1417

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Kalyan Jewellers , D. No. 16-3-04 , ShroffBazar Distt: Guntur Andhra Pradesh, 522201

9. 6839695 03-07-2008 M/ s . M. Shermal Jain Jewellers , 7-2-762, PotMarket, Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500003

10. 6839796 03-07-2008 M/ s . Khazana Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd. No. 344 , MIG, ΚΡΗΒ Colony, Kukatpally, Distt.-Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh -500072

11. 6844789 15-07-2008

1417

1999 Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

1417 1999 Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s. Sree Durga Jewellers B-6 , Mayur Kushal Complex Gunfoundry, Distt: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh- 500001 5059

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

15-07-2008

6844890

12.

M/sAditya Jewellers &Financiers , 9/63 , Friends Plaza, Beside Raavi Textiles , MainRoad, Gudivada Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

28-07-2008

13. 6849702

M/s Orbit Plastic Safety Equipments India Pvt. Ltd. , 100/C , Kattedan Industrial Estate Hyderabad Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh- 500077

22-07-2008

14. 6848696

M/sPenna Cement Industries Limited PlotNo. 703 , Sriniketan Colony Road No.3 , BanjaraHills , Distt:Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh

14-07-2008

6843181

15.

M/ s Ambica Industries Plot No. 162 & 163 , IDA, Mallapur, Hyderabad, Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh- 500076

M/ s Penna Cement

22-07-2008

16. 6848797

Industries Limited Plot No. 703 , Sriniketan Colony RoadNo.3 , BanjaraHills, Distt: Hyderabad

Andhra Pradesh

21-07-2008

17. 6851584

(9)

(6)

(7) (8)

(5)

1999

1417

GoldandGold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness andMarking

1984

2925

Industrial safety helmets

1989

8112

43 grade ordinary

Portland cement

1994

8249

Zink sulphate heptahydrate agricultural grade

1987

12269

53 grade ordinary Portland cement

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packagednatural mineral water)

M/ s Sai Sadguru Mineral Water Plant , SY. No. 217/ A, Jangallapalli , Medipalli (V) , Ramagundam ( M) , Distt : Karimnagar Andhra Pradesh

28-07-2008

18. 6849601

M/ s Krishna Packaged DrinkingWater D. No. 14-460-A- 1 HindupurRoad , Near TV Tower Kadiri Distt: Anantapur Andhra Pradesh

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineralwater) 5060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

19. 6848191 17-07-2008 M/s . Vijay Industries Phase III , Shed No. 4 JawaharAuto Nagar Vijayawada - 520007 Distt:

[PART II Sec. 3 (ⅱ)]

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

KrishnaAndhra Pradesh

20. 6847391 21-07-2008 M/ s . Sri Sai Amrutha Enterprises , Plot No.60,

IDA: Phase II (Padmanagar) Jeedimetla Qutbullapur Mandal ,

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packagednatural mineralwater)

Distt: Rangareddi

Andhra Pradesh -500054

21. 6847694 16-07-2008

2004

14543

M/ s . Sai Aqua Industries Sy. No. 773 , Suryapet (Town& Mandal) Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineralwater)

Distt:Nalgonda

Andhra Pradesh

6847290

22.

16-07-2008 M/ s . Tirumala Minerals Sy. No. 220/1 , Near HotelGuest Line Mangalam Road, Timminaidupalem Tirupathi Urban Tirupathi Distt : Chittor Andhra Pradesh

6846288

23.

15-07-2008 M/ s . S. S. Beverages 3-4-98/2 / 177 Beside Lane ofBIC TransportMallapur, Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh

24. 6846389

16-07-2008

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packagednatural mineralwater)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Kurnool : 518001 M/ s . Revathi Industries 18/ 139/A , Upstairs , Nehru Road Distt: Kurnool Andhra Pradesh

25. 6844486 15-07-2008 M/ s. Thirubhovhan Enterprises , Sy. No. 464, Plot No. 18 Dammaiguda, Nagaram Keesara Mandal- 500062

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Distt: Rangareddi

Andhra Pradesh

6840680

26.

03-07-2008 M/ s . Jaithra Foods Pvt . Ltd. , Jaithra Residency H. No. 5-5-1 , Flat No. 101 Jaithra Residency, Kukatpally Hyderabad - 500072 Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineral water) 5061

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking

08-07-2008

6841177

M/s S. V. Enterprises

27.

water (other than

packaged natural mineral water)

Sy. No. 236- A, Padipeta Village - 530012 Tirupati Rural Mandal , Padipeta Village Distt: Chittor Andhra Pradesh- 530012

1999

14650

Carbon steel cast

09-07-2008

6841278

28.

billetingots , billets , blooms and slabs forre-rolling

M/ sMMG Steels (P) Ltd. , Plot No. 14 , IDA Bollaram (Miyapur) Jinnaram (M)

purposes-

Hyderabad

Distt: Medak

Andhra Pradesh

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2074.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्र. सं.

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

21-07-2008

6636580

रिद्दिसिद्दिज्वेलर्स रंगा रेड्डि

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

15-07-2008

2. 6691891

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

जी एम अमरेश्वरप्पा आक्वा इंडस्ट्रीज एम्मिगनूर

अलावा)

04-07-2008

6725983

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

के वी एम पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर विंजमूर

अलावा)

21-07-2008

4. 6727280

छत के बिजली के पंखे और रेगुलेटर

मारूती उद्योग लि. हैदराबाद

[ सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पुंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2074. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6 ) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each : ----

5062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) |

SCHEDULE

Sl .No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. CM/L-

(1) (2)

(3)

1. 6636580 Ridhi Sidhi Jewellers , Rangareddy

2 6691891

GMAmareswarappa Aqua Industries Yemmiganur

3. 6725983

KVM packaged drinking water Vinjamur

4. 6727280

Maruti Udyog Hyderabad

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

(4)

(5)

21-07-2008

Gold and GoldAlloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

15-07-2008 Packaged drinking water ( other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

04-07-2008 Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

21-07-2008 Electiec ceiling type fans and regulators

[No. CMD/13: 13]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नईदिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2075.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एव‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

(2)

(3)

(1)

1. 6851887

जे राजेन्द्रा इम्पेक्स प्रा. लि. प्लाट नं 60 , सी आई ई गांधी नगर , आई डी ए

हैदराबाद - 500037

आंध्र प्रदेश

2. 6858194

मारूती उद्योग

5-35/275/ए, दुर्गा शक्ती

पीठम कालोनी , प्लाट नं 11 , कूकटपल्ली हैदराबाद - 500072 आंध्र प्रदेश

Β. 6853790

चंदना ब्रदर्स टेक्सटाइल्स एण्डज्वेलर्स,

डोर नं 16-1-1658,

जीटी रोड , कनकामहल थेटर के सामने , नेल्लोर- 524001 आंध्र प्रदेश

वर्ष

अनु..

भा. मा . भाग संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(4)

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

374

1979 छत के बिजली के पंखे और रेगुलेटर

पीवीसी रोधित केबल 694,

1990

1999

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , 1417 शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि 5063 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 2.3. 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

( 8 )

(6) (7)

(5)

(4)

(3)

अलावा)

गायत्री पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर, सर्वे नं 483 एण्ड 439 जवनगर , शामीरपेट मंडल , रंगा रेड्डि, आंध्र प्रदेश

2081 GI/12-6 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5064

(3)

(2)

(1)

6856796

1B.

श्री साई फूड्स एण्ड बीवरेजस , फेज़ नं 200/1 /ए ए आर बिट फेस II , आई डी ए चेर्लापल्ली 500051

रंगा रेड्डि, आंध्र प्रदेश

14. 6856897

नयागरा पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर , सर्वे नं 377 , प्लॉट नं 58 , रामय्यानगर, कूकटपल्ली, बालानगर मंडल , रंगा रेड्डि, आंध्र प्रदेश 500054

6856901

उमा पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर , प्लाट नं 403, कोड्रामुट्ला 522647

(8)

(7)

(6)

(5)

(4)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सीपी 13:11 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2012

S.O. 2075. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau ofIndian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

Licences No.

Sl. No.

Name and Address of the Party

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

04-08-2008

6851887

Year

Part Sec.

ISNo.

Title ofthe Standard

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

1979

374

Electricceiling type fans and regulators

M/s . Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. , Plot No.60, CIE, Gandhi Nagar, IDA Distt: Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500037

20-08-2008

6858194

1990

694

Pvc insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100v

M/s. Maruti Udyog, 5-35/ 275/A, Durga Shakti Peetham Colony, PlotNo. 11 , Kukatpally, Distt : Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh-500072

13-08-2008

6853790

1999

1417

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/s . Chandana Brother's Textiles& Jewellers (P) Ltd. , D. No. 16-1-658 , Opp: Kanaka Mahal Theatre , G. T. Road, Distt: Nellore Andhra Pradesh- 524001 5065

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

14-08-2008

6854590

M/ s . Bhanu Beverages , C/o S. Muralidhar Rao H. No. 8-4-33 , Flot No. 302, Krushi Muddam Residence Kalinga Enclave, HAL Colony, Secunderabad Old. Bowenpally, Distt: Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh

05-08-2008

6852182

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineralwater)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s. Mahalakshmi , Industries , Mahalakshmi Nagar, BehindMarket Yard Siddavaram Road, Badvel, Distt: Cuddapah , Andhra Pradesh

05-08-2008

6852283

M/s. Sri Lakshmi , Sai Enterprises , Sy. No.445/3 , Jaladanki Village& Mandal, Jaladanki, Distt: Nellore, Andhra Pradesh

06-08-2008

6851988

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s . Sri Balaji Beverages , Sy.No.469, Siddipet Road, Distt: Medak, Andhra Pradesh- 502101

06-08-2008

6851786

2004

14543

M/ s. Bagavithi Enterprises , Sy. No. 253 , Chengol Village, Tandur Mandal ,

Distt: Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh

13-08-2008

6857697

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineralwater)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . Sri Sai Pure Drinking , Water, Jagdevpur Road, Near Railway Gate, Bhongir, Distt: Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh

14-08-2008

6857293

10.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/s . Pravan Industries , H. No. 3-5-316/39 , BPL Colony, Ramagundam, Distt: Karimnagar , Andhra Pradesh

11-08-2008

6857495

11.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineral water )

M/s . Sai Shiva Industries , SurveyNo. 793, Suryapet (Town & Mandal ) , Distt: Nalgonda , Andhra Pradesh 5066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

12. 6855895

6-08-2008

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

(5)

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

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water( other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/s. Gayathri Packaged, Drinking Water, Sy. No. 438 & 439, Jawarnagar Shameerpet Mandal, Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh

13. 6856796 5-08-2008 M/ s . Sri Sai Foods & Beverages , Phase No. 200/1 /A Phase II , IDA, Cherlapally, Distt: Rangareddi , Andhra Pradesh- 500051

14. 6856897

14-08-2008

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543.

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/ s . Nayagara Packaged Drinking Water, Sy. No. 377 , Plot No. 58 Ramaiah Nagar, Kukatpally Balanagar Mandal, Distt: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh- 500054

15. 6856901

18-08-2008 M/ s . Uma Packaged DrinkingWater, PlotNo: 403, Kondramutla - 522 647, Epur Mandal , Kondramutla, Distt: Guntur, Andhra Pradesh- 522647

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2076, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्र.

लाइसेंस संख्या

सं.

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(1) (2)

(3)

1 . 6597596 तुलसी मिनरल वाटर तिरूपती

(4)

(5)

01-08-2008

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2. 6700462 गुड एर्थ एवेन्यूस प्रा. लि. पडुरूपल्ली

11-08-2008

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद : प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5067

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(1) (2)

(3)

6741779

रामकृष्णा प्यूरिफाइड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर हसनपर्ती ( एम )

6771182 शुशीला बीवरेजस हैदराबाद

(5) (4)

01-08-2008 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

28-08-2008 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13: 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2076.- In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Name andAddress of the Licensee

Licence No. CM/L-

(1) (2)

(3)

1. 6597596

Tulasi Mineral Water Tirupathi

6700462

Good Earth Avenues (P ) Limited Padurupalli

3. 6741779 Ramakrishan Purified Drinking Water Hasnaparthy (M)

4. 6771182

Susheela Beverages Hyderabad

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

(5) (4)

01-08-2008

Packaged drinking water (other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

11-08-2008

Packaged drinking water ( other thanpackaged natural mineral water

01-08-2008

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water

28-08-2008

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water

[No. CMD/13: 13]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2077. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- विनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का लाइसेंस संख्या

नाम व पता

क्रम सं.

(3)

(2)

(1)

1. 6860383

जे सीज्वेलर्स ,

हाउस नं 2612-7-272/ 1 /ए मेटूगूडा, हैदराबाद-500017 आंध्र प्रदेश

भाग

भारतीय

भा. मा.

अनु. वर्ष

संख्या

मानक का शीर्षक

(5)

(7)

(6)

(8) (4)

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन विशिष्टि [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

5068

(8)

(5)

(7)

(6)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1999

1417

2. 6860484

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

कट्टा लक्ष्मी नारायनय्या ज्वेलर्स डोर नं 7-3-257 , मेइन रोड अनंतपुर , हिन्दुपूर - 515201 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

3. 6860585

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि

मोहम्मद खान ज्वेलर्स प्रा. लि. 16-10-33 , नल्गोन्डाक्रास रोड मलकपेट , हैदराबाद- 500036 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

1417

4. 6867296

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

रुद्रांगी प्रकाश एण्ड सन्स ज्वेलर्स , 15-1-590 , पतंगे बिल्डिंग सिद्दिअम्बर बाजार , हैदराबाद- 500012 आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

1417

6867397

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

श्रीस्वाती ज्वेलरी शाप नं 16 , ए एम सी काम्प्लेक्स, राजगोपालाचारी स्ट्रीट , गवर्नरपेट विजयवाडा, कृष्णा , आंध्र प्रदेश

1999

1417

6. 6872289

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

ललिताज्वेलर्स शाप नं 8 , ए एम सी काम्प्लेक्स , राजगोपालाचारी स्ट्रीट , गवर्नपेट विजयवाडा, कृष्णा , आंध्र प्रदेश

1994

12709

7. 6865595

ग्लास फाइबर री इन्फोर्सड प्लास्टिक जी आर पी पाइप्स जायन्ट्स एण्ड फिटिंग्सफर यूस फर पोटेबल वाटर सप्लै

गायत्री इन्डस्ट्रीयल प्रोडक्टस प्रा लि ( यूनिट II ) सर्वे नं 619 , सी एस टी वेलिनेक्स लिमिटेड के पीछे पटानचेरू मंडल , इस्नापूर मंडल , मेदक आंध्र प्रदेश

20004

14543

8. 6873796

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेज़बंद प्राकृतिक मिनस्ल जल के अलावा)

एन डी ए इन्डस्ट्रीस प्लॉट नं 49 , सर्वे नं 266 , परिगी रोड, शादनगर (वी आई ) मेहबूबनगर, फारूखनगर ( एम डी ) आंध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

9. 6871994

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

विज़न इन्डस्ट्रीस अलेप इन्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट प्लॉट नं 85 , सूरमपल्ली विलेज - 521212 कृष्णा जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश 5069 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(8)

(6) (7)

(5)

(4)

(3)

अलावा)

श्री तिरूमला इन्डस्ट्रीस सर्वे नं. 540/2 , केन्द्रीय विद्यालय के सामने नन्लपाडू, गुंटूर -522005 आंध्र प्रदेश

अलावा)

विजयलक्ष्मी बीवरेजस सर्वे नं. 60 , मुत्यालाचेरूवू विलेज , कदिरी रूरल , अनंतपूर, आंध्र प्रदेश 5070

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

(5)

(7) (2)

(3)

(4)

(6)

(8) (1)

14543

2004 18. 6870184

गंगा भवानी मिनरल वाटर सर्वे नं. 725 , बोंतपल्ली विलेज , जिन्नारम मंडल , मेदक , आंध्र प्रदेश

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

14543

2004 19. 6870285

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

लक्ष्मी नरसिम्हा मिनरल्स हाउस नं. 4-6-22/1 /सी, सर्वे नं. 1048/एए , ओल्ड स्ट्रीट एंकेपल्ली रोड , सदासिवपेट मेदक -502291 , आंध्र प्रदेश

[ सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2077. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of the regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :---

SCHEDULE

IS No.

Grant Date

Part Sec . Year

Title ofthe Standard

Licences No.

$1. No.

Name and Address of the Party

(5)

(6)

(9) (2)

(3)

(4)

(7) (8) (1).

1417

1999 6860383 05-09--2008

M/ s . J. C. Jewellery H. No. 12-7-272/ 1 /A, Mettuguda, Secunderabad

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness andMarking

Distt.: Hyderabad- 500017

Andhra Pradesh

1417

1999 2. 6860484

05-09-2008

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Katta Lakshmi Narayanaiah Jewellers D. No. 7-3-257, MainRoad, Hindupur- 515201 Distt : Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh

1417

1999 04-09-2008

6860585

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Mohammed Khan Jewellers Pvt . Ltd. 16-10-33, Nalgonda X Road , Malakpet , Hyderabad - 500036 Distt.: Hyderabad ,

Andhra Pradesh

1417

6867296

26-09-2008

1999 M/ s . Rudrangi Prakash Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness andMarking

and Sons Jewellers 15-1-590 , Patangay Building Siddiamber Bazar Distt: Hyderabad- 500012

Andhra Pradesh [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5071

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(4)

(1) (2)

6867397

26-09-2008

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

1417

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Sri Swathi Jewellery Shop No. 16 , AMC Complex , Rajagopalachari Street , Governorpet Vijayawada

Distt: Krishna

Andhra Pradesh

6. 6872289

29-09-2008

1417

1999 Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness andMarking

M/ s . Lalitha Jewellers Shop No. 8 , AMC Complex, Rajagopalachari Street, Governorpet Vijayawada - 520002 Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

7. 6865595

23-09-2008 M/s . Gayathri Industrial Products Private Limited (Unit- II) , Survey No. 619, Besides CST Valinox Ltd. , Patancheru Mandal , IsnapurVillage Distt: Medak Andhra Pradesh

26-09-2008

8. 6873796

M/ s . S. R. S. Mineral Products , 9-68 , Τ. Β. Road, Guntakal - 515801 Distt: Anantapur Andhra Pradesh

2081GI /12-7 [ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

5072

(4)

(3)

(1). (2)

6865696 04-09-2008

12.

M/ s . Sri Sai Products &Beverages , D. No. 5- 6-98/A3 , Vivek Nagar Nirmal- 504106 Distt: Adilabad Andhra Pradesh

09-09-2008

13. 6864088

M/s. Meera Enterprises DoorNo. 6-126 , Penamaluru Village &Mandal, Distt: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

16-09-2008

6864290

14.

M/s . Sri Tirumalesa Industries , Sy. No. 540/2 Opp Kendrya Vidhyalaya Nallapadu Guntur - 522005 Distt: Guntur Andhra Pradesh

6861587 04-09-2008

15.

M/s . Shiva Manikanta Beverages , Plot No. 14, IDA Phase II , Cherlapally, Distt: Hyderabad - 500051 Andhra Pradesh

16. 6869708 24-09-2008

(7) (8) (9 )

(6)

(5)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineralwater)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s . Sree Arya Industries Plot No. 103 , Ramachandra- nagar Colony, Mantralayam Village&Mandal Distt: Kurnool - 518345 Andhra Pradesh

6869910

17.

26-09-2008 M/s . Vijayalakshmi Beverages , S. No. 60 , Muthyalacheruvu Village, Kadiri Rural , Distt: Anantapur Andhra Pradesh

30-09-2008

6870184

18.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

14543. 2004 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

M/ s . Ganga Bhavani Mineral Water , Sy. No. 725, Bonthapally Village, Jinnaram Mandal Distt:Medak Andhra Pradesh

24-09-2008

6870285

19.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water(other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/ s . Laxmi Narasimha Minerals , H. No. 4-6-22/ 1 /C, Sy. No. 1048 /AA Old Street, Yenkepally Road Sadashivapet , Distt : Medak Andhra Pradesh - 502291

[No. CMD/13: 11

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head 5073

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2978.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम

व पता

क्र. सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(2)

(3)

(1)

6556582

श्री साई गंगा बीवरेजस राचपल्ली विलेज

6744078

चांदगोटिया मेटल्स प्रा. लि. हैदराबाद

677804

जेसी आक्वा पलमनेर

4. 6803371 प्रशांती इन्डस्ट्रीस हैदराबाद

(5) (4)

2008-10-14 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2008-10-16 बिजली के पंखों की मोटरों के लिए संधरित्रो की विशिष्टि

2008-10-14 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2008-10-20 250 वोल्ट और 16 एम्पीयर तक की रेटित करंट के लिए प्लग और साकेट निर्गम

[सं. सी एम डी/13: 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2078. In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect- from the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No.

(3)

(2)

(1)

1. 6556582 Sree Sai Ganga Beverages Rachapalli Village

6744078

Chandgothia Metals Pvt . Ltd. Hyderabad

6777804

Jey Cee Aqua Products Palamaner

6803371

Prasanthi Industries Hyderabad

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

(5) (4)

14-10-2008

Packaged drinking water (other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

16-10-2008

Packaged drinking water ( other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

16-10-2008

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

20-10-2008

Pluges and socket outlets of 250 volts and rated current up to 16 amperes

[No. CMD/13 : 13 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head 5074

[PART II-SEC . 3(i))

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.अ. 2079, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भास्तीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या साइलेंसधारी का नाम

व पता

क्र. सं सीएम/एल

(1) (2)

(3)

1. 6918893 किमानी आक्या मिनरल्स पेटसम्नेगन्ड्ला पोस्ट

2. 6983908 पद्मजा लेबोरेटरीस प्रा. लि. विजयवाडा

(4)

(5)

2010-02-29 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2010-02-17 पशु आहारों के संपूरक खनिज मिश्रण

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2012

S.O. 2079. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:-

SCHEDULE

Sl .No.

Name andAddress of the Licensee

Licence No. CMA

(1) (2)

(3)

1. 6918893 Himani Aqua Minerals Petasannegandla Post

2. 6983908 Padmaja Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vijayawada

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

(4)

(5)

09-02-2010 water) Packageddrinking water (other thanpackaged natural mineral

17-02-2010 Mineral mixtures for Supplementing cattle feeds

No. CMD/ 13 : 13 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

सार.अ. 2000, भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्र.

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम

सं.

व पता

लाइसेंस संख्फ सीएम/एल

(1 )

(3)

(2)

1. 6703670 एन आर सी इन्डस्ट्रीस

कर्मूल

2 6796909 शिथ गंगा पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर

कहप

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

(4)

(5)

2010-03-29 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2010-03-03 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख 5075

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2080.-In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. CM/L-

(3)

(2)

(1)

1. 6703670 NRC Industries Kurnool

2. 6796909 SivaGanga Packaged Drinking water cuddapah

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

(5) (4)

29-03-2010

Packaged drinking water (other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

03-03-2010

Packaged drinking water ( other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/13: 13|

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2081.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है: -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्र. सं. सीएम/एल

(1) (2)

(3)

1 . 6319568 बालाजी इन्डस्ट्रीस कडप

6438576 श्री दुर्गा बीवरेजस प्रााल सिकंदराबाद

3. 6584890 डिविनिटी बीवरेजस प्रा लि कौकूर विलेज

4. 6647181 पी वेंकटेस्वलू एण्ड सन्स टंगूटूर

6846288

एस एस बीवरेजस रंगा रेड्डि

(5) (4)

2009-12-16

43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड, सिमेट

2009-12-17 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2009-12-17

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) $076-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

(2)

(1)

(3)

6. 6869809 विजया फूड एण्ड बीवरेजस सिकंदराबाद

7. 6884397 एस एस बीवरेजस रंगा रेड्डि

PART II SEC . 3( ii) ]

(4)

(5)

2009-12-17 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2009-12-23 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2081.-In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below Havebeencancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

$l .No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. CM/L-

(1) (2)

(3)

1. 6319568 Balaji Industries Cuddapah

2. 6438576

SreeDurga Beverages (P) Ltd Secunderabad

3. 6584890 Divinity Beverages (P) Ltd Kõukur village

4. 6647181 PVenkateswarlu & Sons Tangutur

5. 6846288 S. S. Beverages Rangareddi

6. 6869809 VijayaFood& Beverages Secunderabad

7. 6884397

S. S.Beverages Rangareddi

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

(4)

(5)

16-12-2009

17-12-2009 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

21-12-2009 Packaged drinking water (other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

17-12-2009 Packaged drinking water ( other thanpackaged natural mineral water)

17-12-2009 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

23-12-2009 Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/ 13: 13 |

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head 5077

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2082.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाईसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है : ---

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाईसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाईसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय

मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम सं

लाईसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(4)

(5) (3)

(2)

(1)

23-11-2009 1

6878810

वीना बीवरेजस अनन्तपुर

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वेज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

         S. O. 2082.   In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) ofthe regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification)
Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below
have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each : -
                                                      SCHEDULE
 Sl .   Licences No.    Name & Address of the        Article/Process with relevant Indian           Date of
No.     CM/L-           Licensee                      Standards covered by the licence              Cancellation
                                                      cancelled/suspension
(1)      (2)                 (3)                                (4)                                     (5)
 1     6878810          Veena Beverages              Packaged drinking water (other than            23-11-2009
                       Anantapur                     packaged natural mineral water)

| No. CMD/ 13:13]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2083.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाईसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाईसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाईसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम सं.

लाईसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(3)

(4)

(5) (1) (2)

10 10-2009 1

6648789

पैकेजबंद पेय जल | पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

जे बी एन्टरप्राइजेस वेंकट रेड्डिपाले

6722674

01-10-2009 2

पैकेजबंद पेय जल पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

मनिकन्टा इन्डस्ट्रीज गुन्टकल

01-10-2009 3

6750073

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

मैत्रीलिविंग वाटर अनन्तपुर

01-10-2009 4

6849601

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

कृष्णा पैकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर अनन्तपुर

01 10-2009 5

6857697

श्री साईं प्युर ड्रिंकिंग वाटर भोनगिर

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक ] मिनरल जल के अलावा ।

5078

[PART II Sec. 3(ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

(3)

(2)

6870083

(5) (4)

01-10-2009

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक ] मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

श्री वेंकटेश्वरा बीवरेजस भोनगिर

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2012

S.O. 2083. In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) ofthe regulation 5of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:-

SCHEDULE

Name & Address of the Licensee

Licences No. CM/L-

SL Nd .

Date of Cancellation

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

(3)

(1) (2)

1 6648789

(5)

(4)

10-10-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

JBEnterprises , Venkata Reddy Palem

6722674

Manikanta Industries , Guntakal

01-10-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

6750073

01-10-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Mytry Living Water, Anantapur

6849601

01-10-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

Krishna Packaged Drinking Water, Anantapur

6857697

01-10-2009

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

Sri Sai Pure Drinking Water Bhongir

6870083

01-10-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Sri Venkateshware Beverages , Bhongir

No. CMD/13 : 13]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2084.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाईसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है : -

अनुसूची

लाईसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाईसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाईसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

क्रम सं

(3)

(2)

(1)

6935893

(5) (4)

15-9-2009

संरचना इस्पात की धातु आर्क वेल्डिंग के लिए आयरित ( चद्दर को छोड़कर अन्य उत्पादन )

यूनाईटेड फेस डायग्राम्स प्रा.लि. कोंडमडुगु मेटू विलेज

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S. O. No. 2084.--In pursuance of sub - regulation (6 ) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particular: ofwhich are givenbelow have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :----

5079

[ भाग II --- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

SCHEDULE

Sl .   Licences No.   Name and Address of the     Article/Process with relevant Indian        Date of
No.    CM/L-          Licensee                    Standards covered by the licence            Cancellation
                                                  cancelled/suspension
(1)     (2)                (3)                              (4)                                   (5)
 1     6935893        United Phase Diagrams       Converted electrodeds for manual metal      15-09-2009
                       India Private Limited      are welding of carbon and cabon manganese
                      Kondamadugu Meetu           steel
                      Village

[No. CMD/13 : 13 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist . ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2085.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाईसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या

मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम सं. सीएम/एल

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

01-08-2009

6436673

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक भिनरल जल के अलावा ]

बालाजी एन्टरप्राइजेस अनन्तपुर

25-08-2009

6641068

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा]

सत्य सूर्य चन्द्रा वाटर प्रो . अद्दन्की

11-08-2009

6704268

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

रूपा आक्वा इन्डस्ट्रीज कर्नूल

19-08-2009 4

6799915

कंक्रीट प्रबलता के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात छड़ और तार

बिन्जुसारिया इस्पात प्रा.लि. महबूबनगर

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2085. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of

Licences No.

Cancellation Name and Address of the Licensee

CM/L-

SI . No.

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

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

01-08-2009

6436673

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water )

Balaji Enterprises Ananthapur

25-08-2009

6641068

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

Satya Surya Chandra Water Products , Addanki

11-08-2009

6704268

Rupa Aqua Industries Kurnool

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2081 GI: 12-8 [PART II SEC . 3 (ii )]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5080

(3)

(2)

(1)

6799915

Binjusaria Ispat Private Ltd. ,

(5)

(4)

19-08-2009

High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

Mahabubnagar

[No. CMD/13:13 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2086. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम (5 ) उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है : --

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(3)

(2)

(1)

6367276

(5) (4)

02-06-2009

कंक्रीट प्रबलता के लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात छड़ और तार

तिरुपती उद्योग लि. , हैदराबाद

6607977

11-06-2009

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा]

विनायका बीवरेजस अमीनपुर विलेज

6730673

17-06-2009

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

एस. के. मिनरल्स हैदराबाद

4 6847391

17-06-2009

पैकेजबंद पेय जल | पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

श्री साइ अमृत एन्टरप्राइजेस रंगा रेड्डि

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2012

S. O. 2086. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Licensec

Licences No. CMM

Sl. No.

Dateof Cancellation

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

(3)

(2)

(1)

6367276

(5) (4)

02-06-2009

High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

Tirupati Udyog Ltd. , Hyderabad

6607977

11-06-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Vinayaka Beverages Ameenpur Village

6730673

S.K. Minerals , Hyderabad 3

17-06-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packagednatural mineral water)

6847391

17-06-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Sri Sai Amrutha Enterprises Rangareddi

[No. CMD/ 13: 13 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head 5081

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2087. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 उप - नियम (6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है : -

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

25-02-2009

6272063

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा

प्रतीक बीवरेजस गुंटूर

27-02-2009

6716881

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा]

एस एस आर आक्वा प्रोडक्ट्स अडविटक्केलपाडू

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S. O. No. 2087.- In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Cancellation Name and Address of the Licensee

Licences No. CM/L

Sl. No.

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

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

25-02-2009

6272063

Prathik Beverages Guntur

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

27-02-2009

6716881

Packaged drinking water (other than packagedmatural mineral water )

S.S.R. AquaProducts Adavitakkellapadu

[No. CMD/13:13

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Heac

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2088.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 उप - नियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है: --

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

क्रम सं

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

29-04-2009

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल

6511358

जल के अलावा ]

साइ आक्वाइन्डस्ट्रीस हन्मकोन्डा

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख $082

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

NewDelhi , the 14th June, 2012

S.O.2008. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) ofthe regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 , ofthe 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

Date of Cancellation S. No.

Licences No. CM/л-

Name and Address of the Licensee

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

(5) (2)

(3)

(4)

29-04-2009 6511358

Sai Aqua Industries Hanamkonda

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

P. M. PANTULU, Director Scientist ' F' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 20.12

का. आ. 2089.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 उप- नियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम    लाइसेंस संख्या  लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता     लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय रद्द करने की तिथि
       सीएम/एल                                       मानक का शीर्षक
( 1)     (2)                                                       (4)                                  (5)
 1     6333562          गुरु फूड प्रोडक्ट्स          पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल     30-03-2009
                       तारानगर                       जल के अलावा]
       6523062                                                                                      05-03-2009

स्किम्ड दूध पाउडर मानक ग्रेड

क्रीम लाइन डेयरी प्रा.लि. ऑगोल

6562476         के बी बीवरेजस                 पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल    04-03-2009
                हैदराबाद                     जल के अलावा ]
6707274         साई सुजला इन्डस्ट्रीज         पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल    05-03-2009
                 तुम्पूरविलेज                जल के अलावा ]
6711972          वीनस आक्यामिनरल्स            पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल    28-03-2009
                तेलप्रोलू                    जल के अलावा ]
6827385          जी वी जी आक्वा इन्डस्ट्रीज   पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल    30-03-2009
                 मुरकमबट्टू विलेज एण्ड मंडल   जल के अलावा ]

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S.O. 2089. In pursuance of sub- regulation ( 6) of the regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , ofthe 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 :

5083

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Licences No. Name and Address of the Licensee

Sl . No.

Date of Cancellation

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

(3)

(2)

(1)

6333562

(5)

(4)

30-03-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packagednatural mineral water)

Guru Food Products Taranagar

6523062

05-03-2009

SkimedMilk Powder Part - I ,

Standard Grade

Creamline Dairy Products LimitedOngole

6562476

K.B. Beverages Hyderabad 3.

04-03-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

6707274

05-03-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

Sai Sujala Industries Thummuru Village .

6711972

28-03-2009

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

Veenus Aqua Minerals Telaprolu

6827385

30-03-2009

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

GVG Aqua Industries Murakambattu Village & Post

[ No. CMD/13: 13 ]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2090.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं.

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि/ वर्ष/माह

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

सी बी आग्रोस एण्ड

4-3-2009

6913378

ज्वेलर्स प्रा.लि. ,

जिला परिषद के सामने ,

डोर नं. 40-321 , मेन रोड

कर्नल , आंध्र प्रदेश

सीबी आग्रोस एण्ड

4-3-2009

2. 6913479

डोर नं. 40-1-45,

ज्वेलर्स प्रा.लि. , साइराम मेन्शन ,

लब्बीपेट, विजयवाड़ा

कृष्णा जिला , आंध्रप्रदेश

श्री लक्ष्मी ज्वेलरी मार्ट

2-3-2009

6913580

अनु वर्ष

भा मा. भाग संख्या

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(8) ( 9 )

(7)

(6)

(5)

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण

मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण

विशिष्टि

मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन-

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण

मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/

डोर नं. 14-18 , भद्राचलम रोड.

मैलवरम , कृष्णा जिला , आंध्रप्रदेश

शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं

मुहारांकन विशिष्टि 5084

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

4. 6914784 09-03-2009

(6) (7)

( 9 ) (5)

(8 )

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण

श्री गौरी शंकर ज्वेलरी वर्क्स डोर नं. 11-49-350 , दूसरी मंजिल, श्री राधा कृष्णा काम्प्लेक्स, सिवालयम स्ट्रीट , वन टाउन , विजयवाड , कृष्णा जिला , आंध्र प्रदेश

17-3-2009

5. 6916687

स्यामला ज्वेलरर्स डोर नं. 27-23-201 , गोपाल रेड्डी रोड , गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाड़ा, कृष्णा जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

6. 6916687 17-03-2009

1999

मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन - विशिष्टि

1999

1417

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन-विशिष्टि

महेन्द्र ज्वेलरी हाउस शाप नं. 8 , ई वी प्नाला (जै हिन्द टाकीस कामप्लेक्स ) राजगोपालचारी स्ट्रीट, गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाड़ा 520002, कृष्णा जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

7. 6916889 17-03-2009 महेन्द्र ज्वेलरी पैराडाइस डोर नं. 27-23-200, गोपाल रेड्डी रोड , गवर्नरपेट, विजयवाड़ा, कृष्णा जिला, आंध्र प्रदेश

30-03-2009

8. 6919794

सवारिया पाइप्स प्राइवेट लि. सर्वे नं. 137 , शंकरपल्ली रोड, नंदीगामा विलेज-502300 पटानचेरूवु मंडल , मेदक जिला

9. 6913075 06-03-2009 रायसलीमा स्टील री- रोलिंग मिल्स प्रा.लि. , नंदीगांव विलेज-509228 कोतूर मंडल , महबूबनगर जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

6925183

10.

30-03-2009 सुजना मेटल प्राडक्ट्स लि. , (यूनिट 1 ) , सर्वे नं. 296/7/8 एण्ड 11 , आइ डी ए , बोल्लाराम -502 325 मेदक जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

1417

1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहारांकन- विशिष्टि

2062

2006 तप्ते बेल्लित अल्प, मध्यम एवं उच्च तयता के संरचना इस्पात

2062

तप्त बेल्लित अल्प,

2006

मध्यम एवं उच्च तयता के संरचना इस्पात

2062

2006 तप्त बेल्लित अल्प , मध्यम एवं उच्च तयता के संरचना इस्पात 5085

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(7) (8) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

(4)

(2)

(+)

(3)

1985

11241

6924787 20-03-2009

11.

पोर्टेबल लिक्वीफाइड पैट्रोलिएम गैस अप्लाएन्सेस ऑपरेटिंग एट वेपर प्रेशर

हैं टेक अप्लाएन्सेस प्र. लि. , बी-14/ए, सी आई ई, बालानगर , हैदराबाद -500 037 रंगा रेड्डी जिला आंध्र प्रदेश

1994

12709

12. 6920375 30-03-2009

ग्लास फाइबर री इन्फोर्सड प्लास्टिक ( जी आर पी ) पाइप्स जायन्ट्स एण्ड फिटिंग फर यूस फर पोटेबल वाटर सप्लै

एक्सट्रेको काम्पोजिट्स इंडिया प्र. लि. , डायमन्ड प्लाजा , 995 पी , दूसरी मंजिल , 12वां मेन रोड , सेकण्ड एवेन्यू, अन्ना नगर-600 040 तमिलनाडू

2004

14543

16-03-2009

6918893

13.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

हिमानी आक्वा मिनरल्स, रामकृष्ण सिनेमा थिएटर के सामने पेटसन्नेगन्ड्लापोस्ट कारेमपूडी मंडल , गुंटूर आन्ध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

6917588 17-03-2009

14.

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

वेक्ट नाग लक्ष्मी एन्टरप्राइजेस प्रा.लि., इन्कुर्ती विलेज पोडलकूर-524 345 नेल्लूरजिला आन्ध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

15. 6918792

18-03-2009

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

एच एण्ड सन्स फूड्स एण्ड बीवरेजस , 13-6-825/12 रिंग रोड अत्तापूर ब्रिज के पास , हैदराबाद , आन्ध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

06-03-2009

16. 6913782

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

श्री गोदावरी बीवरेजस , 2-3-512/134/10 बापू नगर , अम्बरपेट, हैदराबाद , आन्ध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

17. 6913277 06-03-2009

पैकेजबंद पेय जल : (पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

एस एस अल्ट्रा- टेक डोर नं. 9-127 , राय नगर , गन्नवरम -521 101 कृष्णा जिला,

आन्ध्र प्रदेश

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

6912982 02-03-2009

18 .

(पेकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

आर एस आर इन्डस्ट्री डोर नं. 3-106 , मेदर बाजार पोरन्की , पेनमलूरू मंडल कृष्णा जिला, आन्ध्र प्रदेश [PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

$086

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

6922884

19.

31-03-2009 विसाका इन्डस्ट्रीज लि. , विसाका टावर्स , 1-8-303/69/3 एस पी रोड , सिकंदराबाद-500 003 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश

( 9 )

(7) (8 )

(6)

(5)

2000

14862

फाइबर सीमेन्ट फ्लाटशीट्स

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

NewDelhi , the 14th June, 2012

S.O. 2090. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

Licence No

$1. No.

Name and Address of theParty

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

1. 6913378

Year

IS No. Part Sec .

Title ofthe Standard

(9)

(6) (7) ( 8)

(5)

1999

1417

Gold andGold

Alloys, Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

04-03-2009 M/ s . CB Agros and Jewellers Private Limited, Opp . Zilla Parishad, D. No. 40.321 , MainRoad , Distt.: Kurnool Andhra Pradesh

04-3-2009

6913479

1999

1417

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewllery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/s . CB Agros and Jewellers Private Limited D. No. 40-1-45, Siaram Mansion, Labbipet, Vijayawada , Distt.: Krishna , Andhra Pradesh

2-3-2009

6913580

M/ s . Sri Lakshmi JewelleryMart Door No. 14-18 , Bhadrachlam Road, Mylavaram Distt.: Krishna Andhra Pradesh- 521230

6914784 09-03-2009

1999

1417

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewllery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

1417

1999 Gold and Gold

Alloys , Jewllery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

M/s . Sri Gowri Sanakar JewelleryWorks Door No. 11-49-350, 2nd floor, Sri Radha Krishna Complex , Sivalaya Street, One Town, Distt.: Krishna Andhra Pradesh [ भाग[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5087

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

6916687

17-3-2009

M/s . Syamala Jewellers Door .No. 27-23-201 , Gopala Reddy Road, Governorpet, Distt.: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

17-03-2009

6. 6916788

M/s . Syamala Jewellers Door No. 27-23-201 , Gopala Reddy Road , Governorpet , Distt.: Krishna Andhra Pradesh ,

17-03-2009

7. 6916889

M/ s . Mahendra Jewellery House , Shop 8 , E.V. Plaza (JaihindTalkiesComplex) Rajagopalchari Street, Governpet,

Distt.: Krishna Andhra Pradesh - 520002

17-03-2009

8. 6919794

M/s . Sawaria Pipes Private Limited H. No. 5-2-196/2A DistilleryRoad, Ranigunj , Secunderabad- 500003,

Distt.: Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh

9. 6913075 06-03-2009 M/ s . Rayalaseema Steel Re-Rolling Mills Pvt . Ltd. Nandigaon Village- 509 228 Kothur Mandal

Distt.: Mahbubnagar, Andhra Pradesh

30-03-2009

10. 6925183

M/s . Sujana Metal Products Limited ( Unit 1) 18Nagarjuna Hills Panjagutta Hyderabad- 500 082

Distt.: Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh

20-03-2009

11. 6924787

M/s. Hitek Appliances Pvt. Ltd. B - 14/A, CIE Balanagar, Hyderabad Distt.: Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh- 500037

30-03-2009

12. 6920375

M/ s . Extraco Composites India Pvt . Ltd. Diamond Plaza , 995 -P, IInd floor, 12th Main Road, 2nd Avenue , AnnaNagar, Distt.: Chennai Tamilnadu - 600040 (5)

(6)

(9)

(7) (8)

1417

1999 Goldand Gold Alloys, Jewllery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

1417 1999 Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewllery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

1417

1999 Gold andGold

Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

2006

2062

Steel for general structural purposes-

2006

2062

Steel for general structural purposes-

2062

2006 Steel for general structural purposes-

1985

11241

Portable Liquefied Petroleum gas appliances operating at vapour pressure

1994

12709

Glass - fibre rein- forced plastic (grp) pipes, joints and fittings for use for potable water supply [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5088

(4) (1)

(3)

(2)

13.

16-03-2009

6918893

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

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . Himani Aqua Minerals Opp. Radhakrishna Cinema Theatre , Petasannegandla Post Karempudi Mandal Distt.:Guntur Andhra Pradesh

17-03-2009

6917588

14.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

M/s . Venkata Naga Lakshmi Enterprises (P) Ltd. Inkurthi Village , Podalakur 524 345 Podalakur Mandal , Distt.: Nellore Andhra Pradesh

18-03-2009

6918792

15.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

Beverages M/ s . H & Sons Foods & 13-6-825/ 12 Ring Road, NearAttapur, Bridge, Distt .: Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

6913782

16.

06-03-2009

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/ s . Sri Godavari Beverages 2-3-512/ 134/10 Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad Distt .; Rangareddi Andhra Pradesh - 500013

06-03-2009

6913277

17.

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/ s . S. S. Ultra - Tech D. No. 9-127, Roy Nagar, Gannavaram - 521 101 Gannavaram Distt .: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

02-03-2009

6912982

18.

2004

14543

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

M/s . RSR Industry D. No. 3-105 Medara Bazar Poranki , Penamaluru Mandal, Distt .: Krishna Andhra Pradesh

31-03-2009

6922884

19.

2000

14862

Fibre cement flat

sheets

M/s . Visaka Industries Ltd. Visakha Towers 1-8-303/69/3 SP Road, Secunderabad , Distt. Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh -500 003

No. CMD 13:11

P. M. PANTUU , Director Scientist & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2091. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाईसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :

5089

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

| भाग ।। खण्ड 3( ii) ]

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

19 01-2009

62050-48

1 .

फोरेट ग्रान्यूल्स एनकेप्सूलेटेड

हैदराबाद केमिकल प्रोडक्ट्स हैदराबाद

01-01-2009

6369078

पैकेजबंद पेय जल | पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा

मन्यम आक्वा प्रा.लि. पैटबशीराबाद

01-01-2009

6714675

पैकेजबंद पेय जल | पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ।

साईं गंगा फूड एण्ड बीवरेजस रंगा रेड्डि

[ सं. सी एम डी/ 13:13

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S. O. 2091. In pursuance of sub- regulation (6 ) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988. of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particular of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Licences No.

Date of Cancellation Name & Address of the Licensee

CML-

SI. No.

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

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

19-01-2009

Pesticide phorate gencapsulated

6205048

Hyderabad Chemical Products Hyderabad

01-01-2009

6369078

Manyam Aqua Pvt . 1.td. , Pet Basheerabad

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water )

01-01-2009

714675

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

Sai Ganga Food & Beverages Rangareddi

| No. CMD 13:13]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist "F" & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2092. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक न्यूगे एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाईसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :--

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाईसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाईसेंस संख्या

लाईसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम सं. मीएम/एल

(5)

(1)

(3)

( 1) (2)

10 11 2008

679-1905

बिजली के पंखों की मोटरों के लिए संधरित्रों कीविशिष्टि

आरिक इन्जिनियरिंग प्रा.लि. हैदराबाद

| सं. सी एम डी/13 : 131

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख 5090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2012

S. O. 2092. In pursuance ofsub- regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations1988, of the Barreau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particular of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Licences No. CMM

$ 1. No.

Name & Address of the Licensee

Date of Cancellation

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

(2)

(3)

6794905

(4)

(5)

10-11-2008

Capacitores for electric fan motors

AuricEngineering Pvt . Ltd. Hyderabad

[No. CMD/ 13 :13]

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2093.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) उपनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण लाइसेसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है' :

अनुसूची

क्रम

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(2)

(1)

(3)

6321757.

शिव गंगा आक्वा प्रोडक्ट्स

गुंदूर

(4)

(5)

16-12-2008

पैकेजबंद पेय जल पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

6644276

जीलर्केटिंग , माचेर्ला

26-12-2008

पैकेजबंद पेय जल [ पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ]

3 6808179

धर्मा केबल्स लि.

01-12-2008

पीवीसी रोधित ( हैवी ड्यूटी ) बिजली के केबल

हैदराबाद

6808381

भों केबल्स लि.

क्रॉसलिंक्ड पॉलीथिन से रोधित पीवीसी के खोल

01-12-2008

चढ़ी केबल भाग 1 1100 वो. तक कार्यकारी

वोल्टके लिए

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. एम. पंतुलू, निदेशक वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2012

S.O. 2093. Inpursuance of sub- regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Hureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particular of which are given below havebeen cancelled with affect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

s No. CM/L- Licences No. Name &Address of the Licansee

Date of Cancellation

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

(1) (2)

(3)

1. 6321757

Siva Ganga Aqua Products Guntur

(4)

(5)

16-12-2008

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

6644276

Acal Marketing,Macheria

26-12-2008

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water) 5091

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

01-12-2008

6808179

Thermo Cables Limited Hyderabad

PVC insulated (heavy duty ) electric cables Part1 for working voltages upto and including 1100 v

01-12-2008 6808381

Thermo Cables Limited Hyderabad

Crosslinked polythylene insulated PVC sheathed cables Part 1 for working voltage upto and including 1100 v

| No. CMD/ 13 : 13

P. M. PANTULU , Director Scientist ' F ' & Head

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 11 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2094. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ।

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल /बीएसपी/जीएम/ ( पीएलजी )/भूमि/420 तारीख 21 जनवरी , 2012 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , अनूपपुर और शहडोल ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, । , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

उक्त अनुसूची में विहित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति--

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

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

(3 ) प्रभावहीन हो गई सर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों, खनन प‌ट्टों के अधीन अर्जित किये जाने पर अधिकारों के लिये प्रतिकर प्राप्त कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट भूमि के कोरों से संग्रहण या अन्य खनिज नमूनों तथा उनके सम्यक् विश्लेषण को तथा किसी अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेख या सामग्रियों की निर्मित से संबंधित सभी मानचित्र चार्ट और अन्य दस्तावेज परिदत्त कर सकेगा ।

इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) , साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

बदुरा ब्लाक पश्चिम विस्तार, सोहागपुर क्षेत्र जिला--अनुपपुर और शहडोल ( मध्य प्रदेश )

[रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम/( पीएलजी )/ भूमि/420 तारीख 21 जनवरी , 2012 ] (पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचना भूमि दर्शाते हुए )

टिप्पण

जिला

तहसील

क्रम ग्राम का नाम

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

बन्दोबस्त नम्बर

पटवारी हल्का नम्बर

सं.

भाग

1247.962

शहडोल

106

639

सोहागपुर

बदुरा

भाग

375.091

शहडोल

107

890

सोहागपुर

रामपुर 5092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2,1934

       2              3         4         5
3.     बेलिया          722         107     सोहागपुर
4.    अतरिया           09          107     सोहागपुर
5.    खमरौध            179         105     सोहागपुर
6.    खैरबना           205         106     सोहागपुर
7.     बिछिया          716         106     सोहागपुर
8.    कोदैली           167         29      अनूपपुर
9.     खाड़ा           184         30      अनूपपुर

PART 11 SE 3 (fi) |

                                                              6                7                     8-
                                                             शहडोल            60.210              भाग
                                                             शहडोल           431.847             संपूर्ण
                                                             शहडोल           643.500              भाग
                                                             शहडोल           455.493              भाग
                                                             शहडोल            584.950            संपूर्ण
                                                             अनूपपुर         415.529              भान
                                                             अनूपपुर          51.201              भाग
                                   कुल: 4265.783 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 10540.75 एकड़ ( लगभग )
सीमा वर्णन :
 कख      रेखा ग्राम चाका खमरौध की सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " क " से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम चाका खमरौध के भागतः
         सम्मिलित सीमा, ग्राम खमरौध के मध्य भाग , ग्राम खखैरवना के उत्तरी भाग , ग्राम अंतरिया अमलई, अतरिया गिरवा के
         सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती हैं ।
खग       रेखा ग्राम बेलिया के पश्चिमी भाग, ग्राम रामपुर के मध्य भाग से होती हुई ग्राम रामपुर खारा के सम्मिलित सीमा में
        बिन्दु" ग" पर मिलती है ।
गघ       रेखा ग्राम कोदैली खारा के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा , ग्रांम खारा के पश्चिमी भाग , ग्राम कोदैली के मध्य भाग , ग्राम
         बटुरा के दक्षिणी भाग से होती हुई सोन नदी के किनारे पर बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।
घक       रेखा सोन नदी के मागतः पूर्वी किनारे से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " परं मिलती है ।

| फा. सं. 43015/03/2012 पी आर. आई. न्यू ।।

ए.के. दाम, अवर सचित्र

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 11th June , 2012

S.O. 2094. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtamed from the lands mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas , the plan bearing number SECL BSP / GM ( PLG ) Land 420 dated 21st January , 2012 contaming details of the area of land described in the said schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector. Anuppur and Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh ) or at the office of the Coal Controller , L. Council House Street . Kolkata - 700001 or atthe office oftheSouth Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section) , Seepat Road , Bilaspur - 495006 ( Chhattisgarh ).

Now, therefore, in exercise af the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Gavernment hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the said schedule:

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may

( i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land , or of any rights in or over such land, or (ii) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land: or 5093

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

| भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

( iii ) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining lease being acquired, and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land, collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub - sectian ( 7 ) of Section 13 of the said Act,

to the Officer - In- Charge or Head ofthe Department (Revenue ), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road , Bilaspur -495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE

Batura Block West Extension , Sohagpur Area

District-Anuppur and Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh)

[plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/GM/ (PLG )/Land/ 420 dated 21st January, 2012 ] ( Showing the land notified for prospecting)

Tahsil

Name of village

Patawari Halkanumber

Bandobast Number

Sl . No.

106

639

Remarks

District

Area in hectares

Part

1247.962

Shahdol.

Sohagpur

Batura

1 .

107

Part

375.091

Shahdol

Sohagpur

890

2. Rampur

107

Part

60.210

Shahdol

Sohagpur

722

3. Beliya

107

Full

431.847

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Atariya

105

179

Part

643.500

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Khamraudh

106

205

Part

455.493

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Khairwana

106

716

Full

584.950

Shahdol

Sohagpur

7. Bichhiya

167

Part

415.529

Anuppur

Kodaili

184

Part

51.201

Anuppur

Khara

Total : 4265.783 hectares ( approximately ) or 10540.75 acres ( approximately)

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION : --

A-B Line starts from point 'A' on the common boundary of villages Chaka- Khamraudh and passes along partly common boundary of villages Khamraudh - Chaka , through middle part of village Khamraudh , northern part of village Khairwana, along common boundary of villages Atariya - Amlai , Atariya- Girwa and meets at point 'B'.

B-C Line passes through western part of village Beliya, middle part of village Rampur and meets at point "C" on the commonboundary of villages Rampur-Khara .

C-D Line passes along partly common boundary of villages Kodaili - Kliara , through western part of village Khara . middle part of village Kodaili , southern part of village Batura and meets at point 'D ' on the bank of Son River.

-A Line passes along partly eastern bank of Son River and meets at starting point 'A' .

JE. No. 4.301 51.03/ 2012 - PRIW- 11

A. K. DAS , Under Secy .

5094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2095. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि , इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के ब्योरे रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल /बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी ) /भूमि/422 तारीख 24 फरवरी , 2012 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , शहडोल ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउसिंल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता - 700001 के कार्यर्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर 495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

उक्त अनुसूची में विहित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-

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

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

(iii) प्रभावहीन हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों , खनन प‌ट्टों के अधीन अर्जित किये जाने पर अधिकारों के लिये प्रतिकर प्राप्त कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धास 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट भूमि के कोरों से संग्रहण या अन्य खनिज नमूनों तथा उनके सम्यक् विश्लेषण को तथा किसी अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेख या सामग्रियों की निर्मित से संबंधित सभी मानचित्र चार्ट और अन्य दस्तावेज परिदत्त कर सकेगा ।

इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) , साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर- 495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगें ।

अनुसूची

पठरा ब्लाक , सोहागपुर क्षेत्र

जिला- शहडोल ( मध्य प्रदेश )

[रेखांक संख्या- एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम (पीएलजी )/भूमि/422 तारीख 24 फरवरी , 2012 | ( पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचना भूमि दर्शाते हुए )

ग्राम का नाम

क्रम सं.

पटवारी हल्का नम्बर जिला

तहसील

पठरा

101

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

टिप्पण

शहडोल

396.349

भाग

सोहागपुर

चटहा

98 शहडोल

60.230

भाग

सोहागपुर

अमरहा

107 शहडोल

62.000

भाग

सोहागपुर

भमरहा

102 शहडोल

327.350

सोहागपुर

103 सिगुरी

संपूर्ण

शहडोल

23.448

सोहागपुर

छिरपानी

102 शहडोल

26.631

सोहागपुर

पथखई

100

भाग

शहडोल

130.810

भाग

सोहागपुर

99 केलमनिया

शहडोल

100.000

भाग

सोहागपुर

कुल:- 1126.818 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 2784.37 एकड़ ( लगभग )

सीमा वर्णन :

कख रेखा ग्राम पठरा- केलमनिया के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " क " से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम पठरा के उत्तरी, ग्राम चटहा के पूर्वी भाग से होती हुई ग्राम चटहा - छिरपानी के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

खग रेखा ग्राम छिरपानी के पूर्वी भाग , ग्राम भमरहा -छिरपानी , भमरहा- सिगुरी के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा , ग्राम सिगुरी के दक्षिणी , ग्राम अमरहा के पूर्वी भाग से होती हुई ग्राम अमरहा- पथखई के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।

गघ रेखा ग्राम पथखई के पश्चिमी भाग से होती हुई ग्राम पथखई - केलमनिया के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5095

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

घ-क

रेखा ग्राम केलमनिया- पठरा के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा , ग्राम केलमनिया के पश्चिमी भाग से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/4/2012- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू 1 |

ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th June , 2012

S.O. 2095.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be Obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/ GM ( PLG ) / LAND/ 422 dated 24th February, 2012 containing details of the area of land described in the said schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, Shahdol ( Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Section ) , Seepat Road , Bilaspur -495006 ( Chhattisgarh );

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the said schedule:

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may-

(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land, or of any rights in or over such land ; or

(ii) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land; or

(iii ) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect , rights under mining lease being acquired . and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land, collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referredto in sub - section (7 ) of Section 13 of the said Act ,

to the Officer - In - Charge or Head of the Department ( Revenue ), South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 ( Chhattishgarh ) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Pathara Block , Sohagpur Area District- Shahdol ( Madhya Pradesh )

[Plan bearing number SECL / BSP/GM ( PLG )/ LAND/ 422 dated 24th February, 2012 |

(Showing the land notified for prospecting )

Patawari Halka number SI. No.

Name of village

Pathara

101 1 .

98 Chatha

107 Amraha

102 4. Bhamraha

103 5.

Siguri

102 6. Chhirpani

100 7.

Pathkhai

99 8.

Kelmaniya

Remarks

Area in hectares

Tahsil

District

Part

396.349

Shahdol

Sohagpur

60.230

Part Shahdol

Sohagpur

Part

62.000

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Full

327.350

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Part

23.448

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Part

26.631

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Part

130.810

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Part

100.000

Shahdol

Sohagpur

Total: -1126.818 hectares ( approximately ) or 2784.37 acres ( approximately)

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point ' A' on the common boundary of villages Pathara - Kelmaniya and passes through northern part of village Pathara , castern part of village Chatha and meets at point ' B ' on the common boundary of villages Chatha - Chhirpani .

2081 GI/12-10 PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

BC Linepasses throtich eastern part of village Chhirpani , along partly common boundary of villages Bhamraha- Chhirpani , Bhattraha - Siguri , southern part of village Siguri , eastern part of village Amraha and meets at point 'C ' on the common boundary of villages Amraha - Pathkhai .

-D Linepasses through western part of village Pathkhai and meets at point ' D ' on the common boundary ofvillages Pathkhai -Kelmaniya .

D-A Line passes along partly common boundary of villages Kelmaniya - Pathara, western part of village Kelmaniya and meets at starting point 'A' .

[F. No. 43015/4/2012 -PRIW- 11

A. K. DAS, Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 12 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2096.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके अश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II, खंड 3 , उपखंड (ii ) में तारीख 26 अगस्त, 2011 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 2267 , तारीख 26 अगस्त, 2011 द्वारा इस अधिसूचना से उपाषद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में, जिसका माप 770.57 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 1904.07 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है, कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित उक्त भूमियों के भाग में कोयला अभिप्राप्य है ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 7 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 697.98 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 1724.72 एकड़ ( सहायक) माप की भूमि में सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

टिप्पण 1 : इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या एनटीपीसी / सीएम/ सेक्शन IV/सीबीए/ 09/पीबी/ 051 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 2011 का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त , हजारीबाग ( झारखंड राज्य ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , । , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या कार्यकारी निदेशक , ( ईंधन सुरक्षा ) एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड , प्रथम तल , आर एण्ड डी भवन, सेक्टर-24, नोएडा-201301 या उप महाप्रबंधक , एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड , पकरी बरवाडीह कोल माइनिंग प्रोजेक्ट, उज्जवल काम्पलेक्स, पगमिल रोड , हकारीबाग - 825301 ( झारखंड ) के कार्यालय में या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( गवेषण संभाग ) , सेन्ट्रल माइस प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इन्स्ट्रीब्यूट , गोंडवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड़ रांची या कोयला नियंत्रक , । , काउसिंल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 या जिला कलेक्टर गौर मजिस्ट्रेट , जिला- हजारीबाग , झारखंड के कार्यालय में किया जा सकेगा ;

टिप्पण 2 : उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंध की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है जो निम्न उपबंध करता है :

अर्जन के प्रति आक्षेप:-

' 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति, जो किसी भूमि जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन कोई अधिसूचना जारी की गई है , अधिसूचना जारी की जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आक्षेप कर सकेगा ।

स्पष्टीकरण: -

( 1 ) इस धारा के अर्थान्तर्गत यह आक्षेप नहीं माना जाएगा कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी सक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए ।

( 2 ) धारा 8 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आक्षेप, सक्षम प्राधिकारी को लिखित रूप में किया जाएगा और सक्षम प्राधिकारी, आधिक्षेपकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने का या विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुने जाने का अवसर देगा और ऐसे सभी आक्षेपों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जाँच, यदि कोई हो, करने के पश्चादयो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 कीउप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि के या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आक्षेपों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्यवाही के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोर्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

( 3 ) इस धारा के प्रयोजन के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता , यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में था उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं । " 5097

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

टिप्पण 3 : केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउसिंल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700001 को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 9 सितम्बर, 2006 में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3629 , जिसे तत्पश्चात् भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड ( 3 ) , उपखंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित का. आ. 2307 तारीख 18 अगस्त , 2007 द्वारा संशोधित किया गया था, द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

पकरी बरवाडीह कोल माइनिंग ब्लॉक फेज- V नार्थ करनपुरा कोलफील्ड्स जिला-हजारीबाग , झारखंड

(रेखांक संख्या-एनटीपीसी/सीएम/सेक्शन IV /सीबीए/ 09 /पीबी/ 051 , तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 2011 )

सभी अधिकार :

(क ) राजस्व भूमि:

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्रफल

जिला

थाना

थाना नं

गांव का नाम

क्रम सं.

एकड़

हेक्टेयर

भाग

18.00

7.29

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

बेलतु

भाग

124.99

50.58

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

कंडाबेर

भाग

31.68

12.82

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

बरियातू

भाग

54.61

22.10

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

जबरा

भाग

50.00

20.23

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

बसरिया

भाग

15.00

6.07

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

नावाडीह

भाग

141.92

57.43

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

सिरमा

भाग

515.10

208.46

हजारीबाग

बड़कागांव

पकरी बरवाडीह

951.30

384.98

कुल ( लगभग )

( ख ) वन भूमि ( अधिसूचित/गैर - अधिसूचित/जंगल- झाड़ी ):

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्रफल

जिला

थाना

थाना नं

गांव का नाम

क्रम सं.

एकड़

हेक्टेयर

भाग

16.00

6.48

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

1 .

बेलतु

भाग

49.68

20.11

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

335

कंडाबेर

भाग

199.83

202.28

केरेडारी

हजारीबाग

बरियातू

भाग

17.10

6.92

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

जबरा

भाग

76.57

30.98

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

बसरिया

भाग

50.00

20.23

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

नावाडीह

भाग

53.07

21.48

हजारीबाग

केरेडारी

सिरमा

भाग

11.17

4.52

हजारीबाग

बड़कागांव

पकरी बरवाड़ीह

773.42

313.00

कुल ( लगभग )

9098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

सारांश:-

(क) कुल राजस्व भूमि : 384.98 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) = 951.30 एकड़ (लगभग )

(ख) कुल वन भूमि 313.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) = 73.42 एकड़ (लगभग)

सकल योग (कख) 697.98 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) = 1724.72 एकड़ ( लगभग )

अर्जनाधीन राजस्व प्लॉटों की सूची:

ग्राम बेलतु : 60 भाम , 63 , 64 भाग , 65 से 67 , 68 भाग , 69 भाग , 85 , 86 , 88 से 105 , 106 भाग , 107 भाग , 108 , 109 , 110 भाग , 111 , 114 भाग, 119 भाग 120 भाग , 121 भाग , 122 , 123 , 124 भाग ,

ग्राम कंडाबेर : 185 भाव, 188 , 189 , 190 से 196 , 198 से 211 , 213 से 239 , 240 भाग , 241 से 254 , 255 भाग , 448 भाग , 450 भाग , 451,452 भता, 453 भहा, 454 भाग, 455 भाग , 456 से 467 , 468 भाग , 471 भाग , 472 भाग , 473 से 483 , 484 भाग , 485 से 492 , 494से 512 , 513 भाग , 514 , 515 भाग , 519 भाग , 520 भाग , 521 भाग , 522 से 526, 528 से 544, 546 से 624, 626 से 633,635 से 639 , 641 से 681 , 682 भाग , 684 भाग,

ग्राम बरियातू : 5 से 20, 22 से 49, 51 से62 , 1651 भाग , 1652 से 1658 , 1685 , 1687 से 1693.

ग्राम जबरा : 1,3 से 97 , 98 भाग , 99 से 107 , 108 भाग , 109 भाग , 113 से 129.

ग्राम बसरिया : 6 भाग, 13 भाग , 14 से 22 , 23 भाग , 24 भाग , 25 भाग , 26 , 28 से 31 , 33 ,

ग्राम नावाडीह : 473 भाग, 481 भाग , 482 , 483 भाग, 484 भाग , 485 , 486 भाग, 487 भाग , 488 भाग , 489 , 490 भाग , 491 भाग ,492 भाग , 493 भाग , 494 भाग , 495 भाग , 496 भाग , 497 , 498 भाग , 499 भाग , 500 , 501 भाग , 502 से 504.

ग्राम सिरमा: 113 भाग, 137 भाग , 141 भाग , 142 , 145 भाग , 146 भाग , 147 , 148 भाग , 149 भाग , 150 भाग , 151 भाग , 152 भाग , 157 भाग , 158 से 194, 196 से 239 , 241 , 242 , 243 भाग , 244, 246 , 248 से 290 , 292 से 295.

8 ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीहः 1041 से 1432, 1442 से 1446, 1448 से 1718 , 1741 से 1743 , 1918 से 1933 , 1935 से 1950 , 1952से 2436 , 2438 से 2463, 2499, 2516 , 2518.

अर्जनाधीन वन भूमि प्लॉटों की सूची:

1. ग्राम बेलतु : 62 भाग , 84 भाग, 87 , 143 भाग , 1975 भाग.

2. ग्राम कंडाबेर: 197 भाग , 212 , 493 , 527 , 545 , (625 , 634 , 640 , 683 भाग.

3. ग्राम बरिषातू : । से 4, 21 , 50 , 63 भाग, 232 भाग , 1643 भाग , 1686.

4. ग्राम जबराः 2 , 1.30 भाग.

5. ग्राम बसरिया: 12 भाग , 27 भाग , 32 , 34.

6. ग्राम नावाडीह: 422 भाग , 505 भाग.

7. ग्राम सिरमाः 30 भाग , 144 भाग , 195 , 240 , 245 , 247 , 291 , 296 .

8. ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीहः 1447, 2464

अर्जित किये जाने वाले क्षेत्र का सीमा वर्णन:

भाग-ऐ " का सीमा वर्णन :

रेखा ए ऐ । : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ " कन्डाबेर गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 454, 155 , 454,453,452,448, 450 , 467, 468 , 471 , 472 , 255 , 240 , 188 , 189 , 185 , 197 , 199 , 200 से गुजरती हुई कन्डाबों गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ । " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा एं। ऐ2: रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ। " कन्डाबेर गांव के प्लॉट नं. 200 के उत्तरी किनारे पर स्थित है और जो उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर नावाडीह क प्लॉट संख्या 422 और 505 से गुजरती हुई नावाडीह गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ 2 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

3 रेखा ऐ2 ऐ3: रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ2 " नावाडीह गांव के उत्तरी किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 505 से गुजरती हुई उसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा एं ऐ4: रेखा बिन्दु " एं " नावाडीह गांव के उत्तर किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 505,173,481,483, 5099 [ भाग II---खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

484 , 485 , 486 , 487 , 488 , 490 , 491 , 492 , 493 , 494 , 495 , 496, 498 , 499 , 501 , से गुजरती हुई नावाडीह गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ4 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

5. रेखा ऐ4 ऐ5: -रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ4 " नावाडीह गांव के उत्तर - पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और प्लॉट संख्या 13 , 23 , 12 , 24 , 25 से गुजरती हुई बसरीया गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ5 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

6. रेखा ऐऽ ऐ6:- रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ 5 " बसरीया गांव के उत्तर किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर - पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 27 , 6 और 27 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ6 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

7. रेखा ऐ6 ऐ7: रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ6 " बसरीया गांव के उत्तरी किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तरी- पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 27 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ7 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

8. रेखा ऐ7-ऐ 8: रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ 7 " बसरीया गांव के उत्तरी - पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और गांव सिरमा की उत्तरी - पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 30 . 157 , 159 , 152 , 151 , 145 और 146 से गुजरती हुई सिरमा गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ8 " पर समाप्त हाती है ।

9. रेखा ऐ४ ऐ9:- रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ8 " सिरमा गांव के उत्तर किनारे पर स्थित है और गांव सिरमा के उत्तर- पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 148 , 149 , 150 , 141 , 137 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ9 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

10. रेखा ऐ9 ऐ10 : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ9 " सिरमा गांव के उत्तर किनारे पर स्थित है और पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 137. 113 , 142 , 144 , 243 से गुजरती हुई उसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ10 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

11. रेखा ऐ 10 ऐ।। : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ 10 " सिरमा गांव के पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण- पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 243 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ ।। " पर समाप्त होती है ।

12. रेखा ऐ ।। ऐ 12 : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ।। " सिरमा गांव के दक्षिण- पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण- पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 243 . 247 , 252 , 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 286 , 295 , 296 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ।2 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

13. रेखा ऐ।2 ऐ।3 : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ ।2 " सिरमा गांव के दक्षिण- पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित है और बरियातु के दक्षिण की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1686 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ।3 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

14. रेखा ऐ।3 ऐ।4: रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ। 3 " बरियातु गांव के उत्तर - पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण- पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1693 और 1692 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ14 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

15. रेखा ऐ ।4 ऐ 15: रेखा बिन्दु " एं । 4 " बरियातु गांव के उत्तर - पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1692 , 1691 . 1690, 1689 , 1688 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ 15 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

16. रेखा ए 15 ऐ ।6: रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ । 5 " बरियातु गांव के पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1686 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ16 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

17. रेखा एं।6 ऐ । 7 : 'रेखा बिन्दु " एं। 6 " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिण- पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1686 और 1685 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ । 7 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

18. रेखा ऐ 17 ऐ18 : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ। 7 " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्वी किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1643 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ18 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

19. रेखा ए18 ऐ 19 : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ18 " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित है और पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1643 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " एं19 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

20. रेखा एं 19 एं20: रेखा बिन्दु " एं। 9 " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिण किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर की ओर बरियातु गांव के प्लॉट संख्या 1643 और 1651 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ20 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

21. रेखा एं20 ऐ21 : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ20 " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिण किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण- पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2.32 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " एं । " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा ऐ21 ऐ22 : रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ2 । " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिण- पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर - पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 6.3 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ 22 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

23. रेखा ऐ22 एं23: रेखा बिन्दु " ऐ22 " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिण-पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 63 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ23 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

5100

[PART Ser 3 月 GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

24. रेखा ऐ23 - ऐ24: - " ऐ23 " बरियातु गांव के दक्षिण - पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर- पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 6.3 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ24 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

25. रेखा ऐ24-ऐ25:- रेखा " ऐ24 " बरियातु गांव के पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और जबरा गांव के दक्षिण पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट की संख्या 130, 113 , 109 , 108 , 107 , 98 से गुजरती हुई बरियातु गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ25 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

25. रेखा ऐ25-26: " 25 " ग्राम जबरा के दक्षिण- पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और दक्षिण- पश्चिम की ओर कंडाबेर गांव के प्लॉट संख्या 682, 663 से गुजरती हुई कंडांबेर गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ26 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

27. रेखा ऐ26-27: " ऐ26 " ग्राम कंडाबेर के दक्षिण किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर - पश्चिम की ओर बेलतु गांव के प्लॉट संख्या 60,1975, 62, 63, 64, 68 , 69 और 60 से गुजरती हुई बेलतु गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ27 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

28. रेखा ऐ27-28 " ऐ27 " ग्राम बेलतु के उत्तर - पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर - पश्चिमी की ओर कंडाने संख्या 484, 519, 520, 521 , 513 , 515 , 484 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ28 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

29. रेखा ऐ28 -ऐ29: - रेखा बन्द " ऐ28 " ग्राम कंडाबेर के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर - पश्चिम की ओर बेलतु गांव के प्लॉट संख्या 60, 124, 84 , 121 , 12 , 119 , 105 , 106 , 107, 114 , 110 , 143 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ29 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

30. रेखा ऐ29 पै: रेखा " ऐ28 " ग्राम बेलतु के उत्तर- पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और उत्तर - पश्चिम की ओर कंडाबर गां के प्लॉट संख्या 484 , 454, 456 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " ऐ " पर समाप्त होती है ।

भाग-बी

रेखा बी बी।: रेखा कि " बी " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी -पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1950 , 1933 में गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी । " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी। बी2: रेखा कि " बी । " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी - पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी- पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1933 , 1923 , 1918 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 2 " पर समाप्त होती है ।.

रेखा बी2 बीउ: रेखा बन्द " बी 2 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी - पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी- पूर्व की ओर. प्लॉट संख्या 1918 , 1919 , 1920 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 3 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बीउ बी : रेखा जी 3 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी - परिचार किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिण की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1920 से मुभी कई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 4 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी4 बी5: रेखा " बी " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1920, 1921 , 1922 , 1937 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 5 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बीड बी०: रेखा " बी 5 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तर की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1937, 1939, 1940 , 1943 , 1944 , 1945 , 1946 , 1947 , 1948 , 1949 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी6 बी7: रेखा " बी 6 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तर की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1949 , 1950 में मजस्ती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 7 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी 7 बी४ : रेखा बन्द " बी 7 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1950, 1964, 1963 , 1962 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी. 8 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

रेखा बी४ बो : स्वाद " बी ४ " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या । और 10 , 1961 , 1952 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी " पर समाप्त होती है ।

10. रेखा बी ० बी10 : रेखा बिन्दु " बी " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारें पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1952 , 173 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 10 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

1 . रेखा बी 10 बी।। : रेखा बिन्दु " बी 10 ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1743 , 1242 , 1741 , 2125 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी ।। " पर समाप्त होती है ।

5101 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

12. रेखा बी ।। बी 12: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 11 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2125 , 2127 , 2130 , 1718 , 1154 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 12 " परं समाप्त होती है ।

13. रेखा बी । 2 बी 13 : - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 12 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1154, 1137 , 1136 , 1134 , 1133 , 1132 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 13 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

14. रेखा बी 13 बी14 : - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 13 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तर किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1132 , 1128 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 14 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

15. रेखा बी 14 - बी15: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 14 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के उत्तरी - पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1128 , 1041 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 15 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

16. रेखा बी 15 - बी 16 : - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 15 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1041 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 16 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

17. रेखा बी 16 - बी17: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 16 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1041 , 1432 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 17 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

18. रेखा बी 17 - बी 18: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 17 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1432 , 1449 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 18 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

19. रेखा बी 18 बी 19 : रेखा बिन्दु " बी 18 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1449 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 19 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

20. रेखा बी19 बी20: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 19 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी- पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1449 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 20 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

21. रेखा बी20 बी21:- रेखा बिन्दु " बी 20 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1449 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 21 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

22. रेखा बी21 बी 22: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 21 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिण पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1449 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 22 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

23. रेखा बी 22 बी23 :- रेखा बिन्दु " बी 22 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिण की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1449 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 23 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

24. रेखा बी23 बी24: रेखा बिन्दु " बी 23 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1449 , 2464 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 24 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

25. रेखा बी24 बी25 : रेखा बिन्दु " बी 24 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2464 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 25 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

26. रेखा बी25 - बी26: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 25 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पूर्व किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी -पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2464 , 2438 , 2436 , 2379 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 26 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

27. रेखा बी26 बी27: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 26 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2379 , 2375 , 2468 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 27 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

28. रेखा बी27 बी28:- रेखा बिन्दु " बी 27 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिण किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2468 , 2374 , 2363 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 28 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

29. रेखा बी28 बी29 : - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 28 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2363 , 2362 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 29 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

30. रेखा बी29 बी30: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 29 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2362 , 2361 , 2359 , 2358 , 2325 , 2324 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 30 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

5102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA. 2, 1934 .

[ PART II- SHC. 3 (ii ) [

31. रेखा बी30-बी31: रेखा बिन्दु " बी 30 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2324, 2323 , 2276 , 2275 , 2274 , 2273 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 31 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

32. रेखा बी31 की32: रेखा बिन्दु " बी 31 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2273 2274 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 32 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

38. रेखा बी32 बी 33 : रेखा बिन्दु " बी 32 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पंश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2274, 2270 , 2269 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 33 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

34. रेखा बी33-बी 34: रेखा बिन्दु " बी 33 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2269 , 2268 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 34 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

35. रेखा बी34-बी 35: - रेखा बिन्दु " बी 34 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2268 , 2251 , 2230 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 35 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

35. रेखा बी35 बी36: मिन्दु " बी 35 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2230 , 1718 , 2216 , 2033 , 2032, 2028 , 2029 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 36 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

37. रेखा बी36-37: रेखा " बी 36 ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के दक्षिणी- पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2029, 2025 , 2023 , 2022 , 2021 , 2020 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 37 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

38. रेखा बी37 बी38:- रेखा बिन्दु " बी 37 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी- पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 2020, 2019 , 1950 से गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 38 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

39. रेखा बी38 बी39:- से बिन्दु " बी 38 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के दक्षिणी पश्चिम किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पूर्व की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1950 में गुजरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी 39 " पर समाप्त होती है ।

40. रेखा बी39 -थी: रेखा बिन्दु " बी 39 " ग्राम पकरी बरवाडीह के पश्चिमी किनारे पर स्थित है और इसी गांव के उत्तरी पश्चिम की ओर प्लॉट संख्या 1950 से सुरती हुई इसी गांव के बिन्दु " बी " पर समाप्त होती है ।

[ फा. सं. 43015/2/2011 पीआरआईडब्ल्यू ।।

ए. के . दास , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th June , 2012

S.O. 2096. Whorens by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.2267 .

hectares (approximately ) or 1904.07 acres ( approximately) of the land in the locality specified in the schedule annexed to dated 26th August , 2011 issued under sub -Section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas , ( Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India , Part - 11 . Section - 3 , sub- section (ii ), dated 27th August , 2011 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect the coal in 770.57 thisnotification;

And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands described in the schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) , the Central Government hereby gives the notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 697.98 hectares ( approximately) or 1724.72 acres ( approximately ) in all rights in the schedule appended hereto.

Note 1: The plan boaring number NTPC / CM / SEC IV / CBA/ 09 / PB / 051 dated the 20th December , 2011 of the area covered. by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Deputy Commissioner . Hazaribag ( Jharkhand State ) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or at the office of the DGM (Min .) PakriBarwadih Coal Mining Project , NTPC Limited, Ujjwal Complex . Pugmil Road. Hazaribag -825301 ( Jharkhand ) or at the office of the ED ( Fuel Security ) , NTPC Limited, Room - 123.1st floor. R& D Building , Sector - 24 .

Noida-201301 or at the office of the Chief General Manager ( Exploration Division ) , Central Mine Planning & Design Institute, Gondwana Place , Kanke Road , Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) or at office of the Coal Controller, 1/Counsil House Street, Kolkica- 70000 1 or at the office District Collector & Magistrate , District - Hazaribag . Jharkhand .

[ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5103

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provision of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:

Objection to acquisition:

"8 ( 1 ) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 ( 1 ) has been issued may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land.

Explanation: -

(1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of the section for any person to say that he himself desires to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of the coal and those operations should not be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person .

(2) Every objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the Competent Authority in writing and the Competent Authority shall give the objector an opportunity ofbeing heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall , after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such lands or of rights in or over such land , to the Central Government , containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of proceedings held by him for the decision of the Government .

(3 ) For the purpose of this section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . "

Note3: The Coal Controller, I, Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 , has been appointed by the Central Government as the Competent Authority under the Section 3 of the said Act vide notification number S.O. 3629 , published in part - 11 Section ( 3 ) , sub - section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India dated 9th September , 2006 , which was subsequently amended vide number S.O. 2.307 , published in part - 11 Section ( 3 ) , sub - section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India dated 18th August , 2007 .

SCHEDULE

Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Block Phase- V North Karanpura Coalfields District - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

( plan bearing number NTPC / CM / SEC IV / CBA/ 09 / PB / 051 , dated the 20th December , 2011 )

All Rights:

(A) REVENUE LAND :

SI.

Thana

Remark

District

Thana No.

number

Village

Keredari 1

Arca (approximately )

are

hectare

18 ( 0

Part 7.29

Hazaribagh

Beltu

33 Keredari 2

Kandaber

Part

124.99

50.58

Hazaribagh

42 Keredarı 3

Bariatu

31.68

Part 12.82

Hazaribagh

43 Keredari 1

Jabra

Part 22.10

Hazaribagh

Keredarı Basaria

50.00

Part 20.23

Hazaribagh

Keredarı

Nawadih

Part 6.07

Hazaribagh

Keredari Sima

Part

1417

57.43

Hazaribagh

Part

515 10

208.46

Hazaribagh

Pakri Barwadih

Barkagaon

951.30

384.98

Total (approximately)

2031 G1/12 11 5104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

(B ) FOREST LAND (Notified / Un- Notified / Jungle - Jhadi)

Thana

Sl .

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

Remark Area

District

Village

number

No.

Keredari 1

Beltu

(approximately)

acre

hectare

16.00

Part

Hazaribagh 6.48

Keredari 2

Kandaber

20.11

49.68

Part

Hazaribagh

3      Bariatu           42        Keredari     Hazaribagh     202.28           499.83           Part
4      Jabra             43        Keredari                                     17.10            Part

Hazaribagh 6.92

5      Basaria           44       Keredari      Hazaribagh    30.98            76.57           Part
6      Nawadih           45       Keredari      Hazaribagh    20.23            50.00           Part
7      Sirma             46       Keredari      Hazaribagh    21.48            53.07           Part
8      Pakri Barwadih    56       Barkagaon                                    11.17            Part

Hazaribagh 4.52

313.00

773.42

Total ( approximately)

SUMMARY:

(A) TOTAL : REVENUE LAND: 384.98 hectares ( approximately) or 951.30 acres ( approximately)

(B) TOTAL . FOREST LAND: 313.00 hectares ( approximately ) or 773.42 acres ( approximately)

GRAND TOTAL (A+ B ) : 697.98 hectares ( approximately) or 1724.72 acres ( approximately)

LIST OF REVENUE PLOTS TO BE ACQUIRED :

1 .. Village Beltu: - 60P, 63 , 64P, 65 to 67,68,69P, 85,86 , 88 to 105 , 106P, 107P, 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 114P , 119P , 120P , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124P.

2. Village Kandaber: - 185P, 188 , 189 , 190 to 196 , 198 to 211,213 to 239 , 240P, 241 to 254 , 255P, 448P, 450P, 451 , 452P, 4531 , 4541 , 455P, 456 to 467 , 468P, 471P, 472P, 473 to 483 , 484P, 485 to 492,494 to 512 , 5139, 514, 515P. 519P, 520P, 5211 , 522 to 526 , 528 to 544 , 546 to 624 , 626 to 633 , 635 to 639,641 to 681 , 682P. 684P.

3. Village Bariatu:- 5 to 20, 22 to 49 , 51 to 62 , 1651P, 1652 to 1658 , 1685 , 1687 to 1693 .

4. Village Jabra: 1,3 to 97 , 98 , 99 to 107 , 108P, 109P. 113 to 129 .

5. Village Basaria: - 6P, 13P, 14 to 22, 23P, 24P, 25P, 26 , 28 to 31. 33.

6. Village Nawadih :-473P, 481P, 482, 483P , 4841, 485, 486P, 487P, 488P, 489 , 490P, 491P, 492P, 493P. 4941, 495P, 496P, 497, 4981, 499P, 500 , 501P, 502 to 504 .

7. Village Sirma: - 113P, 137P, 141P. 142, 145P. 146P, 147, 148P, 149P. 150P, 151P. 152P, 157P, 158 to 194, 196 to 239. 241 . 242, 2431 , 244 , 246 , 248 to 290,292 to 295 .

8. Village Pakri Barwadih : - 1041 to 1432 , 1442 to 1446 , 1448 to 1718 , 1741 to 1743 , 1918 to 1933 , 1935 to 1950 , 1952 to 2436. 2438 to 2463 , 2499 , 2516,2518 .

LIST OF FOREST PLOTS TO BE ACQUIRED :

1 . Village Beltu: - 62P, 84P, 87, 143P, 1975P.

2 Village Kandaber: - 197P, 212 , 493,527,545.625.634,640, 683P..

3. Village Bariatu: 1 to 4,21.50,63P , 232P 、 1643P . 1686.

4. Village Jabra: - 2. 130P.

5. Village Basaria: - 12P, 27P , 32,34 .

6. Village Nawadih : - 422P, 505P.

5105 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

| भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7. Village Sirma: - 30P, 144P, 195 , 240 , 245 , 247, 291 , 296.

Village Pakri Barwadih: - 1447 , 2464 8.

Boundary Description of the area to be notified:

Boundary Description for " Part - A "

(1) Line A-A1 : The line starts at point ' A' located on North - West corner in plot no . 454 of village Kandaber which moves towards North - East corner of the village Kandaber passing through plot numbers 454, 455, 454 , 453,452,448,450, 467,468 , 471 , 472, 255 , 240 , 188 , 189 , 185 , 197, 199 , 200 and ends at point ' A1 ' of the village Kandaber .

(2) LineA1 - A2 : The line starts at point ' Al located on North corner at plot no . 200 of village Kandaber which moves towards North- East of the village Nawadih passing through plot numbers 422 and 505 and ends at point'A2 ' ofthe village Nawadih.

(3) 1.ineA2-A3 : The line starts at point ' A2 ' located on North corner of village Nawadih which moves towards North East of the village Nawadih passing through plot number 505 and ends at point ' A3'of the village Nawadih.

(4) LineA3 -A4: The line starts at point ' A3 ' located on North corner of village Nawadih which moves towards North- East ofthe village Nawadih passing through plot numbers 505 , 473,481,483,484,485,486,487,488, 490,491.492,493 , 494,495,496, 498 , 499 , 501 and ends at point A4' of the village Nawadih .

(5) Line A4 - A5: The line starts at point ' A4 ' located on North- East corner of village Nawadih which moves towards East of the village Basaria passing through plot numbers 13.23 . 12 , 24, 25 and ends at point 'AS of the village Basaria.

(6 ) Line A5 - A6 : The line starts at point ' A5 ' located on North corner of village Basaria which moves towards North East of the village Basaria passing through plot numbers 27 , 6 and 27 and ends at point 'A6'of the village Basaria.

(7) 1me A6 A7 : The line starts at point 'A6 ' located on North corner of village Basaria passing towards North - East of the village Basaria passing through plot number 27 and ends at point 'A7 ' of the village Basaria.

( 8 ) 1 me A7 A8 : The line starts at point ' A7' located on North- East corner of village Basaria which moves towards North- East of the village Sirma passing through plot numbers 30 , 157, 159 , 152 , 151, 145 and 140 and ends at point A8 ' of the village Sirma .

( 9) Line A8 - A19 : The line starts at point A8 ' located on North corner of village Sirma which moves towards North- West ofthe village Sirma passing through plot numbers 148 , 149 , 150 , 141 , 137 and ends at point ' A9 ' of the village Sirma.

(10 )1 ineA9- A10 : The line starts at point ' A9 ' located on North corner of village Sirma which moves towards East of the village Sirma passing through plot numbers 137 , 113 , 142 , 144 , 243 and ends at point ' A10 of the village Sirma.

(11) 1 ane.MO ALL. The line starts at point A10 ' located on North corner of village Sirma which moves towards South Fast ofthe village Sirma passing through plot number 243 and ends at point All of the village Sirma .

(12) Lime MB-A12 : The line starts at point All located on South-hast corner of village Sirma which moves towards South-West of the village Sirma passing through plot numbers 243 , 247 , 252 , 253 , 254 , 255.256.257. 258,259,286 , 295, 296 and ends at point ` A12 ' of the village Sirma .

( 13 ) me M2 - A13 : The line starts at point A12 located on South-East corner of village Sirma which moves towards South of the village Bariatu passing through plot -number 1686 and ends at point A 13 ' of the village Bariatu

(14) Mine AB A14. The line starts at point A13 located on North- East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South-East of the village Bariatu passing through plot numbers 1693 and 1692 and ends at point A1-4 of the village Bariatu

GSlane A14- A15: The line starts at point A14' located on North- east corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South of the village Bariatu passing through plot numbers 1692 , 1691 , 1690. 1689. 1688 and ends at point A IS of the village Bariatu .

$106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADIA 2. 1934

PART II S3 ( in ) ]

(6) LineA15-A16: The line starts at point ' A 15' located on East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South of the village Bariatu passing through plot number 1686 and ends at point ' A16'of the village Bariatu .

(7) LineA16-A17: The line starts at point 'A16 ' located on South- East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South -West of the village Bariatu passing through plot numbers 1686 and 1685 and ends at point ` A 17 ' ofthe village Bariatu .

(18) LineA17-A18: The line starts at point ' A 17' located on South - East corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South of the village Bariatu passing through plot number 1643 and ends at point ' A 18'of the village Bariatu.

(19) LineA18-A19: The line starts at point ' A 18 ' located on South corner of village Bariatu which moves towards West of the village Bariatu passing through plot number 1643 and ends at point ' A 19 ' of the village Bariatu .

(20) LineA19-A20: The line starts at point 'A19 ' located on South corner of village Bariatu which moves towards North of villageBariatu passing through plot numbers 1643 and 1651 and ends at point ' A20' of village Bariatu .

(21 ) LineA20-A21 : The line starts at point ' A 20 ' located on South corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South- West ofthe village Bariatu passing through plot number 232 and ends at point A21 ' of the village Bariatu.

(22) Line A21 -A22: The line starts at point ' A21 ' located on South - West corner of village Bariatu which moves towards North-West passing through plot number 63 and ends at point ' A22 ' of the village Bariatu .

(23) LineA22-A23: The line starts at point ' A22 ' located on South - West corner of village Bariatu which moves towards South-West of the village Bariatu passing through plot number 63 and ends at point ` A23 ' of the village Bariatu.

(24) LineA23-A24: The line starts at point ' A23 ' located on South - West corner of village Bariatu which moves towards North-West of the village Bariatu passing through number 63 and ends at point ' A24'of the village Bariatu.

(25) LineA24- A25: The line starts at point 'A24 ' starting at the West side of village Bariatu and passing in South-West direction through village Jabra passing through plot numbers 130 , 113 , 109 , 108 , 107, 98 and ends at pointA25 ' ofvillage Bariatu .

(26) Line A25- A26: The line starts at point ' A25 ' located on South- West corner of village Jabra which moves towards South-West ofvillage Kandaber passing through plot numbers 682 , 683 , 684 and ends at point ' A26 of villageKandaber.

(27) LineA26-A27: The line starts at point 'A26 ' located on South corner of village Kandaber which moves towards North- West of the village Beltu passing through plot numbers 60, 1975 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 68 , 69 and 60 and ends at point' A27 ' of the village Beltu .

(28) LineA27- A28 : The line starts at point ' A27 ' located on North-West corner of village Beltu which moves towards North -West of the village Kandaber passing through plot númbers 484, 519 , 520, 521.513,515,484 and ends at point ' A28 ' of the village Kandaber.

(29) LineA28- A29: The line starts at point ' A28 ' located on West corner of village Kandaber which moves towards North- West of the village Beltu passing through plot numbers 60 , 124 , 84 , 121 , 120, 119 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 114, 110 , 143 and ends at point ' A29 ' of the village Beltu .

(30 ) Line A29-A : The line starts at point ' A29 ' located on North- West corner of village Beltu which moves towards North-West of the village Kandaber passing through plot numbers 484, 454, 456 and ends at point A'of the village Kandaber.

BoundaryDescription for " Part -B "

(1 ) Line B -3 1 : The line starts at point ' B ' located on North- West of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards East corner of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1950 , 1933 and ends at point 'B1 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(2 ) Line B1-132: The line starts at point ' B1 ' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1933 , 1923 , 1918 and ends at point ' B2'of the village Pakri Barwadih.

5107 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) |

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(3 ) Line B2-33: The line starts at point ' 132 ' located on North - West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1918 , 1919 , 1920 and ends at point' B3'of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(4) Line 33-134: The line starts at point ' B3 ' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1920 and ends at point ' B4 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(5) Line B4-135: The line starts at point ' B4' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-East village Pakri Barwadih through plot numbers 1920 , 1921 , 1922 , 1937 and ends at point'B5'of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(6 ) Line B5-36 : The line starts at point ' B5 ' located on North - West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1937 , 1939 , 1940, 1943 , 1944. 1945, 1946 , 1947, 1948 , 1949 and ends at point ' B6'of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(7) Line B6-137 : The line starts at point ' B6 ' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih passing towards North of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1949 , 1950 and ends at point ' 37 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(8 ) Line 37-38 : The line starts at point ' B7 ' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1950 , 1964 , 1963 , 1962 and ends at point ' 38 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih

(9) Line 38-139 : The line starts at point ' B8 ' located on North - West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North - East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1962 , 1960 , 1961 , 1952 and ends at point ' 139 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih.

(10 ) Line 39-310 : The line starts at point ' 39 ' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1952. 1743 and ends at point ' B 10 of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(11) LineB10-811: The line starts at point ' B10 ' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South - East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1743 , 1742.1741.2125 and ends at point ' B11 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih.

(12) Line 1311-1812: The line starts at point ' B11 ' located on North- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North - East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2125,2127,2130 , 1718 , 1154 and ends at point ' B12'of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(13) Line B12-1313: The line starts at point ' B12 ' located on. North corner village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1154 , 1137.1136 . 1134, 1133. 11.32 and ends at point ' B13 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(14) Line B13-314: The line starts at point ' B 13 ' located on North corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1132 and 1128 and ends at point B14 of the village Pakri Barwadih .

( 15) Line B14-B15 : The line starts at point ' B 14 ' located on North - East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- 1: ast of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1128 , 1041 and ends at point B15'of the village Pakri Barwadih.

(16) LineB15-B16: The line starts at point ' B 15 ' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1041 and ends at point B 16 of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(17) Line B16-817: The line starts at point ' B 16' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1041. 1432 and ends at point B 17 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih.

(18 ) Line 1317-1318 : The line starts at point ' B 17 located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1432. 1449 and ends at point 'B 18 ' ofthe village Pakri Barwadih .

$108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(19) LineB18-B19: The line starts at point ' B 18' located on East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards. South-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1449 and ends at point ' B 19' of the village Pakri Barwadih.

(20) LineB 19-B20: The line starts at point ' B 19 ' located on South-East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-West of village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1449 and ends at point 'B20' ofvillage Pakri Barwadih .

(21) Line B20-B21 : The line starts at point ' B 20' located on South- East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South -West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1449 and ends at point 'B21' ofthe village Pakri Barwadih .

(22) Line B21-322: The line starts at point 'B21' located on South- East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1449 and ends at point 'B22' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(23) Line B22-1323 : The line starts at point ' B 22 ' located on South- East corner of village Pakri Barniadih which moves towards South of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1449 and ends at point 'B23' ofthe village Pakri Barwadih.

(24) Line B23-324: The line starts at point 'B23 ' located on South- East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through numbers 1449, 2464 and ends at point 'B24 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(25) Line324-1325: The line starts at point ' B24' located at the South - East side of village Pakri Barwadih and passing in North -Eastdirection through village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 2464 and ends at point' B25 ' of village Pakri Barwadih .

(26) Line 325-826: The line starts at point ' B25 ' located on South - East corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North -West ofvillage Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2464 , 2438 , 2436 , 2379 and ends at point 'B26'ofvillage Pakri Barwadih .

(27) Line 1326-1827: The line starts at point ' B26 ' located on South corner of village Pakri ' Barwadih which moves towards South-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2379 , 2375 , 2468 and ends at point' B27 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(28 ) Line 1327-328: The line starts at point ' B27 ' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2468 , 2374 , 2363 and ends at point 'B28 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(29) Line 328-329: The line starts at point ' B28 , located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2363. 2362 and ends at point 'B29 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(30) Line329-330: The line starts at point ' B29 ' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2362 , 2361 , 2359 , 2358,2325 . 2324 and ends at point ' A30 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(3 ) Line 330-331 : The line starts at point ' B30 ' located on South corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North -West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2324, 2323 , 2276 , 2275 , 2274 . 2273 and ends at point ' A31 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih.

(32) Line 1331-332: The line starts at point ' 331 ' located on South- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North-East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2273 , 2274 and ends at point'A32' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(33 ) Line 1332-333 : The line starts at point ' B32 ' located on South- West corner of village Pakrı Barwadih which moves towards North -West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2274,2270 , 2269 and ends at point ' A33 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih ..

(34) Line 1333-1334: The line starts at point ' 1333 ' located on South- West corrner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North - East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2269 , 2268 and ends at point A34' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

5109 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

(35) Line 334-1335: The line starts at point 'B34' located on South- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North -West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2268 , 2251 , 2230 and ends at point `A35 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(36) Line1335-336: The line starts at point ' B35 ' located on South- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North -West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2230 , 1718 , 2216, 2033 , 2032 , 2028 , 2029 and ends at point ' A36 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(37) Line336-337: The line starts at point ' B35 ' located on South- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards South-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2029 , 2025 , 2023 , 2022 , 2021 , 2020 and ends at point ' A37 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(38 ) Line337-338 : The line starts at point ' B37 ' located on South- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North- West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 2020 , 2019 , 1950 and ends at point 'A38 ' of the village Pakri Barwadih .

(39) Line B38-1839 : The line starts at point ' B38 ' located on South- West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North- East of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot number 1950 and ends at point ' A39' ofthe village Pakri Barwadih .

The line starts at point ' B39 ' located on West corner of village Pakri Barwadih which moves towards North-West of the village Pakri Barwadih passing through plot numbers 1950 and ends at point ' B ' of the village Pakri Barwadih. (40) Line1339-13:

[F. No. 43015/2/2011 - PRIW- I ) A.K. DAS , Under Secy.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 12 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2097.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ । में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति को, उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 2 में की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र के सम्बंध में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है, अर्थात्: -

अनुसूची

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

प्राधिकारी का नाम और पता

(2)

(1)

आसाम

श्रीमती बिजया चौधरी

ए. सी. एस, एडी. डिप्टी कमिश्नर आई/सी

एल. ए. ब्रांच , कामरूप मेट्रोपोलिटन डिस्ट्रक्ट

संक्षम प्राधिकारी कार्यालय

इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाईपलाईन डिवीजन ) .

ए. टी. एफ. गुवाहाटी परियोजना

3211 , गुवाहाटी रिफाईनरी टाउनशिप,

सेक्टर- III , नूनमती

गुवाहाटी-781020

यह अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी ।

[सं. आर-25011/12/2010- ओआर 11

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव 5110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 / ASADHA 2 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 12th June , 2012

S. O. 2097.- In pursuance of Clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act , in respect ofthe area mentioned in column (2) of the said Schedule :-

SCHEDULE

Name and address of the Authority

(1)

Smt . Bijaya Choudhury

ACS , Addl . Deputy Commissioner i /c LA Branch ,

KamrupMetropolitan District

Office ofthe CompetentAuthority

IndianOil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division)

ATF Guwahati Project

3211 , Guwahati Refinery Township Sector - III, Noonmati

Guwahati - 781 020

This notification is applicable from the date of issue.

Areaofjurisdiction

(2)

State of Assam

[No. R - 25011 / 12/ 2010- OR - I

LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 14 जून , 2012

का. आ. 2098. सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 17 के अधीन विरचित पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के परंतुक के अनुसरण में , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड के परामर्श से जिसमें , यथास्थिति , उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है या उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाईन का स्वामित्व निहित है , नीचे सारणी के स्तम्भ 8 में यथा उल्लिखित पंजात्व राज्य के बवाना नांगल और स्पर पाइपलाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से पाइपलाईन बिछाये जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख घोषित करता

अनुसूची

विवरण

धारा 3 ( 1 ) के

अधीन अधिसूचना

क्रम गांव का नाम

तालुका/तहसील

संख्या

का.आ. संख्या

और दिनांक

राजपत्र में प्रकाशन का दिनांक

26 08 2009 गुरम

लुधिआना

अधीन अधिसूचना का.आ. संख्या और दिनांक

धारा 6 ( 1 ) के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन का दिनांक

टिप्पणी कार्य की समाप्ति कादिनांक

24-02-2010

2179(अ)

469(अ)

अक्तूबर 2011

26-08-2009

शंकर

26-08-2009

लुधिआना

24-02-2010

2179(अ)

469(अ)

अक्तूबर 2011

26-08-2009

3 माजरी

26-08-2009

लुधिआना

24-02-2010

19-01-2010

2179(अ)

114(अ)

जून 2011

26-08-2009

रुरका

डेहली

26-08-2009

18-01-2010

2179(अ)

19-01-2010 114(अ)

जून 2011

26-08-2009

रायकोट

26-08-2009 बोपराय खुर्स

18-01-2010

03-02-2010

2179(अ)

अप्रैल 2011 236(अ)

26-08-2009

03-02-2010) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5111

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

4 1

पखीवाल

रायकोट

26-08-2009

रायकोट

26-08-2009 नंगल कलां

नथाना

बठिंडा

26-08-2009

बठिंडा

26-08-2009

कल्याण सुखा

10 गिल पैंती

बठिंडा

26-08-2009 5

03-02-2010

अप्रैल 2011

236(अ)

2179(अ)

26-08-2009

03-02-2010

अगस्त 2011

2179(अ)

236(अ)

26-08-2009

03-02 2010

19-01-2010

2179(अ)

जुलाई 2011

26-08-2009

114(अ) 18-01-2010

सितंबर 2011 19-01-2010

2179(अ)

114(अ)

26-08-2009

18-01-2010

19-01-2010

अगस्त 2011

2179(अ)

26-08-2009

114(अ) 18-01-2010

अनुसूची

विवरण

टिप्पणी

धारा 6 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना

धारा 3 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना

गांव का नाम

राजपत्र में

का.आ. संख्या कार्यकी का.आ. संख्या

राजपत्र में

तालुका/तहसील

क्रम संख्या

प्रकाशन का दिनांक

4 1

11-06-2009

समराला

लखोवाल कलाँ

11-06-2009

समराला

लखोवाल खुर्द

औरदिनांक

और दिनांक

प्रकाशन का दिनांक

समाप्ति कादिनांक

24-02-2010

469(अ)

जून 2011

24-02-2010

1444(अ) 10-06-2009

24-02-2010

जून2011 1444(अ) 10-06-2009

11-06-2009 जसोवाल

समराला

4 मिलकोवाल

11-06-2009

समराला

11-06-2009

समराला

जुलफगड

11-06-2009 6

समराला

लबानगड़

11-06-2009

समराला

माछीवाड़ा

समराला

11-06-2009 8

अड्आणा

469(अ) 24-02-2010

24-02-2010

मार्च 2011

469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ) 10-06-2009

नवंबर 2011 24-02-2010

469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ) 10-06-2009

24-02-2010

जून 2011 1444(अ) 10-06-2009

469(अ) 24-02-2010

मई 2011 24-02-2010

1444(अ) 10-06-2009

469(अ) 24-02-2010

24-02-2010

नवंबर 2011

469(अ) 24-02-20100

1444(अ) 10-06-2009

24-02-2010

अगस्त 2011

469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ)

10-06-2009

9      भट्या          समराला         11-06-2009
 10    गरी तरखाणा     समराला         11-06-2009
 11    रनवा           समराला         11-06-2009
12     पुन्या         समराला         11-06-2009

2081 Gl/12-12

 1444(अ)       24-02-2010      469(अ)        जुलाई2011
10-06-2009                    24-02-2010
 1444(अ)       24-02-2010      469(अ)        दिसंबर 2000
10-06-2009                   24-02-2010
 1444(अ)       24-02-2010      469(अ)        जुलाई 2011
10-06-2009                   24-02-2010
 1444(अ)       24-02-2010      469(अ)        नवंबर 2011
10-06-2009                    24-02-2010

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

5112

11-06-2009

समराला

भरथला

अप्रैल 20.11 24-02-2010

469(अ) 24-02-2010

1.1-06-2009

समराला.

बगली कलाँ

मई 2011

24-02-2010 469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ)

11-06-2009

समराला

.23 बगली खुर्द

मई 2011 24-02-2010

469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ)

10-06-2009

11-06-2009

समराला

हरबन्सपूरा

मई 2011 24-02-2010 469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ) 10-06-2009

11-06-2009

समराला

25 मन्डचड़ाऊदी

नवंबर 2011 24-02-2010 469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ) 10-06-2009

11-06-2009

खन्ना

26 भम्दी

03-02-2010

अक्तूबर 2011

469(अ) 24-02-2010

1444(अ)

10-06-2009

11-06-2009

खन्ना

27 गंगर माजरा

03-02-2010

अक्तूबर 2011

469(अ) 24-02-2010-

1444(अ)

10-06-2009

11-06-2009

नवांशहर

दुपालपुर

मार्च 2011

03-02-2010 236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5113

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

गारले

फरवरी 2011

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

जाडली

फरवरी 2011

03-02-2010 236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

43 सिबल माजरा

03-02-2010

जून 2011

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

44 रूरकी मुगला

03-02-2010

जून 2011

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009 करावर

बलाचोर

जून 2011 03-02-2010 236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

गुरपुर

03-02-2010

जून 2011

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

साजावाल

03-02-2010

जुलाई 201 ।

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

भारापुर

03-02-2010

जुलाई 2011

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

49 साहीवा

जनवरी 2011

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

बेगमपुरा

अप्रैल 201 ।

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

हाएजातपुर जाटा

मार्च 2010

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

करीमपुर धनी

अप्रैल 2010

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

मार्च 2010

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

करीमपुर चाहवाला

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

पुजेवाल

मार्च 2010

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचोर

टोरीवाल

अप्रैल 2011

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

बलाचार

छुचेवाल

अप्रैल 2011

03-02-2010

236(अ) 03-02-2010

1445(अ) 10-06-2009 5114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

10-06-2009

गढ़शंकर

अचलपुर

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

03-02-2010

जुलाई2011 1446(अ) 10-06-2009

गढ़शंकर

10-06-2009 भवानीपुर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त2011

1446(अ)

10-06-2009

10-06-2009 रतनपुर

गढ़शंकर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त2011 1446(अ) 10-06-2009

मलकोवाल

10-06-2009

गढ़शंकर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त2011 1446(अ) 10-06-2009

गडीवाल

10-06-2009

गढ़शंकर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अप्रैल 2011

1446(अ)

10-06-2009

2 गडीमनसो

10-06-2009

गढ़शंकर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

मार्च 2011 1446(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009

मगलपुर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अक्तूबर 2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009 दयापुर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

सितंबर 2011 1446(अ) 10-06-2009

65 डागोर

नंगल

10-06-2009

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

सितंबर 2011 1444(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009

सुखपाल

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009 कुलगरा

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009

संगतपुर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

जुलाई 2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

भटी

नंगल

10-06-2009

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009 छुटेवाल

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

जुलाई2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009

मुजोवाल

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009

मलुकपुर

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त 2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

नंगल

10-06-2009 नया नंगल

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अगस्त 2011 1447(अ) 10-06-2009

विवरण

236(अ) 03-02-2010

धारा 3 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना

राजपत्र में धारा 6 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना टिप्पणीक्रम

राजपत्र में

का.आ. संख्या

तालुका/तहसील

गांव का नाम संख्या

प्रकाशन का दिनांक

डेहली

जरतोलि

26-08-2009

कार्य की

का.आ. संख्या

और दिनांक

प्रकाशन का दिनांक

समाप्ति कादिनांक

19-01-2010

जनवरी 2011

2179(अ)

26-08-2009

114(अ) 18-01-2010 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

5115

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

2 लोहगर

26-08-2009

लुधिआना

19-01-2010

जनवरी 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

3 डेहली

डेहली

26-08-2009

114(अ) 18-01-2010

19-01-2010

अप्रैल 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

किला राईपुर डेहली

114(अ) 18-01-2010

19-01-2010

अप्रैल 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009 महिमा सिंह वाला लुधिआना

114(अ) 18-01-2011

19-01-2010

अप्रैल 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009 गुजरवाल

लुधिआना

114(अ) 18-01-2012

19-01-2010

अक्तूबर 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

7 फलेवाल

26-08-2009

लुधिआना

114(अ) 18-01-2013

19-01-2010

अक्तूबर 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

8 कोटागा

डेहली

26-08-2009

114(अ) 18-01-2014

19-01-2010

अप्रैल 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

रायकोट

26-08-2009

नंगल खुरद

114(अ) 18-01-2015

03-02-2010

जून 2011 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

रायकोट

राजगढ़

26-08-2009

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

अक्तूबर 2010 2179(अ) 26-08-2009

धालीया

रायकोट

26-08-2009

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

26-08-2009

23 सेरबराह

26-08-2009

रामपुरा फुल

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

जून 2011

2179(अ)

26-08-2009

रामपुरा फुल

गुमटीकला

236(अ) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

मई2011

2179(अ)

26-08-2009

236(अ) 03-02-2010 PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

516

26-08-2009

रामपुरा फुल

दियालपुर मिरजा

03-02-2010

अक्तूबर 2011

236(अ) 03-02-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

बरनाला

मूम

सितम्बर 2011 19-01-2010 114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

निहाल सिंह वाला

हिम्मतपुरा

19-01-2010

जून 2011

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

तपा

28 रामगढ़

फरवरी 2011

19-01-2010

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009 .

तपा

मझुके

19-01-2010

जून 2011

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

तपा

गहिल

19-01-2010

अक्तूबर 2011

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

तपा

3 बिहला

19-01-2010

जून 2011

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

तपा

32 जगियाणा

19-01-2010

अक्तूबर 2011

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

तपा

पती दीप सिंह

सितम्बर 2011

19-01-2010 114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

तपा

पती मोर सिंह

सितम्बर 2011 19-01-2010

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

तपा

पती वीर सिंह

अप्रैल 2011

19-01-2010

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

नाथाना

बाजूआणा

मई2011

19-01-2010 114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

नाथाना

37 नाथपूरा

अप्रैल 2011 19-01-2010

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009 गंगा

नाथाना

अप्रैल 2011

19-01-2010

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

नाधाना

डेलवा

अप्रैल 2011

19-01-2010 114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

नाथाना

गोबिंदपुरा

अप्रैल 2011

19-01-2010 114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

बठिंडा

खियालीवाला

मार्च 2011 19-01-2010

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

बठिंडा

42 भोखरा

19-01-2010

जून 2011

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

बठिंडा

जोगा नन्दा

अप्रैल 2011 19-01-2010

114(अ) 18-01-2010

2179(अ) 26-08-2009

[फा. सं. एल- 14014/26/ 12- जी.पी. )

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2012

S. O. 2098.-In pursuance of the proviso to sub - rule ( i ) of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules , 1963 framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines 5117

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Competent Authority, GAIL ( India ) Limited with whom the right of user in the land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vests as the case may be, hereby declares the date of termination of operation of laying Bawana Nagal & spur pipeline project in Punjab State as mentioned in column 8 of the Schedule below, namely :---

SCHEDULE

Description

Remarks

Notifications Under Section 6 ( 1)

Notification Under Section 3 ( 1)

Tehsil

VillageName

S.O. No. and Date

S.O. No. and

Date

Sr. No.

Date of Publication ofGazette

26-08-2009

Ludhiana

1 .

Gurm

Date of Publication ofGazette

Date of Termination of Operations

October 2011 24-02-2010 469(E) 24-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Ludhiana

Shanker

October, 2011 24-02-2010 469(E) 24-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Ludhiana

3. Majri

June , 2011 19-01-2010 114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Dehlon

Rurka

June, 2011 19-01-2010 114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E ) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

Boparai khurd

03-02-2010

April, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

6. Pakhowal

03-02-2010

April , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

Nangal kalan

03-02-2010

August , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(F) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Bathindha

Nathana

19-01-2010

July, 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Bathindha

19-01-2010

Scpt.. 20,11

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179 (E) 26-08-2009

Kalyayan Sukha

26-08-2009

Bathindha

10.

Gill patti

19-01-2010

August , 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

SCHEDULE

Notifications

Description

Remarks

Notifications Under Section 6 ( 1 )

Under Section 3 ( 1 )

Tehsil

VillageName

Date of

S.O. No. and Date

Termination S.O. No. and Date

Sr. No.

Date of Publication ofGazette

11-06-2009

Samrala

of Date of Publication ofGazette

Operations

June, 2011 24-02-2010

469(E) 24-02-2010

1444(E) 10-06-2009

Lakhowal Kalan

11-06-2009

Samrala

June, 2011

24-02-2010

469(E) 24-02-2010

1444(E) 10-06-2009

Lakhowal Khurd

11-06-2009

Samrala

Jassowal

March, 2011

24-02-2010

469(E) 24-02-2010

1444(E) 1-0-06-2009

11-06-2009

Samrala

4. Milkowal

Nov. , 2011 24-02-2010

469(E ) 24-02-2010

1444(E) 11-06-2009 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

5118

11-06-2009

11-06-2009

Samrala

10.

24-02-2010

Dec. , 2010

469(L) 24-02-2010

1444(E) 10-06-2009

Garhi Tarkhana

Samrala

11-06-2009 11 . Ranwan

24-02-2010

July,2011

469(13) 24-02-2010

11-06-2009

Samrala

23. Bagli Khurd

24-02-2010

May, 2011

469(1 ) 24-02-2010

1444( E)

10-06-2009

11-06-2009

Samrala

24. Harbanspura

24-02-2010

May, 2011

1444(1)

10-06-2009

11-06-2009

Samrala

Mand Charaudi

25.

469(1 ) 24-02-2010

24-02-2010

Nov.; 2011

469(1) 24-02-2010

1444(13)

10-06-2009

11-06-2009

Khanna

26. Bhamadi

03-02-2010

Oct. , 2011

469(1) 24-02-2010

1444(1)

10-06-2009

11-06-2009

Khanna

27.

GagarMajra

Oct. , 2011

03-02-2010

469(E) 24-02-2010

1444(E) 10-06-2009 5119

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

11-06-2009

Khanna

28. Dehru

03-02-2010

March, 2011

469(E) 24-02-2010

1444(E) 10-06-2009

Nawanshahr 10-06-2009 29.

03-02-2010

Feb. , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

Mohadipur Kalan

Nawanshahr 10-06-2009 Mandala

30.

03-02-2010

Feb., 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

31. Chakli Sujat

03-02-2010

Feb. , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

32.

Sabalpur

03-02-2010

March, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

Ranewal

33.

March, 2011 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

Nawanshahr 10-06-2009

March, 2011 03-02-2010

1445(E)

34.

Dupalpur

236(E) 03-02-2010

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

35. Sekhpur

March , 2011 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

36.

Nawanshahr

Shahpur Patti

03-02-2010

August , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445 (E)

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

Mazhoor

37.

03-02-2010

August , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445 (E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

Muzafar Pur

38.

03-02-2010

April, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445 (E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

Jadla

39.

03-02-2010

July, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nawanshahr

Utalan

40.

03-02-2010

May, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

Garle

41.

03-02-2010

Feb. , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

42. Jadli

Feb. , 2011 03-02-2010

236(F) 03-02-2010

1445(E)

10-06-2009

June, 2011 03-02-2010

1445(E)

Balachor

Simbal Majara

43.

236(1 ) 03-02-2010

10-06-2009

44.

Balachor

Rurki Muglan

June , 2011

03-02-2010

236(1:) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

Krawar

45.

June , 2011 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(F) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

46. GulPur

June, 2011 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(Ε) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

47.

Sajawal Pur

03-02-2010

July, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

Bhara Pur

48.

03-02-2010

July, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(1 ) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

Sahiba

49 .

Jan. , 2011 03-02-2010

236(1) 03-02-2010

1445(1) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

50.

Begum Pur

April, 2011 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 11-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balachor

51 . Hayatpur

March, 2010

03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

Jattan

2081 GI/ 12-13 PART IF--SEC . 3 (ii ) |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

5120

10-06-2009

Balachor

52.

03-02-2010

April , 2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E)

10-06-2009

Karimpur Dhiani

10-06-2009

Balachor

53.

March, 2010 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

Karimpur Chahwala

10-06-2009

54.

Pojewal

03-02-2010

March,2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balach

Torrowal

55.

April,2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) : 03-02-2010 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Balochor

56. Chhuchewal

03-02-2010

April, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1445(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Garhabankar

57.

Achalpur

03-02-2010

July, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1446(E)

10-06-2009

Garhshankar

Bhawani pur

03-02-2010

August , 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1446(E) 11-06-2009

Garhshankar 10-06-2009 59

Rattan pur

03-02-2010

August, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1446(E) 10-06-2009

Garhshankar 10-06-2009 Malkował

6()

03-02-2010

August, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1446(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009 61 Gadiwal

Garhshankar

03-02-2010

April,2011

1446(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Garhshankar

62 Gari Mansował

236(E) 03-02-2010

03-02-2010

March, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1446(E)

10-06-2009

63 Mehandpur

Oct. , 2011 03-02-2010

236(1:) 03-02-2010

1447(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Diyapur

03-02-2010

Sep.,2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1447(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Dhagor

03-02-2010

Sep., 2011

236(F) 03-02-2010

1447(F)

10-06-2009

Sukhsal

Namual

03-02-2010

August, 2011

236(13) 03-02-2010

1447(E)

1-0-06-2009

10-06-2009

Kulgram

03-02-2010

August , 2011

236(1) 03-02-2010

1447(E) 11-06-2009

10-06-2009 (+)

Nangal

Sangatpur

03-02-2010

July, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1447(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Bhaton

03-02-2010

August, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1447(E)

10-06-2009

10-06-2009 71 Chutewal

03-02-2010

July, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1447(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nangal

Maujowal

03-02-2010

August, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1447(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nungal

MalookPur

03-02-2010

August, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

1447(E) 10-06-2009

10-06-2009

Nangal

Naya Nangal

03-02-2010

August, 2011

236(1) 03-02-2010

1447(13) 10-06-2009 5121

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Description

Notifications Under Section 3 ( 1 )

Tehsil

VillageName

Remarks

Notifications Under Section 6 ( 1 )

S.O. No. & Date

Sr. No.

Date of Publication ofGazette Date of Publication ofGazette

Date of Termination of Operations

26-08-2009

Jartoli

Dehlon

19-01-2010

January, 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Ludhiana

Lohgarh

19-01-2010

January. 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Dehlon

19-01-2010

April, 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Dehlon

Kila Raipur

19-01-2010

April, 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E)

26-08-2009

Dehlon

Mehma Singh

19-01-2010

April, 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

Wala

26-08-2009

Ludhiana

6. Gujjarwal

October, 2011 19-01-2010

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Ludhiana

Phallewal

October, 20 ..

19-01-2010

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E)

26-08-2009

Ludhiana

Kotaga

19-01-2010

April, 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

Nangal Khurd

June , 2011 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

10.

Rajgarh

October, 2010 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

Dhalian

11 .

03-02-2010

August , 2010

236(E) 03-02-20100

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

Andloo

12.

October , 2010 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E)

26-08-2009

Raikot

13. Burj Ilakima

October , 2010 03-02-2010

236(E ) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

Basrao

14.

October, 2010

03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

15.

Tajpur

03-02-2010

May,2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

16. Bhaini Baringa

03-02-2010

April , 2011

236(1) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

17.

October, 2011 03-02-2010

236(18) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Raikot

18. Jaladiwal

April , 2011 03-02-2010

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009 PART II -SEC . 3 (ii )|

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

5122

26-08-2009 22.

Rampura Phul

Bhai Rupa

03-02-2010

July, 2011

236(E) 03-02-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009.

Selbrah

26-08-2009

PattiDeep Singh

26-08-2009

34.

Tapa

114(E) 18-01-2010

19-01-2010

Sep., 2011

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E)

26-08-2009

PattiMerc Singh

26-08-2009 135 .

Tape

19-01-2010

Sep..2010

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E)

26-08-2009

PattiVeer Singh

26-08-2009

Jochana

26-08-2009

5123

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

26-08-2009

19-01-2016

April , 2011

114(E)

2179(E)

Nathana

Dhelwa

39.

18-01-2010

26-08-2009

Nathana

40. Gobindpura

April , 2011

114(E)

19-01-2018

18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Bathinda

Khialiwala

41.

March, 2011 19-01-2020

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Bathinda

Bhokhra

42.

June, 2011 19-01-2022

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

26-08-2009

Bathinda

43. Joga Nanda

April, 2011 19-01-2024

114(E) 18-01-2010

2179(E) 26-08-2009

[F. No. 1.- 14014/26/ 12 -GP. ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 31 मई , 2012

का. आ. 2099.- भारत सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क) के अनुसरण में मैसर्स ब्रह्मपुत्र क्रेकर एण्ड पोलीमर लिमिटेड द्वारा सी 2 द्रवित हाई वेपर प्रेशर पाइपलाइन लकवा से लेपेटकाटा ( सिवसागर खण्ड ) बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन संलग्न सूची के स्तम्भ ( 1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्ति को एवं स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिये नियुक्त करती है ।

अनुसूची

व्यक्ति का नाम और पता

श्री लाखी नन्दन गोगोई ,

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

आसाम राज्य जिला सिवसागर सी 2 द्रवित हाई वेपर प्रेशर पाइपलाइन लकवा से लेपेटकाटा (सिवसागर खण्ड) पाइप लाइन बिछाने हेतु

अतिरिक्त उप कमिश्नर जिला सिवसागर ( आसाम)

[फा. सं. एल 14014/39/12 जी.पी. ।

ए. गोस्वामी , अंवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012

S. O. 2099.- Whereas , in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land ) Att , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1) of the schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of C2+ Liquid High Vapor Pressure Pipeline (Sivasagar Section ) from Lakwa to Petrochemical complex Lapetkata by the M/s . Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited ( BCPL) in the area mentioned in column (2) of the said schedule .

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the person

Shri Lakhi Nandan Gogoi ,

Area of Jurisdiction

State of Assam arcas falling in Sivasagar District for laying of C2+ Liquid High Vapor Pressure pipeline from Lakwa to Lapetkata

ACS (Additional Deputy Commissioner )

Sivasagar ( Assam )

[F. No. 1-14014/39/12-GP. A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

5124

GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

[PART 11-Sec. 3 ( ii)]

AWARD

रोजगार मंत्रालय

25-4-2012

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई , 2012

1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under clause ( d) of Sub- section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-

का.आ. 2100.-ओधिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डायरेक्टर जरनल , नेशनल इस्टीट्यूट मात्र एग्रीकल्चर मार्किटिंग , बमवाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विकार में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के घाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एस-42012/54/2006- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ]

"Whether the action ofthe management ofNational Institute of Agriculture Marketing , Jaipur in terminating the services of their workman Shri Sunhari Lal Sharma, Room Attendant w.e.f. 19-9-2003 islegal&justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2012

2.The workman in his claim statement has pleaded that he had worked as Room Atendant during period 1-11-98 to 20-10-02 against the vacant post & on 21-10-02 he was made permanent & fixed in regular pay scale. The workman has alleged that his services have been terminated on 19-9-03 in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act . He has further alleged that juniors to him have been retained in the job & fresh hands have been givenappointment after his termination in violation of Section 25 -G & 25 -H ofthe I.D. Act respectively.

S.O. 2100.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central. Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. case No. 90/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofThe Director General , National Institute of Agriculture Marketing, Bombala, and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 21-5-2012 .

[No. L-42012/54/2006- IR (DU)] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

NEXURE

CENTRALCOVENMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUAL LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PresidingOfficer Sh . N.K.Purohit

LD 90/2006

ReferenceNo. L-40012/54/2006- IR(DU)

3. The martagement in its reply has denied the claim ofthe workman . It has been averred that the workman did not work with the non- applicant during period 1-11 - .98 to 20-10-02 & has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. It has further been averred that the workman was engaged on 21-10-02 on contract basis & in this regard an agreement was executed on the said date . The management has also averred that as per terms & conditions of the agreement his services were terminated on 19-9-03 after payment of salary for one month in lieu of notice. The management has further averred that the workman was engaged on contract basis for one year & after completion of one year as per the terms & conditions of the agreement his services automatically came to an end. Therefore , the claim of the workman deserves tobe rejected.

dated: 8-11-2006

4. In rejoinder, the workman has pleaded that he had worked continuously during period 1-11-98 to 18-9-03 . He was called for interview for the post of Room Attendant on 18-10-02 & he was given appointment on the said post on 21-10-02 against the vacant post . He has denied that he was engaged on contract basis . He has alleged that his termination is illegal & violative of the provisions of 1.D. .Act.

Shri Sunhari Lal Sharma. S/o Shri Brij Kishore Sharma C/ o Shri N.R.Sharma 29,Modi Nagar, Purani Chungi, AjmerRoad, Sodala, Jaipur.

Vis

TheDirector General

National Institute ofAgriculature Marketing Bambala, KotaRoad, Sanganer, Jaipur.

5. Vide order dated 28-9-11 , directions were given to the non-applicant to produce the documents required by the workman vide his application dated 2-12-10 . But on the date for submitting documents , none appeared on behalf of the non -applicant, therefore , order to proceed [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5125

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

ex-party against the non - applicant was passed on 21-2-12 &case was posted on 24-4-12 for ex - party evidence ofthe workman . But neither workman nor his representative appeared on the said date . Therefore , the case was reserved for passing award .

6. Since, the management has denied the claim of the workman , initial burden was on the workman to show that he had worked continuously during period 1-11-98 to 20-10-02 or he had worked for more than 240 days during preceding twelve months from the date of his termination & hisservices have been terminated in violation of Section 25- F, G & II of the I.D.Act . But at the stage of evidence , the workman did not appear to adduce his evidence in support of his claim . The non- applicant has also not adduced any evidence & ex - party proceedings have been drawn against the non - applicant on 21-2-12 .

7. Inabove factual backdrop , there is no material on record to decide the reference under adjudication on merits . Therefore , "No Dispute Award " is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

8. Award as above .

9. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government , u/ s 17 ( 1 ) for publication .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई , 2012

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Presiding Officer Sh . N.K.Purohit

I.D. 31/2007

Reference No. L-42012/89/2006-1

dated:10-4-2007 .

Shri Prahalad Sahai Meena S/o Shri Surajmal Meena R/o Village, Post Atela , Tehsil Viratnagar ,

Jaipur.

V/s

1. The Director (Admn .) Khadi & Village Industries Commission 3, Irla Road, Park Verli , Mumbai -56.

2. The Director

Kumarappa National Handmade Paper Institute ,

Ramsinghpura, Shikarpura Road, Sanganer,

Jaipur.

Present

FortheApplicant

का.आ. 2101.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डायरेक्टर (प्रशा. ) खादी एण्ड विलेज इन्डस्ट्रीज कमीशन , मुम्बई एण्ड अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/89/2006- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st May, 2012

S.O. 2101.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. case No. 31/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Director (Admn ) Khadi & Village Industries Commission , Mumbai and others and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2012.

[No. L-42012/89/2006- IR (DU) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

Sh.Suresh Kashyap , Adv .

Sh . R.K.Sharma , Adv .

For the non - applicants :

AWARD

2-5-2012

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 and 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 ofthe management of Director, Kumarappa National Handmade Paper Institute, Jaipur in retrenching the services of their workman Shri Prahalad Sahai Meena w.e.f. 13-6-2006 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. These facts are not in dispute that the workman was employed as class IV employee on 17-9-92 ; that the management terminated his services on 30-7-94 and the CGIT, Jaipur vide its award dated 2-6-04 reinstated him along with 25% back wages ; that the said award was challenged by the management in writ petition 5191/04 whichwas dismissed on 24. - 11-05 & the D.B.special appeal PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5126

6. In oral evidence , the workman has filed his own affidavit who was cross examined on behalf of the non- applicant . Counter affidavit ofSh. Ashwini Kumar , Director, KNHPI was placed on record on behalf of the non- applicant who was cross examined on behalf of the workman.

against the said order was also dismissed . These facts are alsonot in dispute that the workman was taken on duty on 2-1-06 in compliance of the award & subsequently, his serviceswere again discontinued by the management from 13-6-06 vide order dated 13-6-06 & a cheque of amount of Rs. 18615 was given for retrenchment benefits under provisions of Section 25-F ofthe I.D.Act .

7. The workman in support of his case has placed Ex-W- 1 to Ex - W - 8 documents on record whereas the management has produced copy of the impugned order dated13-6-06 Ex -M- 1 & Ex-M-3 .

8. I have heard both the parties & have gone through the relevant record.

9. In view of the pleadings of both the sides, following questions crop - up for consideration: -

i. Whether the non -applicant is not an ' industry' within the definition of ' industry' u/s 2(j ) of the I.D.Act?

3. The workman bas assailed the , said retrenchment order dated 13-6-06 on the ground of lesser payment of compensation. It has been pleaded that the workman is to be given compensation@ 130 per day but the workman has been paid wages @ Rs.73 . Thus , the amount paid to him fall short of amount to which he was entitled under the provisions ofSection 25 -F of the I.D.Act . It has also been pleaded that the management deliberately discontinued his services on the pretext of completion of the project work whereas the project is still continuing. The workman has alleged that juniors to him are still working. Thus, the worlanan has prayed that impugned order dated 13-6-06be quashed & he may be reinstated with all other consequential benefits .

ii . Whether the workman has paid lesser retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25 - F (b ) of the I.D.Act ?

Whether at the time of terminating the services of the workman , juniors to him have been retained in the job in violation of Section 25-G of the I.D.Act ?

iv. Whatrelief the workman is entitled to ?

Point No. 1

10. The workman has produced the copy of the award dated 3-6-2004. In the said award the management pleaded inter- alia that the non -applics at does not fall within the ambit of definition of industry as defined u/s 2(j ) of the Act. Since , the above point has already been decided against the non - applicant in the said award , the contention of the non- applicant in this regard is not sustainable .

Point No. 11

4. The management in its reply has averred that non-applicant no. 2 is setan industry ' as its activities are concerned with research & development work . The management has also averred that minimum wages at the time of termination were @Rs . 73 Per day as per State Governments Rules & the amount payable under section 25-F-(b) of the Act has been computed rightly on the said rate.The management har further averred that UNDP, KVIC projects was a project of United Nations development Programme for adefinite period. Earlier non - applicant no.2 wasworking under the project of Khadi Gramodyog but now non-applicant no.2 is an autonomous body registered under SocietyRegistration Act after UNDP, KVIC project came to an end it is functioning as non - applicant no.2 & some of the employees have been taken on deputation & some posts were created & appointments were given as per rules.Non-applicant no. 2 does not have any vacant post. The workman was engaged as daily rated basis & when project came to an end , his services were discontinued. It has also been averred that daily rated employees have no right of regularization . The management has submitted that Section 25 - F has been fully complied with the workman has been retrenched on account ofnon availability of class IV employee's post .

11. The workman in his affidavit has stated that while terminating his services on 13-6-06 a cheque ofRs . 18615 was given to him . At that time the rate of the minimum wages fixed by the Government of India to skilled labour was @ Rs.130 but the management has paid him compensation @Rs.73 . In cross-examination he has stated that he was engaged as regular employce & salary was paid to him @ Rs.30 per day. He has further stated that he did not complain against the lesser payment of compensation.

12. In counter affidavit the management witness Sh. Ashwini Kumar , Director , KNHPI has stated that workman was engaged as daily wager for UNDP, KVIC project & after completion ofproject a cheque of amount Rs. 18615 was given to him in compliance ofthe provisions 5. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein apart from reiterating the facts as stated by him in the claim statement, it has also been pleaded that he was entitled forminimumwages as per rate fixed by the Govt . of India. He has further pleaded that services of Sh. Ramprasad, Sh. Mohanlal & Sh . Burant & others who were junior to him, have been regularized . Sh . Ramprasad who was appointed on 15-4-94 has been made confirmed on 19-11-97.

5127 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[भाग II. खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

year shall be retrenched by the employer until (a ) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice , wages for period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months .

of Section 25 - F along with order dated 13-6-06 (Ex -M - 1 ) which was accepted by the workman . He has further stated that non - applicant no.2 is a registered autonomous body and is not under the control of Khadi Gramodyog and payments were made to him as per guidelines of the Government of Rajasthan . In cross- examination he was unable to state the rate of minimum wages in the year 2006. He has denied this fact that the amount of compensation paid to the workman was not according to the provision of Section 25 - F of the I.D.Act .

17. Section 2 ( aaa ) of the I.D.Act lays down the manner to calculate the average pay of monthly, weekly or daily rated workman. Section 2 ( aaa ) says that average pay means the average of the wages payable to a workman in the case of monthly paid workman in three completed calendar months , in the case of weekly paid workman in four completed weeks , in the case of daily paid workman in 12 full working days preceding the date on which the average pay becomes payable if the workman had worked for three complete calendar months or four complete weeks or 12 full working days as the case may be and where such calculations cannot be made the average pay shall be calculated as the average of wages payable to a workman during the period he actually worked .

13. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that while terminating the services of the workman the provisions of Section 25 - F have not been complied with. The minimum pay of the workman at that time was Rs . 130 per day. The compensation was to be computed @ Rs . 130 per day but the management has computed the amount of compensation on the basis of wages @ Rs.73 which is much less than the minimum wages . He has further contended that reasons for termination given in the impugned order are also false. It has been contended that retrenchment compensation was paid through cheque on 13-6-06 and clearance of cheque requires at least two days , therefore , it cannot be said that amount was paid to the workman simultaneously at the time of termination. It has also been contended that since provision of clause (b ) of Section 25 - F has not been complied with , the termination ofthe workman is illegal and unjustified. In support of his contention he has referred 1958 ( 1 ) RLR 931 .

18. As per order dated 13-6-06 the service of the workman was discontinued on the ground that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis in the project ofUNDP and after reinstatement of the workman in compliance of the award dated 2-6-04 passed by the CGIT, Jaipur, the project has been abolished , there was no vacancy of class IV employee in KNIIPI and the services ofthe workman were not required .

19. Admittedly, for one months notice pay, retrenchment compensation and 15 days salary , a cheque dated 13-6-06 of amount of Rs . 18615 was enclosed with the impugned order and the said cheque was received by the workman on the said date .

20. The details of computation of the said amount as mentioned in the impugned order arc as below:

14. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf ofthe management has submitted that the rate of minimum wages which was payable to the workman at the time of termination was Rs.73 per day only. It has further been submitted that the workman was entitled to get the wages as per minimum wages payable under the State Government Rules . Further, the non - applicant no . 2 i.e. KNHPI is an autonomous body registered under Registration Act and the notice pay and compensations have been paid as per provisions ofthe Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act . The learned representative for the management has also submitted that the cheque was received by the workman on the date of termination i.e. 13-6-06 and the cheque is a valid tender, therefore , it cannot be said that the amount is not paid simultaneously. In support of his contention he has relied on 1993 11 LLJ 62 and 1981 LAB IC 697 .

Service periodfrom September , 92 to May, 06 Total days considered for average pay (15days x 14) Wages for 210 days @ Rs.73 per day (210x73) 14 years 210 days 15330 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the above submissions .

Onemonths ' notice wages ( 13x73 ) Wages for 15 days of June , 06 (15x73) 2120 1095

Total: 18615

21. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 13-6-06 , it reveals that for computing the average pay the 16. It is well settled that for a retrenchment to be valid, it is incumbent upon the employer to fulfill the requirements of clause (a) and (b) of Section 25 - F of the 1.D.Act . Clauses (a) and ( b ) of Section 25 - F prescribe the imperative conditions for retrenching a workman . Section 25 -F envisages that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one

2081 GI /12-14 [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

5128

" The cheque is a valid tender, simply because the cheque cannot be encashed on that very day when the termination was effected, that will not change the situation that the amount is not paid simultaneously. "

management has considered the service period of the workman from September1 September. 92 to May, 06 & 14 years as completed years of cominuous service . The amount of the wages of avere pay has been calculated @ Rs.73 per day & 15 days average pay has been multiplied by the 14 years of completed years of continuous services .

25.In the light of the legal proposition laid down in the decisions supra, the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman that paymentby cheque is voilative of clause (b ) of Section 25 -F is al untenable .

26. In view of above discussions it is concludent thatwhile terminating the services ofthe workman clause (a) & (b) of the 25 - F of the I.D.Act have been complied with. Therefore , this point is decided against the workman.

PointNo. III

22. In decision 1988 ( 1 ) RLR 931 ( Raj .) referred to on behalf of the workinime contention of the petitioner therein was that total d of service of the workman was 2 years 8 months 2 days & consolidated salary was Rs .400 per month, Hon Le Court held that in lieu of one months notice pay he was entitledhementitled to Rs . 400 & in view of provisions of clause ( b ) Section 25 - F of the Act, he was also entitled to compensation equivalent to 15 days. average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in access of six months . Accordingly, the workin was entitled for Rs. 400 for compensation for a penfor a period of one month for 2 years ' service & was further enthod to us . 200 for the remaining part of service which exceeded ik months . In view of above facts , Hon'ble Apex Court hoi that the amount order to be paid to petitioner fall short olemount to which he was entitled . In present case, the dispute is not regarding computing each completed year forceir foccontinuous service for the purpose of average pay. Thus , the facts of the decision supra are quite distinguishable a do not lend any support to the workman.

23. Clause (b ) of Section 25 - F only envisages that 15. days averagepay for every completed years of continuous service is to be paid computing the retrenchment compensation & ap finition of the average pay u /s 2 (aaa)average of s able to a workman preceding the date on which t se pay becomes payable is to be considered, Av was to be calculated on the basis of amount wi vas being paid at the time of termination on 13-6-06 It is not the case of the workman that at the time of terminationation on the said date , he was getting@ Rs . 130 per daily wages . It is not within the scope of the reference to consider what wages ought to be paid to the worntan before his termination on 13-6-06 . Thus, the contention on behalf of the workman that retrenchiment compensation should have been computed on the rate of @ Rs.130 as fixed by the vernment of India at not acceptable.

27. It has been contended on behalf of the workman that the workman was engaged on 17-2-92 & after earlier termination on 30-7-94 he was reinstated in compliance of the award ofthe Tribunal on 2-1-06 . Shri Ramprasad was appointed by the management vide order dated 6-10-95. In this order it has been shown that Sh . Ramprasad was appointed as peon in KNHPI , Sanganer , Jaipur on consolidated salary of Rs . 1000 p.m. w.c.f. 1-9-95 & on his appointment functional control will be of national project coordinator & his services will be purely temporarily basis till period 29-2-1996 . Sh . Ramprasad was made confirmed vide order dated 3-11-97 . He has further contended that Sh. Ramprasad was appointed on the post of peon on temporary basis after earlier termination ofthe workman & at that time , had the workman been appointed in place of Sh . Ram Prasad as per provision under Section 25 - H, then he would have been confirmed in service on 3-11-1997 jn place ofSh . Ramprasad. Sh . Ramprasad was not appointed as regular employee in the organization at first time. In earlier award in respect of point no.2 , it has been held that after termination of the workman new appointments have beenmade by the non - applicant management in violation of Section 25 - H of the I.D.Act & point no . 2 in the said award was decided in favour of the workman . It has been contended that at the time of termination of the workman on 13-6-06 Sh . Ramprasad who was junior to the workman has been retained in the job, therefore , the termination of theworkmanwas in violation of Section 25-G of the I.D.Act . In support of his contention the learned representative has relied on 1996( 74 ) 2063,2007 ( 1 ) LLN 120, 2011 (6) SCC 585, RIR 2001 ( 1 ) 156 .

28. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf of the management has contended that services of Sh . Ramprasad were discontinued & he was given re-appointment on 6-10-95 & he was regularized vide order. dated 19-11-97. He has further contended that services of Sh . Ramprasad were regularized after adopting due procedure. The vacancy was published in the newspaper 24. Clause (b ) of Section 25 - F envisages that workman cannot be retrenched until he has been paid at the time of retrenchmen , compensation payable under the saidsaid provision. In LAB IC 697 Hon'ble Raj . High Court has held that for payment of retrenchment compensation actual footer is not necessary , genuine offer is sufficient. In 1993 LL 63 ( Raj . ) while considering question as to whether payment by cheque is voilative of Section 25 -F. Hen ble High Court held: - 5129 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

been made by the non - applicant management in violation of Section 25 - H of the Act . This contention put forth on behalf of the workman is , therefore , accepted and this point is - decided in favour ofthe workman . "

butthe workman did not submit any application . He has further argued that there is no averments in the claim statement regarding violation of Section 25 -G of the I.D.Act . He has also contended that in para 18 ofthe award dated 3-6-04 it has been observed that workman did not disclose name of the junior person . In support of his contentions he has referred decisions RLW 2002 (3 ) 1336, 1996 ( 1 ) U.J. ( S.C. ) 226 , (2006 ) 6 SCC 221 , 2002 ( 1 ) WLC Raj . 501 , RLW 1989 (2 ) 252 .

33. As per paras 20 & 21 of the award dated 3-6-04 after termination of the services of the workman on 30-7-94, fresh hands were given appointments & it has been held in the said award that new appointment have beenmade by the non - applicant management in violation ofSection 25 - H of the Act.

29. I have given my thoughtful considerations on the above submissions & have gone through the decisions referred to by both the sides .

30.Upon perusal of the award dated 3-6-04 it reveals that contention of the workman in his claim statement was that Sh. Ramprasad & Sh . Narendra Kumar were appointed without affording him any opportunity of appointment . In para no . 18 of the said award it has been observed: -

34. In present case , the workman in his claim statement has not disclosed the names of the persons who were junior to him . However in rejoinder , he has disclosed that Sh . Ramprasad, Mohan , Bherulal workmen were junior to him & they have been regularized . In para 2 ofthe affidavit he has deposed that Sh . Ramprasad who was junior to him was appointed on 15-4-94 & he was regularized on 19-11-97 .

35. Section 25 -G requires the employer to ordinarily retrench the workman who was last person to be employed in a particular category of workmen . This rule predicate that the workman retrenched belongs to a particular category & rule is to be applied with reference to the category of workman .

36. Admittedly, the services of the workman were earlier terminated on 30-7-94 & Sh . Ramprasad was appointed on 6-10-95 & he was confirmed on 3-11-97 . The workman was reinstated on 2-1-06. In 2011 (6) SCC 585 , Hon'ble Court has held that the status acquired by a workman on reinstatement is the same status held by the workman prior to termination of his service . Thus , the status acquired by the workman on his reinstatement was the same which he was having at the time of termination of hisservice on 30-7-94 .

" In the statement of claim , the workman could not be able to name those junior employees who were retained in the service by the management at the time of his termination . This fact could not also be disclosed in the affidavit of the workman . However, in his cross - examination he has pointed out that the junior employees to him , viz . , Sh. Ram Prasad, Sh . Mohan Singh and Sh . Babu Lal are still working withthe management . But in the statement of claim, he has named Sh . Ram Prasad Sharma as a fresh hand who was appointed after his termination. Therefore, firstly, the version of the workman on this point is self- contradictory and , secondly, no corroborating evidence could be brought on the record to support his submission that the juniors to him were retained in the employment by the management at the time of his termination . Hence , this submission made on behalf of the workman is negatived . "

31. In para 20 of the award dated 3-6-04 , it has been further observed:

"The workman has pointed out in his statement of claim that Sh . Ram Prasad Sharma & Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma were appointed after his termination . MW - 2 Sh . Baleshwar Prasad in reply to a question putby the Ld . Representative for the workman has admitted that after 30-7-94 , the new appointments have been made, but he is unable to point out the number of such appointments . "

32. In para 21 , it has also been observed: -

37. It is not the case of the workman that he was a confirmed employee at the time of his termination on 30-7-94 . After reinstatement the workman has acquired the status of temporary class IV employee which he was having at the time of initial appointment on 10-2-92 . The appointment & regularization of the workman Sh . Ramprasad have been done during the period when the workman was not in job . When the services of the workman wereterminated on 30-7-94, the workman was working as temporary class IV employee whereas Sh . Ramprasad was a confirmed class IV employee , therefore, it cannot be said that when the services of the workman were retrenched, Sh. Ramprasad was the last person working as temporary class IV employee in the category of temporary class IV employce .

38.As regards , Sh . Mohan & Sh . Bherulal said to be juniors to the workman , the workman has not disclosed their names in the statement of claim , In his affidavit , he " In this manner, the submission made on behalf of the workman stands corroborated from the deposition of the management witnesses and the evidence on the record lead to infer that after the termination ofthe workman , new appointments have [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2012 has stated only that they were junior to him. He has not stated when they were given appointment . No corroborative evidence couldbe brought on the record to support his submission that they were Junior to him and were retained in the employment by the management at the time of his termination .

का.आ. 2102.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/57/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/79/2007-आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी ,

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2012

S.O. 2102. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT / NGP/ 57/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-5-2012 .

[No. L- 12012/79 /2007 - IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

39. The facts of the decisions referred to by the learned representative on behalf of the workman are distinguishable . In decision RLR 2001 ( 1 ) 156 referred to by the learned representative on behalf of the workman there was no dispute about the fact that persons appointed later than the workman in question were still continue in service under the same establishment . In view ofabove facts Hon'ble Court held that termination was in violation of Section 26-G of the I.D.Act . In 2007 ( 1 ) LLN 120 there was a clear finding of the tribunal that a person like Krishna who is junior to the respondent is stillworking with the management , whereas the services of the respondent have been terminated . The learned counsel for the appellant failed to substantiate that no person junior in respondent have been retained , therefore , Hon'ble Court held a person junior to respondent was still working and there was a breach of Sections 25-G and 25-1 of the Act . In 1996 (74 ) FLR 2063 the question under consideration was whether section 25 - H is applicable to all retrenched workmen or merely to those covered by Section 25 - H. The aforesaid decisions turn on its own facts which are quite dissimilar from the facts of the present care and learned representative on behalf of the workman does not derive any assistance from the said decisions .

Date: 19-04-2012

CaseNo.CGIT /NGP /57 /2008

PartyNo. 1 : The Asstt. General Manager, Bank of India , Zonal Office , S.V. Patel Marg, Nagpur. Versus

40. For the foregoing reasons , the workman has failed to establish that juniors to him were retained ininjob atthe time ofhis termination on 13-6-2006 in violation of Section 25-G of the 1.D.Act . Therefore, this point is also decided against the workman .

Point No. IV

Party No. 2 :. Shri Milind S/o Madhukarrao Deshpande C/o . Smt.L.M. Gandhi , Plot no. 170, Bhuteshwar Nagar, Nr. Lal School, Gangabai Ghat Road, Nagpur. AWARD

(Dated: 19th April , 2012) 41.As per the conclusions drawn in respect ofpoint No. II and III , the worlonen has failed to establish that alleged action of the nmenagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 257 and G of the I.D.Act, therefore, the action ofthe management of Director, K.N.H.P.I. , Jaipur in retrenching the services of their workman vide impugned order dated 13-6-2006 cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

42.Award as above .

43. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for pablication u/ s 17(1 ) of the I.D.Act .

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman Shri Millind Deshpande , for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 12012/79 /2007- IR ( B - II ) dated 24-10-2007 , with the following schedule:-

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer 5131 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri MillindM.

Despande by way of awarding punishment of compulsory retirement on the ground of non- improvement of his conduct and behaviour is legal , justified and proper ? If not , what relief is entitled to?"

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 Millind M. Deshpande , ( ' the workman " in short ) , filed the statement ofclaim and the management ofthe Bank of India , ("Party No. I " in short ) filed its written statement .

aninebriated condition and on that day, he was deputed to collect cash from currency chest and to carry the same to Shironcha Branch and the condition of the workman was so dangerous that even the currency chest officer decided not to handover the cash to him and as such , it was constrained to initiate the departmental enquiry against the workman , as his acts amounted to grave misconduct under clauses 5 (c ) and 5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement and charge sheet was issued on 3-3-2006 and the workman received the charge sheet on 8-3-2006 and the enquiry officer, Shri P.D. Gupte fixed the enquiry on 27-4-2006 and on 27-4-2006, the workman appeared before the enquiry officer and when the contents of the charge levelled against the workman were read over and explained to him and he was asked to plead guilty or not guilty, the workmanadmitted the charges and in view of the admission ofthe charges by the workman , the enquiry officer closed the enquiry and submitted his report on 15-5-2006 and a show- cause notice was issued to the workman regarding the proposed punishment on 22-5-2006 and after granting anopportunity of personal hearing to the workman , the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed against him and the action taken by it is justified , proper and legal and as the workman admitted the charges , the question of giving of findings by the enquiry officer by analyzing the evidence doesn't arise .

4.As this is a case of compulsory retirement of the workman from services , after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated 11-7-2011 , the departmental enquiry held against the workmanwas found to be legal , proper and in accordance withthe principles of natural justice .

The case of the workman is that he came to be appointed in the Bank at its Gondia Branch, as a clerk- -cum-cashier on 29-9-1998 , on compassionate ground, as his father, who was working in the bank died in harness on 11-1-1996 and he was made permanent , after completion ofthe probationary period of six months and then he was transferred to Lakhandur Branch of the Bank and then he was posted as computer Tenor operator at Shironcha Branch and then he was transferred to Chandrapur Branch and Rajura Branch and the party no . 1 initiated a disciplinary action against him vide charge sheet dated 3-3-2006 containing two charges under clauses 5(c) and 5(j ) ofthe Bipartite Settlement , on the allegations that on 3-2-2006, he reported at Chandrapur Branch of the Bank in an inebriated condition and he was found not in a position, physically and mentally to carry the remittance of funds from currency. chest to Shironch Branch and one Shri P.D. Gupte was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges and the enquiry officer submitted his findings on 15-5-2006 , holding both the charges to have been proved against him and the Disciplinary Authority, without application of judicious mind , mechanical accepted the findings and vide order dated 30- 6-2006 awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement and he filed an appeal against the order of punishment , before the Appellant Authority , but the same was dismissed by the Appellant Authority on 23-11-2006 and the allegations made against him did not support charge no . 2 and the punishment awarded against him is not proper, legal and justified and there is no evidence on record to support or substantiate the second charge and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the punishment is harsh and shockingly disproportionate .

5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the workman was not judicious and the bare perusal of the action impugned, itcan be found that the termination of the services of the workman was given effect to, without looking into the young age , past record and the circumstances in which, the workman was appointed in the bank and the action is neither justified nor proper and the same is also not legal and the workman was charged under clause 5 (c) , for drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank and under clause 5(j ), for doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss and both the said charges weremainly based on the allegation that on 3rd February, 2006, the workman reported at Chandrapur branch of the bank in an inebriated condition and he was found not to be in a position physically and mentally to carry the remittance of funds from currency chest to Shironcha branch and on plain reading of the aforesaid allegations, it can be found that the allegations do not support charge 3.The party no.1 in its written statement has pleaded inter - alia that the workman was in habit of consuming alcohol and many a times , the branch manager and other staff members had counseled him to desist from reporting duty under the influence of alcohol , but the request had fallen in to the deaf ears of the workman and no improvement was shown by him and on 3-2-2006 , in the morning, the workman reported at Chandrapur Branch in 5132

PART П-БЕС

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

 no.2mentioned                 heet and punishment has      Bande), 2008 II CLR - 338 ( Chairman and ME VS
been imposed aga               han for charge no.2 also     Goparaju) and2008-11 CLR -557 ( Bank of Baroc
and as charge no.2               a charge and at any rate   Union Vs. Bank of Baroda) .
 onat any event, the           be declared as proved by
                                                                  7. On perusal of the documents produced by the
the enquiry officer,          dent awarded for baseless
                             id to be correct and as        parties relating to the department enquiry held against
 charge no . 2 cannot be paid                               the workman , it is found that charges water clauses 5(c)
 consolidated puni ฝัน เอง   mpulsory retirement in terms    and 5 (j ) of the Memorand       of Settlement dated
of para 6 of the Men Mempren   of Settlement dated 10th
                                                            10-4-2002 were levelled against the workman for
April , 2002 has been impo  upon the workman and since
                                                            commission of alleged misconduct of " Drunkenness or
 charge no . 2 cannot be sent to h to have been proved in the
                                                            riotous    disorderly or indecent behaviour in the bank
given circumstances,           tum of punishment is not
                                                            premises" and "deing any act prejudicial to the interest of
proper, legal and jus            further submitted by the
 learned advocate fo               that the admission of    the bank or the gross negligence or negligence involving
                                                               likely to involve the bank in serious loss " respectively
the charges by the wo            due to undue influence ,
                                                            and the workman appeared before the enquiry office on
assurance ofprotecti          and misrepresentation and
                                                            27-4-2006 and when the enquiry officer asked him as to
the evidence on                 nquiry proceedings was
 not sufficient to                                          whether be accepted the charges , the workman admitted
                                 es levelled against the                                                        the
                                                            the charges and thereafter, documents submified
workman and the the free to the enquiry officer that all
                                                            presenting officer were marked as Exts . M - 1 to M - 5 and
the charges mentio              harge sheet against the ge
                                                            the workman was supplied with the copies of the
workmanare                      unlawful and appears to
                                                             documents and after verification of the documents, the
havebeen given with            plication of mind and such
 factswerealso not co                                       workman gave out that the authenticity and genuiness of
                               the DisciplinaryAuthority    the documents are not doubted and when the workman
on theAppeliate Authority and therebyhond thereby serious prejudice was asked to produce evidence in his defence, the
 has occasioned upon the wurkman and the punishment
 awarded is harsh ar                                        workman gave his statement admitting of consuming
                             gly disproportionate.
                                                             liquor while attending duty, due to his disturbed mental
      In support of the contentions , the learned advocate   state for family tension . The enquiry officer , due to the
 for the workman has placed reliance on the decision         admission of the charges by the workman , closed the
 reported in 1995-11LL          mrao Budhajirao Nanekar      enquiry and submitted his report on 15-5-2006. On perusal
Vs.Adinath Sahaka                                           ofthe enquiry report , it is found that the enquiry officer
      6.On the                                               has analyzed the evidence produced by the management
                                submitted by the learned
                                                             during the enquiry and based his findings on such
advocate for the party        charge sheet under clauses     evidence and so also on the admission of the workman .
 5(c) and 5(j ) of the       mum of Settlement dated
 10-4-2002 was issued          the workman and in the             At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about
 departmental enquiry           han accepted the charges     the submission made by the learned advocated for the
 unconditionally af              of the unconditional       workman that the allegations made against the workman
 acceptance of the chau             Orkman , the enquiry    do not support charge no . 2 and charge no . 2 is not at all a
was closed and the en             based his report on the    charge and boththe charges levelled against the workman,
 admission of guilt and        his own admission of the      are not only antithetical but are also mutually exclusive
 guilt , the whokasi           from challenging the same     and as such , the findings of the enquiry officer are illegal .
 and the punish                tory retirement was also      However, after going through the charge sheet issued
 imposed based on                                            against the workman , it is found that in this case , the two
                                workman and as such , it and unconditional charges are neither antithetical nor mutually exclusive.
 isnot open for the mat       challenge the same and the    The workman in this case has admitted the charges .
 misconduct committ            workman are of serious       Attending duty of the bank by the workman in a drunken
 nature and considerin          ture and gravity of the      condition certainly comes under the misconduct ofdoing
misconducts, the pur           as imposed and       the      an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, besides the
 misconducts commit            workman not only put the      misconduct of drunkenness on the premises of the Bank.
 reputation of the bankstore,  but also prejudicial to the
                                                                   In the decision reported in the decision reported in
 interest of the bank a         the punishment imposed
                                                             1995 II LLN - 508 ( Supra) , the workman , who was working
 against the workman is uit disproportionate and the
                                                             in Adinath Sahakari Bank as a Cashier made over payment
workman is not entitled to say relief.
                                                             and charges of gross negligence of work , dishonesty and
       In support of fuch correntions , reliance was placed  commission of act subversive of discipline were levelled
 by the learned advoc         party no . I on the decisions  against him and the Hon'ble High Court , while considering
 reported in 2002.(93 ) FLR- 245 [ 11.K. Reddy Vs. Central   the case was pleased to hold that . " Dishonesty necessarily

5133 | भाग ॥ खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23. 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

way of awarding punishment of compulsory retirement on the ground of non - improvement of his conduct & behaviour is legal , justified and proper . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2012

requires advertence of mind and an intention to cause wrongful loss to the employer and wrongful gain to the employee himself or to someone else . In strak contrast , gross negligence can arise only when there is utter lack of advertence to the base requisites of precaution to be observed while discharging duty. If one is guilty of dishonesty in a transaction , it cannot be postulated that one is also grossly negligent in the said transaction .

The two heads of misconduct are not only antithetical but are also mutually exclusive . "

का.आ. 2103.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटीए/ 883 / 04 नया ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

However , this is not so in the present case at hand. As the factr and circumstances of the case referred in the decision , are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the present case , with respect , I am of the view that the decision cited by the learned advocate for the workman has no application to the present case . Hence , there is no force in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the workman on that score .

[सं. एल -17012/19/2001 आई आर ( बी II । शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2012

8. In the decision reported in 2008 II CLR - 338 (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that , " Indian Evidence Act. 1872 - S - 58 - Enquiry - Admission by delinquent- Held that charges having been admitted by respondent delinquent were not required to be prøved . "

S.O. 2103. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGITA/ 883/04 New) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-5-2012 .

In the decision reported in 2008 II CLR - 557 (Supra ) , the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras have held that, "Held that Bank is not precluded from holding enquiry or from relying on admission and imposing punishment- Removal of employee from service , based on admission , not open to challenge . "

[No. L - 17012 /19/2001 - IR ( B - II )| SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

In thedecision reported in 2002 ( 93 ) FLR - 245 ( Supra ) , the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh ( Full Bench ) have held that . " Domestic enquiry - An admission by a party to proceeding - Is binding on him proprio vigere . "

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer CGIT - cum- Labour Court ,

For the reasons mentioned above and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts in the decisions mentioned above to the present case at hand . it is found that the findings of the enquiry officer are not perverse and the same are also not illegal.

Ahmedabad, Dated 18-4-2012

Reference : CGIT A of 883 of 2004 New

The Sr. Divisional Manager, L.IC of India, Bhavnagar Division , Jeevan Prakash , Neelambaug Circle, Bhavnagar (Gujarat) -364002.

..FirstParty

And their workman

Smt . Champaben Shamjibhai Kalavadiya C/ o. Shramik Sangh , 115, Kaveri . Corporation , Navapara . Bhavnagar ( Gujarat )-364001 .

9. So for the proportionality of punishment is concerned . grave misconducts have been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. The workman was an officer of the bank and in the banking business , every employce shall , at all times . takes all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank official. But the workman committed misconducts against the interest of the bank and unbecoming of a bank officer. Hence , the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against the workman cannot be said to be not commensurate with the misconduct proved against him. Hence, it is ordered: -

.... Second Party

ORDER

Shri K. V. Gadhia , Advocate

For the first party

For the second party : None

The action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Millind M. Deshpande by [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

$134

WARD

The Central Government/Government of India/ Ministry of Labour vide its No. L- 17012/ 19/2001 - IR (B - II ) New Delhi dated 03-8-2001 in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 A of section 10 of the ID Act 1947 referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) for adjudication by formulating the terms of reference under the schedule as follows:-

CHEDULE

docüments were filed with list at Ext . 7 which the Ext . 7/1 to 7/7 the second party workman also filed 10 documents as per list Ext . 12 which are school leaving certificate 12/1 , 50% disability certificate 12/2, economically backward certificate Ext . 12/3 , Employment Exchange registration card 12/4 , demand notice Ext . 12/5 , Ext. 12/6 two office copy of the demand notice , Ext. 12/7 acknowledgement due of sending demand notice, Ext . 12/8 registration receipt ofsending demand notice , Ext . 12/9 is payment vouchers regarding payment of wages by the department of LIC to theworkman and the copy of the written statement ofthe LIC filed in Civil Suit No. 277/2000 Ext. 12710.,

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India in terminating the services of Smt . Champaben Shamjibhai Kalavadiya instead of regularizing at par wages of regular employees is justified ? If not , what reliefthe concemed workman is entitled to ? "

4. After filing of those documents by both sides . The record was being fixed for leading evidence by the second party workman in support of her statement of claim but the workman did not appear to make contest and left parivy in this case since long.

5. The notices were sent to the second party workman from the previous court on several occasions lastly fresh notice was also issued to the workman when the case record received in this tribunal on transfer but in spite of all efforts made to procure attendance/ representation of the workman in this case, all went in vain. The second party workman did not show any interest in this case to make contest .

2. The parties were notice in this reference case . Consequent upon notice both sides appeared and file respective pleadings . The second party workman submitted statement of claim at Ext . 3 that she was working in the office of LIC near Hevan Cinema, Mahua District, Bhavnagar as daily rated veorker since 1992 and was getting monthly wages of Rs . 350. She was working with loyalty but on 18-5-2000 she was orally removed from service that amounts to unfair Jabour practice and violation of the provisions of 10 Act , Further case is that she was continuing work in the office of LIC since last 7 years but without any cogent reason she was removed from service which is utter violation of the principle of natural justice . She demanded for her penstatement but no any heed was paid then she raised hote . On these grounds prayer has been made for thegade for hecter the order of his removal being illegal , a unwarranted the relief ofreinstatementwith back wages and continuity in service and to any other reliefwhich she is found entitled.

6. The pleading of the workman as per statement of claim is not substantive piece of evidence. More so the documents filed at Ext . 12 does not also support such contention ofthe second party workman that she completed more than 240 days of work in every calendar year and also in the calendar preceding his termination . The first party management of LIC had denied all the claim of workman . On the other hand from the pleadings of the first party and also documents at Ext . 7 go to show that the second party workman was a casual /part time sweeper deployed for work for cleaning and sweeping and was being paid wages through vouchers and no employer employee relationship is established. From vouchers it also appears that there is no evidence on the record to support the case of the workman : More so the workman herself left to make contest in this case by absenting herself since long and in spite of repeated notices issued , no legal evidence have been adduced on behalf of the workman.

For the reasons noted above, I find that the reference is-not maintainable and the workman has no cause of action and that there is no merit in this reference and the workman is not entitled to get any relief so this reference is fit to be dismissed for non- prosecution . It is, therefore .

ORDER

Thatthis reference is dismissed for non - prosecution by the second party workman.

Thisismy award .

3. The first party LI pleaded inter- alia in its written statement at Ext . 6 that the workman has no cause of action and the reference is not maintainable the second party workman was not comploloyee of the LIC rather was a casual worker and on requin she was deployed for cleaning and sweeping of the batch office . Further case is that the orkman had applied forthe post of sweeper on 19-4-2000 but she was not succeed in interview and so she was not absorbed in employmement. Further case is that the workman also filed Choll Suit No. 277/2000 in the court of Civil Judge Bhavnager but the suit was not found maintainable . The first party management has denied all the allegation made in tot para 1 to para 6 of the statement of claim and pleaded that thed. pleaded that the workman has to strict proof ofthe allegation so mode. On these scores prayer has been made to diamiss to reference since the workman is not entitled to get any relief as per claim made at para 7.As per relief sought for it para 7 of the statement of claim on behalf of the first party management as many as 7 5135 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

Letcopies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2012

Railway Manager , Central Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Rameshwar , S / o Jumman , Ex. Safaiwala w.e.f. 6-5-97 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

का.आ. 2104.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 171/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/149/2003- आई आर( बी -1) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The workman appeared in person as well as through his lawyer in the reference case on 11-3-2004 . Thereafter on several dates , the case was pending for filing his statement of claim but the statement of claim was not filed. Lastly the workman died on 5-3-05 . Thereafter the legal heirs filed an application to substitute them in the reference case in place of the workman which was allowed on7-9-09 and they were directed to file statement of claim inthe case . But the legal heirs also did not file the statement of claim inspite of several opportunity granted to them . Lastly the reference case proceeded ex - parte against the legal heirs on 9-2-2011 .

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2012

3. The management also appeared in the case but did not file any Written Statement . The learned counsel forthe management has submitted that no dispute is raised by the deceased workman while he was alive and the same is also not raised by the legal heirs by filing any statement ofclaim . As such there is no dispute between the parties . It issubmitted that the reference be accordingly answered .

S.O. 2104. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 171/03) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 25- 5-2012.

4. Considering the circumstances of the case , it appears that now there is no dispute in existence between the parties and it is a case of no dispute . Accordingly the reference is answered .

[No. L -41012/ 149/2003 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

5. In the result , no dispute award is passed without any order to costs.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

6. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour & Employment as per rules .

No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 171/03

Presiding Officer : Shri MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2012

Shri Rameshwar,

का.आ. 2105.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947

Workman

S/ o Shri Jumman , Near Collector Bangla , CivilLine, Sagar(MP)

Versus

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25 5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway,

Management

Jabalpur

AWARD

[सं. एल -12011/36/2010 आई आर ( बी । ) । रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

Passed on this 9th day of May, 2012

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2012

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L -41012/ 149/2003 - IR (B - I ) dated 22-10-03 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal : -

S.O. 2105.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 18/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the "Whether the action of the management of Divisional

2081 GI/12-15 PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) | $136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on25-5-2012.

No. 1-12011 /36/2010 - IR ( B - I) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

clearly shows that the dispute of termination has already been resolved between the parties and now there is no 'dispute in existence . It also shows that the workman does not want to raise any dispute as he is in employment of the Bank. Under the circumstances discussed above . the reference is accordingly answered.

ANNEXURE

5. In the result , no dispute award is passed without any order to costs .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

6. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

No. CGIT/LC/R/18/2011

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , PresidingOfficer Presiding Officer : Shri MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2012 General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan , 7-1 , Tripti Vihar ,

Workman

Opp. Engg. College, Uijain

Versus

Managing Director,

का.आ. 2106.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 294/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

StateBank of India, HeadOffice, 5, Y.N. Road, Indore

Management

AWARD

[सं. एल -17012/15/ 1999 आई आर ( बी 11 ) | शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2012 Passed on this kith day of May, 2012

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -12011 /36/2010 - IR( B - I ) dated 30-3-2011 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

S.O. 2106. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 294/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexurè in the Industrial Dispute between the Employers in relation the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-5-2012 .

"Whether the setion of the management of StateBank of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Satish Kushwas with effect from 11-1-2009 is legal and justified ? To what relief the Union/ workman is entitled?"

[No. L- 17012/ 15/ 1999- IR ( B - II )]

SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The workman Shri Satish Kushwaha appeared in the case on notice and filed an application dated 20-1-2012 whereby he has submitted that he does not want to contest the reference and the same be dismissed.

3. The management is also noticed but not appeared in the case .

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 294 of 1999

In the matter of dispute between-

The State Vice President , U.P. General Insurance Empis . Union , 426 W- 11 , Basant Vihar, Kanpur And

4.The application dated 20-1-2012 shows that the workman has raised two disputes through Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sanghatthana which are reference No.. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 18/2011 and CGIT/LC/ R/ 43 /2011 . In both the cases the same application is filed by the workman . He has stated therein that he is withdrawing the authority of Shri Ram Nagwanshi , General Secretary of Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangh . He has further stated that the management Bank hulready taken him in employment -10-2011 and therefore the case be dismissed . This w.e.f. 14-10-2011 an [ भाग 1 ]-- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5137

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

National Insurance Company Limited , The Regional Manager, NIC Ltd , Regional Office , Halwasiaya Court , Hazaratganj , Lucknow

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification no . L- 17012/ 15 / 99 - IR (B - II ) dated 22-10-99, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the Regional Manager of National Insurance Company Limited for non payment of salary at the prescribed rate & non absorption of Sh . Ram Pratap is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

3. Brief facts of the case are as under--

4. Inthe public sector undertaking like the opposite party, Government of India had put a ban on fresh recruitment since the year 1984 and as a result of it the recruitment in the opposite party was stopped whereas the work in the opposite party continued to increase . In order to cope up with the increased work , opposite party started appointing temporary hands , who were not shown in the muster rolls and thus were not included in the regular staff strength of the opposite party. The claimant Ram Pratap was also appointed by the opposite party in subordinate cadre at its Transport Nagar Branch on 17-6-87 . The claimant was required to work for full hours at the above branch and was also required to perform all the duties of the nature of subordinate staff . The claimant worked at the aforesaid branch of the company from 16-6-87 to 31-5-89 , when the services of the applicant abruptly terminated in utter disregard of rules of natural justice and thus he was neither paid any retrenchment compensation nor notice pay. The tribunal has rendered an award dated 3-3-97 in favour of the claimant and in compliance thereto the opposite party reinstated the workman who reported on duty on 19-12-97 at the company's'Transport Nagar Branch Kanpur. The opposite party is taking full day's work of a subordinate staff from the applicant since 10-12-97 , but instead of making payment of salary at the prescribed scale of pay the claimant is being paid Rs.15 per day excluding Sundays and holidays . The opposite party is an instrumentality of state as covered under Article of 14 of constitution of India ; it has again indulged in unfair labour practice by taking full day'swork from the claimant and not paying salary at the prescribed scale of pay. Besides the opposite party has not taken steps to regularize the services of the claimant as the company did in many such cases of temporary employees . Therefore , the opposite party has discriminated the claimant in the matter of regularization of his services . Therefore , the action of the opposite party in not making payment at the prescribed rate and not regularizing the services of the claimant is illegal and unjust . The claimant ' us given a few names in sub Para ( ii ) of Para 17 of the statement of claim alleging that other temporary employees ofthe company had been regularized after their absorption . Onthe basis of above it has been prayed that the action of the opposite party be held to be illegal and unjustified entitling the claimant to be paid on prescribed scale and he should also be absorbed like other workmen by the opposite party.

5. Opposite party has contested the claim of the claimant and they have filed a very lengthy reply running into 72 pages. In most of the Para there is repetition of the facts and also in most ofthe paragraph ruling of the various High Courts and even Hon'ble Apex Court has been cited by the representative of the company which cannot be appreciated under any circumstances and is also against the rule of pleading's ..

6. Opposite party has contested the claim of the claimant interalia on a number of grounds , opposing the claim ofthe claimant. It has been admitted by the opposite party that the claimant has been reinstated in the service of the company in the same capacity with same wages which were being drawn by him at the time of retrenchment by anorder / award oftribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 93. It is alleged that the management is utilizing the services of the workman on daily wages , hence , vestion of payment of salary in prescribed pay scale and his absorption in the permanent service does not arise . Concerned workman was never employed by the management in any capacity and that the workman, is not entitled for payment of salary applicable to an employee of the company as he never worked against any regular vacancy or against any permanent post . It is also alleged that the service condition of the company as are applicable to regular and permanent employee are not applicable in the case of the workman who was merely a casual labour. The workman had never been governed by the rules/ regulation of the company nor was he ever issued any appointment letter for the post in subordinate cadre . Workman has failed to file relevant particulars in support ofhis claim . The management has no right to appoint the workman on regular and permanent post . There are set rules and regulation for making permanent and regular employee of the company and since the workman was never subjected to súch rules he is not entitled to become regular and permanent employee of the opposite party. Workman concerned was never sponsored through employment exchange and was , never interviewed for empanelling his name as per laid down procedure , under these circumstances question of absorption of the claimant in the subordinate category on permanent basis does not arise at all . It is alleged that selection process the management is prerogative of the opposite party and the workman cannot be allowed to challenge the authority of 5138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

the management seeking his absorption . The claim of the workman is highly belated and stale . Workman has no right or lien on any regular and permanent post and the claim of the workman is baseless and beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal . Therefore , it has been prayed the claim ofthe workman be dismissed.

7. Claimant has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has been picaded there in except reiterating the facts alreadypleadedby him in his claim petition.

8. Claimant has filed certain documents vide list dated 28-1-02. These documents are award of CGIT in the aforesaid case no. 7/93 and copy of letters etc, which will be discussed if found relevant at the time of analysis . Claimant has also filed 5 documents vide list dated 22-10-03.

9. Both the parties has adduced oral evidence . Claimant has adduced himself as W.W.I Sri Ram Pratap . He hasalso adduced one witness W.W.2 Sri Gulab Chandra Gupta.

10. Opposite party has adduced one Sri Amit Srivastava, Divisional Manager as M.W.I.

11. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the record carefully.

12. The only short question to be decided in this case is-

Whether a workman who has been reinstated under the order of the tribunal in the same capacity from where he was removed can be absorbed / regularized and whether he can be given the prescribed pay scale as are given to the regular employees .

13. It is a fact that the workman was engaged in employment by the opposite party on daily wage basis . It is also not in dispute that the services of the workman were disengaged and by virtue of the award passed by the tribunal in favour of the workman the workman was reengaged on the job on daily wage basis when he was dismissed. Since the worlonen is being paid wages on daily rate basis as prescribed by the Company.

14. I have examined the oral evidence adduced by both the parties . It is admitted by the workman W.W. 1 that he has not given any application for regularization of his services before any authority of the opposite party management .

15. The only contention of the workman that he has been continuously engaged by the opposite for a long periodand he isworking for the whole day so he should be regularized and absorbed and he should also be given theprescribed scale ofthe regular employees . For this the workman has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Courtwhich is 2001 Lab IC 649 Supreme Court Gujarat Agriculture University versus Rathore Labu Bechar and others. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that if work is taken by the employer continuously from daily wage workers for a long number of years without

PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) |

considering the regularization for its financial gain as against employees ' legitimate claim , has been held bythis court repeatedly as unfair labour practice.

16. In the given facts and circumstances of the casc situation is otherwise . Now the workman has been reinstated under the order ofthe court/ tribunal . But when he was reinstated his status was of a casual labour. Now putting number of years under the directions of tribunal , I think it will not confer any status of a regular employce ofthe company. There is no such provision in the Industrial Disputes Act where a tribunal can accord a status to a person who has been retrenched . A right which has accrued to him under the provisions of the Act has already been fulfilled by the award of the tribunal which has been compliedby the opposite party. It is true that in these hard days it is very unfortunate for the workman that he is still getting wages at the rate at which he was retrenched i.c. Rs.15 per day which is very very low. I think it is for the government to frame some rules and regulations for such type of employees who was retrenched and reinstated by the order of the court/ tribunal so that they can give a dignified life in a democratic country like India . It was also observed by my learned predecessor in 1.ID.No.298 of99 in the matter General Insurance Employees Association versus National Insurance Company, wherein the learned presiding officer observed that the workman who is being paid very low is therefore, entitled to receive at the rates prescribed by the authorities from time to time . Therefore . the opposite party/ government should consider the grievance of such employees like the workman by framing certain regulations so that they may lead dignified life.

17. It is a fact that his name was not called from employment exchange and he was not engaged against any regular or sanctioned post , he was not interviewed and no prescribed procedure was followed while engaging him, therefore , if he is asked to be regularized thert definitely then there will be breach of certain regulations and according to doctrine of expectation it will distinguish certain rights of other candidates who are in the queuc .

18.Workman has also placed balance upon another decision 2000 Lab IC 145 Andhra Pradesh High Court between C. Pushpalatha versus the Executive Officer Trimulla Triputati Devsthanam and another . The facts of this case are not similar to the present case therefore , claimant is not entitled.

19. Opposite party has contended that previous to this there had been certain decision of this tribunal where the same question of law was involved. He has placed a decision of thistribunal in I.D. No. 298 of 99 referred above' wherein a question was involved is the same as is involved in the present case . The tribunal did not permit the regularization and answered the award against the workman.

20. It was next contended by the representative for the claimant that the similarly situated persons names of whom have been disclosed in paragraph 17 of the claim 5139

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

statement viz . Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Hari Kishan and others etc. , have been made regular and permanent and they are being paid regular salary at par to those of regular employees of the company. As against it the contention ofthe opposite party is that the employees employed on temporary basis and casual workers cannot be equated with each other. It is also argued that the claimant has not given any evidence on the point that he was ever appointed by the opposite party on temporary basis or that he was ever paid his wages according to regular scale of pay applicable to regular employees of the company working as sub staff. I have given my anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter and find that there is force in the arguments of the opposite party. It is settled legal position that equality can be claimed only amongst equal . Term temporary employee and daily rated worker is distinguishable on facts and law both. It has not been proved by the claimant that he at any point of time was ever paid his salary at par to those oftemporary or regular employee of the company, therefore , the contention ofthe claimant that he should be given salary at par to those of regular employees of the opposite party is absolutely devoid of merit and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore , the contention of the claimant is rejected on thispoint . It is not in dispute that the claimant was reinstated as a casual labour by the opposite party in compliance of the award and his position was restored at the same place from where he was removed earlier. Therefore , it is concluded that the claimant being a daily rated employee of the company is not entitledto receive pay of regular sub staff of the company as he failed to prove the point by adducing cogent evidence . Therefore this issue answered against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

21. Opposite party has also placed reliance upon a number of decisions . I would refer to a few of them which are more relevant .

22. 2007 ( 112 ) FLR , 345 SC State of M.P and other versus Lalit Kumar Verma , wherein it was held, where the workınan was appointed on daily wages not in terms of statutory rules , not on clear vacancy working on daily wages alone held would not be entitled to status of permanent employee could not be directed to be regularized.

23. Opposite party has also placed reliance on the ruling reported in 2007 ( 12 ) FLR 474 SC in between Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Limited versus workmen Indian Drug and Pharmaceutical - wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held respondents ten workmen appointed as casual workers held that in the given circumstances are not entitled to get their regularization .

25. However, it is expected, and as observed earlier , that either the company or the Government should frame some regulations for such persons who are reinstated under the order/Award of Industrial Tribunal or the court so as to enable them to receive their wages beyond the scope of Section 17 - B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, so that they may lead a dignified life in a democratic country as is intent and purpose of Article 21 of Constitution of India because the remuneration of Rs . 15 per day as is being given to the claimant is not at all sufficient for him to discharge his family obligations despite the fact that he is performing his duties for whole day.

26. Reference is decided in the above terms against the claimant and in favour of opposite party. Dated 27-10-10

RAM PARKASIH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2107.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-5-2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/116/1998 आई आर ( बी -11 ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2012

S.O. 2107.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court- 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-5-2012.

[No. L- 12012/116/ 1998 - IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

;

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 39/2011

Shri Prem Chander Singh

24. Therefore , considering all the facts and given circumstances , I am of the view, though the claimant has put in a long service under the order of the tribunal , but his services cannot be equated with other those employees who have been selected through a regular selection process therefore , he neither entitled for regular scale of pay nor for his absorption against any post of sub staff.

Workman R/ o Block - E , 24/5 , Gali No.6, Shastri Park, Seelampur, Delhi .

PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

TheSeniorManager,

Punjab National Bank, North Zone, 9th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan,

Management

K.G.Marg, New Delhi

ARD

grant of leave up to 2-5-1994. On 10-3-1994 the bank sent atelegram calling upon him tojoin his duties immediately or to produce a medical /fitness certificate from Dr. K.D. Bhalla. Vide letter dated 15-3-1994, he informed the bank that he was under treatment of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi and would join his dutics on recovery from ailment . He asserted that he cannot produce a medical -certificate from Dr. Bhalla since he was not under his treatment . On 3-5-1994 he sought extension of leave up to 7-6-1994 . Further extension of leave up to 8-9-1994 was sought by him , vide his communication dated 8-6-1994. Notice dated 2-9-1994 was sent by the bank calling upon him to report for his duties within a week otherwise a disciplinary action to be initiated under 5th bipartite settlement . Since his father was seriously ill , he left for his native village and informed the bank in that regard vide letter dated 9-9-1994 . He requested for grant of leave up to 16-9-1994. Telegram dated 24-9-1994 was sent informing the bank that he cannot resume his duty on 5-9-1994. He had sent another telegram informing the bank that he would be delayed by 9 days in resuming his duties . Neither he could resume his duties nor inform the bank till notice dated13-9-1994 was received by him on 18-10-1994 at his native village . The said notice was addressed at the residence of his father in law, hence reached his hands belatedly. Another letter dated 17-10-1994 was received where in it was mentioned that he is deemed to have voluntarily retired from service of the bank and his name has been struck of the rolls .

Apeon posted at Fountain Chandni Chowk Branch of Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the bank)wastransferred to lie Paharganj branch on 4-2-1994, after revocation of his simpension order. He joined that branch on4-2-1994 and a1994 and atended to his duties on the next day also . From 7-2-1994 be absented himself from his duties.Application for leave was sent by that peon . His request for leave was declined and vide communication dated 10-3-1994, he was called upon to join his duties . He opted not to join his dution : Notice dated 13-9-1994 was sent to him, detailing the twin that he should join his duties within30days of the said notice , failing which it wouldbe deemed that he had abandoned his job . Despite service of the said notice, he opted not to join his duties . Letter dated 17th October , 1994 was sent, informing him that he is deemed to have voluntarily retired from service of the bank. On service of that laner he approached Paharganj branch ofthe bank on 21-10-1994 where he was informed that his name has been struck off from rolls of the bank. Hemade an appeal which came to be dismissed . He raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. On failure ofthe conciliation proceedings the dispute was referred to thisTribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L - 12012/ 116/98- IR( B - 11 ), New Delhi , dated 4-3-1994, with the followingterms:

"Whether action of the management of the Punjab National Bank in tonminating services of Shri Prem Chander Singh vide their letter dated 17-10-1994 is legal and justified! if not , what relief the said workman is ontitleti?"

3. He projects that letter dated 19-3-1994 oughtto have been addressed to his native village Muraini , District Sultanpur, U.P. He had provided two addresses to the bank, one was local and the other of his native village . Had communication dated 13-9-1994 been addressed to his native place , it would have reached his hands in time to enable him tojoin his duties within the stipulated period . Sending notice at his local address here in Delhi was meaningless . By sending notice at the residence of his father in law, the bank had not given him proper opportunity to respond to the said notice . According to him , bank was not justified to treat him as voluntary retired. in pursuance of clause 17 of 5th bipartite settlement . He claims that action of the bank may be declared as illegal and he may be reinstated in the service of the bank with continuity.

2. Peon, namely, Shri Prem Chander Singh filed his claim statement alleging therein that he joined services with the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. in September 1985. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. merged with the bank on 19-12-1986 and his services were transferred to the bank . A charge sheet dated 29-10-1993 was servedupon him and he was placed under suspension . Hissuspension was revoked vide order dated 19-1-1994 and he was posted at Paharganj branch of the bank with effect from4-2-1994 . Singe he developed fever and serious back bone trouble , hence could not attend to his duties from 7-2-1994. Не sent application for leave on 7-2-1994 requesting for grant of leave from 7-2-1994 to 25-2-1994 . Hewent for check up to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital , Delhi , where he was advised to have a long rest for treatment . On 8-2-1994 he sent another application seeking

4. Claim was dispelled by the bank pleading that the claimant absented himself from his dutics since 7-2-1994 . He wrote letter dated 7-2-1994 seeking leave up to 25-2-1994. Leave were refused and vide telegram dated 10-3-1994 he was advised to report for duty immediately or provide medical/ fitness certificate from Dr. K. D. Bhalla, Dr. K. D. Bhalla was the Chief Medical Officer ofthe bank and it was within the rights ofthe bank to ask the claimant tosumbit certificate from Dr. Bhalla only. Since the claimant had already sent letter dated 7-9-1994 sending leave up to [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5141

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

25-2-1994, there was no occasion for him to sent letter dated 8-2-1994 . He has created letter dated 8-2-1994 with a view to gain sympathy. No communications dated 15-3-1994,3-5-1994 and 8-6-1994 were received by the bank . Whennoticedated 2-9-1994 was sent advising the claimant to join his duties within a week , he sent letter dated 9-9-1994 requesting for grant of leave from 9-9-1994 to 16-9-1994 . Since he was absent with effect from 7-2-1994 there was no question for grant of leave to him . The bank issued notice dated 13-9-1994 advising him to join duty within 30 days , failing which he would be treated to have voluntary retired from service of the bank, in terms of paragraph 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement . Telegram dated 24-9-1994 was received by the bank . There was no occasion to act on it since notice dated 13-9-1994 was already sent to the claimant . Another telegram dated 5-10- 1994 was also received by the bank , wherein claimant mentioned that his joining would be further delayed by 9 days . The bank projects that when claimant failed to join his duty, letter dated 17-10-1994 was sent to him informing that his name has been struck off the rolls of the bank .

5. Notice dated 13-9-1994 was sent to the claimant at hislocal address as that of E-24/5 , Gali No.6 , Shastri Park, Seelampur, Delhi as well as address of his native village as "Prem Chander care of Shri Bajrang Singh , Village Khutoli Phoolpur , District Azamgarh , U.P. " In letter dated 27-4-1994 , the aforesaid address was mentioned by the claimant for further communication from the side of the bank.Hence notice dated 13-9-1993 was sent by registered A.D. post at the aforesaid two addresses . Notice sent at the local address was received back undelivered with the remarks " Refused " , which remark was recorded by the postal clerk on 3-10-1994 . Notice sent at village address was received by one Shri Santosh Singh . Letter dated 17-10-1994 was also sent under registered A.D. cover at his local as well as village address . Notice sent at the local address was received by one Gyatri and one sent at his village address was received by one Shri Bajrang Singh on 22-10-1994 . Therefore , it is evident that notices were served on the claimant , who opted not to join his duties withinthe stipulated period.

6.Bank projects that story of ailment of the claimant standsbelied from his letter dated 6-8-1994 through which he sought permission from the bank to appear in an examination . His request for permission to appear in an examination makes it clear that the claimant was fit to join his duty. Subsequent to the communication that the claimant was deemed to have retired from services of the bank, his representations dated 17-9-1995 and 26-11-1996 werereceived. In telegram dated 24-9-1994 he mentioned thathe would report for duties up to 5-10-1994 and in subsequent telegram , he claimed that his reporting to duties would be delayed by nine days. Thus he was well aware about the notice dated 13-9-1994 sent by the bank. He failed tojoin his duty by 13-10-1994 and after waiting up to 17-10-1994 orders that he was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service were passed by the competent authority, in accordance with the provisions of 5thBipartite Settlement . The claimant has no case and provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 does not come into play. His claim inay be discarded, pleads the bank .

7. In rejoinder facts were reiterated by the claimant .

8. The claimant entered the witness box to testify facts . Shri Akshya Saxena was examined by the bank to dispel facts deposed by the claimant . No other witness wasexamined by either of the parties.

9.Vide order No.Z - 22019/6 /2007 - IR ( C - II ) , New Delhi , dated 11-2-2008 , the case was transferred by the appropriate Government to Central Government Industrial Tribunal - II , New Delhi , for adjudication .

10.Vide order No.Z - 2209 / 6/2007- IR ( C- II ) , New Delhi dated 30-3-2011 , the case was retransferred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication .

11. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri J. Buthar, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf ofthe claimant . Shri Rajat Arora, authorized representative , presented facts on behalf of the bank. Written submissions were also filed by Shri Buthar. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows: -

12. In his affidavit Ex . WW1 / 1 the claimant projects that on revocation of his suspension order he was posted atPaharganj Branch of the bank with effect from 4-2-1994. He asserts that he developed fever and serious back bone trouble , hence could not attend to his duties from 7-2-1994 . Application dated 7-2-1994 secking leave up to 25-2-1994 was moved. He went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where he was advised for long rest on account of hisback bone ailment, hence application dated 8-2-1994 was sent for grant of leave till 2-5-1994 . Letter dated 10-3-1994 was received calling upon him tojoin his duties . Hesent letter dated 15-3-1994 informing that he was getting treatment from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital , hence unable to obtain medical certificate from Dr. K.D. Bhalla . Since he could not recover from his back bone problem, he sought leave up to 7-6-1994 , vide his letter dated 8-6-1994 . Notice dated 2-9-1994 was received , on the strength of which he was called upon to report for his duty within a week, otherwise disciplinary action was to be initiated against him . By that time he received information relating to illness of his father and immediately left for his native village .

13.As emerging out of facts detailed by the claimant and Shri Akshay Saxena , the claimant absented himself from duties , without getting leaves sanctioned in his favour. Bank wrote letters to the claimant calling upon him to join his duties . Notices were sent to the claimant 5142

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

mentioning therein that he should join his duties within 30 days, failing which it would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment. The bank projects that claimant had abandoned his employment , when he opted not to join duties despite service ofnotices dated 10-3-94, 2-9-94 and 13-9-94. Therefore , it would be expedient to know what words "abandon " and " abandonment " mean . Ordinarily, word " abandon" does not mean " merely leaving but "leaving completely and finally " . Word " abandonment " would indicate that it has a connotation of finality, which would mean relinquishment or extinguishment of a right giving up ofsomething absolutely, giving up with an intent ofnever claiming a right or interest, to renounce or forsake utterly. In order to constitute on " abandonment " there must be atotal or complete giving up of duties , so to indicate an intention not to resume the same . Abandonment must be total and under circumstances which clearly indicate an absolute relinquishment . A failure to perform duties pertaining to an office must be with an actual or imputed intention on the part of the officer to abandon and relinquish the office.

(a) When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days, without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/ subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or when the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of the notice , stating interalia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention ofjoining duties and furnishing necessary evidence, where available . Unless the employce reports for duty within 30 days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties , the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice . In the event of the employce submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service .

14.Abandonment is a voluntary positive act . A man must expressly say that he gives up his right . If he remains quite, it cannot be said that he is forsaking his title to propertyor his interest therein . An office is abandoned by ceasing to perform its duties . A temporary absence is not, ordinarily sufficient to constitute an abandonment of an office.Amere absence of a workman from duty cannot be treated as an abandonment of service . Abandonment or relinquishment ofservice is always a question of intention and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence is that behalf. However , the " intention maybe inferred from the acts and conduct of the party. The question as to whether the job, infact has been abandoned or not , is a question of factwhich is to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case.

15. In banking industry, provisions laying down conditions where inference of abandonment of service canbe drawn was for the first time introduced by clause 2 ofBipartite Settlement dated 8-9-83 . The said clause was replaced by clause 14 of 4th Bipartite Settlement dated. 7-9-84,which was substitutedby clause 17 of Vth Bipartite Settlementdated 10-4-87. Prior to Bipartite Settlement dated 8-9-83, cases of abandonment of service by employees were governed by doctrine of common law. Now such cases are governed in accordance with the agreed circumstances/conditions in the Bipartite Settlements entered into between the bank and the union of the employees . Clause 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement, which governs the present controversy, is extracted thus: -

"17. Voluntary Cession of Employment by the

Employees.

(b) Where an employee goes abroad and absents himselffor a period of 150 or more consecutive days without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond period of leave sanctioned originally/ subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment outside India or when the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling. upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of notice, stating interalia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention ofjoining duties and furnishing necessary evidence , where available . Unless the employce reports for duty within 30 days ofthe notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties , the employee willbe deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the The earlier provisions relating to the voluntary cessation ofemployment by the employee in the earlier. settlements shall stand substituted by the following :

| भाग ॥ खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5143

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service .

(c) If an employee again absents himself within a period of30 days without submitting any application after reporting for duty in response to the notice given after 90 days or 150 days absence , as the case may be, the second notice shall be given after 30 days of such absence giving him 30 days time to report . If he reports in response to the second notice, but absents himself a third time from duty within a period of30days without application , his name shall be struck offfrom the establishment after 30 days of such absence under intimation to him by registered post deeming that he has voluntarily vacated his appointment" .

a proposition , as exists in the present controversy. Workman was absent from his work place for a period of 90 or more consecutive days . A notice was served upon him to report for duty within 30 days of notice alongwith the grounds on which bank came to the conclusion that the workman had no intention to join his duties . The workmandid not respond to that notice at all . Bank passed orders to the effect that the workman had voluntarily retired from the service ofthe bank. Apex Court laid that as far as principles of natural justice are concerned the court was to consider ( 1 ) whether show cause notice detailing the contents of the complaint or accusation was served ( 2) whether an opportunity was there for the workman to state his case , and ( 3 ) whether the management acted in good faith and has been fair, reasonable and just . It was ruled therein that on the facts and circumstances of the case the principles of natural justice were inbuilt in the clause relating to voluntary cessation of employment and when workman had not opted to join his duties on service of notice , principles of natural justice were complied with.

16. Provisions of clause 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement project powers of administrative adjudication available to the bank . Administrative decision making is a biproduct of an intensive form of government and consequently socialisation of law . Vast expansion of state activity has taken place and government has to embark on ambitious, massive plans of public health , education , planning , social security, transport , agriculture , industrialisation and national assistance . It is impossible to carry out such programmes and determine legal questions involved therein . Therefore , if social control over this area of action is desirable , administrative decision making process has to develop , viz . instrumentalities of the State developing itself under justice system , which supplements the existing one . Power of administrative adjudication has been reorganized by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. Precedents in Barreli Electricity Supply Company ( 1971 (2)-SCC 617), Rattan Singh ( 1977 ( 2) SCC 491 ), Tara Chand (1977 ( 1 ) SCC 472 ) , Nand Kishore Prasad ( 1978 (3 ) SCC , 366) and S.N.Mukherjee, ( 1990 (4) S.C. 594) are a few which can be quoted in that regard .

18. Now it would be considered whether the bank has been able to establish that there was a case for exercise of administrative adjudicatory powers . For an answer to thisproposition, facts are to be scanned . Out of the facts detailed by the claimant , it had emerged that he was placed under suspension for misconduct . His suspension was revoked and he was transferred to Paharganj branch of the bank , where he joined his duties on 4-2-1994. He did not report for his duty on 7-2-1994 and moved application for leave , which is Ex.WWI / W4. In that application he projects that he was indisposed on account of fever. He sought leave for 19 days . In his application , he nowhere mentions that he is suffering from back bone pain or got himselfmedically examined from a doctor. No circumstances are explained as to why such long leave was requested in application Ex .WW1 / W4 . The claimant projects that on 8-2-1994 his treatment was going on from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital , hence requested for grant of leave from 8-2-1994 to 25-2-1994 . This application was moved a day after of moving application Ex.WWI / W4 .In earlier application he sought leave up to 25-2-1994 . There was no occasion for seeking extension of leave in application Ex. WWI /W5 . Therefore , it seems that application Ex . WWI / W5 was created subsequently with a view to put forward a claim that he was having pain in his back bone .

17. Whether the Bank , which is an instrumentality of the State, is required to initiate enquiry against the claimant, before exercising the powers of Administrative adjudication , available to it under clause 17 of the 5th Bipartite Settlement? In Suresh Chand ( 2007 LLR 344) contention of the workman that no domestic enquiry was conducted and termination of his services was illegal , was brushed aside and it was ruled that when a workman absents from duty without any intimation or prior permission , termination of his services without holding an enquiry will be justified. In Vijay Pal (2007 L.L.R. 7 ) and G.T. Lal ( 1979 Lab . I.C. 2910 ) same proposition of law was laid . However in GT . Lal ( 1979 Lab . I.C. 2910) it was ruledby the Apex Court that absence of an employee because of strike for enforcement of their demands does not amount to abandonment of their services . In Syndicate Bank (AIR 2000 S.C. 2198 ) the Apex Court was confronted with such

19. As per contents of applications Ex.WWI /W4 and Ex.WWI/W5 , the claimant recites that he used to reside at H. No.F -24/4 , Street No.6 , Shastri Park , Seclampur, Delhi . Swami Daya Nand Hospital and G.T.B. Hospital are two big hospitals in the near vicinity where he was residing in 1992. Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital is located at Mangolpuri , Delhi , which is at a far distance away from the house where the claimant was residing . As per his own assertions , he was suffering from back bone pain . In such a situation a patient would like to approach hospital

2081 GI /12-16

[PART II-Sec. 3(ii )]
5144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934
doctor which is more near to his residence . These facts could not question testimony of Shri Akshay Saxena who
had testified that notice dated 13-9-1994 was sent to the
also fall heavily on veracity of circumstances projected claimant. In his testimony Shri Saxena projects that notices
bythe claimant. dated 13-9-1994 and 17-10-1994 were served on the
20. The claimant concedes that telegram dated claimant.According to him , these notices were sent by
10-3-1994 was received by bim. He had proved it as registered post. In his testimony the claimant admits that
Ex.WWI/W6. In the telegrant the bank commanded him to he had sent a telegram to the bank that he cannot join his
report for his duty immediately or to submit medical / fitness duties on 5-10-1994 and in subsequent telegram he has
certificatefrom Dr. K.D. Bhalla . This document makes it claimed that he would be delayed by further 9 days .
clear that the claimant was well aware that his leave Ex.WW1 /W12 was sent by the claimant to the bank on
application (s)were not considered favorably by the bank . 24-9-1994 . Contents detailed in this document gives an
Facts relating to his ailment were questioned and bank interefice that after service or notice dated 13-9-1994 the
wanted confirmation of those lacts by way of production claimant specified the date by which he would be able to
ofmedical /fitness certificate from Dr. K.D. Bhalla , its Chief joinhis duties . He mentioned that he cannot join duty by
Medical Officer. The claimant was made known that his 5-10-1994 . These facts go to substantiate testimony of
application for leave was not granted . He responds to the Shri Saxena to the effect that notice dated 13-9-1994 was
bank that since he was getting treatment from Sanjay served on the claimant . The claimant has proved notice
Gandhi Memorial Hospital , he cannot furnish medical/ dated.13-9-1994 as Ex . WWI /W14 . Contents ofthis notice
fitness certificate from Dr. K.D. Bhalla. Claimant could not make it clear that the claimant was reminded of the fact
dispel the theory that applications for leave were moved that he was absenting form duties in an unauthorized
on wrong facts . The applications submitted by the claimant manner since 7-2-1994. Ex. WW1 /W14 details that the bank
for leave, no where speak that he was advised by the made a claim that the claimant did not respond to the
doctor, treating him , to take tost up to a particular period. telegrams and the letters written to him . The bank believed
The claimant himself Book a decision as to what period that he was not willing to join his duties and had engaged
wouldbe neededby him as rest for regaining health . Notice himself in some other business/vocation and not willing
Ex.WWI /W10 was admittedly sent to the claimant . In the to serve the bank . On the strength of fix.WW1/W14 he
said notice it was made clear to the claimant that he was was called upon to join his duties within 30 days or to give
absenting from dirties since 7-2-1994 and was required to a satisfactory, reason for his absence with further
joinhisdutieswithin a weck kuiling which action wasto be explanation that he was willing to join his duties with the
initiated against him in accordance with the provisions of bank. The claimant was reminded that on account ofhis
5th Bipartite Settlement. This notice was received by the failure todo so it would be presumed that the claimant had
claimant but he opted not to comply commands given voluntarily abandoned his service , in accordance with
therein. He was well aware that his applications for leave paragraph 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement .
were not granted by the bank. 23. As contents of Ex.WWI / W14 show that the
21. Knowing with then his applications were not elaimant was called upon to join his duties within a perlod
granted by the bank, the claimant opted not to join his of30 days . since he was absenting from a period ofmore
duties despite service of telegraphic notice Ex . WW1 / W6 than90 consecutive days . He was also reminded that on
and notice dated2-9-1994, thíchhich is Ex . WWI/WI0 . Hence his failure tojoin duties within 30 days or failure to furnish
it is evident that he was wirothorizedly absent and opted explanation for his absence satisfying the bank that he
not tojoin his dutice despite reminder by the bank . Leave had intention of joining the duties, he shall be deemed to
is not a matter of right. He connot claim grant of leave from have voluntarily retired from service of the bank. The
Hisemployer, for rousons which are not correct to his own claimant was under an obligation to join his dutios by
Knowledge . Therefore it is obvious that the claimant was 13-10-1994. He opted not to join his duties nor affered a
well aware that the bank was justified in calling upon him reasonable explanation that he intends to jole bila duties
to join his duties. In spite of servicespite of service of notice Ex . WW1 / within the notice period . Contents of Ex . WW1 /W12 and
W10 the claimant went to his native village , on the pretext Ex.WWI /W13 project that the claimant wants to satisfy
ofhis father being seriousseriounly III and admitted in a hospital the bank that on account of ailment of his father he could
at Varanasi , U.P. In his corununication Ex . WWI /W11 he not join his duties within the notice period. Surprisingly
secks leave for 8 days. Ance he was absenting himself medical/ fitness certificate of his father was also not
From his duties, there was no occasion for the bank to transmitted by the claimant to the bank , with a view to
grant the application. Therefore it is emerging that the satisfy that his absence was owing to ailment ofhis father
claimant was on unauthorized absence when he opted. to and he would join his duties soon within the stipulated
proceed for his native village despite service of notice period. Therefore an ordinary prudent man would not be
Ex.WWI /W10 . able to conclude that the claimant gave a reasonable
explanation of his absence and satisfied the bank that he
22. In his testimony he concedes that while had intention ofjoining his duties within the notice period.
proceeding to Varanasi he had given address of his in I am constrained to conclude that the case ofthe claimant
laws house to the bank for further communication . He

5145

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

squarely fall within the mischief of paragraph 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement .

the management of M /s Eastern Steamships Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-5-2012 .

[No. L-31011 / 11 /2006- IR ( B - 11 ) | SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 MUMBAI

24. The bank was justified in drawing a conclusion that the claimant had voluntarily retired from service in view of paragraph 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement . Though the bank gave an opportunity to the claimant to join duties withinthe period of notice , but the claimant opted not to do so . In these circumstances it cannot be said that the bank had acted illegally while passing order dated 17-10- 1994. The order impugned satisfied all four corners of paragraph 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement.

JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT- 1/41 OF 2007

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Steamships Pvt . Ltd And.

Their Workman (Smt . Suman Mahavir Prasad )

Appearances:

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

25. As regards justifiability of the said action the claimant could not project any extenuating facts in his favour. Initially he talked of his own ailment and subsequently shifted horizons of facts on ailment of his father. Neither records of his own ailment nor of his father were placed before the bank or before the Tribunal . Bald assertions were made by the claimant in that regard. These bald assertions would not lead this Tribunal to carve out a case in favour of the claimant , to grant him justice . Under these circumstances I do not find any unjustfibility in the order of the bank . In case any precedent is needed , reference can be made to Sakattar Singh (2001 Lab . I.C. 301).

For the workman : Shri N.C.Puthran , Adv.

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 4th day of April 2012 .

AWARD

26. In view of the facts and circumstances detailed above , it is concluded that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim statement deserves to be discarded . Discarding the facts pleaded by the claimant, an award is passed in favour of the bank . It may be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 3-4-2012

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

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2012

Whether the action of the management of M/s.Eastern Steamship Company Pvt . Ltd. By terminating the services of Shri Madhav Prasad Agril w.c.f.3-3-1995 is justified? If not , what relief the workman Shri Madhav Prasad Agril is entitled to ?

का.आ. 2108.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . इस्टर्न स्टीमशिप्स प्रा . लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-1/41 ऑफ 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 155 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-31011 / 11/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2012

2. The parties to the reference have filed an application today stating therein that the first party company agrees to pay an amount of Rs . 1,50,000 in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of this reference and employment of the late M.P. Agril and the second party accepts the aforesaid payment in full and final settlement of all her claims and she has no further claim of whatsoever nature .

The reference stands disposed of as per the above compromise.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer S.O. 2108.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 1 / 41 of2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to 5146

[ PART II SEC..3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2012

का. आ. 2109

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के बीमा निगम के प्रबंधाधि के कमिवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 में केंद्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन संधाधि के घर नियाजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्टमी विसाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम नमायाराम पद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटीए/ 11.18: 04 अभा की सी/ 22 / 99 पुराना ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार - 05-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/2/1999- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Dethi, the 25th May, 2012

S.O. 2109, in pemance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes.Act, 1997 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publis the Award (Ref. No. CGITA/ 1 18/04 New, ITC/22/99 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cun Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , int trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the agement of Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia, and workman, which was received by theCentral Governon 18-5-2012 .

No. L- 17012/2/ 1999 - IR ( B - II )]

EESH RAM , Section Officer

KORE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIM HAL GOVERNMENT CUM - LABOUR COURT,

BAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

PresidingOfficer,

CGIT-cum -Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 10-4-2

Reference: COIT AF 1118 of 2004 (New)

of 22 of 1999

The Sr. Divisional Ma

LICofIndia, Divisio Rajkot Division, Jeoven sh

Rajkot Gula TagoreMarg, Rajkot (Guja 360001.

99 IR (B- II ) considering Industrial Dispute existing in between management of LIC of India and their workman referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal , Rajkot, Gujarat for adjudication formulating the terms of reference under the schedule as follows :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India , Divisional Office, Rajkot in dismissing the services of Shri A.B. Chauhan , Sub -Staffw.e.f. 20-5-1997 is just, valid and legal ? If not , what benefits the workman is entitled for andwhat directions are necessary in the matter? "

(2) The parties appeared and filed their pleadings viz the second party filed the statement of claim at Ext. 5 and the first party management of LIC its written statement at Ext. 10.

First Party

And their workomen

Shri A.B. Chauhan,

Quarter No. C- 15, Jorvan Mangal Staff Quarter ,

Rajkot (Gujarat ) 36000

Second Party

Shri K. V. Gadhia , Advocate Forthe first party

i M. K. Patel , Advocate

T.K. Mishra , Advocate Forthe second party:

As per order dated 16-7-1999 Appropriate Government/Ministryqfla Shram Shakti Bhavan , Rafi Marg, NewDelhi , -110001 imas notification No. L- 17012/2/ (3) The case of the workman as per statement of claim is that he was serving in the office of LIC as Sub Staff O.C. Department and his S.R. number was 414813. On 26-3- 1995 for the alleged misconduct of physical assault on Shri D.R. Maniyar, Manager, O.S. Rajkot D.O and also abusing him in threatening language he was chargeshected. Thereafter departmental enquiry was held against the workman and he was removed from service by the order of theDisciplinary Authority dated 20-5-1997. He preferred an appeal against the said punishment order before the Zonal Manager on 10-6-1997 and his appcal was rejected. Thereafter he raised Industrial Dispute resulting in this reference . Further case is that the punishment order dated 20-5-1997 is illegal , unconstitutional , in violation of principle ofnaturaljustice and also in violation of the Discipline and Conduct rules and Regulations of the LIC of India, and the charge leveled against the workman is baseless and false. Shri D. R. Maniar had also filed a false complaint against him in past , and so having with malice intention he (D.R. Maniar) filed again a false complaint against workman . And that nó documentary evidence was given to him with chargesheet also preliminary enquiry report was not given to him , permission for engaging advocate in the Departmental Enquiry was not given , names of witness were not given and the enquiry officer only relying upon the statement of witness of the . management held that the charge is proved . Whereas the witnesses ofthe workman were disbelieved . Further case is that the enquiry officer has acted to support false complaint case of Shri Maniar and the enquiry officer has only to help Shri Maniar has given findings in enquiry officer report that the charges has been proved . Further case is that the alleged misconduct has no nexus with the official duties , neither had happened during the course of his employment nor on the place of duty. The Disciplinary Authority failed to consider in awarding punishment order of removal that criminal complaint is pending in the criminal court. Further case is that the due to removal from service that has caused economical death of the workman and his family. Further [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5147 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

the second party workman admitting the domestic enquiry rather has only challenged the quantum of punishment held against him.

case is that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the pastcomplaint of Shri Maniar for which workman was not heard which is violation of natural justice . On these grounds prayer has been made for setting aside the order of punishment dated 20-5-1997 and for reinstatement of the workman on his original post or in equivalent post with continuity in service with payment of full back wages and with cost of this reference.

(6) In view of the pleadings of the parties and also considering that the domestic enquiry has not been challenged by the second party workman , the following issues are taken up for discussions and determination in this case.

ISSUES

(1) Whether the reference is maintainable ?

( II) Whether the second party workman has got valid cause of action?

( III) Whether the order of punishment dated 20-5-1997 isshockingly disproportionate to the gravity of themisconduct of the workman under the charge ?

(IV) Whether the second party workman is entitled to invoke provision of Section 11 A of the ID Act ?

(V) Whether the second party workman is entitledto get any relief in this case?

(VI) Whether the action of the Sr. Divisional Manager LIC of India D.O. Rajkot in dimissing the service of Shri A.B. Chauhan Sub Staff w.e.f. 20-5-1997 is just , valid and legal?

FINDINGS

( 7) ISSUE NO . III & IV

(4) On the other hand the first party LIC of India pleaded inter - alia as per its written statement that the reference is not maintainable and the workman has got no case and there is also no substance or merits in the case of the workman pleaded through his statement of claim . It is the case of the first party management that past record of the workman is very poor and checkered and that workman ishabitual of doing misconducts and previously also the workman had assaulted to Shri Maniar for which departmental proceedings was being conducted and on earlier occasion too on prove of misconducts minor penalties for three- four times were imposed upon the workman. Even then the workman has not improved himsel and has not shown any sign of change in his attitude and in improving behavior. The first party has denied allegations made in para I to para 6 of the statement of claim . It is the case of the first party that the punishment order dated 20-5-1997 is legal and constitutional and is not violative of principle of natural justice and that the enquiry was validly and effectively conducted against the workman in his presence in accordance with the Discipline and Conduct Rules and Regulations of the corporation . The workman had assaulted Mr. D.R. Maniar in presence of Shri P.N. Joshipura , due to the alleged misconduct the LIC had conducted a preliminary enquiry and as per the rules and regulations ofthe LIC . The workman made several baseless and vague allegation against the corporation the charges leveled against the workman has been duly proved in the enquiry and looking to the gravity of proved misconduct and also considered the past record of the workman , the management of LIC had rightly taken appropriate action against the workman by terminating his service because the workman being sub staff had no any moral responsibility towards the higher officer and there is serious lapse of discipline and decorum in performing his duties . Further ground taken is that the domestic enquiry held against the workman is in improper manner, in accordance with law and ifthis tribunal comes to any conclusion that the enquiry is defective , in that case , the first party corporation be permitted to prove such charges before this court . On these grounds prayer has been made that the reference case is fit to be dismissed since the workman isnot entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The workman examined himself on point of gainful employment since after not challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry held against him as per pursis at Ext . 21 . The management side ( first party ) has relied upon the entire enquiry file by producing enquiry papers with a list Ext . 20. The chargesheet dated 28-3-1999 along with the letter dated 3-7-1994 is Ext . 55 , the reply of the second party dated 10-6-1995 is Ext . 56, letter written by enquiry officer to workman dated 16-8-1995 is Ext . 57 , the letter writtenbyworkman to enquiry officer is Ext . 58 , letter written by enquiry officer to workman is Ext . 59 , letter dated 15-11-1995 written by the enquiry officer is Ext. 60 , enquiry proceedings from page 14 to 17 is Ext . 61 , enquiry proceedings at page 13 is Ext . 63 , and enquiry proceedings atpage 28 , 36 is Ext . 70. Ext. 65 , 66 , 67, 68 , 69 are letters writtenby enquiry officer to workman . Ext. 71 is letter written byworkman to enquiry officer. Ext. 72 is written submission ofthe Presenting Officer. Ext . 73 is finding of the enquiry officer as per enquiry report, Ext . 74 is letter written by enquiry officer to workman . Ext. 75 is second show cause notice issued to the workman. Ext . 76 is reply of second show cause notice by the workman. Ext . 77 is punishment order dated 20-5-1997. Ext. 78 is memo of appeal submitted by second party workman . Ext . 79 is order of Appellate Authority dated 15-1-1999 .

(5) The propriety and validity of the domestic enquiry held against the second party workman by the management of LIC has not been challenged by the second party workman . Rather a pursis at Ext. 21 was filed on behalf of

(8) On behalf of the workman ( second party ) the documents as per list Ext . 17 was filed though which as many as 27 documents were produced which have been [PART II Sec. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5148

delinquent workman of the misconduct . Ext. 42 is the order ofthe disciplinary authority regarding removal from service of Shri Chauhan dated 20-5-1997 . Ext. 50 is the copy of memo of appeal by the delinquent workman to the Zonal Manager and Appellant Authority. Ext . 51 is A.D. Slip in proof ofsending departmental appeal to the Sr. Divisional Manager LIC and Ext . 52 is the demand notice under the provision of I. D. Act by the workman dated 29-12-1997. Ext. 53 is the registration reccipt . Ext . 54 is the acknowledgement receipt .

given pacca exhibiti Tham Ext: 28 to 54. Ext . 28 is the copy of chargesheet dated 28-03-199128-03-1995 for the alleged misconduct committed by the Morle 30-7-1994 at 10.30 am in the premises of Mavit Staff Quarters with Shri D. R. Maniar , Manager OS by physically assaulting him and abusing in threatenin In presence of Development Officer Shri SSabal xt. 29 is the show cause ofthe workman dated 14-12-1996 to the chargesheet . Ext . 30 is show cause notice dand 156-1995. It is in Gujarati language. Ext . 31 isssholw cause thotice damed 15-6-1995. It is in English language. Fixt . 32 is the momotice issued by Sr. Divisional Manager dated 26-3- to the workman . Ext . 33 is the office order dated 23-3-1993 regarding conducting departmental enquiry d ppointment of the Presiding Officer and for any lintoto the misconduct under the charge dated 20-3-19 for assaulting to the Manager Shri D. R. Maniar and giving threatening in abusing language during the port of working hour and duty. Ext. 34 is the reply of the woman address to Sr. Divisional Manager L.IC, Rajkot receive notice issued to the work man dated 22-12-1993 . Ext . 36 is another notice issued to the workman regarding sitting of enquiry. Ext. 37 is the letter of the werkman address to Sr. Divisional Officer 10, kot received on 13-5-1994. Ext . 38 is the copy of onquiry import of the enquiry officer dated 31-1-1995. lixt . 39 is the deder ofthe workman to the enquiry officerdated 10-3-1995. Ext . 40 is the another letter ofthe workman to the enquiry officer dated 10-3-1995 . Ext. 41 is the report of the enquiry ficer dated 28-3-1995 . Ext . 42 is the forwarding letter die 28-3-1995 of the enquiry officer addressing to the Sr. Divisional Manager LIC, Rajkot sending the copy of the enquiry report and proceedings . orkman address to Sr. Divisional Ext . 43 is the ker Manager, Rajkot dated 115-6-1995 received on 13-6-1995. Ext . 44 is the replyreply ofof thethe secondsecond show cause notice by the workman dated 1-7-10 Ext . 45 is the office order dated 14-8-1995 address to the workman Shri A.B. Chauhan Sub Staff S.R. No. 444813forming that he had been placed under suspension vivide des order dated 23-3-1993 , in view of physical assault commifited by him on Shri D.R. Maniar , Manager O.S. un 10-1993 and also informing regarding continuance of his pension order in view of again committed the effect of physical assaulted and violent threatening by him to on Maniar on 3-7-1994 at about 10.30. Ext . 46 is the n of punishment dated 17-8-1995 awarded to the workman Shri A.B. Chauhan where the spunished by imposing the penalty of bringing workman was puni down to the minimum pay scale in the pay scale of Sub Staff in terms ofrecen 39 ( 1 ) ( d ) ofthe Staff regulation , 1960. Ext. 47 isis thethe beds of the workman addressed tothe enquiryofficer dated 26-9-1995. lExt . 48 is the letter dated 30-4-1996by Shri N.B Vyas , Manager (O.S. ) come enquiry officer address to the Dr. Divisional Manager LIC , Rajkot which is the enquiry report in connection with the chargesheet dated 20-3-1995 against the delinquent . workman Shri AB . Chan Sub Staff holding guilty to the

(9) It has been argued on behalf of the second party workman that the misconduct alleged is dated 3-7-1994 which is Sunday and on that day being holiday there is no any working day in the premises of the LIC and so the misconduct under the chargesheet dated 28-3-1995 as per Ext. 55 produced by the management with the list . Ext . 20 does not fall under the provision of the bipartite settlement and the alleged misconduct does not happened during the course of duty of the workman and so the whole charge sheet is misconceived . On the other hand it has been argued on behalf ofthe first party that though alleged misconduct on 3-7-1994 is of Sunday but on that day Shri D.R. Maniar, Manager ( O.S. ) and the Development Officer Shri J.M. Sahani where on duty for visiting the premises of Jeevan Mangal Staff Quarters for assessing repairing works in the different staff quarters and in that course the delinquent workman Shri A.B. Chauhan who is admittedly occupant ofa staff quarter within Jeevan Mangal premises had carlier complaint about lack of amenities in his quarter and so Shri D.R. Maniar and Development Oflicer J.H. Sahani had come to visit Jeevan Mangal Staff Quarter premises near B- E and then the delinquent workman Shri A.B. Chauhan had shown disparate act of in subordination being a Sub Staff, by physically assaulting to Shri D.R. Maniar, catching his caller and using abusing words in threatening mood that you have taken action against me earlier and if in that proceeding he is terminated then you would be terminated from your life . It has been argued that the averments made on behalf of the second party has no leg to stand that 3-7- 1994 was Sunday and was not working day but the fact is otherwise that though 3-7-1994 was Sunday but the complainant D.R. Maniar was not on personal visit to Jeevan Mangal Staff Quarter premises rather was on duty with Development Officer Shri J. M. Sahani for Inspecting the staff quarters for redressal of the complainants and shortcomings, but the delinquent workman became lost temper to wait for his tern that those officers may also visit his quarters , asked question why he has not visited- his quarter to his earlier complainant and then manhandled to Shri D.R. Maniar by physically assaulting and giving out threat in abusing language of terminating his life ( to Shri D.R. Maniar) who was on duty to visit the staff quarters on Sunday and so the misconduct on part of the delinquent workman committed with Shri D.R. Maniar in presence of Shri J.M. Sahani Development Officer in the premises of Jeevan Mangal staff quarters , Nagar B Block covers under the bipartite settlement which is actionable under the Staff 5149 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Discipline and Conduct Rules , 1960. The argument advanced on behalf of the first party is well founded and well supportedby the evidence from Ext . 55 to Ext . 79 .

10. From going through the charge sheet Ext . 55 1do not find any ambiguity or vagueness in the charge sheet . From the documentary evidences at Ext. 55 to Ext . 79, it is proved that the complainant D.R. Maniar was on official duty to visit the staff quarters for inspection on 3-7-1994, so in that course of official duty, serious misconduct was committed by the delinquent workman . From going through the enquiry papers , 1 find that misconduct of the workman has been established during the enquiry. From going through the enquiry report at Ext . 73 I also find that the enquiry officer has given findings in accordance with the materials and evidence produced during the course of enquiry. It also appears that the delinquent workman has participated in all sitting of the enquiry questioning to the management witness . Also there is defence statement. It also appears that sufficient opportunity was granted to the delinquent workman to defend himself against the chargesheet . More so , the second party workman has himself filed several documents regarding his previous misconduct and conducting previous proceeding against himby submitting those documents from Ext . 28 to Ext . 54 . From perusal of those documents it is also established that on previous occasion too the delinquent workman had physically assaulted to Shri D.R. Maniar, Manager (O.S. ) for which the delinquent workman was issued charge sheet dated 28-5-1993 and departmental proceedings , domestic enquiry was held and as per enquiry report the delinquent workman was held guilty to the misconduct of assaulting to D.R. Maniar with threatening and second show cause notice was also issued to thedelinquent workman . And after considering all the facts and circumstance the Disciplinary Authority had passed punishment order dated 17-8-1995 by imposing the penalty of bringing down to Shri Chauhan ( delinquent workman ) to the minimum pay scale in the payscale of Sub Staff in terms of regulation 39 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the Staff regulation , 1960 with immediate effect that is from the date of this order . From the evidence and materials on the records , it appears that the delinquent workman was punished three to four time earlier due to various misconduct and the last misconduct was in assaulting to Shri D.R. Maniar during duty hours resulting. in bringing down him to theminimum pay scale in the pay scale of Sub Stafl . But even than the delinquent workman did not feel any repentance or improved his behaviuor rather have become more violent and more aggressive towards D.R.Maniar resulting in again physically assaulting him on 3-7-1994 when he visited the Jeevan Mangal staff quarter to make inspection of the quarters , then the uttering of such words after physically assaulting to Shri D.R. Maniar by the delinquent workman is also remarkable that even as per his complaint he is terminated then he will also terminate him from his life . Admittedly the previous proceeding of physically assaulting to Maniar was pending

on the date of 3-7-1994 as on complainant of, the domestic

: enquiry conducted , the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and the punishment order was passed after issuing show cause notice on 27-8-1995 . From perusal of the materials on the record, I also find that delinquent workman had repeated similar type of misconduct in physically assaulting to Shri D.R. Maniar. For the previous such type ofmisconduct in assaulting to Shri D.R. Maniar the delinquent workman was facing departmental enquiry which was going on and during pendency of that domestic enquiry again he repeated such misconduct against . D.R. Maniar on 3-7-1994 and again physically assaulting him and giving out threat of terminated him of is life Shri D.R. Maniar and Development Officer Shri J. M. Sahani were on duty to inspect the staff quarters . Moreover there isalso materials on the record that on earlier three to four occasions the delinquent workman had been punished for misconducts . That go to prove that delinquent workman was in the habit of committing misconduct and even on punishment , there was no reform in his conduct and behaviour towards the senior officer being a Sub Staff. In the previous major misconduct of physically assaulting to Shri D.R. Maniar resulted in bringing down to him to lowest scale of sub staff and so on prove of the subsequent misconduct as per chargeesheet Ext . 55 , there was no question for again taking lenient view in awarding punishment to the delinquent workman . Rather repetition of such misconduct invites to the Disciplinary Authority to take serious view in awarding punishment . So , after examining the order of the punishment dated 20-5-1997 at Ext . 77; I do not find that the order of punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge of proved misconduct of the delinquent workman . The Disciplinary Authority has clearly mentioned at para 11 of the punishment order that looking to the gravity of the charges proved again Shri Chauhan which includes as many as breach of regulations and is acting in a manner detrimental ofthe interest of the Corporation removal from service of Chauhan is justified in the fact and circumstances from the merits also proved that for the previous misconduct of physically assaulting to Shri D.R. Maniar , Manager ( O.S. ) he had been suspended and domestic enquiry was proceeding but again during pendency of that enquiry he again assaulted to Shri D.R. Maniar and gave out threat of terminating him from his life and so the order of suspension was continued against him and again departmental proceeding was initiated by issuing chargesheetat Ext . 55 followed by conducting of thorough departmental enquiry in accordance with law, following all the principle of natural justice , and giving opportunity to defend himself. 1 also find that the principle of natural justice was followed by the Disciplinary Authority in issuing second show cause notice to the delinquent workman vide Ext . 75 and Ext . 76 the delinquent workman submitted his reply to the second show cause notice . And after considering all the mitigating circumstances of the repeatation of misconduct by the delinquent workman the order of punishment of removal from service in terms of regulation 39 ( 1 ) ( F ) of the LIC of India Staff Regulation 5150

[ PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

1960 was passed with immediate effect from the date of setting aside or for modifying the order of punishment. I
order ie . 20-5-1997 . I she find that the workman submitted also find and hold that there is no ground for interfering in
departmental appeal the Appellate Authority and the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary
the Appellate Authorityuthority by its order at Ext . 79 after taking Authority as per Ext . 77 and order as to rejection ofappeal
into consideration facts and circumstances and ofthe delinquent workman as per Ext . 79. These two issues
proved misconduct ra did not find any cogent ground are accordingly decided in negative.
for warranting tec ofthe punishment imposed (13) ISSUE NO. V
on the delincuen in which can be said to be
excessive . So the as rejected. Inview of the findings given to issue no . III & IV in
the foregoing paragraphs and also considering as per date
(11) It has ed on behalf of the first party
ofbirth of the workman that he has already reached age of
that there is a so in favour of the first party
his superannuation in the month of September -2010 , there
management the ched against the second party
is no question for reinstatement ofthe delinquent workman
are proved and ons and so the punishment of
or for claim of back wages in view of the findings that the
termination is just , legal and proper. The first party has
punishment of removal from service is just and proper and
relied upon the case avroparted in 2008 LLR 432 Supreme
there is no question for making interference in the order of
Court in the case of Employers Management West Bokaro
punishment . So, the workman is not entitled to get any
Colliery of TISCO Ltd. Va Ram Pravesh Singh where in it relief in this case .
has been held normally it is not open to substitute their
subjective opinian in the place of the one arrived at by the ( 14) ISSUE NO . I & II
Domestic Tribunal Funer it has been held in absence of In view of the findings given to issue no. III , IV and
the challenge to the territy or fairness of the domestic V in the forgoing paragraphs , 1 further find and hold that
enquiry, the Court should bebe reluctant to either interfere the reference is not maintainable and delinquent workman
with the finding recoi by the Enquiry Officer or the has no valid cause of action to raise Industrial Dispute
punishment awardedI awarded by the punishing Authority, more so against the order of his removal from service . The reference
when the advocate of the bookman has stated that he does is, therefore , dismissed on contest . But no order of cost.
not want to challenge the imess of the enquiry hence the
(15) ISSUE NO . VI
dismissal of the is restored . It has been further
held that the stand move in disciplinary proceeding The terms of reference is answered in favour of the
and criminal trial is c different since in the former, Manager of first party LIC India and it is held that the
even the preponderance oppossibilities are enough whereas action of the Sr. Divisional Manager LIC India , Divisional
in the latter , the proof s be beyond reasreasonable doubt . Office, Rajkot for dismissing the service of Shri A.B.
On the other hand the second pay the cast Chauhan Sub Staff w.e.f. 20-5-1997 is just , valid and legal.
law cited at 2002 (0114 115 SC the case of Regional This is my award.
Manager RTC V/ s/G am , 2009 LLR 945 SC and the
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
27-7-2007
High Court in case of judgment dated 27-74 paised by the Hon'ble Gujarat नई दिल्ली , 28 मई , 2012
Devabhai Katoriya 2-7-2007 and 12-12-2007 and the
का. आ. 2110. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947
case law reported in 2008 ( 119 ) FLR 865 Allahbad High
Court are not applic view of the proved misconduct का. 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ
deniso inview ofthe proved ad also इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच
of the delinquent
previous miserndust o in view of repeating such अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
serious misconduct of assaulting to the Manager अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या
repeatedly. 179/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 22.5 2012
(12) OnOn comidor sideration of the materials and evidence को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
available on the f so considering to the case
[सं. एल-12011/34/2010 आई आर ( बी (1 )
law cited on botall sides , I am ofthe considered
view that the on punishment passed against शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
delinquent workin ccordance with the law of the
New Delhi , the 28th May, 2012
proved misconduct an o considering past history of
repeated misconduel committed by the delinquent S.O. 2110.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the
workman . So , I find id that the punishment order of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central
removal from service is ecordance with the law and it is Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 179/
not disproportionate tode to engravity of the charge . I further 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
find and hold that the party workman is not entitled Court- II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the
to invoke the provision οι rection 11 A of the I.D. Act for Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

5151

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

themanagement of Central Bank of India and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 22-5-2012 .

[No. L- 12011 /34/2010 - IR (B - II) ]

SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Present : SRI A. K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. 179/2011

Registered on 8-6-2011

The General Secretary, Central Bank of India Employees Union Haryana , H.No.3296 , Sector 19 - D , Chandigarh.

Petitioner

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India , Zonal Office, Sector 17 , Chandigarh .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

: None

Forthe claimant

: KJS Soni AR .

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on May 1. 2012

Central Government vide Notification No. L - 12011 / 34/2010 - IR( B - II ) ) Dated 11-5-2011 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub- section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and sub - section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the managementent of Central Bank of India in suspending Sh . M.L. Jassi w.e.f. 26-4-2005 to 10-5-2005 and imposing punishment of reduction of pay by One stage in the pay scale for two years is just, fair and legal ? What relief the concerned workman is entitled "

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -11 ,चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 148/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 22-5 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 55 / 2010 आई आर ( बी II ) |

शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th May, 2012

S.O. 2111.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 148/ 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-5-2012 .

[No. L- 12012/55 /2010- IR ( B - II ) | SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL , CHANDIGARII

Present : SRI A. K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer .

Case No. I.D. 148/2011

Registered on 24-5-2011

Sh.Anand Joseph S/ o Sh . Bakhtawar Masih , C /o Sh . H. K. Sharma , EF - 439 , Krishna Nagar , N. G. Road. Jalandhar

Petitioner

Versus

1. The Regional Manager , Central Bank of India . Regional Office, 1, Queen's Road, Amritsar .

2.The Branch Manager , Central Bank of India , Khadur Sahib Branch , Amritsar.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

:None

Forthe claimant

After receiving the reference notices were issued to the parties . Management put in its appearance but the claimant did not appear despite notices . Notice sent by registered post was not received back undelivered . Hence service was presumed on claimant. As the claimant failed to appear and file claim statement despite sufficient notices , hence a ' No Dispute ' award is passed in the case . Let two copies of the award be sent to Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2012

का. आ. 2111.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

2081 GI /12-17

:Sh. N. K. Zakhmi , Advocate For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 2nd May, 2012

Central Government vide Notification No. 1.- 12012/ 55/2010 - IR( B - II ) ) Dated 15-4-2011 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d) and sub- section ( 2 - A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act ' ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India to adjust the outstanding dues against PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) | $152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

Khamla Road, Nagpur -15.

AWARD

(Dated: 8th May, 2012 )

Sh .Anand Joseph the workman from his retirement dues i.e. Provident Fund and Gratuity is legal and justified?What robef the concerned workman is entitledto?"

After receiving the reference the notices were issued to the parties. The respondent put in its appearance but the workman did not tornturn in and file his claim statement despite notices sent to himon 24-5-2011 and by registered post on 17-11-2011 . Nous not received back undelivered. Hence service was presseddon workman . On account of failure ofworkmen in filing his claim statement a ' No Dispute Award' is passed in the date . Let two copies of the Award besent toCentral Govent for further necessary action .

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 Canara Bank, Circle Office, Nagpur and their workman , Smt . Lata N. Koram, for adjudication , as per letter No. 1.- 12011 / 75 /2011 - IR ( B- 11 ) dated 13-3-2012, with the schedule in Hindi Language , the English Version of which is as follows : -

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई, 2012

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank, Nagpur through its Assistant General Manager in respect of recovery of Rs . 50,000 from the salary of Smt . Lata N. Koram , Clerk is legal and justified ? Whatrelief the workman is entitled ? " का. आ. 2112. विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निभाषकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में चाय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीची /46/11-12 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 18-05-2012 कर आप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 /75/2011- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

2.On receipt ofthe reference , partics were noticed to file their respective statement ofclaim and written statement on 8-5-2012 . The workman appeared in person and file on application supported. with affidavit , mentioning therein that the dispute does not survive any more as the Impugned recovery has already been effected from her salary and she is not interested in pursuing the matter anymore. She prayed for disposal of the reference accordingly.

New Delhi, the 28th May, 2012

3. In view of the application filed by the workman supported with affidavit regarding the non- existence of any industrial dispute between the partics , a " no dispute " award is necessary to be passed in this case . Accordingly itisordered:

ORDER

S.O. 2112. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 19471947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No.CGIT/ NGP/46/11-12 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the ustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman , wi was received by the Central Government on 18-5-2012.

No. L- 12011 /75 /2011 - IR ( B- II )]

The award be treated as " no dispute " award . The workman is not entitled to any relief. The application filed by the workman supported with affidavit is made part of theaward.

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOffiocr

XURE

IN THE C.GLT , NAGPUR

CGIT/NGP/46/2011

BEFORE OFFICER, OGIACE CHAND , PRESIDING DOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Smt. Lata N. Koram

Date: 8-5-2012

CaseNo. CGITANGP /46/ 211-12

-Vs-

PartyNo. 1

CanaraBank

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO DISPOSE THE INSTANCE REFERENCE TheA General Manager, Circle Office, Gilding, Residency Road, or(MS)

Versus

The Party No. 1 , workman , named above begs to apply asunder:

PartyNo.2 Shri Ma Bangale (Member ) , Canara Bank StaffUnion ,

R/o 31, Sawarkar Nagar,

That the subject matter of dispute does not survive any more as the impugned recovery has already been.

| भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5153

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

effected from the salary of the workman . In the circumstances the workman is not interested in pursuing the matter any more . As such the instant reference is liable to disposed of accordingly.

Hence this application.

Prayer : It is , therefore , prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to dispose of the instant reference as infractuous .

NAGPUR

PartyNo. 1

DATED: 8-5-2012

SOLEMN AFFIRMATION

I, Lata N. Koram , aged 52 -years , R/o , Nagpur , do hereby take an oath and state on solemn affirmation as under:

1. That the contents of above application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge .

2. Hence verified and signed on this 8th day of May, 2012 at Nagpur.

Deponent

I Know and identify the deponent .

Advocate

(B. Lahari)

नई दिल्ली , 28 मई , 2012

का. आ. 2113 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केंद्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियाजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1099/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंद्रीय सरकार को 22 5 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल 12012/105/2002 आई आर ( बी 11 ) | शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th May, 2012

S.O. 2113. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 1099/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court- II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-5-2012 .

[No. 1-12012/105/2002 - IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 1099/2005

Registered on 21-9-2005

Shri Chander Mohan , S /o Sh . Krishan Lal ,

R/ o11.No.772- R, Street No. 15 -А ,

Pratap Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab.

Petitioner

Versus

The Zonal Manager , Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office . Bhangu Road, Bathinda , Punjab ,

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh . R. P. Rana . Advocate

Sh . J.S. Sathi . Advocate .

For the Management :

AWARD

Passed on 1st May, 2012

Central Government vide Notification No. L - 12012 / 105/2002 - IR ( B - II) ) Dated 11-10-2002 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub - section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and sub- section ( 2 - A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the managementmanageme of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Chander Mohan S/oSh . Krishan Lal, Ex- Peon ( Daily Wage Basis) . w.e.f. 1-1-2001 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation is legal and just ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

The case of the workman is that he served different stints in different branches of the Bank since 1st January , 1988 to 29-12-2000 . His last stint was in Zonal Office , Bathinda for which he had been issued an appointment letter dated4-5-1999 for a period of two months . Vide letter dated 2-8-1999 his services were extended and the same were extended from time to time after notional breaks of 3 or 4 days . Lastly, these were extended vide letter dated 30-12-2000 for a period of 60 days but he was allowed to work only up to 31-12-2000 and his services were terminated w.c.f 1-1-2001 . He has alleged that he has completed more than 240 days ' service in the year 1999 and 2000 and in the preceding 12 months before the date of termination of his service but his services were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act. There are 4 regular postofPeon in the Zonal Office , Bathinda. But his services were terminated so that he could not claim for absorption on regular basis . He was not allowed to complete 240 days of service for the same purpose and this action of the management amount to unfair labour practice . He has prayed for his reinstatement along with full backwages.

5154

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

January

I day

February

29 days

March

31 days

30 days

April

May

31 days

June

3+11-14 days

July

31 days

August

17 days

September

31 days

October

30 days

Nil

November

Theclaim was contested by the management . It was stated that wornenin minuployed on temporary basis on daily wage basis and Meand he had not been recruited as per Recruitment Rules 'so be is not entitled to remain in the employment of the Ban . There is no permanent vacancy of Peon and the Bank do not require Peons . The workman had been engaged intermittently at. different branches for short duration and his employment came to an automatic end after the assignment of the contingency was over . He has not put in continuous service or regular 240 days continuous service to claim the protection of Section 25 -F of the Act. Ilis engagement in different branches of the Bank can not be clubbed together to determine the length of continuous service .

December

6 days

Total

251 days In support of his case workman examined himself and filed an appointment letter dated 4th May, 1999, while the Bank examined Sukhpal Singh , Manager and filed certain papers.

Thus he worked for more than 240 days during the period, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the workman .

Ihave perused the evidence on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties . I have also gone through the written arguments of the management .

The point fer consideration in this matter is :-

Whether the workman has completed 240 days of service in the 12 calendar months preceding 1-1-2001 , the date of termination of his service and he is entitled to protection of Section 25 of the Act .

For the purpose and determination of the point in issue the period from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2000becomes relevant .

But then the argument of the management is that the workmanworked at different branches of the bank during the period. Learned counsel invited my attention to the statement of workman where he himself has admitted that he had been engaged at different branches of the bank and there was no case of transfer from one branch to another. The management witness has also stated that the workman had been appointed in different branches of the bank , the appointment letter however had been issued by the Zonal , Office as it is the competent authority to make the appointment . It may be noted that in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Om Pal 2007 II LLJ 1030 where the Labour Court had clubbed the service in two sub- divisions of a daily wager and had granted the relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Labour Court erred in clubbing the service in the two sub-divisions as they are separate and distinct .

The learned counsel for the management has also argued that the workman had been appointed intermittently on the, basis of need without following due process of recruitment , hence in view of the law laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and OthersVs. State of Bihar 1997 LIC 2075 the termination of the services of the workman cannot be construed to be retrenchment, and the protection of Section 25F of the Act isnot available to him . I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for management The intermittent employment of the workman shows that it was on need basis and in view of the law laid down in Ilimanshu Kumar Vidyarthi's case the protection of Section 25F of the Act cannot be extended to the workman and therefore action of the management of the bank in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 1-1-2001 without any notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation is legal and just .' Workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference is answered against the workman . Let two copies of the Award be sent to Central Government for further necessary action .

The workman has not produced any evidence showing his employment during this period . The appointment letter paper No.30 filed by him is dated 4th May, 1999 and the appointment through only for 60 days . Thus this paper does not relate to the period in issue . However the copies of register of employment relating to workman filed by management on workman's application (paper No. 18 to 23 ) shows that during the year 2000 after being relieved on tet Jamry he was in job from February to 3rd June when he was relieved . He again remained injob in September and October , 2000 and then in the month of December for few days only from 26th December to 31st December, 2000. Featroit counsel for workman argued that the management has not produced the complete record of . the workman attendance to conceal the fact of more than 240 days service of worldñán .of wordman . Management however has filed an appointment letter dated 19-6-2000 , joining report ofthe workman dited 200 2000 and relieving letter dated 17-8-2000 paper No.24 to 26 relating to workman showing that the workman was in the employment of the management from 19-6-2000 to 17-8-2000 . The management has not produced the register of employees of this period. Thus from the record produced by the bank it is clear that the workman was in the employment of the management forthe following period in the year 2000.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5155

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2114.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/ 116/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18 5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 144/2004- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] India, Loni Branch , Tah . Arni , Distt . Yavatmal is legal &justified? Ifnot , what relief is the workman entitled to?"

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Bhujang Gotphode, ("the workman " in short ) , filed the statement of claim and the management of the Central Bank of India ("Party No.1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th May, 2012

S.O. 2114. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/NGP/ 116/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 18-5-2012 .

[No. L- 12012/144/2004- IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 9-5-2012 Case No.CGIT/ NGP/ 116/2004

Party No.1 : The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India , Regional Office, Victoria Building , Kamptee Road, Nagpur-440001

Versus

PartyNo.2 : Shri Bhujang S/o . Narayan Gotphode , AtLoni , Tah -Arni , Distt . Yavatmal ,

Maharashtra .

AWARD (Dated: 09thMay, 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 Central Bank of India and their workman , Shri Bhujang Gotphode , for adjudication , as per letter No. 1-12012/ 144/2004 - IR ( B - II ) dated 20-10-2004 , with the following schedule: --

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Central Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Bhujang Narayan Gotphode, Central Bank of The case of the workman is that he came to be appointed with party no.1 orally on 1-1-1996, as a labourer on daily wages and he worked at Loni Branch of the Bank, as perthe direction of party no. 1 and his services were utilized by the Branch Manager at Loni Branch even for the purpose ofcollecting loan amount from the customers of the Branch and his service record was clean and unblemished and he worked with party no. I continuously till the termination of his services on 1-1-2003 and his service record was kept by party no. I and in such service record , artificial breaks were shown by party no.1 and he was also shown as " Badli worker" , in order to avoid his claim by permanency and his services were orally terminated abruptly and illegally of the Branch Manager of Loni Branch w.c.f. 1-1-2003, without following the provisions of the Act and before termination ofhis services , neither one month's notice , nor one month's wages in lieu of the notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him , as required under Section 25 - F of the Act and the party no.1 also did not publish any seniority list prior to termination of his services as per Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules and the party no . 1 adopted unfair labour practice and ample work is available in the office ofparty no. 1 and he has the required qualifications including educational qualification required for appointinent ofclass 4th employee in the Bank and inspite of submission of document in support of his qualifications , party no . 1 terminated his services to avoid to give him the benefit of permanency and though he approached and made representations to party no . I for his reinstatement in service . no heed was paid to the same , so he raised the industrial dispute.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

3. The party no.l in its written statement has pleaded inter -alia that the workman was engaged by it at Loni Branch as a casual daily rated worker, as and when required basis , either due to shortage of sub - staff or in leave vacancy and as he was a daily rated worker , his name was not borne on the muster roll of the bank and his wages were calculated on daily basis according to the number of days of work performed by him and wages were paid to him' accordingly on vouchers and since he was required to work under the Branch Manager, of Loni Branch , necessary instructions werebeing issued to him by the said Branch Manager as regard the work to be done and the services of the workman 5156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

were never utilized for recovery of loan from the borrowers
 and as the workman w          rated casual worker , there
was no question of me           of his service record and
 there was no employeloyeesamparca relationship between it
 and the workman, a           workman did not work
 continuously upto 1-1-2003       the engagement of the
 workman was " es and           ired basis on daily wages ,
there was no question pl         tion of his services and
when work was not av              was discontinued and
 therefore, there was of q        of compliance of the
provisions ofSection             Act and discontinuation
 ofthe the workman d             to unfair labour practice
and provision of the Act         ng to retrenchment and
publication of seniority l      re not applicable to his
 case and nowork is                Branch and in response
 to the approach lette          Forkman , suitable reply
 through bank's ad                 to him by, explaining
the factual position an              is not entitled to any
 relief.
      4. In support of their suspective claims , besides
placing reliance on            is both the parties have
 adduced oral evidence. The       m has examined himself
 as a witness . The work       bas reiterated the facts
mentioned in the stoboo            in his examination - in-
 chief, which is                However, in his cross-
 examination , the                hitted that he worked in
the bank on daily we             appointment order was
given to him at the time       pintment and he was paid
wages on vouchers a                   not entered on the
Bankworking at the musterroll of     the Manager of the
 and he was not                rough the Employment
Exchange.
      5. One Kamlakar R.  Nonkar has been examined
as awitness by the partypartyno  examination-in -chiefof
thiswitness is also on al         evidence of this witness
 isin the same line of the      taken by the party no . 1 in
 the written statentent . In      xamination , this witness
has stated that the wor          working in Loni Branch
 as and when required              Bank and the Branch
Manager was making                wages to the workman
 on vouchers . This w             od that inspite of filing
ofa noticeby the              This case, for production of
documents, the bank,           otproduce the documents .
      6.At this                    necessary to mention
that nopetition had                half of the workman in
this reference to die              no.1 to produce any
documencument and there         order by the Tribunal for
production of docin             party no . 1 .
      7. It is necessaryto mention here that on 19-03-2012
towhich date, the case w         for hearing of argument
onmerit ofthe case , ne           kanan nor his advocate
appeared to advarte              80 order was passed to
proceed ex-parte a

PART 11-SFC . 3 ( ii) |

      8. In view of the stands taken by the parties , I think .
 it apt to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon 'ble
Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon the
discussion of the merit of the case.
       The Hon' ble Apex court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966SC- 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 of240days
 in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous
 service for one complete year. The amended Section 25-3
 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 13 and the unamended
Cl. (b)ofSection 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 aperiod of twelve calendar months preceding the
datewith reference to which calculation has to be made..
 The last amendment has now removed a vaguen
existed in the unamended Section 25 -B .
       In the decision reported in AIR 1981 8C-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 25-13 (2) commprehends
 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, 1.e. the date of retrenchment . If he has , he wouldbe
 deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one
 year for the purpose of Section -25-13 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 :

5157 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 28 मई , 2012

"Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947- S.25 - F, 10- Retrenchment compensation -Termination of services without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal -Case of workman/claimant that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim denied by management - Onus lies upon claimant to show that he had infact 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 . "

का.आ. 2115.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -17012/19/1996 आईआर ( बी -- 11 ) | शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th May, 2012

So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that forapplicability 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 .

S.O. 2115. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.95/ 1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 18-5-2012 .

[No. L- 17012/ 19/ 1996 - IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer 9. The present case at hand is now to be considered , with the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon' ble Apex Court and it is to be found out ifthe 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 1-1- 2003. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding twelve calendar months of 1-1-2003 , the workman had worked for 240 days .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I. DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 ( 1 )( d) ( 2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947. Reference No. 95 of 1996

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

L.I.C. of India , Patna

And TheirWorkmen

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

Appearances

10. Besides his own oral evidence the workman has filed Xerox copies of his marksheet , employment registration card, school leaving certificate , approach notice and affidavits of Shri Raibhan Kanhu Pathare and four others . The said documents are of no help to the workman to prove his case working for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 1-1-2003 . The workman has not produced a single document in support of his claim that infact he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date ofhis alleged termination i.e. 1-1-2003 . The oral evidence ofthe workman on affidavit is not sufficient to prove such fact . Hence , it is found that the workman has failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 1-1-2003 .

Forthe Employers

Forthe Workman

: Shri Raj Dular Sah , Advocate : Shri D.K. Jha , Advocate

State: Bihar

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.

: Industry : Insurance Dated, the 17th May, 2012

ORDER

AWARD

The action of the management in relation to Central Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Bhujang Narayan Gotphode, Central Bank of India, Loni Branch, Tah . Arni , Distt . Yavatmal is legal &justified . The workman isnot entitled to any relief.

ByOrderNo. L- 17012/ 19/96- IR ( B - 2) dated 11/ 16-10-96 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23, 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5158

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Patna interminating the services of Shri Umesh Prasad Chaudhary hudegal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workenter is entitled ? "

thebasis of and according to rules and performance during the apprentice -ship period he was put on probation w.c.f. 17-4-90 vide letter dated 14-1-91. The concerned workman was put on probation for one year w.c.f. 17-4-90 but during thisperiod his performance was not upto the mark and stipulation , although it is true that the concerned workman made a representation for transfer to Patna on the grounds of the alleged attack by anti -social elements but on an appraisal of his performance during the probationary period it was found that Sri Choudhary had failed on all counts . I has been submitted that in spite of Sri Choudhury's most unsatisfactory and below standard performance of work , the management took a lenient view keeping his status , as schedule cast member, extended his probationary period by one year i.e. from 1-4-91 to 31-3-92 by letter dated 19-9- 91. The concerned workman continued with his representation in 11'91 and 12'91 and on.28-1-92 for his transfer to Patna City Branch , in each he was stating that hecould not perform well because he was feeling insecure. Considering his representation , the Divisional Officer vide letter dated 3-2-92 informed him that it was not possible to accede to his request and he was asked to continue his work at Bikramganj . On the appraisal of the performance of the concerned workman's extended probation period i.c. from 1-4-91 to 31-3-92 was made and it was found that he had failed on all counts . Accordingly, on the basis of unsatisfactory performance his service was terminated w.c.f. 1-4-1992.

In view of such circumstances , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the management .

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .

5. The management produced MW- 1 , Md . Mustafa and proved documents as Exts . M - 1 to M - 7.

2. The case of concerned workman is that he was originally appointed on 15-4-89 as an apprentices Development Officer and though the concerned workman was originally appointed pprentice Development Officer but actually he was discharging the duties of permanent DevelopmentOfficer. He had been performing permanent and perennial nature of job against permanent vacancy and put continuous service . In spite of the aforesaid fact by an order dated 14-1-91 the management changed his designation to the post of Probationer Development Officer. Since then he had been working as a permenent Development Officer under the direct control and supervision ofthe management. During the aforesaid period, the' concerned workman was attacked by anti - social elements while he was moving by his motor cycle and fell seriously inactive due to the attack and he was afraid for his life , so he represented before the management for his transfer to any other place so that be can discharge his duties tothe entire satisfaction of the management and he can also fulfill the target allegedly set up by the management . But the management did not pay any heed to his repeated representations and in yiew of the aforesaid fact the alleged target set up by the management allegedly could not be fulfulled by him. The management all of a sudden stopped the coucaned workman from his duties by an order dated 2-6-92 we.f. 1-4-92. The concerned workman represented before the management against the illegal and arbitrary, tormination of sertion of service but without any effeect. Thermafter an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. ( C), Patna, but the conciliation proceeding ended in future and the present dispute has been referred to this Honde Tribunal by the Ministry of Labour, Govt . of India, for adjudication .

The concerned workman produced himself as WW- 1 . On behalf of the concerned workman documents have been marked as Exts . W- 1 to W- 10 .

Under the facts suited above, it has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunit be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages and consequential benefits.

6. Argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that no domestic enquiry was held before terminating his service . Neither any principles of natural justice has been followed for terminating the service ofthe concerned workman by the management .

Inthisrespect MW- 1 in his cross - examination at page 2that the note sheet (Ext. M-3 ) was not prepared by the Manager of Dehri Branch of L.I.C. in that note -sheet nowhere there is any recommendation by the Manager of Dehri Branch of L.I.C. It shows that no recommendation of Dehri Branch of LIC to dismiss the concerned workman from service. No show cause notice was given to him and he has been dismissed from service straightway from back date. This should have been done after following the 3. The case ofthe management is that the concerned workman was appointed apprentice Development Officer initially. But it is not contectcommect that he was discharging his duties as permanent development Officer. It has been submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as A.D.O. (Rural ) vide order dated 15-4-89 with apprentice- ship period commencing om 17-4-89 . After completion of training at STC, Pains, the concerned workman was posted at Dehri Branch Office fontiold training. Dehri Branch office confirmed his joining and fixed his Head Quarters at Bikramganj with operitonal area, Bikramganj , Dawat, Karakat and Diner block by their letter dated 20-7-89. On [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5159

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

the ID Act , 1947 , S.2 (j ) . LIC Act does not contain any provision to exclude jurisdiction of Industrial court in so farasapplicability of S.11 - A, ID Act , 1947 , is concerned- M. Venugopal Case , ( 1994) 2 SCC323 , distinguished- A workman in LIC has choice of seeking remedy from Civil Court or Industrial Court-Civil Procedure Code , 1908 - S.9- Constitutution of India- Art . 12."

principles of natural justice. Ext . M -2 shows that the concerned workman was appointed as a Probationary Development Officer after completion of his training. As perExt . M- 3 he was dismissed without any domestic enquiry only on the ground that he was incompetent . He should have been given warning or notice for his not giving alleged target quota set up by the management . Ext . M -4 shows that his transfer has been turn down by the management.

Another argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that his probation period was extended on 19-9-91 from 1-4-91 to 31-3-92 , as per Ext. W-8 . It shows that this period of probation from 1-4-91 has been extended by this letter from back date . As per Ext . W- 7 the concerned workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 1-4-92 by letter dated 2-6-92 . It also shows that he was dismissed with retrospective effect . A person shouldbe. removed from service by earlier order and not by later order.

7. On behalf of the concerned workman law has been referredwhich is 2008 | CLR 1074 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the LIC is an ' Industry' .

Another law referred is (2007 ) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L& S) 264 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laiddown- " Industrial Disputed Act, 1947-SC . 10( q ) ( d) , 12 ( 3 ) , 12 ( 5 ) , 19(2), 19(7), 7 - A & 7- B and Ss . 2 (0000 ), 9- D, 9-E , 9- F (as in force in Rajasthan ) -Reference - Condition precedent for making -Existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute , held, is a condition precedent for making a reference-High Court can entertain a writ petition impugning a reference onthe ground of non - existence of an actual or apprehended industrial dispute- But Industrial Tribunal cannot examine the validity of a reference -Where pursuant to identical charter of demands made by several unions , the management and a representative union reached a conciliation settlement to be operetive immediately after the expiry of the previous settlement , held , the new settlement became binding on all workmen of the establishment including those belonging to a dissenting minority union Principle of collective bargaining underlining the Act for resolving industrial disputes and maintaining peace , taken not of Hence, during the existence of such a settlement , a dissenting minority union , which was not eligible for registration as a representative union, held , was not entitled to make an industrial dispute in respect of the demands left out in the new settlement Further held, in the said circumstances the notice given by such a minority union under S. 19(2) to terminate the earlier settlement was invalid words and Phrases "Representative union " Trade Unions Act, 1936 , S.4 . " Also refereed 2011 AIR SCW 3455 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down-" Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947) S.2 ( s ) -workman - Part-time employes , contractual employee , temporary or casual employee -All are workman, casesReferred : Air 2010 SC 1116 : 2010 AIR SCW 1357 : 2010 1..1.C . 1433: 2010(2 ) AIR Kar R 163 : 2010 AIRSCW 6387: 2011 ( 1 ) AIR Bom R 130 : (2010) 5 SCC 497 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp .) 342: 2008 AIR SCW 223 : 2008 ( 1 ) ALJ 790: AIR 2008 SC(Supp. ) 1134: 2008 AIR SCW 1474 : 2008 LAB IC 1375: 2008 (3 ) AIJ 533 : AIR 2007 SC 528 : 2007 AIR SCW 70 : 2007 Lab IC 987: 2007 AIR SCW 2357 : 2007 L.I.C. 1955 : 2007 (3 ) AIR Kar R 433: 2007 ( 2) AIR Jhar R 908 : 2007 AIR SCW 7305: 2008 ( 1 ) ALJ 245 : AIR 2006 SC 1806: 2006 AIRSCW 1991: 2006 ( 3 ) AIR Kar R 320 : AIR 2003 SC 1872 : 2003 AIR SCW 1340: 2003 Lab IC 1449 : 2003 AIR Jhar . HCR 548 : AIR 2003 SC 3044 : 2003 AIR SCW 3872 : 2003 ALL LJ 2057 : AIR 2001 SC 479 : 2001 AIR SCW 77 : 2001 L.I.C. 476 : AIR 1993 SC 1388 : 1993 ab IC 428 : ( 1990) 3 SCC 682 : AIR 1984 SC 500 : 1983 L.I.C. 1865 : Air 1982 SC 854: 1982 lab IC 811 : AIR 1981 SC 422 : 1980 Lab IC 1292: AIR 1981 SC 1253 : 1981 L.I.C. 806 : AIR 1980 SC 1219 : 1980 Lab IC 687 : AIR 1976 SC 232: AIR 1976 SC 111 : 1976 Lab IC 769 : AIR 1974 SC37 : 1974 Lab IC 133 : AIR 1964 SC 477 : AIR 1961 SC 1617 : AIR 1961 SC 644 : AIR 1960 SC 610. "

Another law referred is (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases ( 1.& S) 1083 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down- "Civil Appeal No. 2004 of2008 , decided on March 14 , 2008. "

Also referred 2006 Supreme Court Cases ( L& S ) I in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held " Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 -Ss . 25 -F, 25 - B, 11 and 10- Requirement of240 days ' continuous service-Onus to prove- Evidence to be led- Applicability of Evidence Act, 1872 - Held , burden ofproof lies on workman . It is for workman to adduce cogent evidence, both oral and documentary mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by workman will not suffice- Evidence Act not applicable to proceedings under S. 10 ID Act- In cases involving dailywagers , workman can only call upon employer to repoduce before court nominal muster roll for the given period and other documents if in existence---- Drawing od adverse inference would ultimately depend thereafter on facts of each case clarified, mere non-production of muster rolls per se , without plea of suppression by claimant workman will not be a ground for Tribunal to draw adverse inference against employer- Evidence Act, 1872S . 114 II . (g ) Applicability. " Life Insurance Corporation Act , 1956- Ss . 48 (2 ) (cc), (2- A) , ( 2 - B ) & ( 2 - C) -Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, Ss . 11 -A and 2 (j ) , Excluded by virtue of terms and conditions laid down under S.48 ( 2) ( cc) of LIC Act---Held, LIC though 'State ' under Act 12 of the constitution , is also an ' industry ' under

2081 GI /12-18 PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5160

Abo referred2006 Supreme Court cases (L& S ) 650 which Hon'ble S Court laid down- " Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Sa 2511 -A-Termination- 240 days' continuous work-Proofof ckman bringing muster rolls on record, which ontbl the same Employer not leading any evidence to controvert the same Hence reinstatement with back wees , held , justified.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Ss. 25 - F and 11 -A- Termination-240 days continuous work- Proof of-workman ekamining himselfelf inin resp of No question relatingto period of work put in orn examination---Management witness admitting said period ofwork-Hence reinstatement ith back wages , held, justifier with

Anotherother law refestedreferodisi ( 1983 ) 4 SCC 214 in which Hon'ble SupremeCourt laid down-

"Labour and services Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Scetion 2 ( s) Development Officers of L.I.C. are 'workmen' Designation or name of post not decisive Hactors to be considered Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.

7.As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court the Development Officers are workman . No domestic enquiry was conductedcted by the management before terminating the services of concerned workman even on Probation period. of the Manager of Dehri Branch office under concerned workman was working as Probation 1 pment Officer was invited by ation order was passed ante- madness of the management . the management . The toxinatio dated. It also shows The concerned wor days in a calender worked for more than 240

Considering the above facts and law, I hold that the concernedworkinan w.e.f. 1-4-92 with 50 % ed to be reinstated in service wages.

8. In the rosult, I renter the following award-

The actin Fiho mape ment of LIC of India , patna in services at Stiri Umesh Prasad Chaudhary terminating the ser is not legal and justified entitled to be reme termination le 14 management is dance days from the d the concerned workman is vice from the date of his with 50% back wages . The dement the award within 30 on of the award.

HM. SINGH, Presiding Officer

28 मई , 2012

का.आ.2116. विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के रण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र को संयोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के वीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औरत पर विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय में मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/30 ऑफ 2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/8/ 2008 आईआर ( बी 11 ) 1

शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the28th May, 2012

S.O. 2116.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.CGIT- 2/ 30 of2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No.2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-5-2012.

[No. 1-12011/8/2008- IR (B-II )|

SHEESH RAM , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

Κ.Β. ΚAΤAKE : Presiding Officer Reference No.CGIT-2/30 Of 2008

Employers In Relation To The Management ofBank ofMaharashtra

The Chairman and Managing Director Bank of Maharashtra

Lokmangal

1501 , Shivaji Nagar Pune-411005 . ( MS) .

AND

Their Workmen

TheGeneral Secretary

Bank ofMaharashtra Karmachari Sangh Mumbai Zone, Room No.27/9 Cawasjee Patel Street Fort, Mumbai -400023 .

APPEARANCES:

ForTheEmployer

Mr. M.B. Anchan Advocate

ForThe Workmen

No appearance

Mumbai , dated the 6th March , 2012 .

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L- 12011 /8 /2008- IR ( B -II ) , dated 15-05-2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by clausc (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

5161

of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

that the first party be directed to allot the post of lead Cashier - I to the employees who are entitled and desire to accept the same as per the earlier settlement .

"Whether the term and condition No.4 contained in the'Memorandum of Settlement' (Bipartite) dated 17-10-2006 is in contravention with the Memorandum ofSettlement dated 13-4-1987 signed by the parties during the course of conciliation and also with the VIIIth Industry Level Bi - Partite Settlement dated 2-6-2005. If yes , to what relief the disputant union/ employees are entitled ?"

3. The first party Bank resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex - 11 . According to them , the allegations made in the statement of claim are false . According to them , the skill test stipulated by the Bank for the post of Head Cashier- 1 has no significance. It is unnecessarily called for . The Bank has rightly stipulated condition of passing of skill test for the allowance carrying post for which use of computers is a must . The said skill test is stipulated as part of provisions of VIII Bi - Partite settlement dt . 2-6-2005 . The union has accepted the fact that in the present era almost all the employees have to work on computer and manual work has become exceptional . Inspite of admitting this position the said union is disputing the action of the Bank of making Head Cashier- l to work online . Their stand is contrary to their prayer . The settlement dated 17-10-2006 was signed by the partics as per the future need and requirement . The second party has raised the instant dispute on behalf of very few in eligible employees who are not interested in working . The majority employees including members of the second party union have already derived benefits of the said memorandum settlementdt . 17-10-2006 . The claim of the union is devoid of merit . Therefore the first party management prays that the reference be rejected.

4. By way of rejoinder Ex- 14 the second party has denied the contents in the written statement .

5. Following are the issues for my determination as re- casted at Ex - 15 . I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Issues

Findings

No.

1. Whether condition no . 4ofBi -partite settlement dt . 17-10-2006 deserves to be quashed?

2. What order ?

As per final order

REASONS

Issue no.1 :

6. In this respect both the parties have not led any oral or documentary evidence on record . After perusing the pleadings of the parties it is revealed that the second party union has challenged condition 4 in the Bipartite settlementdt . 17-10-2006 by which passing of aptitude test is a pre -condition for the post of Head Cashier- 1. According to the union such a condition was not in the earlier bi- 2.After receipt of the reference , both the parties were served with the notices . They appeared through their legal representatives . The second party union has filed its statement of claim at Ex-6 . According to it , clause 4 of settlementdt . 17-10-2006 is in contravention of settlement dated 13-4-1987 and settlement dated 2-6-2005 and this clause 4 is liable to be quashed . Even otherwise entire settlementdt . 17-10-06 being illegal is liable to be quashed and set aside . According to them after bringing into operation the above settlement dated 17-10-2006 , many employees throughout the country who otherwise are eligible to hold the post of Head Cashier- I were deprived of the said post on the ground that they have not passed the aptitude test . Few of the employees who have passed even the aptitude test but not interested to work in cash department were not given opportunity either to accept the offer or to reject the same which right was crystalized in the settlementdt. 13-4-1987 . Therefore it violates principle of nature justice also . All the above types of employees have be deprived of their law full right of holding the post of Head Cashier-l or rejecting the said post only because ofintroducing unnecessary and uncalled for settlement dt . 17-10-2006 purported to have been signed by the management hand in glove with one of their favorite federation representing employees . It amountto unfair labour practice provided under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The settlement is not only unfair and illegal but it is anti- employees and also deserves to be quashed. The union has raised industrial dispute before the ALC (C) . ALC ( C) made an attempt of conciliation . As conciliation failed , on the report of ALC , Ministry of Labour & Employment has sent the reference to this Tribunal . The union therefore prays that the condition no.4 in the memorandum of settlementdt . 17-10-2006 be declared in contravention with the memorandum of settlementdt . 13-4-1987 signed by the management and the union during the course of conciliation and also with the VIII industry level Bi partite settlementdt 2-6-2005 . The union also prays that the said condition no.4 in the settlementdt . 17-10-2006 be declare not binding on the members of second party union and the employees who have been deprived of the post of Head Cashier - I due to application of clause 4 of the settlement . They also prays [ PART I-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | THE CAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

5162

to the management of M/ s . J.M. Baxi & Co. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-5-2012.

[No. L-36011 /2/2011 - IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

Κ.Β. ΚΑΤΑΚΕ , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO.CGIT- 2/38 of2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/s . J.M. BAXI & CO.

The General Manager

M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co.

ColacoBuilding

Swatantra Path

Goa-403 802.

AND

partite settlement dt. 13-4-1967 and 2-6-2005. Therefore the condition no . 4 is in cu tion of the earlier settlement . In this respect it in the nitted on behalf of the first party management that an the post of Head Cashier- I , aptitude test is ente raunowledge of computers. By introducing cho , it cannot be said that it is in violation of settlement . Earlier in the may not be necessary to M. However knowledge of hentil now not only to the Head year 1987 knolo hold the post oft computer has becom ຍ ເປັນ Cashier - 1 but also to all de for employees working in the Bank. Even inall other of owledge of computer is a It is introduced recently ecome common in all the pre -condition for th since the use of on offices. In the cingcircumstances , though it is additional qualification Incerted for tatt, in bi -partite settlement, it cannot be called in contravention to the earlier settlements. Sufficient Woowledge of computer to a particular post is the band of the time . Therefore such a condition for the post of Hand Cashier- I cannot be called contrary tothe ending schittent thus , need not be quashed. In this backdrop I comeI come to the conclusion that the reference isdevoid of motit and the condition no . 4 cannot be quashed . Accordingly I dooide this issue no.1 in the negative and proceed toto pitsnite the following order :

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary

Mormugao Waterfront Workers The reference stands rejected with no order as to

Dr.MukundBuilding

cost.

3rdfloor

Dated:6-3-2012

Goa-403 802.

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer/Judge

APPEARANCES :

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2012

Mr. Rohit Lobo , Advocate

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

No appearance

FOR THE WORKMEN :

GoaCamp, dated the 15th March, 2012.

AWARD

बा.आ. 2117.औक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. जे.एम. बख्शी एंड कं. के प्रबंधन के मोटर नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निरिच्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार आऔद्योगिक अभिकरण , नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सोजीआईटी-2/38 और 2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No. L-36011 /2/2011 -IR (B-11), dated 18-07-2011 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

[सं. एल-36011 /2/2011- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 28th May, 2012

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . J.M. Baxi & Co. in discontinuing the employment of Shri Manohar Parab , Shri Narayan Harmalkar and Shri Krishna Nerulkar w.e.f. 03-05-2010 without following the due process of law is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to ?" S.O. 2117.-in mutsuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1917 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the awaby publikes the award ( Ref. No.CGI 38 of2011 ) of the CentedContend Covommentvomment Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 2, Mumbainnow as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

2. After receipt ofthe reference, notices were issued to both the parties . Second party was duly served with | भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5163

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

BKG Complex, Avenue Road, Tirumala,

Bangalore

Ramanagar District,

Tirumala-562120

notice . Registered AD receipt to that effect is at Ex -4 A. The second party union though duly served , did not appear and file their statement of claim . Without Statement of claim , the reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed . Thus I pass the following order :

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Date: 15-03-2012

Camp:Goa

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer , Judge नईदिल्ली, 30 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2118.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2009 और 08/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30 5 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल 12012/28/2009 आईआर ( बी 1 ) , सं. एन 12011 /26/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 )| रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th May, 2012

S.O. 2118.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 39/2009 & 08/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Mysore and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30-5-2012 .

[No. 1.- 12012/28/2009 - IR ( B - I ) ,

No. 1-12011 /26/2009 - IR ( B - 1 ) ]

RAMESI SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 20th April , 2012

Present

SIRIS.N . NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer

C.R.No. 39/2009 & C.R. No. L. 08/2010

IIParty

|Party

The Dy. General Manager, Shri H.V. Srinivasa .

State Bank of Mysore , Near Vijaya Bank .

Mafadi Town ,

Bangalore Zone - li ,

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of1947) has referred this dispute vide order Nos.L - 12012/ 28/2009- IR ( B - 1 ) dated 13-07-2009 and 1-12011 /26/2009 - IR- (BI ) dated 14-10-2009 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Mysore Region II , Bangalore Zone in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from services of the Bank with Superannuation benefits interms of clause 19.6 ( C) of the bipartite settlement vide order dated 11-06-2005 to the applicant Shri II.V. Srinivasa , Ex . Cashier - cum- Godown Keeper is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

2. On receipt of the reference pursuant to the notices issued by this court both sides entered their appearance through their respective advocates and the first party filed claim statement on 6-10-2010 and the second party filed counter statement on 15-03-2011 respectively.

3. After completion of the pleadings touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry while raising a preliminary issue as to " whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper " ?, receiving the evidence of Presenting Officer in the Domestic Enquiry for the management as MWI and marking the 28 documents i.c. the order of suspension dated 17-12-2002; charge sheet dated 14-02-2003 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 25-06-2003 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 10-07-2003 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 24-07-2003 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 07-08-2003; of the enquiry dated 20-11-2003 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 5-01-2003 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 12-01-2004 ; proceedings of thr enquiry dated 14-01-2004 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 16-01-2004 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 5-03-2004 ; proceedings of the enquiry dated 19-03-2004 ; proceedings ofthe enquiry dated 15-04-2004; proceedings of the enquiry dated 16-04-2004 ; original documents marked on behalf of the second party in the enquiry exhibits BEX - 1 to BEX - 8 ; Summing up report of the Presenting' Officer dated 28-04-2004 ; Written Brief of Defence Representative dated 12-05-2004 ; Findings of the enquiry officer dated 17-05-2004; views and comments on the findings of the enquiry officer by the first party;

5164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

Final show cause notice dated 22-02-2005; reply to the show cause notice datet13-00-0000 ,3-06-2003; proceedings of personal hearing given to the best party dated 4-05-2005 ; Orders of the Disciplinary Authority dood 11-06-2005 imposing the punishment of Compulsory atirement from the services ofthethe bank; orders of thethe diplinary authority sent by regd. -post along with paper publication notice ; appeal preferredbythe first party deed 28-02-2006 ; Minutes of personal hearing dated 22-11-2006 ; final order of the AppellateAuthority dat offirst partyas Fx. Mitol 2007 dismissing the appeal when the learned advocate appearing for the first puty fairly submitted that no grievance being made out touching the Domestic Enquiry he has no cross examinationto MWI and requested to hear the matter on merk bow of the said submission the first party on 5-08- From cross examination made by the learned 2011 while discharging preliminary issue touching heitirness ofDomestic Enquiry came to be answered in the afmative and the learned advocates appearing for b sides were called upon to address their arguments on merits.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the first party while addressing his arguments on 8-09-2011 without highlighting the enquiry finding either being perverse or for any reason is unacceptable he simply urged since the temporary misappropriation made by the first party was just a sum ofRs . 1000 the Disciplinary Authority ought to havetaken a lenient view and ought not to have punished him with a punishment of Compulsory Retirement as such the same maybe reduced to save smaller punishment and the first party may be allowed au continuecon in service. Interalia thelearned advocate ap e appearing for the second party while plading reliance on the dethe decisions reported in 1995 ( 1 ) LLJ Kar ( DB) 1995 ( 1) LLJ233 ( 5 ) 1000 ( II ) LLJ1395 (SC ); 2001 AIR SCW 2330 ; 2006 SC свое & S ) 1002 ; JT 1989 ( 2 ) SC 132 1999 ( 11 ) L1J 155 ; 1997( 6891 ) FJR 605 ( Karnataka DB ) ; AIR 2002 SC 1345 and 1992- ( 21SCC 317 urged that an employce of the bankik holholding position of cashier cum go down keeper retaining edited by a customer until it comes to the notice af stomer and the bank and then remitting the same challan as evidenced in the instant case, being a having regard to his cartiscartier service as well as the amount involved the Disciplinary Authority instead of imposing the punishment of dismissalmisal having imposed the punishment ofCompulsory Retirement by which he would receive certain benefits there is no need to interfere in the punishment imposed . Thus he urged to reject the reference . ss misconduct on his art

5. The first party while admittedly served as a Cashier cum Go down Keeper at Kudur Branch was served with a charge shoet which rends as under:

PART 11-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

Charge Sheet

" It is alleged that while working as Cashier Godownkeeper at Kudur Branch your have committed certain grave irregularities and acts of omission and commission, in respect ofwhich you are charged as under:

Charge 1

On 29-06-2002 you have received a cash remittance of Rs . 1000 from Smt . Rathnamma which she had remitted for crediting it to her RD Account :4/1466 maintained at the branch. After receiving the said sum you have issued a counterfoil affixed with cash received seal and subscribed with your initials and also entered the remittance in the pass book of the account holder . However, you have failed to account the receipt in the Bank's books . Subsequently on 9-12-2002 it is only when the account holder had desired to close the account and receive back the balance amount , you have made good the said sum ofRs . 1 000 which act is prejudicial to the interest of the bank . Thus , you have committed an act of "gress misconduct" interms ofClause 19.5j ofthe Bipartite Settlement . As you have committed acts of dishonesty, you have lost the confidence that the Bank had reposed on you for being continued in the services of the bank , the employees of which are required to enjoy the greatest confidence of the bank by observing a highest honesty..

Charge 11

Shri R.S. Murthy, who was maintaining an RID Account No.1735 had come to the branch to close his account and withdraw the balance available , you made a fictitious credit entry of Rs.5000 in the RD ledger of the branch to give the said customer a beliet that the actual balance in the account was Rs.15,000 though the actual balance was Rs . 10000 so that the customer would not question the remittance of Rs.5000 which he had made earlier and which he had not accounted in the Bank's books and thus enabled the customer to withdraw the sum of Rs . 15000 when he closed the account . Subsequently on 9-12-2002 when your acts committe as per Charge I came to the notice of the Branch Manager , you have made good the said sum of Rs.5000 to the credit of the said RD Account No. 1735 of Shri R.S. Murthy under a paan in slip filled by you . Thus by misusing your official position you have deliberately made fictitious entries in the Bank's books and temporarily misappropriated Bank's funds of Rs.5000 , which is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank . Thus you have committed an act of "Gross misconduct in terms of Clause 19: 5 of the Bipartite Settlements . As you have committed acts of dishonesty you have lost the services of the | भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5165

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

Bank , the employees of which are required to enjoy the greatest confidence of the Bank by observing a highest honesty.

Charge III

Shri M.S.Abdul Rehman , who was maintaining an RD account No. 1653 had come to the branch to close his account to withdraw the balance amount available . You made a fictitious credit entry of Rs . 1000 in the RD ledger of the branch to give the said customer a belief that the actual balance in the account was Rs . 24,000 though the actual balance was 23,000 so that the customer would not question the remittance of Rs . 1000 which he had made earlier and which he had not accounted in the Bank'sbooks and thus enabled the customer to withdraw the sum of Rs.24000 when he closed the account . Subsequently on 9-12-2002 when your acts committed as per Charge I came to the notice of the Branch Manager, you have made good the said sum of Rs . 1000 to the credit of the said RD Account 1653 of Shri M.S. Abdul Rehman under a pay in slip filled by you . Thus you have committed an act of "gross misconduct in terms of Clause 19.5j of the Bipartite Settlement . As you have committed acts of dishonesty you have lost the confidence that the bank had reposed on you for being continued in the services of the bank , the employees of which are requiredto enjoy the greatest confidence ofthe bank by observing a highest honesty. You are therefore , called uponto submit your explanation for the aforesaid alleged charges within seven days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet , failing which it will be construed that you have no satisfactory reply to offer and further action will be initiated without further reference to you. "

The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the reply given by the first party initiated the Domestic Enquiry appointing Shri K. Jayasekaran as Enquiry Officer and Shri S. Jagadish as Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer after receiving the oral evidence of Shri Ranganathappa for the management as BWI and exhibiting extract of RD Account of customers as BEX 1 to BEX 8 , when the first party/CSE did not choose to lead any evidence after receiving the written briefs from both sides submitted his findings dated 14-02-2003 charge No. I being proved and Charge No.2 & 3 being not proved . The Disciplinary Authority thereafter while forwarding the copy of the enquiry finding to the CSE issued show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service and after affording the personal hearing passed the impugned order imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service of the bank with superannuation benefits in terms of clause 19.6( c) of Bipartite Settlement . Since the Appellate Authority also after affording the personal hearing to the first party affirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority the CSE/first party placed the conciliation proceedings before the ALC( Central ) , Bangalore and on ALC submitting the failure report , the Central Government made this reference for adjudication .

6. Since the learned advocate appearing for the first party fairly submitted there being no reason to say the Domestic Enquiry being not fair and proper and the same came to be answered in favour of the management and the learned advocate also did not assail the enquiry finding as far as charge No.1 is concerned which is held proved the only consideration for this court is as to whether the punishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed by the Disciplinary Authority upheld by the Appellate Authority 'isdisproportionate to the charge of misappropriation proved against the first party.

7. Once the finding of the enquiry officer regarding misappropriation of a customer's money received by a Cashier remained undisturbed , absolutely I find no reason to show sympathy in relation to the punishment imposed on such bank official . Usually in case of misappropriation by a bank official that too a cashier entrusted with the duty of monetary transaction relating to the bank dismissal is an appropriate punishment . However , the disciplinary authority having regard to amount of misappropriation involved in the case on hand and fairly remitting the amount when the same came to light having imposed the punishment of Compulsory Retirement with Superannuation benefits it cannot be said that such a punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the charge proved against the first party. Under the circumstances I find no reason to interfere either in the enquiry finding or punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority upheldby the Appellate Authority.

8. In respect of this very subject the Central Government having made two references one registered in CR No.39/ 2009 and another registered in CR No.8/ 10 , both are disposed off through this common award .

9. Accordingly I pass the following award :

AWARD

The reference is rejected holding that the action of the management of State Bank of Mysore Region - II . Bangalore Zone in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on Shri HV. Srinivasa , Ex -Cashier cum Godown Keeper with Superannuating benefits is legal and justified and he is not entitle for any relief.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii)| 5166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 / ASADHA 2 , 1934

नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2012

2. " Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in terminating the services of Sri Bhanwar Lal S / o Sri Ramgopal Sen w.c.f. 30-6-2006, is fairand justified? To what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

का.अ. 2119.- औनिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947- का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुपान में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफॅ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर के प्रवरात्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधौगिक अधिकरण, अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/2009) को प्रकाशित करता है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

3. नोटिस के उपरांत उभयपक्ष उपस्थित आये । इस प्रकरण में आदेश दिनांक 17-4-2012 के द्वारा प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध की गयी विभागीय जांच को निष्पक्ष एवं विधि सम्मत् घोषित किया जा चुका है । अतः अब हमें केवल दंडादेश की मात्रा पर्याप्तता के बिंदु को ही निर्णीत करना शेष है ।

[संयम-12012/55 /2008- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NowDelhi , the 30th May, 2012

S.O. 2119.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispatas Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government horoby publishes the award (Ref. No.No. 03/2009) of the Industrial Tribuni, Ajmer as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute betweenDispute between the management of State Bank ofBikaner k Jaipur and their workmen , received by theCentral Government de 30-5-2012.

No. L- 12012/ 55 /2008 - IR (B-I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

पीठासीन अधिकारी - श्री न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर कुमार व्यास , आर.एच.जे.एस.

प्रकरण संख्या -सी.आई.टी.आर. 03/2009

4. प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में यह कहा गया है कि दांडिक आदेश परवर्स व गैर कानूनी है । प्रार्थी को नियमानुसार निर्वाह भत्ता नहीं मिलने से आर्थिक स्थिति खराब होने के कारण वह प्रभावशील तरीके से बचाव नहीं कर सका इसलिए दाडिक आदेश अपास्तनीय है । दांडिक आदेश किसी विश्वसनीय साक्ष्य पर आधारित नहीं है । दांडिक अधिकारी ने मस्तिष्क का प्रयोग किये बिना मैकेनिकल तरीके से दांडिक आदेश पारित कर दिया । प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी बैंक में अजमेर शाखा में कंप्यूटर ऑपरेटर पद पर स्थाई कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्तं था । प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी बैंक द्वारा आरोप पत्र दिनांक 3-11-04 जारी किया गया जिसमें उसके खिलाफ गबन व जालसाजी के गंभीर आरोप लगाये । प्रार्थी के स्वीकृत हस्ताक्षरों व विवादित हस्ताक्षरों का मिलान हैंड राइटिंग एक्सपर्ट से कराना चाहिए था लेकिन ऐसा नहीं किया गया , इस प्रकार प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर भी सिद्ध नहीं हुए है । अतः निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी की दिनांक 30-606 को की गयी सेवा समाप्ति के आदेश को अवैध घोषित करते हुए समस्त पूर्व वेतन लाभ सहित सेवा में निरंतरता रखते हुए बहाल करने का अवार्ड पारित करें ।

रेफरेंस सं - एल -12012/55/2008 आई आर बी -1 दिनांक 10-7-08 श्री भंवरलाल सेन पुत्र श्री रामगोपाल सेन म. नं. 1485, थौसी मोहल्ला, नसीराबाद, जिला अजमेर ( राज. )

-प्रार्थी

1. दी मैनेजिंग डायरेक्टर

स्टेट बैंक ऑफ चीकानेर एंड जयपुर ,

तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर

2. दी नोटिफाइड डिसी सीनरी ऑफिसर एंड असिस्टेंट जनरल मैनेजर -111 , स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर,

जोनल ऑफिस , और

-अप्रार्थी

उपस्थिति

श्री राजेश खन्ना, अधिवक्ता

प्रार्थी की ओर से

5. जवाब में अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी को पूर्ण सुनवाई का अवसर देने के बाद ही दिनांक 30-6-2006 कोसेवा सेडिसमिस किया गया । आगे क्लेम में वर्णित अधिकतर तथ्यों को नकारते हुए जवाब में अंकित किया है कि संपूर्ण जांच के बाद ही उस पर लगाये गये आरोपों को सिद्ध मानते हुए ही प्रार्थी को दोषी करार दिया था , प्रारंभिक जांच के आधार पर कोई दंडादेश पारित नही किया गया । प्रार्थी का कर्तव्य था कि वह अपने अधिकारों के लिये प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत करता । प्रार्थी को नियमित रूप से निलंबन काल भत्ता दिया जा रहा था, अतः वह कोई भी लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थी को दंड के बिंदु पर व्यक्तिगत सुनवाई के समय भी समुचित अवसर, दिया गया था । प्रार्थी को दिनांक 3-11-04 को एक आरोप पत्र गंभीर आरोपों व गबन व जालसाजी के बांबत् दिया गया था और उसके द्वारा जवाब प्रस्तुत करने पर ही जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया था । अतः अंत में निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज किया जावें ।

श्री एस. के. भार्गव , अधिवक्ता

अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से

दिनांक 25-4-2012

गई । 6. पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया तथा बहस उभय पक्ष सुनी

7. प्रार्थी की ओर से बहस में यह कहा गया है कि उसके विरूद्ध पारित दंडादेश आनुपातिक रूप से अत्यधिक कठोर है । अंतः उसके विरूद्ध पारित दंडादेश को निरस्त किया जावे । विपक्षी की ओर 1. श्रम विभाग , केंद्र सरकार द्वारा इस न्यायालय के अधिनिर्णयार्थ निम्न रेफरेंस प्रेषित किया है: - [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5167

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2. 1934

से बहस में यह कहा गया कि प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जो आरोप साबित हुए हैं वे गंभीर प्रकृति के हैं । प्रार्थी ने बैंक के अनेक खाताधारियों के खातों से कपटपूर्ण तरीके से भुगतान प्राप्त कर गबन किया , फर्जी दस्तावेज जारी किये तथा बैंक खाताधारियों के फर्जी हस्ताक्षर कर राशिस्वयं ने प्राप्त की व अमानत में खयानत की । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी द्वारा गबन व जालसाजी का कृत्य किया गया, जो गंभीर है । अतः प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध पारित दंडादेश उचित और विधि- सम्मत् है । प्रार्थी का क्लेम इस आधार पर खारिज करने का निवेदन किया ।

8. पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध दस्तावेजों साक्ष्य का अवलोकन किया गया । प्रार्थी पर जो आरोप प्रदर्श एम । आरोप पत्र में अधिरोपित किये गये हैं, उनके अनुसार यह कथन है कि उसने बैंक के विभिन्न खाताधारियों के फर्जी हस्ताक्षर कर व कपटपूर्ण तरीके से स्वयं ने भुगतान प्राप्त किये तथा उक्त राशि को स्वयं के कार्य में ले लिया । प्रार्थी द्वारा इस प्रकार जालसाजी व गबन का कृत्य किया गया । प्रार्थी पर लगाये गये आरोप विभागीय जांच में साबित पाये जाने पर उसके विरुद्ध दंडादेश प्रदर्श एम -3 पारित किया गया है तथा प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक किया गया है । प्रार्थी द्वारा जो राशि इस प्रकार कपटपूर्ण तरीके से प्राप्त कर गबन करने का आरोप है , वह राशि छः लाख रुपये से अधिक बतायी गयी है । अतः प्रकरण में प्रार्थी पर लगाये गये आरोपों की प्रकृति व गंभीरता को देखते हुए प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध पारित दंडादेश आनुपातिक रूप से अधिक हो , यह प्रकट नहीं होता है । अतः प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध पारित दंडादेश उचित और विधि - सम्मत् होना साबित होता है । अतः विवाद का उत्तर तदनुसार किया जाना न्यायसंगत होगा ।

आदेश

फलतः प्रबंधन स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर द्वारा प्रार्थी भंवरलाल पुत्र श्री रामगोपाल सेन को दिनांक 30-6-2006 से सेवामुक्त किया जाना उचित एवं वैद्य है । अतः प्रार्थी भंवरलाल अप्रार्थीगण से अथवा इस न्यायालय से कोई राहत पाने का हकदार नहीं है । इस प्रकरण में पारित आदेश दिनांक 17-4-2012 को इस अवार्ड का ही भाग/पार्ट माना जावे ।

मनोज कुमार व्यास , न्यायाधीश

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 30th May, 2012

S.O. 2120. The following amendment is made to the Notification [ bearing F. No. 1-42011 / 15/2006 - IR(DU), dated 06-02-2012 ] regarding publishing the award ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Fuel Research Institute and their workman :

In Line 3 of the Notification :

For : (Ref. No. 100/94/7)

Read

: (Ref. No. 18/2007) [No. 1.-42011 / 15/2006- IR ( DU ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

2081 G1/12-19

नई दिल्ली, 30 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2121.-राष्ट्रपति , श्री जयंत कुमार सेन को. 11-05 2012 ( F/ N ) से केन्द्रीय सरकार आंद्यांगिक न्यायाधीकरण-सह श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल, के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में 65 वर्ष की आयु पूरी होने अर्थात् 25 11 2016 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक. जो भी पहले हो, नियुक्त करती है ।

| सं. ए. 11016 03 2011 सीएनएन । अजय जोशी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th May , 2012

S.O. 2121. The President is pleased to appoint Shri Jayanta Kumar Sen as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - 1.abour Court . Asansol w.e.f. 11-5-2012 ( F /N ) for a period upto 25-11-2016 i.e. till attaining the age of 65 years or until further orders . whichever is earlier .

[No.A- 11016 03 2011 -C1S - II ) AJAY JOSHI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 31 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2122. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 19:17 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू, सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के चीन . अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31 2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 315 2012 को प्राप्द हुआ था ।

| सं. एल-22012/ 148/2011 आई आर ( सीएम रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकार

New Delhi , the 31st May , 2012

S.O. 2122.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 31 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their work.men, received by the Central Government on 30-5-2012 .

[No.1 2012 148 2011 - IR ( CM - 11 RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER . CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT / NGP/ 31/ 2011-12

Date : 09-5-2012

Party No. 1 : The General Manager . Western Coalfields lid . , Kanhan Area . Dungaria, Chhindwara ( MP ) .

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

5168

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 2012

Versus

Party No. 2 : The President, Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC), KanhanArea , Dungaria , Chhindwara (MP) .

AWARD

(Dated: 9th May, 2012)

का.आ. 2123.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 136/2005 आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - sectron ( 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 Western Coalfields Ltd. , and their workman , Shri Govardhan Pawar, for adjudication , as per letter No. 1-32012/ 148/2011 - IR (CM - II ) dated 18-11-2011 , with the schedule in Hindi Language , the English Version of which isas follows:

S.O. 2123. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 25/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M /s . Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 30-5-2012.

[No. L- 22012/ 136/2005 - IR (CM - II )| RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of Kanhan Area Hospital of M / s . WCI . in imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment vide order dated 25/27-1-2010 against Shri Govardhan Pawar, Assistant Foreman is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer/Link Officer

REFERENCE No. 25 of 2006

PARTIES :

The Agent , Jemehari ( R) Colliery of M/s . ECL , Bidhanbag , Burdwan . Vs.

2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement on 01-02-2012 . However, the parties remained absent on (01-02-2012 , so the case was adjourned to 11-04-2012. On 11-04-2012 also parties remained absent, inspite of sufficient service of the notice sent to them by registered post with acknowledgement due . So , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim and the case was posted to 09-05-2012 for filing of statement of claim and documents by the petitioner .

Sh .Ajoy Singh REPRESENTATIVES:

On 09-05-2012 , neither the petitioner nor anybody else on its behalf appeared in the Court , No statement of claim was also filed. Management filed vakalatnama duly adceptedby Shri A.K. Sashi to represent them.

For the management : Sri P.K.Goswami , Advocate For the union (Workman ) : Sri R. Kumar

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL Dated -27-04-2012

AWARD

3. As no statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner inspite of giving sufficient opportunities for filing the same, it is held that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case any further and there exists no industrial dispute between the parties . Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The award be treated as " no dispute " award . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. 1.- 22012/ 136/2005 - IR ( CM - II ), dated 14-7-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

JP. CHAND , Presiding Officer 5169

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग II--- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Jemehari (R) Colliery of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh . Ajay Singh is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Having received the Order No. L-22012 / 136/ 2005 - IR (CM- II ) dated 14-7-2006 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 25 of 2006 was registered on 9-8-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed for submission of their written statement , documents and list of witnesses .

Sri R. Kumar files a petition praying therein for closure of the case as the case has already been settled amicably and the workman , Sri Ajay Singh has been allowed tojoin duty. An office order bearing Ref. No. SAT/ PER/Re- instatement/2011 /326 dated 27-9-2011 along with Form ' H ' duly signed by authorized representative of the management and Sri Ajay Singh . The concerned workman from the office of the General Manager, Satgram Area has been received by post on 7-10-11 which shows that the case has been settled and the workman has been posted at Modern Satgram Colliery.

Considering the above facts , the case is closed and accordingly it is awarded that case has been settled as per for 'H ' memorandum of settlement between both the parties as an integral part of it . The terms and conditions of the settlement shall be binding upon both the parties . Hence , itisordered.

ORDER

Let an " Award" be and same is passed as per above . Form H. containing terms and conditions do form as an integral part of the Award . Send the copies of the award to the Govt . of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer/ Link Officer

FORM ' H'

(See Rule 58) under Industrial Dispute Central Rules , 1957

Memorandum of settlement arrived at between Sri Ajay Singh , Ex . Ug . Loader, UM No. 118862 of Modern Satgram Colliery and Management of Satgram Arca ( ECL ) .

Representative of Management

1 . Sri N. Jha . General Manager, Satgram Area .

2. Sri J.S. Sayare , Dy. C.P.M. , Satgram Area.

3. Sri Siraj Anwar , P.M. Jemehari ( R ) Colliery.

Ex . Workman concerned

1. Sri Ajay Singh Ex . Loader, UM No. 118862

Modern Satgram Colliery

Short recital of the case

1. Sri Ajay Singh Ex. Ug. Loader . U.M.No. 118862 of Modern Satgram Colliery was charge sheeted for absenting from duty from 06-11-1998 . A departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges were proved and accordingly Sri Ajay Singh was terminated from his services on dismissa ! vide letter No. SAT GM PER/C / 97 131 ( B ) , dated 21-4-06-05-1990

2 Sri Ajay Singh Ex. Ug . Loader, M. No. 118862 of Modern Satgram Colliery had submitted mercy application for his re - instatement in service and the Competent Authority, ECL, has been pleased to approve re - instatement of his service on revocation of his aforesaid order of dismissal without payment ofany back wages subject to ascertaining his medical fitness as communicated by P.M ( L & IR ) , ECL, HIQ vide letter Ref. No. ECL / CMD /C - 6 ( D )/IL / 11 / DA/64 , dated 17/ 18-1-2011 .

TERMS AND CONDITION OF SETTLEMENT

1. Agreed that Sri Ajay Singh , Ex .Ug . Loader , U.Μ.Νο. 118862 of Modern Satgram Coiliery willbe re - instated in service in his previous designation as he has been declared FIT FOR ANY JOB IN MINES by the competent medical board, Satgram Area and to be posted in any of the coiliery under Satgram Area where there is requirement .

2. Agreed that this settlement resolves the dispute fully and finally. Neither the workman concerned nor his Union shall raise any dispute in any forum.court of law after this settlement in this regard. Even he has assured for unconditional withdrawal of his CGFT case bearing Ref. No. 25 of 2006 pendirigat CGIT Asansol before his re - instatement. It is also agreed that the person concerned will also submit a " NO DISPUTE , " certificate in this regard to the management . Process for his Re - instatement in service will be made accordingly.

3. Colliery Authority have confirmed vide Ref. No. JCR PER Re - instatement/ 2011 / 149 dated 16-6-2011 that Sri Ajay Singh has not withdrawn his CMPF accumulation and Gratuity amount .

4. Agreed that the Ex - employee concerned will not be entitled for any back wages for the period of his idleness and the period of his absence/ idleness shall be treated as DIES -NON.

570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

The Agreement is signed by both the parties on

1-9-2011 .

Management Representative

Agreed that the Ex-employee will be allowed the benefit of continuity of service for the period of his idleness for the purpose of computation of his final gratuity payment only,

1. Sd/-

(N. Jha) General Manager SatgramArea

2. Sd/-

6 Agreed that the ex -employee on such re - instatement in service shall be on probation for a minimum period ofOne ( 1 ) year and the same will be confirmed only on receipt of satisfactory performance certification on expiry of probation period by CGM /GM of the area.

(J. S. Sayare)

Dy. Chief Personnel Manager

SatgramArea

3. Sd/-

7 Agreed that the instant settlement has been arrived with the free consent of the ex- workman concerned as he has found the settlement to be reasonable , just and free from any kind of influence .

(Siraj Anwar)

Personnel Manager Jemchari ( R) Colliery

Ex. Workman Concerned

8 Agreed that a copy ofthis Memorandum of Settlement shall be sent to the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) , Asansol , for registration as per I.D.Act , 1947.

Sd/-

(Sri Ajai Singh )

9. The workman will submit his undertaking that in future he will not commit the misconduct of unauthorised and /or habitual absence from duty.

Ex . UG/ Loader , Modern Satgram Colliery UM No. 118862

WITNESSES

Name

U.M. No.

Designation

Arca/ Colliery

Signature

RoofBolter

106886

1. Sri Tetara Bhuia,

Sd/-

/Sat . Area

Pure Scarsole Colly.

2. Sri Charan Munda

119977

Sd/- Ug.Loader

/Sat . Area

Jemchari @ Colly.

ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 2012

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR

No. CGIT/NGP/ APP/3/2011-12

Dated : 23-4-2012 का.आ. 2124.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डबल्यूः सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 315 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Advocates for both the parties are present . Advocate for the party no.2 files an application for withdrawal ofthe case. , Copy of the application is served on the advocate for the party no. 1. Heard . put up later on for orders .

| सं. एल 2201.3/1/2012 आई आर ( सी II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

J.P. Chand. Presiding Order

Party No. 1

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012

: Western Coal Fields Limited Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur

Through its Chairman - Cum- Managing Director,

: The General Manager,

WCL , Patherkheda, Distt. Betul (MP) . Vis

S.O. 2124.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Complaint No. 3/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012.

Party No. 2 : Nitesh S / o.Jagdish Jaiswal

[No. -22013/1 /2012- IR (C - II)] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

Aged about 32 yrs , Occ -Nill R/ o . OppositeG. S. College , AmrutNiketan , Flat no . 12 , Gorepeth , Nagpur.

5171 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2. 1934

[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ORDER

This order arises out of the , petition filed by the party no. 2, for withdrawal of the case with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application are as follows:

The application for withdrawal of the case is allowed . The case be treated as withdrawn . The application filed by the party no . 2 for withdrawal of the case be made part of the order, the party no . 2 is given the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redress .

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 2012

The party no.2 filed an application u/s . 2 -A (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( "the Act " in short ) making prayers to direct the management to provide him duty in view of the appointment order issued to him dated 01/02-03-2004 .

का.आ. 2125.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( आई.डी. संख्या 245/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31 5 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/147/2003 आई आर ( सीएम II ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 3. The party no.1 in their written statement pleaded . inter -alia that the application under section 2 - A( 2 ) of the Act is not maintainable , as this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same , on the ground that the claim of the party no.2 pertains to refusal of employment and is not a case of dismissal or termination of services and the application made by party no.2 before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C) , Nagpur is pending for discussion and the application filed by party no.2 u/ s . 2-A (2 ) of the Act is liable to be rejected.

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012

4. In view of such objection , the party no.2 filed the application for withdrawal of the case , on the ground that the case is not maintainable before this Tribunal . The party no . 2 has also prayed for giving him liberty to approach the approprpriate forum for redress .

S.O. 2125. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 245/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012.

[No. L- 22012/ 147/ 2003 - IR (CM - II ) | RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 16-5-2012

Case No. CGIT /NGPI/ 245/2003

Party No. 1

5. Perused the record . Admittedly, sub - section 2 of Section 2 -A of the Act provides that , " Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 , any such workman as is specified in sub - section (1 ) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of45 days from the date he has made the application to the conciliation officer of the appropriate , government for conciliation of the dispute , and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute , as if it were a dispute referred to by the appropriated government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate government . "

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ajni , Nagpur- 440015.

: The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate , Mumbai - 400020 .

Versus

Party No. 2 :

It is clear from sub - section (2) of Section 2 - A ofthe Act that the same is applicable only in case of discharges , dismisses, retrenches . or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman and is not applicable to any other case. As the application filed by the party no.2 under sub- section 2 of Section 2 - A of the Act is to direct the party no.l to provide duty to him and is not a case of discharge, dismiss , retrenchment or otherwise termination the services , filing of the application directly before the Tribunal is not maintainable .

The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Hind Nagar, Ward No. 2. Near Boudha Vihar , Post : Wardha. Distt . Wardha (MS)

Hence, In the interest ofjustice , the application for withdrawal ofthe case is allowed . It is ordered:-

[ PART II--SEC . 3 (ii ) ] $172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012 / ASADHA 2 , 1934

AWARD

reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity and full back wages .

(Dated: 16th May, 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial. Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , Shri Rajesh T. Deshbhratar, for adjudication, as per letter No.1. - 22012/ 147/2003 - IR (CM - II ) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur ( MS ) in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh T. Deshbhratar, Security Guardw.c.f. 14-3-1999 is legal & justified ? If not, to whatrelief the concerned 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 Union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena " , ( " the union " in short ) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , shri Rajesh T. Deshbhratar, (the workman " in short ) and the management of Food Corporation of India , (" Party No. I " in short ) filed its written statement .

3. The party no . 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged by the contractor as a security guard at the FCI depot and the said contractor is a necessary party in this case and in his absence, the proceeding is not maintainable and the workman was never in its service and as the contract of the contractor came to an end , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of the contract given tothe contractor for providing security services was 1998 , which was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as such , there was no question of termination ofthe service of the workman by it or following the procedure of termination as provided under section of 25- F of the Act and the workman had never completed 240 days ofwork in a year as alleged and it had no connection whatsoever with the workman and there was no master and servant relationship between it and the workman at any point of time and it has been exempted by the Central Government under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regularisation ) Act and there was also no violation of Section 25 - H of the Act and the work of providing security guards was given to the Government agencies like police and homeguards and as such , the workman is not entitled to claim any relief and the workman had never worked under its direct supervision and control and it had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and in writ petition no . 1389/1999 and W.P. No. 6916/2000 , the Hon'ble High Court Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur have been pleased to hold that, "the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one " and its action was also valid one and as such , the decisions of the Hon'ble Court operate as res- judicata between the parties and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the legality of the judgment passed by the Hon' ble High Court and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that though the workınan had filed his evidence on affidavit , subsequently. he did not appear in the court for his cross - examination. The workman remained absent on 21-9-2010 and thereafter . As the workman did not appear for his cross -examination , by order dated 23-6-2011 , his evidence was expunged and evidence from his side was closed.

The party no.1 filed the evidence of Shri Suresh N. Bokade on affidavit in support of its claims . The evidence of the said witness remained unchallenged , as nonc appeared on behalf of the workman to cross - examine him . Due to the continuous absence of the workman ,. order was passed to proceed with the case ex - parte against him on 10-4-2012.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was initially engaged as a security guard in Food Corporation of India, ( " FCI " in short) , Wardha depot through a contractor on 20-12-1993 and he was in continuous service till 14-3-1999 , without any break and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and all of a sudden , party no . I illegally and unlawfully terminated his services orally on 14-3.- 1999 and before termination of his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in licu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him by party no . 1 , as required under section 25 -F of the Act and after termination of his services , fresh hand had been engaged in his place by the party no. 1 , violating the provisions of Section 25-11 of the Act and the work of security guard is of a perennial nature and on the date of termination of his services , ample work was available with party no. I and homeguards and police personnel were engaged by the party no . I in his place and, therefore , the termination of his services is ab - initio void and the same is illegal and unlawful and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages . The further case of the workman is that though his engagement was through a contractor, such, contract was made only on paper and after every two years , party no . I had changed the contractor on paper only and neither he himself nor any other security guard was actually disturbed from services and he was working under the direct control and supervision of party no.l. Prayer has been made for the | भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5173

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

5. It is well settled that when a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of his services , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce evidence , the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in his favour and he could not be entitled to any relief.

In this case also , the workman has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim and as such , the reference cannot be answered in his favour and he is not entitled to any relief. Hence , it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur ( MS) in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh T. Deshbhratar, Security Guard w.e.f. 14-3-1999 is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P.CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 31 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2126.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31 5 2012 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल 22012/73/2002 आई-आर ( सीएम- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012

S.O. 2126.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 43/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012 .

[No. 1-22012/73 / 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer/Link Officer.

Reference No. 43 of 2002

PARTIES: Industrial Dispute between the

Management ofAmritnagar Colliery of ECL Vrs .

Their Workman

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : Sri P.K.Das , Advocate .

None

For the Union ( Workman) :

Industry: Coal State : West Bengal

Dated the 04-5-2012

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofSub- section( 1) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through theMinistry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/ 73/2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 08-10-2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE .

"Whether the demand of the Colliery Mazdoor Sabha from the management of ECL Amritnagar Colliery, that Sh . H.K. Prasad, General Mazdoor may be regularized in the clerical Grade is just and fair ? If so , to what relief is the workman entitied and from what date? "

Onreceipt of the Order No. L - 22012 / 73 / 2002 - IR( CM- II) ) dated 08-10-2002 of the above mentioned reference from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 43 of 2002 was registered on 28-10-2002 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the partics concerned.

The union/workman is not appearing since long , despite registered notices and also not taking any step from 28-12-2006 . It seems that the union is no more interested to proceed with the case . The case is closed and accordingly an order of No Dispute is hereby passed .

ORDER

Let an award be and same is passed in terms of the above finding as No Dispute exiting. Send the two copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour & Employment , Govt . of India, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

KISHORI RAM. Presiding Officer/Link Officer [ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

$174

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2012

management of FCI and their workman , Shri Prashant Pandurang Ramteke , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/200/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule :-

का.आ. 2127.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आई.डी. संख्या 276/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur ( MS) in terminating the services of Shri Prashant Pandurang Ramteke, Security Guard w.e.f. 14-3-1999 is legal & justified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe concerned workman isentitled?"

| सं. एल-22012/200/2003- आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012

2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the Union , "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena ", ( " the union " in short ) filed the statement ofclaim on behalf of the workman , Shri Prashant Pandurang Ramteke , ( " the workman " in short ) and the management ofFood Corporation of India , ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

S.O. 2127. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 276/.. 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012.

[No.1 22012/200/2003 - IR (CM - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 16-5-2012

Case No. CGIT /NGP/276/2003

Party No. 1 : The District Manager, Food Corporation of India , Ajni , Nagpur - 440015.

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India , Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai -400020.

Versus

The Secretary,

Party No. 2 :

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Hind Nagar, Ward no . 2 , Near Boudha Vihar , Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (MS )

AWARD

(Dated: 16th May, 2012)

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was initially engaged as a security guard in Food Corporation of India, (" FCI " in short ) , Wardha depot through a contractor on 2-4-1994 and he was in continuous service till 14-3-1999, without any break and he had completed more than 240 days of work in cach year and all of a sudden, party no. 1 illegally and unlawfully terminated his services orally on 14-3-1999. and before termination of his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him by party no . 1 , as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after termination of his services , fresh hand had been engaged in his place by the party no . 1 , violating the provisions of Section 25- H of the Act and the work of security guard is ofa perennial nature and on the date of termination of his services , ample work was available with party no.l and homeguards and police personnel were engaged by the party no. 1 in his place and therefore , the termination of his services is ab - initio void and the same is illegal and unlawful and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages . The further case of the workman is that though his engagement was through a contractor , such contract was made only on paper . and after every two years , party no . I had changed the contractor on paper only and neither he himself nor any other security guard was actually disturbed from services and he was working under the direct control and supervision of party no.1 . Prayer has been made for the reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity and full back wages .

5175

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

in its service and as the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of the contract given to the contractor for providing security services was 1998 , which was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as such , there was no question of termination ofthe service of the workman by it or following the procedure of termination as provided under section 25 -F of the Act and the workman had never completed 240 days of work in a year as alleged and it had no connection whatsoever with the workman and there was no master and servant relationship between it and the workman at any point oftime and it has been exempted by the Central Government under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act and there was also no violation of Section 25 - H of the Act and the work of providing security guards was given to the Government agencies like police and homeguards and as such , the workman is not entitled to claim any relief and the workman had never worked under its direct supervision and control and it had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and in writ petition no . 1389/1999 and W.P. No. 6916/2000 , the Hon'ble ' High Court Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur have been pleased to hold that, " the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one " and its action was also valid one and as such , the decisions of the . Hon'ble Court operate as res- judicata between the parties and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the legality of the judgment passed by the Hon ' ble High Court and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that though the workmanhad filed his evidence on affidavit , subsequently, he did not appear in the court for his cross - examination : The workman remained absent on 21-9-2010 and thereafter . Asthe workman did not appear for his cross - examination , by order dated 23-6-2011 , his evidence was expunged and evidence from his side was closed .

The party no. 1 filed the evidence of Shri Suresh N. Bokade on affidavit in support of its claims . The evidence of the said witness remained unchallenged , as none appeared on behalf of the workman to cross - examine him. Due to the continuous absence of the workman , order was passed to proceed with the case ex - parte against him on 10-4-2012.

2081 GI/12-20

ORDER

The action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur ( MS) in terminating the services of Shri Prashant Pandurang Ramteke, Security Guard w.e.f. 14-3-1999 is legal & justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 31 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2128.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 302/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/279/2003 आई आर ( सीएम II ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 31st May , 2012

S.O. 2128.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 302/ 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012 .

[No. L- 22012/ 279 /2003 - IR ( CM - II ) | RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 16-05-2012 Case No.CGIT /NGP/302 /2003 Party No. 1 :

The District Manager , Food Corporation of India , Ajni , Nagpur- 440015

The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road , Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020

                           GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934                       ( PART     SEC. 3 (ii )]
5176
                                                              and the same is illegal and unlawful and he is entitled for
                                                               reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
PartyNo.2                                                     wages . The further case of the workman is that though his
      The Secretary,                                          engagement was through a contractor, such contract was
      RashtriyaMazdo           HindNagar                      made only on paper and after every two years , party no . I
      WardNo.2,Near            Vihar, Post:                   had changed the contractor on paper only and neither he
      Wardha, Dist          (MS)                              himselffnorno any other security guard was actually disturbed
                                                               from services and he wasas workingworking underunder thethe threct pontrol
                                                              and supervision of party no.1 . Prayer has been made for the
                              RD                               reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity
                                                               and full back wages./
                 (Dated bith May, 2012)
                                                                    3. The party no . I in its written statement has pleade
      In exercise ofthe primers conferred by clause (d ) of    inter alia that the workman was engaged by the contracte
sub-section ( 1 ) andand milkpectiontion 2(A) of section 10 of as a security guard at the FCI depot and the si
 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act" in    is a necessary party in this case and in his absence , the
 short ) , the Central Governm ent has referred the industrial proceeding is not maintainable and the workman was never
 dispute between the      pployers , in relation to the        in its service and as the contract of the contractor.came to
 management ofFCI and their workman , Shri Hamchandra          an end , the services of the workman were terminated by
 T. Ukade, for adjudicat    as per letter No.L- 22012 / 279/   the contractor and the original period of the contract given
 2003 - IR (CM- II ) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following     to the contractor for providing security services was 1998,
 schedule:-                                                    which was extended as per the terms and conditions till
           "Whether        tion of the management of Food      March, 1999 and as such , there was no question of
                               Nagpur (MS) in terminating      termination of the service of the workman by n
            the ser         Shri Hamchandra T. Ukade ,         the procedure of termination as providedan
           Secur            we.f. 14-3-1999 is legal &         25-F ofthe Act and the workman had never
                                    t relief the concerned     days of work in a year as alleged and it had to b
                                                               whatsoever with the workman and ther
                                                               and servant relationship between it and
     2 Onm                      ice , the parties were noticed any point of time and it has been exempto
 to file their                 ment of claim and written       Government under section 10 of then 10 of the Co
 statement and                 Union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor     (Abolition and Regularisation ) Act and the
  Sena " , ("the               filed the statement of claim     violation of section 25- H of the Act
 onbehalfofth                  HamchandraHamchandra T. Ukade , ( " the providing security guards was given to
 workman " ins               the management of Food             agencies like police and homeguards and as such , the
 Corporation of India ( Typy No.1 "1" in short) filefiled its written workman is not entitled to claim any relic fand the workmar
 statement .                                                   had never worked under its direct supervision and control
                                                                and it had no control over the appointment and serv
       The case of the workman as projected in the
  statement of claim           was initially engaged as a       conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the
 security guardrd in PoFood Corpontion of India, ( "FCI " in short), security agency and in writ petition No. 1389/1999 and
                               ractor on 15-7-1993 and he       W.P. No. 6916/2000 , the Hon'ble High Court Judicature of
 Wardha depot through
                             194-3-1999 , without any break     Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur have been pleased tohold
  was in continuous ser
                              han 240 days of work in each      that, "the termination of the workman by the contractor
  and he had comp                                               was a valid one " and its action
 year and albor               no 1 illegally and unlawfully
                                                                such , the decisions of the Hon
 terminated his se            Con 14-03-1999 and before
    rmination of his         neither one month's notice nor    judicata between the parties and this Tribun
                             of notice nor retrenchment        jurisdiction to consider the legality of the judgemar
  one month's pay in 메인                                         by the Hon'ble High Court and the workma
  compensationwasn was givende hem by party no . 1 , as required toanyrelief.
  under Section 25 - F of the Act and after termination of his
  services, fresh hand hand scan engaged in his place bythe          4.It is necessary to mention here that thoug
  party no. 1, violating      visions of Section 25 - H of the  workman had filed his evidence on affidavit
  Act and the work of my guard is of a perennial nature         he did not appear in the court for his crost
  and on the date of ton     on of his services , ample work    The workman remained absent on 21-9-2010 and theroof
  was available with parro, I and homeguards and police         Asthe workman did not appear for his cross- examination ,
  personnel were ce          the party no . 1 in his place and  by order dated 23-6-2011 , his evidence was expunged and
  therefore, the terraine terminion of his services is ab - initio void evidence from his side was closed.

[ भाग II--खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5177 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

PartyNo.1

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India , Ajni ,

Nagpur-440015

The party no . 1 filed the evidence of shri Suresh N. Bokade on affidavit in support of its claims . The evidence of the said witness remained unchallenged , as none appeared on behalf of the workman to cross - examine him . Due to the continuous absence of the workman , order was passed to proceed with the case ex - parte against him on 10-04-2012.

The Senior Regional Manager, FoodCorporation of India , Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road , Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020

Versus

PartyNo. 2

The Secretary,

5. It is well settled that when a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of his services , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. Ifthe workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce evidence , the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in his favour and he could not be entitled to any relief.

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Hind Nagar Ward No.2 , Near Boudha Vihar, Post: Wardha , Distt . Wardha ( MS ) .

AWARD

(Dated 16th May, 2012 )

ORDER

The action of the management of Food Corporation of India agpur ( MS) in terminating the services of Shri Hamchandra T. Ukade , Security Guard w.e.f. 14-3-1999 is legal & justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 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 FCI and their workman , Shri Vishwanath Pandurang Gotekar, for adjudication , as per letter No : 1-22012/ 194/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 8-12-2003 , with the following schedule: ---

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Nagpur ( MS ) in terminating the services of shri Vishwanath Pandurang Gotekar, Security Guard w.e.f. 14-3-1999 is legal & justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

का.आ. 2129.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 274/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल 22012/194/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the Union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena " , ( " the union " in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , Shri Vishwanath Pandurang Gotekar, (" the workman " in short ) and the management of Food Corporation of India, ( " Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .

S.O. 2129. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 274/ 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the managementement of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012.

[No. 1.-22012/194/ 2003 - IR ( CM - II )]

RAMESI SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP /274/2003

Date: 16-5-2012 .

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was initially engaged as a security guard in Food Corporation of India , ( " FCI " in short) , Wardha Depot through a contractor on 4-5-1991 and he was in continuous service till 14-3-1999, without any break and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and all of a sudden , party no . I illegally and unlawfully terminated his services orally on 14-3-1999 and before termination of his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him by party no . 1 , as required under Section 25 - F of the Act and after termination ofhis 5178

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

services, fresh hand had been engaged in his place by the party no. 1, violating the provisions of section 25 -H of the Actandthework of security guard is of a perennial nature andon the date of termination of his services , ample work was available with party no. 1 and homeguards and police personnel were engaged by the party no . 1 in his place and therefore , the termination of his services is ab - initio void and the same is illegal and unlawful and he is entitled for seinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages. The further case of the workman is that though his engagement was through a contractor , such contract was made only on paper and after every two years, Party no . 1 had changed the contractor on paper only and neither he himselfnor any other security guard was actually disturbed from services and he was working under the direct control and supervision of party no.l. Prayer has been made for the reinstatement of the worldman in service with continuity and full back wages .

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded Inter alia that the workman was engaged by the contractor as a security guard at the PCI depot and the said contractor is a necessary party in this case and in his absence , the proceeding is not maintainable and the workman was never In its service and as the contract of the contractor came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of the contract given tothe contractor for providing security services was 1998 , which was extended as per the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as such , there was no question of termination ofthe service of the workman by it or following the procedure of termination as provided under section 25- F ofthe Act and the werkman had never completed 240 days ofwork in a year as alleged and it had no connection whatsoever with the workman and there was no master and servant relationship between it and the workman at any point of time and it has been exempted by the Central Government under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regularisation ) Act and there was also no violation of section 25-11 of the Act and the work of providing security guards was given to the Government agencies like police and homeguards and as such , the workman is not entitled to claim any relief and the workman had never worked under its direct supervision and control and it had no control over the appointment and service conditions of the workman , who was an employee of the security agency and in writpetition no . 1389/1999 and W.P. No. 6916/2000, the Hon'ble High Court Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur have been pleased to hold that; "the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid one " and its action was also valid one and as such , the decisions of the Hon'ble Court operate as res- judicata between the parties and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the legality ofthe judgment passed by the Hon 'ble High Court and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that though the workman had filed his evidence on affidavit, subsequently, he did not appear in the court for his cross-examination . Theworkman remained absent on 21-09-2010 and thereafter. As the workman did not appear for his cross -examination , by order dated 23-06-2011 , his evidence was expunged and evidence from his side was closed .

The party no. 1 filed the evidence of Shri Suresh N. Bokade on affidavit in support of its claims . The evidence of the said witness ' remained unchallenged , as none appeared on behalf of the workman to cross -examine him. Due to the continuous absence of the workman , order was passed to proceed with the case ex -parte against him on 10-4-2012.

5. It is well settled that when a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of his services , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or to produce evidence , the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered his favour and he could not be entitled to any relief

In this case also, the workman has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim and as such, the reference cannot be answered in his favour and he is not entitled to any relief. Hence , it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur ( MS ) in terminating the services of Shri Vishwanath Pandurang Gotekar, Security Guard w.e.f. 14-3-1999 is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled toany relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2130.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 257/2003.) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31 5-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/159/2003 आई आर ( सीएम II )|

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2012

S.O. 2130.- In pursuance of Section 17. of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 257 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5179 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012 .

[No. L-22012/ 159/2003 - IR( CM - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/ NGP /257/2003

Date: 16-5-2012 .

PartyNo.1

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India , Ajni , Nagpur-440015.

The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan , Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020.

Versus

PartyNo. 2

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena , Hind Nagar Ward No.2 , Near Boudha Vihar, Post : Wardha , Distt. Wardha (MS)

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was initially engaged as a securityguard in Food Corporation of India, ( " FCI " in short ), Wardha depot through a contractor on 13-12-1993 and he was in continuous service till 14-03-1999 , without any break and he had completed more than 240 days of work in each year and all of a sudden , party no . 1 illegally and unlawfully terminated his services orally on 14-03-1999 and before termination of his services , neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him by party no . 1 , as required under section 25 - F of the Act and after termination of his services , fresh hand had been engaged in his place by the party no. 1, violating the provisions of section 25 - H of the Act and the work of security guard is of a perennial nature and on the date of termination of his services , ample work was available with party no . 1 and homeguards and police personnel were engaged by the party no. I in his place and therefore , the termination of his services is ab - initio void and the same is illegal and unlawful and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages. The further case of the workman is that though his engagement was through a contractor, such contract was made only on paper and after every two years , party no . 1 had changed the contractor on paper only and neither he himself nor any other security guard was actually disturbed from services and he was working under the direct control and supervision of party no . 1. Prayer has been made for the reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity and full back wages .

AWARD

(Dated: 16th May, 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2( A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial , dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , Shri Ganesh Purushottam Bhaisare , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/ 159/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 08-12-2003 , with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Nagpur ( MS) in terminating the services of Shri Ganesh Purushottam Bhaisare , Security Guard w.c.f. 14-03-1999 is legal and justified ? If not , to whatrelief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

3. The party no . 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter - alia that the workman was engaged by the contractor asa security guard at the FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party in this case and in his absence , the proceeding is not maintainable and the workinan was never in itsservice and as the contract of the contractor came to an end , the services of the workman were terminated by the contractor and the original period of the contract given to the contractor for providing security services was 1998 , which was extended as per the terms and conditions till March , 1999 and as such , there was no question of termination ofthe service of the workman by it or following the procedure of termination as provided under section of 25 - F of the Act and the workman had never completed 240 daysof work in a year as alleged and it had no connection whatsoever with the workman and there was no master and servant relationship between it and the workman at any point of time and it has been exempted by the Central Government under section 10 of the Contract Labour . (Abolition and Regularisation ) Act and there was also no violation of section 25 - H of the Act and the work of providing security guards was given to the Government agencies like police and homeguards and as such , the workman is not entitled to claim any relief and the workman had never worked under its direct supervision and control 2. On receipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the Union , " Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena ", ( " the unión " in short ) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , Shri Ganesh Bhaisare , ( " the workman " in short) and the management of Food Corporation of India, (" Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.

5180

[ PART 11 -SE 3 (ii ) |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

1389/1999 and W.P. security agency sp

Court Judicature of No. 6916/2000, the

ve been pleased to hold

man by the contractor

also valid one and as

Court operate as res-

this Tribunal has no and it had no control conditions of the weste Bombay, Nagpur that, "the terminati was a valid one " and such, the decisionsdecision judicata between pointment and service as an employee of the

workman is not entitled jurisdictionto consid by the Hon'ble High Co coway of the judgment passed

toanyrelief.

here that though the 4. It is nece

workman had filed

fidavit , subsequently,

his cross -examination .

hedid not appear

29-2010 and thereafter.

The workman rem

Astheworkman

his cross - examination ,

ce was expunged and by order dated 23-4-20

evidence from his

Idence of Shri Suresh N. The partyso.

is claims . The evidence unchallenged , as none to cross - examine him . the workman , order was Bokade on affidavit in of the said witapas appeared on behalf of Due tothe continuou passedto proceed

10-4-2012. ex-parte against him on

en a workman raises a 5. It is well settled

the termination of his dispute challenging of v

file written statement services, it is imp before the Indon

grounds on which

theorder iscl

to produce evidence is to appear or to file toprove his cate writen stateme

evidence, the dispute

be answered in his referred by the G

favourandhe cou

to any relief.

In this caser

any evidence Ins

reference cannot

has failed to -produce aim and as such , the is favour and he is not dered

entitledto any reie

of Food Corporation the services of Shri urity Guard w.e.f. orkman is not entitled The action ofIndia, Nagpur Ganesh Purus 14-3-1999 toany relief.

MND, Presiding Officer

2012

का.भा. 2/31

अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी.आई.

उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक का 4 ) की धारा 171 के प्रबंधतंत्र के अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अर्नाकुलम् के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 17/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31.5.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22011 /58 /2008 आई आर ( सीएम म ) |

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the31st May, 2012

S.O. 2131. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 31-5-2012 .

[No. L-22011 /58/2008-1R ( CAM- H )|

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

FORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COUNT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri . D. Sreevallabhan , B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 26th day ofApril , 2012/ 6th Vaisakha, 1934)

I.D.17/2009

Union

: 1. The President ,

FCI Workers Unian, FoodCorporation of India Nileswar,

P.O. Nileswar, Kerala.

ByAdv. Shri . Santhosh GPrabhu .

Managements : 1. The General Manager (Kerria), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kesavadasapuram, Trivandrum - 04 .

2. The Area Manager ,

FoodCorporation of India District Office, Muzhappilangad, P. O. Muzhappilangad, Kerala ByAdv. Shri . M.R.Anison.

This case coming up for final hearing on 17-04-2012 and this Tribunal- cum - Labour Court on 26-04-2012 passed thefollowing:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section ofthe [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012 /आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

5181

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Government of India/ Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 22011 /58 /2008- IR( CM - II ) dated 31-03-2009 referred the following Industrial . Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication .

2.The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in recovering the losses levied by the railway for unloading of food grains from railway wagons during weekly off/Rest day is legal & justified ? To what reliefs are the workmen entitled ? "

3. The union represents the whole DPS workers in the Food Corporation of India Depot , Nileswar . They are mainly engaged in unloading the articles from the railway wagons to the FCI godown and are working under the DirectPayment System ( DPS ) .

4. Management is the Food Corporation of India ( FCI) , a Central Government undertaking incorporated under the Food Corporations Act, 1964. FCI transports foodgrains from different parts of the country and stores it in its godowns and makes it available for public distribution system . FCI is completely depending on Indian Railways for transportation of foodgrains . After placement of the rakes in the FCI godowns it is to be loaded or unloaded within nine hours of placement irrespective of the time and day.

conditions of service introduced by the management by reference No. IR(L) 8 (22 ) / 94 dated 14-06-1996 . As per the conditions of service a person who works continuously for 6 days in a week is eligible for weekly off on the 7th day and normally it is Sunday since the normal working days in FCI commencesfrom Monday. The DPS workers of the FCI Depot, Nileswar have been enjoying the weekly off without any interruption for the last 11 years even though there were several occasions during that period when wagons reached at Nileswar on Sunday. The workers were not compelled to clear the wagons on weekly off days . A person who works continuously for 6 days is entitled to get the 7thday as weekly off day and the FCI workers were also enjoying the same. Therefore the direction of the management to attend duty on 1.7-06-2007 being a weekly off day is not justifiable . The management had taken unilateral decision after submitting the explanations without affording any opportunity for hearing . Management wants to curtail the benefits and privileges of the DPS workers . They have not caused any loss to the management and are not liable to compensate the DC alleged to have been incurred by the management . Management has no authority to deny the statutory rights of the workmen for the enjoyment of a weekly off day. The management is not entitled to recover any amount from the DPS workers for not working on the weekly off day. The action of the management to recover the DC from their wages is not legal and justified.

5. 40 wagons were placed at the Nileswar Railhead ofFCI on 17-06-2007 . Prior intimation was given to 68 DPS workers as to the placement of the wagons on that day by issuing notice on 16-06-2007 . They were called upon to unload the same by attending duty at 6 a.m. on 17-06-2007 and on 18-06-2007. But they did not turn up for duty on 17- 06-2007 to clear the wagons . The wagon clearance was startedfrom 10 a.m. on 18-06-2007 and the same was completed at 1. p.m. on 19-06-2007 . Because ofthe failure to unload the wagons within the free time allowed by the railway initially a sum of Rs.87,000/- was levied as Demurrage Charges (DC). Subsequently it was reduced to Rs.52,200/ - by granting waiver of Rs.34,800/ - . After payment of the same management issued show cause notice dated 28-07-2007 to those DPS workers calling upon their explanations for not attending duty on 17-06-2007 in spite ofthe prior intimation and for recovering the DC from them . The management not satisfied with their explanations decided to recover the loss caused to the FCI from their wages . Challenge is made as to the decision of the management to recover the DC from the DPS workers by the union by raising this industrial dispute.

6. According to the union the action of the management is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules and is violative of the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders ) Act . The plea putforward by the union in the claim statement is that weekly off was allowed to the DPS workers as per the

7. Management filed written statement contending that the workers engaged by the FCI for handling foodgrains in its godowns are under DPS introduced by the FCI w.c.f. 14-05-1996 and as per the DPS agreement the workers are bound to work on all days including their weekly off, for which they are adequately compensated . As per the service conditions of the DPS workers FCI has the right to direct them to attend work during weekly off/ Rest day by issuing prior notice and they are being given over time benefit and allowances . It is obligatory for them to work on weekly holiday as and when the situation warrants to do so . The Indian Railway is working without any holiday and they are providing services without any break round the clock , through out the year. FCI is bound to load or unload the goods within nine hours of the placement of the rakes and hence all the workers engaged in loading and unloading activities at rail - heads throughout the country perform their duties irrespective of the time and day of placement of the rakes . The workers of the Kerala State alone have taken a different stand and refused to handle rakes placed on Sundays . Due to the adamant stand taken by the DPS workers not to work on Sunday the FCI is not in a position to load or unload the foodgrains from the rakes on Sundays . Evenprior to the introduction of the DPS in the FCI its workers carried out loading and unloading at rail -heads and FCI godowns irrespective of the day when exigencies of work required them to do it . FCI is not in a position to 5182

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2, 1934

(2) Whether the DC was incurred duc to the deliberate non attendance of duty by the DPS workers on 17-06-2007 ?

(3) Whether the action of the management to recover the DC from the wages of those workers is legal and justified?

(4) What relief, if any, they are entitled to ?

11. Point No.1 : - For the purpose of answering this reference it is mainly to be considered whether the DPS workers are entitled to avail Sunday as the weekly off day and whether they have to attend the duties assigned to them on that day. Admittedly DPS was introduced w.c.f. 14-5-1996. The conditions of service of the DPS workers are contained in : Ext.M2 . Para 16 ( a) of Ext . M2 deals with the weekly off for the DPS workers and the same is extracted below as it is relevant for the consideration of this issue in this case .

engage, other casual workers or contract employees to load or unload fooognting from the rakes on Sundays or Holidays . The refusal of the DPS workers to work on Sundays has caused heavy loss to the FCI due to the payment of DC to the Indian Railways . The Railway is not placing rakes regularly on Sundays. Placement ofwagons on Sunday takes place only occasionally and it is at the thost three or four times in a depot in an year. All the remaining Sundays are enjoyed by the workers as paid holidays. Management is paying wages to those workers for 365 days in an yaar inespective of availability ofwork.. They are duty bound to safeguard the interest of the management . The refunt to work on Sundays is willful disobedience and amount to illegal strike . Therefore they are liable to compensate the loss suffered by FCI due to their illegal activities. Polis requesting its workers to work on Sundays only under compelling circumstances which arebeyond its control. It is due to the placement of rakes bythe railways those workers are bound to attend duty on Sundays .40 BCN wagons of rice were placed at the Nileswar godown at-14.00 hours on 17-6-2007 . In spite of prior notice DPSworkers did not turn up for duty to clear the wagons on that day. It is because of their wilful refusal to attend duty management had to pay DC to the Railway. The proposed action for recovery was taken after getting their explanations and also complying with all legal formalities stipulated under law. As per the DPS agreement FCI is entitled to make the worlumen liable for the loss caused and such workmen if found to be indulging in disobedience , misconduct etc. shall be subject to action as per the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act 1946. Hence the action of the management in recovering the loss from the wages of the workmen on account of the DC levied by the railway is justified..

8. Union filed rejoinder denying the contentions in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the claim statement . It is ther alleged that the free time provided for unlonding wagons was unilaterally reduced by the Indian Railway and the management approved the same without discussing with the workmen or the unions . The stipulation in the Dis reement to pay double wages for over time was roded to 1.1 % unilaterally by the management and the dingdienste with regard to the reduction ofover time wages is ponding for consideration before the National Industrial Tribunal , Mumbai .

9. From the side of the union one witness was examined as WWI. On the side of the management one witness was examined MWI and Exts .Ml to M10 were gotmarked.

10. The points for determination are:

(1 ) Whether the Diet workers have to attend duty on Sunday It'it be a Weckly offday?

" 16( a) WEEKLY OFF :

Eachworker will be allowed paid weekly off on Sundays provided he has worked on all the working days ofthe week preceding the day of weekly off. In case a Handling Worker will be employed on the day of his weekly off, he will be paid one extra wage at the rate of Minimum Guaranteed daily wage or actual wages for the work done on the basis of ASORs on such weekly offdays whichever is higher - in addition to normal wage equal to Minimum Guaranteed Daily Wage at the above rates for such weekly off again provided the worker has worked on all the working days of the week preceding the day of weekly off. In case an Ancillary (Casual) worker is employed on the day of his weekly off, he will be paid one extra wage equal to the above Minimum Guaranteed Daily Wage for attending work on such weekly off day in addition to the normal Minimum Guaranteed Daily Wage for such weekly off, provided he has also worked on all the working days of the week preceding the day of weekly off. "

12. As per Ext.M2 Sunday is the weekly off day. Entitlement for the weekly offday is only when there was continuous work for the preceding 6 days . DPS workers can be engaged for duty on the weekly off day for which he is to be paid one extra wage @ Minimum Guaranteed DailyWage or actual wages for the work done on the basis ofASORs on such weekly off days whichever is higher. Such extra wage is to be paid only if the worker had worked on all the working days of the week preceding the day of weekly off. It is expressly clear that the , DPS worker can be employed on the day of his weekly off and he cannot refuse to attend the work claiming it to be a weekly off day .

13. DPS workers have to attend duty even on holidays other than the six paid holidays . Para 16 ( c ) provides that the DPS workers shall be allowed six paid holidays (including three national holidays) in a calendar year. Except [ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

5183

those holidays 2nd Saturdays and other gazetted holidays which are closed holidays for the depot staff are working days for the DPS workers . They cannot as a matter of right refuse to do work on holidays except the six paid holidays in a calendar year.

TheDPS workers in the Nileswar Depot were not attending duty on Sundays claiming it to be a weekly off day. On 17-6-2007 also they did not attend duty in spite of the specific intimation as to the attendance of duty at 6 am on that day. There was deliberate non attendance of duty by the DPS workers and it can be said to be an illegal strike.

17. Due to the non attendance of duty on 17-06-2007 the wagons could not be unloaded within the free time allowed to by the railway . The free time is nine hours after the placement of wagons if the numbers of wagons is more than30 as per Ext.MI. Because of the failure to unload the 40 wagons placed on 17-6-2007 within the free time an amount of Rs.87,000 was levied by the railway as DC and the same is evidencedby Ext.M4 .It was reduced to Rs.52,200 by granting 40 % waiver as per Ext.MS. Management has produced Ext.M6 to prove that the amount of Rs.52,200 levied as DC was paid.

14.WW I has stated during his cross examination that they had attended duty on two Sundays after the implementation of DPS and they were not attending duty thereafter on Sundays in pursuance of the decision taken by the unions . He has further stated that the FCI was informed about the decision of the unions to abstain from attending duty on Sundays . MW 1 has stated during his cross examination that the DPS workers were not attending duty on Sundays when they were posted for duty. There is no evidence in this case to prove that there was any change with regardto the conditions of service contained in Ext.M2 enabling the DPS workers to keep away from attending duty on Sundays . They had to attend duty when there is placement of wagons for unloading .The wagons are to be unloaded within the free time and if otherwise it may result in incurring DC . That might have necessitated the attendance of duty by the DPS workers on Sundays and other holidays . As per the terms of Ext.M2 , they have to attend duty on Sundays if they will be posted for duty by the management . Unless there is change in the conditions of service they cannot refuse to attend the duty on Sunday. Hence DPS workers have to attend the duty ifthey are employed on Sunday by the management as per the conditions of service contained in Ext . M2 .

15. Point No.2 : All the DPS workers attended duty on 16-06-2007 were called upon to attend duty at 6 am on 17-6-2007 to unload the 40 wagons expected to be placed on that day by The issuing Ext.M3 . The issuance of such a notice is not disputed in the claim statement. The case of the union is that the workers did not attend duty on that day being Sunday to be availed as a weekly offday. It is pursuant to the decision taken by the union the DPS workers did not attend duty on 17-6-2007.

18. Show cause notice was issued to the DPS workers calling upon them to submit their explanations for their non attendance of duty on 17-6-2007 and for the recovery ofthe amount levied as DC from their wages . The issuance of such a notice is expressly admitted in para 3 of the claim statement . Ext M7 dated 28-7-2007 is produced to prove the contents of that notice . In para 3 of the claim statement itis stated that the notice was received on 03-8-2007 and the DPS workers had submitted their explanations individually on 8-8-2007 . Ext . M8 is the explanation submitted by one of the DPS workers in which it is stated that17-6-2007being Sunday is a paid holiday as per Ext.M2 . After getting an investigation report the Area Manager issued Ext.M10 proceedings dated 20-9-2007 to recover theproportionate amount in a lump sum from the wages of the DPS workers . DPS workers wilfully refused to attend thework on 17-6-2007 after the issuance of Ext . M3 notice . They cannot refuse to attend the work for the reason that itwas notice . They cannot refuse to attend the work for the reason that it was a Sunday. It was because of their deliberate absence from duty on that day the DC was incurred by the management .

19. Point No. 3 : FCI is bound to load or unload the goods within the free time allowed by the Indian Railways . As it is necessary to unload the wagons within the free time, DPS workers have to attend the duty on weekly off days and other holidays except on the six paid holidays as per the terms of Ext.M2 . If they will abstain from attending the work it is likely to result in incurring DC and other loss to the FCI . In this case it is the concerted action of refusal to attend the duty on Sunday by the DPS workers that resulted in incurring the DC.

16. Sunday is a weekly off day only if they were continuously working on all the preceding six days . Here in this case there is neither any pleading nor any evidence to prove that they were working on all the preceding six days to claim it as a weekly off day. Even if it was a weekly off day then also they are bound to attend the duty if they are posted for duty on that day. In the conditions of service in Ext .M2 the word used is " shall " in paras 16 ( b) and ( c) dealing with 6 paid holidays and sick leave while in para 16( a) dealing with weekly off it is " will " . It will also go to show that the DPS workers are not entitled to claim the weekly off as a day for enjoyment without attending the work assigned to them . If the DPS workers want all the Sundays to be holidays without any duty it is necessary to have a change in the conditions of service . Until then they are bound by the conditions of service contained in Ext.M2.

20. Now it is to be considered whether in such a case the DC can be recovered from the wages of the DPS workers . In para17 of the written statement there is the contention that as per the DPS Scheme the FCI is entitled

2081GI /12--21 [PART I -Sec . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934

5184

under their provisions . Even if theydo not apply , nothing prevents the employer from taking guidance from the legislative wisdom contained in it to adopt measures on the lines outlinedtherein , when the contract ofemployment is silent on the subject " .

22. Paras 4, 13 and 22 ofthe judgment are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case and hence the same is extracted below:

to make the workman liable for the loss caused to the FCI . There is no express provision in Ext.M2 which enables the management to recover the DC from the DPS workers. Clause- 15 of Ext . M2 provides that the workers found indulging in disobedience, misconduct etc. shall be subject to action under Model Standing Orders provided in Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act , 1946. As per Section 14 ofthe saidAct, disciplinary action can be initiated against the workmen for misconduct and a workman can be fined up to 2 % of his, wages in a month for the acts and omissions which are notified with the previous approval of the Government or ofthe prescribed authority as per Section 8 of the Payment of Wages Act , 1946. It was submitted by the learned counsel for both sides that no notification has so far been issued by the management specifying the acts and omissions amounting to misconduct.

21. By placing reliance on the decision reported in Bank of India v. Kelawala 1990 ( 1 ) KLT 843 (S.C. ) it was argued by the learned counsel for the management that even in the absence ofany statutory provision the employer can deduct wages in the event of wilful refusal to attend the work by the employee and it is not necessary to hold an enquiry against each employee before the deduction of wages. Therein itwas held:

"4. The principal question involved in the case, according to us, is notwithstanding the absence of a term in the contract of employment or ofa provision in the service rules or regulations , whether an employer is entitled to deduct wages for the period that the employees refuse to work although the work is offered to them . The deliberate refusal to work may be the result of various actions on their part such as a sit - in or stay - in strike at the work - place or a strike whether legal or illegal , or a go- slow tactics. The deliberate refusal to work further may be legal or illegal as when the employees go on a legal or illegal strike . The legality of strike does not always exempt the employees from the deduction of their salaries for the period ofstrike . It only saves them from a disciplinary action since a legal strike is recognised as a legitimate weapon in the hands of the workers to redress their: grievances. It appears to us thatthis confusion between the strike as legitimate weapon in the hands of the workmen and the liability of deduction ofwages incurred on account of it , whether the strike is legal or illegal , has been responsible for the approach the High Court has taken in the matter.

13. Among the decisions of the various High Courts relied upon by the parties in support of the respective cases, we find that except for the decision in V. Genesan v. The State Bank of India & Ors . [ ( 1981 ) 1.1.164 ) given by the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court and the decision of the Division Bench of the same Court in that matter and other matters decided together in State Bank of India , Canara Bank , Central Bank etc. & Ors V. Genesan, Jambunathan , Venkataraman , B. V.Kamath , V.K. Krishnamurthy, etc. & Ors [ ( 1989 ) 1 1.1.J 109 ] , all other decisions , namely, ( i) Sukumar Bandyopadhyyay & Ors . v. State of West Bengal & Ors. { ( 1976 ) IX LIC.1689] , (ii ). Algemene Bank Nederland , N.V. v. Central Government Labour Court , Calcutta & Ors. [ ( 1978 ) II LLJ , 1171 ( iii) V.Ramachandran v. Indian Bank ( 1979) | [22 ], (iv) Dharam Singh Rajput & Ors . v. Bank of India, Bombay & Ors . ( 1979 ) 12 LIC 1079 ] , (v ) R. Rajamanickam for himself and on behalf of other Awardy Stall v. Indian Bank | ( 1981 ) 11 LLJ 367 ] ( vi ) R.N.Shenoy & Anr , etc. v. Central Bank of India & Ors , etc. 1983 KLT 381 = [ ( 1984 ) XVIILIC 1493 ] . (vii ) Prakash Chandra Johari v. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. , ( 1986) II LLJ 496] , have variously taken the view that it isnot only permissible for the employer to deduct wages for the hours or the days for which the employees are absent from duty but in cases such as the present , it is permissible to deduct wages for the whole day even if the "There is no doubt that whenever a worker indulges in a misconduct such as a deliberate refusal to work, the employer can take a disciplinary action against him and impose on him the penalte prescribed for it which may include some deduction from his wages . However, when misconduct is not disputed but is , on the other hand , admitted and is resorted to on a mass scale such as when the employees go on strike, legal or illegal , there is no need to hold an inquing. Ta insist on an inquiry even in such cases is to pervert the very object of the inquiry. In a mass action such as a strike it is not possible to hold an inquiry against every employee por is it necessary to do so unless, ofcourse, an employee contends that although he did not want to go on strike and wanted to resume his duty, he was prevented from doing so by the other employees or that the employer did not give him proper assistance to resume his duty though he had asked for it..The pro rata deduction ofwages is not an unreasonable exercise of power on such occasions . Whether on such occasions the wages are deductible at all and towhat extent will , however, depend on the facts of cach case. Although the employees may strike only for some hours but there is no work for the rest of the day as in the present case , the employer may be justified in deducting salary for the whole day. On the other hand, the employees may put in work after the strike hours and the employer may accept it or acquiesce in it . In that case the employer may not be entitled to deduct wages at all orbe entitled to deduct them only for the hours of strike. If further statutes such as the Payment of Wages Act or the State enactments like the Shops and Establishments Act apply, the employer may be justified in deducting wages 3081-6 MSS No. 511 το 555

5185 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 26th day ofApril , 2012.

D. SREEVALLABHAN , Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

absence is for a few hours . It is also held that the contract is not indivisible . Some of the decisions have also held that the deduction of wages can also be made under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and similar statutes where they are applicable . It is further held that deduction of wages in such cases is not a penalty but is in enforcement of the contract of employment and hence no disciplinary proceedings need precede it .

Witness for the Union

WWI - K.Sudhakaran , Secretary, Food Corporation of India

Workers Union , FCI , Neeleswaram .

Witness for the Managements

MWI - M.Sivadasan , Arca Manager, FCI , District Office , Kannur.

Nil.

Exhibit for the Union

Exhibits for the Managements

22. The principles which emerge from the aforesaid authorities may now be stated . Where the contract , Standing Orders or the service rules / regulations are silent onthe subject , the management has the power to deduct wages for absence from duty when the absence is a concerted action on the part of the employees and the absence is not disputed. Whether the deduction from wages will be pro rata for the period of absence only or will be for a longer period will depend upon the facts of each case such as whether where was any work to be done in the said period, whether the work was in fact done and whether it wasaccepted and acquiesced in , etc. "

M1 Photocopy of the letter No.TC - 1 /2005 /201 /2Pt.D dated 10-10-2006 of Government of India , Ministry of Railways , Railway Board.

M2 Photocopy of the Letter No. IR ( 1 . ) / 8 ( 22 )/ 94 dated 14-06-1996 of the Executive Director (Gen. ) as to the introduction of Direct Payment System , in notified Food Corporation of India's owned depots . ,

M3 Notice dated 16-06-2007 issued by the Manager, FCI , Neeleswaram Depot to the DPS workers. , .

M4 Photocopy of the statement of demurrage charges due from FCI/NLE on 19-06-2007.

M5 Photocopy of the Order No.J/ C.200 /NLE/ 644 dated 24-07-2007 of the Manager (D ) Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Palghat.

M6 Counter Foil No.506069 dated 07-08-2007 issued by the Station Master, Southern Railway, Nileshwar as to the payment ofD.C. by Manager, Food Corporation of India, F.S.D. , Nileshwar , Kasaragod District .

M7 Office copy ofthe Show Cause Notice No. IR.L /21 ( 1 )/ 07 dated 28-07-2007 issuedby the Area Manager (1 /C. ) , Food Corporation of India . District Office , Muzhappilangad .

M8 Explanation dated 08-08-2007 submitted by Shri K.Velayudhan DPS - I to the Area Manager, FCI , District Ofifce, Muzhappilangad .

M9 Investigation Report on demurrage charges incurred atFSD , Nileswar during the Months of June & July 2007 dated 06-09-2007.

23. Deduction of wages is permissible in the case of wilful absence from duty by the employees when the absence is a concerted action on the part of the employees . Deduction of wages for such refusal to work need not be on pro rata basis . It can be more than the wages due to the period of absence and the same depends on the facts and circumstances in each case . Here in this case there was wilful refusal on the part of the DPS workers to attend the work on 17-06-2007by wilfully absenting themselves in spite of the intimation to unload the wagons . DC was to be paid by the management solely due to wilful refusal to attend duty on 17-06-2007. The amount paid as DC is Rs.52,200 . It is a well ascertained sum of money and the same is sought to be recovered from the wages after considering the explanations submitted by the DPS workers and also after conducting an investigation by the management . It is not an unconscionable sum . There is no need to have any enquiry or any. further adjudication in the matter. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice which caused any prejudice to the DPS workers . Evenaccording to them they were absenting themselves from duty on 17-06-2007 being the weekly off day. The loss caused to the FCI amounting to Rs.52,200 is solely due to their deliberate and willful absence from duty on 17-06- 2007. It can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the amount to be deducted from the wages for their willful absence on that day. Hence the action of the management in recovering the loss from the wages on account of the DC levied by the Railway for not unloading the food grains on weekly off day is legal and justified.

M10Office copy of the proceedings No. IR ( L )/21 (1 )/2007- Vol . II dated 20-09-2007 of the Area Manager , FCI , DistrictOffice, Muzhappilangad.

24. Point No.4: As the action of the management is found to be legal and justified those workmen are not entitled to any relief.

5186

[PART 11-SEC . 3(ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012 / ASADHA 2, 1934

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 2012

का.आ. 2132.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947- का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , असनसोल के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 52/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-05-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/265/2005 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the31st May, 2012

S.O. 2132. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/ 2006)ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen , received by the CentralGovernment on 31-05-2012.

[No. L- 22012/265/2005- IR (CM - II) ] Β. Μ. PATNAIK , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

SRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officerl/ Link Officer

Reference No. 52 of 2006

PARTIES: TheGeneral Secretary, K.M.C. ,Gorai Mansions , Asansol , Burdwan

Vs.

TheAgent , MIC Jhanjra Project , Jhanjra Area , M/s . ECL , Burdwan

REPRESENTATIVES:

Sri P.K. Das , Advocate Forthe management:

Forthe union(Workman) Sri S.K. Pandey, Representative

STATE : WEST BENGAL INDUSTRY: COAL

Dated- 24-02-12 11-5-12

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947 ) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L -22012/265/2005 - IR(CM - II ) dated 14-08-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of MIC Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Jiban Bouri , Timber Helper, U.M. No. 693513 w.e.f. 3-1-2001 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2.Having received the Order of Letter No : L- 22012/ 265/2005 - IR( CM - II ) dated 14-08-2006 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 52 of2006 was registered on 18-09-06 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance ofthe said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

3. The case of the sponsoring union for workman is that workman Jiban Bouri was in employment of the Company as Timber Helper at MIC Jhanjra Project , Jhanjra Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd. He fall sick on and from 1-02-2000 , he could not attend his duty, though had informed the Management of it . When he reported for his duty, hewas not allowed ; rather he was dismissed from his service without serving him a copy of charge sheet of dismissal letter or even any notice or second showcause. The Management dismissed him against the principle of natural justice and passed the dismissal order by conducting exparte departmental enquiry, for which he did not get an opportunity for his defence . The enquiry had no proof of any document . Both the Enquiry Officer and the PresentingOfficer were highly biased , so the Enquiry Report was based not on record . The dismissal based on the involved enquiry , was harsh and extreme punishment to him. He is sitting idle without any employment any where. Hebelongs to a downtrodden community. He and his family are dying without meal . The dismissal of the workman by the Management is illegal and unjustified.

4. Whereas with specific denials to the aforesaid allegations of the union , the case of the Management is that workman Jiban Bouri , Timber Helper , U. Man No. 693513 , MIC Jhanjra Project, had been absent from his duty on from 30-01-2000 unauthorisedly, for which he was charge sheeted as per Ref. No. AGT/JNR/ MIC / P /CS/2000/652 dated 10-05-2000 as the Certified Standing Order applicable to the employees of the Coal Mining Industry. He did not reply to it . So the Management as per its decision held a domestic enquiry into it against the workman . He though [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

5187

Asansol also in his oral statement , he could not bring his treatment paper, so he had requested for atime for filingit .

(iv) But the dismissal order of the workman as per the G. M, Jhanjra Area's letter dated 3-01-2001 vividly deals with extraneous facts of his previous absenteeism as unproved .

In view of the aforesaid finding and the arguments as advanced on behalf of both the partics , I find and hold the dismissal of the workman from the service of the Management for his present unauthorized absenteeism , from his duty since 31-01-2000 was not only shocking but also highly disproportionate to it for his aforesaid misconduct. Thus , it is liable to be set aside in the eye of law.

absented on three dates , yet appeared on 19-08-2000 at the enquiry, in which though he was given ample opportunity with a co - worker of his choice for defence , he did not wait of it, so the Enquiry was held exparte on 26-08-2000 . The charges levelled against him were proved . He neither had reported for treatment at Colliery Hospital nor was referred for treatment elsewhere . Previously the workman was awaited warning him stoppage of three increments with cumulativeeffect for his alasenteeism since 25-11-96 and 9-04-98 as per the charge sheet and AGT/ JNR/ 3 & 4/ 98 / 119 issued by the action . All the records and numbers of his attendances 152, 93 and 149 in the years 1997 to 1999 prior to his dismissal revealed him as a habitual absentee . On the basis of aforesaid findings of the Enquiry Officer, he was served with second Show Cause notice dated 17/20-10-2000 by registered letter A/D post along with the copy of the Enquiry Report on his address noted in his Form ' B' for his explanation, but he did not reply to it . The Management alternative except his dismissal from his services as per the letter dated 3 /5-01-2001 as communicated to him on his home address .

Finding with reasoning

Hence, it is held that the action of the Management of MIC , Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of M/s. EasternCoalfields Ltd. in dismissing workman Jiban Bouri , Timber Helper, U.M. No. 693513 w.e.f. 3-01-2001 is quite illegal and unjustified . Therefore , the workman is entitled to re- instatement in his service but without back wages . It is hereby accordingly awarded , and the Management is directed to implement the award within a month from the receipt of it after its publication in the Gazette of India .

ORDER

Let an "Award " be and same is passed as per above Send the copies of the Award to the Government of India , Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi , for information and needful .

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer/ Link Oflicer 5. In the present case , I find that only workman Jiban Bouri on his affidavited statement filed by the Union Representative was cross - examined by Mr. P.K. Das , Learned Advocate for the Management on 18-9-07 . Since Mr. P. K. Das , Learned Advocate for the Management declined to adduce any evidence on behalf of the Management , the case came up for hearing argument since 11-12-09 . It evidently stands clear that the Union representative by implied conduct and in lack of his interest to challenge the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry seems to have accepted it as fair and proper. The photocopies of the Domestic Enquiry filed by the Union as per list dated 05-01-97 are on the case record .

नईदिल्ली , । जून , 2012

The aforesaid situation impels me for the appreciation of the admitted materials on the case record under Sec . 11A ofthe Industrial Dispute Act 1947 .

का.आ. 2133. - राष्ट्रपति , श्री सुरेन्द्र प्रकाश सिंह को , दिनांक 21-05-2012 ( F /N ) से केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण-सह - श्रम न्यायालय संख्या-1, चंडीगढ़ , के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में 65 वर्ष की अयु पूरी होने अर्थात् 3-9 2016 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , नियुक्त करती है ।

A fair glance at the admitted materials and the oral evidence of the worker on the case record reveals the undisputable facts as under :

( i ) Workman Jiban Bouri was a Timber Helper U /M . No. 693513 at MIC Jhanjra Project .

[सं. ए-11016/01 / 2011 सीएलएस ||| अजय जोशी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

( ii ) The present charge sheet dated 10-05-2000 relates only to his unauthorized habitual absenteeism from duty since 31-01-2000 constituting his misconduct under Charge 26.29 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the Coal Mines . It unmentions his any previous absenteeism.

S.O. 2133 .-- The President is pleased to appoint Shri Surendra Prakash Singh as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh w.e.f. 21-05-2012 ( F/ N ) for a period upto 3-9-2016 i.e. till attaining the age of 65 years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

( iii ) Admittedly the workman appeared on 19-08-2000 and stated at the Enquiry that though he was under treatment . at Sub - Divisional Hospital,

[Νο .Λ- 11016/01 /2011 -CI.S - II | AJAY JOSHI , Under Secy.

[PART'H-SEC . 3(ii) ] 588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2012

dispute between the employers , in relation to the management ofWCL and their workman Shri Sushil Bharat Das, for adjudication , as per letter No.L - 22012/368/2002 -IR (CM- II ) dated 21-03-2006, with the following schedule:---

का.आ. 2134.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 53/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-06-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management ofWCL and M/ s . Singh and Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Sushil Bharat Das , is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

[सं. एल-22012/368/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 1st June , 2012

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the partieswere noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Sushil Bharat Das, ("the workman " in short) and the management ofthe WCL ("Party No.1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

S.O. 2134.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53 / 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL , WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon , and their workman , received by theCentral Government on 1-06-2012.

[No. L- 22012/368/2002- IR (CM - II )]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGFT/NGP/53/2006

Date: 21-05-2012

The Sub Area Manager , WCL

Party No. 1 (a) :

Murpar Project of( Umrer Area ) of

WCL,

Post: Khadsanghi , Tah - Chimur,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

M/s . Singh & Sons ,

(b):

WCL Contractor, Singhnagar ,

Dahegaon , Chhindwara Road, Distt .

Nagpur(MS)

Versus

Shri Sushil Bharat Das ,

PartyNo. 2

R/o Murpar, Post : Khadsangi , Tchsil : Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS ) .

AWARD

(Dated: 21st May, 2012)

The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine atMurpar, 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. 05-01-1997 and till party no . 1 (b ) is working with party no . I (a) for the purpose ofpreparing the underground roads for functioning of. the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.Las a Driller on 21-05-1993 and he continued to work till 2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party no. 1 (b) w.e.Γ. 05-01-1997 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 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 morethan 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 hintby 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 ofall theworkers 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 ofSection 25 -G of the Act and the termination ofhis 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 ofSection 25-11 of the Act . It is further pleaded by the workman that he 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 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5189

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

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 3/2 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 . 1 ( b ) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar Project and the dates of commencement and completion of the said contract were 29-5-1999 and 1-12-2001 respectively and it [ party no.1( a) ] wasrelated 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 MinesAct , 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 thejob 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 isnot entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman .

4. The workman besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit in support ofhis claim . It is necessary to mention here that as no body appeared on behalf of the party no . 1 ( a) to cross-examine the workman , on 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex - parte against the party no . 1 ( a) .

5. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no . I ( a ) had engaged M/ s . B.G.M.L , a registered company and a Government of India Enterprises for preparation of underground roads up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 21-5-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a Driller 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 Actwere 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 Rule77 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 5190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

6. It iswell settledthat ifa party challenges the legality ofanorder, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality ofthe 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 ex parte 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 thereliefs claimed by him.

7. In this case, it isthe admitted case of the workman that he was engaged by M/s . B.GM.L. , who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of MurparColliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 21-5-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a Driller and that he was again engaged by party no. 1 (b) , another contractor from 5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 . 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 4-6-2001 to 9-6-2001 . 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 ofthe coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be deemed tobe an employee ofparty no . 1 (a ) , as because , he was sent for vocational- training by party no.1( a) .

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

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 ünder 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.l ( b) is concerned, I think it necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon thediscussion of the merit of the case .

TheHon'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 of240 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 cither 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 datewith 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 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5191 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

sub- sections ( 1 ) and (2 ) is different , (words and phrases-Continuous Service) .

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 anyrelief.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relict. J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2012

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 inemployment 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 tobe in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25 - B and Chapter V-A" .

का.आ. 2135.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC- 38 ( M/ s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that :-

[सं. एल-22012/369/2002 आंई आर ( सीएम- II )} रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

" 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. "

S.O. 2135. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 54/ 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 WCLL , WCL Contractor , Singhnagar , Dahegaon , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-06-2012 .

[No. L -22012/ 369/ 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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 inpreceding 12calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof isupon the workman .

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT , NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT /NGP / 54/ 2006

Date: 21-05-2012 11. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the Hon'bleApex Court and it is to be found out if the workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for240 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 .

Party No.1 ( a) : The Sub Area Manager , WCL MurparProject 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) 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 .

2081 GI/12-22

PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
5192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934
Versus no . 1 (a) and (b ) as such , termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination , more than
PartyNo. 2 Shri Bhanudas Mahadev Matale , 700 workers were working with parties no.1 (a) and (b),
R/ o Khadsanghi , Post : Khadsanghi , they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all
Tehsil: Chimur, theworkers including himself, at least seven days prior to
Distt. Chandrapur (MS) the termination , as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial
AWARD Disputes(Central ) Rules , 1957 and there was no compliance
ofSection 25 -G ofthe Act and the termination ofhis services
(Dated: 21st May, 2012) amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his
retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also ,
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of plenty of work is available with parties no. 1 (a) and 1 (b),
slub- Section ( 1 ) and sub- Section 2(A) of Section 10 of but they did not re- employ him in violation of Section 25 - H
Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act " in short), of the Act . It is further pleaded by the workman that he
the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
between the employers , in relation to the management of demand to the parties no . 1 (a) and 1 ( b ) , but they did not
WCL. and their workman Shri Bhanudas Mahadev Matale , fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before
for adjudication , as per letter No. 1.-22012/ 369 / 2002 - IR ( CM- the ALC ( C ) Chandrapur and for the said reason , his services
11 )dated21-3-2006, with the following schedule: ... with many other workers were terminated and wages for.
December 2001 was not paid to him and as party no . I was
"Whether the action of the management of WCL the principal employer and party no . 1 (b ) was the contractor
and M /s . Singh and Sons Contractor of WCL . in of party no. 1 ( a) , for each and every act of the party no . 1
terminating the services of Shri Bhanudas (b) , the party no. 1 ( a ) was responsible and as such, the
Mahadev Matale , is legal and justified? If not, to party no.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The
what relief he is entitled? "
workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with
2.On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed continuity and full back wages .
to file their respective statement of claim and written 3. The party no.1 ( a) resisted the claim by filing its
statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Bhanudas written statement . It is necessary to mention here that inspite
Mahade Matale , (" the workman " in short ) and the of notice , party no . 1 ( b ) neither appeared in the case nor
management of the WCI . ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its contested the claim .
written statement . The case of the workman is that there is
a coal mine at Murpar, which is known as " W.C. Ltd. Murpar In its written statement, the party no. 1 ( a ) has pleaded
Project " and the same is under the control and supervision inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.I ..
of party no . 1 ( a ) i.c. Sub - Area Manager, Murpar Project for carrying out open excavation , for construction of a
and party no. 1 ( a) engage M/ s . Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , parir of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine
Karnataka , ( "B.G.M ... " in short for the purpose of preparing ofMurpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal open excavation work was to be completed within a period
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to of 3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
1996 and the party no . I ( a) also engaged party no. 1 (b ) , months and it also awarded another contract to party no . I
M/ s . Singh and Sons in its work w.e.f. 5-01-1997 and till (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shatt
party no . 1 ( b ) is working with party no. 1 ( a) for the purpose through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.Las a Welder commencement and completion were 1-01-1997 and 28-02-
on 16-8-1993 and he continued to work till 2-7-1996 and 1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months , another
thereafter, his services were utilized 1 party no . 1 ( b ) w.e.f. contract was given to party no . 1 ( b ) for construction of
20-1-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and party no . 1 ( a) drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project ane the dates of
sent him for vocational training from time time and he had commencement and completion of the said contract were
under gone the said training successfully and he is a 29-05-1999 and 1-12-2001 respectively and it [ party no . I
workman / employee of party no . 1 ( a) and party no . 1 (a ) is (a) ) was related to party no . 1 (b ) only as per the terms of
the principal employer and his appointment by both the contract and it was not at all responsible for providing
contractors was oral and the party no . 1 ( b ) terminated his employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the
services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and he had worked for contractors to appoint the employees as per their need. It
more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while is further pleaded by the party no . I ( a ) that as per the
terminating his services , mandatory provisions of Section provisions of the Mines Act , every person , whether
25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
month's notice , nor one month's wages in licu of notice , whether in casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5193

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

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 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.

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 - 11-2011 , " no cross" order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex - parte against the party no . 1 (a) .

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 up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 16-08-1993 to 2-07-1996 as ' a Welder and the workman was again appointed by party no . 1 ( b ) from 20-01-1997 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 thetermination of the services of the workman mandatory provisions of Section 25- F of the Act were no 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 thiscase , even ifthe 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 collieryby party no . 1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 16-08-1993 to 2-07-1996 as a Welder and that he was again engaged by party no . 1 (b ), another contractor from 20-01-1997 to 28-12-2001 . It is never the case ofthe 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 2-09- 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 Actand the workman cannot be deemed to be an employec ofparty no . 1 (a) , as because , he was sent for vocational training by party no . 1 (a) .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

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) .

created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about suchrelationship . 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 a master . But that istrue of a workman could not be correct a 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 For 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 contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also th 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 pecessary 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 :-

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 tobe 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 inAIR 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 factworked for 240 days in a year --In absence of proofofreceipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination ." 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

10. So, it is clear from the principles enunciatedby 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 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5195

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

ANNEXURE

in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof isupon the workman.

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 57 /2006

Date: 21-05-2012 .

Party No. 1 ( a) : The Sub Area Manager , WCL Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area ) of WCI . , Post: Khadsanghi , Tah -Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

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 fot 240 days .

(b): M/ s . Singh & Sons , WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon , Chhindwara Road, Distt . Nagpur (MS)

Versus

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.

Party

No. 2

Shri Khatu Yadav Nagdcovate , R/ o Pituchhuva, Post : Pimpalneri , Tehsil : Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

Asthe 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.

AWARD

ORDER

(Dated: 21st May, 2012)

Thereference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2012

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) ana 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 Khatu Yadav Nagdeovate, for adjudication , as per letter No. 1-22012/ 393/2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 21-03-2006 , with the following schedule :--

का.आ. 2136.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , 'केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-06-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management of WCI . and M/ s . Singh and Sons Contractor of WCI , in terminating the services of Shri Khatu Yadav Nagdeovate, is legal and justified ? If not , to what reliefhe is entitled?"

[सं. एल -22012/393/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Khatu Yadav Nagdeovate , ( "the workman " in short ) and the management of the WCL ("Party No.1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

S.O. 2136. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/ 2006) ofthe 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 , was received by the Central Government on 1-06-2012 .

The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine at Murpar , which is known as " W.C. 1.td. 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 [No. L-22012/393/2002 - IR (CM - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) |
5196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract , the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
1996 and the party no . 1 (a) also engaged party no . 1 (b ) , 3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
M/s . Singh & 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 months and it also awarded another contract to party no . I
preparing the underground roads for functioning of the (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a Driller through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
on 2-01-1993 and he continued to work till 2-07-1996 and to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
thereafter, his services were utilized by party no . 1 (b) w.e.f. commencement and completion were 1-01-1997 and 28-02-
5-01-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and party no . 1 ( a) 1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months , another
sent him for vocational training from time to time and he contract was given to party no . 1 ( b) for construction of
had under gone the said training successfully and he is a drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates of
workman/ employee of party no . 1 (a) and party no. 1 ( a) is commencement and completion of the said contract were
the principal employer and his appointment by both the 29-05-1999 and 01-12-2001 respectively and it [party no .
contractors was oral and the party no.1 (b ) terminated his 1(a) ] was related to party no . 1 (b) only as per the terms of
services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and he had worked for contract and it was not at all responsible for providing
more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while employees to the contractors and it was the duty of the
terminating his services , mandatory provisions of Section contractors , to appoint the employees as per their need . It
2$ -F of the Act were not complied with and neither one is further pleaded by the party no. 1 ( a) that as per the
month's notice , nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, provisions of the Mines Act, every person , whether
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties employed by the principal employer or the contractor ,
no . 1 ( a) and (b ) and as such, termination of his services is whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
illegal and though at the time of his termination , more than work in an underground mine , is required to be imparted
700 workers were working with parties no . 1 (a ) and ( b ) , vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all of the training is borne by the contractor concemed and
.the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
the termination , as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957 and there was no compliance document has been produced by the workman to show
ofSection 25 -G ofthe Act and the termination ofhis services that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his the workman till the completion of the contract and the
retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also , documents filed by the workman show that he was
plenty ofwork is available with parties no . 1 (a) and 1 (b) , appointed by party no . 1 (b) for contract works at Murpar
butthey did not re- employ him in violation of Section 25 -H Project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
of the Act . It is further pleaded by the workman that he and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi ,
demand to the parties no . 1 (a) and 1 (b ) , but they did not Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before (2) SCALE 115 ) and many others , the workman is not
theALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason , his services entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
with many other workers were terminated and wages for was a temporary workman.
December 2001 was not paid to him and as party no . I was The further case of party no . 1 (a ) is that it has been
the principal employer and party no. 1 (b) was the contractor entering into various contracts with various persons and
of party no. 1 (a), for each and every act of the party no. 1 each and every contract is an independent contract , which
(b), the party no . 1 (a) was responsible and as such, the cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
party no. 1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with given to party no . 1 (b), as they were of having different
continuity and full backwages. legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
3. The party no. 1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its for doing separate works , the workman did not become
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
of notice , party no. 1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor any relationship of employer and employee between it and
contested the claim. the workman and he was never in , its employment and as
In itswritten statement, the party no . 1 (a) has pleaded such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
inter- alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L. ofSection 25 - F, 25 - G or H of the Act or payment ofwages
for carrying out open excavation , for construction ofa pair by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
anyrelief.
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of

5197 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

4. The workman besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit insupport 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 8-11-2011 , " no cross" order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex- parte against the party no. 1 (a) .

5-01-1997 to 28-12-2001 . It is never the case ofthe 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 ofsuch claim, the workman has filed the Xerox copy of the certificate granted in his favour for undergoing the vocational training from 2-09- 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 Actand the workman cannot be deemed to be an employce of party no . 1 (a) , as because , he was sent for vocational training by party no . 1 (a) .

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 ifthe 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.

8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection withthe 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 . Evena 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 withthe principal employer as a servant of master. But that istrue of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The provisions of contract labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 do not contemplate creation ofdirect 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 ofthe principal employer.

7. In this case , it is the admitted case ofthe workman that he was engaged by M/ s . B.G.M.L. , who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murparcolliery by party no. 1 ( a) and BGML engaged him from 2-01-1993 to 2-07-1996 as a Driller and that he was again engaged by party no . 1 (b) , another contractor from

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 enunciatedby the [ PART 11-- SEC . 3 (ii)|

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

5198

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, ifthe workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months boththe conditions are fulfilled . The definition of "Continuous Service " need not be read into Section 25 - B . The fiction converts service of 240 daysin 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 (Mchanlal 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 bedeemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Section 25- B and chapter V-A" .

TheHon'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-Claimdeniedby management Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in factworked for 240 days in a year In absence of proofof 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 inpreceding 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 29-1-2001 . 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 anyrelief.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relict.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5199

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2137. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-22012/391/2002 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S. O. 2137. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.55 /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 1-6-2012 .

[No. 1.-22012/391 /2002- IR (CM - II ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/ NGP/ 55/ 2006

Date: 21-5-2012

Party No.1 ( a) :

The Sub Area Manager , WCL MurparProject of( Umrer Area) ofWCL , Post: Khadsanghi , Tah -Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/ s . Singh & Sons , WCI . Contractor, Singhnagar , Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road , Distt . Nagpur (MS)

Versus

PartyNo. 2:

Shri Natthuji Damaji Neware, R/ o Murpar , Post : Khadsangi , Tehsil : Chimur , Distt . Chandrapur(MS ) .

AWARD

(Dated: 21st May, 2012)

2081GI/12-23

management of WCL and their workman Shri Natthuji Damaji Neware, for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/391/2002- 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 Natthuji Damaji Neware, is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ? "

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workrrian Shri Natthuji Damaji 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 atMurpar, 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.Las a General Mazdoor on 24-11-1992 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 party no. 1 ( a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and he had under gone the said training successfully and he is a workman/employee of party no . 1 (a) and party no . I (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 ofSection 25 - F of the Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice , nor one month's wages in licu ofnotice, 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. i ( 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 ofhis services amounted to retrenchment and at the time ofhis 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 25 -H of the Act . It is further pleaded by the workman that he [PARI 11---SEC. 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 / ASADHA 2 , 1934

5200

(2) SCALE 115 ) and many others , the workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a temporary workman .

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 ALLC ( 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 . I was theprincipal 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 .

4. The workman besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit insupport of his claim . It is necessary to mention here that asnobody appeared on behalf of the party no . 1 ( a ) to cross-examine the workman , on 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex - parte against the party no.1 ( a) .

In its written statement , the party no.1 ( a) hás pleaded inter- alia that it had entered " into a contract with B.CG. M.L. for carrying out open excavation , for construction ofa 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 of3 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 contractor 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 work 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

5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no. I ( a) had engaged M/ s . B.G.M.L , a registered company and a Government of India Enterprises for preparation of underground roads up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 24-11-1992 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 . I and party no . I (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 Actwere 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 I ( 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 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5201

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

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 ofanorder, 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 I ( 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 Collieryby party no . 1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 24-11-1992 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that hewas 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 isobligatory to undergo vocational training for any person , who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and itis the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Actand 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. Evena 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 ofthe 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 ofdirect 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 employedby 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. Fo 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 ofthe 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 day's 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 2.5 ( B ) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters . The purport ofthe new provisions , however, is not different . In fact , the amendment of 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) ofSection 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 mustbe 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 1.td. ) , 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 25-1 , he has to show 5202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service . Sèction 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 enunciatedby 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 2-40 days .

! 12. Except his oral evidence on affidavit , the workman has not produced any other evidence in support ofhis 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 uponhim.

PART 11-- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2138. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल 22012/392/2002 आई आर (सीएम II ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S. O. 2138. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.56-2006 ) of the Central Government Iridustrial 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 , receivedby the Central Government on 1-6-2012 .

[ No. L - 22012/ 392 /2002 - IR ( CM - II ) ] RAMESILSINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIJ. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/ NGP/56/2006

Date: 21-5-2012

Party No. 1 ( a):

The Sub Area Manager , WCI . MurparProject 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

PartyNo. 2

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility iqualification prescribed in Section 25-1F 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 entitledfor pus relief.

Shri Bharat Motiram Athargade . R/ o Pituchhuva , Post : Pimpalneri , Tehsil : Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur(MS) .

| भाग II--खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5203 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

AWARD (Dated: 21st 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 Bharat Motiram Athargade , for adjudication , as per letter No. 1. - 22012/ 392/2002 - 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 Bharat Motiram Athargade , is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ? "

the termination , as provided under Rule 77 ofthe Industrial Disputes( Central ) Rules , 1957 and there was no compliance ofsection 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 partics no . 1 (a) and 1 (b ) ; butthey did not re-employ him in violation of Section 25-11 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 I ( b ), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before the AI.C ( 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 . I 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 .

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Bharat Motiram Athargade , ( " the workman " in short ) and the management of the WCI . ( " Party No.1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

3. The party no.1 ( a ) resisted the claim by tiling 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.

The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine atMurpar , which is known as " W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project " and the same is under the control and supervision of party no . I ( a ) i.c. Sub - Area Manager, Murpar Project and party no.1( a) engaged M /s . Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , Karnataka, ( " B.G.M.I .. " 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.I. as a Driller on 7-7-1992 and he continuedto work till 2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party no . 1 (b ) w.e.f. 20-1-1997 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 he is a workman / employce 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.c.f. 29-12-2001 and he had worked for more than 240days 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 , or 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

Inits written statement , the party no . I ( a) has pleaded inter- alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G. M.I .. 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 terins of contract , the open excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3 1/2months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months and it also awarded another contract to party no . 1 ( b ) for construction ofdrivage of a pair of incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V atMurpar 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 imeline 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 fparty no. I ( 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 ( å ) 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

5204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23, 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934 [ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) |
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion termination of the workman is illegal and such termination
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman amounts to retrenchment and party no.1 ( a ) and 1 ( b ) did
show that he was appointed by party no. 1 ( b ) for contract not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under
works at Murpar project , as a temporary contingent labour Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 , even
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by though more than 700 workers were working with them in
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka various category and as such , there was violation of the
Vs. Umadevi , Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish provisions of Section 25 -G of the Act and therefore , the
Jayanti [ 2006 ( 2 ) SCALE 1:15 ] and many others , the workman workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service continuity and full back wages .
as he was a temporary workman. 6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
The further case of party no.1 ( a ) is that it has been legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
entering into various contracts with various persons and illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
cach and every contract is an independent contract , which party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail . So , in
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus this case , even ifthe case proceeded exparte against parties
between the contract given to B.G.M.L.. and the contract no . 1. ( a) and 1 (b ) still then , the workman is to discharge the
given to party no . 1 ( b ), as they were of having different burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
for doing separate works , the workman did not become 7. In this case , it is the admitted case of the workman
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never that he was engaged by M/ s . B.G.M.l ... who was given
any relationship of employer and employee between it and contract for construction of roads in the underground of
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
Murpar Colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGMI . engaged him
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles from 7-7-1992 to 2-7-1996 as a Driller and that he was again
of Section 25 - F, 25 -G or H of the Act or payment of wages
engaged by party no.1 ( b ) , another contractor from
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for 20-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 . It is never the case of the workman
anyrelief.
that he was engaged or appointed by party no.1 ( a). The
4. The workman besides placing reliance on only claim of the workman is that party no.1 ( a ) had sent
documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit him for vocational training and he had under gone the
in support of his claim . It is necessary to mention here that training successfully. In support of such claim , the workman
as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no.l ( a ) to cross- has filed the Xerox copy of the certificate granted in his
examine the workman , on 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order was favour for undergoing the vocational training from
passed and order was also passed to proceed with the 2-9-1993 to 29-9-1993 . It is necessary to mention here that it
case ex - parte against the party no . 1 ( a). isobligatoryto undergo vocational training for any person .
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
5. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
learned advocate for the workman that party no.1 ( a ) had
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
engaged M/ s . B.G.M.L. , a registered company and a Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
of party no.1 ( a ), as because , he was sent for vocational
underground roads up to the boarder of coal in Murpar training by party no . 1 ( a ) .
Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992to
1996 and the said company had appointed the workman 8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
from 7-7-1992 to 2-7-1996 as a Driller and the workman was contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
again appointed by party no.1( b ) from 20-1-1997 to connection with the work of an establishment , it cannot be
28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for vocational training said that the relationship of master and servant is created
by party no . 1 ( a ) and as such , the workman was the between the principal employer and the contract labour.
: Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
employee of party no . 1 and party no . 1 ( a ) is the principal
employer and the appointment of the workman by both the "contract labour " , " establishment " and " workman " does
contractors was oral appointment and the services of the not show that a legal relationship between a person
workman were terminated by party no . 1 ( b ) w.e.f. employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for more than 240 created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
days with the party no . 1 ( b ), preceding his termination and such relationship . The word " workman " is defined in wide
before the termination of the services of the workman , terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act were not species . It is true that a combined reading of the terms
complied with and neither one month's notice, nor one " establishment " and workman shows that a workman
month's pay in lieu of the notice , nor retrenchment engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
compensation was given to the workman and as such , the withthe principal employer as a servant of master. But that

5205 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2. 1934

[भाग ॥ खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

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 25-3 and chapter V- A " .

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 ofdirect 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 ofthe principal employer.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC- 38 ( M/ s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar ) has held that:

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: ----

"Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947 S.25 -F, 10 Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services without payment of-Dispute referred to Tribunal Case ofworkman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination Claimdenied 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 histermination . "

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 25-1F 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 .

"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(cee) in one place, adding some other matters . The purport ofthe 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 " .

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 workınan has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.

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 )

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in Section 25 - F read with Section 5206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

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

नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2139. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल-22012/365/2002- आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the Ist June , 2012

S. O. 2139.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.50 /2006) ofthe 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 1-6-2012.

[No. L- 22012/365/2002- IR ( CM - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP/ 50/2006

Date: 21-5-2012

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, ChhindwaraRoad, Distt. Nagpur(MS)

Versus

PartyNo. 2: Shri Swami Lingayya Dasalwar , R/ o Murpar , Post : Khadsangi , Tehsil : Chimur , Distt . Chandrapur (MS) .

[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD (Dated: 21st 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 Swami Lingayya Dasalwar, for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/ 365/2002 - 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 Swami Lingayya Dasalwar, 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 Swami Lingayya Dasalwar, ( " the workman " in short ) and the management of the WCL. ( " Party No. I in short ) filed its written statement .

5207 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

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 wasa temporaryworkman .

of Section 25 -Gof 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 ) , butthey 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 .

4. The workman besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit insupport 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 8-11-2011 , " no cross " orde was passed and order was also passed to proceed with thi case ex - parte against the party no.l (a) .

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 up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 10-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a Driller and the workman was again appointed by party no.1 ( b ) from 1-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for vocational training by party no . 1 ( a) and as such , the workınan was the employee ofparty 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 ofthe workman is illegal and such termination 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 1-1-1997 and 28-2-1998 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 29-5-1999 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

2081 GI /12-24

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
5208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934
amounts to retrenchment and party no . 1 ( a) and 1 (b ) did law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication .
not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under Hence , it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957 , even
though more than 700 workers were working with them in ofthe principal employer .
various category and as such , there was violation of the 9. So far the termination of the services of the
provisions of Section 25 -G of the Act and therefore , the workman by the party no . 1 (b) is concerned , I think it
workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
continuity and full back wages . Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case .
6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order , the burden lies upon him to prove the The Hon'ble Apex Court , in the decision reported in
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced , the AIR 1966 SC- 75 (Employees , Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail . So, in workmen) have held that: -
this case , even if the case proceeded exparte against parties "Though section 25 - F speaks of continuous service
no. 1 ( a ) and 1 ( b ) still then , the workman is to discharge the
for not less than one year under the employer , if the
burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is workınan has actually worked for 240 days during a period
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him . of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled.
7.In this case , it is the admitted case of the workman The definition of " Continuous Service " need not be read
that he was engaged by M / s . B.G.M.I .. , who was given into Section 25 - B . The fiction converts service of 240 days
contract for construction of roads in the underground of in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous
Murpar collieryby party no . 1 ( a) and BGML engaged him service for one complete year . The amended section 25-3
from 10-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a Driller and that he was only consolidates the provisions of section 25 ( B ) and 2( eee)
again engaged by party no . 1 (b) , another contractor from in one place, adding some other matters . The purport of
01-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 . the new provisions , however, is not different . In fact , the
amendment of section 25 - F of the principal Act by
8. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of substituting in clause ( b ) the words " for every completed
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in year of continuous service " has removed a discordance
connection with the work of an establishment , it cannot be between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended
said that the relationship of master and servant is created Cl. (b) of section 25 - F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
between the principal employer and the contract labour . itthe total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms months either before the several changes or after these .
"contract labour " , " establishment " and " workman " does
The only change in the Act is that this service must be
not show that a legal relationship between a person during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is date with reference to which calculation has to be made.
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which
such relationship . The word " workman " is defined in wide existed in the unamended section 25- B ".
terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species . It is true that a combined reading of the terms In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC - 1253
" establishment " and workman shows that a workman (MehanlalVs. M/ s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. ) , the Hon'ble
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship Apex Court have held that ,
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that "Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947 ) . Section 25-13
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour .
(1 ) and ( 2) Continuous service Scope of sub- sections
The provisions of contract labour ( Regulation and ( 1 ) and (2 ) is different , ( Words and phrases Continuous
Abolition ) Act , 1970 do not contemplate creation ofdirect Service).
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so being not in consonance with Section 25 -F. he has to show
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never that he has been in continuous service for not less than
employed by the party no.1 (a ) and he was employed by one year under that employer, who has retrenched him
the contractors and the party no . 1 (a ) was not controlling from service . Section 25 - B as the dictionary clause for the
or supervising the work of the workman . It is the definite expression continuous " . Both in principle and are
stand taken by workman that he had been working under precedent it must be held that section 25-13 ( 2 ) comprehends
the contractors . It would, thus , in my opinion not lie in his a situation where a workman to not in employment for a
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that period of 12 calendar months , but has rendered for a period
he was also the workman of the principal employer . To of 240 days within the period 12 calendar months
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in commencing and counting backwards trom the relevant

5209

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

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) hasheld that:

" Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947 )-S.25 -F, 10- Retrenchment compensation - Termination of services without payment of Dispute referred to Tribunal-Case ofworkman/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 proofofreceipt 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 .

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 rélief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2140, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012 /366/2002- आई आर ( सीएम-II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S. O. 2140 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.51 /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 , receivedby the Central Government on 1-6-2012 .

[No. L -22012/366/2002-IR ( CM - 11 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIJ. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 21-5-2012 Case No.CGIT/ NGP/ 51 / 2006

Party No. 1 (a) :

The Sub Area Manager , WCI . Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area ) of WCL , Post: Khadsangh . Tah-Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur ( MS )

(b): M/ s . Singh & Sons , WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon . Chhindwara Road, Distt . Nagpur (MS )

Versus

Party No. 2:

Shri Manohar Dharmaji Dodke . R/o Murpar, Post : Khadsanghi , Tehsil : Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur(MS) .

AWARD (Dated: 21st 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 Manohar Dharmaji Dodke, for adjudication , as per letter No.1. - 22012/ 366/2002 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 21-3-2006 , with the following schedule:

5210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/ s . Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Manohar Dharmaji Dodke, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ? "

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly , the workman Shri Manohar Dharmaji Dodke , ( " 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.I as a General Mazdoor on 1-1-1993 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 he is a workman / employee of party no . 1 ( a ) and party no. 1 (a) is the principal employer and his appointment by boththe 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 ofnotice, 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 ofhis 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 ofhis retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also , plenty of work is available with parties no . 1 (a) and I(b) , but they did not re- employ him in violation of section 25-H ofthe 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

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

services with many other workers were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as party no . I was the principal employer and party no . I (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.l ( a) is responsible for his illegal termination . The workman has prayed for his reinstatement inservice 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.I .. 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 1/2months 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 atMurpar 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. 1 ( b ) for construction of drivage of incline shaft atMurpar 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 wasthejob ofthe 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 ofthe 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 isnot 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 5211 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail . So , in this case, even ifthe case proceeded exparte against parties no. 1 ( a) and I ( 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 .

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 insupport 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 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex -parte against the party no.1 ( a) .

7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman that he was engagedby M/ s . B.G.M.I ... who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of Murparcolliery by party no . 1 ( a) and BGML engaged him from 1-1-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he wasagain 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 isobligatory to undergo vocational training for any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it isthe statutory duty of the management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines Actand the workman cannot be deemed to be an employce of party no . 1 (a) , as because , he was sent for vocational training by party no . 1 ( a) .

5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no . I ( a) had engaged M/ s . B.G.M.L , a registered company and a Government of India Enterprises for preparation of underground roads up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine andthe said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 1-1-1993 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.l ( 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 Actwerenot complied with and neither one month'snotice, nor one month's pay in lieu ofthe 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 .

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 " doesnot 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 inwide 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 havedirect 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. I (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 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 PART 11-- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 5212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

precedent it must be held that Section 25-18 ( 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 wouldbe deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Section 25-3 and chapter V- A " .

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 a 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.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC-38 ( M/ s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar ) has held that:

9. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the party no.1 ( b ) is concerned , I think it nécessary 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:

"Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947 S.25 - F, 10 Retrenchment compensation- Termination of services without payment of Dispute referred to Tribunal Case ofworkman/workman that he had worked for 240 dsys 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 proofof receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding histermination . "

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 .

"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 " .

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 .

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).

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in Section 25-1 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 anyrelief.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer 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 5213

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग 11--खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2141.-औद्योगिक विवाद , अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

| सं. एल -22012/364/ 2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Motiram LaxmanJivtode , for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 22012 / 364/2002 - 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 Motiram Laxman Jivtode , is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he isentitled ? "

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June, 2012

S. O. 2141. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 49/2006 of the Cent. Govt . Indus . Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area) ofWCL, WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-6-2012.

[No. L-22012/364/2002 - IR (CM - II )] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Motiram Laxman Jivtode , ("the workman " in short) and the management of the WCL (" Party No. I " in short ) filed its written statement .

Date: 21-05-2012

Case No. CGIT/NGP/49/2006

: The Sub Area Manager , WCL Party No. 1 (a)

Murpar Project of ( UmrerArea) ofWCL, Post : Khadsanghi , Tah-Chimur,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS. )

(b) : M/s . Singh & Sons , WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon , Chhindwara Road , Distt . Nagpur (MS)

Versus

: Shri Motiram Laxman Jivtode, PartyNo. 2

R/o Murpar, Post : Khadsangi, Tehsil: Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur (MS) .

AWARD

(Dated: 21st May, 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act " in The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine atMurpar, 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 18-08-1992 and he continued to work till 2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party no. 1 (b) w.e.f. 05-01-1997 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 hisservices 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 ofwork is available with parties no . 1 ( a ) and 1 (b ) , butthey did not re - employ him in violation of Section 25 -H 5214

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

of the Act . It is further pleaded by the workman that he along with 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 VatMurpar 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 . 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 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 . I ( 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.I .. 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 ofemployer 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 ofthe 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 aflidavit insupport 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 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex -parte against the party no . 1 (a) .

5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no. I ( a ) had engaged M/ s . B.G.M.L. , a registered company and a Government of India Enterprises for preparation of underground roads up to 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 18-08-1992 to 2-07-1996 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 . I 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.c.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 Actwere not complied with and neither one month's notice , nor one month's pay in lieu ofthe notice , nor retrenchment compensation ,was given to the workman and as such , the termination ofthe workman is illegal and such termination amounts to retrenchment and party no.1 (a ) and I ( b ) did not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5215 भारत का राजपत्र : जून23 , 2012/ आषाढ़, 2, 1934

FHence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman ofthe principal employer.

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.

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 : -

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.

" 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 . Thepurport ofthe 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 betweenthe unamended Section 25 13 and the unamended Cl . (b) ofSection 25 -F. No uninterrupted service is necessary itthe 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 . Thelast amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended Section 25-13 ",

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) .

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 istrue 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 orsupervising 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 .

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 baekwards 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 " .

2081 GI/ 12-25 PART II---SEC . 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

5216

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को । 6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The Hon 'Me Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC- 38 ( M /s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

[सं. एल-22012/351/2002 आई आर ( सी एम- II ) |

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012 "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 managementOnus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proofof receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination . "

S.O. 2142. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/ 2006 ofthe Cent . Govt. Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area ) ofWCL , WCL Contractor, Singhnagar , Dahegaon , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-6-2012 .

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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.

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 21-05-2012 .

Case No. CGIT/ NGP /44/2006

Party No. 1 (a): The Sub Area Manager , WCL Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area ) of WCL , Post: Khadsanghi , Tah -Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS) 11. The present case at hand in now to be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciatedby the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out of the workman has been able to prove that he had in fact 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 inthe preceding twelve calendar months of 29-12-2001 , the workman had worked for 240 days .

(b) : M/ s . Singh & Sons , WCL Contractor, Singhnagar , Dahegaon , Chhindwara Road , Distt . Nagpur (MS) Versus

Party No. 2

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.

Shri Maroti Dharamji Dodke , R/ o Murpar, Post : Khadsangi , Tehsil : Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur (MS) . AWARD

(Dated: 21st May, 2012) As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in Section 25F 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 anyrelief.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding , Officer

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Maroti Dharamji Dodke , for adjudication , as per letter No. L-22012/351 /2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 21-03-2006, with the following schedule:-

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2012

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/ s . Singh & Sons Contractor of WCI . in terninating the services of Shri Maroti Dharamji Dodke , is legal and justified? If not , to what relief he is entitled? "

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written का.आ. 2142, औद्योगिक विवाद , अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2006 ) 5217 भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2, 1934

[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

statement and accordingly , the workman Shri Maroti Dharamji Dodke , ( " the workman " in short ) and the management of the WCL (" Party No.1 " in short) filed its written statement .

3. The party no. 1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite ofnotice, 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 ofa 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 32 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 28-2-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months , another contract was given to party no . 1 ( b ) for construction ofdrivage 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.I .. and the contract given to party no . 1 (b ), as they were of having different The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine atMurpar, 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.I .. " 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. 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 Driller on 11-09-1992 and he continued to work till 02-07-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by party no. 1 (b) w.e.f. 05-01-1997 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 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 withand 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 (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 I ( 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 . I was the principal employer and party no.1 (b) was the contractor of party no . 1 ( a), for cach 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 5218

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

Jegal 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 ofSection 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 anyrelief.

4. The workman besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit in support ofhis 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 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex-parte against the party no.1 ( a) .

5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the Icarned 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 up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 11-09-1992 to 02-07-1996 as a Driller and the workman wasagain appointed by party no . I ( b ) from 05-01-1997 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 . I 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 amountsto retrenchment and party no.1 ( a) and I ( 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 MurparColliery by party no . 1 ( a) and BGML engaged him from 11-09-1992 to 02-07-1996 as a Driller 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.l ( 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 thatit 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 employce of party no . I ( 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 inwide terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour isa 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 withthe 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 ofdirect 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.l ( 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 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5219 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication . Hence , it cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.

dateof 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:

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' bleApex court , in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC - 75 ( Employees , Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have 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 infact 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 nowto be considered with the touch stone the principles enunciatedby the Hon 'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out ifthe workınan has been able to prove that he had in fact 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 .

"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 (cee) 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 Actby 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 cither 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 25-13 " .

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC - 1253 (Mehanfal 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) .

12. Except his oral evidence on atlidavit, 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

नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2012

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 mustbe held that Section 25 - B ( 2 ) comprehends a situation where a workman to in employment for a period of 12 calendar months , but has rendered for a period of240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date , i.e. the

का.आ. 2143. औद्योगिक विवाद, अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में . केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

5220

औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 201/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

| सं. एल-22012/227/2001- आई आर (सी एम-11 ) ]

2. On receipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which , the workman , Smt . Gattu Mallu, (" the workman " in short ) filed the statement ofclaim and the management of the WCI . , New Majri Arca (" Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S. O. 2143. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. (201 / 2002) ofthe Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of New Majri U /G Sub Area of WCL and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-6-2012.

[No. L- 22012/227/2001 - IR (CM - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 17-05-2012

Case No. CGIT /NGP/201 /2002

PartyNo. 1 : The Sub Area Manager , New Majri U/G Sub Area ofWCL ., Post: Shivjinagar , Chandrapur(M.S. )

V/s.

Party No. 2 : Smt. Gattu Mallu , At-NewMajri Colliery Dafai No. 2 Post Shivjinagar Chandrapur

AWARD

(Dated: 17th May, 2012)

3. The case of the workman is that vide order dated 23-10-1989 , she was appointed as a clay cartridge Mazdoor in New Majri colliery no. 3 on compassionate ground and was kept under probation for a period of one year and she knew only Telgu language and was not able to understand Hindi language and she completed vocational training from 3-1-1990 to 24-01-1990 and as she was ill , she could not able to attend her duties and was treated by various doctors . but as she was an illiterate lady, she did not obtain any certificate from the concerned doctors and due to her continuous illness , as she could not able to attend her duties , a charge sheet was issued against her on 16-4-1996 , on the allegation of absenteeism and she denied the charges leveled against her and also mentioned that she did not remain absent intentionally and one Shri Deshpande was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the management and the enquiry was conducted on 09-05-1996 and she was represented by her co - worker in the departmental enquiry and before the Enquiry Officer she admitted that she being an illiterate lady had no knowledge regarding submission of application for medical leave , but the enquiry officer failed to give her reasonable opportunity or to guide her to submit the medical certificates and other documents in connection with her treatment for illness and therefore , the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are illegal and perverse and ultimately she was terminated from service vide order dated 22-08-1996 . It is furtherpicaded by the workman that she filed the medical treatment card of colliery hospital during the enquiry, which clearly shows that she was absent for sufficient cause and therefore , termination of her service is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and the misconduct of absenteeism is a minor and technical misconduct and as such , the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against her is disproportionate . The workman has prayed for her reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

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 New Majri U /G Sub Area of WCL and theirworkman, Smt . Gattu Mallu, for adjudication , to CGIT- cum-Labour Court , Nagpur as per letter No. L - 22012/227 / 2001 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 6-9-2002 , with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management in relation to NewMajri Colliery Mine no . 2 New Majri U / G Sub Arca ofWCL interminating the services of Smt . Gattu Mallu , General Mazdoor vide order No. WCL /NMC - 3 /MG/ PER/ 1866/96 dated 20-08-96 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

4. The party no . I in its written statement has pleaded inter - alia that the workman was appointed as a mazdoor in New Majri U / G mine no . 3 and not in Mine no. 2 as mentioned in the schedule of reference and the workman started absenting from duty unauthorisedly, without any sanctioned leave and without any intimation to the management , with effect from 1-4-1994 and as she remained absent for a too long period and there was no intimation from her about her whereabouts and the reason of her absence , charge sheet dated 16-4-1996 was submitted against her under the relevant provisions of the standing orders and the charge sheet was sent to her in her local as 5221 [ भाग खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that perversity of the report has not been challenged by the workman in the statement ofclaim and in the eyes of law , perversity has to be pleaded and proved and the Enquiry Officer has based hisfindings on the evidence led before him during the enquiry and the workman remained absent from duty for more than two years continuously, without any sanctioned leave which is a grave misconduct and such grave misconduct has been proved against her in a properly conducted enquiry and the punishment of termination of her services is not shockingly disproportionate and therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the punishment .

In support of such contentions , the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1972-2182 ( The Benares Electrical and Power Supply Ltd. Vs. Labour Court II , Lucknow ) , 2001 LAB.I.C. 2367 (Syed Rahimuddin Vs. Director General C.S.I.R. ) , 2003 LAB.I.C. 757 (Regional Manager , U.P.S.R.T.C. , Etawah Vs. Hotilal ) and 2008 LAB.I.C. 415( M / s . 1. & T, Komatsu Ltd. Vs.M. Udaykumar) .

8. Perused the record . The Enquiry Officer has based his findings on the materials on record of the enquiry and he has assigned cogent reasons in support of his findings and the findings o.f the Enquiry Officer cannot be held to be findings based on no evidence . Hence , the findings of theEnquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse .

9. So far the proportionality of the punishment is concerned , grave misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. Applying the principles enunciated by the Han'ble Apex Caurt in the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 as mentioned above , to the present case in hand , it is found that the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate . Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the punishment . Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

well as home address , as declared by her in the service records and she was asked to submit her explanation within 72hours of the receipt ofthe charge sheet, but the workman did not submit any explanation to the charges leveled against her within the stiupulated time and therefore, it was decided to get the charges enquired into, through a departmental enquiry and accordingly, vide order dated 29-4-1996, Shri P.S. Despande was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the workman was advised by the letter of the enquiry officer to attend the enquiry on the date , time and place as fixed by him and the enquiry was fixed to 9-5-1996 and the workman attended the enquiry on 9-5-1996 along with her co-worker and the enquiry officer read over and explained the charges to the workman and the workman did not admit the charges and thereafter, the procedure of the enquiry was explained to the parties by the enquiry officer and then, the management representative was asked to present his case and the management representative produced the documents and gave his statement regarding the unauthorized absence of the workman and though the workman was given opportunity to put question to the management representative , no question was put to him and the workman in her own statement gave out that she did not attend her duty due to sickness and initially, she was treated at the company's hospital and as she was not cured , she was treated by the private doctors and she also filed the prescription given by the doctor of the company and she was cross - examined by the management representative and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the manager, holding the workman guilty of the charge and considering the seriousness of the charges proved against her in a fair and proper enquiry, her services , were terminated by the colliery manager, vide order dated 23-08- 1996 with the approval of the competent authority and the departmental enquiry held against the workman was fair. and proper and the workman fully participated in the enquiry and reasonable opportunity was given to her to defend herself and in her cross - examination , she admitted that except the prescription given by the company's hospital , she had no other document to file and the findings are not perverse and the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of charges proved against her and the workman isnot entitled for any relief.

The action of the management in relation to New Majri CollieryMine no. 2 New Majri U / G Sub Area ofWCL . in terminating the services of Smt. Gattu Mallu , General Mazdoor vide order No. WCL/NMC - 3 / MG/ PER/ 1866/96 dated 20-08-96 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitledto any relief.

J. P. CHAND . Presiding Officer 5. It is necessary to mention here that after filing of written statement by the management, the workman did not appear in the case and the case proceeded ex - parte against her.

नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2012

6. As this is a case of termination of the services of the workman , after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken for consideration as a preliminary issue and as per order dated 28-09-2011 , the enquiry was held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

का.आ. 2144.-औद्योगिक विवाद, अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

7. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the [ PART 11-SEC . 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ ASADHA 2 , 1934

5222

अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

| सं. एल-22012/ 207/2003 आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

2. Being noticed, the union , Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (" the union " in short ) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , Shri Mehtab ( " the workman " in short ) and the management of WCL Pench Area ("Party no . 1 " in short) filed the written statement .

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S. O. 2144. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Coal fields Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-6-2012 .

[No. L-22012/207/2003 - IR (CM - II ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 11-05-2012

Case No. CGIT/NGP /42/2004

PartyNo. 1: The Chief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited , Pench Area, Post: ---- Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara , MP

Versus

Party No. 2 The General Secretary , Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC ) , Post : Chandametta , Distt . Chhindwara, MP

AWARD

(Dated: 11th May, 2012)

The case of the workman as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that the workman as working as a general mazdoor at Mahadeopuri colliery and he could not attend his duties for the period from 09-04-99 to 30-03-2000 , due to his physical sickness and during the said period, he was undergoing treatment in the governinent hospital , Chhindwara and after being declared fit , he joined duties and submitted the medical certificate in support of his illness and he was allowed to join duties , but all of a sudden , he was served with a charge sheet dated 28-03-2000 and one Shri S.N. Verma was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges leveled against him in the charge sheet and Shri Verma submitted his findings on 20-06-2000 , holding the charges to have been proved against him and on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 16-08-2000 , awarded the punishment of termination of the services of the workman and as such , his services were terminated w.e.f. 16-08-2000 . The further case of the workman as present by the union is that the workman was an illiterate person and he did not know about the procedure of the departmental enquiry and , on perusal of the proceedings of the enquiry, it could be found that the entire departmental enquiry was just a formality and the management was predetermined to terminate his services and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the Disciplinary Authority also did not bother to see that the findings were prima- facie perverse and imposed the punishment , mechanically and therefore , the same is liable to be set aside and in the enquiry, though he produced the medical certificate , the enquiry officer did not consider the same and completed the formality and declared the charges to have been proved and the enquiry officer did not give any cogent reason in support of his conclusions and no show cause notice was given to him , before passing of the impugned punishment and the opportunity of personal hearing was also not given to him by the Disciplinary Authority and there was violation of principles of natural justice and as such , the enquiry was illegal and not proper .

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) ofsub- 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 Pench Area and their workman , Shri Mehtab , for adjudication , as per letter No. L-22012/ 107/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 24-3-2004, with the schedule in Hindi Language , the English Version of which is as follows:

3. The party no . 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter- alia that the workman was a habitual absentee and he used to remain absent from duty unauthorisedly, without intimation or permission or sanctioned leave and he was given ample opportunities to improve his conduct, but he did not show any interest in his duties and reported for duties according to his wish and desire, considering the concession shown to him as a weakness of the management and he attended duties only for 118 days , 87 days , and 36 days in 1997, 98 and 1999 respectively and he was issued withwarnings in the past for his unauthorized absenteeism .

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager , Western Colalfield Limited, Pench Area , Post : Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara , M.P. in terminating the services ofShri Mehtab , general mazdoor , Mahadeo Colliery, w.e.f. 16-08-2000 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

5223 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

cogent reasons have been assigned by the enquiry officer for coming to the conclusions in the findings and as such, the findings are perverse and ought not to have been relied, for the purpose of awarding punishment of termination and before awarding the punishment , no show cause notice was given to the workman the opportunity of personal hearing was also not given and the impugned order have been passed without following the principles of natural justice and for that , the order impugned is liable to be set aside and punishment imposed against the workman is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges levelcd against him and as such , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages and other consequential benefits .

It is further pleaded by the party no.1 that the workman absented from duty unauthorisedly and without any intimation , permission or sanctioned leave from 09-04-1999 and accordingly, he was issued with the charge sheet dated 28-03-2000 , under clause 26.30 of the Standing Orders and the workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet and he was permitted to resume duties vide order no . 301 dated 28-03-2000 , pending disciplinary action and as the reply of the workman was found to be unsatisfactory, it was decided to conduct a departmental enquiry and accordingly Shri S. N. Verma was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Shri A. Dutt was appointed as the management representative and the enquiry was held on different dates and the workman and his co - worker, Shri Prem Singh participated in the enquiry throughout and both the parties were given opportunities to lead evidence, cross - examine the witnesses of each other and both the parties availed full opportunity by leading oral and documentary evidence and the proceedings of the enquiry were signed by the workman and his co - worker, besides the enquiry officer and management representative and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the workman guilty of the charges and the Disciplinary Authority examined the report of the enquiry officer with reference to the relevant documents on record and being satisfied about the correctness ofthe conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer, agreed with his findings and show cause notice was issued to the workman vide letter no . 2191 dated 28-07-2000, along with the copy ofthe enquiry report and as no satisfactory reply was received from the workman , his services were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority vide order no . 2227 dated 16-08-2000 and the enquiry held against the workman is legal , proper and justified and the enquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice and the findings are not perverse .

4. 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 as a preliminary issue for consideration and as per order dated 02-08-2011 , the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice .

6. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. I that as per order dated 02-08-2011 , the enquiry conducted against the workınan has already been held to be proper, valid and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and neither the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse nor the punishment imposed against the workman is shockingly disproportionate and had the workman been really sick, then he would have reported to the medical officer of the company and availed the free medical treatment as provided by the Coal Industry to its employees and even otherwise also, it ismandatory for the workman to report sick to the medical officer for availing sick leave and the workman neither reported sick to the medical officer nor availed treatment from the colliery hospital nor gave any information of his sickness to the management and the findings of the enquiry officer are very specific and the same are based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry and reasons have been assigned for arriving at the conclusions and the punishment of termination imposed against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved grave misconduct , in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. It was also submitted that the workman was issued with a show cause notice vide letter no. 2191 dated 28-07-2000 alongwith a copy of the enquiry report and as no satisfactory reply was received from the workman , the competent authority decided to impose the punishment of termination from services against the workman and there is no provision in theCertified Standing Orders to give the scope of personal hearing to the workman before imposing the punishment and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. It is well settled that the strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental enquiry and such enquiry is bound by fair play and natural justice and only total absence, but not sufficiency of evidence can be taken as a ground for interference by court and in a case , where there is no defect in procedure in the course of a domestic enquiry into the charges for misconduct against an employee , the Tribunal can interfere with an order only, where the findings are perverse or where there is no prima- 5. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and disciplinary authority also did not bother to see that findings of the enquiry officer areprima - facie perverse and went on passing the order of termination and the absence of the workmanfrom duty was on the ground of his sickness and for the reasons beyond his control and he took proper treatment from the Government hospital , as the treatment in the company's hospital was not proper and was very poor and the workman produced the medical certificate in support of his illness in the enquiry, but the enquiry officer did not consider the reasons of absence of the workman and no

2081 G1 /12-26 [PART 11-SEC : 3 (ii) ] 5224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 / ASADHA 2, 1934 ..

facie case and in such a case , the Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal , weighing or re - appreciating the evidence itself. but only examines the findings of the enquiry officer on the evidence in the domestic enquiry as it is .

10. So far the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, grave misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. The punishment imposed against the workman cannot said to be shockingly disproportionate . Hence , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman. Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

8. Judging with the touch stone of the settled principles as mentioned above to the present case at hand, it is found from the materials on record that this is not a case of no evidence and that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer has analyzed the evidence in a rational and logical manner and cogent reasons have been assigned for not accepting the evidence adducedby the workman in support of his illness and treatment.

The action of Chief General Manager , Western Colalfield Limited , Pench Area, Post : Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara M.P. in terminating the services of Shri Mehtab , general mazdoor , Mahadeo Colliery , w. e . f. 16-08-2000 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled toany relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून . 2012

का.आ. 2145.-औद्योगिक विवाद . अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01 06 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल 22012/394/2002 आई आर ( सीएम 11 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S. O. 2145.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 58/2006 ) of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court . Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area ) ofWCL , WCL Contractor , Singhnagar, Dahegaon , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 01-06-2012 .

[No. 1-22012394/ 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) | RAMESH SINGLI , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The workman has admitted that he was absent from duty from 09-04-1999 to 13-03-2000. However , his plea for such absence was that he was ill during that period and was under treatment at Government hospital . Chhindwara . In support of his plea , the workman had produced Xerox copies of medical certificates alleged to be issued by the Asst. Surgeon of the said hospital . On perusal of the said certificates , it is found that nothing has been mentioned in the certificates as to whether the workman was treated as anjoutdoor or indoor patient in the hospital . The certificate regarding "taking of 8 months time for restoration of the health of the workman w.e.f. 13-07-1999 " has not been signedby thedoctor. It appears that the said certificate is noi a genuine certificate . Such finding finds support from the certificate of fitness filed by the workman which was issued on 19-07-1999 (as found from the date given below the signature of the doctor even though the date 09-07-1999 has been mentioned against the column "Date " . According to the said certificate the workman was found fitto join duty w.e.f. 19-07-1999 . If the workman was found fit for resuming duty w.e.f. 19-07-1999 ; there was no question of issuing another certificate by the same doctor that about eight months time was required for recovery of the workman w.e.f. 13-07-1999 . In view of the facts of filing of suspiciousdocuments by the workman in support ofhis illness and treatment and his not intimating the medical officer of the company's hospital regarding his illness and not availing free treatment in the company's hospital , it cannot be said that the workman was prevented by sufficient cause for not attending duty.

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 21-5-2012

Case No.CGIT/ NGP / 58/ 2006

On perusal of the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry, it is found that it is also not a case where no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion of guilt made out against the workman. Hence , the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.

Party No. 1 ( a) : The Sub Area Manager , WCI . Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area ) of WCL.. Post: Khadsanghi . Tah -Chimur . Distt . Chandrapur ( MS ) .

9. It is also found from record that the workman was supplied with the copy of the enquiry report as per letter dated 28-07-2000 , under the provision of the Standing Orders.

5225 [ भाग II--- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

(b): M/s . Singh & Sons , WCL Contractor , Singhnagar, Dahegaon , Chhindwara Road , Distt . Nagpur ( MS )

VERSUS

Party No. 2 : Shri Ganpat Bapurao Rajurkar, R/o Murpar, Post : Khadsangi , Tehsil : Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur (MS) .

AWARD

(Dated: 21st May, 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) arid 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 Bapurao Rajurkar , for adjudication , as per letter No. L-22012/394/ 2002 - 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 Ganpat Bapurao Rajurkar, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ? "

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. I ( 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. I ( a) and 1 ( b ) , butthey did not re - employ him in violation of Section 25-11 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 . I 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 . I (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 .

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 Ganpat Bapurao Rajurkar, (" the workman " in short) and the management of the WCL (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .

In its written statement , the party no . 1 ( a) has pleaded Inter - alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.I .. 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. I( a) that as perthe provisions of the Mines Act , every person , whether [PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii )| THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

5226

no.1 (b) w.c.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 ofthe Actwere 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 .

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 ofthe 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 Karnatak 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 .

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 engagedby M / s . B.G.M.I ... who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of MurparColliery by party no . 1 (a) and BGML engaged him from 10-06-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by party no . 1 ( b ) , another contractor from 01-01-1997 to 28-12-2001 .

4. The workman besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit insupport 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 08-11-2011 , " no cross" order was passed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex - parte against the party no . 1 (a ) .

8. It iswell 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 withthe principal employer as a servant of master. But that istrue 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 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 up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 10-06-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the workman was again appointed by party no. 1 (b ) from 01-01-1997 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 . I (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 5227 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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 periodof240days 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 wouldbe deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Section 25-13 and Chapter V- A".

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 ofthe principal employer.

The Hon ' ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC - 38 (M/s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that :

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 :-

"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 inpreceding 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 ifthe workman has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least for 240 days in a year preceding his termination . According 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 240days .

"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 of240days 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 oftwelve 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" .

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 12months of29-12-2001 . Thus the workman has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him .

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).

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 25-1 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.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

नई दिल्ली, 1 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2146.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2006 ) 'को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012/363/2002- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] L-22012/363/2002 - 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 Pitamber Shyamrao Deshmukh , is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled ? "

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the Ist June , 2012

S.O. 2146.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2006 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 1-6-2012 .

[No. L- 22012/363 /2002 - IR ( CM - II) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 21-5-2012 Case No. CGIT/NGP/48/2006

PartyNo. 1 (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

MurparProject 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

PartyNo. 2 : Shri Pitamber Shyamrao Deshmukh , R/o Minzhari , Post: Khadsangi , Tehsil : Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur (MS) .

AWARD

(Dated: 21st May, 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman Shri Pitamber Shyamrao Deshmukh, for adjudication , as per letter No. 2.Onreceipt ofthe reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Pitamber Shyamrao Deshmukh , (" the workman " in short ) and the management of the WCL ( "Party No. I " in short) filed its written statement .

The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine atMurpar, 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. 05-01-1997 and till party no. 1 (b) is working with party no. 1 (a) for the purpose ofpreparing the underground roads for functioning of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a General Mazdoor on 12-8-1993 and he continued to work till 2-7-1996 and thereafter , his services were utilized by party no . 1 (b) w.e.f. 05-01-1997 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 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 ofnotice, 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 , morethan 700 workers were working with parties no . 1 ( a ) and (b) , they did not prepare and publish final senioritylist 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 ofsection 25 -G of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time ofhis 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 healongwith other workers had submitted charter of various

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ] [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) |
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934 5229
$230
demand to the parties no . 1 (a) and 1 (b) , but they did not workman is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement stand taken by workman that he had been working under
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before 6. It iswell settled that ifa party challenges the legality
ofan order, the burden lie upon him to prove the illegality in service as he was a temporary workman . thecontractors . It would , thus , in my opinion not lie in his
the ALC( C) Chandrapur and for the said reason , his services of the order and if no evidence is produced , the party mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
with many other workers were terminated and wages for The further case of party no . 1 (a) is that it has been he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
December 2001 was not paid to him and as party no . I was invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail . So , in this entering into various contracts with various persons and raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
the principal employer and party no.1 (b ) was the contractor case, even if the case proceeded exparte against parties each and every contract is an independent contract, which law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
of party no . 1 (a) , for each and every act of the party no.1 no . 1 (a) and 1 (b) still then, the workman is to discharge the cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
(b ), the party no.1 (a) was responsible and as such , the burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he is between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
entitled for the reliefs claimed by him. given to party no. 1 (b) , as they were of having different
party no . 1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination . The ofthe principal employer .
workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with 7. In this case, it is the admitted case of the workman legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman 9. So far the termination of the services of the
continuity and full back wages . that he was engaged by M/ s . B.G.M.L. , who was given for doing separate works , the workman did not become
contract for construction of roads in the underground of permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never workman by the party no. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it
3. The party no.1 ( a) resisted the claim by filing its any relationship of employer and employee between it and necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
written statement . It is necessary to mention here that in Murpar Colliery by party no. 1 (a) and BGML engaged him Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard , before embarking upon
from 12-08-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the workman and he was never in its employment and as
spite of notice , party no . 1 (b) neither appeared in the case the discussion of the merit of the case .
nor contested the claim . that he was again engaged by party no . 1 (b) , another such , there was no question of compliance of the principles
contractor from 05-01-1997 to 28-12-2001 . It is never the case ofsection 25 - F, 25 -G or H of the Act or payment ofwages The Hon'ble Apex Court , in the decision reported in
In its written statement, the party no . 1 (a) has of the workman that he was engaged or appointed by party by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for AIR 1966 SC -75 (Employees , Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
pleaded inter - alia that it had entered into a contract with no . 1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that party no . 1 anyrelief. workmen) have held that: -
B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation , for construction (a) had sent him for vocational training and he had under 4. The workman besides placing reliance on "Though section 25 -F speaks of continuous service
of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal gone the training successfully. In support of such claim , documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit for not less than one year under the employer, if the
mineof Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the workman has filed the Xerox copy of the certificate insupport of his claim . It is necessary to mention here that workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period
the open excavation work was to be completed within a granted in his favour for undergoing the vocational training as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no . 1 ( a) to of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled .
period of 3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within from 02-09-1993 to 29-09-1993. It is necessaryto mention cross-examine the workman , on 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order The definition of " Continuous Service " need not be read
cight months and it also awarded another contract to here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational training for waspassed and order was also passed to proceed with the into section 25-B . The fiction converts service of 240 days
party no . 1 ( b ) for construction of drivage of a pair of any person, who works underground in a coal mine in any case ex -parte against the party no . 1 (a) . in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous
incline shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone capacity and it is the statutory duty of the management of service for one complete year. The amended section 25 - B
from seam VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the the coal mine to arrange for such vocational training as per 5.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the only consolidates the provisions of section 25 (B ) and 2(eee)
theMines Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be learned advocate for the workman that party no . 1 (a) had in one place , adding some other matters . The purport of
date of commencement and completion were 01-01-1997
and 28-02-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months , an employee ofparty no . 1 (a), as because , he was sent for engaged M /s . B.G.M.L , a registered company and a the new provisions , however, is not different . In fact , the
another contract was given to party no . 1 (b ) for vocational training by party no . 1 (a). Government of India Enterprises for preparation of amendment of section 25 - F of the principal Act by
underground roads up to the boarder of coal in Murpar substituting in clause (b) the words " for every completed
construction ofdrivage of incline shaft at Murpar project 8. It iswell settled that by virtue of engagement of Coal Mine andthe said contract was from the year 1992 to
and the dates of commencement and completion of the contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in year of continuous service " has removed a discordance
said contract were 29-05-1999 and 01-12-2001 respectively 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman between the unamended section 25 B and the unamended
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be from 12-08-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the
and it [ party no . 1 ( a) ] was related to party no . 1 ( b) only said that the relationship of master and servant is created Cl. (b) ofsection 25 -F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
as per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible workman was again appointed by party no.1 (b) from 05- itthe total service is 240 days in a period oftwelve calendar
between the principal employer and the contract labour. 01-1997 to 28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for
for providing employees to the contractors and it was the Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms months either before the several changes or after these.
vocational training by party no . 1 (a) and as such , the The only change in the Act is that this service must be
duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per "contract, labour " , "establishment " and " workman " does
their need . It is further pleaded by the party no . 1 ( a) that workman was the employee of party no. 1 and party no . 1 during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the
not show that a legal relationship between a person (a) is the principal employer and the appointment of the date with reference to which calculation has to be made .
as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person , employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
whether employed by the principal employer or the workman by both the contractors was oral appointment The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which
created irrespective ofthe fact as to who has brought about and the services ofthe workman were terminated by party existed in the unamended section 25- B " .
contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent such relationship . The word " workman " is defined in wide no.1 ( b) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
capacity, to work in an underground mine , is required to terms . It is a generic term of which contract labour is a In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC - 1253
more than 240 days with the party rio: 1 (6) , preceding his
be imparted vocational training by the principal employer species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms termination and before the termination of the services of (Mehanlal Vs. M/s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. ) , the Hon 'ble
and the cost of the training is borne by the contractor "establishment " and workman shows that a workman Apex Court have held that,
the workman , mandatory provisions of section 25 - F ofthe
concerned and the engagement of the labourers was the engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship "Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) . Section 25 - b
job of the contractor and it was no way involved in the Actwere not complied with and neither one month's notice,
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that nor one month's pay in lieu of the notice , nor retrenchment (1) and (2)- Continuous service -Scope of sub- sections (1)
matter and no document has been produced by the istrue ofa workman could not be correct of contract labour. compensation was given to the workman and as such , the and (2) is different , (words and phrases -Continuous
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and termination ofthe workman is illegal and such termination Service).
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation ofdirect amounts to retrenchment and party no . 1 ( a) and 1 (b) did
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman relationship of master and servant between the principal Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the not prepare and publish the seniority list as required under being not in consonance with Section 25 - F, he has to show
show that he was appointed by party no . 1 (b) for contract Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957, even
works at Murpar project , as a temporary contingent lobour pleadings ofthe workman in the statement of claim and so that he has been in continuous service for not less than
though more than 700 workers were working with them in one year under that employer , who has retrenched him
inthe project and in view of the principles enunciatedby also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never various category and as such , there was violation of the
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka employed by the party no.1 (a) and he was employed by from service. Section 25- B as the dictionary clause for the
provisions of section 25-G of the Act and therefore, the expression " continuous " . Both in principle and are
Vs. Umadevi , Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish the contractors and the party no.1 (a) was not controlling workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
Jayanti [ 2006 (2 ) SCALE 115 ] and many others , the or supervising the work of the workman . It is the definite continuity and full back wages . precedent it must be held that section 25- B (2) comprehends

5231

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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 service 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 ofproofof receipt ofsalary 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.

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/352/2002- आईआर (सीएम- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S.O. 2147. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2006 ) ofthe 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, WCLContractor , Singhnagar , Dahegaon , and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 1-6-2012 .

[No. L- 22012/352/2002 - IR (CM - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 21-5-2012 Case No.CGIT/NGP/45/2006

Party No.1 (a) : The

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 ifthe 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 workedfor 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 .

14.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 anyrelief.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, । जून , 2012

का.आ. 2147.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल.

2081 GI /12-27

Sub Area Manager , WCL MurparProject of ( Umrer Area) ofWCL , Post: Khadsanghi , Tah - Chimur , Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

(b) : M/s . Singh & Sons , WCLContractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon , Chhindwara Road, Distt . Nagpur (MS) Versus

PartyNo. 2 : Shri Nana Laxman Sarpate , R/o Murpar , Post: Khadsangi , Tehsil : Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur(MS). AWARD (Dated: 21st May, 2012).

Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management ofWCL and their workman Shri Nana Laxman Sarpate, for adjudication , as per letter No.1-22012/ 352/2002- 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 Nana Laxman Sarpate , is legal and justified . If not ,to what relief he is entitled?"

2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written [ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2 , 1934

5232

statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Nana Laxman Sarpate, ( " the workman " in short) and the management of the WCL ( " Party No.1 " in short ) filed its written statement.

3. The party no.1 ( a) resisted the claim by filing its writtenstatement . It is necessary to mention here that inspite of notice , party no.1 ( b ) neither appeared in the case nor contested the claim .

4. 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 shalt 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 32 months and the incline shaft drivagewithin 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 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 reinstatemen t in service as he was a temporary workman .

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 . I ( 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.I. as a General Mazdoor on 19-8-1993 and he cpntinued to work till 2-7-1996 and thereafter, his services were utilizedby party no- 1 ( b ) w.e.f. 05-01-1997 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 he is a workman employee of party no . 1 (a) and party no . I ( 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 provisroris of Section 25 - F ofthe 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 , thore 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 25-11 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 . I was the principal employer and party no. I ( 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

5233 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/ आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

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 ofSection 2S - F, 25 -G or H of the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for anyrelief.

4. The workman besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit insupport ofhis claim . It is necessary to mention here that as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no. 1 (a) to cross-examinethe workman , on 8-11-2011 , " no cross " order waspassed and order was also passed to proceed with the case ex-parte against the party no. 1 (a) .

Murpar colliery by party no.1 ( a) and BGML engaged him from 19-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a Generał 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 undergone 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 , whoworks underground in a coal mine in any capacity and it isthe 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) .

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 up to the boarder of coal in Murpar CoalMine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman from 19-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the workman was again appointed by party no . 1 (b ) from 5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 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 rio . 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 ofthe Actwere 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 ofthe 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 iswell settled that if a party challenges the legality ofanorder, 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.

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 all' establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that istrue 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. I ( 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 plca 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 ofthe principal employer.

9. So far the termination of the services of the workman by the party no . 1 ( b) is concerned , I think it 7. In this case, it is the admitted case ofthe workman that he was engaged by M / s . B.G.M.L. , who was given contract for construction of roads in the underground of PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2 , 1934

5234

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: -

"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 240days in a year preceding his termination Claimdenied by management-Onus lies upon workman to show that he had infactworked for 240 days in a year - In absence of proofof 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 necessaryto prove that the workman worked for 240 days inpreceding 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 ifthe 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 .

"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 calandar 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 " .

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 .

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC- 1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M / s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. ) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that,

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in Section 25-1F 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.

"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) ..

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any releif.

J. P. CHAND . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2012

का.आ. 2148.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

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 , 1.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 ".

| सं. एल 22012/361/2002 आईआर ( सीएम ।। ) | रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC - 38 ( M / s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar ) has held that:

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5235

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S.O. 2148. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 46/2006) 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 1-6-2012 .

[No. L-22012/361 /2002- IR(CM- II)]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP/ 46/2006

Date: 21-5-2012

PartyNo.l (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL

Murpar Project of ( Umrer Area) ofWCL, 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 Shankar Keshavrao Parchake , R/ o Murpar, Post: Khadsangi , Tehsil: Chimur, Distt . Chandrapur(MS) . AWARD (Dated: 21st May, 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relationto the management of WCL and their workman Shri Shankar Keshavrao Parchake , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012/361 /2002 - IR (CM - II )dated 21-3-2006, with the following scheduler :-

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/ s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Shankar Keshavrao Parchake , is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ? "

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. 5-01-1997 and till party no . 1 (b) isworking with party no. I (a) for the purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning ' of- the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.I. , as a General Mazdoor on 21-09-1993 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 he is a workman / employee of party no . I (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.c.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'swages 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 th workers including himself, at least seven days prior to th termination , as provided under Rule 77 of the Indus Disputes(Central ) Rules , 1957 and there was no complia ofSection 25-G of the Act and the termination of h services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of hi retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now also , plenty ofwork 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 su mitted charter of various demandto 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 wagesfor 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 .

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 Shankar Keshavrao Parchake , (" the workman " in short ) and the management of the WCL ( " Party No.1 " in short) filed its written statement .

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 .

The case of the workman is that there is a coal mine at .Murpar, which is known as " W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project "

In its written statement , the party no.1 ( a) has pleaded inter -alia that it had entered into a contract with

2081 GI /12-28

                                                                                                   PART 11 - SEC. 3( ii ) |
5236                  THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012/ASADHA 2, 1934
B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction  ofwages by it to the workman and the workman is not
                                                             entitled for any relief.
ofa pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal
mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract,           4. The workman besides placing reliance on
the open excavation work was tobe completed within a         documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit
 period of 3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within     in support of his claim . It is necessary to mention here that
eightmonths and it also awarded another contract to party     as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no.1 ( a ) to
 no . 1 ( b ) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline cross - examine the workman , on 08-11-2011 , " no cross "
 shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from         order was passed and order was also passed to proceed
 seam VII to seam V at Murpar Project of which the date       with the case ex -parte against the party no.1 ( a) .
 of commencement and completion were 1-1-1997 and                   5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the
 28-2-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months ,        learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 ( a ) had
 another contract was given to party no . 1 ( b ) for         engaged M /s . B.G.M.L , a registered company and a
 construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar Project   Government of India Enterprises for preparation of
 and the dates of commencement and completion of the          underground roads up to the boarder of coal in Murpar
 said contract were 29-5-1999 and 1-12-2001 respectively       Coal Mine and the said contract was from the year 1992 to
 and it [party no. 1 ( a ) ] was related to party no . 1 ( b ) only 1996 and the said company had appointed the workman
 as per the terms of contract and it was not at all           from 21-9-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and the
 responsible for providing employees to the contractors       workman was again appointed by party no . 1 ( b ) from
  and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint the       5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 and the workman was sent for
 employees as per their need . It is further pleaded by the    vocational training by party no.1 ( a ) and as such, the
  party no.l ( a ) that as per the provisions of the Mines    workman was the employee of party no . I and party no . 1
 Act , every person , whether employed by the principal        (a) is the principal employer and the appointment of the
  employer or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity    workman by both the contractors was oral appointment
  or in permanent capacity, to work in an underground          and the services of the workinan were terminated by party
  mine, is required to be imparted vocational training by      no.1 (b ) w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and the workman had worked for
  the principal employer. and the cost of the training is      more than 240 days with the party no . 1 ( b ) , preceding his
  borne by the contractor concerned and the engagement         termination and before the termination of the services of
  of the labourers was the job of the contractor and it        the workman , mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F of
  was no way involved in the matter and no document            the Act were not complied with and neither one month's
  has been produced by the workman to show that he             notice, nor one month's pay in lieu of the notice , nor
  wasappointed by it and the contractor had appointed          retrenchment compensation was given to the workman
  the workman till the completion of the contract and          and as such , the termination of the workman is illegal and
  the documents filed by the workman show that he was          such termination amounts to retrenchment and party no. 1
  appointed by party no.l ( b ) for contract works at          (a) and 1 (b) did not prepare and publish the seniority list
  Murpar Project , as a temporary contingent labour in          as required under Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes ( Central )
  the project and in view of the principles enunciated         Rules , 1957 , even though more than 700 workers were
  by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of            working with them in various category and as such , there
  Karnataka Vs. Umadevi , Union Public Service                 was violation of the provisions of Section 25 -G of the Act
                                                                and therefore , the workman is entitled to reinstatement in
   Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [ 2006 ( 2 ) SCALE 115 ]
   and many others , the workman is not entitled for            service with continuity and full back wages .
   regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a            6. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
  temporary workman.                                            legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
                                                                illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced , the
        Thefurther case of party no.1 (a ) is that it has been
                                                                party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail . So , in
   entering into various contracts with various persons and     this case , even if the case proceeded exparte against parties
   each and every contract is an independent contract , which   no . 1 ( a ) and 1 ( b ) still then , the workman is to discharge
   cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
                                                                the burden by adducing evidence to show that legally he
   between the contract given to B.G.M.L .. and the contract    isentitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
   given to party no.1 (b) , as they were of having different         7. In this case , it is the admitted case of the workman
   legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
                                                                that he was engaged by M/ s . B.G.M.I ... who was given
    for doing separate works , the workman did not become
                                                                contract for construction of roads in the underground of
   permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
   any relationship of employer and employee between it         Murpar Colliery by party no . 1 ( a) and BGMI . engaged him
                                                                from 21-9-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a General Mazdoor and that
   and the workman and he was never in its employment and
   as such , there was no question of compliance of the         he was again engaged by party no . 1 ( b ) , another
                                                                contractor from 5-1-1997 to 28-12-2001 .
   principles of Sections 2S - F, 2S -G or H of the Act , or payınent

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5237

भारत का राजपत्र जून 23 , 2012/ आषाढ़ 2, 1934

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 inwide terms . It is a generic term ofwhich 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 thatis 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 ofdirect 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.l ( 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 .

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 25-1 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 240days 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(cec) 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 25B 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 25-1 , 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 yearpreceding his termination. "

10. So , it is clear from the principles enunciatedby the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of Section 25F of the Act , it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months cominencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman.

[PART 11 -SEC. 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 /ASADHA 2, 1934

5238

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 21-5-2012

Case No.CGIT/NGP / 47/2006

Party No.l (a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL MurparProject of ( Umrer Area) ofWCI . , Post: Khadsanghi , Tah - Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS) 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 .

(b) : M/ s . Singh & Sons , WCLContractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon, Chhindwara Road, Distt . Nagpur (MS)

Versus

PartyNo. 2:

Shri Bandu Motiram Choudhari , R/o Murpar, Post : Khadsangi , Tehsil: Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur(MS) .

AWARD (Dated: 21st May, 2012)

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 anyrelief.

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 ofIndustrial 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 Bandu Motiram Choudhari for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/362/ 2002 - IR (CM - II ) dated 21-03-2006, with the following schedule :-

नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2012

"Whether the action of the management of WCL and M/ s . Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Bandu Motiram Choudhari , is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ? "

का.आ. 2149.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 क़ा 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

| सं . एल-22012/ 362/2002- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]

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 Bandu Motiram Choudhari , ( " the workman " in short ) and the management of the WCL ( " Party No.1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2012

S.O. 2149. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 47/ 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 1-6-2012.

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.c. Sub - Area Manager, Murpar Project and party no.1 ( a ) engaged M/s . Bharat GoldMines 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.I. as a Driller on [No. 1-22012/362/ 2002 - IR (CM - II ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

    [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]                भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23 , 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934                       5239
    11-08-1993 and he continued to work till 2-7-1996 and
                                                               commencement and completion were 01-01-1997 and
    therafter, his services were utilized by party no.1 (b )  28-02-1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months ,
   w.e.f. 05-01-1997 continuously till 28-12-2001 and he is    another contract was given to party no. 1 (b) for
    a workman /employee of party no.1 (a) and party no.1       construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar
   (a) is the principal employer and his appointment by        project and the dates of commencement and completion
   both the contractors was oral and the party no.1 (b)        of the said contract were 29-05-1999 and 01-12-2001
   terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29-12-2001 and he    respectively and it (party no . 1 (a) ) was related to party
   had worked for more than 240days preceding to his           no.. 1 ( b) only as per the terms of contract and it was
   termination and while terminating his services , mandatory not at all responsible for providing employees to the
   provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act were not complied   contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to
   with and neither one month's notice , nor one month's      appoint the employees as per their need . It is further
   wages in lieu of notice , nor retrenchment compensation    pleaded by the party no.1 ( a ) that as per the provisions
   was paid to him by parties no.1 ( a) and (b) and as such , of the Mines Act , every person , whether employed by
   terminaation of his services is illegal and though at the  the principal employer or the contractor, whether in a
   time of his termination , more than 700 workers were       casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to work in
  working with parties no.1 (a) and (b ), they did not        an underground mine, is required to be imparted
  prepare and publish final seniority list of all the workers voçational training by the principal employer and the
   including himself, at least seven days prior to the        cost of the training is borne by the contractor
  termination , as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial   concerned and the engagement of the labourers was
  Disputes( Central ) Rules , 1957 and there was no compliance the job of the contractor and it was no way involved
  of Section 25-G of the Act and the termination of his
  services amounted to retrenchment and at the time of his    in the matter and no document has been produced by
                                                              the workman to show that he was appointed by it and
  retrenchment , plenty of work was available and now also,   the contractor had appointed the workman till the
  plenty of work is available with parties no . 1 (a) and I   completion of the contract and the documents filed by
  (b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of Section the workman show that he was appointed by party
  25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman       no.l( b) for contract works at Murpar project , as a
  that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter      temporary contingent labour in the project and in view
  of various demand to the parties no.1 ( a) and I (b ), but ofthe principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
  they did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was   in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi , Union
  pending before the ALC ( c ) Chandrapur and for the said   Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [ 2006 ( 2 )
  reason, his services with many other workers were          SCALE 115 ] and many others , the workman is not
  terminated and wages for December 2001 was not paid        entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
  to him and as party no.1 was the principal employer and    as he was a temporary workman .
  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) The further case of party no.1 ( a) is that it has
 was responsible and as such , the party no.1 ( a) is        beenentering into various contracts with various persons
 responsible for his illegal termination . The workman has   and each and every contract is an independent contract .
 prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity    which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was
 and full back wages .                                       no nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.I .. and
                                                            the contract given to party no.1 ( b ) , as they were of
       3. The party no.1 ( a) resisted the claim by filing   having different legal entities and if they had engaged
 its written statement . It is necessary to mention here    the same workman for doing separate works , the workman
 that in spite of notice , party no.1 ( b ) neither appeared did not become permanent or entitle for regularization
 in the case nor contested the claim .
                                                            and there was never any relationship of employer and
       In its written statement , the party no.1 (a) has    employee between it and the workman and he was never
 pleaded inter -alia that it had entered into a contract    in its employment and as such , there was no question
 with B.G.M.I .. for carrying out open excavation , for     of compliance of the principles of Section 2S - F, 25 - G or
 construction of a pare of inclines and inclined shaft      H of the Act , or payment of wages by it to the workman
 sinking in the coal mine of Murpar Project and as per      and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
the terms of contract , the open excavation work was             4. The workman besides placing reliance on
 to be completed within a period of 32 months and           documentary evidence , filed his own evidence on affidavit
the incline shaft drivage within eight months arid it .     insupport of his claim . It is necessary to mention here
also awarded another contract to party no . 1 (b) for      that as nobody appeared on behalf of the party no.1
construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft         (a) to cross - examine the workman , on 08-11-2011 , "no
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam         cross" order was passed and order was also passed to
VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of       proceed with the case ex - parte against the party no.1 ( a ).

PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 23 , 2012 / ASADHA 2, 1934

5240

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 up to 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 11-8-1993 to 02-07-1996 as a Driller and the workman was again appointed by party no - 1 (b) from 05-01-1997 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 he workman had worked for more than 240 days with . he 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 BG ML engaged him from 11-8-1993 to 2-7-1996 as a Driller and that he was again engaged by party no . 1 (b) , another contractor from 05-01-1997 to 28-12-2001 .

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 ofthe 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.l (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: -

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 23, 2012/आषाढ़ 2 , 1934

in a year preceding his termination . Claimdenied 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 ."

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 ,

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 .

" 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) .

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 ifthe 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 240days .

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 moths , but has rendered for a period of 240 dayswithin 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" .

As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility qualification prescribed in Section 25-1 read with Secțion 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.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC - 38 ( M / s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has held that:

ORDER

The reference is answered against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer "Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947)- S.25 - F, 10- Retrenchment compensation - Termination of services without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal -Case ofworkman/ workman that he had worked for 240 days

Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road. Mayapuri . New Delhi - 11006-1

and Published by the Controller of Publications . Delhi - 110054.