jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 31]

ubZ fnYyh, tqykbZ 29—vxLr 4] 2012] '[email protected] 7—Jko.k 13] 1934

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, JULY 29—AUGUST 4, 2012, SATURDAY/SHRAVANA 7—SHRAVANA 13, 1934

Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2488-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k

lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk

(2) lifBr tujy Dyktst vf/fu;e] 1897 (1897 dk

vf/fu;e la 10) dh /kjk 16 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, fnukad 24&10&2011 dh foHkkxh; vf/lwpuk

la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II }kjk tkjh Jh jktsUnz jkeÑ".kk esU/s]

odhy dh vuqca/ vk/kj ij dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks esa yksd vfHk;kstd

ds :i esa fu;qfDr dks jí djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II (i)º

jktho tSu] voj lfpo (V-II)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 25th July, 2012

S. O. 2488.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), r/w Section 16 of the

General Clause Act, 1897 (Act no. 10 of 1897) the Central

Government hereby cancel the appointment of

2669 GI/2012

(6137)

Shri Rajendra Ramkrishna Mendhe, Advocate as Public

Prosecutor on contract basis in the Central Bureau of

Investigation issued by this Department Notification

No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II dated 24-10-2011.

[F. No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II (i)]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy. (V-II)

ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2489-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k

lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk

(2) lifBr tujy Dyktst vf/fu;e] 1897 (1897 dk

vf/fu;e la 10) dh /kjk 16 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, fnukad 24&10&2011 dh foHkkxh; vf/lwpuk

la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II }kjk tkjh Jh tljkt ¯lg jktkor]

odhy dh vuqca/ vk/kj ij dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks esa yksd vfHk;kstd

ds :i esa fu;qfDr dks jí djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II (ii)º

jktho tSu] voj lfpo (V-II)

New Delhi, the 25th July, 2012

S.O. 2489.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), r/w section 16 of the

General Clause Act, 1897 (Act no. 10 of 1897) the Central

6138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby cancel the appointment of Shri Jasraj

Singh Rajawat , Advocate as Public Prosecutor on contract

basis in the Central Bureau of Investigation issued by this

Department Notification No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II dated 24-

10-2011.

[F. No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II (ii)]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy. (V-II)

ubZ fnYyh] 25 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2490-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k

lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk

(2) lifBr tujy Dyktst vf/fu;e] 1897 (1897 dk

vf/fu;e la 10) dh /kjk 16 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, fnukad 24&10&2011 dh foHkkxh; vf/lwpuk

la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II }kjk tkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn feJk]

odhy dh vuqca/ vk/kj ij dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks esa yksd vfHk;kstd

ds :i esa fu;qfDr dks jí djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II (iii)º

jktho tSu] voj lfpo (V-II)

New Delhi, the 25th July, 2012

S. O. 2490.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), r/w Section 16 of the

General Clause Act, 1897 (Act no. 10 of 1897) the Central

Government hereby cancel the appointment of Shri Jagdish

Prasad Mishra , Advocate as Public Prosecutor on

contract basis in the Central Bureau of Investigation issued

by this Department Notification No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II

dated 24-10-2011.

[F. No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II (iii)]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy. (V-II)

dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

t;iqj] 19 tqykbZ] 2012

la- 05@2012&13

dk- vk- 2491-—vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh ,

ds lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (1961 dk 43oka) dh /

kjk 10 ds [k.M (23lh) dh mi&/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] t;iqj ,rn~}kjk

fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2012&13 ,oa vkxs ds fy, dfFkr /kjk ds mís'; ls

^^Jh vkfnukFk tSu f'k{k.k laLFkku] vyoj** dks LohÑfr nsrs gSa A

2- c'krsZ fd lfefr vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh ,

ds lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 dh /kjk 10 ds mi[k.M

(23lh) dh mi&/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djs A

¹Øekad eqvkvk@vvkvk(eq)@t;@10(23lh)(vi)12&13@2177º

czts'k xqIrk] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX

Jaipur, the 19th July, 2012

(No. 05/2012-13)

S. O. 2491.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-clause (vi) of clause(23C) of Section 10 the Income-

tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-

Tax Rules, 1962, I, the Chief Commissioner of Income -Tax,

Jaipur hereby approve ‘‘Shree Adinath Jain Shikshan,

Sansthan, Alwar’’ for the purpose of the said section from

A. Y. 2012-13 & onwards.

2. Provided that the society conforms to and complies

with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of, clause(23C) of

Section 10 the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of

the Income-Tax Rules, 1962,

[ No. CCIT/JPR/Addl.CIT(Hqrs.)/10(23C)(vi)/2012-13/2177]

BRIJESH GUPTA, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2492-—cSaddkjh fofu;eu vf/fu;e] 1949

(1949 dk 10) dh /kjk 53 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dh fliQkfj'k

ij] ,rn~}kjk] ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh

mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x) ds mi[k.M (i) ds mica/ ;wfu;u

cSad vkiQ bafM;k ij ykxw ugha gksaxs] tgk¡ rd mudk laca/ ;wfu;u

cSad vkiQ bafM;k ds v?;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd Jh Mh- ljdkj ds

;wfu;u dschlh vkfLr izca/u daiuh izk- fy- ds funs'kd e.My esa

xSj dk;Zikyd funs'kd rFkk ukfefr funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer gksus

ls gS A

¹iQk- la- 13@1@2012&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2012

S. O. 2492.—In exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Banking Regulation

Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Government of India on the

recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby

declares that the provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (c)

of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not

apply to Union Bank of India in so far as it relates to the

nomination of Shri D. Sarkar, Chairman and Managing

Director of the Bank as a Non-executive Chairman and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6139

nominee director on Board of Union KBC Asset

Management Co. Pvt. Ltd.

[ F. No. 13/1/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=kky;

(lhihoh izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2493-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalyh; vkWfiQlj ('kiFk

vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa] dsaæ ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh nkrk jke dksVukyk]

Jh iznhi ih- esuu lgk;d vkSj Jh jke yky] fuEu Js.kh DydZ

dks 24&7&2012 ls Hkkjr ds dkSlaykokl] nqcbZ esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vf/dkjh ds dÙkZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh- 4330@01@2006º

vkj- ds- isfjufM;k] voj lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2012

S.O. 2493.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers

(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central

Government hereby authorize Shri Data Ram Kotnala, Shri

Pradeep P. Menon, Assistants and Shri Ram Lal, LDC

Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform their duties

of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 24th July,

2012.

[No. T. 4330/01/2006]

R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. (Consular)

fo|qr ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2494-—dsanzh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku (vizkf/Ñr

vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh

/kjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr ds jkti=k

rkjh[k 6&12 tqykbZ] 2008 dks izdkf'kr] Hkkjr ljdkj ds fo|qr

ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 1738] rkjh[k 20 twu]

2008 dks mu ckrksa ds flok, vf/Økar djrs gq,] ftUgsa ,sls

vf/Øe.k ls igys fd;k x;k gS ;k djus dk yksi fd;k x;k gS]

uhps dh lkj.kh ds lraHk (1) esa mfYyf[kr us'kuy gkbMªks ikoj

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM (us'kuy gkbMªks ikoj dkjiksjs'ku ds :i esa

igys Kkr) ds vf/dkjh dks] tks ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh

dh iafDr dk lerqY; vf/dkjh gS] mDr vf/fu;e ds iz;kstu ds

fy, laink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS tks mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk (2)

esa fofu£n"V ljdkjh LFkkuksa dh ckcr viuh

vf/dkfjrk dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj mDr vf/fu;e }kjk ;k

mlds v/hu laink vf/dkjh dks iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

vkSj vf/jksfir drZO;ksa dk ikyu djsxk A

vf/dkjh dk inuke

ljdkjh LFkku ds izoxZ vkSj

vf/dkfjrk dh LFkkuh;

lhek,a

(1)

(2)

flfoy foHkkx dk izeq[k]

rglhy mM+h] ftyk ckjkewyk

mM+h fo|qr dsanz] ¯txy]

tEew&d'ehj ds ?kaVkewyk]

ftyk% ckjkewyk tEew&

csyklkyekckn] mjucqvk]

d'ehj A

eksgjk] canh ykxek] ykjh]

ukSxzke] ¯izxy psgy] pkek]

'khjh] iQrsx<+] tksfx;kj]

fgysjsM] nsoju] ,Fk'kSEiwjk]

vktkniqjk] dapu] fuys'k]

ckxuk uqj[kk] ¯txy jktjokuh

vkSj cksfu;kj esa vofLFkr

ifj;kstuk {ks=k esa mM+h fo|qr

dsanz ls lacaf/r ;k ml fufeÙk

iV~Vs ij fy, x, vkokfld]

xSk&vkokfld okl lqfo/k]

Hkwfe] Hkou] lM+dsa] la;a=k

lajpuk,a A

¹iQk- la- 16@16@97&,u,pihlh (MsLd)º

,l- csatkfeu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2494.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of

the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry

of Power, published in the Gazette of India, dated 6th-12th

July, 2008 vide number S.O. 1738 dated the 20th June,

2008, except as respects things done or omitted to be done

before such supersession, the Central Government hereby

appoints the Officer of the National Hydro Power Corpo-

ration Limited. (formerly known as the National Hydro

Power Corporation) mentioned in column (1) of the Table

below, being officer equivalent to the rank of

gazetted officer of the Government, to be estate officer for

the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers

conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate

officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits of

his jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in

column (2) of the said Table.

6140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Designation of the

Categories of Public premises

Officer

and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Head of Civil

Residential non-residential

Department Uri

accommodation, land,

Power Station

building, roads, plants struct-

Gingle, Distt:

ures belonging to or taken

Baramullah

on lease by or on behalf of

Jammu and

Uri Power Station in the proj-

Kashmir

ect area located at Ghanta-

mulla, Belasalaamabad, Uran-

bua, Mohara, Bandi Lagama,

Lari, Nowgram, Pringal

Chehal, Ktchama, Sheery,

Fategarh, Jogiyar, Hillered,

Dewaran, Aithshampora,

Azadpora, Kanchan, Nilesh,

Bagna Nurkha, Gingal, Rajar-

wani and Boniyar in Tehsil

Uri, District Baramulla, Jammu

and Kashmir.

[F. No. 16/16/97-NHPC (Desk)]

S. BENJAMIN, Under Secy.

oL=k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2495-—dsanzh; ljdkj] la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa

ds fy, jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] oL=k ea=kky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa

dks ftlesas 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS %—

1- cqudj lsok dsanz] ekiQZr xqtjkr jkT; [kknh xzkeks|ksx

Hkou dSail] tquk okMt] vkJe jksM] vgenkckn&380013

(xqtjkr)

2- Hkkjrh; gFkdj?kk izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku] iapk;rh dkyst

dSail] ckjx<+& 768028 (mM+hlk)

3- Hkkjrh; dikl fuxe fy-] 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] 8@177] f=kph

jksM] ih-ch-ua- 7103] jkeukFkiqje] dks;Ecrwj&641045

(rfeyukMq) A

4- ih2 ewy cht iQkeZ] jkjschla] dsanzh; js'ke cksMZ] iYyÙksjh

Mkd] ikyDdkM&678007 (dsjy)

5- js'kedhV cht mRiknu dsanz] jkjschla] dsanzh; js'ke cksMZ]

1@640] ijV~V;ky] dksVEcq Mkd] ikyDdkM&678551

(dsjy)

¹la- bZ-11016@1@2011&fgUnhº

lqu;uk rksej] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 26th July, 2012

S. O. 2495 .—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes

of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles,

more 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowl-

edge of Hindi :—

1. Weavers’ Service Centre, Office of Development

Commissioner (Handlooms), C/o Gujart State

Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan Campus, Juna Vadaj,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380013 (Gujarat).

2. Indian Institute of Handloom Technology,

Panchayati College Campus, Bargarh-768028

(Orissa)

3. Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Branch Office,

8/177, Trichi Road, P.B. No. 7103, Ramnathpuram,

Coimbatore-641045 (Tamilnadu).

4. P2 Basic Seed Farm, NSSO, Central Silk Board,

Pallatheri Post, Palakkad-678007 (Kerala)

5. Silkworm Seed Production Centre, NSSO, Central

Silk Board, 1/640, Erattayal, Kodumbu Post,

Palakkad-678551 (Kerala)

[No. E. 11016/1/2011-Hindi]

SUNAINA TOMAR, Jt. Secy.

Ñf"k ea=kky;

(Ñf"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2496-—dsanzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] Ñf"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx] Ñf"k ea=kky;

ds lEc¼ dk;kZy; foi.ku ,oa fujh{k.k funs'kky;] iQjhnkckn ds

varxZr fuEufyf[kr iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu dk;kZy;k dks ftlds

80» deZpkjh o`Un us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/lwfpr djrh gS %—

foi.ku ,oa fujh{k.k funs'kky;]

mi dk;kZy;] ,-ih-,e-lh-

iaMjk] jkaph&5 (>kj[kaM)

¹la- 3&3@2011&fg-uh-º

mek xks;y] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of A griculture and Cooperation)

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2012

S. O. 2496.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies following office which is under the administrative

control of the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection,

Faridabad an attached office of the Department of the

Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture where

80% Staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi :—

1. Directorate of Marketing and Inspection,

Sub Office, A.P.M.C.

Pandra, Ranchi-5 (Jharkhand)

[No. 3-3/2011-Hindi Neeti]

UMA GOEL, Jt. Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6141

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2497-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ exuyky xksfoUnth bysDVªksfuDl] ch&68] fxjhoj ds lkeus 'kdaqryk ÝysV~l] jkeokMh VsdM+k] blkuiqj vgenkckn&380008 }kjk

fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ&III) okys ^^,ethlh** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Øsu Vkbi) ds

ekWMy dk] ftlds czk.M dk uke ^^exuyky xksfoUnth bysDVªksfuDl** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls

vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@121 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Øsu Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

5000 fd- xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 10 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 500 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr&

izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230

oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy ds baMhdsVj dk lh¯yx izko/ku

Ldsy dh ckMh esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj fMLiys dh jkbV lkbM@ysÝV lkbM esa lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s nks

Nsnksa esa ls lhy ok;j fudkyh tkrh gS tks lhy ls tqM+h gS A ekWMy ds lhfyax izko/ku dk Ldheokj Mk;xzke mQij fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs

tks 5 xzk- mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 30 Vu rd dh vf/dre

{kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^ds ;k 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(59)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

6142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2012

S.O. 2497.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of

the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing

instrument (Crane type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy Class -III) of Series ‘‘MGC’’ and with

brand name ‘‘MAGANLAL GOVINDJI ELECTRONICS” (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by

M/s. Maganlal Govindji Electronics, B-68, Giriwar Opp. Shakuntla Flats, Ramwadi Tekra, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-380008 and

which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/121;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Crane Type) with a

maximum capacity of 5000kg . and minimum capacity of 10 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 500g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results. The

instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Sealing arrangement

Sealing is done on the right side/left side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The

seal is connected by seal wire is passing through these two holes attached with seal. A typical schematic diagram of sealing

provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

The Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the

weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 30 tonne with

verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k,

or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been

manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (59)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6143

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2498-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS

fd mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ exuyky xksfoUnth bysDVªksfuDl] ch&68] fxjhoj ds lkeus 'kdaqryk ÝysV~l] jkeokMh VsdM+k] blkuiqj vgenkckn&380 008 }kjk

fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ&III) okys ^^,ethbZ** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud

osfczt) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czk.M dk uke ^^exuyky xksfoUnth bysDVªksfuDl** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS)

vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@11@122 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 60 Vu gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 200 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 10 fd- xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj fMLiys dh jkbV lkbM@cSd lkbM esa lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq,

fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/

dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc} Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 5 Vu ls 200 Vu rd

dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1×10^ds] 2×10^ds ;k 5×10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(59)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

6144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2012

S.O. 2498.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of

the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing

instrument (Electronic Weighbridge ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy Class -III) of Series ‘‘MGE’’

and with brand name ‘‘MAGANLAL GOVINDJI ELECTRONICS” (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured

by M/s. Maganlal Govindji Electronics, B-68, Giriwar Opp. Shakuntla Flats, Ramwadi Tekra, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-380008

and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/11/122;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge)

with a maximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 200 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 10kg. It has a

tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing

result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display.

The seal is connected by whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes

attached with seal. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make,

accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale

interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or above and with ‘e’ value of 1×10^k, 2×10^k, or 5×10^k, where

k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the

same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (59)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6145

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2499-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e

11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ ,f'k;u eSt¯jx flLVEl] ch@6] 'kkL=kh baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] gksVy tyiku ds ikl] Hkk;anj (bZ)] Fkk.ks&401105 (egkjk"Vª) }kjk

fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ&III) okys ^^,Vh** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy VkWi Vkbi) ds

ekWMy dk] ftlds czk.M dk uke ^^,f'k;u** gS] (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u

Mh@09@12@15 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy VkWi Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 30 fd- xzk- gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A

midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &1

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc}

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu

ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj

dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 100 fe- xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd dhs jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku

varjky (,u) vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dhs jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50

fd- xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1×10^ds] 2×10^ds] 5×10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds

lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(269)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

6146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2499.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Legal Metrology Act , 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and

the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010)

read with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the

Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument

(Table top type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “AT” and with brand name

“ASIAN” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Asian Measuring Systems, B/6, Shastri

Industrial Estate, Nr. Hotel Jalpan, Bhayander (E), Thane-401105 (MAH.) and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/12/15;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with

a maximum capacity of 30 kg. and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The

instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical

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

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

access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)

Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the

weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with

verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. to 2g. and with verification scale interval

(n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1×10^k, 2×10^k or 5×10^k, where k is a positive

or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle,

design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (269)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6147

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2500-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e

11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ ,f'k;u eaSt¯jx flLVEl] ch@6] 'kkL=kh baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] gksVy tyiku ds ikl] Hkk;anj (bZ)] Fkk.ks&401105 (egkjk"Vª) }kjk

fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ&III) okys ^^,ih** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds

ekWMy dk] ftlds czk.M dk uke ^^,f'k;u** gS] (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u

Mh@09@12@16 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 500 fd- xzk- gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 2 fd- xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 100 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A

midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &1

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke A

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu

ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj

dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dhs jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku

varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd- xzk- ls 5000 fd- xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1×10^ds] 2×10^ds] 5×10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks

/ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(269)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

6148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2500.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Legal Metrology Act , 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and

the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010)

read with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the

Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument

(Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “AP” and with brand name

“ASIAN” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Asian Measuring Systems, B/6, Shastri

Industrial Estate, Nr. Hotel Jalpan, Bhayander (E), Thane-401105 (MAH) and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/12/16.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with

a maximum capacity of 500 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The

instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

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

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical

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

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

access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)

Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the

weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and

up to 5000 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 5g or more and with ‘e’ value

of 1×10^k, 2×10^k or 5×10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same

manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved

model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (269)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6149

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2501-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e

11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ izHkkr osbax Ldsy] 1242&ih] lSDVj&4] gqMk] fjokM+h (gfj;k.kk) }kjk fofu£er mPp ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ II) okys ^^Vh,yVh**

Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy VkWi Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^Vh&fyczk** gS (ftls blesa

blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@12@574 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh

djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Vscy Vki Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 30 fd- xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 2 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A

midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr&1

vkWÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu

ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj

dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs A 1 fe-xzk- ls 50 fe-xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 100]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku

varjky (,u) vkSj 100 fe-xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 5000 ls 100]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u)

lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1×10^ds] 2×10^ds] 5×10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU;

ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(297)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

6150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2501.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the

said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) read

with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central

Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top

type) with digital indication of high accuracy (accuracy class-II) of series “TLT” and with brand name “T-LIBRA” (hereinafter

referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Parbhat Weighing Scale, 1242-P, Sector-4, Huda, Rewari (Haryana) and

which is assigned the the approval mark IND/09/12/574.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with

a maximum capacity of 30 kg. and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare device with

a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument

operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure 1.

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

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical

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

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

access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)

Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the

weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with

verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ‘e’ value of 1 mg. to 50 mg. and with verification scale interval

(n) in the range of 5000 to 100,000 for ‘e’ value of 100 mg. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1× l0^k, 2 ×10^k or 5×l0^k, k where is a

positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same

principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (297)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6151

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2502-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e

11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ izHkkr osbax Ldsy] 1242&ih] lSDVj&4] gqMk fjokM+h (gfj;k.kk) }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys ^^Vh,yih**

Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^Vh&fyczk** gS (ftls blesa

blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@12@575 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh

djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 1000 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 2 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 100 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A

midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr&1

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu

ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj

dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs A 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky

(,u) vkSj 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1×10^ds] 2×10^ds] 5×10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k

Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(297)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

6152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2502.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the

said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ( 1of 2010)

read with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the

Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument

(Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “TLP” and with brand name

“T-LIBRA” (hereinafter refered to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Parbhat Weighing Scale, 1242-P, Sector-4,

Huda, Rewari (Haryana) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/12/575.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a

maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The

instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure 1.

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

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical

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

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

access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)

Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the

weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and up

to 5000 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value

of 1× l0^k, 2 ×10^k or 5×l0^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same

manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved

model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (297)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6153

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2503-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fiQftdsfyd Vsdfud cqaMslsULVsUV }kjk vuqeksfnr ekWMy ds fy, tkjh fd, x, vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k ds lkFk izLrqr fjiksVZ

ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d

eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk

vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e 11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk

ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 ds nwljs ijUrqd }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ lh-ch-lh- ,l-vkj- ,y ds,e

190&,l-,l-75 lh-;w- tksuk baLVªh;y 06080&vkslisMkyhNhvks Mh cklrh;k Mh mEcjk (ihth)] bVyh }kjk fofu£er vkSj fcuk fdlh cnyko ds Hkkjr dks fu;kZr fd, x,

^lhchlh@xzkWl vFkok lhchlh@usV* uked vkVkseSfVd xzsohehfVªd fiQ¯yx ;a=k (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) ftls eSllZ vkbZ lh bZ (,f'k;k) fy-

czkWMos lsUVj rhljk ry] MkW- ch- vEcsMdj jksM] nknj] Vh-Vh- eqacbZ&400014 }kjk Hkkjr esa vk;kr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpUg vkbZ ,u Mh@13@12@120 leuqnsf'kr

fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy vkVkseSfVd xzsohehfVªd fiQ¯yx ;a=k tks fd eYVh jsat vkSj eYVh baVjoy ;a=k Hkh gS] dks ,d IysViQkeZ vFkok gwij Ldsy ds :i esa yhoj lfgr ;k

yhoj ds fcuk fMtkbu fd;k x;k gS A bl ;a=k dh rduhdh fof'k"Vrk,a fuEufyf[kr gSa %

Max number of scale intervals (n) < 6000 (static operation

mode)

Range of tare balancing

< 100% of max

Preset tare range

< 100% of max or maxi with multi interval

instruments respectively

Environmental conditions/influence factors- Temperature

range -10°C to 40°C

Humidity up to 85% at 40°C, not condensing

Supply voltage

24V (18V ...30V), DC

Load cell excitation voltage

10V

Input signal range

0. . . . . . . 30m V/V

Smallest permissible input signal 1uµ V/scale interval

Load cell impedance range

35 Ω to 4480 Ω

Portion of error limit mpe

pi = 0.5

Load cell connection

four or six wire system

The maximum number of load cell connectable depends on the

impedance of the lead cells used. The resulting impedance of

the lead cells shall not be smaller than 35Ω (corresponding to

10 load cells at 350Ω ).

Depending on the scale interval (d), minimum fill (Minfill)

and reference accuracy class X (x) of the automatic gravimetric

filling instrument is :

d (g)

Minfill (in g)

X(0.2)

X(0.5)

X(1)

X(2)

1600

320

107

3200

1280

106

8000

3200

1600

400

24000

6400

3200

1600

48000

19200

6400

3200

120000

48000

24000

8000

100

240000

96000

48000

24000

200

480000

192000

96000

48000

500

1200000 480000

240000

120000

These values apply for the smallest signal per scale of 1µV

d (g)

Minfill(in g)

X(0.2)

X(0.5)

X(I)

X(2)

400

107

1600

320

106

4000

1600

400

135

8000

3200

1600

400

24000

6400

3200

1600

60000

24000

8000

4000

100

120000

48000

24000

8000

200

240000

96000

48000

24000

500

600000

240000

120000

60000

These values apply for the smallest signal per scale of 2µ V

ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gS A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(289)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

6154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2012

S.O. 2503 .—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority along with

the model approval certificate issued by Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see

the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology

(Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate

service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to section 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of

2010) and sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 1 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the Central

Government hereby approves, issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the automatic gravimetric filling instrument with type

designation “CBC/GROSS or CBC/NET” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured and exported to India without any

alteration by M/s. C.B.C s.r.l. Km, 190-S.S. 75 c.u.-Zona Industriale 06080- OSPEDALICCHIO DI BASTlA, UMBRA (PG), Italy and

imported in India by M/s. ICE (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Broadway Centre, 3rd Floor, Dr. B. Ambedkar Road, Dadar TT, Mumbai-400014 India and

which is assigned the approval mark lND/l3/12/120.

The said automatic gravimetric filling instrument also as multi range and multi-interval instrument, designed as platform or

hopper scale, with or without lever system. The technical specifications of the instrument are :

Max number of scale intervals (n) < 6000 (static operation

mode)

Range of tare balancing

< 100% of max

Preset tare range

< 100% of max or maxi with multi interval

instruments respectively

Environmental conditions/influence factors- Temperature

range -10°C to 40°C

Humidity up to 85% at 40°C, not condensing

Supply voltage

24V (18V ...30V), DC

Load cell excitation voltage

10V

Input signal range

0. . . . . . . 30m V/V

Smallest permissible input signal 1µV/scale interval

Load cell impedance range

35Ω to 4480Ω

Portion of error limit mpe

pi = 0.5

Load cell connection

four or six wire system

The maximum number of load cell connectable depends on the

impedance of the lead cells used. The resulting impedance of

the lead cells shall not be smaller than 35Ω (corresponding to

10 load cells at 350Ω).

Depending on the scale interval (d), minimum fill (Minfill)

and reference accuracy class X (x) of the automatic gravimetric

filling instrument is :

d (g)

Minfill (in g)

X(0.2)

X(0.5)

X(1)

X(2)

1600

320

107

3200

1280

106

8000

3200

1600

400

24000

6400

3200

1600

48000

19200

6400

3200

120000

48000

24000

8000

100

240000

96000

48000

24000

200

480000

192000

96000

48000

500

1200000 480000

240000

120000

These values apply for the smallest signal per scale of 1µV

d (g)

Minfill (in g)

X(0.2)

X(0.5)

X(1)

X(2)

400

107

1600

320

106

4000

1600

400

135

8000

3200

1600

400

24000

6400

3200

1600

60000

24000

8000

4000

100

120000

48000

24000

8000

200

240000

96000

48000

24000

500

600000

240000

120000

60000

These values apply for the smallest signal per scale of 2µV

A typical schematic diagram. of sealing provision of the model is given above.

[F.No.WM-21(289)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

Figure

Figure 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6155

ubZ fnYyh] 24 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2504-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) rFkk fof/d eki foKku

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (6) vkSj fu;e

11 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds lkFk ifBr fof/d eki foKku vf/fu;e] 2009 (2010 dk 1) dh /kjk 22 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ Jh xksiky baVjus'kuy] 19@2@1] ckcwryk jksM] nene] dksydkrk&700074 }kjk fofu£er (eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys

^^,lthvkbZMCY;wch&10** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk

uke ^^,lthvkbZ** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@12@119 leuqnsf'kr fd;k

x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 60 Vu U;wure {kerk 200 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku varjky (bZ) 10 fd-xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,ybZMh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr&1

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/d eki foKku (ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e (9) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu

ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj

dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky

(,u) lfgr 5 Vu ls 200 Vu rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1×10 ^ds] 2×10^ds] 5×10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed

iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(88)@2011º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

6156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2012

S.O. 2504.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the

said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied

conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 22 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 ( 1 of 2010)

read with sub-rule (6) of rule 8 and sub-rule (4) of rule 11 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing

instrument (electronic weighbridge) with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class-III) of series “SGIWB-10”

and with brand name “SGI” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Shree Gopal International,

19/2/1, Babutala Road, Dumdum Kolkata-700074, West Bengal and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/12/119.;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (electronic weighbridge)

with a maximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 200kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 10 kg. It has a tare

device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result.

The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure 1.

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

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical

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

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

access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models)

Rules, 2011, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the

weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200

tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of

1× l0^k, 2 ×10^k or 5×l0^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same

manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved

model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21 (88)/2011]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6157

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2505-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gaS %—

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh

la'kks/u dh la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

la[;k la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkSj frfFk

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 302&2&30 % 2007 dh la'kks/u

1 ebZ] 2012

15&6&2012

la[;k 1

bl Hkkjrh; la'kks/u dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % bZVh 32@Vh&75º

vkj- ds- =ksgu] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2012

S.O. 2505.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which is given

in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

No. and year of the

Date from which the Amend-

Indian Standards

Amendment

ment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 302-2-30 : 2007 Safety of household and

1 May, 2012

15-06-2012

similar electrical appliances, Part 2 : Particular

requirements, Sec. 30 Room heaters

Copy of this Amendment is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur,

Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref : ET 32/T-75]

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

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2506-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gaS %µ

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud

vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 15910 % 2010 gkbZos”k ds fy;s

31&05&2010

HkwoL=kkfn&&fof'kf"V

6158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡] Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % Vh ,Dl Mh@th&25º

vfuy dqekj] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (Vh ,Dl Mh)

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2012

S.O. 2506.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given

in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No., Title and Year of the

No. and year of the

Date of Establishement

Indian Standards

Indian Standards, if any,

Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 15910 : 2010 Geo-Synthetics for Highways—

—

31 May, 2010

Specification

Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur,

Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref : TXD/G-25]

ANIL KUMAR, Scientist ‘E’ & Head (TXD)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2507-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds mifu;e (1) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr

djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s ekud (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gS %

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh

la'kks/u dh la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

la[;k la[;k ,oa o"kZ

vkSj frfFk

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 1931 % 2000 bathfu;lZ

tuojh] 2012

iQkbYl&&fof'kf"V (rhljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 2324 (Hkkx 1) % 1985 vkc¼ vi?k"khZ

tuojh] 2012

ios.k ifg, Hkkx 1 izksiQkbYl ,oa izdkj (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 6149 % 1984 ¯lxy fljs ds [kqys&tcM+s okys

tuojh] 2012

lek;ksT; ¯jpksa dh fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ,l 8856 % 1991 "kVdks.kh osYM f<cfj;k¡&&

tuojh] 2012

fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds la'kks/u dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % ihthMh@th&3-5º

,l- pkS/jh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (ihthMh)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6159

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2012

S.O. 2507.—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 amended on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of Indian

No. and year of

Date from which the Amend-

Standards

Amendment

ment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 1931 : 2000 Engineer’s files—Specification

January, 2012

(Third Revision)

IS 2324 : (Part 1) : 1985 Bonded abrasive grinding

January, 2012

wheels— Part 1 Profiles and types (Second Revision)

IS 6149 : 1984 Specification for single-ended open-jaw

January, 2012

adjustable wrenches (First Revision)

IS 8856 : 1991 Hexagon weld nuts—Specification

January, 2012

(First Revision)

Copy of these Amendments of Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan,

9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai

and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref : PGD/G-3.5]

S. CHOWDHURY, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (PGD)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2508-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa ,rn~}kjk

vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os jí dj fn, gSa vkSj okil ys fy;s x;s gSa %

vuqlwph

Øe

jí fd;s x;s ekud dh la[;k]

Hkkjr ds jkti=k Hkkx 2] [kaM 3]

fVIi.kh

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

mi[kaM (ii) esa dk-vk- la[;k vkSj

frfFk izdkf'kr

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 888 % 1983 gkWyks&xzkmaM js”klZ]

ekpZ] 2012

;g ekud vizpfyr gS A

vksiu VkbZi dh fof'kf"V (nwljk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 15024 (Hkkx 1) % 2001 mRiknksa dk

tuojh] 2012

vkbZ,l 15024 % 2011@

rduhdh izys[ku&&daI;wVj vk/kfjr rduhdh

vkb,lvks 11442 % 2006

lwpuk dk izgLru Hkkx 1 lqj{kk vis{kk,¡

}kjk vfrØfer

vkbZ ,l 15024 (Hkkx 2) % 2001 mRiknksa dk

tuojh] 2012

vkbZ,l 15024 % 2011@

rduhdh izys[ku&&daI;wVj vk/kfjr rduhdh

vkbZ,lvks 11442 % 2006

lwpuk dk izgLru Hkkx 2 ewy izys[ku

}kjk vfrØfer

6160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkbZ ,l 15024 (Hkkx 3) % 2001 mRiknksa dk

tuojh] 2012

vkbZ,l 15024 % 2011@

rduhdh izys[ku&daI;wVj vk/kfjr

vkbZ,lvks 11442 % 2006

rduhdh lwpuk dk izgLru Hkkx 3 mRikn

}kjk vfrØfer

fMtkbu izfØ;k ds pj.k

vkbZ ,l 15024 (Hkkx 4) % 2001 mRiknksa dk

tuojh] 2012

vkbZ,l 15024 % 2011@

rduhdh izys[ku&daI;wVj vk/kfjr

vkbZ,lvks 11442 % 2006

rduhdh lwpuk dk izgLru Hkkx 4 nLrkost

}kjk vfrØfer

izca/u vkSj iqu% izkfIr i¼fr;k¡

vkbZ ,l 15025 % 2001 mRiknksa dk rduhdh

tuojh] 2012

vkbZ,l 15024 % 2011@

izys[ku&&daI;wVj ,fMM fMtkbu dh vis{kk,¡

vkbZ,lvks 11442 % 2006

rFkk izk:i.k&'kCnkoyh

}kjk vfrØfer

¹lanHkZ % ihthMh@th&3-5º

,l- pkS/jh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (ihthMh)

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2012

S.O. 2508.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, it is,

hereby notified that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter, have been

cancelled and stand withdrawn.

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the Indian

S. O. No. & Date published

Remarks

Standards Cancelled

in the Gazette of India, Part-II,

Section-3, Sub-section (ii)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 888 : 1983 Specification for hollow-ground

March, 2012

It is obsolete

razors, open type (Second Revision)

IS 15024 (Part 1) : 2001Technical product

January, 2012

Superseded by

documentation—Handling of computer-

IS 15024 : 2011/

based technical information—Part 1

ISO 11442 : 2006

Security requirements

IS 15024 (Part 2) : 2001 Technical product

January, 2012

Superseded by

documentation—Handling of computer-

IS 15024 : 2011/

based technical information—Part 2

ISO 11442 : 2006

Original documentation

IS 15024 (Part 3) : 2001 Technical product

January, 2012

Superseded by

documentation—Handling of computer-

IS 15024 : 2011/

based technical information—Part 3 Phases

ISO 11442 : 2006

in the product design process

IS 15024 (Part 4) : 2001 Technical product

January, 2012

Superseded by

documentation—Handling of computer-

IS 15024 : 2011/

based technical information—Part 4

ISO 11442 : 2006

Document management and retrieval

systems

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6161

IS 15025 : 2001 Technical product

January, 2012

Superseded by

documentation—Requirements for

IS 15024 : 2011/

computer-aided design and draughting-

ISO 11442 : 2006

Vocabulary

[Ref. PGD/G-3.5]

S. CHOWDHURY, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (PGD)

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2509-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %µ

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa)

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud

vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 10823%2004 jksyj psu MªkbZo ds

vxLr 2011

p;u gsrq fn'kk&funsZ'k

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 13567&2%1998 rduhdh mRikn

ekpZ 2012

izys[ku&lh , Mh gsrq ysvlZ ds la?kVu ,oa ukfer

Hkkx 2 fuekZ.k izys[ku esa iz;qDr vo/kj.kk] iQkWeZsV

,oa dksM

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 14790%2005 LukscksMZ IysV&

vizSy 2012

ckba¯MXl&vis{kk,¡ ,oa ijh{k.k i¼fr;k¡

vkbZ,l 15024%2011@vkbZ,lvks 11442%2006 rduhdh vkbZ,l 15024 (Hkkx 1)%2001

vxLr 2011

mRikn izys[ku&izys[k izca/u (igyk iqujh{k.k)vkbZ,l 15024 (Hkkx 2)%2001

vkbZ,l 15024 (Hkkx 3)%2001

vkbZ,l 15024 (Hkkx 4)%2001

vkbZ,l 15025%2011

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 15635%2001 ysfir vi?k"kZd&

ekpZ 2012

ÝySi fMLd

vkbZ,l 15942%2011@vkbZ,lvks 15785%2002

vxLr 2011

rduhdh MªkbZxsa&vklatd] iQksYM ,oa izSLM

tksM+ksa ds flEcksfyd izLrqfrdj.k ,oa ladsru

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 21948%2001 ysfir

vizSy 2011

vi?k"kZd&lknh 'khV

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 21949%2001 ysfir

vizSy 2012

vi?k"kZd&/wy fu"d"kZ.k ds fy, fNnzksa okyh

lknh 'khV

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 21950%2001 ysfir

ekpZ 2012

vi?k"kZd&Iysu fMLd

10-

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 21951%2001 ysfir

ekpZ 2012

vi?k"kZd&/wy fu"d"kZ.k ds fy, fNnzksa okyh

lknh fMLd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

6162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;k¡] Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;

dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % ihthMh@th&3-5º

,l- pkS/jh] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (ihthMh)

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2012

S.O. 2509.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given

in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No., and Year of the Indian Standards

No. and year of the

Date of Establishement

Established

Indian Standards, if any,

Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/ISO 10823:2004 Guidelines for the

August 2011

selection of roller chain drives

IS/ISO 13567-2:1998 Technical product

March 2012

documentation—Organization and naming of

layers for CAD Part 2 Concepts, format

and codes used in construction

documentation

IS/ISO 14790:2005 Snowboard plate-bindings-

April 2012

Requirements and test methods

IS 15024:2011/ISO 11442:2006 Technical

IS 15024 (Part 1):2001

August 2011

product documentation—Document

IS 15024 (Part 2):2001

management (First Revision)

IS 15024 (Part 3):2001

IS 15024 (Part 4):2001

IS 15025:2001

IS/ISO 15635:2001 Coated abrassives—

March 2012

Flap dises

IS 15942:2011/ISO 15785:2002 Technical

August 2011

drawings—Symbolic presentation and

indication of adhesive, fold and pressed

joints

IS/ISO 21948:2001 Coated abrasives—

August 2011

Plain sheets

IS/ISO 21949/2001 Coated abrasives—

April 2012

Plain sheets with holes for dust extraction

IS/ISO 21950:2001 Coated abrasives—

March 2012

Plain discs

10.

IS/ISO 21951:2001 Coated abrasives—

March 2012

Plain discs with holes for dust extraction

Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur,

Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref : PGD/G-3.5]

S. CHAWDHURY, Scientist ‘E’ & Head (PGD )

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6163

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2510-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir x;k gS %—

vuqlwph

Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 1885 (Hkkx 73) % 2012 fo|qr rduhdh

vkbZ ,l 1885 (Hkkx 73@vuqHkkx 1) %

16&7&2012

ikfjHkkf"kd 'kCnkoyh Hkkx 73 HkkSfrd ,oa jlk;u

1993

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

vkbZ ,l 1885 (Hkkx 73@vuqHkkx 2) %

1993

vkbZ ,l 1885 (Hkkx 73@vuqHkkx 3) %

1993

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % bZVh 01@Vh&36º

vkj- ds- =ksgu] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2012

S. O. 2510.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards, particulars of which is given

in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standard

No. and Year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Established

if any, Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/1885 (Part 73) : 2012 Electrotechnical

IS 1885 (Part 73/Sec 1) : 1993

16-7-2012

Vocabulary Part 73 Physics and

IS 1885 (Part 73/Sec 2) : 1993

Chemistry

IS 1885 (Part 73/Sec 3) : 1993

(First Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref : ET 01/T-36]

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

6164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2511-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS %—

vuqlwph

Øe la-

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 13730 (Hkkx 0] vuqHkkx 1)) % 2012@

—

17&7&2012

vkbZbZlh 60317&0&6 % 2007 fo'ks"k izdkj dh

dqaMy.k rkjksa dh fof'kf"V] Hkkx 0 lkekU; vis{kk,a

vuqHkkx 6 dkWp rUrq dh {kr jsftu vFkok ok£u'k

lalsfpr] uaxh vFkok vusefyr xksy dkWij dh rkj

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] ukxiqj] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % bZVh 33@Vh&114º

vkj- ds- =ksgu] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2012

S.O. 2511.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards, particulars of which is given in

the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standard

No. and Year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Established

if any, Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13730 (Part 0/Sec 6) : 2012/IEC

—

17-7-2012

60317-0-6 : 2007 Specification for

particular types of winding wires

part 0 general requirements, Sec 6

Glass-fibre wound resin or varnish

impregnated, bare or enamelled

round copper wire

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref : ET 33/T-114]

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6165

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2512-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, ekud(dks) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s

x;s gSa %

vuqlwph

Øe la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

la'kks/u dh la[;k vkSj frfFk

la'kks/u ykxw gksus dh frfFk

la-

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1- vkbZ ,l 12171 % 1999 :bZ dh xkBsa&

la'kks/u la[;k 2

31 tqykbZ] 2012

fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

tqykbZ 2012

bl la'kks/u dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh]

dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % Vh,DlMh@th&25º

vfuy dqekj] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (Vh,DlMh)

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2012

S.O. 2512.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. Title and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of the

Date from which the amend-

Standards

amendment

ment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 12171 : 1999 Cotton Bales —

Amendment No. 2

31 July, 2012

specification

July 2012

(First Revision)

Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai

and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bengalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref : TXD/G-25]

ANIL KUMAR, Scientist ‘E’ & Head (TXD)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2513-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %—

6166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 10701% 2012 LVªDpjy IykbZoqM&

vkbZ ,l 10701 % 1983

30&6&2012

fof'kf"V (igyk iqujh{k.k)

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr] Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg T+kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % lhbZMh@jkti=kº

Mh- ds- vxzoky] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (flfoy bathfu;jh)

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2012

S.O. 2513.—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 the Indian Standards

No. and Year of Indian Standards,

Date of Established

Established

if any, Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 10701:2012 Structural Plywood-

IS 10701 : 1983

30-6-2012

Specification (First Revision)

Copy of this standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref : CED/Gazette]

D.K. AGRAWAL, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Civil Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2514-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 7634 (Hkkx 2) % 2012 is;ty iw£r

vkbZ ,l 7634 (Hkkx 2) % 1975

30&6&2012

ds fy, IykfLVd ds ikbiksa dk pquko] izgLru]

Hk.Mkj.k vkSj laLFkkiu&jhfr lafgrk

Hkkx 2 iksyhbFkkbZyhu ikbiksa dks fcNkuk ,oa tksM+uk

(igyk iqujh{k.k)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6167

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr] Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % lhbZMh@jkti=kº

Mh- ds- vxzoky] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (flfoy bathfu;jh)

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2012

S.O. 2514.—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 is given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No. & Year of Indian Standards,

Date of Established

Established

if any, Superseded by the New

Indian Standards

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 7634 (Part 2) : 2012 Plastic Pipes

IS 7634 (Part 2) : 1975

30-06-2012

Selection, Handling, Storage and

Installation for Potable Water

Supplies-Code of Practice

Part 2 Laying and Jointing of

Polyethylene (PE) Pipes

(First Revision)

Copy of this standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref : CED/Gazette]

D. K. AGRAWAL, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Civil Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2515-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og@os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe la- LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 13340 (Hkkx 2) % 2012 1000 okWV

—

17&7&2012

rd ,oa lfgr oksYVrk jsfVr /kjd , lh flLVe

ds Lor% jksih Vkbi ds 'kaV la/kfj=k

Hkkx 2 % dky izHkkou ijh{k.k] Lor% jksih ijh{k.k

,oa fouk'kh ijh{k.k (igyk iqujh{k.k)

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr] Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % bZVh 29@Vh&16º

vkj- ds- =ksgu] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)

6168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2012

S.O. 2515.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian standards, particulars of which is given in

the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No. & Year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Establishment

if any, Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13340 (Part 2) : 2012 Shunt Power

—

17-07-2012

Capacitors of the Self-healing type

for A.C. Systems having a rated

Voltage up to and including 1000 V

Part 2 ageing test, self-healing test

and destruction test (First Revision)

Copy of this standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref : ET 29/T-16]

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

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2012

dk- vk- 2516-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izdV gksrk gS fd blls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd, tkus

dh laHkkouk gS_

mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ds varxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds C;kSjs js[kkad la[;k bZlh,y@,lvkbZ,e,y@,evks;wtsM,@,uvksVhvkbZ@07]

rkjh[k 20 iQjojh] 2011 dk fujh{k.k mik;qDr] ftyk ikdqM+ (>kj[kaM) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkmafly gkmQl LVªhV]

dksykdkr&700 001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k funs'kd rduhdh (izpkyu)] bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lkadVksfj;k] Mkd?kj&fnlsjx<+]

ftyk&c}Zoku (if'pe caxky)] fiu dksM&713 333 ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS_

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr vfèkfu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ls dks;ys

dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS_

mDr vuqlwph esa fofgr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ dksbZ O;fDr] bl vf/lwpuk ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj]

funs'kd rduhdh (izpkyu)] bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lkadVksfj;k] Mkd?kj&fnlsjx<+] ftyk&c}Zoku (if'pe caxky)] fiu

dksM&713 333 ds le{kµ

(i) laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ds vtZu ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/dkjksa ds izfr vk{ksi dj ldsxk_ ;k

(ii) Hkwfe esa ds izfrdj esa fdlh fgr dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/dkjksa dk nkok dj ldsxk_ ;k

(iii) izHkkoghu gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa] [kuu iV~Vksa ds v/hu v£tr fd;s tkus ij vf/dkjksa ds fy;s izfrdj dh ekax dj

ldsxk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (7) esa fu£n"V Hkwfe ds dksjksa ls laxzg.k ;k vU; [kfut uewuksa rFkk

muds lE;d~ fo'ys"k.k dks rFkk fdlh vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[k ;k lkefxz;ksa dh fu£efr ls lacaf/r lHkh ekufp=k] pkVks± vkSj

vU; nLrkostksa dk ifjnÙk dj ldsxk A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6169

vuqlwph

fleykSax dksy ekb¯ux CykWd (pj.k&II)

ftyk&ikdqM+ (>kj[kaM)

(js[kkad la[;k bZlh,y@,lvkbZ,e,y@,evks;wtsM,@,uvksVhvkbZ@07 rkjh[k 20 iQjojh] 2011)

Fkkuk&fyVVhikM+k

ftyk&ikdqM+

CykWd

Ø-la-

ekStk@xzke

xzke la[;k

{ks=k gsDVs;j esa

{ks=k ,dM+

fVIif.k;ka

la-

(yxHkx)

esa (yxHkx)

cM+k eqM+tksM+k

27-572

68-13

Hkkx

fleykSax

45-722

112-98

Hkkx

fleykSax igkM+

83-788

207-04

Hkkx

NksVk ?kk?kjh

9-842

24-32

Hkkx

cM+k ?kk?kjh

77-475

191-44

Hkkx

tksM+

244-399

603-91

fleykSax

5-302

13-10

Hkkx

egk tksM+

249-701

617-01

dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vf/xzg.k vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 dh /kjk 4(1) ds varxZr vf/lwfpr fd, tkus okys {ks=k dk lhek o.kZu%

[k.M&1 %

,1µ,2

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 307 ds Hkhrjh fcUnq ,1 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykV la[;k 309] 297] 296] 209

lM+d 201] 200] 219] 221] 220] 226] 227] 223] 247 dks ikj djrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 247 ,oa 248 dh lfEefyr lhek

ij fcUnq ,2 ij feyrh gS A

,2µ,3

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 247 ,oa 248 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,2 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykWV la[;k

248] 257] 128] 129] 130] 132] 174] 543 lM+d dks ikj djrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 559 ds Hkhrjh fcUnq ,3 ij feyrh gS A

,3µ,4

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 559 ds Hkhrj ls fcUnq ,3 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykWV la[;k 558 ds Hkhrjh fcUnq

,4 ij feyrh gS A

,4µ,5

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 558 ds Hkhrj ls fcUnq ,4 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykWV la[;k 543 lM+d 174]

132] 131] 128] 127] 126] 257] 248] 247] 249] 253] 255] 256] 257] 100] 98 dks ikj djrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 74 ds

Hkhrjh fcUnq ,5 ij feyrh gS A

,5µ,6

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 74 dh Hkhrj ls vkjaHk gksdj IykWV la[;k 71] 72] 67] 68] 69] 48] 45]

44] 34] 35] 40] 38] 37] 39] lfEefyr lhek fleykSax la[;k 4 ,oa cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dks ikj djrh gqbZ iqu% cM+k

eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dh IykV la[;k 356] 355] 359] 401] 411] 410] 420] 422] 423] 424 lM+d 425] 426] 450] 449]

454] 455 dks ikj djrh gqbZ ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dh IykV la[;k 448 ds Hkhrjh fcUnq ,6 ij feyrh gS A

,6µ,7

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dh IykV la- 448 ds Hkhrjh fcUnq ,6 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykV la[;k 458] 459] 460]

464] 463] 432 lM+d dks ikj djrh gqbZ] IykV la[;k 775] 776] vkSj 777 dh mÙkjh&iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ rFkk IykV

la[;k 778] 786] 787] 790] 822] 823] 824] 825] 827] 828] 831] 918] 917] 916] 915] 914] 920] 922 dks ikj djrh

gqbZ ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 ,oa vejHkhVk la[;k 7 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,7 ij feyrh gS A

,7µ,8

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 ,oa vejHkhVk la[;k 7 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,7 ls vkjaHk gksdj nksuksa ekStk

dh lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3] vejHkhVk la[;k 7 ,oa fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh f=klaf/

LraHk ij fcUnq ,8 ij feyrh gS A

6170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

,8µ,9

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 vejHkhVk la[;k 7 ,oa fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh f=klaf/ LraHk ij fcUnq ,8 ls

vkjaHk gksdj ekStk vejHkhVk la[;k 7 ,oa fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ] ekStk vejHkhVk la[;k

7 fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 rFkk rsryh la[;k 6 dh f=klaf/ LraHk ij fcUnq ,9 ij feyrh gS A

,9µ,10

;g js[kk ekStk vejHkhVk la[;k 7] fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 rFkk rsryh la[;k 6 dh f=klaf/ LraHk ij fcUnq ,9 ls izkjaHk gksdj

ekStk rsryh la[;k 6 ,oa fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ] ekStk rsryh la[;k 6] csgEMk la[;k

18] cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 rFkk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh f=klaf/ LraHk ij fcUnq ,10 ij feyrh gS A

,10µ,11

;g js[kk ekStk rsryh la[;k 6] csgM+k la[;k 18] cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 rFkk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh f=klaf/ LraHk ij

fcUnq ,10 ls vkjaHk gksdj] ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 ,oa csgM+k la[;k 18 dh lfEefyr lhek ds lkFk&lkFk xqtjrh gqbZ]

ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 ,oa csgM+k la[;k 18 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,11 ij feyrh gS A

,11µ,12

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 ,oa csgM+k la[;k 18 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,11 ls vkjaHk gksdj] ekStk cM+k

?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 198 dh iwohZ lhek] 199] 202 dh mrjh lhek] 202] 213] 214] 223] 222] 221] 250]

247] dh iwohZ lhek] 244] 307] 303] 300] 298 dh mÙkjh lhek] 298 dh iwohZ 322] 330 dh mÙkjh lhek 330] 331 dh iwohZ

lhek 334 dh mÙkjh lhek rFkk 335 dh if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 ,oa csgM+k la[;k 18 dh

lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,12 ij feyrh gS A

,12µ,13

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 rFkk csgM+k la[;k 18 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,12 ls vkjaHk gksdj blh nksuksa ekStk

dh lfEefyr lhek] ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 340 dh iwohZ] 343] 342 dh mÙkjh lhek 342] 352 dh iwohZ

lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 ,oa ekStk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 19 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,13 ij

feyrh gS A

,13µ,14

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 rFkk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 19 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,13 ls vkjaHk gksdj ekStk NksVk

?kk?kjh la[;k 19 dh IykV la[;k 54 dh iwohZ 52] 51] 38 dh mÙkjh] 38] 44] 71] 68 dh iwohZ 82 dh mÙkjh ,oa iwohZ] 142 lM+d

dh mÙkjh&iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 83 ,oa 142 lM+d dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,14 ij feyrh gS A

,14µ,15

;g js[kk ekStk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 19 dh IykV la[;k 83 ,oa 142 lM+d dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,14 vkjaHk gksdj

IykV la[;k 142 lM+d dks ikj djrh gqbZ] IykV la[;k 423 dh iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ] iqu% IykV la[;k 423 dks ikj

djrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 347] 346 vkSj 423 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,15 ij feyrh gS A

,15µ,16

;g js[kk ekStk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 19 dh IykV la[;k 347] 346 ,oa 423 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,145 ls vkjaHk gksdj

IykV la[;k 347 vkSj 423 dh nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 423] 444 vkSj 422 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,16

ij feyrh gS A

,16µ,17

;g js[kk ekStk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 19 dh IykV la[;k 423] 444 ,oa 422 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,16 ls vkjaHk gksdj

IykV la[;k 444 dh iwohZ 494 dh iwohZ ,oa mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 19 rFkk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k

20 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,17 ij feyrh gS A

,17µ,18

;g js[kk ekStk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 19 rFkk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,17 ls 'kq: gksdj ekStk cM+k

?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 372] 370] 380] 379 dh nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 379] 415 ,oa 416 dh

lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,18 ij feyrh gS A

,18µ,19

;g js[kk ekStk NksVk ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 379] 415 ,oa 416 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,18 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykV

la[;k 379 dh if'peh 391] 403] 404 vkSj 398 dh nf{k.kh 115 dh iwohZ 115 vkSj 116 dh nf{k.kh 116 dh if'peh] 117 dh

mÙkjh ,oa if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 117] 146 lM+d rFkk 97 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,19 ij feyrh gS A

,19µ,20

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 117] 146 lM+d rFkk 97 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,19 ls vkjaHk

gksdj IykV la[;k 97] 56] 58] 59] 437] 63 dh mÙkjh lhek 87] 64] 65] 66] 67 dh iwohZ lhek 87 dh mÙkjh lhek ls

xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 87] 85] ,oa 89 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,20 ij feyrh gS A

,20µ,21

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 87] 85] ,oa 89 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,20 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykV

la[;k 85] 82 dh if'peh 83 dh nf{k.kh lhek] 5 dh if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 4 ,oa 3 dh lfEefyr

lhek ij fcUnq ,21 ij feyrh gS A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6171

,21µ,22

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 4 ,oa 3 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,21 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykV la[;k

4 dh if'peh 4] 6] 82 dh mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 82] 10 rFkk ekStk

fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh IykV la[;k 184 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,22 ij feyrh gS A

,22µ,23

;g js[kk ekStk cM+k ?kk?kjh la[;k 20 dh IykV la[;k 82] 10] rFkk ekStk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh IykV la[;k 184 dh

lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,22 ls vkjaHk gksdj ekStk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 05 dh IykV la[;k 183] 172 lM+d dks ikj

djrh gqbZ] 171] 170] 147] 145 dh iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 145] 144 ,oa 148 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq

,23 ij feyrh gS A

,23µ,24

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh IykV la[;k 145] 144] ,oa 148 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,23 ls 'kq: gksdj

IykV la[;k 144] 133] 134 vkSj 126 dh nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ] IykV la[;k 112 lM+d] dks ikj djrh gqbZ 114] 115

dh nf{k.kh lhek 124] 123] 122 dh if'peh lhek 119 dh nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 119] 100 ,oa 99 dh

lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,24 ij feyrh gS A

,24µ,25

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh IykV la[;k 119] 100 ,oa 99 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,24 ls vkjaHk gksdj

IykV la[;k 119 dh if'peh lhek] 100 dh mÙkjh 100] 101] 102 dh if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ rFkk IykV la[;k 172

lM+d dks ikj djrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 172 lM+d ,oa 173 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,25 ij feyrh gS A

,25µ,26

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh IykV la[;k 172 lM+d ,oa 173 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,25 ls vkjaHk

gksdj IykV la[;k 173 dh mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 ,oa ekStk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh

lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,26 ij feyrh gS A

,26µ,27

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 ,oa fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,26 ls vkjaHk gksdj iqu% blh

nksuksa ekStk dh lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 ,oa ekStk fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 rFkk fley<+ko

la[;k 21 dh f=klaf/ LrHk ij fcUnq ,27 ij feyrh gS A

,27µ,28

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 fleykSax igkM+ la[;k 5 rFkk fley<+ko la[;k 21 dh f=klaf/ LraHk ls fcUnq ,27 ls vkjaHk

gksdj ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 626 dh if'peh] mÙkjh rFkk iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 626] 607

rFkk 608 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,28 ij feyrh gS A

,28µ,29

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 626] 607 rFkk 608 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,28 ls 'kq: gksdj IykV

la[;k 608 dh mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ 543 lM+d dks ikj djrh gqbZ] IykV la[;k 543 lM+d] 540 rFkk 481 lM+d dh

lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,29 ij feyrh gS A

,29µ,30

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 543 lM+d] 540 rFkk 481 lM+d dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,29 ls 'kq:

gksdj IykV la[;k 543 lM+d dh if'peh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 543 lM+d] 486 lM+d rFkk 536 dh lfEefyr

lhek ij fcUnq ,30 ij feyrh gS A

,30µ,31

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 543 lM+d] 486 lM+d rFkk 536 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,30 ls

vkjaHk gksdj IykV la[;k 486 lM+d dh nf{k.kh rFkk if'pe lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 483 ,oa 486 lM+d dh

lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ,31 ij feyrh gS A

,31µ,1

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 483 ,oa 486 lM+d dh lfEefyr lhek ls vkjaHk gksdj IykV la[;k 486

lM+d] 333] 302] 301] 298] 308 dks ikj djrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 307 esa fcUnq ,1 ij feyrh gS A

[k.M&2 %

ch1µch2

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 269] 270 ,oa 325 dh lfEefyr lhek ch1 ls vkjaHk gksdj IykV la[;k

325 ,oa 1 dh iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 1] 2 ,oa ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dh

IykV la[;k 324 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ch2 ij feyrh gS A

ch2µch3

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 1] 2 ,oa ekStk cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dh IykV la[;k 324 dh lfEefyr

lhek ij fcUnq ch2 ls vkjaHk gksdj iqu% blh nksuksa ekStk dh lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV

la[;k 12 ,oa cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dh IykV la[;k 326 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ch3 ij feyrh gS A

6172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ch3µch4

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 12 ,oa cM+k eqM+ tksM+k la[;k 3 dh IykV la[;k 326 dh lfEefyr lhek

ij fcUnq ch3 ls vkjaHk gksdj ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 12] 10] 9] 56] 58] 60] 82] 80] 79] 78] 93] 92]

263] 264] 265] 266] 287] 286 dks ikj djrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 276] 277 vkSj 286 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ch4 ij

feyrh gS A

ch4µch1

;g js[kk ekStk fleykSax la[;k 4 dh IykV la[;k 276] 277 vkSj 286 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ch4 ls vkjaHk gksdj 275]

274] 271] 270 dh mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;k 269] 270 ,oa 325 dh lfEefyr lhek ij fcUnq ch1 ij feyrh

gS A

¹iQk- la- 43015@10@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&Iº

gseUr tSu] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2012

S.O. 2516.—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 ECL/SIML/MOUZA/NOTI/07 dated the 20th February, 2011 of the area

covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Pakur (Jharkhand), or in the

office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 or in the office of the Director Technical (Operation),

Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria ,P.O. Dishergarh, District-Burdwan (West Bengal), Pin Code - 713333 ;

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 persons 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 leases being acquired,

and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the land, collection from the land of cores or other mineral

samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub-section (7)

of Section 13 of the said Act,

To the Director Technical (Operation), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria ,P.O. Dishergarh, District- Burdwan

(West Bengal), Pin Code - 713 333; within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Simlong Coal Mining Block (Phase-II)

District - Pakur (Jharkhand)

(Plan bearing number ECL/SIML/MOUZA/NOTI/07 dated the 20th February, 2011)

THANA - LlTI PARA

DISTRICT- PAKUR

Block

Sl.

Mouza/Village

Village number

Area in hectares

Area in acres

Remarks

No.

( approximately)

(approximately)

Bara Murjora

27.572

68.13

Part

Simlong

45.722

112.98

Part

Simlong Pahar

83.788

207.04

Part

Chota Ghagri

9.842

24.32

Part

Bara Ghagri

77.475

191.44

Part

Total:

244.399

603.91

Simlong

5.302

13.10

Part

Grand Total:

249.701

617.01

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6173

Boundary Description of the area being notified under Section 4(1) of the CBA (A&D) Act, 1957.

Block No. 1:

Al - A2

Line start from point number Al inside the plot number 307 of mouza Simlong number 4 crosses the plot

number 309, 297, 296, 209 road 201,200,219,221,220,226,227,223 ,247, and meets at point number A2 situated

on the common boundary of plot number 247 & 248.

A2 - A3

Line starts from point number A2 situated on common boundary of plot number 247 & 248 of mouza

Simlong number 4, crosses the plot number 248,257,128,129 ,130,132, 174 ,543 road and meets on point

number A3 situated in the plot number 559.

A3 - A4

Line start from point number A3 situated in the plot number 559 of the mouza Simlong number 4 and

meets on the point number A4 situated in the plot number 558.

A4 - A5

Line start from point number A4 situated in the plot number 558 of mouza Simlong number 4, crosses the

plot number 543 road, 174,132,131,128,127,126,257,248,247, 249, 253,255,256,257,100,98 and meets on point

number A5 situated in plot number 74.

A5 - A6

Line Start from point number A5 situated in plot number 74 of mouza Simlong number 4, crosses the plot

number 71,72,67, 68, 69, 48, 45, 44,34,35,40,38,37,39 of Simlong and Common mouza boundary of Simlong

number 4 and Bara murjora number 3, again crosses the plot number 356,355,359,401,411,410,420,422,423,424

road 425,426,450, 449,454,455 of Bara murjora number 3 and meets on point A6 situated in the plot number

448.

A6 - A 7

Line start from point number A6 situated in the plot number 448 crosses the plot number

458,459,460,464,463,432 road paases through northern-eastern boundary of the plot number 775,776 and

777; again crosses the plot number 778,786,787,790,822,823,824,825,827, 828, 831,918,917,916,915,914,920,922

and meets on the point number A7 situated on common mouza boundary of mouza Bara Murjora number

3 and mouza Amarbhita number 7.

A 7 - A8

Line starts from point number A 7 situated on the common mouza boundary of mouza Bara Murjora

number 3 and mouza Amarbhita number 7, passes along common mouza boundary of these two mouza

and meets point A8 on trijunction Pillar of mouza Amarbhita number 7, of mouza Bara Murjora number 3

and mouza Simlong Pahar number 4.

A8 - A9

Line starts from point number A8 situated trijunction Pillar of mouza Amarbhita number 7, of mouza Bara

Murjora number 3 and mouza Simlong Pahar number 5, Passes through common mouza boundary of

Amarbhita number 7 and mouza Simlong Pahar number 5 and meets at point number A9 situated on trijunction

pillar of mouza Amarbhita number 7, of mouza Tetli number 6 and mouza Simlong Pahar number 5.

A9 - A10

Line starts from point number A9 situated on trijunction Pillar of mouza Amarbhita number 7 mouza Tetli

number 6 and mouza Simlong Pahar number 5 passes through the common mouza boundary of mouza

Simlong Pahar number 5 and mouza Tetli number 6 and meets at point number A10 situated on trijunction

Pillar of mouza Tetli number 6, of mouza Behra number 18, mouza Ghaghari number 20 and mouza Simlong

Pahar number 5.

A10 - A11

Line starts from point number A10 situated on trijunction Pillar of mouza Tetli number 6, of mouza Behra

number 18, mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20 and mouza Simlong Pahar number 5, passes through the

common mouza boundary of mouza Behara number 18 and mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20 and meets on

point number A11 situated on the common mouza boundary of mouza Behara number 18 and mouza Bara

Ghaghari number 20.

A11 - A12

Line start from point number A 11 situated common mouza boundary of Behara number 18 and Bara

Ghaghari number 20, passes through the eastern boundary of plot number 198, Nothern boundary of plot

number 199, 202; eastern boundary of plot number 202,213,214,223, 222,221,250,247; Nothern boundary

of 244,307,303,300,298; eastern boundary of 298 Nothern boundary of 322,330 eastern boundary of

330,331; Nothern boundary of 334 and western boundary of 335 of mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20, and

meets point A12 situated on common mouza boundary of Bara Ghaghari number 20 and Behra number 18.

A12 - A13

Line starts from point number A12 situated on common mouza boundary of mouza Bara Ghaghari number

20 and Mouza Behra number 18 , Passes through the common mouza boundary of these two mouza; again

passes through the eastern boundary of plot number 340, Nothern boundary of plot number 343 and 342;

6174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

eastern boundary of plot number 342,352 of Bara Ghaghari number 20 and meets at point number A13

situated on common boundary of mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20 and mouza Chhota Ghaghari number

19.

A13 - A14

Line starts from point number A13 situated on common boundary of mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20 and

Chhota Ghaghari number 19; passes through the eastern boundary of plot number 54, Nothern boundary

of plot number 52,51,38 eastern boundary of plot number 38,44,71,68 nothern and eastern boundary of

plot number 82, northern -eastern boundary of plot number 142 road; and meets at point A14 situated on

common boundary of plot number 83 and 142 road of Chhota Ghaghari number 19.

A14 - A15

Line start from point number A14 situated on the common boundary of plot number 83 and 142 road of

chhota Ghaghari number 19, crosses the plot number 142 road, passes through the eastern boundary of

plot number 423 and again crosses the plot number 423 and meets at point number A15 situated on the

common boundary of plot number 347,346 and 423 of Chhota Ghaghari number 19.

A15 - A16

Line starts from point number A15 situated on the common boundary of plot number 347,346 and 423 of

mouza Chhota Ghaghari number 19 , passes through southern boundary of plot number 347 and 423

meets point number A16 situated on the common boundary of plot number 423,444 and 422 of Chhota

Ghaghari number 19.

A16 - A17

Line start from the point number A16 situated on the common boundary of plot number 423,444, and 422

of mouza Chhota Ghaghari number 19 , passes through the eastern boundary of plot 444, northern and

eastern boundary of plot number 494 and, meets at point number A17 on the common mouza boundary of

mouza Chhota Ghaghari number 19 and mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20.

A17 - A18

Line starts from point number A17 situated on common mouza boundary of mouza Chhota Ghaghari

number 19 and Bara Ghaghari number 20; pasees through the southern boundary of plot number

372,370;380,379 of Bara Ghaghari number 20 and meets at point number A18 on the common boundary of

plot number 379,415 and 416 of Bara Ghaghari number 20.

A18 - A19

Line starts from point number A18 situated on common boundary of plot number 379, 415 and 416 of Bara

Ghaghari number 20; passes through western boundary of plot number 379; southern boundary 391,403,404

and 398; eastern boundary of 115; southern boundary of 115 and 116 western boundary of 116; northern

and eastern boundary of plot number 117 and meets at point number A 19 situated on the common

boundary of plot number 117 ,146 road and 97.

A19 - A20

Line starts from the point number A19 situated on the common boundary of plot number 117,146 road and

97 of Mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20, passes through the northern boundary of plot number 97,56,58,59,437,

63 eastern boundary of plot number 87,64,65,66,67 and northern boundary 87 meets at point number A 20

situated on common boundary of plot number 87,85 and 89 of Bara Ghaghari number 20.

A20 - A21

Line Starts from point number A20 situated on the common boundary of plot number 87,85 and 89 of

mouza Bara Ghaghari number 20, passes through western boundary of plot number 85,82 southern

boundary of plot number 83, western boundary of plot number 5 and meets at point A21 situated on the

common boundary of plot number 4 & 3 of Bara Ghaghari number 20.

A21 - A22

Line starts from point number A21 situated on the common boundary of plot number 4 & 3 of mouza Bara

Ghaghari number 20 ; passes through western boundary of plot number 4 nothern boundary of plot

number 4,6,82 and meets at point number A22 situated on common boundary of plot number 82,10 of Bara

Ghaghari number 20 and plot number 184 of mouza Simlong Pahar number 5.

A22- A23

Line start from point number A22 situated on common boundary of plot number 82,10 of mouza Bara

Ghaghari number 20 and plot number 184 of mouza Simlong Pahar number 5; crosses the plot number

183,172 road, passes through the eastern boundary of plot number 171,170,147,145 and meets at point

number A23 on common boundary of plot number 145,144 and 148.

A23 - A24

Line starts from point number A23 situated on common boundary of plot number 145,144 and 148 of

mouza Simlong Pahar number 5; passes through southern boundary of plot number 144,133,134 and 126

crosses the plot number 112 road, again passes through southern boundary of plot number 114,115

western boundary of plot number 124,123,122; southern boundary of plot number 119 and meets at point

number A24 situated on common boundary of plot number 119,100 and 99.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6175

A24 - A25

Line starts from point number A24 situated on common boundary of plot number 119,100 and 99 of mouza

Simlong Pahar number 5 passes through western boundary of plot number 119, Nothern boundary of plot

number 100, western boundary of plot number 100,101,102 crosses the plot number 172 road and meets at

a point number A25 situated on the common boundary of plot number 172 road and 173 of Simlong Pahar

number 5.

A25 - A26

Line starts from point number A25 situated on the common boundary of plot number 172 road and 173 of

mouza Simlong Pahar number 5, passes through the northern boundary of plot number 173 and meets at

point number A26 situated on the common mouza boundary of mouza Simlong Pahar number 5 and mouza

Simlong number 4.

A26 - A27

Line starts from point number A26 situated on common mouza boundary of mouza Simlong Pahar number

5 and mouza Simlong number 4 again passes through the common mouza boundary of this both mouza

and meets at point number A27 situated on trijunction Pillar of mouza Simlong Pahar number 5, mouza

Simlong number 4 and mouza Simaldhab number 21.

A27 - A28

Line start from point number A27 situated on trijunction Pillar of mouza Simlong Pahar number 5 mouza

Simlong number 4 and mouza Simaldhab number 21 passes through the western, northern & eastern

boundary of plot number 626 , southern boundary of mouza Simlong number 4 and meets at point number

A28 situated on the common boundary of plot number 626,607 and 608 of mouza Simlong number 4.

A28 -A29

Line start from point number A28 situated on common boundary of plot number 626,607 and 608 of mouza

Simlong number 4; passes through the northern boundary of plot number 608, crosses the plot number

543 road and meets at point number A29 situated on common boundary of plot number 543 road, 481 road

and 540.

A29 - A30

Line start from point number A29 situated on common boundary of plot number 543 road, 481 road and

540 of mouza Simlong number 4; passes through western boundary of plot number 543 road and meets at

point number A30 situated on the common boundary of plot number 543 road, 486 road and 536.

A30 - A31

Line start from point number A30 situated on the common boundary of plot number 543 road, 486 road

and 536 of mouza Simlong number 4; passes through southern and western boundary of plot number 486

road and meets at point number A31 situated on the common boundary of plot number 483 & 486 road.

A31 -A1

Line starts from point number A31 situated on the common boundary of plot number 483 and 486 road of

mouza Simlong number 4, crosses plot number 486 road, 333,302,301,298,308 meets at point number Al in

the plot number 307 of mouza Simlong number 4.

Block No.2:

B1–B2

Line starts from point number B1 situated on the common boundary of plot number 269,270 and 325 of

mouza Simlong number 4; passes through eastern boundary of plot number 325 and 1 meets point

number B2 situated on the common boundary of plot number 1 and 2 of mouza Simlong number 4 and plot

number 324 at mouza Bara Murjora number 3.

B2–B3

Line starts from point number B2 situated on common boundary of plot number 1 and 2 of mouza Simlong

number 4 and plot number 324 of mouza Bara Murjora number 3; Again passes through the common

mouza boundary of this both mouza and meets at point number B3 situated on common boundary plot

number 12 of mouza Simlong number 4 and plot number 326 of mouza Bara Murjora number 3.

B3–B4

Line starts from point no. B3 situated on common boundary of plot number 12 of mouza Simlong number

4 and plot number 326 of mouza Bara Murjora number 3; crosses plot number 12,10,9,56,58,60,82, 80, 79,

78,93, 92, 263, 264, 265,266,287,286 of mouza Simlong number 4 and meets point no. B4 situated on

common boundary of plot number 276,277 and 286.

B4–Bl

Line starts from point number B4 situated on common boundary of plot number 276,277 and 286 of mouza

Simlong number 4, passes through northern boundary 275,274,271,270 and meets at point number B1

situated on the common boundary of plot number 269,270 and 325.

[F. No. 43015/10/2011–PRIW-I]

HEMANT JAIN, Dy. Secy.

6176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2517-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&6&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@42@2010&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2012

S.O. 2517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.43/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of India Bank and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 28-6-2012.

[No. L-12011/42/2010-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 6th June, 2012

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 43/2010

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Indian Bank and their

Workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary : 1st Party/Petitioner

Indian Bank Employees Union

6, Moore Street, Mannade Corner

Chennai-600001

Vs.

The General Manager : 2nd Party/Management

Indian Bank, Head Office

Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

From the Petitioner's side : Sri J.Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran,

Authorized Representative

From the Management's side: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/42/2010-IR(B-II)

dated 25-11-2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Indian

Bank, Chennai in denial benefits of half-scale wages to

Smt. R. Malliga, a Part- Time Sweeper with effect from 1992

is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled

for ?’’

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 43/2010 and issued notices

to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

authorized Representatives filed their Claim, Counter and

Rejoinder Statement as the case may be.

3. The contentions raised in the Claim Statement

briefly read as follows:

Since 1992 Ms. R. Malliga has been working as

Sweeper at the Chengadu Branch of the Respondent Bank

initially with consolidated wages there against her

entitlement to half-scale wages as per rule. Due to her

persistence eligible half-scale wages were extended to her

only from 3-6-2002. She started service from 14-10-1992.

The sweeping area consisted of about 1900 sq.ft. She was

paid consolidated wages from time to time which varied

between 187.50 per month in 1992 and Rs. 740 per month in

1993. Mallika was working for more than 15 hours per week.

In terms of Head Office guidelines she ought to have been

at half-scale wages in the scale of wages as applicable to

Sub-Staff with proportionate one half increment every year.

Branch recommended sanctioning of half-scale wages from

14-10-1992. The certified sweeping area was worked out to

1976 sq.ft. She was extended half-scale wages w.e.f.

3-6-2002 only snatching away benefits of 10 years. Despite

representations retrospective payment was denied. It is

denied that she had been engaged as a casual sweeper.

Her service was continuous since her engagement in 1992.

In the past the Respondent had favourably considered

many such identical claims for similarly placed sweepers

from retrospective effect from the date of initial engagement

in accordance with the Head Office Circular IRD/2/80 dated

28-10-1980. Hence the claim is legal and justified. The circular

stipulates for eligibility for half-scale wages if the area to

be swept is 1751 to 4000 sq.ft. and time engaged is between

13 and 19 hours per week. The shifting to the new premises

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6177

was in February, 1993. As per Head Office Circular staff/

lRC/89 dated 23-2-1989 for such claims scale wages have

to be paid from the date of performing duties. Her half-scale

wages has to be fixed from October, 1992 and eligible arrears

to be paid to her from October, 1992. Hence the claim for

half-scale wages from October, 1992 to May 2002, denial of

which is illegal and unjustified.

4. The Counter Statement allegations briefly read as

follows:

Job opportunities should be made available to every

eligible citizen of the country. For Part-Time Sweeper post

Employment Exchange sponsored candidates should be

considered. Part-Time Sweepers are not considered for

transfer. Hence locally available and employment exchange

sponsored candidate is considered for casual engagement.

Branch Managers are not authorized to appoint. They may

with Regional Office permission engage casual sweepers

through Employment Exchange. Their wages are paid by

vouchers limited to Profit and Loss Account. They are not

entitled to claim absorption or wages parity with regular

Part-Time employees. Malliga was engaged as a casual

sweeper. She cannot claim regularization prior to 2002. Prior

to 2002 she was engaged as casual sweeper only by the

Branch Manager. She cannot claim wages applicable to

regular sweepers. In 2002 she was appointed as Part-Time

Sweeper on scale wages and was being paid scale wages

therefrom. Prior to 2002 she was neither appointed to any

particular post nor was she on the rolls of the Bank. She is

not shown to have been an Employment Exchange hand. It

was not as a Temporary Part-Time Sweeper. Casual

Sweepers are not paid scale wages. The claim is to be

rejected.

5. Rejoinder contentions in a nutshell are as follows:

It is mischievous to state that she had been engaged

initially without the knowledge of the Zonal Office. It is

very much justified in claiming wages of regular sweepers.

Her work had been extracted over a long period of years. In

terms of 18(1) settlement dated 28-07-2003 vacancies of

Part-Time Sweepers arising in higher scale could be filled

from the persons drawing lower wages including

consolidated wages according to seniority. She had been

all along drawing the ruling consolidated wages. So many

similarly placed sweepers had been absorbed on regular

basis with effect from the date of actual performance of

duties. Mallika alone has been singled out for

discrimination. The Regional and Zonal Office also

recommended her for regularization with retrospective

effect. Head Office instructed to work out the wages

payable, if regularized with retrospective effect. Hence it is

misleading to state that branch is acting without being

aware of the laid down policy. There had not been any

change between the work turned out by her before 2002

and since 2002. It is not due to her fault that she had not

been on the rolls of the bank prior to 2002. She fulfilled the

twin parameter laid down by the bank for regularization

with half-scale wages. The bank is to be directed to pay her

the long delayed dues.

6. Points for consideration are :

(i) Whether denial of half -scale wages to Smt. R.

Malliga, PTS w.e.f. 1992 is legal and justified ?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled ?

7. The evidence consists of Ex.W1 to Ex.W48 marked

on consent on the petitioner's side and Ex.M1 to Ex.M15

marked on consent on the Respondent's side with no oral

evidence adduced on either side.

Points (i) & (ii)

8. Heard both sides. Perused the documents and

records. The arguments advanced on behalf of the

petitioner include that the workman Malliga had been in

service continuously since 1992 against permanent

vacancy. She had fulfilled the twin parameters as a condition

prescribed for regularization as per Ex.W5-circular she had

been engaged for more than 15 hours a week of six working

days. She is entitled to absorption w.e.f. 1992 but has been

sanctioned the same only w.e.f. 2002. The quantum and

quality of work till and after the year 2002 for the given

half-scale wages is the same. As enjoined by bank’s Ex.W6-

Circular, absorption is mostly retrospective. The

Management engaged her though not through the

Employment Exchange, there was no restriction to that being

done through Employment Exchange. The bank's

requirement for service of Part-Time Sweeper was there

from as back as 1993. As is evidenced from Ex.W34, Ex.W39,

Ex.W40 and Ex.W43, etc. Similar workers were given

regularization retrospectively. She has been actually

performing duty from 1993. Respondent is never used to

resort to recruitment regularly through the Employment

Exchange. She is not to be discriminated. The claim is to be

allowed.

9. Contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent

are that she has been regularized w.e.f. 03-06-2002. The

appointment of Malliga was against the rules as is evident

from Ex.M1 to Ex.M7 which show the action taken against

the Branch Manager. The Branch Manager was punished

for her employment which is not as per the rules. The

appointment is illegal. There was no order of appointment

of Casual Sweeper as regular employee. Ex.W10 is only a

letter of recommendation showing that she was not

competent to be regularized. Her case is not with clear

entitlement. Her services were not exploited by the Bank.

She is not through Employment Exchange. The circulars

Ex.W5 and Ex.W6 pertain to Part-Time Employees of the

bank and not for Casual Sweepers. The workman was only

a Casual Sweeper. What Ex.W6 provides for is fixing of

scale wages with prospective effect. There is no scope to

interfere with the status position ordered by the Bank and

the claim is only to be dismissed.

6178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. The thrust of the argument on behalf of the

Respondent is that Malliga was engaged as a Casual

Sweeper, that too by the Branch Manager without authority

or even permission from the Regional Office. She cannot

claim regularization prior to 2002. Only in 2002 she was

appointed as Part-Time Sweeper on scale wages.

11. Reliance was placed on behalf of the Respondent

to the decision of the Supreme Court in CHIEF

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS VS.

MS. SUSHEELA AND OTHERS (2008-I-LLJ-857) wherein

it is held as follows ‘‘36... The argument that since one has

been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to

discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature

of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that

would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established

by law for Public employment and would have to fail when

tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality

of opportunity enshrined in Article-14 of the Constitution’’.

12. In this case the workman is seen appointed only

w.e.f. the year 2002 as a Part-Time Sweeper prior to which

she was only Casual Sweeper and not on the rolls of the

Bank. She was not a candidate sponsored through

Employment Exchange. Her appointment by the Branch

Manager without authority stood arraigned by the higher

authorities of the Bank and the Branch Manager was even

cautioned against such appointments. While her

appointment of the above said nature stood regularized

only w.e.f. the year 2002 she cannot be given regularization

w.e.f. an anterior date viz. 1992 as claimed. The benefits of

the circulars do not apply to casual sweepers. They cannot

claim parity with regular employees. Her employment was

irregular, if not illegal. She was not on the rolls of the bank

prior to 2002. I find considerable force in the arguments on

behalf of the Respondent. Though her service ran

continuous from the very inception having regard to the

nature of her appointment as casual, the coveted claim

does not blossom in her favour. If she has been singled out

or discriminated it is to be especially proved by her, it being

within her special knowledge only. Right not developing in

her favour in the given status and nature of her employment

cannot be claimed rightfully. Hence denial of half-scale

wages is only legal and justified and she is not entitled to

any relief.

13. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 6th June, 2012)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Association : None

For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

31-5-2005

Letter from Indian Bank Employees

Union addressed to General

Manager, HO:HRM Department

Ex.W2

18-6-2008

Letter from Indian Bank Employees

Union

Asstt.

Labour

Commissioner ©, Chennai

Ex.W3

20-11-2009

Letter from HO:HRM Department

addressed

Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central),

Chennai

Ex.W4

09-12-2009

Letter from Indian Bank Employees

Union addressed to Assistant

Commissioner of Labour(Central),

Chennai

Ex.W5

28-10-1980

Indian Bank HO: Industrial

Relations Department Circular

No. 2/80

Ex.W6

23--2-1989

Circular letter from HO: Personnel

Department addressed to All the

Zonal

Offices

authorizing

regularization w.e.f. date of actual

performance

Ex.W7

28-7-1993

Settlement dated 28-7-1993 under

ID Act between the Management

and the Union in the matter of filling

up of part time sweeper vacancies

Ex.W8

27-2-2002

Settlement dated 27-2-2002 under ID

Act between the management and

the Union in the matter of filling of

part time sweeper vacancies

Ex.W9

30-1-1992

HO:Personnel Department circular

letter addressed to all Zonal

Managers

increased

consolidated wages

Ex.W10

18-6-1993

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Regional Office forwarding the

application of Ms. Malliga

Ex.W11

13-9-1993

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Regional Office

Ex.W12

20-12-1994

Letter from Regional Office to

Chengadu

Branch

seeking

clarification

Ex.W13

27-12-1994

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Regional Office recommending the

sweeper's case

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6179

Ex. W14

10-7-1995

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Zonal Office, Vellore submitted the

bio-data of the sweeper

Ex. W15

04-8-1995

Letter from Regional Office to

Chengadu Branch regarding fixation

of scale wages to the sweeper

Ex. W20

10-1-1997

Letter from Regional Office to Zonal

Office requesting to pursue with the

Head Office regarding regularization

Ex. W21

31-1-1997

Letter from Zonal Office to

Chengadu Branch instructing to

furnish the quantum of arrears

payable if regularized in scale wages

Ex. W22

10-2-1997

Letter from Chengadu from Zonal

Office enclosing details of arrears

payable.

Ex. W23 16-12-1998

Letter from Zonal Office to Regional

Office on payment of wages

Ex. W24 19-12-1998

Letter from Regional Office to

Chengadu Branch to seeking

particulars of engagements of

sweepers.

Ex. W25 11-1- 1999

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Zonal Office on payment of

enhanced wages for sweepers.

Ex. W26

14-1-1999

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Zonal Office forwarding the

representation for Sweepers

enclosing statement of arrears of

wages

Ex. W27

25-1-1999

Letter from Zonal Office to

Chengadu Banch authorizing

payment of enhanced wages.

Ex. W28

12-5-1999

Letter from Zonal Office to

Chengadu Branch instructing

payment enhanced consolidated

wages

Ex. W29

18-5-1999

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Zonal Office

Ex. W30

7-12-1999

Letter from Chengadu to Zonal

Office forwarding the representation

from the Sweeper

EX. W31 13-10-2000

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Regional Office regarding on Bonus

payment

Ex. W32

1-8-2002

Approved engineers certificate

specifying the sweeping area

Ex. W33

14-8-2003

Letter from Chengadu Branch to

Circle Office furnishing particulars

of sweeper

Ex. W34 11-11-1993

Settlement dated 11-11-1993 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union

Ex. W35

29-4-1993

Settlement dated 29-4-1993 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union

Ex. W36

6-12-1993

Settlement dated 6-12-1993 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W37

13-4-1993

Settlement dated 13-4-1993 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W38

13-4-1993

Settlement dated 13-4-1993 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W39

25-5-1993

Settlement dated 13-4-1993 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W40

13-4-1993

Settlement dated 13-4-1993 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W41

21-3-1991

Settlement dated 21-3-1991 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W42

21-3-1991

Settlement dated 21-3-1991 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W43

8-6-1994

Settlement dated 8-6-1994 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W44

13-1-1994

Settlement dated 13-1-1994 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W45

13-1-1994

Settlement dated 13-1-1994 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

6180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. W46

13-1-1994

Settlement dated 13-1-1994 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W47

13-1-1994

Settlement dated 13-1-1994 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

Ex. W48

23-8-1993

Settlement dated 23-8-1994 under

I.D. Act between the Management

and the Union before Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central)

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

20-12-1993

Letter issued by the Zonal Manager,

Vellore to B. Narayanasamy, the then

Manager, Indian Bank

Ex. M2

10-1-1996

Reply by B. Narayanasamy

requesting 15 days time

Ex. M3

25-3-1996

Letter from Chief Manager, Vellore

to B. Narayanasamy, Manager,

Indian Bank, Perambur and his

acknowledgement

Ex. M4

30-8-1996

Letter from Zonal Manager, Indian

Bank, Vellore to Zonal Manager,

Indian Bank, Chennai

Ex. M5

2-1-1997

Letter from ZI.O. Vellore to ZI,

Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai

Ex. M6

29-1-1997

Reply of Vigilance Department,

Z.O. Chennai to ZI Office, Vellore

Ex. M7

29-1-1997

Copy of punishment order dated

29-1-1997 addressed to B.

Narayanasamy

Ex. M8

18-8-2003

Letter from Asstt. General Manager,

Vellore to Asstt. General Manager

(A.S.), Chennai seeking permission

to fix 1/2 scale wages to Mrs. Malliga

w.e.f. 3-6-2002

Ex. M9

01-9-2003

Letter from Asstt. General Manager,

Chennai to Assistant General

Manager, Vellore

Ex. M10

23-1-2004

Service Sheet of R. Malliga - S. R.

No. 96008 appointing her from

3-6-2002 as PTS on basic pay of

Rs.1,375 enclosing confidential

report and service joining report

Ex. M11

18-9-2003

Letter from Chief Mgr., Vellore to

Branch Mgr., Chengadu enclosing

Engineer's certificate

Ex. M12 25-10-2003

Letter from Chief Manager, Vellore

to Asstt. General Manager, Chennai

Ex. M13

30-9-1978

Circular Notice - No. F/1/2/1/77/1R

from Government of India, Ministry

of Finance, New Delhi - to all

Nationalized Banks

Ex. M14

16-8-1990

Circular Notice No. F/3/3/104/87 -IR

from Government of India, Ministry

of Finance, New Delhi

Ex. M15 26-10-1994

Circular by Indian Bank - No. 11/94-

95-Misc.-139

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2518-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@191@2003&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2012

S. O. 2518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2003)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Vijaya Bank and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-12011/191/2003-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -

CUM -LABOUR COURT “SHRAM SADAN” ,

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD,

YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE- 560 022

Dated : 5th June, 2012

Present : SHRI S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 67/2003

I PARTY

The Regional Secretary,

Vijaya Bank Workers Organisation,

122, 1st Floor, Srinath Complex,

New Cotton Market,

Hubli- 29

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6181

II PARTY

The Deputy General Manager,

Vijaya Bank,

Head Office, M.G. Road,

Trinity Circle,

Bangalore- 560 001

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No.

L-12011/191/2003-IR(B-II) dated 20-11-2003 for adjudication

on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya

Bank is justified in dismissing the services of Shri

Gajanan L. Modgekar, Clerk ? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference pursuant to the

notices issued by this court Shri Gajanan L. Modgekar

(hereinafter referred as first party workman), now deceased

and represented by his wife and two daughters appeared

through Shri S. Vittal Shetty, advocate and filed his claim

statement on 31-8-2004, whereas the second party also

entered its appearance through Shri B.C. Prabhakar,

Advocate and filed counter statement on 27-7-2005. My

learned Predecessor having regard to certain allegations

made in the claim statement with regard to the fairness of

the Domestic Enquiry while framing preliminary issue as

to “Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the

first party by the second party is fair and proper ?”, after

receiving the evidence of the enquiry officer as MW1 and

exhibiting order appointing Shri B. Sooryakumar Rai as

enquiry officer; charge sheet issued to the first party dated

1-9-2001; explanation of the first party to the charge sheet;

enquiry notice issued to first party; enquiry proceedings

and enquiry report as Ex. M1 to M6 for the second party

and as the first party workman after filing his affidavit in

lieu of his evidence before cross-examination expired his

wife who came on record as one of his legal representative

filed her affidavit and examining herself as WW1 got

exhibited death certificate of her husband as Ex.W1 and

concluded her evidence, my learned Predecessor after

hearing the arguments addressed by the learned advocates

appearing for both sides by his order dated 10-5-2007

hold the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first

party by the second party being fair and proper, called

upon both the sides to address their arguments on merits.

It is borne out from the records that the learned advocates

appearing for both sides have filed their written arguments

before my learned Predecessor and he could not pass an

award due to his retirement and after his retirement again

both sides counsels were when called upon to address

their arguments both of them bringing to my notice that

they have already filed the written arguments requested

to consider the same and to proceed to pass award. In

view of the facts narrated by me above, the points that

arise for my consideration are -

(i) Whether the finding of the enquiry officer the

charge framed against the first party being proved

is perverse?

(ii) If not, whether the punishment of dismissal

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority modified by

the Appellant Authority i.e. removal from service

with superannuation benefits is disproportionate

to the proved charge of misconduct ?

(iii) What award ?

3. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence

brought on record before the enquiry officer with plea of

the deceased first party workman with the written

arguments submitted by both the sides my finding on

point No. (1) and (ii) are in the negative and point No. (iii)

is as per the final award for the following reasons :

Reasons

4. It is borne out from the records of the Domestic

Enquiry that the deceased first party workman who joined

the services of second party as Peon with staff code

No. 20065 w.e.f. 15-1-1998 and was working at its

Lamington Road Branch, Hubli on 10-05-2001 served with

a suspension order on the ground that there are reasons

to believe that on 8-5-2001 at 5.45 pm he manhandled and

physically attacked Mr. Vivek J. Waichal (Code No.16364)

Clerk without any provocation and then he also

manhandled and physically attacked Shri H. Prabhakar

Hegde (Code No. 3522) Assistant Branch Manager who

came to his rescue and then he rushed into the chambers

of Shri Gurudas G Narekuli (Code No. 2981), Sr. Branch

Manager who was making conversation on telephone

and also manhandled him and thereafter issuing a show

cause notice and on receipt of his reply being not satisfied

of the same served charge sheet dated 1-9-2001 as under:

CHARGE SHEET

‘‘Whereas there are prima facie grounds to believe

that you have committed acts of misconduct, the

particulars of which are furnished hereunder:—

You have been working as Peon at Lamington Road

Branch, Hubli from 15-1-1998. On 8-5-2001 at about

5.45 p.m. a lorry carrying files of erstwhile Regional

Office, Belgaum came and unloading was going on

near Lamington Road branch premises of the Bank

at Hubli. Shri H.P. Hegde, Asstt. Branch Manager,

Lamington Road Branch, Hubli, Shri Vivek Waichal,

Clerk, Lamington Road Branch and few other staff

6182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

members of the bank were at the entrance of the

branch. Suddenly Shri Gajanan L. Modgekar without

any provocation attacked aforementioned Shri Vivek

Waichal and tried to hit him holding his hand. Then,

Shri H.P. Hegde, Asst. Branch Manager came to the

rescue of Shri Vivek Waichal.In the meantime,

Shri Gajanan L.Medgekar attacked Shri H.P. Hegde,

Asst. Branch Manager, by holding his collar, neck

and pushed him towards the computer server room

cabin. With the result Shri H.P. Hegde, Asst.Branch

Manager lost his balance and fell down on the edge

of the Counter and Computer Cabin. At that time, a

fers staff members present there cam to the rescue

of Shri H.P. Hegde, Asst. Branch Manager.

Then Shri Gajanan L. Modgekar escaped and rushed

towards the Senior Branch Manager's cabin. At that

time, Shri Gurudas G. Narekulli, Senior Branch

Manager, Lamington Road branch, was attending a

telephone call. Shri Gajanan L. Modgekar, attacked

said Shri Gurudas G. Narekulli by kicking him at the

left waist and tried to snatch the telephone.

Immediately Shri H.P. Hegde, Asst. Branch Manager

and other staff members rushed to the Senior Branch

Manager's Cabin and took away Shri Gajanan L.

Modgekar who left the premises thereafter. All these

incidents happened within a fraction of few minutes.

Two of the customers of the branch Shri D.P. Madar

and Shri Shashidharan Pillai were also present at

that time.

By your above said acts, you had shown rude,

indecent and unruly behaviour towards your official

superiors/colleagues, which are highly irregular and

amounts to misconduct under the provisions of

Bipartite Settlement.

All the above acts on your part amount to serious

misbehaviour on the premises of the bank as also

willful attempt to cause damage to the property of

the bank and also its customers.’’

The bank, therefore, charges you as under:

‘‘Your action of committing the riotous and indecent

behaviour on the premises of the Bank and causing

willful damage to the property of the bank in the

presence of customers of the bank as stated above

on 8-5-2001 amount to acts of Gross Misconduct

under sub-clause (c)and (d) of Clause 19.5 of

Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement 1966’’.

‘‘You are, therefore, requested to submit your written

statement, setting forth your defence, if any, in

triplicate to the undersigned within 7 days of receipt

of this charge sheet and show cause as to why

appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken

against you failing with it will be deemed that you

have no statement of defence to submit and the

matter will be proceeded with accordingly.’’

5. After the first party availing sufficient time and

filing his reply/Ex.M3 to the effect that whatever happened

on 8-5-2001 was due to his suffering from meningitis and

he may be excused and he would not give a chance for

occurrence of such incidents in future, the management

being not satisfied with the said explanation initiated the

Domestic Enquiry appointiing Shri Jayaprakash Shetty as

enquiry officer and Shri Vijay Hegde, Asst. Manager as

Presenting Officer. The said enquiry officer issued a notice

to the deceased first party workman to appear on 16-1-

2002 for enquiry and on that day the first party who

appeared along with Shri Vasudev K Bhat to represent

him as Defence Representative while admitting the receipt

of charge sheet and understanding the same admitted the

charges with a request to consider his case under Section

19.12(e) of Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966

he concluded the enquiry on the same day and submitted

his report as the charge being proved forwarded the same

along with the representation given by the deceased

workman to consider his case under Section 19.12(e) of

Chapter XIX of the Bipartite Settlement,1966 to the

Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority while

rejecting the request of the deceased first party workman

to consider his case under Section 19.12(e) of Chapter

XIX of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966 deciding to hold a

denovo enquiry appointed Shri Surya Kumar Rai, Chief

Manager(Regional Inspectorate, Hubli) as Enquiry Officer

and Shri M.K. Vijayakumar, Manager, BH Road branch,

Bhadravati as Presenting Officer and the said enquiry

officer after confirming the receipt of charge sheet and

understanding the same when asked to the deceased first

party workman whether he pleads guilty he pleaded guilty

of the charges. Inspiteof the deceased first party pleading

guilty to the charge sheet the Enquiry Officer when called

upon the Presenting Officer to present his case he produced

preliminary investigation report dated 9-5-2001 submitted

by Shri K. Prabhakar Hegde, Sr. Manager, R.O., Hubli; letter

dated 9-5-2001 given by Shri H. Prabhakar Hegde, ABM,

Lamington Road Branch to the Investigating Officer; letter

dated 9-5-2001 given by Shri D.P. Madar, one of the

customers to the Investigating Officer; letter dated

9-5-2001 given by Shri V.G. Shashidhar Pillai, customer to

the Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri Gurudas G . Narekulli, SBM, Lamington Road branch

to the Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri S.B. Kunnur, Asst. Manager, Lamington Road branch

to the lnvestigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given

by Shri Vivek J. Waichal, Clerk, Lamington Road branch

to the Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri M.Y. Anegundi, Clerk, Lamington Road branch to the

Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri A.K. Meerunnavar, Peon, Lamington Road branch to

the Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri H.R. Madhubhavi, Peon, Lamington Road branch to

the Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri D.K. Tahsildar, Peon, R.O, Hubli to the Investigating

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6183

Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by Shri Ramappa

S.Yaligar, PTS, Lamington Road branch to the Investigating

Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by Shri S.V.

Lakshmeshwar, Clerk, Lamington Road branch to the

Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri B.V. Pandurangi, Clerk, Lamington Road branch to

the Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by

Shri P .D. Ari, Spl. Asst., Lamington Road branch to the

Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by Shri

G. P. Kulkarni, Manager, Lamington Road branch to the

Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by Shri

K.J. Shetty, Manager, Lamington Road branch to the

Investigating Officer; letter dated 9-5-2001 given by Shri

A. G., R O., Hubli to Shri K Prabhakar Hegde, SM, RO,

Hubli to conduct an investigation; letter dated 8-5-2001

written by Lamington Road Hubli branch to AGM, RO,

Hubli regarding the incident; Letter dated 9-5-2001 of

AGM,RO, Hubli addressed to Shri Gajanan L Modgekar,

calling for explanation and letter dated 24-5-2001 of Shri

Gajanan L. Modgekar to the AGM, RO, Hubli in reply to

their letter dated 9-5-2001 and also submitted that he would

examine Shri H. Prabhakar Hegde, Branch Manager,

Ranebennur Branch; Shri D.P Madar, Customer of

Lamington Road Branch; Shri V.G. Shashidhar Pillai,

Customer of Lamington Road Branch; Shri AK.

Meerunnavar, Peon, Lamington Road Branch, Hubli; Shri

H.R Madhubhavi, Peon, Lamington Road Branch, Hubli;

Shri S.B. Kunnur, Asst. Manager, Lamington Road Branch

and Shri Gurudas G. Narekulli, SBM, Lamington Road

Branch as management witnesses and also furnished the

full set of the documents to the deceased first party

workman and getting those documents marked as Ex. MEX

1 to MEX 21 he examined Shri D. P. Madar, Customer; Shri

V.G. Shashidharan Pillai, Customer; Shri H. Prabhakar

Hegde, Branch Manager; Shri AK. Meerannavar, Peon;

Shri H.R Madhubhavi, Peon; Shri S.B. Kunnur, Asstt.

Manager and Shri Gurudas G. Narekulli, Sr.Branch Manager

as MW1 to MW7. After close of the management side

when the enquiry officer asked the deceased first party

workman whether he would like to make any submission

since he submitted that he sincerely and humbly request

to consider his case under Section 19.12(e) of the Bipartite

Settlement 1966 and that he unconditionally accept all the

charges framed against him and to consider the same on

humanitarian ground he concluded his enquiry and

submitted his finding the charge being proved. The

Disciplinary Authority thereafter serving the copy of the

enquiry report and affording a personal hearing to the

deceased first party workman by his order dated 17-7-

2002 imposed the punishment Dismissal from service of

the bank with immediate effect. On appeal by the deceased

first party workman to General Manager(Personnel)&

Appellate Authority, he after affording personal hearing

to the deceased first party workman modified the

punishment of Dismissal into one of removal from service

with superannuation benefits by order dated 29-8-2002.

Thereafter when the conciliation proceedings initiated by

the deceased first party workman failed the Central

Government made this reference for adjudication.

6. Since as already adverted to by me, my Learned

Predecessor by his order dated 10th May, 2007 having

held the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first

party by the second party being fair and proper, the only

points that remains now for my consideration is whether

the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and whether

the final order of punishment i.e. the removal from service

with superannuation benefits is disproportionate to the

proved charge, let me now proceed to consider these

aspects.

7. No doubt as put forward by the deceased first

party workman the first two witnesses examined for the

management i.e. Shri D.P. Madar & Shri V. G. Shashidharan

Pillai customers as MW1 & MW2 claims to be present at

the time of alleged incident though deposed that at the

relevant time they saw one of the peon rushing towards

the branch Manager’s cabin who was attending the

telephone call kicked him and few staff members rescued

him did not identify the deceased first party workman was

being the actual assailant, but the evidence of MW3,

Shri H. Prabhakar Hegde, Branch Manager who deposed

that on the evening of 8-5-2001 around 5.45 pm he saw

Gajanan Modgekar (the deceased first party) holding the

hands of Vivek Waichal and trying to hit him he went to

his rescue and he too attacked him and pushed as a result

of which he fell down and then he reached the branch

Manager's cabin and kicked him and the evidence of MW4

Shri A.K.Meerannavar, Peon that on 8-05-2001 around 5.30

in the evening after keeping the cash inside the safe when

he came out he saw Shri Vivek Waichal and Prabhakar

Hegde near the gate and suddenly the peon pulled

Shri Vivek by holding his hands and then pushed

Shri Prabhakar Hegde near the computer room and then

rushed to the Branch Manager’s cabin who was talking

over telephone and kicked him and he was rescued by the

staff members and in the evidence of MW5 Shri H.R.

Madhubhavi, peon that when he came out of the

stationery room after changing the uniform around 5.30 in

the evening he found some commotion at the entrance of

the branch and found Shri Gajanan(deceased first party)

rushing to the Branch Manager’s cabin and kicking him

was rescued by staff members and the evidence of MW6

Shri S.B. Kunnur, Assistant Manager that on 8-5-2001

around 5.30 in the evening while he was sitting in the seat

just outside the Branch Manager's cabin along with the

two customers who came in connection with their loan

proposal around 5.45 he heard a sudden noise near the

front gate and then he saw Shri Gajanan(deceased first

party) suddenly rushing to the Branch Manager’s cabin

who was attending the telephone kicked him and tried to

snatch the telephone from him and in the meanwhile staff

members rescued him and the evidence of MW7 S Gurudas

6184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

G. Narekulli, Sr. Branch Manager that on 8-5-2001 around

5.45 pm when he was attending a telephone call in his

cabin he could see through the glass some commotion

near the gate, suddenly the peon Shri Gajanan rushed

into his cabin and kicked him from behind and tried to

snatch the telephone and in the meanwhile other staff

members came to his rescue and took Shri Gajanan away

being not at all challenged or even denied in their cross

examination, only because the two customers of the bank

examined as MW1 &MW2 could not name the deceased

first party or identify him as one who was the assailant

it cannot be said that it is not he who made this galatta

on that day. Moreover, even in his plea at the time of

second enquiry he having unequivocally pleaded guilty

and even in his representation to the Disciplinary

Authority after receipt of the enquiry finding admitted

charge of manhandling the bank officers who were

superior to him without any reason, absolutely I find

no reason to say that the finding of the enquiry officer

being perverse.

8. Now coming to the part of the punishment, as

already adverted to by me above, the disciplinary authority

having regard to the act on the part of the deceased first

party workman inflicted him with the punishment of

Dismissal from service, the Appellate Authority while

considering the past records of the deceased first party

workman was without any black mark taking a lenient

view modified it to removal from service with

superannuation benefits, for such act of an employee in

the bank who was in the lowest rank assaulting the superior

employees in the bank without any reason no lesser

punishment than one imposed by the Appellate Authority

i.e removal from service with superannuation benefits

could have been inflicted. In other words to the charge of

misconduct proved against the deceased first party

workman the final punishment by the Appellate Authority

of removal from service with superannuation benefits is

not disproportionate and it needs no interference by this

court. In the result while answering Point No(i)&(ii) in the

'Negative' I pass the following award.

AWARD

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management of Vijaya Bank in removing

Shri Gajanan L Modgekar, Clerk from the services

with superannuation benefits is just and proper

and that his legal representatives are not entitle for

any benefits.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 5-6-2012).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2519-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&II] paMhx< ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

484@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

28&6&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@62@2005&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2012

S.O. 2519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.484/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen,which was received by the Central Government

on 28-6-2012.

[No. L-12011/62/2005-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 484/2005

Registered on 25-8-2005

The Regional President, All India PNB SC/ST

Welfare Association, Village Baidi, P.O. Bandi, Tehsil and

Distt, Kangra (HP).

...Petitioner

Versus

The Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank

R.O. Dharamshala Dt. Kangra.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman :

Sh. R. K. Dhiman, A. R.

For the Management :

Sh. R. S. Rana, A. R.

AWARD

Passed

on June 1, 2012

The Central Government vide Notification No.

L-12011/62/2005 -IR(B-II)) Dated 9-8-2005, by exercising

its powers under Section .10 sub- section (1) Clause (d)

and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6185

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of PNB,

Dharmshala, in Inflicting punishment of reduction

of salary by one stage in scale of pay for period of

two years on Sh. P. N. Dhiman is legal and justified

? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to ?’’

The factual matrix of the case is that the workman

had been charge sheeted for committing gross misconduct

under Clause 19.5(j) and 19.5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement

as he had influenced the customers of the bank to deposit

the money with a private company instead of depositing

the money with the bank since his wife was working as an

agent of the said company and secondly he had threatened

the complainants for dire consequences if complaints were

not withdrawn by them and thirdly his behaviour towards

the colleagues was rude. After inquiry the disciplinary

authority inflicted the punishment of reduction of salary

by one stage in the scale of pay for a period of two years

from the date of order. It is this order which is under

challenge in the reference. The fact however is that in an

appeal by the workman the said punishment was modified

and reduced, as the appellate authority ordered for the

punishment of the reduction of the salary by one stage in

the scale of pay for a period of one year.

In his claim statement claimant has challenged the

punishment order passed by both the authorities on the

ground that the charges in the charge sheet, do not fall

under the meaning and provisions of 19.5(j) and 19.5(c) of

Bipartite Settlement, were manipulated, fictitious, false,

vague and based on ill-will. They were not proved and the

punishment awarded was higher then the proposed

punishment of withholding two increments without

cumulative effect.

The management contested the claim and filed the

written statement to say that the claimant union is not a

registered trade union and is not competent to espouse

the industrial dispute. The punishment in the case was

inflicted after holding a proper inquiry. Charge sheet was

based on genuine complaint and the charges stood proved

in the inquiry. Punishment inflicted by the authorities is

commensurate with the gravity of offence.

A rejoinder to the written statement of the

management was filed by the claimant.

On behalf of claimant the concerned workman and

on behalf of management the affidavit of A.K. Diwan the

Presenting Officer in the inquiry was filed. Parties also

filed certain documents. When the case was at the stage

of management evidence the claimant absented and did

not join the proceedings despite notice sent by registered

post on 23-8-2010. However written arguments filed by

the claimant earlier ,are available on record. I have perused

the record and heard the learned counsel for management.

The management has challenged the maintainability

of reference on the ground that the claimant union is not

a registered trade union and is not competent to espouse

the dispute. In this regard it may be noted that it is not

necessary that the union should be a registered trade

union or a recognized trade union under the Act. If a body

of substantial number of workmen either acting through a

union or otherwise, had sponsored the workmen's cause,

it would be sufficient to convert it into an industrial

dispute. The definition of an industrial dispute is not

restricted to a dispute between an employer and a

recognized trade union but it takes within its wide sweep,

any 'dispute or difference' between the employer and the

workmen. The objection of the management therefore in

this regard has no weight.

But in my opinion the claimant union has no case as

the punishment of reduction of salary by one stage in a

scale of pay for period of two years passed by the

disciplinary authority has been referred for adjudication

while the said punishment has already been reduced by

the appellate authority to reduction of salary by one stage

in the scale of pay for a period of one year. Therefore

there is no occasion for adjudging the legality and

justification or the punishment under the reference. The

refeence has become infructuous. The concerned workman

is not entitled to any relief under the circumstances with

regard to punishment under the reference. Reference is

answered accordingly. Let two copies of the award be

sent to Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2520-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bykgkckn cSad

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&I] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

138@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8&6&2012

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@137@2000&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2012

S.O. 2520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.138/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-I, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

6186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

8-6-2012.

[No. L-12011/137/2000-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.138/2011

Shri S.K.Bawa,

Through the General Secretary,

All India Allahabad Bank Employees’ Union

Allahabad Bank,

Baroda House,

New Delhi

...Workman

versus

The General Manager (P&A),

Allahabad Bank,

A.B. Head Office,

2, Netaji Subhash Road,

Kolkata

...Management

AWARD

Policy of effective utilization of human resources

empowers an employer to transfer his employee from one

place of work to another. Level of utilization, employment

and retention of human resources in exigency of work are

the domain of an employer. Transfer of an employee, being

the incidence of employment is the prerogative of the

employer. This right of employer, has been put under

certain restriction by industrial adjudication. When transfer

of an employee is by way of victimization or malafide, the

Industrial Adjudicator has the right to intervene.

Managerial function, when performed with corrupt or

criminal intention, would cease to be rightful. It would

amount to tyrannical act and would invite spurns from

adjudicatory authorities.

2. All India Allahabad Bank Employees Association

(in short the Association) raises eyebrows on transfer of

Shri S.K. Bawa from NOIDA branch to Tughlakabad, New

Delhi branch of Allahabad Bank (in short the Bank). The

Association projects that Shri Bawa was its All India

Treasurer, whose transfer was done by the Bank with a

view to weaken it. Demand was raised that the transfer

order may be recalled. The demand, so raised, was not

conceded to. An industrial dispute was raised before the

Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed,

the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L-12011/137/2000-

IR(B-II) New Delhi dated 17-10-2010, with the following

terms :

‘‘Whether by the transfer of Shri S.K. Bawa, All India

Treasurer of All India Allahabad Bank Employees

Association by the Management of Allahabad Bank

allegedly against the provisions of Memorandum of

Settlement dated 3-3-1980, was there any violation

of Para 535 of Shastry Award ? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to ?

3. Claim statement was filed by the Association

pleading that Shri S.K. Bawa is its All India Treasurer, who

was office bearer of the Association for last more than

three years and an intimation in that regard was sent to

the Bank. He was posted in NOIDA branch of the Bank as

Special Assistant. The Bank has failed to acknowledge

the fact of his being an officer bearer of the Association.

He was transferred to Tughlakabad branch of the Bank

with the intention to terrorize the members of the

Association and to uphold the morale of the rival union.

The action of the Bank is violative of the provisions of

Para 535 of the Shastry Award as well as guidelines issued

by the Bank relating to rotational transfers. It was brought

to the notice of the Bank that transfer of Shri Bawa was

not in consonance with the settled norms. The Bank did

not budge. The Association projects that the Bank had

taken a discriminatory view and projected undue interest

in favour of All India Allahabad Bank Employees Co-

ordination Committee, an unregistered trade union, when

settlement dated 3-3-1990 was entered into. It has been

claimed that the action of the Bank in transferring Shri

Bawa may be declared as illegal, discriminatory and

violative of the principles of natural justice.

4. Claim was demurred by the Bank pleading that the

Association impugns the transfer orders of Shri Bawa

being violative of Para 535 of Shastry Award and

Settlement dated 3-3-1990. It has been asserted that the

Association has no right to espouse cause of Shri Bawa,

since he is not governed by the provisions of Para 535 of

the Shastry Award. The claim of the Association that

transfer of Shri Bawa is in contravention of the terms of

Settlement dated 3-3-1990 is also unfounded. Shri Bawa is

not an office bearer of a union, as envisaged by the

provisions of Shastry Award.

5. The Bank projects that Shri S.K. Bawa was posted

at Scindia House branch from where he was transferred to

NOIDA branch on promotion. He obtained another

promotion at NOIDA branch under orders from the

Regional Manager, New Delhi. At the time of his promotion

to NOIDA branch, no objection was raised to the effect

that his transfer was out of the State. Now, it does not lie

in the mouth of the Association to agitate that the claimant

was not controlled by the Regional Manager, New Delhi

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6187

and his transfer was from one station to another. It has

further been projected that the Association was not to be

consulted for transfer of Shri Bawa. On the other hand, it

was All India Allahabad Bank Employees Co-ordination

Committee and its affiliated union which were to be

consulted. The Bank presents that the claim put forth by

the Association is devoid of merits, hence it may be

dismissed.

6. The Association traces reliance on Settlement

dated 3-3-1990, which is also pressed in service by the

Bank. This document was exhibited as Ex. M1. Except this

piece of documentary evidence, no other evidence was

put forward either by the Association or by the Bank.

Both parties projected that facts are not in dispute.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.S. Saini,

authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the Association. Shri Rajat Arora, authorised

representative, raised submission on behalf of the Bank. I

have given my careful consideration to the arguments

advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records.

My findings on issue involved in the controversy are as

follows:

8. Employees in any concern are, in ordinary course

of business, liable to be transferred. No concern can

possibly run if it has no right to transfer its employees

from one branch to another. The transfer might cause some

inconvenience but all employees are bound to suffer

inconvenience unless there is some stipulation in their

condition of services to the effect that they will remain at

a particular branch or place of business. Thus, liability to

be transferred is a normal incidence of service in any

concern and it does not necessarily involve punishment.

So management has got a right in law to transfer an

employee from one branch to another or from one concern

to another, which is also under the same management.

9. In effecting transfer of workmen from one branch

to another, the management must act bonafide and in the

interest of its business. The existence of power to transfer

and its scope and exercise of it are entirely two different

questions. Colourable exercise by the employer of his

power to transfer a workman from one establishment at

one place to another at different place can always be a

subject- matter of industrial dispute. In considering the

question whether transfer from one place to another had

effected a change in the conditions of service of a workman,

following types of cases must be considered, namely,—

(a) Where there are standing orders or the

conditions of service have been reduced to writing;

and

(i) those may either contain provisions to deal with

transfers, or

(ii) they may not.

(b) Where there are no standing orders at all or any

other instrument in writing to deal with service

conditions.

10. In cases, falling under (b) or (a) (ii), liability to

be transferred from one establishment to another at a

different place by the employer or at his instance is an

incidence of service, that is to say, an implied condition of

service and the workman concerned cannot successfully

complain unless he can show that the transfer was made

by way of punishment. In cases falling within (a) (i) above

two broad questions arise for consideration, namely—(i)

whether the rules or provisions dealing with the matter of

transfer are of the fullest amplitude, that is to say, whether

they cover the whole field of transfer, or (ii) whether they

are not. In the first case, those rules or provisions would

be the only governing rules or provisions on the subject.

Whether the rules regarding transfer are of the fullest

amplitude or not would depend upon consideration of the

standing orders or contract of service. In the second type

of cases, it must be seen as to what extent the special

provisions or rules in the standing orders have effected or

curtailed the general power of transfer of the employer

which is implied in every contract of service.

11. Powers of the employer to transfer an employee

from one place to another necessarily includes two things,

namely -

(i) It can only be taken away or curtailed or regulated

in express terms, and

(ii)that the power is only in the employer which

means that only the employer or a person either

expressly authorized by him or who can be said to

have that authority impliedly, can exercise that

power.

12. As detailed below, Shastry Award and Settlement

dated 3-3-1990, place restrictions on the powers of the

Bank to effect rotational transfers of its employees. Transfer

of an employee which is justified by exigencies of service

and also in accordance with the standing orders cannot

be said to be creating hardship to the employee. In such

transfer, question of hardship cannot be construed to treat

the transfer unfair. In Shastry Award, the policy of transfer

of the staff was penned down in Para 535. Relying on Sen

Award, directives were given, which are reproduced as

follows:

(i) Every registered Bank employees' union, from

time to time, shall furnish the Bank with the names

of the President, Vice President and the Secretaries

of the Union;

(ii) Except in very special cases, whenever the

transfer of any of the above mentioned office bearers

is contemplated, at least five clear working days'

notice should be put up on the notice board of the

6188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bank of such contemplated action;

(iii) Any representation, written or oral, made by the

union shall be considered by the Bank;

(iv) If any order of transfer is ultimately made, a

record shall be made by the Bank of such

representation and the Bank's reasons for regarding

them as inadequate; and

(v) The decision shall be communicated to the union

as well as to the employee concerned.

13. Besides above, the Bank entered into a settlement

dated 3-3-1990 wherein rotational transfer was agreed upon

between the Bank and All India Allahabad Bank Employees

Co-ordination Committee. The rotational transfer policy

agreed into between the parties, is extracted thus:

‘‘a. Rotational transfer - Rotational transfer of award

staff will be considered in a phased manner, who have

completed more than five years of continuous service in a

particular Branch/Office on the principle of ‘first in - first

out’:

(i) First of all, employees who have completed 20

years of continuous service at a branch/office shall

be considered

(ii) Then employees who have completed 15 years

of continuous service at a branch/office will be

considered

(iii) Then employees who have completed 10 years

of continuous service at a branch/office will be

considered

(iv) At last, employees who have completed five

years of continuous service at the branch/office will

be considered.

b. Rotational transfer will be made within the same

station.

c. There will be transfer of employees drawing

special allowance, with the following exceptions:

i. transfer of physically handicapped employees,

widow employee and/or employees who are to retire

within the next two years will not be effected

ii. important office bearers of All India Allahabad

Bank Employees Co-ordination Committee and its

affiliated unions will not be transferred without their

consent

The exception as mentioned in (ii) is equally

applicable to non allowance carrying posts

d. Transfer will be effected in a manner so that no

inconvenience/harassment is caused to any employee

e. It will be ensured that there should be no abuse/

misuse of the authority while effecting rotational transfer.’’

14. With a view to give effect to settlement dated

3-3-1990, the Bank issued circular dated 3-4-1990 wherein

the above policy was incorporated to the fullest extent.

Circular referred to above is not a matter of dispute.

Settlement dated 3-3-1990 and Circular dated 3-4-1990

project that the Bank can devise policy of transfer of its

employees for utilization of manpower to the greatest

extent, subject to the restrictions contained therein. The

employee who had completed at least 5 years of

continuous service at a branch/office can be rotationally

transferred. Employees drawing special allowance can also

be transferred in case he does not happen to be physically

handicapped or widow and/or to retire within the next two

years. Important office bearers of All India Allahabad Bank

Employees Co-ordination Committee and its affiliated

unions were not to be transferred without their consent.

15. As borne out of records, the Association projects

that Shri S.K. Bawa was its All India Treasurer, who ought

not to have been transferred without his consent. As

projected above, Shastry Award ordains the Bank to give

at least 5 clear working days' notice to the registered Bank

employees union, in case its President, Vice President and

Secretaries are to be transferred. It is not a matter of dispute

that the Association is registered Bank employees' union.

However, Shri Bawa is neither the President, nor Vice

President nor Secretary of the Association. He is All India

Treasurer of the Association, which designation does not

find place in the list of office bearers, whose transfer has

been made an exception by the Shastry Award.

Consequently, it cannot be said that for the transfer of

Shri Bawa, the Bank should have given at least 5 clear

working days’ notice to the Association and consider

representation, if any, made by the Association in that

regard. Bank was also not to communicate its decision to

Shri Bawa and the Association.

16. Whether the transfer of Shri Bawa was in

consonance with the provisions of the Settlement Ex. M 1

and policy circulated by the Bank on 3-4-1990 ? For an

answer facts pleaded by the Association are to be

considered. As emerge out of records, it is not a case of

the Association that Shri Bawa has not completed five

years continuous service at NOIDA branch of the Bank.

The Association has drawn an eerie silence on this point.

Silence of the Association makes me to comment that Shri

Bawa had completed five years continuous service at

NOIDA branch of the Bank and his case squarely falls

within the rotational transfer policy. However, rotational

transfer can be made within the same station. Circular dated

3-4-1990 details that ‘station’ and ‘area’ means ‘station’

and ‘area' as defined in the Memorandum of Settlement

dated 22-4-1989. Settlement dated 22-4-1989 defines

‘station’ as the place within the limits covered by

Corporation, Municipality, Notified Area Council or Gram

Panchayat, as the case may be. Consequently, it is

emerging over the record that rotational transfer of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6189

Shri Bawa can be effected within the limits covered by

Corporation, Municipality, Notified Area Council or Gram

Panchayat. He was transferred from NOIDA branch to

Tughlakabad, New Delhi branch of the Bank. Admittedly,

Tughlakabad, New Delhi branch of the Bank does not fall

within the limits covered by the aforesaid local authorities,

viz. Corporation, Municipality, Notified Area Council or

Gram Panchayat. Tughlakabad branch was outside the

‘same station’ as defined in the aforesaid memorandum of

settlement. Therefore, it is apparent that Shri Bawa was

transferred out of the limits of the ‘same station’ and his

transfer was not in consonance with the provisions of

settlement dated 3-4-1990.

17. Shri Bawa was transferred to Tughlakabad, New

Delhi branch of the Bank on 17-4-1996. He served

Tughlakabad, New Delhi branch of the Bank for long five

years and thereafter sought voluntary retirement on

17-3-2001. Thus, it is not a case where the Bank can be

commanded to recall the transfer order of Shri Bawa. As

claimed by the Association, Shri Bawa was an active office

bearer and his transfer order was passed with an intention

to break the strength of the Association at a particular

place. However, no evidence was brought by the

Association that on transfer of Shri Bawa to Tughlakabad,

New Delhi branch, the Association could not fill the gap

from amongst its other members. Hence, the Tribunal

cannot reach a conclusion that transfer of Shri Bawa was

a means of victimization or unfair labour practice on the

part of the Bank. However, the Bank exercised power of

transfer in an arbitrary manner, which act made Shri Bawa

to suffer. On the date of his transfer, family of Shri Bawa

was residing at M-08, Sector 11, NOIDA, Gautam Budh

Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. He was made to suffer hardship by

the Bank, when his arbitrary transfer was effected. Except

that fact, no other evidence is available to ascertain

quantum of hardship faced by him. However, it is crystal

clear that for long five years, Shri Bawa had to travel a

long distance to reach his work place. Taking into account

all these facts, I am of the considered opinion that the

Bank effected transfer of Shri Bawa in violation of the

provisions of Memorandum of Settlement dated 3-4-1990,

which act is neither legal nor justified.

18. Reasons detailed above make it clear that the

action of the Bank was uncalled for. Transfer order

operated harshly on Shri Bawa and he suffered the agony

for five years. Since, Shri Bawa was made to suffer, it would

be expedient to command the Bank to pay a sum of

Rs.50,000.00 to Shri Bawa as compensation for hardship

suffered on account of the illegal transfer effected by the

Bank. An award is, accordingly, passed in favour of the

Association and against the Bank. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 31-5-2012

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2521-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dkWjiksjs'ku

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k @Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@128@2006&vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2012

S.O. 2521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Corporation Bank and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

2-7-2012.

[No. L-12012/128/2006-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 13th June 2012

PRESENT

Shri S.N. NAVALGUND, PRESIDING OFFICER

C. R. No. 67/2007

I PARTY

Shri V. Govindaiah,

(Since Deceased Represented by

Smt. B. D. Meenakshi, wife, Shri

G. Hemanth Kumar, Son & Shri

G. Chetan Kumar, Son as LRs)

No. 18, 1st Cross,

Sakamma Lay Out,

B. Narayaanapura, K R Puram, Hobli

BANGALORE - 560016

II PARTY

The Chief Manager,

Corporation Bank,

Head Office,

Mangaladevi Temple Road,

P.B. No.88,

MAN GALORE- 575001

6190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-

section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No.

L-12012/128/2006-IR(B-II) dated 7-6-2007 for adjudication

on the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of

Corporation Bank in deleting the name of Shri V.

Govindaiah, Peon Shivajinagar Branch, Bangalore

w.e.f. 12-12-2005 from the records of the Bank by

invoking Clause-33:Voluntary Cessation of

Employment-8th Bi-partite Settlement dated

2-6-2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled and from which date ?’’

2. After receipt of the reference pursuant to the

notices issued by this court the first party as well as the

Second party while entering their appearance through their

respective advocates filed the Claim Statement and Counter

Statement respectively. The first party workman since

died after filing of the Claim Statement Shri Muralidhar,

advocate who was representing him by filing necessary

application brought his wife and two sons as his legal

representative on record.

3. It is claimed in the claim statement filed by the

deceased first party workman that he who joined the

services of the second party in the year 1984 as Peon

served honestly and sincerely without giving any occasion

to his higher officers to comment adversely on his work

performance or conduct and as he fell sick and was taking

treatment at Sri Krishna Clinic, Indiranagar, Bangalore from

24-5-2005 on wards he communicated the same through

leave letter enclosing the Medical Certificate on

25-5-2005 and there after he took treatment at various

hospital, including Ayurvedic Doctors and went on

seeking extension of leave through letters sent by post

from time to time and could not attend to his duties. The

matter stood thus to his surprise he received letter from

second party bearing No.PAD IRW : DISC : 2265:2005 dated

17-12-2005 stating therein that he having remained

unauthorisedly absent for the period exceeding 90 days

from 24-5-2005 without responding to the notices dated 1-

10-2005 and 10-11-2005, by virtue of Clause 33 of the

Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005 he was deemed to have

voluntarily vacated employment w.e.f. 12-12-2005.

Immediately on receipt of the said letter he filed appeal to

the General Manager of the second party and the same

came to be rejected without considering the facts and

circumstances on technical grounds that no appeal was

maintainable against an order passed under Clause 33 of

the Bipartite Settlement. Thereafter on his approach to

the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) for his intervention

since second party did not come forward to take back him

to work the conciliation ended in failure as a result the

Central Government made this reference for adjudication.

With these assertion in the Claim statement he prayed to

pass an award to hold that the action of the second party

deleting his name w.e.f. 12-12-2005 from the records of the

bank by invoking clause 33 Voluntary Cessation of

employment is not just and legal and to direct for his

reinstatement with full back wages continuity of service

and all other consequential benefits.

4. In the counter statement filed for the second party

through Chief Manager, Corporation Bank without

disputing the fact that the first party workman joined its

services in the year 1984 as a peon and was serving in its

Shivajinagar Branch, Bangalore, denying his claim that

his services was blemish-less contended that he was

‘censured’, ‘advised’ and ‘warned’ on three different

occasions during the tenure of his service for his

misconduct including misconduct of unauthorized absence

and that w.e.f. 24-5-2005, he remained absent without prior

sanction of leave/without prior intimation from the

competent authority as such on 13-6-2005 the Chief

Manager of Bangalore Shivajinagar branch sent a telegram

to his last known address available in the branch records

advising him to report to duty immediately and as the first

party did not respond to the same the matter was reported

to the Zonal Office, Bangalore and thereafter on

12-7-2005 the Zonal Office, Bangalore too issued a

telegram to him advising him to report for duty immediately

besides informing that his absence from duty w.e.f.

24-5-2005 is unauthorized and incase he remained absent

on account of sickness he may appear before the Bank's

Doctor, Dr. Nagesh Kamath, Subbaiah Road,

Kodandaramapuram, Malleshwaram, Bangalore and in

addition to that telegram it also sent a confirmation letter

of even date to him to the last known address and inspite

of the said telegram followed by the confirmatory letter

the first party, workman did not join for his duties. Under

the circumstances as provided by Clause 33 of the 8th

Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005 with regard to the

Voluntary cessation of employment Chief Manager and

Competent Authority issued notice dated 1-10-2005 while

pointing out his unauthorized absence advising him to

report for work within 30 days from the date of notice or to

submit explanation for his absence within a period of 30

days and the said notice sent to his last known address

i.e. No. 87, Motappanapalya, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038

by registered post acknowledgment due returned

undelivered by the postal authorities with the remarks ‘not

claimed’ indicating thereby that he knowingly and

consciously dodged delivery of the said communication

and as he did not report for duty even thereafter with a

view to give him a final opportunity another notice dated

10-11-2005. was sent to him once again advising him to

report to duty further specifying that in the event of non

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6191

reporting for work within 30 days of the notice he would

be deemed to have voluntarily vacated employment and

as the said notice sent to his last known residential address

at K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk by registered

post returned with remarks ‘not known’ and another copy

of the same notice sent to his residential address at

Indiranagar, Bangalore was not returned undelivered

thereby indicating the said letter has been delivered to

him and this notice was also displayed on the notice board

of its Shivjinagar Branch, Bangalore on 12 -11-2005. Inspite

of all these since the first party did not report for duty the

competent authority vide his letter dated 17-12-2005 by

virtue of Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated

2-6-2005 which reads as under:

‘‘When an employee absents himself from work for

a period of 90 or more consecutive days without prior

sanction from the Competent Authority or beyond the

period of leave sanctioned originally including any

extension thereof or when there is satisfactory evidence

that he has taken up employment in India or outside, the

management at any time thereafter may give a notice to

the employee at his last known address as recorded with

the bank calling upon him to report for work within

30 days of the date of notice.

Unless the employee reports for work within 30 days

of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within

the period of 30 days satisfying the management inter alia

that he has not taken up another employment or avocation,

the employee shall be given a further notice to report for

work within 30 days of the notice failing which the

employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated the

employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised

accordingly by registered post.

In the event of the employee submitting a

satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for work

thereafter within 30 days from the date of expiry of the

aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to

take any action under the law or rules/conditions of

service.

If the employee fails to report for work within this 30

days period, then he shall be given final notice to report

for work within 30 days of this notice failing which, the

employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his

employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised

accordingly by registered post.

If an employee again absent himself for the second

time within a period of 30 days without submitting any

application and obtaining sanction, thereof, after reporting

for duty in response to the first notice given after 90 days

of absence or within the 30 days period granted to him for

reporting to work on his submitting a satisfactory reply to

the first notice, a further notice shall be given after 30

days of such absence giving him 30 days time to report. If

he fails to report for work or reports for work in response

to the notice but absents himself a third time from work

within a period of 30 days without prior sanction, his name

shall be struck off from the rolls of the establishment after

30 days of such absence under intimation to him by

registered post deeming that he was voluntarily vacated

his appointment.

Any notice under this clause shall be in a language

understood by the employee concerned. The notice shall

be sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement

due. Where the notice under this clause is sent to the

employee by registered post acknowledgement due at the

last recorded address communicated in writing by the

employee and acknowledged by the bank, the same shall

be deemed as good and proper service’’, informed him

that he was deemed to have voluntarily vacated his

employment w. e.f. 12-12-2005 to his residential address at

Indiranagar, Bangalore which was received by him

accordingly his name came to be deleted from the rolls of

the second party bank and thereafter appeal preferred by

him dated 20-1-2006· was not acceded to and was

communicated accordingly vide letter dated 23-3-2006

since there was no provision for appeal against the action

taken under Clause 33 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement.

Thus the second party substantiated its action of

Voluntary Cessation of Employment of the first party and

prayed for rejection of the reference.

5. After completion of the pleadings when the

second party was called upon to substantiate its action,

the learned advocate appearing for the second party while

filing the affidavit of Shri S. Nagannathan, Son of R.

Subramaniam, Manager(Law) at Zonal Office and

examining him on oath as MW1 got marked office copy of

the notice sent to the first party dated 1-10-2005 to his

two residential address viz (i) No. 18, B. Narayanapura,

K.R. Puram, Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk & (ii) No. 87,

Motappanapalya, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038;

undelivered postal envelop addressed to first party with

postal share ‘‘Not known returned to sender”; Office copy

of the notice issued to first party dated 10-11-2005 to his

two addresses; office copy of the letter addressed by the

Manager to the Sr.Post Master, Head Post Office,

Pandeshwar, Mangalore to inform the date of delivery of

registered post AD letter addressed to first party dated

10-11-2005; the letter of reply received by the Manager

from the post office dated 9-2-2007 the registered letter

No.2430 being delivered to the addressee on 22-11-2005

by Indiranagar Post Office, Bangalore; letter addressed to

the first party workman to his two residential addresses

dated 17-12-2005 by virtue of clause 33 of the Bipartite

Settlement dated 2-6-2005 he being deemed to have

voluntarily vacated his employment w.e.f. 12-12-2005;

Appeal memo submitted by the deceased first party

workman to the Assistant General Manager(Appellate

Authority)· received in his office on 20-1-2006; reply dated

6192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17/23-3-2006 by the Chief Manager to the appeal received

by him informing that clause 33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement

dated 2-6-2005 on Voluntary Cessation of Employment

being invoked against him and he deemed to have

voluntary vacated his employment and there shall be no

provision of appeal against such action; extract of Clause

33 of 8 Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005 with regard to

the Voluntary Cessation of Employment; Copy of telegram

dated 13-6-2005 of the Chief' Manager of Shivajinagar

Branch sent to first party; copy of the telegram sent to

first party by the Zonal Office of the second party dated

12-7-2005 and four undelivered registered postal covers

addressed to first party; Death certificate of first party

issued on 17-6-2008 by the Chief Registrar of Birth and

Death, Government of Karnataka; Copy of letter dated

8-3-2005 to first party for having settled his Gratuity and

copy of letter addressed to wife of the first party having

settled PF & other dues dated 24-10-2008 as Ex.M1 to M18

respectively. Inter alia the learned advocate appearing for

the first party while filing the affidavit of Shri G. Hemanth

Kumar, the son of the deceased first party examining him

on oath as WW1 got marked the Photostat copy of leave

application dated 24-5-2005 with medical certificate said

to have sent under Certificate of Posting; Certificate of

posting dated 25-5-2005 having posted a letter to the

Manager, Corporation Bank, No.40. Lady Cruzon Road,

Shivaji Nagar Branch, Bangalore; letter addressed by

Senior Manager (Personnel Department) from zonal office

of the second party bank addressed to M/s. Wockhardt

Hospital & Heart Institute, Bangalore dated 16-5-2005

with a request to provide medical assistance to the deceased

first party workman; x-ray reports issued by M/s. Wockhardt

Hospital & Heart Institute, Bangalore pertaining to the

deceased first party dated 17-6-2005; Blood test reports

pertaining to the deceased first party dated 17-6-2005 issued

by M/s. Wockhardt Hospital & Heart Institute, Bangalore;

letter of appointment received by him(WW1) dated 27-12-

2005 as Ex.W1 to W6 respectively

6. With the above pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides

the arguments addressed by the learned advocates

appearing for both the sides were heard.

7. The learned advocate appearing for the first party

while taking me through the evidence on record urged

that under Ex.W1 the deceased first party workman

accompanied by medical certificate issued by Shri Krishna

Clinic, Indiranagar, Bangalore applied for leave without

pay and forwarded the same Under Certificate of Posting

produced at Ex.W2 thereby it cannot be said that he

remained absent unauthorisedly. He further urged that the

other medical records produced by him do indicate that

the first party workman was referred by the second party

to the M/s. Wockhardt Hospital &Heart Institute.

Bangalore and that he was under treatment in the said

hospital as such in the absence of the communication to

the deceased first party workman that his request for

leave without pay is rejected the second party would not

have proceeded to take action as provided under Clause

33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005. He further

urged that the two notices purported to have been issued

to the first party dated 1-10-2005 and 10-11-2005 were being

not actually served on him, there was no occasion for him

to respond to them or to report to the duties, presuming

that his request for leave without pay on his application

dated 24-5-2005 (Ex.W1) accepted as such the intimation

by the second party dated 17-12-2005 his services are

deemed to have Voluntarily vacated w.e.f. 12-12-2005 is

unjustified and as he died on 10-6-2008 untill then his

services shall be held as continued and order for pension

to his LRs with back wages may be ordered.

8. Inter alia the learned advocate appearing for the

second party vehemently urged the fact that the first

party workman remained absent w.e.f. 24-5-2005 being

undisputed and even if it is taken that he had forwarded a

leave letter dated 24-5-2005 as per Ex.W1 since he did not

care to verify whether the same was received in the office

of the second party and sanction was accorded, he

remaining absent is not justified and after waiting for 90

days the two notices with gap of one month each being

issued to his last known addresses through registered

post as contemplated under Clause 33 of 8th Bipartite

Settlement and the same returned unserved and he did

not report to duty, the action taken under Clause 33 of the

8th Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005 as the workman

has deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment

is just and proper and there is no reason to interfere in the

same. In support of this argument he placed heavy reliance

on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

(2009) 9 SC cases 462 in the case of Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda Vs. Anita Nandrajog.

9. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the

sides, in the light of the arguments put forward by the

learned advocates I am of the considered view that the

action of the management is legal and justified and there

is no reason to interfere in the same for the following

reasons :

Reasons

10. Since there is no dispute that the deceased first

party workman did not attend to his duties from

24-5-2005 claiming that since he fell sick and started taking

treatment at Sri Krishna Clinic, Indiranagar, Bangalore from

the very day i.e.24-5-2005 he communicated the same

through his leave letter the Photostat copy of which is

produced at Ex.W1 said to have been forwarded to the

Manager, Corporation Bank, Shivaji Nagar Branch,

Bangalore under certificate of posting produced at Ex.W2.

But there is no pleadings that the deceased first party,

workman made any attempt whether such application

forwarded by him reached the office of the Corporation

Bank, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Bangalore and sanction has

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6193

been accorded on the said, application, thereby though

there is some evidence that the deceased first party

workman having forwarded an application Under

Certificate of Posting to the Manager, Corporation Bank,

Shivajinagar branch of the second party bank for leave

without pay without mentioning till what date he intends

to avail leave, since he did not make any attempt to verify

whether such letter forwarded by him to the Manager was

received by him and sanction has been accorded his

absence is without sanction of leave. As per the medical

certificate said to have been annexed to that application it

is stated that he was under the treatment of Dr. Subramanya

Bhat, Sri Krishna Clinic, Bangalore for Hypertension,

Diabetics and right heart disorders from 24-5-2005. After

forwarding such leave application the deceased first party

workman if was unable to go to Shivajinagar branch of the

second party bank where he was working to pursue his

leave application he would have sent at least his wife or

son, who have now come on record as his Legal

Representative to see whether it was received and sanction

accorded on that application. As per clause 33 of the 8th

Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005 when an employee

absents himself for a period of 90 days or more consecutive

days without prior sanction from the competent authority

or beyond the period sanctioned originally including any

extension of leave thereof the management is empowered

to invoke the provisions of that clause, as such, in the

absence of getting prior sanction of leave the deceased

first party workman remaining absent amounts to

unauthorized absence as contemplated under Clause 33

of 8th Bipartite Settlement and as the evidence on record

after waiting for 90 days the management did issue two

consecutive notices of 30 days each calling upon the

deceased first party workman to report to duty to his last

known addresses and as there was no response to the

same its action taking that he has deemed to have

voluntarily vacated his employment is just and legal. The

attempt made by the counsel for the first party the deceased

first party workman was referred to M/s. Wockhardt

Hospital & Heart Institute, Bangalore is unacceptable.

Because from the reading of Ex.W3 it indicates that M/s.

Wockhardt Hospital & Heart Institute, Bangalore was one

of the recognized hospital by the management it

communicated by its letter dated 16-05-2005 produced at

Ex.W3 the deceased first party workman being its employee

he is entitled to be treated in that hospital. This letter

being dated 16-5-2005 and the first party workman

remained absent from 24-5-2005 alleging sickness this letter

cannot be taken as one referring the deceased first party

workman to M/s. Wockhardt Hospital &Heart Institute,

Bangalore for examination on his application for leave

without pay dated 25-5-2005. Though the evidence brought

on record through Ex.W4 &W5 it indicate that the deceased

first party workman was suffering from Hypertension and

Diabetics that in itself is not sufficient to exonerate him

from remaining unauthorisedly absent without getting

sanction of leave for such a longer period. Therefore,

after he remaining absent for more than 90 days without

getting leave sanctioned, the second party while invoking

the provisions of Clause 33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement

having taken the impugned action after causing two

consecutive notices as contemplated under the provisions

of that clause absolutely I find no reason to say that the

said action is illegal and unjustified. Under the

circumstances I have arrived at the conclusion that the

action of the management of Corporation Bank deleting

the name of Shri V. Govindaiah, Peon (now deceased),

Shivajinagar Branch, Bangalore w.e.f. 12-12-2005 from the

records of the bank by invoking Clause 33 :Voluntary

Cessation of Employment - 8th Bipartite Settlement dated

2-6-2005 is legal and justified and that he or his legal

representatives are not entitled for any relief.

11. In the result I pass the following award :

AWARD

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management of Corporation Bank in deleting the name

of Shri V. Govindaiah, Peon (now deceased), Shivajinagar

Branch, Bangalore w.e.f. 12-12-2005 from the records of

the bank by invoking Clause 33: Voluntary Cessation of

Employment 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 2-6-2005 is

legal and justified and that he or his legal representatives

are not entitle for any relief.

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2522.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j

lqifjUVsaMsUV] Hkksiky fMohtu ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-@,y-lh-@vkj@25@95) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@08@1994&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

lqjsUæ dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2012

S.O. 2522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.CGIT/

LC/R/25/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the Sr. Superintendent,

Bhopal Division, and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 3-7-2012.

[No. L- 40012/08/1994-IR (DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

6194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

CASE No. CGIT/LC/R/25/95

Shri Pramod Kumar Rahal

S/o Shri Jagram Rahal,

Ambedkar Ward 35, Post Kathha Mill,

Thakurpura,

Shivpuri (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Sr. Superintendent,

Telegraph Traffic,

Bhopal Division,

Bhopal

...Management

A WARD

Passed on this 21st day of May, 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-40012/8/94-IR(DU) dated

20-1-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this Tribunal :—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Senior

Superintendent, Telegraph Traffic, Bhopal Division,

Bhopal in terminating the service of Shri Pramod

Kumar Rahul w.e.f. 1-3-93 is justified or not ? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to ?’’

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was

appointed as mesenger on 1-11-89 in the telegraph

department at Sheopuri. On 1-3-93, he was orally terminated

from the services by the management. He had not been

given one month notice nor one month pay in lieu of notice

nor any retrenchment compensation as required under

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act, 1947). It is stated that he had worked 240 days in

each year. After termination from service, he is jobless. It is

submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages.

3. The management appeared in the case and filed

written statement. The case of the management, inter alia,

is that Shri Pramod Kumar Rahal was never appointed on

the post of Telegraph Messenger at Telegraph office of

Sheopuri nor any appointment letter was issued to him. It

is stated that Shri Pramod Kumar Rahal was engaged

intermittently as and when required on casual daily basis

on the collector’s rate of wages and when any regular

Telegraph Messenger remained on leave. On these

grounds, it is submitted that the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

4. On the basis of the reference, the following issues

are for adjudication—

I. Whether the action of the management in

terminating the services of the workman w.e.f 1-3-93 is

justified ?

II.

To what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. The workman after appearing in the case filed

statement of claim. Thereafter he did not file his evidence

and became absent inspite of sufficient time was granted

to him. Lastly the reference proceeded ex-parte against the

workman on 27-1-11.

6. Issue No. I

To prove the case, the management has examined

one witness. The management witness Shri P. N. Singh is

Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Bhopal. He has supported the

case of the management. He has stated that the workman

was never appointed as Telegraph Messenger and no

such appointment letter was issued. He has further stated

that whenever any regular Telegraph Messenger was on

leave, he was engaged on daily wages on collector’s rate.

He was engaged intermittently. His evidence is unrebutted.

There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. His evidence

does not show that he was engaged 240 days in a calendar

year specially preceding the date with reference. This shows

that there is no violation of any provision of the Act, 1947.

Thus this is decided against the workman and in favour of

the management.

7. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above, it is

clear that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Accordingly the reference is answered.

8. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment

as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2523.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,fDtD;qfVo

vkfiQlj] Nkouh ifj"kn~] ulhjkckn vkSj vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] vtesj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lh-vkbZ-Vh-vkj-@07@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&13012@01@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh-;w-)º

lqjsUæ dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6195

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2012

S.O. 2523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.CITR/

07/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

Ajmer as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between The Executive Officer, Chhavani Parishad

Nasirabad and Others and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 3-7-2012.

[No. L- 13012/01/2008-IR (DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

vuqcU/

Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k] vtesj

ihBklhu vf/dkjhµJh- eukst dqekj O;kl] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izdj.k la[;k&lh-vkbZ-Vh-vkj- 7@2008

jsiQjsal la[;k % ,y&13012@1@2008 vkbZ vkj (Mh ;w)

fnukad 18&7&2008

Jh egkohj flag iq=k Jh xksih flag }kjk vuqlwfpr tkfr]

tutkfr egkla?k] izns'k dk;kZy;] /kSykHkkVk eq[; ekxZ] vtesj

(jkt-)

—izkFkhZ

cuke

1- nh ,fDtD;qfVo vkWfiQlj] Nkouh ifj"kn~] ulhjkckn]

vtesj

2- nh fizafliy Mk;jsDVj] fMiQsal ,LVsV] nf{k.kh deku]

Hkkjrh; Fky lsuk dk;kZy; ifjlj] iq.ks

—vizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkfr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh jkepUæ oekZ] izfrfuf/ A

vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls % Jh jkeLo:i] vf/oDrk A

vokMZ

fnukad 11&5&2012

1- Je foHkkx] dsUnz ljdkj }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds

vf/fu.kZ;kFkZ fuEu jsiQjsal izsf"kr fd;k gS%—

2. ‘‘Whether the action of the management of the

Executive Officer, Chhavani Parishad, Nasirabad, in

terminating the services of their workman Shri

Mahaveer Singh w.e.f. 25-10-2002 is legal and

justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?’’

3- uksfVl ds mijkar mHk;i{k mifLFkr vk;s A izkFkhZ egkohj

flag dh vksj ls izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd

izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZx.k us fnukad 1&7&2002 dks fcuk fdlh

;qfDr;qDr dkj.k o iwoZ lwpuk fn;s nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds in

ls gVk fn;k tks fof/ fo#¼ gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ Jfed us fnukad

1&7&2000 ls 31&3&2001 rd rFkk 1&9&2001 ls 30&6&2002

rd fu;fer :i ls dke fd;k tks 240 fnu ls vf/d gksus ls

Jfed dks fu/kZfjr Jfed dkuwu O;oLFkk ds varxZr Vsaijsjh LVsV~l

vokMZ gksus ls og fu;fer ukSdjh ikus dk gdnkj gks x;k Fkk ijarq

Jfed dks fu/kZfjr fu;eksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq, dke ls gVk

fn;k x;kA vkxs izkFkhZ us ;g dgk gS fd mlus mDr vof/ esa nSfud

osru Hkksxh eLVj jksy Jfed ds :i esa lkB #i;s izfrfnu dh

etnwjh ij dke fd;k mlds iwoZ Hkh Jfed le;≤ ij nSfud

osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa Nkouh ifj"kn~ ulhjkckn ftyk vtesj

esa dk;Z djrk jgk Fkk A mDr Nkouh ifj"kn~ esa izHkkjh vf/dkjh

iQksjeSu ty foHkkx o fctyh foHkkx Jh yhyk/j fla/h Fks tks

Jfedksa dks t:jr vuqlkj j[krs o gVkrs Fks A Jfedkas dks fu;qDr

djuk o gVkuk lc ekSf[kd vkns'kksa ls fd;k tkrk Fkk A vkSj

Jfedksa dks u rks dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns'k fn;k tkrk Fkk u gh fu"dklu

vkns'k fn;k tkrk Fkk A fnukad 1&7&2000 dks Jfed dk fu;kstd

ij l=kg ekg dh etnwjh cdk;k Fkh ftlds fy;s izkFkhZ us osru

Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh U;k;ky; esa nkok is'k fd;k ftlls #"V gksdj

fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed in ls ekSf[kd

vkns'k nsdj gVk fn;k A vizkFkhZ }kjk mifLFkfr iaftdk] ofj"Brk

jftLVj o vU; fjdkMZ la/kfjr ugha fd;s tkrs Fks rkfd Jfed

viuk nkok fl¼ ugha dj ik;s A izkFkhZ ds izfrosnu ds mÙkj esa

vizkFkhZ la- 1 us lgk;d Je vk;qDr dks tokc nkok is'k fd;k

ftlesa vizkFkhZ la- 1 us bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k fd izkFkhZ us iSjk

la- 2 esa o£.kr vuqlkj 240 fnu ls vf/d dke fd;k gS A izkf/

dkjh egksn; osru Hkqxrku vf/fu;e ds ;gka izLrqr nkos dk fu.kZ;

27&2&04 dks gqvk ftlesa U;k;ky; us izkFkhZ dks l=kg ekg ds

cdk;k osru@etnwjh Hkqxrku djus ds vkns'k fn;s tks 26-520 #i;s

curs Fks rFkk nks gtkj #i;s eqvkotk nsus ds vkns'k Hkh fn;s ftlls

Li"V gks x;k fd ,d o"kZ esa izkFkhZ us mDr dk;Z fd;k gS A l=kg ekg

dh lsok dh bl vkns'k ls iqf"V gksrh gS A vizkFkhZ us xr ianzg&lksyg

o"kks± ls u;h fu;qfDr;ksa gsrq rFkk nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedksa dks

fu;fer@LFkkbZ djus ds fy, dHkh dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k tcfd

Jfed lnSo mlds fy;s ekax dj jgs gSa A vizkFkhZ us fcuk fdlh

fu;e dh ikyuk fd;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk fn;k

tks fof/ fo#¼ Fkk A fu;kstd us izkf/dkjh egksn; osru Hkqxrku

vf/fu;e rFkk lgk;d Je vk;qDr dks is'k fd;s x;s tokc nkos

esa ckj&ckj ;g mfYyf[kr fd;k fd Jfedksa dks fcuk iwoZ vuqefr

izkIr fd;s Nkouh ifj"kn~] ulhjkckn lsokfuo`Ùk iQksjeSu Jh yhykjke

us fu;qDr fd;s gSa A vr% mudh etnwjh vkSj lsok esa ofj"Brk vkfn

ds fy, yhykjke mÙkjnk;h gS tks mudk foHkkxh; vkarfjd fookn

gS A Jfedksa dks mlls dksbZ laca/ ugha gS D;ksafd yhykjke Nkouh

ifj"kn~ dk gh ,d ftEesnkj vf/dkjh Fkk A Jfedksa ls dk;Z Nkouh

ifj"kn~ esa vkSj Nkouh ifj"kn~ dk djok;k x;k Fkk A izkFkhZ dks

6196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ds izko/kuksa ds mYya?ku esa lsokeqDr

fd;k x;k gS A vr% fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ ds ekSf[kd fu"dklu

vkns'k dks fujLr djds Jfed dks fu;fer Jfed ekuk tkdj

fu;fer Jfed dh osru Ük`a[kyk ds vuqlkj cdk;k osru@etnwjh

dk Hkqxrku djus rFkk Hkfo"; esa fu;ekuqlkj fu;fer@LFkkbZ Jfed

ds in ij fu;fer djus dk vokMZ ikfjr djs A

4- vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tokc esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd lgh

rF; ;g gS fd izkFkhZ us 30&9&2001 rd gh dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk

izkFkhZ dks fnukad 1&7&02 dks ugha gVk;k x;k A izkFkhZ dks yhykjke

tks ty foHkkx ,oa fctyh foHkkx ds izHkkjh vf/dkjh Fks muds }kjk

ekax fd;s tkus ij dk;kZy; vkns'k ds ekè;e ls fu/kZfjr le; ds

fy, dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k rFkk tc rd ds fy, dk;kZy; vkns'k

tkjh fd;s x;s rc rd gh izkFkhZ us dk;Z fd;k A izkFkhZ us ,d dSysaMj

o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/d dk;Z ugha fd;k gS A izkFkhZ us tks dk;Z

fd;k mldk fooj.k vizkFkhZx.k ds vuqlkj tokc ds iSjk la 1 esa

fn;k x;k gS tks vof/ flracj 2001 rd dh crk;h x;h gS A vkxs

tokc esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh us tks vkns'k

fn;k] mDr vkns'k ds fo#¼ ftyk U;k;ky; vtesj ds ;gka vihy

izLrqr dh x;h A vihy mlh n'kk esa xzg.k fd;s tkus ;ksX; Fkh

tcfd mDr jkf'k dks osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh ds le{k tek ugha

djok;k tkos A ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr jkf'k tek djkus ds ckn ftyk

U;k;ky;] vtesj ds le{k vihy is'k dh x;h A ;g Jfed dh

ftEesnkjh gS fd og viuh lk{; ls lkfcr djs fd mlus okLro esa

,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk dk;Z fd;k gS A izkFkhZ us dk;kZy;

vkns'k ds vuqlkj gh dk;Z fd;k gS A vr% ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok

ls gVkus dk dFku xyr gS A orZeku izdj.k NaVuh dk ugha gS A

izkFkhZ us tks dk;Z fd;k gS mldk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS rFkk dk;kZy;

vkns'k ls gh izkFkhZ us dk;Z fd;k gS A izkFkZuk i=k vkB lky ds foyac

ls is'k fd;k x;k gS A vkB lky ckn izdj.k dks mBkuk

fof/lEer ugha gS A vr% [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A vr% Dyse

[kkfjt djus dk fuosnu fd;k A

5- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa xokg , Mc- 1 x.ks'k] , Mc-

2 ekS- jiQhd o , Mc- 3 egkohj ds c;ku djok;s x;s vizkFkhZ dh

vksj ls lk{; esa xokg ,u , Mc- 1 fo".kqyky raoj ds c;ku

djok;s x;s A izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h gS A

mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh x;h] i=kkoyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A

cgl esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us ,d dSysaMj

o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/d dk;Z fd;k gS A fnukad 1&10&01 ls

30&6&02 rd ds dk;kZy; vkns'k rFkk eLVj jksy fu;kstd

tku&cw>dj miyC/ ugha djk jgk gS A cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS

fd izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i=k ij U;k;ky; us fnukad 16&9&09 dks

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dks vkns'k fn;k fd og fnukad 1&10&01 ls

25&10&02 rd ds eLVj jksy rFkk dk;kZy; vkns'k dks is'k djs A

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us mDr nLrkosth lk{; dks fNikus gsrq fnukad

3&11&09 dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa ,d 'kiFk i=k is'k djds ;g

tkfgj fd;k fd U;k;ky; }kjk vknsf'kr nLrkost mlds ikl miyC/

ugha gS tcfd mDr nLrkost eLVj jksy Fks ftu ij gLrk{kj gksus ds

ckn okmpj curs gSa vkSj ftuds vk/kj ij gh foHkkx dh fjVuZ [kpsZ

ds laca/ esa ljdkj dks Hksth tkrh gS A ,sls egRoiw.kZ fjdkMZ dk

ugha gksuk laHko ugha gS A mDr fjdkMZ tku&cw>dj fNik;k tk jgk

gS A tc 2000 vkSj 2001 ds eLVj jksy miyC/ gks rks vDrwcj

2001 ls vDrwcj 2002 ds nLrkost Hkh miyC/ gksus pkfg, Fks

ijarq vizkFkhZ mDr nLrkost izLrqr ugha djuk pkgrk gS A vizkFkhZ us

fnukad 17&12&09 dks Jfed la?k dks i=k nsdj crk;k fd tuojh

2001 ls vDrwcj 2002 rd dk dksbZ eLVj jksy dk;kZy; vkns'k

lacaf/r fjdkMZ miyC/ ugha gS tcfd U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s tokc

esa egkohj ds }kjk dke ugha djus ds dkj.k fjdkMZ miyC/ ugha

gksuk crk;k gS A izkFkhZ dks 18&8&09 dks ,d i=k fy[kdj ;g

crk;k fd 1&10&01 ls 30&8&02 rd eLVj jksy dh izfrfyfi;ka

miyC/ djkus dks ys[kkiky dks vkns'k ns fn;s gSa A ryk'k djus ds

ckn vkidks izekf.kr izfrfyfi miyC/ djk nh tk,xh ijarq vkt

fnukad rd miyC/ ugha djk;h x;h gS A bu fojks/kHkklh dFkuksa ls

vizkFkhZ dk 'kiFk i=k xyr lkfcr gksrk gS A vr% cgl esa ;g

fuosnu fd;k fd vizkFkhZ }kjk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ckotwn mDr

nLrkost izLrqr ugha djus ls izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa mDr

vof/ esa fu;fer :i ls dk;Z fd;k tkuk ekuk tkos A cgl esa ;g

Hkh dgk fd izkFkhZ ds xokgksa ds c;kuksa ls Hkh izkFkhZ dk izdj.k lkfcr

gksrk gS A cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fnukad 27&2&04 ds osru

Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh ds fu.kZ; ds ckn Hkh fu;kstd }kjk lS'ku dksVZ]

vtesj esa etnwjh dk Hkqxrku crkdj vius i{k esa fu.khZr djk;k

ftldh vihy ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj esa fopkjk/hu

gS A mDr dsl etnwjh Hkqxrku ckcr Fkk vkSj orZeku dsl voS/

:i ls ukSdjh ls fu"dklu ckcr gS A vafre cgl ds nkSjku vizkFkhZ

}kjk U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/h'k la- 1] vtesj ds fu.kZ;

fnukad 5&3&10 dh izfr izLrqr dj ;g dgk fd mDr fu.kZ; ds

vuqlkj osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh egksn; ds fu.kZ; dks vihy esa

vikLr dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk mDr fu.kZ; dk gokyk lk{; esa Hkh

izkFkhZ dh ftjg esa vk;k gS A vr% mDr fu.kZ; dks Hkh vokMZ ds

fopkjkFkZ fy;k tkos A bl laca/ esa izkFkhZ dk cgl esa ;g dFku gS

fd mDr fu.kZ; vizkFkhZ dks igys is'k djuk pkfg, Fkk A mlds ikl

;g fu.kZ; izLrqr djus ds fy, dbZ ekSds Fks ijarq bl LVst ij ;g

is'k fd;k x;k gS rFkk bl iQSlys dk orZeku izdj.k ls dksbZ laca/

ugha gS D;ksafd og iQSlyk osru Hkqxrku ds laca/ esa Fkk tcfd ;g

izdj.k voS/ :i ls izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ckcr gS rFkk cgl esa

;g Hkh dgk fd bl vihy ds fu.kZ; ds fo#¼ ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; esa izkFkhZ ds }kjk dh x;h vihy yafcr gS A vr% ;g

fu.kZ; tks osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] og

vafre ugha gqvk gS A vr% izLrqr fu.kZ; ls bl izdj.k ij dksbZ

foijhr izHkko ugha iM+rk gS A

6- vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls cgl esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;g

lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij Fkk fd mlus ,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240

fnu ;k blls vf/d vof/ rd dk;Z fd;k gS ijarq ekSf[kd o

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6197

nLrkosth lk{; ds vuqlkj ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS A vr% izkFkhZ

fdlh Hkh ykHk dks ikus dk vf/dkjh ugha gS A ftu eLVj jksy o

vU; nLrkostksa dks izLrqr djus dk ekuuh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k Fkk

mlds laca/ esa iwoZ esa gh 'kiFk i=k izLrqr dj fn;k x;k gS fd mDr

eLVj jksy o vU; nLrkost miyC/ ugha gksus ds dkj.k izLrqr ugha

fd;s tk ldrs A vr% blls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk

gS A izkFkhZ dks vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa Lo;a nLrkost izLrqr djus

pkfg,a Fks] ijarq izLrqr nLrkosth lk{; ls izkFkhZ dk Dyse iq"V ugha

gksrk gS A cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh

ds fu.kZ; ds fo#¼ vizkFkhZ }kjk tks vihy dh x;h Fkh og Lohdkj

gks x;h gS A vr% bl vk/kj ij Hkh izkFkhZ dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s

tkus ;ksX; gS A izkFkhZ }kjk Dyse vkB o"kks± ds foyac ds ckn is'k

fd;k x;k gS A vr% bl nsjh ds vk/kj ij Hkh Dyse [kkfjt djus

dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS A cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd ftl

fu.kZ; dh izfr izLrqr dh x;h gS] og dksbZ nLrkost dh Js.kh esa

ugha vkrk gS A vr% vafre cgl ds le; Hkh ml ij fopkj fd;k

tk ldrk gS rFkk Lo;a izkFkhZ us lk{; esa ;g ekuk gS fd vihy

Lohdkj gks x;h gS A var esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fuEufyf[kr

U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;k x;k] ftldk U;k;ky; us llEeku

voyksdu fd;k %&

1& 2007 ,l ch vkj 9 ist ua- 1

7- mijksDr fookn ¯cnq ds lanHkZ esa lk{; dk foospu fd;k

x;k A xokg , Mc- 1 x.ks'k us eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd

egkohj ¯lg dks tkurk gwa mlus esjs lkFk Nkouh ifj"kn~ ulhjkckn

es anSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa eLVj jksy ij 1&7&2000 ls

31&3&01 rd rFkk 1&9&01 ls 30&6&02 rd rFkk mlds ckn Hkh

djhc ,d o"kZ rd fu;fer :i ls dke fd;k A gesa lkB #i;s

izfrnfu ds fglkc ls etnwjh ns; Fkh A jfookj dks Hkh dke fy;k

tkrk Fkk ftldh gktjh ugha Hkjh tkrh Fkh A Jfedksa dks yacs le;

rd Hkqxrku ugha djus ds dkj.k vkilh fookn jktLFkku mPp

U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/hu gS A eLVj jksy Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr ekSf[kd

vkns'k ls djus rFkk gVkus ds fy, rRdkyhu iQksjeSu yhykjke

¯l/h dks Nkouh ifj"kn~ esa vf/Ñr dj j[kk Fkk A Nkouh ifj"kn~ esa

cM+h rknkn esa in fjDr gSa A dke dks lqpk: :i ls pykus ds fy,

eLVj jksy ij Jfed j[ks tkrs gSa A ftjg esa xokg us dgk fd ;g

lgh gS fd eSaus egkohj o vU; ukS&nl yksxksa ds lkFk osru fu/kZj.k

vf/dkjh ds le{k Dyse is'k fd;k Fkk ftlesa Hkqxrku dk vkns'k

gqvk Fkk A A ;g lgh gS fd bl vkns'k dks vij ftyk U;k;k/h'k

}kjk vihy esa fujLr dj fn;k x;k A ;g eq>s irk ugha fd Nkouh

ifj"kn~ fdlh deZpkjh dks LFkkbZ fu;qfDr ugha ns ldrk D;ksafd ,slh

fu;qfDr lS'ku dekaM iwuk ls gksrh gS A

8- xokg , Mc- 2 eks- jiQhd us eq[; ijh{kk esa dgk gS fd

egkohj ¯lg us esjs lkFk o"kZ 2000] 2001 rFkk 2002 esa lkB #i;s

izfrfnu etnwjh ij eLVj jksy ij dke fd;k Fkk A rRdkyhu

iQksjeSu yhykjke gekjh mifLFkfr Hkjrs Fks A ftjg esa dgk gS fd

;g lgh gS fd esjk uke jiQhd eksgEen iq=k vCnqy xuh ugha gS

cfYd esjk uke tks vkt eSaus fy[kk gS og gS A

9- xokg , Mc- 3 egkohj ¯lg izkFkhZ us eq[; ijh{kk esa

vius Dyse ds rF;ksa dh iqf"V djrs gq, c;ku fn;s gSa rFkk ;g dgk

gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk dk;kZy; vkns'k rFkk eLVj jksy miyC/ ugha

gksus dk dFku djrs gq, esjs }kjk fd;s x;s dk;Z dks Nqik;k x;k

gSA lwpuk ds vf/dkjh ds rgr ekaxs x;s fnukad 1&9&01 ls

30&6&02 rd ds eLVj jksy rFkk Hkqxrku okmpj vizkFkhZ miyC/

ugha gksuk crkdj Vkyrk jgk cfYd brus egRoiw.kZ nLrkost dk

miyC/ ugha gksuk fo'oluh; ugha gS A dsoy lR;rk dks Nqikus ds

è;s; ls ;g fy[kk tkrk jgk gS A osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh ds fu.kZ;

fnukad 27&2&04 dh vihy vizkFkhZ ds gd esa fu.khZr dj nsus ls

eSaus jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; [kaM ihB] t;iqj esa vihy dh gS tks

fopkjk/hu gS A ftjg esa xokg us dgk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd

vf/'kklh vf/dkjh Nkouh ifj"kn~ }kjk dk;kZy; vkns'k ds mijkar

Hkh yhykjke nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh fu;qfDr djrk Fkk A ;g

lgh gS fd eSaus LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse esa en la- 2 esa crk;s x;s

dk;kZy; vkns'k dh izfr izLrqr ugha dh gS A ;g xyr gS fd eSaus

,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/d dk;Z ugha fd;k gks cfYd

fd;k gS A ;g lgh gS fd vij ftyk U;k;ky; us osru Hkqxrku

izkf/dkjh ds vkns'k dks fujLr dj fn;k A bl vkns'k ds fo#¼

geus gkbZdksVZ esa vihy dj j[kh gS A vihy esa dksbZ LFkxu vkns'k

gks rks eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS A

10- vizkFkhZ xokg ,u , Mc- 1 fo".kq yky raoj us eq[;

ijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd lacaf/r foHkkx ds iQksjeSu yhyk/j dk;Z

gsrq Nkouh ifj"kn~ ls dk;kZy; vkns'k ls vLFkkbZ deZpkjh fu/kZfjr

vof/ ds fy, j[krk Fkk fcuk vkns'k ds yhykjke deZpkfj;ksa dks

lsok esa ugha j[k ldrk gS A izkFkhZ us flracj 2001 rd gh dk;Z

fd;k gS A blds ckn dk;Z ugha fd;k rFkk dHkh Hkh ,d dSysaMj o"kZ

esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gS A osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh ds vkns'k

fnukad 27&2&04 ds fo#¼ ftyk U;k;k/h'k esa vihy izLrqr dh

Fkh tks fnukad 5&3&10 dks Lohdkj dh x;h A izkFkhZ us o"kZ 2001 esa

dqy 214 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS ftldk fooj.k 'kiFk i=k ds iSjk la- 7

esa vafdr gS A ftjg esa dgk gS fd nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh eLVj

jksy ij gktjh Hkjrs FksA blds vykok mifLFkfr dk dksbZ jftLVj

ugha j[krs Fks A Jfedksa dks dk;kZy; vkns'k dh izfr;ka ugha nh tkrh

Fkha A eLVj jksy ij tc isesaV djrs Fks rc ml ij ,d dkWih yxk

nsrs Fks A dsanzh; yksd lwpuk vf/dkjh dk;kZy; v/h{kd o dsanzh;

vihyh; vf/dkjh vf/'kklh vf/dkjh gksrk gS A eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l

czkap esa miyC/ gS A lwpuk ds vf/dkj ds rgr izkFkhZ us eLVj jksy

dh dkWih ekaxh Fkh tks ckn esa miyC/ djk nh x;h A fnukad

1&10&01 ls 24&10&02 rd dk fjdkMZ eLVj jksy miyC/ ugha gS

D;ksafd izkFkhZ us bl vof/ esa gekjs v/hu dk;Z ugha fd;k A

11- loZizFke izdj.k esa ;g ¯cnq r; fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k

izkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k blls

6198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vf/d dk;Z vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds v/hu fd;k x;k A bl laca/ esa

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS A

izkFkhZ us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds

v/hu ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/d dk;Z fd;k gS A bl laca/ esa

izkFkhZ us ;g dgk gS fd tks eLVj jksy dh izfr;ka miyC/ Fkha os

izLrqr dj nh x;h gSa A 'ks"k nLrkost vizkFkhZx.k }kjk mUgsa ugha fn;s

x;s gSa bl dkj.k ls os iw.kZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dj ik;s gSa A

;g lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij Fkk fd mlus ,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa

240 fnu ;k blls vf/d vizkFkhZ.k ds v/hu dk;Z fd;k gS A izkFkhZ

us mijksDr lk{; foospu ds vuqlkj vizkFkhZx.k ls nLrkost miyC/

djkus dk izkFkZuk i=k izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftl ij U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad

16&9&09 dks vkns'k ikfjr dj vizkFkhZx.k dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSa fd

os vkns'k esa o£.kr vof/ ds eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj U;k;ky;

esa izLrqr djs A vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k

fnukad 16&9&09 dh vuqikyuk esa vkns'k esa o£.kr vof/ ds eLVj

jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSa rFkk bl

laca/ esa fnukad 3&11&09 dks ,d 'kiFk i=k izLrqr fd;k x;k

ftlesa ;g dgk fd Hkqxrku okmpj o eLVj jksy nLrkost miyC/

ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ us flracj 2001 ds ckn muds ;gka dk;Z ugha

fd;k A bl izdkj vizkFkhZx.k }kjk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh vuqikyuk

esa vkns'k esa o£.kr vof/ ds eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj izLrqr

ugha djrs gq, ;g 'kiFk i=k izLrqr fd;k x;k fd vknsf'kr nLrkost

miyC/ ugha gS A bl laca/ esa vizkFkhZx.k ds lk{; esa xokg

fo".kqyky raoj ,u , Mc- 1 us ftjg esa ;g ekuk gS fd Jfedksa dks

dk;kZy; vkns'k dh izfr;ka ugha nh tkrh Fkha A nSfud osru Hkksxh

deZpkjh eLVj jksy ij gktjh Hkjrs Fks A blds vykok mifLFkfr dk

dksbZ jftLVj ugha j[krs Fks A eLVj jksy ij tc isesaV djrs Fks rc

ml ij dk;kZy; vkns'k dh ,d dkWih yxk nsrs Fks A eLVj jksy

vdkmaV~l czkap esa miyC/ gS A lwpuk ds vf/dkj ds rgr izkFkhZ us

eLVj jksy dh dkWih ekaxh Fkh tks ckn esa miyC/ djk nh x;h A bl

izdkj lk{; esa vizkFkhZx.k ds xokg us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd

nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dh gktjh fliQZ eLVj jksy ij gksrh Fkh

rFkk eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l czkap esa miyC/ gksuk Hkh xokg us ekuk

gS A vr% tc eLVj jksy vizkFkhZx.k ds ikl miyC/ gS rks U;k;ky;

ds vkns'k ds mijkar Hkh eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj U;k;ky; esa

izLrqr ugha djus dk dksbZ mfpr dkj.k n£'kr ugha gksrk gS A tks

'kiFk i=k vizkFkhZx.k }kjk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd

nLrkost miyC/ ugha gS og i;kZIr gksuk izdV ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd

lk{; esa xokg ,u , Mc- 1 us ;g ekuk gS fd eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l

czkap esa miyC/ gS A xokg us ;g dgk gS fd 1&10&01 ls

24&10&02 rd dk fjdkMZ eLVj jksy miyC/ ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ

us bl vof/ esa gekjs v/hu dke ugha fd;k ijarq vizkFkhZx.k dks

U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqlkj eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj

vknsf'kr vof/ ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus pkfg, Fks rkfd ;g

fLFkfr Li"V gksrh fd izkFkhZ us mDr vof/ esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa dk;Z

fd;k gS vFkok ugha A lwpuk ds vf/dkj rgr tks i=k izkFkhZ dks

fn;k x;k ,oa ftldh izfr i=kkoyh ij layXu gS mlesa ;g dgk

x;k fd mDr vof/ ds eLVj jksy ys[kkiky }kjk ryk'k djus ds

ckn miyC/ djk fn;s tkosaxs A bl izdkj lwpuk ds vf/dkj ds

rgr eLVj jksy ryk'k djus ds ckn miyC/ djkus dk dFku izkFkhZ

dks fd;k x;k rFkk xokg ,u , MCY;w- 1 us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj

fd;k fd eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l czkap esa miyC/ gS A vr% bu

ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds mijkar Hkh mDr vof/ ds

eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj is'k ugh djus dh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZx.k

ds fojQ¼ ;g izfrdwy mi/kj.kk fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS fd ;fn mDr

nLrkost U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gksrs rks izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa

vizkFkhZx.k ds v/hu 240 fnu dh vof/ dk dk;Z fd;k tkuk

lkfcr gks tkrk A ;g lgh gS fd mDr rF; lkfcr djus dk Hkkj

izkFkhZ ij Fkk fd mlus 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/d dk;Z fd;k gS] ijarq

mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds mijkar Hkh

vknsf'kr nLrkos”k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha djus o mlds laca/ esa

dksbZ mfpr Li"Vhdj.k ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo#¼

izfrdwy mi/kj.kk fd;s tkus ;ksX; gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS A vr% izkFkhZ

;g lkfcr djus esa liQy jgk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds v/hu

,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k blls vf/d dk;Z fd;k A

12- tgka rd vizkFkhZx.k dk ;g dFku gS fd izkf/dkjh

osru Hkqxrku vf/fu;e U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27&2&04 ds

fo#¼ muds }kjk izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dj yh x;h gS rFkk vihy

ds fu.kZ; dks fopkjkFkZ fy;k tkos] ;g lgh gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk

tks fu.kZ; dh izfr izLrqfr dh x;h gS] og fdlh nLrkos”k dh Js.kh

esa cfYd U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; gS ftl ij fopkj fd;s tkus esa dksbZ

fof/d vkifÙk ugha gS ijarq ;g Hkh LohÑr fLFkfr gS fd lk{; esa

;g vk;k gS fd mDr vihy ds fu.kZ; ds fojQ¼ ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk vihy dh x;h gS rFkk og yafcr crk;h

x;h gS A blds vykok mDr fu.kZ; dh izfr tks izLrqr dh x;h gS

og cdk;k osru ds laca/ esa ekeys ls lacaf/r osru Hkqxrku

izkf/dkjh ds fu.kZ; ds ckjs esa gS tcfd ;g izdj.k voS/ lsokeqfDr

ls lacaf/r gS A izLrqr izdj.k dk fu.kZ; bl fu.kZ; esa izLrqr lk{;

ds vk/kj ij xq.kkoxq.k ij fd;k tkuk gS A vr% ;g ¯cnq rnuqlkj

fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS A

13- mijksDr lk{; foospu ds vuqlkj lk{; esa ;g vk;k gS

fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ /kjk 25 ,iQ vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/- ds izko/kuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h A mDr lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ

izkFkhZ dks u rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k x;k u gh mldh ,ot esa

,d ekg dk osru Hkqxrku fd;k x;k u gh eqvkotk fn;k x;k A

vr% /kjk 25 ,iQ dh ikyuk ugha gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS A bu

ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl vk/kj ij izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr voS/ gksuk lkfcr

gksrk gS A

14- bl izdj.k ds jsiQjsal esa izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dh fnukad

25&10&02 n'kkZ;h x;h gS A izkFkhZ us Dyse esa ;g dgk gS fd mls

fnukad 1&7&02 dks voS/ :i ls lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k A bl

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6199

izdkj Lo;a izkFkhZ us Dyse esa ;g dgk gS fd mlus fnukad 30&6&02

rd vizkFkhZx.k ds v/hu dk;Z fd;k rFkk fnukad 1&7&02 dks mls

ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k x;k] tks fof/&fojQ¼ Fkk A vr% izkFkhZ dh

lsokeqfDr dh fnukad 25&10&02 dh ctk; fnukad 1&7&02 gksuk

Hkh lkfcr gksrk gS A

15- mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr /kjk

25 ,iQ dh ikyuk ugha fd;s tkus ls voS/ gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS A

vc izkFkhZ D;k vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh gS] bl laca/ esa

fopkj fd;k tkuk gS A ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fofHkUu U;kf;d

fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g fof/d fl¼kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd /kjk 25 ,iQ

dh ikyi fd;s fcuk lsokeqfDr ds ekeyksa esa vuqrks"k iznku fd;s

tkus ls iwoZ ;g ns[kk tkuk vko';d gS fd fu;kstu dh izÑfr D;k

Fkh] fu;kstu dh vof/ D;k Fkh rFkk izdj.k ds vU; rF; o

ifjLFkfr;ka D;k Fkh] rRi'pkr~ gh izkFkhZ dks feyus okys vuqrks"k ds

laca/ esa fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS A bl laca/ esa ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,e-ih-,M-@f=kHkqou 2007 ,iQ ,y vkj 113

ist 886 esa ;g vfHkfu/kZfjr fd;k gS fd %&

“Reinstatement—At one point of time such a relief

used to be automatically granted—But now a change in

said trend is found in recent decisions—Relief

distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a

post and a permanent employee—Nature of appointment,

post are relevant factors.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Sections 25 F and 11

A—Termination of services—Non-compliance of section

25-F—Respondent was a temporary employee, working

from time to time with breaks in service—Worked from 13-

12-91 to 1-3-1994—His services terminated and Section 25

F not complied with—Appellant employer is directed to

pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 by way of compensation.”

16- blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us 2011 , vkbZ

vkj ,l lh MCY;w 6747 esa ;g vfHkfu/kZfjr fd;k gS fd%—

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S. 25 F—

Respondent working as daily wager—Had worked merely

for more than 240 days—Service terminated without notice

or retrenchment compensation—Granting relief of

reinstatement-Not proper—Monetary compensation held

would meet ends of justice (para 6)”.

17- mijksDr rF;kRed o fof/d foospu ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ

nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Zjr rFkk mldh fu;qfDr fdlh LFkkbZ

in ij ugha Fkh rFkk mlds }kjk nh x;h lsokvksa dh vof/ o izdj.k

ds leLr rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir

fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS ijarq izkFkhZ ,deq'r {kfriw£r jkf'k

vizkFkhZx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh gksuk ik;k tkrk gS A vr%

fookn dk mÙkj rnuqlkj fn;k tkuk U;k;laxr gksxk A

vkns'k

iQyr% fookn dk mÙkj bl izdkj ls fn;k tkrk gS fd

izca/u] vf/'kklh vf/dkjh] Nkouh ifj"kn~] ulhjkckn }kjk izkFkhZ

egkohj¯lg dh lsok;sa fnukad 25&10&02 ds LFkku ij 1&7&02 ls

lekIr fd;k tkuk lkfcr gksrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh mDr lsokeqfDr

vuqfpr vkSj voS/ gksuk Hkh lkfcr gksrk gS A izdj.k ds leLr

rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ lsok esa iquLFkkZfir gksus

dk vf/dkjh ugha gS ijarq izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k ls ,deq'r {kfriw£r

jkf'k dqy pkyhl gtkj #i;s ek=k izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh gksxk A

vizkFkhZx.k mDr dqy jkf'k pkyhl gtkj #i;s ek=k izkFkhZ dks vokMZ

ds izdk'ku dh fnukad ls nks ekg dh vof/ esa vnk djsa A

eukst dqekj O;kl] U;k;k/h'k

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2524-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,DthD;wfVo

vkWfiQlj] Nkouh ifj"kn] ulhjkckn vkSj vnZl ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] vtesj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lh-vkbZ-Vh-vkj-@08@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&13012@02@2008&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º

lqjsUnz oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2012

S.O. 2524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CITR/

08/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

Ajmer as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the Executive Officer, Chhavani Parishad,

Nasirabad and others and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 3-7-2012.

[ No. L-13012/02/2008-IR (DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

vuqcU/

Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k] vtesj

ihBklhu vf/dkjhµJh eukst oqQekj O;kl] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izdj.k la[;kµlh-vkbZ-Vh-vkj- 08@2008

jsiQjsal la[;kµ13012@2@2008&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w) fnukad

18&7&2008

Jh nsohyky iq=k Lo- Jh iUukyky }kjk vuqlwfpr tkfr

tutkfr egkla?k] izns'k dk;kZy;] /kSykHkkVk eq[; ekxZ] vtesj

(jkt-)

µizkFkh

6200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cuke

1- nh ,DthD;qfVo vkWfiQlj]

Nkouh ifj"kn~] ulhjkckn] vtesj

2- nh ¯izfliy Mk;jsDVj] fMisaQl ,LVsV]

nf{k.kh deku]

Hkkjrh; Fky lsuk dk;kZy; ifjlj] iq.ks

µvizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkfr %

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh jkepanz oekZ] izfrfuf/

vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls %

Jh jkeLo:i] vf/oDrk

vokMZ

fnukad 11&5&2012

1- Je foHkkx] dsUnz ljdkj }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds vf/fu.kZ;kFkZ

fuEu jsiQjsal izsf"kr fd;k gS %µ

“Whether the action of the management of the

Executive Officer, Chhavani Parishad, Nasirabad,

Distt. Ajmer in terminating the services of their

workman Shri Devilal w.e.f. 1-7-2002 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

uksfVl ds mijkar mHk;i{k mifLFkr vk;sA izkFkhZ nsohyky

dh vksj ls izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWiQ Dyse esa ;g dgk x;k gS

fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 1&7&2002 dks fcuk fdlh

;qfDr;qDr dkj.k o iwoZ lwpuk ds nSfud osru Hkksxh

Jfed ds in ls gVk fn;k tks fof/ fo#¼ Fkk D;ksafd

izkFkhZ Jfed us fnukad 18&6&2001 ls 31&12&2001

rd rFkk 1&1&2002 ls 30&6&2002 rd fu;fer :i

ls dke fd;k tks 240 fnu ls vf/d gksus ls Jfed dks

fu/kZfjr Jfed dkuwu O;oLFkk ds varxZr Vsaijsjh LVsVl

vokMZ gksus ls og fu;fer ukSdjh ikus dk gdnkj gks

x;k Fkk ijUrq Jfed dks fu/kZfjr fu;eksa dh vogsyuk

djrs gq, dke ls gVk fn;k x;kA vkxs izkFkhZ us ;g dgk

gS fd mlus mDr vof/ esa nSfud osru Hkksxh eLVj jksy

Jfed ds :i esa lkB #i, izfrfnu dh etnwjh ij dke

fd;k FkkA izHkkjh vf/dkjh Jh yhykjke] Nkouh ifj"kn~

esa iQksjeSu Fks tks Jfedksa dks t:jr ds vuqlkj j[krs o

gVkrs FksA Jfedksa dks fu;qDr djuk o gVkuk lc ekSf[kd

vkns'k ls fd;k tkrk FkkA fnukad 1&7&2002 dks Jfed

dk fu;kstd ij nl ekg dh etnwjh cdk;k Fkh] ftlds

laca/ esa osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh] vtesj ds U;k;ky; esa

izkFkhZ us nkok is'k fd;k ftlls #"V gksdj vizkFkhZ la- 1

us izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed in ls ekSf[kd

vkns'k ls gVk fn;kA vizkFkhZ }kjk mifLFkfr iaftdk] ofj"Brk

jftLVj o vU; fjdkMZ la/kfjr ugha fd;k tkrk Fkk rkfd

Jfed viuk nkok fl¼ ugha dj ik,A izkFkhZ us ,d

izfrosnu lgk;d Je vk;qDr dks is'k fd;k Fkk ftlds

mÙkj esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 us tokc nkok is'k fd;k ftlesa ;g

Lohdkj fd;k fd izkFkhZ us iSjk Lak- 2 esa o£.kr vof/ esa

240 fnu ls vf/d rd dke fd;k gSA osru Hkqxrku

izkf/dkjh U;k;ky; }kjk nkos dk fu.kZ; 27&2&2004 dks

fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dh etnwjh cdk;k ekus xbZ rFkk

izkFkhZ dks cdk;k osru@etnwjh o eqvkotk nsus ds vkns'k

fn, x, A izkFkhZ dh lsok dh iqf"V mDr vkns'k ls gksrh gSA

vizkFkhZ us xr iUnzg&lksyg o"kks± ls ubZ fu;qfDr;ksa gsrq

rFkk nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedksa dks fu;fer djus ds fy,

dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd, tcfd Jfed ;g ekax djrs jgs gSaA

dSMj LVªSaFk ds vuqlkj in iwjs ugha gSa [kkyh iM+s gaS A mDr

dk;Z nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedksa ls djk, tkrs jgs gSaA

fu;kstd us osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh o lgk;d Je vk;qDr

dks is'k fd, x,] tokc nkoksa esa ;g mYys[k fd;k fd

Jfedksa dks fcuk iwoZ vuqefr izkIr fd;s] Nkouh ifj"kn~

ulhjkckn ds lsokfuo`r iQksjeSu Jh yhykjke us fu;qDr

fd;k gS A vr% mudh etnwjh vkSj ofj"Brk ds fy,

yhykjke mÙkjnk;h gS tks mudk foHkkxh; vkarfjd fookn

gS] Jfed dk mlls dksbZ laca/ ugha gS D;ksafd yhykjke

Nkouh ifj"kn~ dk gh ftEesnkj vf/dkjh Fkk rFkk Jfedksa

ls Nkouh ifj"kn~ dk dk;Z djok;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ds izko/kuksa dh ikyuk fd,

fcuk lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS] tks fof/ fo#¼ gSA vr%

fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks 1&7&2001 ls gh fu;fer

Jfed ekuk tkdj fu;fer Jfed dh osru Ük`a[kyk o

cdk;k osru ,oa Hkfo"; esa fu;ekuqlkj fu;fer@LFkkbZ

Jfed ds in ij fu;fer djus dk vokMZ ikfjr djsA

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tokc esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd lgh

rF; ;g gS fd izkFkhZ us 30&9&2001 rd gh dk;Z fd;k

Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 1&7&2002 dks ugha gVk;k x;kA

izkFkhZ dks yhykjke tks izHkkjh vf/dkjh Fks muds }kjk ekax

fd, tkus ij dk;kZy; vkns'k ds ekè;e ls fu/kZfjr

le; ds fy, dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k rFkk tc rd ds fy,

dk;kZy; vkns'k tkjh fd, x, rc rd gh izkFkhZ us dk;Z

fd;kA izkFkhZ us ,d dSaysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/d

dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us tks dk;Z fd;k mldk fooj.k

vizkFkhZx.k ds vuqlkj tokc ds iSjk la- 1 esa fn;k x;k gS

tks vof/ flrEcj] 2001 rd dh crkbZ xbZ gSA vkxs

tokc esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh us

tks vkns'k fn;k] mDr vkns'k ds fo#¼ ftyk U;k;ky;

vtesj ds ;gka vihy izLrqr dh xbZA mDr vihy mDr

jkf'k dks osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh ds le{k tek djkus dh

fLFkfr esa gh xzg.k fd, tkus ;ksX; FkhA vr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr

esa mDr jkf'k tek djkus ds ckn ftyk U;k;ky;] vtesj

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6201

ds le{k vihy is'k dh xbZA izkFkhZ us dk;kZy; vkns'k ds

vuqlkj gh fu/kZfjr vof/ ds fy, dk;Z fd;k gSA orZeku

esa yhykjke lsokfuo`Ùk gks pqdk gSA izkFkhZ us vkB lky

ckn izdj.k mBk;k gS tks fof/&lEer ugha gSA vizkFkhZ us

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e ds izko/kuksa dk mYya?ku

ugha fd;k gSA vr% Dyse [kkfjt djus dk fuosnu fd;kA

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa xokg , Mc-1 mejnhu ls

ftjg ugha gqbZ gSA vr% bl xokg ds Ck;ku i<+s tkus ;ksX;

ugha gSaA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls xokg , Mc-2 nsohyky o

, Mc- 3 xksiky ds c;ku djok, x,A vizkFkhZ dh vksj

ls lk{; esa xokg ,u , Mc-1 fo".kqyky raoj ds c;ku

djok, x,A izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh

xbZ gS A mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ] i=kkoyh dk voyksdu

fd;k x;kA cgl esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd

izkFkhZ us ,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/d dk;Z

fd;k gSA fnukad 1&10&2001 ls 30&6&2002 rd ds

dk;kZy; vkns'k rFkk eLVj jksy fu;kstd tku&cw>dj

miyC/ ugha djk jgk gSA cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd

izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i=k ij U;k;ky; us fnukad 16&9&2009

dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dks vkns'k fn;k fd og fnukad

1&10&01 ls 25&10&02 rd ds eLVj jksy rFkk dk;kZy;

vkns'k dks is'k djsA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us mDr nLrkosth

lk{; dks fNikus gsrq fnukad 3&11&2009 dks ekuuh;

U;k;ky; esa ,d 'kiFk i=k is'k djds ;g tkfgj fd;k

fd U;k;ky; }kjk vknsf'kr nLrkost mlds ikl miyC/

ugha gSa tcfd mDr nLrkost eLVj jksy Fks ftu ij

gLrk{kj gksus ds ckn okmpj curs gSa vkSj ftuds vk/kj

ij gh foHkkx dh fjVuZ [kpsZ ds laca/ esa ljdkj dks Hksth

tkrh gSA ,sls egRoiw.kZ fjdkMZ dk ugha gksuk laHko ugha

gSA mDr fjdkMZ tku&cw>dj fNik;k tk jgk gSA tc

2000 vkSj 2001 ds eLVj jksy miyC/ gksa rks vDVwcj]

2001 ls vDVwcj] 2002 ds nLrkost Hkh miyC/ gksus

pkfg,a Fks ijUrq vizkFkhZ mDr nLrkost izLrqr ugha djuk

pkgrk gS A vizkFkhZ us fnukad 6&4&2009 rFkk 23&12&2010

dks Jfed la?k dks i=k nsdj crk;k fd tuojh] 2001 ls

vDVwcj] 2002 rd dk dksbZ eLVj jksy dk;kZy; vkns'k

lacaf/r fjdkMZ miyC/ ugha gS tcfd U;k;ky; esa fn,

x, tokc esa nsohyky ds }kjk 1&10&2001 ls 30&6&2002

rd dke ugha djus ds dkj.k fjdkMZ miyC/ ugha gskuk

crk;k gSA izkFkhZ dks 18&8&2009 dks ,d i=k fy[kdj

;g crk;k fd 1&10 2001 ls 30&8&2002 rd eLVj

jksy dh izfrfyfi;ka miyC/ djkus dks ys[kkiky dks

vkns'k ns fn, gSa ryk'k djus ds ckn vkidks izekf.kr

izfrfyfi miyC/ djk nh tk,xh ijarq vkt fnukad rd

miyC/ ugha djkbZ xbZ gS A bu fojks/kHkklh dFkuksa ls

vizkFkhZ dk 'kiFk i=k xyr lkfcr gksrk gS vr% cgl esa

;g fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ }kjk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds

ckotwn mDr nLrkost izLrqr ugha djus ls izkFkhZ }kjk

vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa mDr vof/ esa fu;fer :i ls dk;Z

fd;k tkuk ekuk tkos A cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk fd izkFkhZ ds

xokgksa ds c;kuksa ls Hkh izkFkhZ dk izdj.k lkfcr gksrk gSA

cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fnukad 27&2&2004 ds

osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh ds fu.kZ; ds ckn vihy ekuuh;

jkt- mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj esa fopkjk/hu gSA mDr dsl

etnwjh ckcr~ Fkk vkSj orZeku dsl voS/ :i ls ukSdjh

ls fu"dklu ckcr gSA vafre cgl ds nkSjku vizkFkh }kjk

U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/h'k la- 1- vtesj ds fu.kZ;

fnukad 5&3&2010 dh izfr izLrqr dj ;g dgk fd mDr

fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh egksn; ds

fu.kZ; dks vihy esa vikLr dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk mDr

fu.kZ; dk gokyk lk{; esa Hkh izkFkhZ dh ftjg esa vk;k gS

vr% mDr fu.kZ; dks Hkh vokMZ ds fopkjkFkZ fy;k tkosA

bl laca/ esa izkFkhZ dk cgl esa ;g dFku gS fd mDr

fu.kZ; vizkFkhZ dks igys is'k djuk pkfg, FkkA mlds ikl

;g fu.kZ; izLrqr djus ds fy, dbZ ekSds Fks ijUrq bl

LVst ij ;g is'k fd;k x;k gS rFkk bl iSQlys dk orZeku

izdj.k ls dksbZ laca/ ugha gS D;ksafd og iSQlyk osru

Hkqxrku ds laca/ esa Fkk tcfd ;g izdj.k voS/ :i ls

izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ckcr gS rFkk cgl esa ;g Hkh

dgk fd bl vihy ds fu.kZ; ds fo#¼ ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; esa izkFkhZ ds }kjk dh xbZ vihy yafcr gSA vr%

;g fu.kZ; tks osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh }kjk ikfjr fd;k

x;k gS] og vafre ugha gqvk gSA vr% izLrqr fu.kZ; ls bl

izdj.k ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko ugha iM+rk gSA

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls cgl esas ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;g

lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij Fkk fd mlus ,d dSysaMj

o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k blls vf/d vof/ rd djk;k x;k

gS ijarq ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ds vuqlkj ;g lkfcr

ugha gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ fdlh Hkh ykHk dks ikus dk

vf/dkjh ugha gSA ftu eLVj jksy o vU; nLrkostksa dks

izLrqr djus dk ekuuh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k Fkk mlds

laca/ esa iwoZ esa gh 'kiFk i=k izLrqr dj fn;k x;k gS fd

mDr eLVj jksy o vU; nLrkost miyC/ ugha gksus ds

dkj.k izLrqr ugha fd, tk ldrs A vr% blls izkFkhZ dks

dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk gS A izkFkhZ dks vius Dyse ds

leFkZu esa Lo;a nLrkost izLrqr djus pkfg, Fks ijUrq

izLrqr nLrkosth lk{; ls izkFkhZ dk Dyse iq"V ugha gksrk gS

cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh

ds fu.kZ; ds fo#¼ vizkFkhZ }kjk tks vihy dh xbZ Fkh og

Lohdkj gks xbZ gS A vr% bl vk/kj ij Hkh izkFkhZ dk

Dyse [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Dyse vkB

o"kks± ds foyac ds ckn is'k fd;k x;k gSA vr% bl nsjh ds

vk/kj ij Hkh Dyse [kkfjt djus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k

6202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gSA cgl esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd ftl fu.kZ; dh izfr

izLrqr dh xbZ gS] og dksbZ nLrkost dh Js.kh esa ugha

vkrk gSA vr% vafre cgl ds le; Hkh ml ij fopkj

fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk Lo;a izkFkhZ us lk{; esa ;g ekuk gS

fd vihy Lohdkj gks xbZ gSA var esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj

ls fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;k x;k] ftldk

U;k;ky; us llEeku voyksdu fd;k %µ

1&2007 ,l ch vkj 9 ist ua- 1

mijksDr fookn ¯cnq ds lanHkZ esa lk{; dk foospu fd;k

x;kA xokg , Mc- 1 nsohyky izkFkhZ us Dyse ds rF;ksa dh

iqf"V djrs gq, eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd 1&1&2002

ls 31&10&2002 rd dk fjdkMZ miyC/ ugha djk;kA

eLVj jksy dh izekf.kr izfr;ka nsus ls vizkFkhZ drjk jgk gS

D;ksafd mDr nLrkost nsus ij esjk ianzg ekg dk fu;fer

lsokdky iwjk gks tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i=k

ds vuqlkj eLVj jksy rFkk Hkqxrku okmplZ miyC/ ugha

gksuk crk;k x;k gS tcfd eLVj jksy ij gh Jfedksa ds

gLrk{kj gksdj Hkqxrku okmpj cukdj dsUnz jkT; ljdkj

dks [kpZs ds C;kSjs ds lkFk Hkstk tkrk gSA vr% 'kiFk i=k

Lor% gh >wBk lkfcr gksrk gS blh izdkj dh lwpuk ekaxus

ij izkFkhZ dks ,d i=k Hkstdj tkfgj fd;k fd eLVj jksy

muds ;gka <wa<us ij ugha fey jgs gSa vkSj mlds fy,

ys[kkdkj dks vkns'k Hkh fn, gSa rkfd rhu fnu esa mDr

eLVj jksy miyC/ djkos tks vkt rd ugha fn, x, gSaA

Jfedksa us Nkouh ifj"kn~ ulhjkckn esa yhykjke iQksjeSu

gS] mlds funsZ'kkuqlkj dke fd;kA yhykjke rFkk Nkouh

ifj"kn ulhjkckn dk fookn mudk ?kjsyw fookn gS A ftjg

esa xokg us dgk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd Nkouh ifj"kn us

eq>s ekSf[kd fu;qfDr nh FkhA yhykjke th us ekSf[kd

fu;qfDr nh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd vf/'kklh vf/dkjh

nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks veqd vof/ ds fy,

dk;Z ij j[kus gsrq dk;kZy; vkns'k tkjh djrs gSa rc gh

yhykjke deZpkfj;ksa dks nSfud osru ij j[k ldrk Fkk A

;g lgh gS fd eSaus nSfud osru ij 153 fnu dke fd;k

Fkk mlds i'pkr~ dk fjdkMZ miyC/ ugha djk;k x;k A

;g lgh gS fd osru Hkqxrku vf/dkjh ds vkns'k ds

fo#¼ Nkouh ifj"kn~ }kjk ftyk U;k;ky; esa vihy dh

x;h Fkh tks vij ftyk U;k;k/h'k us Nkouh ifj"kn~ ds

i{k esa Lohdkj fd;k Fkk A lS'ku U;k;ky; esa fu.kZ; ds

fo#¼ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS A ;g lgh gS

fd eSaus lwpuk ds vf/dkj ds rgr leLr nLrkost ekaxs

Fks A ftlesa ls vk/s nLrkost eq>s Nkouh ifj"kn~ }kjk fn;s

x;s vk/s nLrkost nsus ds laca/ esa eSaus vihy dh Fkh

ftlds laca/ esa 24&6&2010 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k A

;g eq>s irk ugha fd Nkouh ifj"kn~ esa leLr fu;qfDr;ksa

LVs'ku dekaMsaV iwuk ls gksrh gks A ;g xyr gS fd eSaus

240 fnu dke ugha fd;k A ;g lgh gS fd 240 fnu dke

djus ckcr dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s A

xokg , Mc- 3 xksiky us eq[; ijh{kk esa dgk gS fd eSa

nsohyky dks tkurk gwa mlus esjs lkFk Nkouh ifj"kn~

ulhjkckn esa nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa dke

fd;k A gesa dke ij j[kus ds fy, fyf[kr vkns'k ugha

fn;s Fks A Jfedksa dks etnwjh dk Hkqxrku eLVj jksy ij

jktLo fVdV yxkdj ml ij gLrk{kj dj fn;k tkrk

FkkA eLVj jksy Jfedksa dks fu;qfDr;ka ekSf[kd vkns'k ls

nh tkrh Fkh vkSj gVk;k tkrk Fkk mlds fy;s yhykjke

iQksjeSu dks vf/Ñr fd;k tkrk Fkk A Nkouh ifj"kn~ esa

xr ianzg&lksyg o"kks± ls u;h fu;qfDr can gS A ftjg esa

dgk gS fd nsohyky ds lkFk eSaus Hkh osru Hkqxrku

vf/dkjh ds le{k Dyse is'k fd;k Fkk ftlesa Hkqxrku

dk vkns'k gqvk Fkk A ml vkns'k ds fo#¼ Nkouh ifj"kn~

esa ftyk U;k;ky; esa nk;j dh Fkh ftls Lohdkj dj

1]85]000 #- dh jkf'k dks fujLr dj fn;k Fkk A ;g eq>s

irk ugha fd Nkouh ifj"kn~ fdlh deZpkjh dks LFkkbZ

fu;qfDr ugha ns ldrh gS A

vizkFkhZ xokg ,u , Mc- 1 fo".kq yky raoj us eq[; ijh{kk

esa ;g dgk gS fd lacaf/r foHkkx ds iQksjeSu yhyk/j dk;Z

gsrq Nkouh ifj"kn~ ls dk;kZy; vkns'k ls vLFkkbZ deZpkjh

fu/kZfjr vof/ ds fy, j[krk Fkk A blds vykok yhykjke

Nkouh ifj"kn~ ds vkns'k ds fcuk deZpkfj;ksa dks lsok esa

ugha j[k ldrk gS A izkFkhZ us flracj 2001 rd gh dk;Z

fd;k gS A izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh ,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu

dk;Z ugha fd;k gS A osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh }kjk fnukad

27&2&04 dks tks vkns'k fn;k mlds fo#¼ ekuuh; ftyk

U;k;k/h'k vtesj ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh Fkh tks

vij ftyk U;k;k/h'k la- 1] vtesj }kjk fnukad 5&3&10

dks Lohdkj dh x;h A izkFkhZ us o"kZ 2001 esa dqy 122 fnu

gh dk;Z fd;k gS A ftldk fooj.k 'kiFk i=k ds iSjk la- 7

esa fn;k x;k gS A ftjg esa dgk gS fd nsohyky dks ukSdjh

ls gVkus ds ckn tks Jfed nSfud osru ij dk;Z dj jgs

Fks A muds fy;s eLVj jksy pkyw Fkk A nSfud osru Hkksxh

deZpkjh eLVj jksy ij gktjh Hkjrs Fks A blds vykok

mifLFkfr dk dksbZ jftLVj ugha j[krs Fks A Jfedksa dks

dk;kZy; vkns'k dh izfr;ka ugha nh tkrh Fkh A eLVj jksy

ij tc isesaV djrs Fks tc ml ij ,d dkWih yxk nsrs

Fks A eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l czkap esa miyC/ gS A lwpuk ds

vf/dkj ds rgr izkFkhZ us eLVj jksy dh dkWih ekaxh Fkh

tks ckn esa miyC/ djk nh x;h A fnukad 1&10&01 ls

24&10&02 rd dk fjdkMZ eLVj jksy miyC/ ugha gS

D;ksafd izkFkhZ us bl vof/ esa gekjs v/hu dk;Z ugha

fd;k A bl le; Nkouh ifj"kn~] ulhjkckn esa ipkl

izfr'kr in [kkyh ugha gSa A

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6203

10-

loZizFke izdj.k esa ;g ¯cnq r; fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k

izkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ,d dSysaMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu

;k blls vf/d dk;Z vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds v/hu fd;k

x;k A bl laca/ esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ekSf[kd o nLrkosth

lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS A izkFkhZ us viuh ekSf[kd lk{;

esa ;g dgk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds v/hu ,d o"kZ esa

240 fnu ls vf/d dk;Z fd;k gS A bl laca/ esa izkFkhZ us

;g dgk gS fd tks eLVj jksy dh izfr;ka miyC/ Fkha os

izLrqr dj nh x;h gSa A 'ks"k nLrkost vizkFkhZx.k }kjk mUgsa

ugha fn;s x;s gSa A bl dkj.k ls os iw.kZ nLrkosth lk{;

izLrqr ugha dj ik;s gSa A ;g lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ

ij Fkk fd mlus ,d dSaysMj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k blls

vf/d vizkFkhZx.k ds v/hu dk;Z fd;k gS A izkFkhZ us

mijksDr lk{; foospu ds vuqlkj vizkFkhZx.k ls nLrkost

miyC/ djkus dk izkFkZuk i=k izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftl ij

U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 16&9&09 dks vkns'k ikfjr dj

vizkFkhZx.k dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd os vkns'k esa o£.kr

vof/ ds eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj U;k;ky; esa

izLrqr djs A vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls U;k;ky; ds mDr

vkns'k fnukad 16&9&09 dh vuqikyuk esa vkns'k esa

o£.kr vof/ ds eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj U;k;ky;

esa izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSa rFkk bl laca/ esa fnukad

3&11&09 dks ,d 'kiFk i=k izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa ;g

dgk fd Hkqxrku okmpj o eLVj jksy nLrost miyC/

ugha gSa rFkk izkFkhZ us flracj] 2001 ds ckn muds ;gka

dk;Z ugha fd;k A bl izdkj vizkFkhZx.k }kjk U;k;ky; ds

vkns'k dh vuqikyuk esa vkns'k esa o£.kr vof/ ds eLVj

jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj izLrqr ugha djrs gq, ;g 'kiFk

i=k izLrqr fd;k x;k fd vknsf'kr nLrkost miyC/ ugha

gS A bl laca/ esa vizkFkhZx.k dh lk{; esa xokg fo".kqyky

raoj ,u , Mc- 1 us ftjg esa ;g ekuk gS fd Jfedksa dks

dk;kZy; vkns'k dh izfr;ka ugha nh tkrh Fkh A nSfud osru

Hkksxh deZpkjh eLVj jksy ij gktjh Hkjrs Fks A blds

vykok mifLFkfr dk dksbZ jftLVj ugha j[krs Fks A eLVj

jksy ij tc isesaV djrs Fks rc ml ij dk;kZy; vkns'k

dh ,d dkWih yxk nsrs Fks A eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l czkap esa

miyC/ gS A lwpuk ds vf/dkj ds rgr izkFkhZ us eLVj

jksy dh dkWih ekaxh Fkh tks ckn esa miyC/ djk nh x;h A

bl izdkj lk{; esa vizkFkhZx.k ds xokg us ;g Lohdkj

fd;k gS fd nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh dh gktjh fliQZ

eLVj jksy ij gksrh Fkh rFkk eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l czkap esa

miyC/ gksuk Hkh xokg us ekuk gS A vr% tc eLVj jksy

vizkFkhZx.k ds ikl miyC/ gS rks U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds

mijkar Hkh eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj U;k;ky; esa

izLrqr ugha djus dk dksbZ mfpr dkj.k n£'kr ugha gksrk

gS A tks 'kiFk i=k vizkFkhZx.k }kjk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr

fd;k x;k gS fd nLrkost miyC/ ugha gS og i;kZIr

gksuk izdV ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd lk{; esa xokg ,u ,

Mc- 1 us ;g ekuk gS fd eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l czkap esa

miyC/ gS A xokg us ;g dgk gS fd 1&10&01 ls

24&10&02 rd dk fjdkMZ eLVj jksy miyC/ ugha gS

D;ksafd izkFkhZ us bl vof/ esa gekjs v/hu dke ugha

fd;k ijarq vizkFkhZx.k dks U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqlkj

eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj vknsf'kr vof/ esas U;k;ky;

esa izLrqr djus pkfg, Fks rkfd ;g fLFkfr Li"V gksrh fd

izkFkhZ us mDr vof/ esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa dk;Z fd;k gS

vFkok ugha A lwpuk ds vf/dkj ds rgr tks i=k izkFkhZ

dks fn;k x;k ,oa ftldh izfr i=kkoyh ij layXu gS

mlesa ;g dgk x;k fd mDr vof/ ds eLVj jksy

ys[kkiky }kjk ryk'k djus ds ckn miyC/ djk fn;s

tkosaxs A bl izdkj lwpuk ds vf/dkj ds rgr eLVj jksy

ryk'k djus ds ckn miyC/ djkus dk dFku izkFkhZ dks

fd;k x;k rFkk xokg ,u , Mc- 1 us ftjg esa ;g

Lohdkj fd;k fd eLVj jksy vdkmaV~l czkap esa miyC/

gS A vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds

mijkar Hkh mDr vof/ ds eLVj jksy o Hkqxrku okmpj

is'k ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo#¼ ;g

izfrdwy mi/kj.kk fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS fd ;fn mDr

nLrkost U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gksrs rks izkFkhZ }kjk ,d

dSysaMj o"kZ esa vizkFkhZx.k ds v/hu 240 fnu dh vof/

dk dk;Z fd;k tkuk lkfcr gks tkrk A ;g lgh gS fd

mDr rF; lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij Fkk fd mlus

240 fnu ;k mlls vf/d dk;Z fd;k gS ijarq mijksDr

foospu ds vuqlkj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds mijkar Hkh

vknsf'kr nLrkost U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha djus o mlds

laca/ esa dksbZ mfpr Li"Vhdj.k ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa

vizkFkhZx.k ds fo#¼ izfrdwy mi/kj.kk fd;s tkus ;ksX;

gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS A vr% izkFkhZ ;g lkfcr djus esa

liQy jgk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZx.k ds v/hu ,d dSysaMj

o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k blls vf/d dk;Z fd;k A

11-

tgka rd vizkFkhZx.k dk ;g dFku gS fd izkf/dkjh osru

Hkqxrku vf/fu;e U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27&2&04

ds fo#¼ muds }kjk izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dj yh x;h gS

rFkk vihy ds fu.kZ; dks fopkjkFkZ fy;k tkos A ;g lgh

gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk tks fu.kZ; dh izfr izLrqr dh x;h

gS] og fdlh nLrkost dh Js.kh esa cfYd U;k;ky; dk

fu.kZ; gS ftl ij fopkj fd;s tkus esa dksbZ fof/d

vkifÙk ugha gS ijarq ;g Hkh LohÑr fLFkfr gS fd lk{; esa

;g vk;k gS fd mDr vihy ds fu.kZ; ds fo#¼ ekuuh;

mPp U;k;ky; esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk vihy dh x;h gS rFkk

og yafcr crk;h x;h gS A blds vykok mDr fu.kZ; dh

izfr tks izLrqr dh x;h gS og cdk;k osru ds laca/ esa

ekeys ls lacaf/r osru Hkqxrku izkf/dkjh ds fu.kZ; ds

ckjs esa gS tcfd ;g izdj.k voS/ lsokeqfDr ls lacaf/r

6204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gS A izLrqr izdj.k dk fu.kZ; bl fu.kZ; esa izLrqr lk{;

ds vk/kj ij xq.kkoxq.k ij fd;k tkuk gS A vr% ;g ¯cnq

rnuqlkj fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS A

12-

mijksDr lk{; foospu ds vuqlkj lk{; esa ;g vk;k gS

fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ /kjk 25 ,iQ vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/fu;e ds izko/kuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h A

mDr lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks u rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl

fn;k x;k u gh mldh ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru Hkqxrku

fd;k x;k u gh eqvkotk fn;k x;k A vr% /kjk 25 ,iQ

dh ikyuk ugha gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS A bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa

bl vk/kj ij izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr voS/ gksuk lkfcr

gksrk gS A

13-

mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr /kjk

25 ,iQ dh ikyuk ugha fd;s tkus ls voS/ gksuk lkfcr

gksrk gS A vc izkFkhZ D;k vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk

vf/dkjh gS] bl laca/ esa fopkj fd;k tkuk gS A ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; us fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g

fof/d fl¼kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd /kjk 25 ,iQ dh

ikyuk fd;s fcuk lsokeqfDr ds ekeyksa esa vuqrks"k iznku

fd;s tkus ls iwoZ ;g ns[kk tkuk vko';d gS fd fu;kstu

dh izÑfr D;k Fkh] fu;kstu dh vof/ D;k Fkh rFkk

izdj.k ds vU; rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ka D;k Fkha rRi'pkr~ gh

izkFkhZ dks feyus okys vuqrks"k ds laca/ esa fu.kZ; fd;k

tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS A bl laca/ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;

us ,e-ih-,M-@f=kHkqou 2007 ,iQ ,y vkj 113 ist 886

esa ;g vfHkfu/kZfjr fd;k gS fd%Ñ

“Reinstatement-At one point of time such a relief

used to be automatically granted-But now a change in said

trend is found in recent decisions-Relief distinguished

between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a

permanent employee-Nature of appointment, post are

relevant factors.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25 F and 11A-

Termination of services-Non-compliance of Section 25-F-

Respondent was a temporary employee, working from time

to time with breaks in service-Worked from

13-12-91 to 1-3-1994ÑHis services terminated and Section

25 F not complied with-Appellant employer is directed to

pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 by way of compensation.”

14-

blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us 2011 , vkbZ

vkj ,l lh Mc- 6747 esa ;g vfHkfu/kZfjr fd;k gS

fd %Ñ

“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), S. 25 F-

Respondent working as daily wager-Had worked merely

for more than 240 days-Service terminated without notice

or retrenchment compensaion-Granting relief of

reinstatement-Not proper-Monetary compensation held

would meet ends of justice (para 6)”.

15- mijksDr rF;kRed o fof/d foospu ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ

nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk mldh fu;qfDr fdlh

LFkkbZ in ij ugha Fkh rFkk mlds }kjk nh x;h lsokvksa dh vof/ o

izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ dks lsok esa

iquLFkkZfir fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS ijarq izkFkhZ ,deq'r

{kfriw£r jkf'k vizkFkhZx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh gksuk ik;k

tkrk gS A vr% fookn dk mÙkj rn~uqlkj fn;k tkuk U;k;laxr

gksxk A

vkns'k

iQyr% fookn dk mÙkj bl izdkj ls fn;k tkrk gS fd

izca/u] vf/'kklh vf/dkjh] Nkouh ifj"kn~] ulhjkckn }kjk izkFkhZ

nsohyky dh lsok,a fnukad 1&7&02 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr

vkSj voS/ gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS A izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa

ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ lsok esa iquLFkkZfir gksus dk

vf/dkjh ugha gS] ijarq izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k ls ,deq'r {kfriw£r jkf'k

dqy pkyhl gtkj #i;s ek=k izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh gksxk A

vizkFkhZx.k mDr dqy jkf'k pkyhl gtkj #i;s ek=k izkFkhZ dks vokMZ

ds izdk'ku dh fnukad ls nks ekg dh vof/ esa vnk djs A

eukst dqekj O;kl] U;k;k/h'k

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2525-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj izkstsDV

Mk;jsDVj] vkj-,-ih-ih- ;wfuV] jkor HkkVk] dksVk ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] dksVk ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 08@98) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 4&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@17@1997&vkbZ vkj (Mh;w)º

lqjsUnz oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2012

S.O. 2525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/98)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kota as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the Project Director, RAPP Unit, Rawatbhata (KOTA) and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 3-7-2012.

[No. L-42011/17/1997-IR (DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6205

vuqcU/

U;k;k/h'k vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/dj.k]

dksVk@dsUæh;@dksVk@jkt-

ihBklhu vf/dkjhµJh izdk'k pUæ ixkjh;k] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ'k izdj.k Øekad % vkS- U;k-&8@98

fnukad LFkkfir % 22&5&98

izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k la[;k

,y&42011@17@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w) fn- 3&4&2008

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kjk 10 (1) (?k)

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947

eè;

egkea=kh] jktLFkku vkWVksfed ijek.kq Jfed la?k]

,pvkbZts@76 ,uVhlh dksyksuh] vaxNk;k

ihvks- HkkHkkuxj] jkorHkkVk ok;k dksVk A

ÑizkFkhZ Jfed ;wfu;u

,oa

izkstsDV MkW;jsDVj] jktLFkku vkVksfed ikoj izkstsDV

vkj,ihih] ;wfuV 3 o 4] jkorHkkVk (dksVk)

ÑvizkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

izkFkhZ Jfed ;wfu;u dh vksj ls %Ñ

dksbZ mifLFkr ugha

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls

Jh oh-ds- tSu

izfrfuf/ %Ñ

vf/fu.kZ; fnukad % 4&5&2012

% vf/fu.kZ; %

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh ds mDr izklafxd

vkns'k fn- 3&4&98 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/fu;e] 1947 (ftls rnqijkUr ^^vf/fu;e** ls lEcksf/r fd;k

tkosxk) dh /kjk 10(1)(?k) ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/dj.k dks

vf/fu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS %Ñ

“Whether the action of the management of RAPP

Unit 3 & 4 in not granting 20% extra wages for working

in constructions of Chimneys & Coolers above 30

feet or alternatingly additional compensationory off/

rest is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled for ?”

2- funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/dj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc¼ mijkUr

i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl fof/or tkjh dj voxr djok;k x;k A

izkFkhZ Jfed la?k dh vksj ls izkFkhZx.k ds lEcU/ esa Dyse

LVsVesUV is'k fd;k x;k ftlesa ;g o£.kr fd;k x;k fd vizkFkhZ ds

laLFkku esa fpeuh fj;sDVj dw¯yx Vkoj tksfd tehu ls 100&125

ehVj rd maps gksrs gSa] muds fuekZ.k dk;Z djus o Bsdsnkjksa ds

fuekZ.k dk;Z dh tkap gsrq la?k ds lnL; Jfedksa dks vkuk&tkuk

iM+rk gS A tehu ls ÅapkbZ ij dke djus esa vf/d ifjJe gksrk

gS o dke tksf[keiw.kZ gksrk gS A 10 ehVj ls T;knk maQpkbZ ij dke

djus ij Jfed dks 20% vf/d osru fn;k tkrk gS A Hkkjr

ljdkj] Je ea=kky; ds Hkh blh izdkj ds vkns'k gSa A ijUrq izkFkhZ

la?k ds lnL; Jfed tks dq'ky o v¼Zdq'ky gSa mUgsa bl izdkj

dke djus ij dksbZ vfrfjDr osru ugha fn;k tkrk gS] tcfd izkFkhZ

la?k ds lnL; Jfedksa us vxLr] 94 ls tuojh] 97 rd dh vof/

esa maQpkbZ ij tks dke fd;k muesa ,e-ih- 'kekZ] fnyhi dqekj 'kekZ]

fouksn dqekj xksjkuh dks Øe'k% 9362 #-] 18743@& #- o

11211 #- dk Hkqxrku gkbZV ,ykmUl dk ugha fd;k x;k gS] vr%

vizkFkhZ dk ;g ÑR; voS/ o vuqfpr gS A vizkFkhZ {kfriw£r

vodk'k nsuk pkgrk gS ijUrq ;g Hkh vuqfpr gS A blds vykok

vizkFkhZ dk ;g dguk fd ftu fnu Jfed ÅapkbZ ij dke djsxk

ml fnu dk;Z ls eqDr gksus ds ckn vU; dksbZ dk;Z ugha djsxk o

'ks"k vof/ ds fy, foJke djsxk] ;g nyhy Hkh lkjghu gS

D;ksafd dkSu Jfed fdrus ?kUVs Åij dk;Z djus ds ckn uhps

mrjsxk ;g r; ugha gS rFkk Jfed dHkh&dHkh de dke djds

;k T;knk dke djds uhps mrjrk gS rks fiQj nksuksa ds uhps mrjus

dh foJke vof/ esa Hkh vUrj gksxk A vr% vizkFkhZ dk bl izdkj

dk ekin.M Hkh mfpr ugha gS A vr% vius Dyse LVsVesUV ds

ekè;e ls izkFkhZ Jfed la?k us mDr rhuksa deZdkjksa dks Åij

o£.kr jkf'k ÅapkbZ HkÙks ds :i esa Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ds vuqrks"k

dh ekax dh A

4- bldk tokc vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls fn;k x;k

ftlesa izkFkhZ la?k ds Dyse esa o£.kr rF;ksa dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k

o ;g dFku fd;k x;k fd vizkFkhZ dk laLFkku Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk

le;≤ ij tkjh ekxZn'kZu o fl¼karksa ds vuqlkj vuqikfyr

gksrk gS rFkk deZdkjksa dks osrueku Hkh mlh vuq:i fn;k tkrk gS

rFkk 20% tks vf/d osru ÅapkbZ ij dke djus ds fy, fn;s tkus

dk rF; gS og U;wure osru etnwjh vf/fu;e ds rgr dke

djus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks tks Bsdsnkj ds v/hu dk;Z djrs gSa

muds fy, gS A pwafd izkFkhZx.k deZdkj U;wure osru vf/fu;e

ds rgr ugha vkrs gSa] vr% mUgsa bl izdkj dk ykHk ns; ugha gS]

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ukfHkdh; mQtkZ vk;ksx dh vU; ;wfuVksa esa Hkh bl

izdkj dk HkÙkk fn;s tkus dk izko/ku ugha gS A vr% vius tokc

ds ekè;e ls vizkFkhZ us Dyse LVsVesUV [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh

izkFkZuk dh A

5- blds i'pkr~ lk{; izkFkhZ esa egkohj izlkn 'kekZ] fouksn

dqekj xkscjkuh o fnyhi 'kekZ ds 'kiFk&i=k is'k gq,] vizkFkhZ }kjk

muls ftjg dh x;h o lk{; vizkFkhZ esa dklekl Msax dk 'kiFk&i=k

is'k gqvk] izkFkhZ i{k }kjk mlls ftjg dh x;h A

6206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6- mHk;i{k dh lk{; lekfIr ds i'pkr~ i=kkoyh cgl

vfUre gsrq fu;r dh tkrh jgh A izkFkhZx.k deZdkj dh vksj ls

yEcs le; ls vFkkZr~ 22&10&10 ls vkt fnu rd uk rks izkFkhZx.k

deZdkj mifLFkr vk;s gSa o uk gh muds izfrfuf/ mifLFkr vk;s gSa]

vr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/ dh cgl lquh x;h o

i=kkoyh ij vk;h gqbZ lk{; o lkexzh dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A

7- vc tgka rd izkFkhZx.k deZdkj }kjk vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa

30 iQhV ls T;knk Å¡pkbZ ij dke djus ij Å¡pkbZ HkÙkk tks osru dk

20% fn;s tkus dh ekax dh x;h gS] bl lEcU/ esa izkFkhZx.k xokg

egkohjizlkn 'kekZ] fouksn dqekj xksjkuh o fnyhi 'kekZ us viuh

ftjg esa bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd gekjh tkudkjh esa ,slk

fu;e ugha gS ftlesa fd gkbZV ,ykmUl nsuk gekjs lsok fu;eksa esa

jgk gks A Bsdsnkj muds Jfedksa dks gkbZV ,ykmUl dk Hkqxrku djrk

gS ,oa ge Hkh jsLV ds izko/ku ds LFkku ij gkbZV ,ykmUl pkgrs

gSa A blds vykok ;g Hkh tkudkjh ugha gS fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds

fdlh vU; deZpkjh dks gkbZV ,ykmUl izkIr gksrk gks A xokg fouksn

dqekj xks'kuh us Hkh ftjg esa ;gh Lohdkj fd;k fd izfri{kh laLFkku esa

dgha ij Hkh gkbZV ,ykmUl deZpkfj;ksa dks ugha fn;k tkrk gS A xokg

fnyhi 'kekZ us Hkh ftjg esa dFku fd;k fd ge dkjiksjs'ku ds

deZpkjh gSa vkSj gekjs Åij dkjiksjs'ku ds fu;e ykxw gksrs gSa A

rkjkiqj IykUV esa gkbZV ,ykmUl ds cnys esa jsLV fn;k tk jgk Fkk A

vU; fdlh IykUV esa gkbZV ,ykmUl fn;s tkus dk eq>s irk ugha A

8- blds foijhr vizkFkhZ ds xokg us eq[; ijh{kk 'kiFk&i=k

esa dFku fd;k gS fd gekjh ifj;kstuk esa Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;ksftr

fd;s x;s deZpkjh ftUgsa U;wure osru vf/fu;e ds rgr U;wure

osru izfrekg fn;k tkrk gS] os ;fn 10 ehVj ls vf/d Å¡pkbZ ij

dke djrs gSa rks mUgsa 20 % vfrfjDr osru jkf'k dk Hkqxrku Å¡pkbZ

ij dke djus ds ,ot esa fn;k tkrk gS_ ijUrq gekjs laLFkku esa

dk;Zjr deZpkjh tks U;wure osru vf/fu;e dh ifjf/ esa ugha

vkrs gSa] mUgsa Å¡pkbZ HkÙkk fn;s tkus dk izko/ku ugha gS A bl

lEcU/ esa uksfVfiQds'ku fn- 12&7&94 dh izfr izn'kZ ,e- 1 gS A bu

rhuksa deZdkjksa ij Hkh U;wure osru vf/fu;e ds izko/ku ykxw ugha

gksrs gSa A ftjg esa bl xokg us dFku fd;k fd izkFkhZx.k ds M~;wVh

pkVZ muds foHkkx }kjk fn;s x;s gSa rFkk M~;wVh pkVZ ds fglkc ls gh

dke djuk iM+rk gS A orZeku esa Hkh blh izdkj 8 ?kUVs M~;wVh nh

tkrh gS rks mlds ,ot esa dksbZ jsLV ;k ,ykmUl ugha fn;k tkrk

gSA gekjk foHkkx dksjiksjsV vkWfiQl eqEcbZ ls gh lEc¼ gS A izn'kZ

MCY;w- 12 ykxw ugha fd;k x;k gS A

9- bl izdkj mHk;i{k dh nLrkosth o ekSf[kd lk{; ls ;g

Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k deZdkj ftl 20 % vf/d osru dh

ekax 10 ehVj ls vf/d Å¡pkbZ ij vizkFkhZ ds laLFkku esa dke fd;s

tkus ij dj jgs gSa og dsoy mUgha deZdkjksa dks fn;k tkrk gS tks

Bsdsnkj ds }kjk fu;ksftr fd;s x;s gksa ,oa ftUgsa fd U;wure osru

vf/fu;e ds rgr U;wure etnwjh gh feyrh gks A rhuksa gh

izkFkhZx.k U;wure etnwjh izkIr ugha dj muds in ds vuq:i fofgr

osru Ük`a[kyk izkIr dj jgs gSa] vr% ;s izkFkhZx.k U;wure osru etnwjh

vf/fu;e ds izko/kuksa ls 'kkflr ugha gksrs gSa A bu izkFkhZx.k dh

vksj ls dgha ij ;g Hkh izdV ugha fd;k x;k fd Hkkjr ljdkj ds

ukfHkdh; mtkZ foHkkx dh vU; ;wfuVksa esa 10 ehVj ls vf/d Å¡pkbZ

ij dke djus okys fu;fer deZdkjksa dks osru dh 20»

vf/d jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fn;k tk jgk gks] uk gh ,slk dksbZ ljdkj

dk ;k mtkZ foHkkx dk vkns'k is'k fd;k x;k A vr% vkns'k ds

vHkko esa bu deZdkjksa dks ;g jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/dkjh ugha

ekuk tk ldrk A deZdkjksa dh vksj ls izn'kZ MCY;w- 12 tks is'k

fd;k x;k gS og ÅtkZ foHkkx dk gh ifji=k gS] blesa Hkh deZdkjksa

ds Å¡pkbZ ij dke djus ij uk rks dksbZ vfrfjDr dk;Z HkÙkk fn;s

tkus dk izko/ku gS ,oa uk gh mlds cnys dksbZ jsLV fn;s tkus dk

izko/ku gS] vfirq dsoy ek=k ftrus le; deZdkj Å¡pkbZ ij dke

djus ds ckn uhps mrjsxk rks ml fnu ds fy, 'ks"k vof/ ds fy,

mlls vU; dksbZ dke ugha fy;k tkdj og vof/ mlds fy, jsLV

ekuh tk;sxh] ,slk bl ifji=k fn- 21&1&97 esa o£.kr gS A

10- vr% uk rks izn'kZ MCY;w- 12 o uk gh izn'kZ ,e- dgha

ij Hkh vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa fu;fer :i ls fu;ksftr deZdkjksa dks bl

izdkj ds osru dk 20% vfrfjDr HkÙkk fn;s tkus dk izko/ku gS

,oa uk gh vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds fdlh ,sls vU; deZdkj dks ;g HkÙkk

fn;k tk jgk gS tks 30 iQhV ls vf/d Å¡pkbZ ij dke dj jgk gS A

vr% tc nksuksa gh fLFkfr;k¡ lkfcr ugha gks jgh gSa rks fiQj dsoy ek=k

bl vk/kj ij fd U;wure etnwjh ds rgr Bsdsnkj mu deZdkjksa dks

20% vf/d jkf'k ns jgk gS rks bl lEcU/ esa bl U;k;kf/dj.k dk

;g vfHker gS fd os deZdkj U;wure osru vf/fu;e ds izko/kuksa

ls 'kkflr gksrs gSa ,oa orZeku izkFkhZx.k deZdkj ml vf/fu;e ds

izko/ku ls 'kkflr ugha gksrs gSa A vr% muds lkFk rqyuk bu

izkFkhZx.k dh ugha dh tk ldrh ,oa uk gh bu izkFkhZx.k dks nSfud

osru Hkksxh deZdkj dh Js.kh esa j[kk tk ldrk gS A

11- vr% Åij fd;s x;s leLr foospu ds vk/kj ij bl

U;k;kf/dj.k dh jk; esa izkFkhZx.k viuh nLrkosth o ekSf[kd lk{;

ls ;g rF; lkfcr djus esa foiQy jgs gSa fd os vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa

30 iQhV ls vf/d Å¡pkbZ ij dke djus ij vius osru dh 20%

vfrfjDr jkf'k ;k fodYi esa {kfriwjd foJke izkIr djus ds

vf/dkjh gksa A

12- ekeys esa vfUre vkns'k ikfjr djsa mlls igys ge

izkFkhZx.k deZdkj dh bl nyhy esa cy ikrs gSa fd vizkFkhZ }kjk

vius deZdkjksa dks 30 iQhV ls vf/d Å¡pkbZ ij dke djus ij ml

fnu ds fy, uhps mrjus ds ckn vU; dksbZ dke ugha ysuk o 'ks"k

vof/ dks foJke ekus tkus dk tks ifji=k fn- 21&1&97 dks tkjh

fd;k x;k gS] mlesa okLro esa folaxfr gS fd ;fn dksbz ,d deZdkj

dsoy ,d ?kUVs Åij dke djds uhps mrj tkrk gS rks mls rks 'ks"k

vof/ ds fy, foJke fey tk;sxk ,oa ;fn dksbZ deZdkj iwjs gh

vkB ?kUVs Åij dke djds uhps mrjrk gS rks mls dksbZ foJke ugha

feyk A vr% nksuksa gh deZdkjksa ds bl izdkj dke djus ls ml

deZdkj dks ftlus Åij 8 ?kUVs dk dke fd;k mls fiQj ml fnu

ds fy, D;k foJke feyk] ;g rF; fopkj.kh; gks tkrk gS A vizkFkhZ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6207

ds vkns'k@ifji=k fn- 21&1&97 esa tks bl izdkj dh vlaxrrk gS

mldks 'kk;n vizkFkhZ okLrfod /jkry dh vuqHkwfr dks le>rs gq,

blh izdkj Hkfo"; ds fy, dne mBk;sxk ;k ,slk mik; lqfuf'pr

djsxk fd fdlh Hkh deZdkj ds lkFk Åij o£.kr dke djus dh

fLFkfr esa HksnHkko dh fLFkfr ugha jgs ,oa bl gsrq dksbZ rdZlaxr ,oa

U;k;izn fujkdj.k dh dk;Zokgh djsxk A deZdkjksa dh bl okLrfod

O;Fkk ,oa ihM+k ds lEcU/ esa ;g U;k;kf/dj.k viuh blh fVIi.kh

ds lkFk vius vfHker dks fojke nsrk gS A

ifj.kkeLo:i Åij fd;s x;s leLr foospu ds vk/kj ij

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=kky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk vius vkns'k Øekad

,y&42011@17@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w) fn- 3&4&98 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr

funsZ'k (jsÚsUl) dks blh vuq:i mÙkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k

deZdkj gLrxr fookn esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa 30 iQhV ls vf/d

Å¡pkbZ ij dke djus ds iQyLo:i 20% vfrfjDr osru dh jkf'k

;k mlds cnys foJke izkIr djus ds vf/dkjh gksus ds rF; dks

lk{; ls lkfcr ugha dj ik;s gSa] vr% ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa os dksbZ

vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/dkjh ugha gSa A ijUrq vizkFkhZ vius

laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ds bl izdkj ls Å¡pkbZ ij dke djus ds

lEcU/ esa ;fn deZdkjksa dh dk;Zfof/ esa vUrj gS rks bl izdkj ds

dne mBk;sxk rkfd gj ,d deZdkj ds lkFk U;k; gks lds A

izdk'k pUnz ixkjh;k] U;k;k/h'k

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2526-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds-vks-,y- MSe

gkbMªks bysfDVªd ikoj izkstDV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 150] 151] 152] 153] 154] 155] 156] 157] 159] 160]

161@2011 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&07&2012

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@225] 233] 232] 234] 235] 230] 224]

223] 222] 231] 226@2010&vkbZ vkj (Mh-;w-)º

lqjsUnz oqQekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2012

S. O. 2526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 150, 151,

152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of KOL Dam Hydro Electric Power Project &

Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 5-07-2012.

[ No. L-42012/225, 233, 232, 234, 235, 230, 224, 223, 222,

231, 226/2010-IR (DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer

1. Case No. I.D. 150/2011

Registered, on 24.5.2011

Sh. Inder Kumar S/o Sh. Heera Singh, C/o

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District CITU,

District Committee Mandi, 221/10, Thanera

Mohalla (HP).

2. Case No. ID~ 151/2011

Registered on 24.5.2011

Sh. Daleep Rahal S/o Sh. Paramjeet Rahal, C/o

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District

CITU, District Committee Mandi, 221/10,

Thanera Mohalla (HP).

3. Case No. ID.152/2011

Registered on 24.5.2011,

Sh. Shyam Bahadur S/o Sh. Dhan Bahadur,

C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District

CITU, District Committee Mandi, 221/10, Thanera

Mohalla (HP).

4. Case No.153/2011

Registered on 24.5.2011.

Sh. Tam Bahadur S/o Sh. Ash Bahadur,

C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District

CITU, District Committee Mandi, 221/10, Thanera

Mahalla (HP).

5. Case No.154/2011

Registered on 24.5.2011

Sh. Dev Prakash S/o Sh. Thamum Dass,

C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma,

President District CITU, District Committee Mandi,

221/10, Thanera Mohalla (HP). ,

6. Case No. ID.155/2011

Registered on 24/5/2011

Sh. Beeru Ram S/o Sh. Bali Ram, C/o Sh. Rajesh

Kumar Sharma, President District CITU, District

Committee Mandi, 221/10, Thanera Mohalla (HP).

7. Case No. ID.156/2011 ,

Registered on 24/5/2011 ,

Sh. Surya Prashad S/o Sh. Bhanu Prashad, C/o

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District

CITU, District Committee Mandi, 221/10, Thanera

Mahalia (HP).

8. Case No.ID. 157/2011

Registered on 24.5.2011

Sh. Suman Kumar S/o Sh. Kashi Ram,

C/o Sh.Rajesh Kumar Sharma,

President District CITU, District Committee

Mandi 221/10, Thanera Mohalla (HP).

9. Case No. ID. 159/2011

Registered on 24.5.2011

Sh. Kiran Barman S/o Sh. Jyotish Barman,

6208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District

CITU, District Committee Mandi, 221/10,

Thanera Mahalla (HP).

10. Case No.ID.160/2011 ,

Registered ‘on 24.5.2011

Shri Sher Bahadur Bist S/o Sh. Juman Bist,

C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar

Sharma, President District CITU, District Committee

Mandi 221/10,

Thanera Mohalia (HP).

11. Case No. ID.161/2011

Registered on 24.5.2011

Sh. Padam Bahadur,, S/o. Sh. Baig Bahadur,

C/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, President District

CITU, District Committee Mandi, 221/10, Thanera

Mahalla (HP).

. . .Applicants

Versus

1. The General Manager, Kol Dam Hydro Electric

Power Project, NTPC,

VPO Barmana, Bilaspur (HP)

2. Project Manager, Italian Thai Development Co.,

Ltd., Kol Dam Hydra Electric Power Project,

Village Kayan, PO Slapper, Teh. Sundernagar,

Mandi (HP)

3. M/s. UR Infrastructure Company Private Limited,

Village Chamba, Post Office Harnora, Bilaspur.

4. The Managing Director, M/s. Right Tunneling

Limited, Village Kayan, PO Slapper, Tehsil

Sundernagar, Mandi (HP).

. . .Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

None for workman

For the Management

Sh. VP Singh for

Respondent No. 1 & 4,

Sh. H. R. Sharma for

Respondent No. 2

AWARD

Passed on June, 2012

Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/225/2010/-

IR(DU),

Order No. L. 42012/233/2010-IR(DU)), Order No. L-42012/

232/2010/IR(DU),

Order No. L-42012/234/2010-IR(DU)), Order No. L-42012/

235/2010/IR(DU),

Order No. L-42012/230/2010-IR(DU)), Order No. L-42012/

224/2010-IR(DU),

Order No. L-42012/223/2010-IR(DU)), Order No. L-42012/

222/2010-IR(DU),

Order No. L-42012/231/2010-IR(DU)) and Order No.

L-42012/226/2010-IR(DU))

all dated 4-4-2011, 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 above

Industrial disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.

The common question of law and fact involved in all these

matters is :—

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Right Tunneling Ltd. sub contractor of M/s. UR

Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. a sub contractor of

M/s. Italian Thai Development Public Co. Ltd. in

the KoL Dam Hydro-Electric Project of NTPC/

Barmana Bilaspur(HP)in terminating services of the

aforesaid workmen without following the principle

of (Last come First go) is legal and justified? What

relief the workmen are entitled to?”

After receiving the references notices were issued

to the parties. Claimants did not appear despite notice

sent to them by registered post and notices not received

back undelivered. Hence, service was presumed on them

on 20-10-2011. Yet one more opportunity was given to the

claimants to appear and file claim statement but still

nobody turned up on their behalf nor was any claim

statement filed. Respondent No.1, 2 and 4 have put in

their appearances.

Since the workmen have failed to appear and file

claim statement in the above titled IDs hence a (No Dispute

award is passed in all the IDs referred above viz. ID No.150/

2011, 151/2011, 152/2011, 153/2011, 154/2011, 155/2011, 156/

2011,157/2011, 159/2011, 160/2011 and 161 of 2011. A copy

of the award be placed on the record of each of the IDs

and two copies of the award be sent to Central Government

for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2527-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6209

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 96 @1991) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@242@1991&vkbZ-vkj-(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2012

S.O. 2527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 96/1991)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 5-7-2012.

[No. L-12012/242/1991-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

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 Disputes. Act, 1947

Reference No. 96 of 1991

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of

India

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri S. N. Goswami, Advocate

For the Workman : None

State : Bihar

Industry : Bank

Dated, the 15-6-2012

AWARD

By Order No. L -12012/242/91-IR (B-I) dated

24-9-91/4-10-91 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 :

‘‘Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri N. K. Lohia w.e.f. 21-8-89 on the ground of his

refusal to appear in the special test for permanent

absorption in the service of the Bank was justified ?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was

initially appointed as a temporary cashier in State Bank of

India at Sahibganj Branch w.e.f. 3-6-64 and continuously

worked upto 14-9-1967. His service was terminated from

15-9-1967 without any notice or compensation inspite of

he had put in attendance for more than 240 days in a

period of 12 months even if only the period from 15-9-66 to

14-9-67. A memorandum of Settlement was arrived at

between the management and All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation in respect of Temporary employees

for their selection to permanent posts vide Circular No. 108

dated 29-3-1966 was issued for implementation of the joint

decision. An award was passed on 5-10-83 by C.G..I.

Tribunal No. 3, Dhanbad in Reference No. 68/1982 with

direction for taking back the concerned workman in the

employment of the Bank as fresh appointee within one

month from passing of the award. Against that award the

concerned made an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court praying back wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

granted relief to the extent of 50% of back wages from the

date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The

management made payment of 50% of back wages and the

concerned worklman was given fresh employment as

Temporary Cashier. He was also directed by the

management to appear in the written test and interview.

Accordingly, the concerned workman appeared in the test

in 1966 and as he had succeeded his service was not

terminated and was allowed to work. However, he was not

taken in permanent employment illegally. Thereafter his

service was illegally terminated w.e.f. 15-9-67.

Under such circumstances it has been prayed that

the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award by

directing the management to reinstate the concerned

workman in permanent cadre with full back wages and

other benefits.

3. The case of the management is that he was initially

appointed as a Temporary Cashier on purely temporary

basis as stop gap arrangements for specific period, which

was automatically came to end with effect from 3-6-1964

and thereafter continued to work as such till 14-6-67. A

Memorandum of Settlement arrived between the

management the All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation in respect of Temporary employees for their

selection to permanent posts vide Circular No. 108 dated

29-3-1966, was issued for implementation of the joint

decision. It was decided that the then existing temporary

employees in the clerical and cash department, would be

given opportunity to appear in a written test and would be

offered permanent absorption on the basis of marks

obtained by the successful employees. The concerned

workman appeared in the written test held on 29-10-1967

and interview held on 29-11-1967, but he failed in the

examination. The concerned workman raised an industrial

dispute against termination of his service w.e.f 15-9-67.

The above dispute was referred to C.G.I.T. No.3, Dhanbad,

which passed an award dated 5-10-83 holding that the

action of the management in terminating the services of

the concerned workman was illegal and unjustifed as

because conditions precedent as per provisions of

6210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 were not complied with before

terminating his service w.e.f. 15-9-67. The Hon’ble Tribunal

gave direction for taking back the concerned workman in

employment of the Bank as fresh employee within one month

from passing of the award. The concerned workman filed

an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court against the

award praying for back wages and Hon’ble Supreme Court

passed order and granted relief to the extent of 50% of

back wages from the date of termination till the date of

reinstatement. Accordingly, the concerned workman was

given fresh employment as Temporary Cashier in pursuance

of the award passed by CGIT No. 3 duly confirmed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. After following the principles as

laid down in the Circular No. 108 dated 29-3-1966 so far as

permanent absorption of Temporary clerical staff was

concerned, the management issued a letter dated 15-4-1989

to the concerned workman to appear in the Special Test to

be held on 30-4-1989. But the concerned workman

intentionally avoided and refused to appear in the Special

Test. So, the management terminated the service of the

concerned workmen vide letter dated 21-8-1989 as there

was no provisions to keep temporary employees in Cashier/

Clerk’s position, which are sensitive post and this is the

cogent reason of termination.

Under such circumstances, it has been prayed that

the action of the management in terminating the service of

the concerned workman is legal and justified and the

concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective

rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of

the paragraphs of each other’s written statement.

5. None appeared on behalf of the concerned

workman to argue the case.

Argument advanced on behalf of the management is

that the concerned workman was offered for appearing in

for selection on permanent post, but he did not appear in

the written test held on 29-10-67 and interview held on

29-11-67, but he failed in the examination. The management

wanted to absorb him in permanent post, accordingly, the

concerned workman was issued a letter dated 15-4-89 to

appear in the Special Test to be held on 30-4-89, but he had

not appeared even in the written test and interview,

conducted for absorption of temporary/ex-employees who

were engaged as temporary basis in the permanent cadre

of the Bank as per agreement entered into the terms

between the All India S.B.I. Staff Federation and the Bank.

In this respect WW-1 in his cross-examination at

page 2 stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order

had found my appointment to be a temporary post after

decision of award matter to be justified. According to the

rules an employee who does not pass the relevant test,

gets terminated from service of the Bank. I have not filed

any document in this reference case to show that I had

appeared in 1987 test for permanent absorption. That test

was taken while I was in service for the first time. After my

reinstatement I did not appear in any such test. It only

shows that the management wanted to absorb temporary

employees in permanent cadre after conducting special

test, but the concerned workman intentionally refused to

appear in the special test.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances I

hold that the action of the management of State Bank of

India in terminating the services of Shri N. K. Lohia w.e.f.

21-8-89 on the ground of his refusal to appear in the special

test for permanent absorption in the service of the Bank

was justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled

to any relief.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2528-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe e?;

jsyos ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 101@04)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41012@74@2004&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2012

S.O. 2528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/04)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Western Central

Railway, and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 6-7-2012.

[No. L-41012/74/2004-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 101/04

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Ambika Prasad Tiwari,

Through National Forum of Rly. Congressmen,

Cabinman, Rly Station,

Sihora Road,

Jabalpur ...Workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6211

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Central Railway,

Jabalpur (MP) ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of June 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-41012/74/2004-IR(B-I) dated

27-9-2004 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal :-

^^D;k izca/ra=k e.My jsy izca/d if'pe e?; jsyos] tcyiqj

e- iz- ds izca/u }kjk Jh vfEcdk izlkn frokjh] dsfcuesu]

jsyos LVs'ku flgksjk jksM dks ojh;rk ds vk/kj ij 29&4&74

dh ctk, 29&7&72 ls I;kbaVlesu&ch ds in ij inksUufr ds

ykHk iznku u fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ksfpr gS \ ;fn ugha

rks lacaf/r deZdkj fdlh vuqrks"k dk gdnkj ugha gS A**

2. The case of the workman, in short, is that he was

appointed as Station Porter on 10-10-1963 alongwith

Rameshwar Jai Ram and Sitaram Kashiram. These two

workers were promoted as Pointsman‘‘B’’ grade on

29-7-72 ignoring the promotion of the workman Shri Ambika

Prasad Tiwari though they were juniors to him. He

represented before the management and thereafter he

was promoted on the said post of Pointsman Gr. B w.e.f.

29-4-74. As a result they are getting two more increments.

The workman gave several representations but the same

are undecided. It is submitted that the management be

directed to give promotional benefits of Pointsman Gr.‘‘B’’

w.e.f. 29-7-72 equal to the Juniors Rameshwar Jairam and

Sitaram Kashiram with arrears and other benefits.

3. The management appeared and filed statement of

claim (Written Statement) to contest the reference. The

case of the management, interalia, is that the seniority list

was issued by the Railway Administration on 30-7-1965

and in the seniority list, the name of Shri Rameshwar Jairam

stands at Serial No. 432 whereas the name of the workman

Ambika Prasad Tiwari stands at Serial No. 457.

Shri Rameshwar Jairam was senior to the workman as such

Shri Jairam was promoted earlier. The Annexure A/l filed

by the workman is not a seniority list rather it is only a

posting order. It is stated that the representations of the

workman was considered by the Railway Administration

and was rejected and was communicated to the workman.

It is stated that the claim is at a belated stage and by now

the workman and co-workers have already been retired. It

is also stated that the dispute is relating to promotion and

seniority and the same is not raised by the Union and

therefore it is not be termed as an industrial dispute within

the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in short the

Act, 1947). It is submitted that the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

following issues are for adjudications :—

I. Whether the action of the management in not

promoting the workman on the post of Pointsman

Gr.‘‘B’’ on 29-7-92 instead of 29-4-74 on the basis of

seniority is justified?

II. Whether the dispute relating to promotion and

seniority is raised by the workman himself and the

same is not to be termed as an industrial dispute?

III. To what relief the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

To prove the case, the workman Shri Ambika

Prasad Tiwari is examined himself. He has supported his

case. He has stated that he was appointed as a Station

Poter on 10-10-1963 and he was senior to Shri Sita Ram

S/o Kashiram and Rameshwar S/o Jairam in the seniority

list. He has further stated that they had been promoted on

27-9-l972 on the post of Pointsman Grade B superseding

him. His pay and pension were affected. He has been cross-

examined but there is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve

this witness. His evidence shows that he was senior to

the other two named workers and they had been promoted

two years before this workman.

6. The workman has also adduced documentary

evidence as well which is admitted by the management.

Exhibit W/1 is the failure report of the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (Central) [ in short ALC(C)] Jabalpur. This

letter goes to show that the dispute of the workman was

raised by the National Forum of Railway Congressman,

(Central Railway), Jabalpur where the management did not

participate inspite of repeated adjoumment in the

conciliation proceeding. As such the ALC(C) submitted

failure report to the Ministry. The pleading of the

management shows that Annexure Al/1filed by the

workman is relied by the management. Annexure A/1 is the

office order dated 8-11-1963 of the management. The said

annexure is a posting order and not a seniority list. This

office order cannot be the basis of seniority of the workers.

The other photocopies of the documents filed by the

workman are denied by the management and these

documents are not proved by the workman and therefore

are not reliable to consider in evidence. Thus the

documentary evidence shows that the workman raised

the dispute before the ALC(C) Jabalpur but the

management did not participate to contradict the claim of

the workman. However these documents as have been

referred above do not prove that the workman was senior

to Shri Ramsharan and Sitaram.

7. On the other hand according to the management,

the seniority list was issued by the Railway Administration

on 30-7-1965 and in the seniority list, the name of Shri

Rameshwar Jairam stands at Serial No. 432 whereas the

6212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

name of Shri Ambika Prasad Tiwari stands at Serial

No. 457. There is no case of the management as to whether

the name of Shri Sitaram Kashiram stands in the serial list

and whether he was senior or junior to Shri Ambika Prasad

Tiwari or not. There is no specific denial of the

management with regard to Shri Sitaram S/o Kashiram.

There is only specific case of the management that Shri

Rameshwar is senior to the workman Shri Ambika Prasad

and therefore Shri Rameshwar was promoted earlier. Since

there is no specific case and specific denial that Shri Sitaram

S/o Kashiram is also senior to the workman Shri Ambika

Prasad, it is deemed to be admitted that he was junior to

Shri Ambika Prasad. The management witness Shri

Gyananand Shukla is working as OS-II in DRM office,

Jabalpur. He has stated that the seniority list was

Published on 30-7-1965. He has further stated that

Rameshwar and Ramsingh are senior to the workman

Shri Ambika Prasad Tiwari. There is no evidence as to

whether Sitaram S/o Kashiram was also senior to Ambika

Prasad or not who was also promoted on 29-7-72. There is

no evidence with respect to Shri Sitaram S/o Kashiram.

Thus the oral evidence of the management is not sufficient

to prove that the workman was not entitled to be promoted

with effect from 29-7-72.

8. The management has filed the seniority list dated

30-7-65 which is paper nos 9/2 to 9/4. The seniority list

shows that the name of Rameshwar Tiwari S/o Jairam Tiwari

stands at Serial No. 432. The name of the workman Shri

Ambika Prasad S/o Dillipat Tiwari stands at Serial No. 457

and the name of Shri Sitaram S/o Kashiram stands at Serial

No. 463. This seniority list itself shows that Shri Sitaram

S/o Kashiram was junior to Shri Ambika Prasad. There is

no case of the management as to why Shri Sitaram

S/o Kashiram was promoted on 29-7-72 superseding the

workman Shri Ambika Prasad Tiwari. This shows that the

workman is justified in claiming his promotion w.e.f.

29-7-72 instead of 29-4-74. This issue is decided in favour

of the workman and against the management.

9. Issue No. II

The learned counsel for the management has raised

objection that this is a dispute relating to promotion and

seniority and the dispute is not sponsored by the Union

and therefore the dispute raised by the workman is not an

industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act, 1947.

There is no dispute that West Central Railway is not an

industry. The industrial dispute is defined in Section 2(k)

of the Act, 1947 which is produced as under:-

‘‘ Industrial dispute’’ means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person.’

Thus it is clear that it is an industrial dispute because

it is a dispute between the employer and the workman of

the West Central Railway.

10. Another question is as to whether the dispute is

sponsored by the Union and as to whether the said

question is raised and proved by the management. The

workman has filed the report of the ALC(C), Jabalpur

which is marked as Exhibit W/l. This report of the ALC(C),

Jabalpur was sent to the Ministry on failure of conciliation

proceeding for reference. The said report shows that the

dispute of the workman was sponsored by the National

Forum of Railway Congressman(Central Railway) Jabalpur

Division. Thus it is clear that the dispute of the workman

is raised by the Union who is also party to the reference.

The management has not challenged in the evidence that

the dispute is not raised by the Union rather there is no

evidence adduced by the management. I, therefore, find

that the dispute is rightly raised before the Tribunal and

the same was sponsored by the National Forum of Railway

Congress. This issue is also decided in favour of the

workman and against the management.

11. Issue No. III -

It is clear from the case of the parties that the

workman Shri Ambika Prasad Tiwari has now retired from

service. As such on the basis of the discussion made

above, the workman Shri Ambika Prasad Tiwari is entitled

to be promoted on the post of Pointsman Gr.‘‘B’’ w.e.f.

29-7-72 and therefore the management is directed to pass

the order of promotion of the workman Shri Ambika Prasad

Tiwari w.e.f. 29-7-72 which is the date of promotion of

Shri Sitaram S/o Kashlram, Pointsman Gr.B and to pay the

difference of the amount till the date of superannuation

and to pay pension and other retirement benefits

accordingly within two months from the date of award.

Accordingly the reference is answered.

12. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2529-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lriqjk {ks=kh;

xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45@04)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@295@2003&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6213

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2012

S.O. 2529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/04)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Satpura Kshetriya

Gramin Bank , and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 6-7-2012.

[No. L-12012/295/2003-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/45/04

Presiding Officer: SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

The General Secretary,

MPKGB Karamchari Union,

Motinagar, Ward No.24,

Balaghat . . .Workman

Versus

The chairman,

Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Behind Bus Stand,

Mandla (MP) . . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of June, 2012

I. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-12012/295/2003-IR(B-I) dated 8-4-2004

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal:-

‘‘Whether the action of the management of the

Chairman,Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Mandla

in not regularizing Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia is legal and

justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

for?’’

2. The case of the Union/workman in short is that

the workman Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia was working from the

year 1984 to 24-11-2003 in the Bakori Branch of the

management Bank as daily wager on the post of messenger-

cum-safai karmchari. The workman is said to have

represented for regularizing his service. The Union had

also raised demand with the management for regularizing

the services of the daily wagers who were working in

different branches of the Bank The workman had

authorized the recognised Union to represent his case

and the Union had raised dispute before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Shahdol. The conciliation

proceeding ended in failure. Thereafter the management

terminated him from service w.e.f. 25-11-2003 without

payment of retrenchment compensation. It is stated that

the management had again orally engaged other person in

his place. It is submitted that the workman be appointed

on the permanent post with admissible pay and allowance.

3. The management appeared and filed Written

Statement to contest the reference. The case of the

management, interalia, is that the Branch Manager can

only hire the services of any body purely on daily wages

and the said engagement automatically comes to an end.

The workman was engaged on daily wages on the basis of

need of work which came to an end on completion of the

said work. He was paid remuneration for the work he

performed time to time. He therefore cannot claim

regularization on the basis of casual engagement. It is

stated that the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

( in short the Act, 1947) are not attracted in the present

case. It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

following issues are framed for adjudication-

I. Whether the action of the management in not

regularizing the workman is legal and justified?

II. To what relief the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

According to the workman, he was engaged as a

daily wager from the year 1984 to 24-11-2003. Admittedly

now the workman is not in employment of the management

Bank. The important question is that under the

circumstances as to whether the workman is entitled to be

regularized in the services of the management Bank or

not. The workman Shri Lakhan Lal Jharia is only examined

in the case. He has stated that he worked regularly from

the date of appointment till 25-11-2003 for 18 years when

he was orally terminated. Admittedly he is not in the

employment of the management presently. As such the

question to regularize him in the service doesnot arise

when he is not in service. He has stated that he was

engaged on casual basis orally without referring his name

by the Employment Exchange. He had not given any test

in writing. This shows that he was not appointed after due

process of recruitment rules. This shows that he is not

entitled for regularization in the service on the basis of

casual employment, even if he remained in service.

6. On the other hand, the management has also

examined one witness namely Shri Satish Kumar Singhore.

He is working as Senior Manager. He has supported the

case of the management. He has stated that whenever the

workman worked, he was paid through voucher. His

evidence also shows that the workman was engaged

6214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

intermittently for casual work. He was never appointed by

due process of recruitment rules. This shows that the

workman is not entitled to be regularized in the service of

the Bank. This issue is decided against the workman and

in favour of the management.

7. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above, I find

that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly

the reference is answered.

8. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2530-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

bUnkSj ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks &7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@37@2010&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2012

S.O. 2530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore,

and their workman, received by the Central Government

on 6-7-2012.

[No. L-12011/37/2010-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/43/2011

Presiding Officer: SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan,

F-l, Tripti Vihar,

Opp.Engg. College,

Ujjain. . . .Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

State Bank of Indore, Head Office,

5, Y. N. Road,

Indore . . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of June, 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No.L-12011/37/2010-IR(B-I) dated

24-5-2011 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

‘‘Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan

Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan, Ujjain for payment of

difference of wages from 20-12-95 to 10-1-2009 as

per bipartite settlement to Shri Satish Kumar

Kushwaha who was working in State Bank of Indore,

Nateran Br. (Vidisha) is legal and justified? To what

relief the union/workman is entitled?’’

2. The case of the Union/workman in short, is that

the workman Shri Satish Kumar Kushwaha was working

as peon at Nateran Branch (Vidisha) of State Bank of

India from 20-12-1995 to 10-1-2009. He worked eight hours

every day and 240 days in every year. After completion

of 240 days in a year, he demanded wages of permanent

employee and also bonus of his cadre. It is stated that he

was entitled to get the wages in accordance with Shastri

Award and bipartite settlements time to time. It is submitted

that the management be directed to pay the difference of

wages to the workman.

3. The notice was issued to the management but he

did not appear in the case.

4. The workman Shri Satish Kumar Kushwaha in

the mean time filed an application dated 20-1-12 stating

therein that he is withdrawing the authority of Shri Ram

Nagwanshi, General Secretary to contest the reference

on his behalf. He has further stated that the management

has taken him in employment at Nateran Branch w.e.f.

14-10-2011 and therefore he wants to withdraw the case.

This clearly shows that now there is no dispute in existence

between the management and the workman and the

workman doesnot want to raise dispute against the

management. Accordingly the reference is answered.

5. In the result, the no dispute award is passed

without any order to costs.

6. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of . India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6215

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2531-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 9&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@15@2008&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2012

S.O. 2531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State

Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 9-7-2012.

[No. L-12012/15/2008-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 25/2008

Date of Passing .Award - 28th June, 2012

Between:

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar

Old Town Branch, Bhubaneswar,

Dist. Khurda,

(Orissa) ...1st Party-Management

(And)

Their workman

Sri Laxman Behera,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar,

Unit-3, Bhubaneswar.

(Orissa) ... 2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

Shri Alok Das,

... For the 1st Party-

Authorized Representative Management

None ...For the 2nd Party-

Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred the present dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of State Bank

of India and their workman under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide their Letter No.

L -12012/15/2008 -IR (B-1), dated 12-5-2008 to this Tribunal

for adjudication to the following effect :

‘‘Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Old Town Branch, Bhubaneswar in

terminating the services of Sri Laxman Behera, ex-

workman w.e.f. 30-09-2004 without complying the

provisions of the I.D. Act, is legal and justified? To

what relief is he entitled?’’

2. The 2nd Party-Workman has filed his statement

of claim alleging that he had joined his services as a

Messenger on 31-12-1979 after succeeding in interview.

He was assured to get permanent appointment order after

one year or on completion of 240 days' work in a calendar

year, but despite completion of several years of continuous

satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days'

work in each year he was not regularized, instead

terminated and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the

1st Party-Management without any written communication

or payment of compensation. The 1st Party-Management

in refusing employment to him violated all principles of

natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought

the matter into the notice of the C.G..M. and C.D.O. of the

State Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing

nothing, he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated 21-2-

2005. Conciliation proceedings were started, but they failed

and thereupon a failure report was submitted to the

Government and the Government made the present

reference. He is thus entitled to get full back wages and

reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from

30-9-2004.

3. The 1st Party-Management in its reply through

written statement has stated that the present dispute is

misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party-

workman had already raised a similar dispute along with

124 other workers through the State Bank of India

Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

challenging their alleged termination of service by the

6216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1st Party-Management. In the said dispute the failure report

was sent by the Asstt.Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn referred

the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is

pending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007.

The name of the 2nd Party-workman is appearing at Sl.

No. 22 in Annexure-A to the said reference. Thus, raising

a common dispute for same cause of action and again

raising individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an

abuse of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of

litigation. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) while

conciliating the individual disputes disregarded the

direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central) not to take any further action on the separate

disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of

action. The allegation of the 2nd Party-workman that he

had joined the Bank on 31-12-1979 and he was

discontinued from service on 30-9-2004 is not correct. He

was engaged intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis

due to exigencies of work. It is further denied that he was

performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty and to

the best of satisfaction of the Authority. The 2nd Party-

workman has never completed several years of continuous

service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 days of

continuous service in any calendar year preceding the

date of his alleged termination. In order to give an

opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex-temporary

employees/daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various

settlements entered into between the All India State Bank

of India Staff Federation and the Management of the State

Bank of India all eligible persons were called for interview.

The 2nd Party-workman was also called for an interview

along with other eligible persons in the year 1993. As he

was not found successful in the said interview he could

not be appointed in the Bank. The Union or the 2nd Party-

workman has never challenged the implementation of the

settlement which has now gained finality. It is further

submitted that some of the wait-listed candidates, who

could not be absorbed in the Bank’s service due to expiry:

of the panel on 31st March, 1997 filed Writ Petitions before

the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon’ble High

Court of Orissa by a common order dated 15-5-1998

passed in O.J.C. No, 2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ

Petitions and upheld the action the Management of the

Bank. This order of the Hon'ble High Court was also

upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S,LP. No.

CC - 3082/1999. Hence the above matter has attained finality

and cannot be re-agitated. Since the services of Sri Behera

had allegedly been terminated on 22-9-1980 his claim has

become stale by raising the dispute after lapse of a period

of 24 years. It is a settled principle of law that delay

destroys the right to remedy. Thus raising the present

dispute after 24 years of alleged termination is liable to be

rejected.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed:—

ISSUES

1. Whether the present reference of the individual

workman during the pendency of the I.D. Case

No.7/2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue is

legal and justified?

2. Whether the workman has worked for more than

240 days as enumerated under section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act?

3. Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India Old Town Branch, Bhubaneswar in

terminating the services of Shri Laxman Behera, Ex-

workman with effect from 30-9-2004 without

complying the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 is

legal and justified?

4. To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

5. The 2nd Party-workman despite giving sufficient

opportunity did not produce any evidence either oral or

documentary in support of his claim and willingly kept

himself out of the proceedings at the stage of evidence by

absenting himself or his Union representative.

6. The 1st Party-Management has adduced the oral

evidence of Shri Manmath Kumar Biswas as M.W.-l and

flIed documents marked as Ext..- A to Ext-J in refutation

of the claim of the 2nd Party-workman.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party-

Management that a group of 125 employees including the

2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in

1.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same

relief which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as

referred to in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 is given below for

comparison with the dispute in the present case—

Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not

considering the case of 125, workmen whose details are in

Annexure-A for re-employment as per Section

25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

8. The name of the 2nd party-workman appears at

Sl. No. 22 in Annexure-A to the above reference. In both

the cases the matter of disengagement or so called

retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the

other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-

employment. But challenge has been made more

specifically against the termination of service of the 2nd

Party-workman in the present case while in 1.D. Case

No. 7/2007 prayer has been made with regard to

consideration of the case of 125 workmen for re-

employment as per Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. In fact, in the latter case the workmen have

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6217

submitted or virtually surrendered to their cessation of

employment or alleged termination, whereas in the present

case they have challenged their tennination on facts and

law. Virtually in the present case validity and legality of

the alleged termination has to be tested at the alter of facts

and legal propositions. Therefore, it cannot be said that

issues involved in both the cases are same. This case can

proceed despite pendency of I.D. Case No. 7/2007 and the

present reference by the individual workrnan pending for

adjudication is maintainable being legal and justified. This

issue is therefore decided in the affirmative and against

the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman

has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his alleged termination or disengagement from service

lies on him, but the 2nd Party-workman has not adduced

any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his

contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim

that he had joined the service on 31-12-1979 and worked

till 30-9-2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis, but

he has not filed any certificate or reliable document

showing the break-up of year-wise service rendered by

him under the 1st Party-Management during the above

period. The 1st Party-Management, on the other hand,

has alleged that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged

intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to

exigencies of work and he had never completed 240 days

continuous service in a calendar year. M.W-l Shri Manmath

Kumar Biswas in his statement before the Court has stated

that ‘‘the disputant was working intermittently for few

days in our Branch on daily wage basis in exigencies......

He had not completed 240 days of continuous and

uninterrupted service preceding the alleged date of the

termination”. He has denied the allegation that the

workman was discontinued with effect from 30-9-2004, but

stated that ‘‘Infact the workman left working in the Branch

since 22-9-1980.’’ The 2nd Party-workman has to disprove

the evidence led by the 1st Party-Management, but he has

not come before the Court to give evidence. A temporary

or daily wage worker has no right to claim reinstatement

and particularly when such an employee had not worked

for 240 days continuously during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his so-called termination.

Thus he is not entitled to get benefit of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is hereby decided

against the 2nd Party-workman for failing to prove that he

had worked for 240 days continuously during a period of

12 calendar months preceding the date of his

disengagement or alleged termination from service.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove

that he had rendered 240 days continuous service

under the 1st Party-Management during a period of

12 calendar months preceding the date of his

disengagement or alleged termination, he is not entitled

for re-employment even in case of his alleged illegal and

arbitrary termination. Moreover, he was a temporary/

casual/daily wage employee. His services can be terminated

at any time without assigning any cause by the 1st Party-

Management. He has no legal right to be retained in service

for the extended period, if he was appointed for a certain

period or when no time is specified. The 2nd Party-workman

has not filed any letter of appointment or proof of having

rendered service under the 1st Party-Managernent for a

specified period against a regular post. The 1st Party-

Management has further alleged that in time of exigencies

only the 2nd Party-workman was employed. It means that

with the end of exigencies his job also came to an end. In

view of the matter the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Old Town Branch, Bhubaneswar in

terminating the services of Sri Laxman Behera with effect

from the alleged date of his termination is fair, legal and

justifIed. This issue is accordingly decided in the

affirmative and against the 2nd Party-workman.

ISSUE NO. 4

11. In view of the findings recorded above under

Issues No. 2 and 3, the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled

to any relief whatsoever claimed.

12. Reference is answered accordingly.

J1TENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2532-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 9&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@30@2008&vkbZvkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2012

S.O. 2532—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank

of India, and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 9-7-2012.

[No. L-12012/30/2008-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

6218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 41/2008

Date of Passing Award - 26th June, 2012

Between:

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch,

Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.

... 1st Party-Management

(And)

Their workman Sri Satyananda Barik,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar, Unit-3,

Bhubaneswar. (ORISSA)

... 2nd Party-Workmen

Appearances:

Shri Alok Das,

...

For the 1st Party-

Authorized Representative

Management

None

For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred the present dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of

India and their workman under clause (d) of sub-section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 vide their Letter No. L-12012/30/2008 -

IR (B-1), dated 2-6-2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication

to the following effect:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in relation to their Main Branch,

Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri

Satyananda Barik w.e.f. 30-9-2004 is fair, legal and

justified? To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled? ’’

2. The 2nd Party-Workman has filed his statement

of claim alleging that he had joined his services as a

Messenger on 12-1-1987 after succeeding in interview. He

was assured to get permanent appointment order after

one year or on completion of 240 days' work in a calendar

year, but despite completion of several years of continuous

satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days’

work in each year he was not regularized, instead terminated

and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the 1st Party-

Management without any written communication or

payment of compensation. The 1st Party-Management in

refusing employment to him violated all principles of

natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought

the matter into the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. of the

State Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing

nothing, he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated

2-3-2005. Conciliation proceedings were started, but they

failed and thereupon a failure report was submitted to the

Government and the Government made the present

reference. He is thus entitled to get full back wages and

reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from

30-9-2004.

3. The 1st Party-Management in its reply through

written statement has stated that the present dispute is

misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party-

workman had already raised a similar dispute along with

124 other workers through the State Bank of India

Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st

Party-Management. In the said dispute the failure report

was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn

referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and

the same is pending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case

No. 7/2007. The name of the 2nd Party-workman is

appearing at Sl. No. 9 in Annexure-A to the said reference.

Thus, raising a common dispute for same cause of action

and again raising individual dispute for same relief is

nothing but an abuse of the process of law and amounts

to multiplicity of litigation. The Asst. Labour Commissioner

(Central) while conciliating the individual disputes

disregarded the direction of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) not to take any further action on

the separate disputes raised by the same workers for the

same cause of action. The allegation of the 2nd Party-

workman that he had joined the Bank on 12-1-1987 and he

was discontinued from service on 30-9-2004 is not correct.

He was engaged intermittently on temporary/daily wage

basis due to exigencies of work. It is further denied that he

was performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty

and to the best of satisfaction of the Authority. The 2nd

Party-workman has never completed several years of

continuous service in the Bank nor he has completed 240

days of continuous service in any calendar year preceding

the date of his alleged termination. In order to give an

opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex-temporary

employees/daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various

settlements entered into between the All India State Bank

of India Staff Federation and the Management of the State

Bank of India all eligible persons were called for interview.

The 2nd Party-workman was also called for an interview

along with other eligible persons in the year 1993. As he

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6219

was not found successful in the said interview he could

not be appointed in the Bank. The Union or the 2nd Party-

workman has never challenged the implementation of the

settlement which has now gained finality. It is further

submitted that some of the wait-listed candidates, who

could not be absorbed in the Bank’s service due to expiry

of the panel on 31st March, 1997 filed Writ Petitions before

the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon'ble High

Court of Orissa by a common order dated 15-5-1998 passed

in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions

and upheld the action of the Management of the Bank.

This order of the Hon 'ble High Court was also upheld by

the Hon ’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC -

3082/1999. Hence the above matter has attained finality

and cannot be re-agitated. Since the services of Sri Barik

had allegedly been terminated on 18-12-1996 his claim has

become stale by raising the dispute after lapse of a period

of 9 years. It is a settled principle of law that delay destroys

the right to remedy. Thus raising the present dispute after

9 years of alleged termination is liable to be rejected.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed :—

ISSUES

1. Whether the present reference of the

individual workman during the pendency of the ID.

Case No. 7/2007 before the Tribunal on the same

issue is legal and justified?

2 . Whether the workman has worked for more

than 240 days as enumerated under section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act?

3. Whether the action of the Management of

State Bank of India in relation to their Main Branch,

Bhubaneswar, in terminating the services of

Shri Satyananda Barik, with effect from 30-9-2004, is

fair, legal and justified?

4. To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?

5. The 2nd Party-workman despite giving sufficient

opportunity did not produce any evidence either oral or

documentary in support of his claim and willingly kept

himself out of the proceedings at the stage of evidence by

absenting himself or his Union representative.

6. The 1st Party-Management has adduced the oral

evidence of Shri Abhay Kumar Das as M.W.-1 and filed

documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-J in refutation of the

claim of the 2nd Party-workman.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

7. A specific plea has been raised by the lst Party-

Management that a group of 125 employees including the

2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in

I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same

relief which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as

referred to in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 is given below for

comparison with the dispute in the present case —

Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not

considering the case of 125 workmen whose details

are in Annexure-A for re-employment as per Section

25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?

8. The name of the 2nd party-workman appears at

S1. No.9 in Annexure- A to the above reference. In both

the cases the matter of disengagement or so called

retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the

other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-

employment. But challenge has been made more

specifically against the termination of service of the 2nd

Party-workman in the present case while in I.D. Case No.

7/2007 prayer has been made with regard to consideration

of the case of 125 workmen for re-employment as per Section

25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact in the

latter case the workmen have submitted or virtually

surrendered to their cessation of employment or alleged

termination, whereas in the present case they have

challenged their termination on facts and law.Virtually in

the present case validity and legality of the alleged

termination has to be tested at the alter of facts and legal

propositions. Therefore it cannot be said that issues

involved in both the cases are same. This case can proceed

despite pendency of I.D. Case No. 7/2007 and the present

reference by the individual workman pending for

adjudication is maintainable being legal and justified. This

issue is therefore decided in the affirmative and against

the 1st Party-Management,

ISSUE NO. 2

9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman

has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his alleged termination or disengagement from service

lies on him, but the 2nd Party-workman has not adduced

any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his

contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim

that he had joined the service on 12-1-1987 and worked till

30-9-2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis, but he

has not filed any certificate or reliable document showing

the break-up of year-wise service rendered by him under

the 1st Party-Management during the above period. The

1st Party-Management, on the other hand, has alleged

that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged intermittently

on temporary/daily wage basis due to exigencies of work

and he had never completed 240 days continuous service

in a calendar year. M.W.-l Shri Abhay Kumar Das in his

statement before the Court has stated that "the disputant

was working intermittently for few days in our Branch on

6220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

daily wage basis in exigencies ....... He had not completed

240 days of continuous and uninterrupted service

preceding the alleged date of the termination". He has

denied the allegation that the workman was discontinued

with effect from 30-9-2004, but stated that ‘‘Infact the

workman left working in the Branch since 18-12-1996.’’

The 2nd Party-workman has to disprove the evidence led

by the 1st Party- Management, but he has not come before

the Court to give evidence. A temporary or daily wage

worker has no right to claim reinstatement and particularly

when such an employee had not worked for 240 days

continuously during a period of 12 calendar months

preceding the date of his so-called termination. Thus he is

not entitled to get benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is hereby decided against

the 2nd Party-workman for failing to prove that he had

worked for 240 days continuously during a period of 12

calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement

or alleged termination from service.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove

that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under

the 1 st Party-Management during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination, he is not entitled for re-employment even in

case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination.

Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/daily wage

employee. His services can be terminated at any time

without assigning any cause by the 1st Party

Management. He has no legal right to be retained in service

for the extended period, if he was appointed for a certain

period or when no time is specified. The 2nd Party-workman

has not filed any letter of appointment or proof of having

rendered service under the 1st Party-Management for a

specified period against a regular post. The 1st Party-

Management has further alleged that in time of exigencies

only the 2nd Party-workman was employed. It means that

with the end of exigencies his job also came to an end. In

view of the matter the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating

the services of Sri Satyananda Barik with effect from the

alleged date of his termination is fair, legal and justified

This issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative and

against the 2nd Party-workman.

ISSUE NO. 4

11. In view of the findings recorded above under

Issues No.2 and 3, the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled

to any relief whatsoever claimed.

12. Reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2533-µvkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vk;y

,.M uSpqjy xSl dkjiksjs'ku vaDys'oj] xqtjkr ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 823@2004 iqjkuk u-

35@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&7&2012

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@70@2003&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2012

S.O. 2533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 823/

2004 Old No. 35/2003) 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 M/s. ONGC Ltd.,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat) and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-30011/70/2008-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BFFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer

CGlT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 17th May, 2012

Reference: CGIT A of 823/2004

Reference: ITC. 35/2003 (Old)

The Assistant Manager (projects),

ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat),

... First Party

And their workman

Shri Dwarkesh Kulwantrai Pandya (since dead)

Heirs Substituted

1a. Jaishriben Pandya Widow

1b. Yesha Pandya minor Daughter

1c. Rut Pandya minor Son

Represented through,

Bharatiya Karmachari Sangh,

Vishwakarma Shramsadhna Trust,

101, Shirali Complex, Kothi Char Rasta,

Anustu Tekri, Baroda-390001

... Second Party

For the first party :

Shri Pradeep F. Jhaveri, Advocate

(Naidu Associates)

For the second party : Shri J. I. Shah, Advocate

AWARD

The Appropriate Government/Bharat Sarkar/

Ministry of Labour considering an Industrial Dispute

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6221

existing between the employer in relation to the

managementof ONGC Ltd. Ankleshwar project and their

workman by its order No. L-30011/70/2003 [IR (M)] New

Delhi dated 13-10-2003. In exercise of the powers conferred

by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub Section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the ID Act, 1947 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda by

formulating the terms of reference as follows :—

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., Ankleshwar in not giving the benefit of

seniority and promotion to the workman Shri

Dwarkesh Kulwantrai Pandya, Assistant Technician

(Production) is legal, proper &. justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman Shri Pandya is

entitled to and from which date and what other

directions are necessary in the matter?’’

2. Parties to the case appeared in this case and filed

respective pleadings. Viz 2nd party workman Dwarkesh

himself filed statement of claim at Ext. 3 on 23-1-2004 and

1st party its written statement at Ext. 7 on 5-1-2005.

3. The case of the workman (2nd party) is that

Dwarkesh Pandya joined with ONGC on 15-1-1990. Due

to sickness he had remained absent from 6-11-1995.

Subsequently his services were terminated by ONGC on

the guise of abandonment without following due process

of law. The said action of ONGC was challenged by Mr.

Pandya before Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Baroda vide

Reference No. ITC. 17/1995 and the tribunal gave its award

on 5-10-2000 directing ONGC to reinstate Mr. Pandya in

his original post with 65 % back wages and stoppage of

one increment for one year from 16-4-1996. ONGC

challenged the award in the High Court of Gujarat vide

SCA No. 48812001. Then High Court modified the award

of Tribunal holding that workman Mr. Pandya is not entitled

for any back wages but other part of the award of Industrial

Tribunal was not disturbed and ONGC was directed to

reinstated the workman Mr. Pandya without back wages

but with punishment of stoppage of one increment without

future effect and with continuity of service. ONGC preferred

LPA No. 229/2001 against the order of Hon'ble Single Judge

but that was rejected on 30-3-2001 and as per direction of

Division Bench in LPA No. 229/2001 the ONGC was

directed to comply with the order of Hon’ble Single Judge

by 10th April, 2001. The ONGC reinstated the workman

(Mr. Pandya) w.e.f 9-4-2001 as Assistant Technician

(production) which was the post and designation on

6-11-1995 when his services were terminated. Further case

of the workman (Mr. Pandya) is that ONGC wrongly

interpreted the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in

Ref. ITC 17/99 and the modified order of the Hon'ble High

Court. The workman Mr. Pandya represented through a

letter to Manager, P & A to count seniority, and to protect

pay and designation at par with his colleagues who have

joined the ONGC along with him. But no heed was paid by

the management of ONGC. Then the workman Mr. Pandya.

through the union raised Industrial Dispute before ALC

(Central) as Baroda making demands. On failure report

submitted, the appropriate Govt. then referred the dispute

for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal. The workman has

sought for relief that the 1st party (ONGC Ltd) be directed

to consider the service of the workman Mr. Pandya a

continuous service without break from the date of

termination on 6-11-1995 to the date of reinstatement and

ONGC may be further directed to give the post of chargeman

(production) with all consequential benefits and revision

of pay scales and also for direction to place Mr. Pandya. at

par with his juniors who have joined along with him.

4. The case of the 1st party (ONGC Ltd.) pleading

inter-alia as per w.s. is that the reference is not maintainable,

the workman (2nd party) has no locus standi to raise such

dispute and this tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate

the present dispute. The 1st party’s stand is that the

statement and allegation made in the statement of claim

are not true and not admitted. The first party has come up

with such case that Shri Dwarkesh Kulwantrai Pandya,

Assistant Technician (Production) I.D. No. 72502 remained

absent unauthorisedly for a period exceeding 90 days and

therefore he was deemed to have resigned from the service

of ONGC w.e.f. 6-11-1995 (F.N.). The case regarding deemed

resignation of Shri Dwarkesh Kulwantrai Pandya was

referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda and after hearing

both the parties Tribunal passed an award directing the

ONGC to reinstate Shri Pandya at his original post of AT

(P) with continuity of service and 65% back wages and

also imposing on him penalty of with holding one increment

without cumulating effect for a period of one year. The

ONGC challenged the award before the High Court by

filing SCA No. 488/2001 and the Hon’ble Single Judge

modified the award of Industrial Tribunal passed in ITC

17/99 for reinstatement without back wages and with

continuity of service and withhelding of one increment

was kept as it is. The ONG.C went in LPA but Division

Bench dismissed the appeal and directed the ONGC to

implement the award of ITC as modified by the Single

Judge of the High Court before 10-4-2001. Thereafter ONGC

obeyed the order of the Hon’ble High Court and reinstated

the second party workman w.e.f 9-4-2001. On these scores

prayer is made to dismiss the reference since second party

workman is not entitled for any relief

5. The workman Dwarkesh Kulwantrai Pandya died

on 1-7-2007 during pendency of this reference case and

his heirs widow and one minor daughter and one minor

son were substituted on filing of substitution application

with death certificate at Ext. 14 and 14/1 and the 1st party

having no objection endorsed on Ext. 14 on 10-9-2008.

6. In view of the rival contention of the parties as per

their pleadings the following issues are taken up for

determination in this case.—

6222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ISSUES

(I)

Whether the reference is maintainable?

(II)

Whether the workman Dwarkesh Kulwamrai

Pandya during his lifetime and thereafter his heirs

(substituted 2nd party) have had any locus

standi or cause of action to raise the Industrial

Dispute demanding benefit of seniority and

promotion since after reinstatement of Mr.

Pandya on 9-4-2001?

(III)

Whether passing of award by the Industrial

Tribunal in ITC 17/99 and with modification/

confirmation order by the Hon ’ble Court in SCA

488/2001 regarding reinstatement of workman Mr.

Pandya, with continuity in service but without

back wages and maintaining imposing of penalty

of stoppage of one increment for one year and

thereafter reinstatement of Mr. Pandya w.e.f

9-4-2001 give any right to the 2nd party for

demanding seniority and promotion of workman

Dwarkesh Kulwantrai Pandya (since dead)?

(IV)

Whether the 2nd party is entitled for any relief in

this case?

FINDINGS

7. ISSUE No. III

The workman Dwarkesh Kulwantrai Pandya

deposed in his oral evidence at Ext. 10 that the persons

appointed along with him have got seniority and promotion

but he has been denied promotion by the management of

ONGC, even after his reinstatement with continuity in

service. He was cross-examined by the lawyer of the 1st

party ONGC, and he admitted that as per order of the

Hon’ble High Court he has been taken in employment and

that he is getting benefits as per order/award, He claims

benefit as per his status and as per benefit given to his

colleagues. However he admitted his colleagues are

permanent employees during the period 6-11-1995 to

9-4-2001 and during that period he was not in employment

in the ONGC. The first party did not lead any oral evidence and

closed its stage of oral evidence as per pursis at Ext. 40.

8. Some of the admitted facts are as follows. The

workman Mr. Pandya, remained unauthorised absent

exceeding 90 days and thereafter the management of ONGC

passed order as to his deemed resignation. The workman

was terminated w.e.f. 6/11/1995. The workman Mr. Pandya

raised Industrial Dispute resulting in Reference Case vide

ITC 17/1999 and the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda,

adjudicated upon the dispute and passed award directing

the ONGC for reinstatement of the workman Mr. Pandya

and payment of 65% backwages and having continuity of

service. But the Industrial Tribunal in its award not fully

exonerated the workman and modified the penalty of

termination w.e.f. 06/11/1995 to the penalty of stoppage

of one increment for one year. The ONGC challenged the

award of Industrial Tribunal in SCA No.488/2001 before

the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. Wherein reinstatement

with continuity was maintained but without back-wages.

Further modified order of punishment of stoppage one

increment for one year was also maintained under the

award of Industrial Tribunal in ITC.17/1999. The ONGC

challenged this order of Hon'ble single judge in LPA No.

229/01 which was rejected and on direction given by

Division Bench in LPA to reinstate the workman Mr. Pandya

as directed by Learned Single Judge in SCA 488/2001

preferable by 10-4-2001. The ONGC reinstated Mr. Pandya

(Workman) on 9-4-2001 on the original post of Assistant

Technician (Production) and was getting benefits as per

award/order of Industrial Tribunal/High Court as per his

evidence at Ext. 10.

9. On behalf of second party copy of office order of

ONGC dated 16-1-1990 at Ext. 25 has been filed to show

that the workman at Serial No.8 along with 26 person were

appointed on 16-1-1990 as Trainee Asst. Technician

(Production). Copy of promotion order dated 23-7-1997 at

Ext. 26 has been filed to show 26 Asst. Technician

(Production) were promoted to the post of Junior

Technician (Production) and among them several are junior

to the workman Mr. Pandya. But through Ext. 25 and 26 the

learned counsel appearing for the 2nd party could not

convince or even connect how the workman Mr. Pandya

(admittedly no more) will claim for promotion to Junior

Tech. (Production) when he was out of service of ONGC

from 6-11-1995 to 8-4-2001. More so, the learned counsel

Mr. I.J. Shah, Advocate could not convince that even/

after keeping the penalty of stoppage of one increment

intact up to the Hon'ble High Court how 8 workmen can

claim for himself to be treated at par with his colleagues

joined on 15/16.01.1990 in ONGC. On the other hand Shri

P.F. Jhaveri, Learned Lawyer appearing for the 1st party

(ONGC) argued that order as to continuity of service will

count for length of service for pensionary benefits etc. on

superannuation and not for other purpose like seniority

increment and promotion. He in support of such argument

has relied upon Apex Court judgment reported in 2007

LLR 358 in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V/s K.P. Agrawal

& Anr. at para 19 (last few lines) the Hon'ble Apex Court

has clearly held ... similarly in such case even where

continuity of service is directed, it should only be for

purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for

other benefits like increments, promotions etc. Another

case law relied upon by Mr. P. F. Jhaveri in the case of

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and

others and Abdul Kareem (2005-III-LLJ S.C. 477) wherein

their Lordship have held if reinstatement directed by Labour

Court without back wages and no specific direction given

entitling workman to consequential benefits, then workman

cannot claim benefit of notional increments during the

period out of service. Admittedly in the instant case the

workman Mr. Pandya was out of service from 6-11-1995 to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6223

8/9-4-2011 and as per award of Industrial Court passed in

ITC 17/99 dated 5-10-2000 there was no order for

consequential benefits, because of rule of prudence that

the workman had not been exonerated rather punishment

of termination was modified to stoppage of one increment.

So when punishment in modified form remained intact up

to High Court, then how on the basis of continuity in

service, the workman can make legitimate demand of

increment and promotion at par with his colleagues whose

services with ONGC had remained unblemished. Whereas

the services of the workman remained with blemished. It is

clear rule that the employees/workman having clean tenure

of service are expected to get promotion then that of

workman having no clean service carrier .

10. Ext. 27 is the copy of award of Industrial Tribunal

dated 5-10-2000. Ext. 28 is order dated 7-3-2001 of High

Court passed in SCA 488/2001, Ext. 29 is order dated

30-3-2001 passed by Division Bench in LP A 229/2001.

These documents have already been discussed in the

foregoing paragraphs. Ext. 30 is copy of the office order

dated 20-4-2011 regarding pay fixation of the workman

Mr. Pandya on his reinstatement on 9-4-2011 and by that

order his pay was fixed at Rs. 8392 (scale code No.4) with

the further order as to his increment due on 1-1-2002 is

with held without cumulative effect. More so as per

evidence of workman Mr. Pandya at Ext. 10 he is getting all

benefits as per order. Ext. 31 copy of demand notice of

union given to ONGC, and Ext. 32 copy of intervention

letter of union to ALC (Central) are of no avail to the 2nd

party to base claim seeking for reliefs as claimed.

11. On the other hand the case laws relied upon by

Shri J. I. Shah Advocate for the 2nd party- (1) Gurpreet

Singh V/s. State of Punjab 2002 (92) FLR page 838, (2) C.O.

Arumugam V/s. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) SCC Sup 2

page 199 and (3) State of Kerala &: others V/s. K. Bhaskeran.

Pillai (2007) 6SCC 524 are not applicable in the instant case

of the 2nd party workman.

12. Upon consideration of the evidence and materials

on the record and also in view of the case laws relied upon

by the parties, I am of the considered view that the workman

Mr. Pandya, has had no any legitimate ground to raise

again an Industrial Dispute and demanding for his seniority

and promotion at par with his colleagues in this reference

case. This issue is decided against the 2nd party.

13. ISSUE No. II

In view of the findings given to issue No. III in the

foregoing paragraphs I further find and hold that the

workman Dwarkesh Pandya during his lifetime and

thereafter his heirs (substituted) 2nd party have had no

locus standi or any cause of action to raise Industrial

Dispute demanding for benefits of seniority and promotion

since after reinstatement on 9-4-2001. This issue is also

decided against the 2nd party.

14. ISSUE Nos. I & IV

In view of findings given to issue No. II and III in

the foregoings, I further find and hold that the reference is

not maintainable and the 2nd party are not entitled to get

any relief in this case.

The reference is therefore, rejected on contest. No

order as to any cost.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2534-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u

vk;y dkjiksjs'ku fjiQkbujht izHkkx ikuhir] gfj;k.kk ds izca/ra=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;

la- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 270@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@31@2005&vkbZvkj(,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2012

S.O. 2534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 270/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, No 1 Delhi, now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. IOCL, Refinery Division Panipat

(Haryana) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-30012/31/2005-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAl TRIBUNAL No. l,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D.No.270/2011

Shri Chhabil Kumar

S/o Sh.Hari Singh

R/o Vill-Kharkara,

Rohtak, Haryana

... Workman

Versus

The Manager,

IOCL, Refinery Division,

Panipat Refinery,

Haryana.

.. Management

AWARD

An apprentice was given training by Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., (in short the Corporation) at its Refinery

Division, Panipat, Haryana. After conclusion of his

6224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

training, he was not found fit for regular appointment.

Hence, regular appointment was not given to the

apprentice by the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved, he raised

an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since

conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate

Government referred the dispute for adjudication to Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, New Delhi, vide

order No.L-30012/31/2005-IR(M), New Delhi dated

17-8-2005, with following terms:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat, in terminating the

services of Shri Chhabil Kumar son of Shri Harish

Singh, Operator Electrical, w.e.f. 6-11-2011 is legal

and justified?’’

2. Claim statement was filed by the said apprentice,

namely, Shri Chhabil Kumar pleading that he was engaged

as Operator Electrical by the Corporation w.e.f. 2-9-2000.

Prior to that he was appointed as apprentice w.e.f.

6-11-1999 to 6-9-2000. He sucessfully completed his

training, to the entire satisfaction of the Corporation. A

bond was executed by him with the Corporation, admitting

therein that he would serve the Corporation for a minimum

period of 3 years, from the date of his appointment. An

Identity Card was issued, giving Employee No. as TRP/P-

ll P83435 by the Corporation. He was working under direct

control and supervision of manager, Panipat Refinery

Division, Panipat, Haryana. His services were terminated

in an illegal manner, without following pre-requisites

contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act

1947, (in short the Act). Juniors to him are working with

the Corporation. No charge sheet or a warning letter ever

was issued. No domestic enquiry was conducted prior to

termination of his services. He is unemployed since the

date of termination of his services. He claims that he may

be reinstated in the services of the Corporation with

continuity and full back wages.

3. The claim was demurred by the Corporation

pleading that the claimant is not a workman, within the

meaning of clauses (s) of Section 2 of the Act. Since, he

was not a workman, he was not entitled to raise an industrial

dispute. He cannot invoke provisions of Section 2 A of

the Act. He was a trainee under the Apprentices Act, 1961.

His terms and conditions of service are detailed in

communication dated 19-8-1999. During the period of his

training, he was paid stipend in terms of rules and

regulations, under the Apprentices Act. Thereafter, he

opted and elected to undergo training in electrical discipline

for a period of another year. He was allowed to undergo

training with effect from 18-9-2000, in terms of offer dated

7-9-2000. It was stimulated therein that for his absorption

he was to pass departmental test, as prescribed from time

to time. He appeared in written test/ interview conducted

on 6-11-2001 along with other candidates, but could not

qualify the test. He secured only 26 marks out of 80, while

qualifying marks were 32. The claimant again appeared for

test/ interview, but could not qualify that test also. Thus,

he was not given regular appointment in services of the

Corporation. He was engaged for imparting training which

does not create any right in his favour for being absorbed

in services of the Corporation. His absorption was not

automatic but dependent on passing of departmental test.

Issuance of Identity Card is not a matter of dispute, pleads

the Corporation. He was paid stipend Rs.2500 per month

from September 2000 to September 2001. He was not

engaged thereafter. He was fully aware that after expiry of

one year he would be relieved from training, as per

stipulation. He has no claim for reinstatement in service,

presents the Corporation.

4. Claimant entered the witness box to substantiate

his claim. Shri B.S.Salan, Senior Manager (HR), tendered

his affidavit, as evidence, on behalf of the Corporation.

Since the claimant opted to abandon the proceedings w.e.f.

23-9-2011, hence opportunity could not be accorded to

him to purify facts detailed by Shri Salan, by an ordeal of

cross-examination. No other witness was brought forward

by either of the parties.

5. Since the claimant had abandoned the proceedings

w.e.f. 23-9-2011, the matter was preceded under rule 22 of

the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. Arguments

were advanced by Shri Vivek Kaushal, authorised

representative, for the Corporation. I have given my careful

consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:

6. Claimant swears in his affidavit dated 26-8-2006,

tendered as evidence, that he was engaged as operator

electrical by the corporation w.e.f. 2-9-2000. He was

appointed as apprentice w.e.f. 6-11-1999 to 6-9-2000. He

has successfully completed the training. He was

performing jobs with the Corporation as per terms ,of his

appointment. At that time, he was called upon to execute

a bond, admitting therein that he would serve the

Corporation for a minimum period of 3 years from the date

of his appointment. Identity Card along with Employee

Code No. PRP/P-llP83465 was issued in his favour. Salary

slips from September 2000 to September 2001 were issued.

His services were illegally terminated by the Corporation

on 6-11-2001. During the course of cross-examination, he

concedes that he was engaged in terms of letter dated

7-9-2000 and paid stipend of Rs. 2500 per month. He does

not dispute that after completion of 1 year training in the

year 2000, he appeared for test on 6-11-2001 and could not

qualify it. He obtained only 26 marks out of 80, while he

was required to obtain 32 marks to qualify the test. He

concedes that he was to be retained on the post of

Telephone Operator only on successfully qualifying

written test, which he could not. On 4-6-2004 he was again

called for written test, but could not qualify it also. He

nowhere disputes that the persons, who could not qualify

the written test/interview, were not given employment by

the Corporation. He was given stipend for the training

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6225

period. His training came to an end in the month of

September 2001. He further concedes that on 6-11-2001,

his services were not terminated but on the other hand,

his training came to an end.

7. Shri B.S. Salan swears in his affidavit dated

27-11-2006, tendered as evidence, that the claimant was

engaged as a trainee, hence he was not a workmen. He

was engaged as an apprentice in the first instance under

the Apprentices Act. During the period of training, he was

paid stipend in terms of rules and regulation provided

under Apprentices Act. Thereafter he opted and elected

to undergo training in electrical discipline for a period of a

year. He was allowed to undergo training for a period of 1

year w.e.f 18-9-2000, in terms of offer dated 7-9-2000.

Thereafter, he appeared in a departmental test but could

not qualify it. His absorption was not automatic but based

on fulfillment of pre-conditions of qualifying written test.

The matter did not end there. He again appeared for test

and failed to qualify it. He was never appointed as operator

electrical. Since he could not qualify the test, hence he

had no right to seek his appointment with the Corporation.

8. When facts unfolded by the claimant and Shri

B.S. Salan are appreciated, it came to light that initially

claimant was engaged as a trainee under the Apprentices

Act. After completion of the training as an apprentice, he

again opted and elected to undergo training in electrical

discipline for a period of 1 year. Corporation allowed him

to undergo training w.e.f. 18-9-2000. His training came to

an end on 6-11-2001. Since he could not qualify test and

interview at all, he was not given an appointment by the

Corporation. Question for consideration comes whether

the claimant was a workman, when he worked as an

apprentice with the Corporation? For an answer, definition

of ‘‘workman’’ contained in clause (s) of Section 2 of the

Act is to be construed. For sake of convenience the said

definition is extracted thus:—

‘‘(s) ‘‘Workman’’ means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or has

a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person—

(i) Who is subject to Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of

1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the

Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or

(ii) Who is employed in police service or as an

officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) Who is employed mainly in managerial or

administrative capacity; or

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity

draws wages exceeding one thousand six

hundred rupees per man some or exercises either

by nature of the duties attached to the office by

reason of the powers vested in him, function

mainly by a managerial nature’’.

9. As provisions of clause(s) of Section 2 of the Act

highlight, an apprentice has specifically been included in

the definition of ‘‘workman’’ but provisions of the

Apprentices Act defines the term ‘‘apprentice’’ to mean

‘‘a person who is undergoing apprentice-ship training in a

designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprentice-

ship’’. Section 18 of the Apprentices Act provides that an

apprentice shall be a trainee and not workmen. It has further

been stipulated therein that the provisions of any law with

respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such

apprentice. For sake of convenience provisions of

Section 18 of Apprentices Act are extracted thus:—

‘‘18.Apprentice are trainees and not workers - save

as otherwise provided in this Act, —

(a) Every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship

training in a designated trade in an establishment

shall be trainee and not a worker, and

(b) The provision of any law with respect to labour

shall not apply to or in relation to .such

apprentice’’.

10. It is relevant to note that the word ‘‘apprentice’’

as defined in clause (aa) of Section 2 of the Apprentices

Act makes it clear that an apprentice shall only be a trainee

and not a ‘‘worker’’ and the provision of ‘‘any law with

respect to labour’’ shall not apply to or in relation to him.

Employees under various labour laws have been defined

by different expressions. For instance, in the Factories

Act 1948, the expression ‘‘workers’’ has been used, in the

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 the expression

‘‘employee’’ has been used while in Section 2 (s) of the

Act, the expression ‘‘workman’’ has been used which means

‘‘any person including an apprentice’’ employed in any

industry ..... ’’

11. The Apex Court in Employees State Insurance

Corporation [1976 (1) LLJ-81] considered the scheme of

Apprentices Act 1961 particularly the definition of

‘‘apprentice’’ in Section 2 (aa) and provisions of

Section 18 of that Act and the definition of ‘‘employee’’ in

section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948

and ruled that an ‘‘apprentice’’ is not ‘‘employee’’ as

defined in the Employees State Insurance Act. The Court

made a significant observation that if the legislature

intended to enlarge the definition of word ‘‘employee’’ in

Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act; it could

have included word ‘‘apprentice’’ in it, as has been done

in Section 2(s) of the Act. Such a deliberate omission, on

the part of the legislature, can be atributed only to the well

known concept of ‘‘apprenticeship’’ which the legislature

6226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

assumed and took note of for the purpose of the Act. That

is not to say if the legislature intended, it could not have

enlarged the definition of word ‘‘employee’’ even to include

‘‘apprentice’’, but the legislature did not choose to do so.

12. In Hanuman Parsad Choudhary (1986 Lab IC 1014)

the Rajasthan High Court was confronted with the

proposition as to whether an ‘‘apprentice’’ as defined in

Section 2(aa) and the provision of Section 18 of the

Apprentices Act will not be ‘‘workman’’ as defined in

Section 2(s) of the Act, despite having specifically been

included in the definition. The Court pointed out that the

Apex Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation

(supra) had not considered the definition of ‘‘workman’’

in Section 2 (s) of the Act in conjunction with the provision

of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, since the Court was

primarily concerned with the question as to whether an

apprentice could be regarded as an employee under

Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

The High Court ruled that the said decision cannot be

read as laying down that in spite of the provisions of

Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, an ‘‘apprentice’’

governed by the Apprentices Act is to be treated as a

‘‘workman’’ under Section 2(s) of the Act. The High Court,

therefore, held that an apprentice governed by the

Apprentices Act is not workmen for the purpose of the

Act and the provision of the Act would not be applicable

to him.

13. A contract of apprenticeship under the provision

of Apprentices Act, is required to be registered. Section 4

of the Apprentices Act contemplates existence of a

concluded contract of apprenticeship which is required to

be sent for registration. For sake of convenience

provisions of Section 4 of the Apprentices Act, are

extracted thus:—

‘‘4.Contract to apprenticeship —

(1) No person shall be engaged as an apprentice to

undergo apprenticeship training in a designated

trade unless such person or, if he is minor, his

guardian has entered into a contract of

apprenticeship with the employer.

(2) The apprenticeship training shall be deemed to

have commenced on the date on which the

contract of apprenticeship has been entered into

under sub-section (1).

(3) Every contract of apprenticeship may contain

such terms and conditions as may be agreed to

by the parties to the contract:

Provided that no such term or condition shall

be inconsistent with any provision of this Act

or any rule made there under.

(4) Every contract of apprenticeship entered into

under sub-section (1) shall be sent by the

employer with in such period as may be

prescribed to the Apprenticeship Adviser for

registration.

(5) The Apprenticeship Adviser shall not register

a contract of apprenticeship unless he is

satisfied that the person described as an

apprentice in the contract is qualified under this

Act for being engaged as an apprentice to

undergo apprenticeship training in the

designated trade specified in the contract.

(6) Where the Central Government, after consulting

the Central Apprenticeship Council, makes any

rule varying the terms and conditions of

apprenticeship training of any category of

apprentices undergoing such training, then, the

terms and conditions of every contract of

apprenticeship relating to that category of

apprentices and subsisting immediately before

the making of such rule shall be deemed to have

been modified accordingly’’.

14. As emerged out of the provision Section 4 of the

Apprentices Act, as apprenticeship contract is required to

be registered to become a contract of apprenticeship, as

contemplated by sub section (4) of the said Section. An

apprenticeship contract, under the provision of

Apprentices Act, shall exclude applicability of any

provision of any law with respect to labour to an

apprentice. A person who has been engaged as an

apprentice shall be a trainee and not a workman.

Consequently an apprentice under the Apprentices Act

shall not fall within the ambit of definition of ‘‘workman’’

as contained in Section 2(s) of the Act. However an

apprentice, whose case does not fall within the ambit of

the provisions of the Apprentices Act, shall be a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.

15. As emerge out of the agreement dated 19-8-1999

the claimant was engaged as an apprentice with the

Corporation w.e.f. 6-11-1999 to 6-9-2000. Above agreement

highlights that it was entered into between the claimant

and the Corporation under Apprentices Act. The said

agreement was sent for registration as contemplated by

sub section (4) of Section 4 of the Apprentices Act.

Consequently it is clear that on the strength of agreement

dated 19-8-1999 the claimant was engaged as an apprentice.

He was a trainee and not a workmen w.e.f. 6-11-1999 to

9-9-2000.

16. Offer of engagement as a trainee in electrical

discipline was given to the claimant by the Corporation

on 7-9-2000. When offer of engagement dated 7-9-2000 is

perused it came to light that it is not an apprenticeship

agreement, under the Apprentices Act. Shri Salan no where

projects that this offer of engagement was under the

provision of Apprentices Act, or this contract of

apprenticeship was sent for registration. Consequently it

is evident that offer of engagement given to the claimant

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6227

as electrical trainee was not covered within the provisions

of Apprentices Act. Therefore engagement of the claimant

from 18-9-2000 till 6-11-2001, though as an apprentice, would

clothe him with the status of workman, as contemplated

by Section 2(s) of the Act. The claimant, though engaged

as an apprentice, was a workman. He was employed by

the Corporation in its establishment to do the work of the

nature, contemplated in the definition of the workman,

contained in Section 2 (s) of the Act. It does not lie in the

mouth of the Corporation to assert that the claimant was

not a workman, when he was engaged as a trainee in

electrical discipline w.e.f. 18-9-2000.

17. Agreement dated 7-9-2000 highlights that it was

agreed in to between the claimant and the Corporation

that for his absorption in service he had to qualify written

test. The claimant appeared for written test on 6-11-2001

but could not qualify it. He concedes that he obtained 26

marks out of 80, while he was required to obtain 32 marks

to qualify the test. He was again called for test which was

also not qualified by him. Thus, it has emerged over the

record that despite opportunities granted to the claimant,

he could not qualify written test for his absorption in

services of the Corporation.

18. The claimant concedes that on 6-11-2001 his

training came to an end. He admits that on 6-11-2001 his

services were not terminated. Therefore out of facts

admitted by the claimant on those highlighted by Shri

Salan it came to light that training of the claimant came to

an end on 6-11-2001. He could not continue in service of

the Corporation since he failed to qualify written test.

Whether non-extension of his training period or act of

reliving him when his training came to an end would

amount to retrenchment?

19. For an answer, definition of the term retrenchment

is to be construed. Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act

defines retrenchment. For sake of convenience, the said

definition is as extracted thus :

‘‘(oo) ‘‘retrenchment’’ means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary

action, but does not include—

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned contains a stipulation in

that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as

a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation

in that behalf contained therein; or

the ground of continued ill-health’’.

20. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer ‘‘for any reason whatsoever’’

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on "the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

21. Sub Clause (bb) purports to exclude from the

ambit of the definition of retrenchment (i) termination of

the service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the

contract of employment between the employer and the

workman concerned, on its expiry, or (ii) termination of the

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in, that behalf. The first part

relates to termination of service of a workman as a result

of non-renewal of the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry.

Thus ‘‘non-renewal of contract of employment’’ pre-

supposes an existing contract of employment, which is

not renewed. When services of an employee is terminated

on account of non-renewal of contract of employment,

between the employer and the workman, it does not amount

to retrenchment. The second part refers to ‘‘such contract’’

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf

contained therein. The cases contemplated, under this part

too, would not amount to retrenchment. However this sub-

clause, being in the nature of an exception to clause (oo)

of Section 2 of the Act, is ruled to be construed strictly

when contractual agreement is used as modus operandi

to frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or

permanent against a job. The adjudicator has to address

himself to the question whether the period of employment

was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device

to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment.

See Shailendra Nath Shukla (1987 Lab. l.C, 1607), Dilip

Hanumantrao Shrike (1990 Lab. l.C, 100) and Balbir Singh

[1990 (1) LLJ. 443]. On review of law laid by the Apex Court

and various High Courts, a single Judge of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court, in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari

Sangh (1996 Lab. l.C. 1161) has laid following principles of

interpretation and application of sub-clause (bb) of clause

6228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(oo) of Section 2 of the Act:

‘‘(i) that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) are

to be construed benevolently in favour of

the workman,

(ii) that if the workman is allowed to continue in

service by making periodic appointments from

time to time, then it can be said that the case

would not fall under section 2(oo)(bb),

(iii) that the provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) are

not to be interpreted in the manner which may

stifle the main provision,

(iv) that if the workman continues in service, the

non-renewal of the contract can be deemed

as mala fide and it may amount to be a fraud

on statute;

(v) that there would be wrong presumption of

non-applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) where

the work is of continuous nature and there is

nothing on record that the work for which a

workman has been appointed had come to an

end’’.

22. Whether provisions of retrenchment, enacted in

the Act, provide for any security of tenure? Answer lies in

negative. Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain

benefits to a workman in case of the requirements of his

service, falling within the ambit of definition of

retrenchment. On compliance of the requirements of

Section 25F or 25N and 25G of the Act, it is open to the

employer to retrench a workman.

23. Termination of service of an employee during

the period of probation was held to be covered by the

exception contained in sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of

the Act, in C.M.Venugopal [1994 (1) LLJ 597]. As per fact

of the case, Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered

the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee

within the period of probation. The employee was put on

probation for a period of one year, which was extended by

another year. Since he could not achieve the target to earn

confirmation, his service was terminated in terms of

Regulation 14 as well as order of appointment. The Apex

Court ruled that the case was covered by the exception

contained in sub-clause (bb), hence it was not

retrenchment.

24. In Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1996

Lab. l.C, 221) a sugar factory used to employ certain number

of workmen during crushing season and at the end to the

crushing season their employment used to cease. The

Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the workmen

worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation of their

employment at the end of crushing season would not

amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub-

clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. It was observed as

follows:

‘‘4. It would thus be clear that the respondents

were not working throughout the season.

They worked during crushing seasons only.

The respondents were taken into work for

the season and consequent to closure of the

season, they ceased to work.

5. The question is whether such a cessation

would amount to retrenchment. Since it is

only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot

be said to have been retrenched in view of

what is stated in sub-clause (bb) of

Section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these

circumstances, we are of the opinion that the

view taken by the Labour Court and the High

Court is illegal. However, the appellant is

directed to maintain a register for all workmen

engaged during the seasons enumerated

herein before and when the new season starts

the appellant should make a publication in

neighbouring places in which the

respondents normally live and if they would

report for duty, the appellant would engage

them in accordance with seniority and

exigency of work’’.

25. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex

Court in Anil Bapuro Kanase [1997 (10) S.C.C. 599] wherein

it was noted as follows:

‘‘3. The learned counsel for the appellant

contends that the judgment of the High Court

of Bombay relied on in the impugned order

dated 28-3-1995 in Writ Petition No.488 of

1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the

appellant has worked for more than 180 days,

he is to be treated as retrenched employee

and if the procedure contemplated under

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is applied, his retrenchment is illegal.

We find no force in this contention. In

Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. V, Ram

Kishan in para 3, this Court has dealt with

engagement of the seasonal workman in

sugarcane crushing, in para 4, it is stated that

it was not a case of retrenchment of the

workman, but of closure of the factory after

the crushing season was over. Accordingly,

in para 5, it was held that it is not

‘retrenchment’ within the meaning of Section

2(oo) of the Act. As a consequence the

appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as

per sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the

Act. Since the present work is seasonal

business, the principles of the Act have no

application. However, this Court has directed

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6229

that the respondent management should

maintain a register and engage the workmen

when the season starts in the succeeding

years in the order of seniority. Until all the

employees whose names appear in the list

are engaged in addition to the employees who

are already working, the management should

not go in for fresh engagement of new

workmen. It would be incumbent upon the

respondent management to adopt such

procedure as is enumerated above’’.

26. In Harmohinder Singh [2001 (5) S.C.C. 540] an

employee was appointed as a salesman by kharga canteen

on 1-6-74 and subsequently as a cashier on 9-8-75. The

letter of appointment and Standing Orders, inter alia,

provided that his service could be terminated by one

month's notice by either party. He was served with a notice

to the effect that his service would be relinquished with

effect from 30-6-1989. Relying precedent in Uptron India

Ltd. [1998 (6) S.C.C. 538] the Apex Court ruled that contract

of service for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of

retrenchment. Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held

to be erroneous. It was also ruled that principles of natural

justice are not applicable where termination takes place

on expiry of contract of service.

27. In Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2005 (8) S.C.C.

481] an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily

wages for specific work and for a specific period. He was

engaged on 1-4-1986 and worked upto 12-2-94. The Labour

Court concluded that termination of his services was

violative of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, hence

ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Relying precedents in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills (supra)

and Anil Bapuro Kanase (supra) the Apex Court ruled that

since his engagement was for a specific period and specific

work, relief granted to him by the Labour Court can not be

maintained.

28. The Apex Court dealt with such a situation again

in Darbara Singh (2006 LLR 68) wherein an employee was

appointed by the Punjab State Electricity Board as peon

on daily wage basis from 8-1-88 to 29-2-88. His services

were extend from time to time and finally dispensed with in

June 1989. The Supreme Court ruled that engagement of

Darbara Singh was for a specific period and conditional.

His termination did not amount to retrenchment. His case

was found to be covered under exception contained in

sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. In Kishore

Chand Samal (2006 LLR 65) same view was maintained by

the Apex Court. It was ruled therein that the precedent in

S.M. Nilajkar [2003 (II) LLJ 359] has no application to the

controversy since it was ruled therein that mere mention

about the engagement being temporary without indication

of any period attracts Section 25F of the Act if it is proved

that the concerned workman had worked continuously for

more than 240days. Case of Darbara Singh and Kishan

Chand Samal were fourd to be relating to fixed term of

appointment.

29. In BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144)

Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29-9-89,

initially for a period of three months as a daily wager. His

term of appointment was extended up to 20-9-90. No further

extension was given and his services were dispensed with

on 20-9-90. On consideration of facts and law High Court

of Delhi has observed thus :

" ... In the present case, the respondent was

appointed as a copyist for totaling the accounts of

ledger for the year 1986-87 and then for 1987-88. His

initial appointment was for the period of three

months. It was extended from time to time and no

extension was given after 20th September, 1990. He

was appointed without any regular process of

appointment, purely casual and on temporary basis

for specific work of totaling of ledger. When this

work was over, no extension was given. I consider

that appointment as that of the respondent is

squarely covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

Giving of non extension did not amount to

termination of service, it was not a case of

retrenchment’’.

30. Precedents, handed down by Allahabad High

Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla (supra), Bombay High

Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke (supra), Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh (supra) and Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh, Bank Karamchari

Sangh (supra) castrate sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of

the Act. Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates

statutory provisions of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo)

of the Act without even discussing the legality or

constitutional validity of the clause. On the other hand

the Apex Court in C.M.Venugopal (supra), Morinda Co-

operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), Anil Bapurao Kanase

(supra), Harmohinder Singh (supra), Batala Coop. Sugar

Mills Ltd. (supra), Darbara Singh (supra) and Kishore

Chand Samal (supra) and High Court of Delhi in BSES

Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee,

appointed for a specific period which was extended from

time to time, would be covered by the exception contained

in sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act, in case his

services are dispensed with as a result of non-renewal of

the contract of employment between him and his employer,

on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment

in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of

employment in that behalf. The law, so laid, holds the water

and would be applied to the case of the claimant.

31. As is evident agreement dated 7-9-2000 empowers

the Corporation not to absorb services of the claimant

when he failed to qualify written test. It is emerging over

the record that services of the claimant were dispensed

with under stipulation contained in agreement dated

6230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7-9-2000. The case of the claimant squarely falls within

sub clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act. It

does not amount to retrenchment.

32. Since act of reliving the claimant does not amount

to retrenchment, provisions of Section 25F of the Act does

not come into play. Neither corporation was under

obligation to give one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof,

besides amount of retrenchment compensation to the

claimant. Act of the Corporation no where violates the

provisions of the Act. No rights accrued in favour of the

claimant for his absorption in services of the Corporation.

His claim derserves dismissal. The same is, accordingly,

dismissed. Award is passed in favuor of the Corporation

and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated 11-5-2012

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2535 .—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vkW;y

,.M uSpqjy xSl dkjiksjs'ku] nsgjknwu ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 183@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@66@2001&vkbZvkj(,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2012

S.O. 2535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 183/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation

Ltd. (Dehradun) and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-30012/66/2001-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 183/2001

Ref. No. L-30012/66/2001-IR (M) dated: 20-12-2001

BETWEEN

Neeta Sharma D/o Shri G.K. Sharma

R/o 48/2, Nari Shilp Mandir Marg

Chakrata Road

Dehradun

AND

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director

ONGC Ltd.

Jeevan Bharti Building

Cannught Place

New Delhi.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-30012/66/2001-IR (M) dated:

20-12-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Neeta Sharma D/o

Shri G.K. Sharma, R/o 48/2, Nari Shilp Mandir Marg,

Chakrata Road, Dehradun and the Chairman-cum-

Managing Director, ONGC Ltd., Jeevan Bharti Building,

Cannught Place, New Delhi for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is:

‘‘Whether the action of ONGC management in

terminating the services of Smt. Neeta Sharma,

Computer Operator w.e.f. 1-8-99 is justified? If not,

what relief the he is entitled to?’’

3. The case of the workman, Neeta Sharma, in brief,

is that she was appointed as Computer Operator on 4-8-98

and worked as such for more than 240 days continuously,

till 31-7-1999 when her services were terminated abruptly

on 1-8-1999 without assigning any reason or notice, in

contravention of the provisions contained in Section 25 F.

She has further alleged that one junior employee viz.

Km. Taran Preet Kaur is still working with the opposite

parties in violation of the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that her termination

w.e.f. 1-8-1999 be declared illegal and unjustified and she

be reinstated with back wages and continuity in service.

4. The management of the ONGC has disputed the

claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein

it has submitted that the workman was never appointed

by it as Computer Operator; rather she was entertained as

a ‘trainee’ and as a trainee, question of appointment in

services of corporation does not arise at all; and

accordingly, there arise no question of terminating her

services on 1-8-99 as such there was no relationship of

employer and employee between the opposite party and

the workman. It has been submitted by the management

that the initial tenure of training of the workman was only

for six months, which expired on 31-1-99. The training

period was renewed and same was extended for another

six months at the oral request of the workman, which finally

expired on 31-7-99; but after this no extension was granted

to the workman in spite of her written request. A trainee is

not and cannot be treated as employee/workman, employed

by the Corporation and token amount given to her to cater

her daily needs like conveyance/transportation problems

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6231

and other requirement of training does not constitute salary

or wages. Discontinuation of training doss not amount to

retrenchment. It was further contended that after

completing training, the applicant got employment with

M/s. C.S. Instruments and Services (P) Ltd. It has been

specifically denied that Km. Taran Preet Kaur was engaged

as Computer Operator or was ever in the employment of

opposite party as an employee. Just like applicant,

Km. Kaur was a student of polytechnic and was sponsored

by them for on job training. The management has

specifically mentioned that the concept of working 240

days is totally irrelevant in the present matter as any of

the provisions of the I.D. Act does not apply in the present

case since the applicant does not fall in the category of

'workman'. It was further contended that the workman does

not posses requisite qualifications for the post of

Computer Operator, prescribed under Recruitment Rules;

which is MCA/BE or B. Tech. in Computer Science from a

recognized university, as such she could not be appointed

as Computer Operator. Aocordingly, the management of

ONGC has prayed that the applicant is not entitled to relief

of reinstatement in service or back wages or any other

relief against the management. The claim is liable to be

rejected on the forgiving reasons.

5. Rejoinder was filed; wherein apart from reiterating

the averments made by her in the claim statement, she has

stated that her services were engaged and salary was paid

hence, she comes within the definition of 'workman' and

there existed master-servant relationship between the

opposite party and her.

6. The workman has filed photocopy of following

documents vide list of documents dated 5-9-2002:

(i) Working paper dated 21-7-98 to 12-4-99.

(ii) Letter dated 4-8-98 from Principal, ONGC

Mahila Polytechnic to GM, ONGC.

(iii) Certificate dtd. 6-8-99, by Dr. V.K. Gupta.

(iv) Letter by workman to ALC (C) dated

15-9-2000.

(v) Letter By Sh. O.P. Chuhan to Secy. Govt. of

India dated 29-6-2001.

(vi) FOC report by ALC (C).

(vii) Summon/notice by ALC (C).

(viii) Appointment letter by C. S. Instruments and

Services P. Ltd.

(ix) Letter by workman to Chairman, ONGC.

(x) Objection given by ONGC in ALC (C) dated

16-10-2000.

(xi) Letter of Mrs. James Peters dated 3-10-2000

to ALC (C).

(xii) Application of applicant u/s 2A I.D. Act.

(xiii) Rejoinder by workman.

(xiv) Certificate dated 2-7-99.

(xv) Certificate dated 5-5-99, 2-6-99, 15-4-99,

1-3-99, 5-2-99, 1-1-99, 2-12-98, 2-11-98,

12-10-98 & 2-9-98.

(xvi) Letter dated 13-10-98 by P&A officer.

(xvii) Summer training gate pass.

(xviii) Pay sanction order dated 6-8-98.

(xix) Pay sanction order dated 2-9-98.

(xx) Pay sanction order dated 12- 10-98.

(xxi) Cash payment voucher dated 12-10-98.

(xxii) Pay sanction order dated 2-11-98.

(xxiii) Pay sanction order dated 2-12-98.

(xxiv) Pay sanction order dated 1-1-99.

(xxv) Pay sanction order dated 3-2-99.

(xxvi) Pay sanction order dated 1-3-99.

(xxvii) Pay sanction order dated 15-4-99.

(xxviii) Pay sanction order dated 5-5-99.

(xxix) Pay sanction order dated 1-6-99.

(xxx) Pay sanction order dated 2-7-99.

(xxxi) Pay sanction order dated 5-7-99.

(xxxii) Pay sanction order dated 3-8-99.

(xxxiii) Cash payment voucher 4-8-99.

7. Following documents have been filed by the

management vide list dated 5-9-2002 :

(i) Payment vouchers in respect of the workman

for the period 4-8-98 to 31-7-99.

(ii) Attendance Register of HRG for the period

January, 97 to December, 97.

(iii) Attendance Register of HRG for the period

January, 98 to December, 98.

(iv) Certificate dated 6-8-99 issued in favour of

workman.

(v) Letter dated 4-8-98 of ONGC Mahila

Pravidhik Prashikshan Sansthan sponsoring

workman.

(vi) Application dated 20-7-99 of workman for

extension.

(vii) Appointment letter dated 27-7-99 issued to

workman by M/s. C. S. Instruments and

Service Pvt. Limited, Dehradun.

(viii) Certificated Standing Orders for contingent

employees of ONGC.

(ix) Modified Recruitment and Promotion

Regulations 1980 and connected instruction

of ONGC Ltd., (to prove that the corporation

has to comply with provisions of

6232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Employment Exchange (Compulsory

Notification of Vacancies) Act.

(x) Extract of R&P Regulations 1980 prescribing

qualification for Computer Programmer (Sr.

Technical Assistant Programming)

(xi) Certificate dated 15-3-2001 issued to

Ms. Taran Preet Kaur.

(xii) Identity card issue to the workman.

(xiii) Letter dated 17-11-99 of ONGC Mahila

Pravidhik Prashikshan Sansthan sponsoring

Taran Preet Kaur.

8. The applicant has examined herself in support of

her case whereas the management has examined Dr. V.K.

Gupta, Manager (P&A) and Shri D.K. Kalra, Chief

Manager (IE) in support of their cases. The parties cross-

examined witnesses of each other. The parties forwarded

arguments in support of their respective averments.

9. Heard representatives of the parties and perused

entire, evidence on record.

10. The case of the applicant is that she was

appointed by the opposite party on the post of Computer

Operator, without any appointment letter on 4-8-1998 and

her services was terminated without any notice or

compensation in lieu thereof w.e.f. 1-8-1999 in violation of

provisions contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947

and further she has worked more than 240 days

continuously and therefore, her services cannot be

terminated without complying the provisions of Section

25 N and F of the I.D. Act. Termination of the applicant is

illegal and unjustified; hence, directions be issued to the

opposite party to reinstate the workman with full back

wages and continuity of service with cost.

11. Per contra, the management of the ONGC at the

very outset of the case has taken the plea that the applicant,

Neeta Sharma was an ‘‘on the job trainee’’ and she had

undergone through ‘‘training in Computers’’, on

recommendation of the Principal, ONGC Mahila Technical

Training Institute vide their letter dated 4-8-1998. The

applicant has undergone the said training, initially from

4-8-98 to 31-1-1999 and later this training period was

extended for another six month, on her request, up to

31-7-99. It has been contended by the authorized

representative of the management that such trainees, being

not employees/workmen, are not amendable to the

provisions of Certified Standing Orders as applicable to

the workmen of the Corporation. It was further contended

that since such trainees are not employees/workmen of

the Corporation, hence there arises no question of giving

them appointment order at all. Moreover, there exist no

employer - employee relationship between the corporation

and such trainees in as such they do not come within the

purview of the definition of 'workman' as defined in Section

2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Since the applicant was a trainee,

therefore, any of the provisions of the Act or that of Section

25 F or 25 N does not attract in the case of the applicant,

Neeta Sharma as she was never appointed by the

Corporation following due procedures laid down in its

Standing Certified Orders; rather her name was sponsored

by the ONGC Mahila Technical Training Institute for

providing training in computers and accordingly, on the

recommendation of the Principal of the said institute, Neeta

Sharma was imparted training in Computers, hence she

was nothing more than a trainee and not an appointee or a

workman. The authorized representative of the

management has also argued that since the applicant, Neeta

Sharma is not a ‘‘workman’’ under Act; the reference is not

maintainable as bad in the eye of law.

12. To sustain its contention that the applicant,

Neeta Sharma was a trainee, the management of the ONGC

has filed working certificate, issue to Neeta Sharma, paper

No. 6/100, wherein she has been mentioned as 'trainee',

letter dated 4-8-98 of the Principal, ONGC Mahila Technical

Training Institute, paper No. 6/101, sponsoring Neeta

Sharma for 'training in computers' and application of Neeta

Sharma dated 20-7-1999; paper No. 6/102, whereby she

has requested the management of ONGC to extend her

tenure as ‘‘Computer Job Trainee’’ for another six months,

gate pass issued to Neeta Sharma for 'summer training',

paper No. 6/115. The management had relied on above

documents; to show that the applicant, Neeta Sharma was

a ‘‘trainee’’. It has been emphasized that a trainee is not

covered with the definition of workman as specified in

Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

13. To consider whether the applicant is workman, it

is relevant to go through the definition of 'workman'

defined in the Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947:

‘‘workman’’ means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45

of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),

or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) Who is employed in the police service or as

an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity; or

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory

capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6233

thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises,

either by the nature of the duties attached to

the office or by reason of the powers vested

in him, functions mainly of a managerial

nature.’’

14. In support of its contentions, the management

has relied on 2004 (101) FLR 710 Vijayalakshmi Insecticides

and Pesticides Ltd. vs. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal -cum-

Labour Court, Vishakhapatnam and other. In the aforesaid

case respondent was appointed as Trainee helper by the

management for one year on the payment of consolidated

amount of Rs. 1300 per month subject to extension of

further period and regularization as per decision of

management subject to satisfaction of his work.

Respondent worked for two years. When his services

terminated, he made representation. The management took

a specific stand that the respondent cannot invoke

jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and submitted that

being only a Trainee, the definition of 'workman' is not

attracted and hence no relief can be granted. The Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court granted relief in favour of the

respondent, holding that trainee being ‘apprentice’; hence,

fall within the meaning of ‘workman’. Aggrieved

management preferred the writ petition; whereby the award

of the Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court was quashed

and writ was allowed. It was observed Hon'ble Andhra

Pradesh High Court that:

‘‘The essential condition of a person being a

workman within the terms of this definition is that

he should be employed to do the work in that

industry, that there should be in other words, an

employment of his by the employer and him as

between employer and employee or master and

servant and unless a person is thus employed there

can be no question of his being a workman within

the definition of the term as contained in the Act.’’

It has further observed that ‘‘a Trainee engaged by

the petitioner-company does not fall within the definition

of workman.’’

In another case of Management of M/s Otis Elevator

Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal

III and another 2003 (98) FLR 53; the respondent was

offered to undergo training as a Field/Trade Trainee in the

petitioner organization, it was observed by the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court that ‘‘the respondent engaged as 'trainee'

by the petitioner company did not come under the

definition of 'workman' and the ‘‘stipend’’ being paid to

the respondent were not wages’’. In the said case the

training period of the respondent was not extended as he

was not found to have an aptitude for the training in the

trade of the petitioner. The award of Industrial Tribunal -

cum- Labour Court was set aside and writ was allowed.

In 1998 (79) FLR 965 Kamal Kumar vs. J.P.S. Malik,

P.D. Labour Court & others it has been observed by

Hon’ble Delhi High Court that ‘‘in order to come within

the ambit of the expression 'workman' as defined under

Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it must be

established that the person concerned is employed in

industry and that mere finding of apprentice or trainee is

not enough.’’ He has to prove and establish that he is

employed in the respondent Corporation and that also to

do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical

or clerical work for heir or reward.

By the above discussed/cited case laws,

management made earnest effort to prove that the

applicant, Neeta Sharma who was engaged as ‘on job

trainee’ was only a ‘trainee’ and not a 'workman' as defined

under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. There was no

relationship of employer and employee between the

corporation and the applicant.

15. It is very natural that in an industry various nature

of jobs are cropped up and to cope up with the job

requirements persons are engaged on various terms and

conditions and these engaged persons are termed as

employees and on their engagement to carry out work/job

for the benefit/need of the industry, there forms a

relationship of employer and employee between such

industry and employees. Accordingly, to ascertain the

relationship between the corporation and applicant it would

be proper to check as to whether there was some job

requirement with the ONGC or the engagement of the

applicant was only for training/welfare measure.

16. In this regard the workman has filed photocopy

of ‘Working Paper’ regarding engagement of a onthe job

Computer Trainee, from ONGC Mahila Polytechnic, paper

No. 3/3 to 3/4 wherein notes and order regarding

engagement/extension and payment made to the applicant

find their references. The opening note of the said working

paper discloses the fact regarding engagement of one on-

the-job Computer Trainee which is quoted as under:

‘‘HRG, as one of the initiatives, has taken up an

exercise to document and identify existing Corporate

Level positions, indicating the incumbents

occupying such positions in an Organization Chart

form. It would consist of important informations also

as follows:

(a) Month/Year of joining present post.

(b) Month/Year of posting at present station

(d) Month/Year of superannuation

Specimen in this regard (as on 1-4-98) is placed

opposite for kind perusal.

Compilation & computerization of the data would

require a lot of computer-work at the initial stage.

Its periodical updation would also involve massive

data-entry job till the system stabilizes. Hence,

availability of a Computer Operator would facilitate

the job to be completed as per plan.

6234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In view of ebove, it is proposed that approval may

kindly be accorded for engaging a student of ONGC

Mahila Polytechnic as on-the-job Computer Trainee

for a ·year on a fixed monthly stipend of Rs. 1500 with

no obligation of the part of ONGC to provide

employment thereafter. The trainee, as such will receive

the requisite on-the-job training, and HRG's requirement

of massive data entry will also be met with.

Submitted for kind approval please.

sd-

21-7-98

(Y. C. VERMA)

Manager (lE)HRG.

Agreed for a period of 6 months.

sd-

23-7-98

Director (Pers.)

Reference kind approval of Director (P) on pre-page

for engaging one trainee, through Mahila

Polytechnic for a period of six months on

consolidated stipend of Rs. 1500 per month.

Accordingly one trainee has been engaged, and six

month's period will expire on 31-1-99.

HRG has taken up massive work of data compilation

& analysis, which includes corp. responsibility

structure, age/qualification matrix etc. In order to

assist compilation of the job in hand, approval for a

further period of six months w.e.f. 1-2-09 is requested.

May kindly approve.

sd-

15-1-99

GM(P&A) HRG

sd-

19-1-99

Director (P)”

17. A bare perusal of the above note/order sheet (s)

shows that the ONGC was in need of a computer operator

for Compilation & computerization of the data. The

requirement of such computer operator was there till the

massive data-entry job get accomplished and the system

stabilizes. Hence, proposal for engaging a student of ONGC

Mahila Polytechnic as on-the-job Computer Trainee for a

year on a fixed monthly stipend of Rs. 1500 was put before

higher authorities of the ONGC. In the said note dated

21-7-98 it is mentioned that ‘the trainee, as such will receive

the requisite on-the-job training, and HRG’s requirement

of massive data entry will also be met with.’’ This points

out that the ONGC was in need of some computer operator

for carrying out massive compilation and computerization

work and for the same it engaged the applicant initially for

a period of six months. Further, it is also very clear that

while making engagement, the object was not welfare only

but also management's own need for a computer operator

for compilation & computerization of data and when the

object of data compilation and analysis was not

accomplished in six months it was further extended for

another spell of six months vide approval dated 19-1-99.

The tenure of the applicant was not extended thereafter

probably due to completion of the required work. Thus,

the whole state of affair suggests that the management of

ONGC was in need of services of a Computer Operator

and accordingly, it engaged the applicant, Neeta Sharma

on being sponsored by Mahila Polytechnic for a fixed time

6 + 6 months and when the said term expired or the work of

data compilation completed, her services were dispensed

with. The contention of the management that there was

no employee - employer relationship between the applicant

and the management do not appears to be tenable. Thus,

in view of the facts and circumstances, it is established

that there was employer -employee relationship between

the management of ONGC and the applicant.

18. Hence, in view of the discussions made above I

am of opinion that the management of ONGC was in need

of services of a Computer Operator for compilation &

computerization of the data and for the same the services

of the applicant, Neeta Sharma was taken, thus, there was

a relationship of employer and employee between the

management of ONGC and the applicant, Neeta Sharma

and the applicant is a 'workman' as laid down in 2004 (101)

FLR 710 Vijayalakshmi Insecticides and Pesticides Ltd. vs.

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court,

Vishakhapatnam and other.

19. As regard validity of termination of services of

the workman, Neeta Sharma by the management of ONGC

w.e.f. 1-8-99, from the perusal of the evidence on record it

is evident that the workman was engaged as on-the-job

Computer Trairiee, initially, for a period of six months i.e.

from 4-8-98 to 31-1-99 and thereafter, it was extended by

the management for another six months i.e. up to 31-7-99.

When the second term of engagement was about to expire,

the workman vide her application dated 20-7-99, paper No.

6/102 requested the management for extension of its tenure

but without any fruit. The said application dated 20-7-99

of the workman is reproduced hereunder:

‘‘Respected Sir,

I have been working as a Computer Job Trainee

in your esteemed Group since February'99, for a

period of six months and obviously my period is

scheduled to expire on 31st instant. I, therefore,

approach you 'Sir' with an earnest request kindly to

accord me another extension for a period of six

months,

I shall feel obliged

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours faithfully,

sd-

(Mrs, Neeta Sharma) ’’

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6235

20. The facts mentioned by the workman, herself in

the above application dated 20-7-99 shows that her

engagement was for a fixed period of six months only and

from the endorsements made on the said application it is

evident that she had worked with the management as

Computer job trainee for the period 4-8-98 to 31-1-99 and

1-2-99 to 31-7-99. As already discussed the initial

engagement of the workman was for a period of six months

which expired on 31-1-99; but before its expiry it was

extended for a further period of six months i.e. up to

31-7-99; and when her second spell was at the verge of

expiry, workman made a request for its further extension of

another six months, which was not accepted by the

management and her services got automatically terminated

w.e.f. 1-8-99 with the expiry of second spell on 31-7-99.

21. It is admitted case of the parties that Smt. Neeta

Sharma was engaged as on-the-job Computer Trainee by

the opposite party, on being sponsored by ONGC Mahila

Polytechnic, without any appointment letter, initially for a

period of six months only and later it was extended to

another six months. However, her tenure was not extended

to the third spell of six month's in spite of written request

of the workman vide her application dated 20-7-99; and

accordingly, her engagement automatically came to end

with the end of her second spell of six months i.e. 31-7-99.

22. It was argued by the authorized representative

of the workman that she had worked since 4-8-98 to 31-7-99

for more than 240 days in a year; accordingly, termination

of her services without any notice or compensation is in

violation of provisions contained in Section 25 F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The workman has relied on (2010) 1 SSC (L&S) 420

Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, where Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that in case of termination of

casual employee what is required to be seen is whether

she has completed 240 days of service in preceding 12

months or not and if he has, then his service cannot be

terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu

of it in terms of Section 25 F.

Further, in another case 2004 (102) FLR 347 State of

Gujrat & another vs. Chauhan Ramjibhai Karsanbhai,

where services of a workman who has been appointed as

Apprentice under the Apprentices Act, 1961, Hon'ble Gujrat

High Court has observed that no examination is given

under the Apprentices Act and no training given

thereunder. The workman completed 240 days of

continuous service and provisions of Section 25 - F of the

I.D. Act not complied with and accordingly, held that the

termination is void ab-initio.

But in the present case, the above case laws are not

applicable as the workman's engaged was for a fixed period

and the termination of her services does not come within

the purview of the definition of 'retrenchment' as defined

in Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act.

23. Contrary, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that termination of services

of the applicant are not covered by the definition of

‘retrenchment’ as provided in I.D. Act as her engagement

was for a fixed period, which came to an end on 31-7-99. It

was also contended that she was not a regular appointee

of the Corporation. Hence, there is no need to comply the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.

24.Here it is relevant to quote the definition of

'Retrenchment' as defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 as under:

‘‘2(oo) ‘‘retrenchment’’ means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—

(a) xxxxxxx

(b) xxx xxx

a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation

in that behalf contained therein; or

(d) xxxxx

In the case of Amit Yadav and others vs. Delhi Vidyut

Board 2000 LAB I C 626, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has

observed as under:

‘‘When the right to continue on any post is purely

contractual for a fixed period such a right would

come to an end on expiry of such period.’’

In another case of Navodaya Vidyalaya vs. Smt. K.R.

Hemavathy 2000 LAB I C 3745 the respondent was

appointed as Clerk on temporary basis under fixed term of

contract of service. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

while allowing the appeal has observed that

'discontinuation of the respondent from services cannot

be treated as ‘retrenchment’ even though she had worked

for continuous period of 240 days’.

Similarly in the case of President, Peroorkada Service

Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trivandrum vs. S. Sheena and

others 2002 III/ LLJ 459, respondents were engaged from

time to time not exceeding five or six months each occasion

on daily wages for casual works.It was observed by

Hon’ble Kerala High Court that ‘denial of work to such

persons could not be held retrenchment’.

In M/s. Kalian Sharp India Ltd. vs. Labour Court

2002 (93) FLR 1183 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that

‘provisions of Section 25 F are not attracted and question

of issued of notice before terminating the services of the

respondent does not arise; where the services of he trainee

technician has been terminated, as per terms of

employment, before expiry of probation period’.

6236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case

law cited above and facts and circumstances of the case,

I am of opinion that the engagement of the workman,

Smt. Neeta Sharma with the management of ONGC was for

a fixed term i.e. initially of six months and thereafter the

same was extended for another six months, which expired

on 31-7-1999; and accordingly, her termed engaged as

on-the-job Computer Trainee came to an end w.e.f. 1-8-1999

with the expiry of second term of her engagement on 31-7-99.

Discontinuation of services after the expiry of fixed term

or contract does not fall with the term 'retrenchment' as

defined in Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the

provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted even though the

workman had completed 240 days' working on the date of

her termination.

26. For the forgoing reasons I come to the conclusion

that the action of the management of ONGC in terminating

the services of Smt. Neeta Sharma, Computer Operator

w.e.f. 1-8-99 cannot be said to be unjustified; and the

workman, Smt. Neeta Sharma is not entitled for any relief.

27. Award as above.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

Lucknow : 24-5-2012

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2536.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSleZ lruk

LVksu ,aM ykbZe daiuh fyfeVsM] dksydkrk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 13] 14] 89]90@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@8] 9] 64] 65@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2012

S.O. 2536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.

13,14,89,90/2008) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of M/s Satna Stone Lime Co.

Ltd., (Kolkatta) and others and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-29012/8, 9, 64, 65/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

Presiding Officer: SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN

CASE No. CGIT/LC/R/13/08,14/08, 89/08 & 90/08

Shri Ram Saroj Kushwaha,

General Secretary,

AITUC Distt. Parishad,

AITUC Office, Sidharth Nagar,

Post Birla Vikas,

Distt. Satna (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Managing Director,

Satna Stone Lime Co. Ltd.,

6, Middle Road, Hasting,

Kolkatta

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of May, 2012

1. (a) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its

Notification No.L-29012(8)/2008-IR (M) dated 4-3-2008 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal:—

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-00 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP, in not paying

wages w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17- 8-2000 to Shri Durga

Dhobi S/o Shri Munna Dhobi and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

(b) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-29012(9)/2008-IR (M) dated 4-3-2008

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by

this tribunal:—

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna, MP in not paying

wages w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Jagdish

Dhobi S/o Shri Bhola Dhobi and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

its Notification No.L-29012(64 )/2008-IR(M) dated 10-6-

2008 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6237

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime Company

Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages w.e.f.

1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Smt. Kalli Kolin W/o Shri

Devideen Kaul and bonus and retrenchment

compensation for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

(d) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its

Notification No.L-29012(65)/2008-IR(M) dated 10-6-2008 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal:—

“Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

“Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime Company

Ltd., Siding, Satna, MP in not paying wages w.e.f.

1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Smt. Agsiyabai Kolin W/o Shri

Sadool Kaul and bonus and retrenchment compensation

for the period 1999 to 2001 is just and legal? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. All the four reference cases are taken up

together as all are between the same parties and are on

a common subject-matter.

3. The Union/workmen did not appear in the

reference cases inspite of sufficient service of notice and

reasonable time was granted for filing the statement of

claims with documents. The reference orders also show

that the Union was directed by Desk Officer to file

Statement of Claim with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen

days on receipt of the order but even then neither the

Union nor the workmen appeared to raise dispute. This

shows that now there is no dispute with the management.

4. The management also did not appear in the

Tribunal in spite of sufficient service of notice. This also

shows that the management did not want to contest the

references. This is a case of no dispute. Accordingly the

references are answered.

5. In the result, a common no dispute award is

passed in all the references without any order to

costs.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2537.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSleZ eSxuht

vksj bafM;k fyfeVsM] ukxiqj ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 26@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@49@2003&vkbZvkj(,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2012

S.O. 2537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s M.O.I.L. (Nagpur) and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-29012/49/2003-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/26/2004

Date: 18-6-2012.

Applicant

: Smt. Sahajadi Sheikh Hanif (Dead)

Substituted by legal heir, Sheikh Ibrahim

Sheikh Hanif

R/ o. At & Post: Chikla, Tahsil Tumsar,

Distt. Bhandara (Maharashtra)

Versus

Opposite Party : The General Manager (P),

M.O.I.L., 3 Mount Extension,

PO Box no. 34, Nagpur- 440001.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th June, 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 M.O.I.L. and the applicant, Smt.

Sahajadi Hanif, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

29012/49/2003-IR (M) dated 06-02-2004, with the

following schedule:—

“Whether the demand of Smt. Sahajadi Hanif seeking

compassionate/dependent employment from

6238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., Nagpur consequent

upon the death of her elder son Shri Sheikh

Mohd. Hanif, a contract worker, in a truck accident on

20/12/1995 in the course of employment at the

Dongribuzurg Mine of M/s. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd.,

is justified? If not, to what relief is the applicant is

entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the applicant, Smt. Sahajadi

(“the applicant" in short), filed the statement of claim and

the management of the Manganese Ore India Limited,

("Opposite party" in short) filed its written statement.

3. The case of the applicant as projected in the

statement of claim was that her son, Abid Sheikh Hanif

met with an accident, while in service with the opposite

party and expired on 20-12-1995 and she made application

to the opposite party to absorb the brother of his

deceased son, on compassionate ground in the year

1996, but opposite party did not respond. The further

case of the applicant was that her deceased son, Abid

was working as piece rated truck cleaner with the

opposite party at Dongri Buzurg Mines and while on

duty, Abid met with an accident at Dongri mines and

succumbed to death on 20-12-1995 and her deceased son

was the only earning member of the family and though

she made several representations to the opposite party,

for compensation and absorbing her another son on

compassionate ground, there was no response from the

side of the opposite party and inspite of her approaches,

pension and gratuity were also not paid and after

running from post to pillar and filing of claim under the

Motor Accident Claim Act, she received compensation

of Rs. 80,000 on 09-03-1999 and as no employment was

given to her she made another son, representation on

27-09-2000 to the opposite party mentioning therein that

other similarly placed persons had received compensation

as well as employment and requested to give employment

to her another son and on 12-01-2001, the opposite party

gave their reply stating that compensation of Rs. 80,000 was

given to her and as per employment is concerned, the

same is only applicable to the employees of the company

and not for the employees of the contractors and as

compensation was paid to her by the opposite party, it

can be held that her deceased son was an employee of

the opposite party and Narayan Shendre, son of Smt.

Yenabai Shendre and Goonanbai Kumbre, W/o–Balakram

Jholla Kumbre were given employment on 24-12-1997 and

within 5 to 6 months of 27-03-1997 respectively and inspite

of issuing of repeated reminders by her, opposite party

did not take any action, so, she approached the Hon 'ble

High Court and the Hon 'ble High Court by order dated

on 07-07-2003 directed to re-open the proceedings and to

complete the conciliation proceedings expeditiously and

for making the reference in accordance with law.

The applicant had prayed to grant employment

to her another son and to grant her retirement

benefits.

It is necessary to mention here that during the

pendency of the reference, the applicant expired and her

legal heir, Sheikh Ibrahim Sheikh Hanif was substituted

in her place as per orders dated 01-09-2010.

4. The opposite party in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the deceased son of the applicant,

Sheikh Abid S/o Mohd. Hanif was never employed by

it and he was employed by the contractor, M/s. K.L.

Maheswar of Odisha State on 14-12-1995 for his work,

at Dongri Buzurg Mines on temporary basis and deceased

Ibid was working as a helper in a truck and on 20-12-1995,

Ibid died due to the truck accident, during the course

of his employment with the contractor and the

representations of the applicant could not be considered,

for the reason that deceased Ibid was employed with the

contractor and was not in its regular employment and

on the death of Ibid, the contractor paid a sum of

Rs. 5000 in cash to the families of the deceased

immediately and the representations for providing

employment to another son of the applicant on

compassionate ground were not considered by it, as

because, as per the settlement dated 21-06-1984,

employment to the dependent of the deceased could be

given to the regular employee of the company and not

to the employee employed with the contractor and there

was no scheme for providing pension and gratuity to

an employee employed with a contractor and as such,

the demand made by the applicant was not proper and

compensation of Rs. 80,000 was .paid to the applicant

and her husband through Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,

Bhandara and the applicant through "Bhartiya Manganese

Mazdoor Sangh, Chikla" raised an industrial dispute

before ALC (C), Nagpur on 26-11-2001 and it had

participated in the proceedings and filed comments and

the same resulted in failure and the Ministry of Labour

vide its communication dated 10-12-2002 refused to refer

the dispute for adjudication and the compensation of

Rs. 80,000 was paid under Motor Vehicle Accident claim

and not by it and as regard the claim of granting

compassionate appointment to the son of Smt. Yenabai

Shendre and wife of Balakram Kumbre, who are alleged

to be similarly placed is incorrect and employment given

to shri Narayan Sakharam Shendre and Smt. Gunabai was

not under compassionate ground, but both of them were

directly appointed in the service of the company and the

applicant cannot claim parity with them and the statement

that Gunabai was paid compensation of Rs. 87,028 is

absolutely incorrect and the Hon'ble High Court taking

a sympathetic view of the matter remanded the matter

to the ALC (C), Nagpur and the applicant is not entitled

to any relief.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6239

5. It is necessary to mention here that inspite of giving

of number of opportunities to the applicant to adduce

evidence, in support of her claim, neither she appeared in

the case nor adduced any evidence. Likewise, after the

substitution of Sheikh Ibrahim Sheikh Hanif, he was given

sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in support of

the claim, but he also neither appeared in the case nor

adduced any evidence. Hence, as per order dated 14-7-2011,

evidence from the side of the applicant was closed.

6. The evidence of witness, Nitin Yeshwant Pagnis

on affidavit adduced on behalf of the opposite party

remained unchallenged, as none appeared on behalf of

the applicant to cross-examine him. As per order dated

05.03.2012, "no cross" order was passed and the case

was closed and the same was posted for award.

7. It is well settled that if a party challenges the

legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced,

the party invoking the jurisdiction must fail.

In this case, though the applicant has claimed that

deceased Abid Sheikh Hanif was working with the

opposite party and he died in an accident at Dongri

mines, while on duty, no evidence has been adduced

in support of such claim. The applicant has also failed

to adduce any legal evidence in support of his other

claims. On the other hand, on perusal of the materials

on record including the unchallenged evidence of the

witness examined on behalf of the opposite party, it is

found that deceased Abid was employed by a contractor

as a truck helper and he died on 20-12-1995 due to

accident of the truck and compensation of Rs. 80,000 was

paid to him by the order of the Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal and not by the opposite party. Applying the

settled principles as mentioned above to the present

case at hand, it is found that the other son of the

applicant is not entitled for compassionate employment.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The demand of Smt. Sahajadi Sheikh Hanif

seeking compassionate/dependent employment from

M/s. Manganese Ore (India) Limited, Nagpur consequent

upon the death of her elder son, Abid Sheikh Hanif, a

contract worker, in a truck accident on 20-12-1995 is

unjustified. The applicant is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2538.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;j bf.M;k

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k

ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (vkbZMh la[;k 76@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&07&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@8@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

vthr dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2012

S.O. 2538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Air

India Limited and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 11-07-2012.

[No. L-11012/8/2002-IR (CM-I)]

AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D.No.76/2011

Shri Mahesh Chander Sahdev,

S/o Sh.Dharamvir Sahdev,

P-43, South Extension-II,

New Delhi-ll0049

...Workman

Versus

M/s. Air India Limited,

Northern India,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi.

...Management

AWARD

When Air India and Indian Airlines were separate

legal entities, there was an agreement between the two

airlines to provide interline complementary tickets for

certain categories of officers, whose names were mentioned

in Reciprocal List. When a request was received by the

airlines for providing transportation facility to an employee

of either airlines, particulars of such an employee were to

be verified from Reciprocal List by the concerned staff of

the airlines, providing transportation facility. After

ascertaining name of the employee from Reciprocal List

provided by the airlines, his entitlement was to be checked

for class of travel, to be decided in accordance with the

category of staff, besides purpose of travel for himself and

different members of his family.

2. Shri Mahesh Chander Sahadev was working as

Clerk in the office of Manager, Northern India, Air India

Ltd., New Delhi. In that capacity, he was required to process

requests for interline complimentary tickets. He processed

interline requests received from Indian Airlines on

reciprocal basis in the name of Shri Umesh Bhatia, Ms.Sonu

Shaskar, Shri Sandeep Kumar, Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri R.L

Moria, Ms.Anita Moria and Ms.Rakhi Moria, though their

names were not reflected in Reciprocal List furnished by

the Indian Airlines. He got authority approved in favour of

6240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

above persons, without following laid down procedure in

that regard. When above facts came to light, charge sheet

was served upon him on 15-04-1993. A domestic enquiry

was conducted against the claimant. Punishment of

‘dismissal’ was awarded to him on 26-04-1999. An appeal

was preferred by the claimant, which came to be dismissed

vide order dated 19-01-2000. Feeling aggrieved by the action

of the management, he raised an industrial dispute before

the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings

failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide order No.L-11012/8/2002-

IR(C1), New Delhi dated 17-07-2002 with the following

terms.

¶D;k ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM ubZ fnYyh ds izca/ra=k }kjk Jh

egs'k pUnz lgnso] ofj"B dk;kZy; lgk;d dh lsok,a fnukad

26&6&99 ls c[kkZLr fd;k tkuk fof/or U;k;laxr ,oa

mfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl jkgr ds ik=k gSa\

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Mahesh Chand

Sahdev pleading therein that he joined services with Air

India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Airlines) on 18-12-

1977 as cleaner. His devotion to duty made him to be

promoted to the post of clerk in 1978. Lastly, he was working

as Senior Office Assistant with the Airlines. On 10-03-1993,

one Shri Umesh Bhatia and his wife, namely Smt-Sonu

Shaskar were apprehended at IGI Airport,

New Delhi, while traveling to Singapore on free

complementary tickets issued in an illegal manner by one

Shri Arun Vohra, Office Assistant. On 15-04-1993, the

claimant was charge sheeted alleging therein that he did

not exercise due care and caution while processing

application of one Shri R.L. Moria, an employee of Indian

Airlines, who made a request for issuance of free interline

ticket for his daughter in law, whose name did not figure in

Reciprocal List. According to him, genesis of disciplinary

action against him lies in enquiry conducted by CBI into

allegations of misuse of interline complimentary tickets.

4. The claimant projects that interline tickets were

issued on sanction orders given by Shri N.N. O'Connor,

Shri Baldev Kumar and Ms.Gyan Clair, under whom he was

working at relevant time. In its inquiry, CBI had specifically

named them as persons who acted in tandem with each

other and recommended action against them. However, no

action was initiated against them by the Airlines. On the

other hand, Shri O'Connor was allowed to retire voluntarily

and Ms. Gyan Clair was given a lucrative foreign posting

at Amsterdam. The Airlines issued circular dated 11-01-

1997 and permitted daughter-in-law and son-in-law of

employees to travel on interline complimentary tickets.

Another circular was issued on 26-03-1997 and brother-in-

law, brother and sister of employees were permitted to travel

on interline complimentary tickets. Therefore, availing

interline tickets for one's daughter-in-law, son-in-law,

brother-in-law, brother and sister no longer remains a

misconduct.

5. An enquiry was conducted against Shri R.L. Moria,

wherein it was established that he had not submitted any

misleading application. When Shri Moria had not submitted

any misleading application, the only charge which remains

against the claimant is that he failed to exercise due care

and to detect discrepancy that Shri Moria has described

himself as Finance Manager of the Indian Airlines. He went

on to detail that the charge sheet was served upon him in

1993 and till 27-02-1997, no adverse report was submitted.

The Airlines had promoted him as Senior Office Assistant,

which act operates as condonation of misconduct, if any,

committed by him. He claims that in February 1999, the

Airlines wanted him to depose against Shri R.L. Moria in

he domestic enquiry. Since he insisted to tell only the truth,

he was dropped from the enquiry and was not produced

for further cross examination in the enquiry, conducted

against Shri Moria. Thereafter, dismissal order was passed

in a vindictive manner. He claimed that the enquiry was an

eye wash, since relevant documents were neither shown

to him not given to him . Charges were neither tenable nor

proved in the enquiry. Show cause notice was received by

him on 03-10-1997 and he made his representation on 12-

11-1997. Dismissal order was passed on 19-11-1998 but

was not communicated to him till 26-04-1999. He preferred

an appeal on 14-10-1999, which was rejected on 19-01-2000.

He claims that the order of his dismissal is illegal, arbitrary,

malafide, discriminatory, motivated and stark example of

victimization. He seeks reinstatement in service of the

Airlines with continuity and full back wages.

6. The Airlines made a demurral pleading that the

claimant, who was required to process requests of interline

complimentary tickets, processed interline requests from

Indian Airlines on reciprocal basis in the names of Shri

Umesh Bhatia, Ms.Sonu Shaskar, Shri Sandeep Kumar, Shri

Vijay Kumar, Shri R.L Moria, Ms.Anita Moria and Ms.Rakhi

Moria. Names of above persons were not reflected in

Reciprocal List, furnished by the Indian Airlines. The

claimant did not verify their names from Reciprocal List

available whim him and got authority approved in favour

of above persons, without following laid down procedure.

The claimant had processed requests for interline

complimentary tickets in favour of above persons, who

were not entitled for the same.

7. Startling facts are that the claimant was well aware

that Shri R.L. Moria was working as Store Superintendent

with the Indian Airlines and got authority approved in his

favour and his family members representing him as Finance

Manager on Reciprocal List. He fraudulently got tickets

processed in their favour and delivered the same personally

at the residence of Shri Moria. The claimant was well aware

that Shri Sandeep Kumar was son of Shri R.L. Moria but he

processed authority in favour of Shri Sandeep Kumar

projecting him to be son of Shri R. Kumar, Deputy Operation

Manager. He processed authority in favour of Ms.Sonu

Shaskar and Shri Umesh Bhatia, daughter and son of Capt.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6241

K.S. Shaskar and Capt. S. Bhatia respectively, though their

names did not appear in Reciprocal List.

8. The Airlines nowhere disputes factum of

appointment of the claimant as cleaner on 18-12-1973- It

has been projected that he was confirmed in service with

effect from 01-07-1974. His promotion as clerk and Senior

Office Assistant are also not a matter of dispute. His

promotion, during enquiry process, shows that the Airlines

was acting in a bonafide manner. The act of his promotion

nowhere condones his misconduct. The Airlines never

condoned his misconduct and his promotion as Senior

Office Assistant cannot come in the way of taking

disciplinary action to its logical conclusion.

9. The Airlines projected that the claimant as well as

Shri Moria were well aware that names of Shri R.L Moria,

Ms.Anita Moria, Ms.Rakhi Moria and Shri Sandeep Kumar

do not appear in Reciprocal List. They were not entitled to

complimentary tickets. It has been denied that major penalty

proceedings were recommended by CBI against Ms. Gyan

Clair. It has wrongly been projected by the claimant that in

the enquiry against Shri Moria, it was established that he

did not submit any application for issuance of

complimentary ticket, pleads the Airlines.

10. Enquiry was held against the claimant in

consonance with the principles of natural justice. Enquiry

proceedings were held on 14 occasions which spread from

06-08-1993 to 22-02-1996. The claimant duly participated in

the enquiry and was defended by a defence representative

of his choice. The claimant did not produce any defence

witness- However, he submitted final submissions on

22-02-1996. To enable him to explain facts recorded in the

enquiry report, he was given an opportunity by the

Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 05-03-1997. He

sought some more time and finally submitted his reply on

05-04-1997. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the

competent authority proposed to impose punishment of

dismissal from service and the claimant was afforded

opportunity to show cause at to why such punishment

should not be imposed. He sought extension of time in that

regard. In the meanwhile, in view of applicability of certified

standing order, the claimant was once again called upon to

show case as to why punishment of dismissal should not

be awarded to him. Vide letter dated 23-04-1998, he sought

copy of certified standing order, which was sent to him

alongwith letter dated 01-05-1998. He again sought time of 15

days on the strength of his letter dated 01-06-1998. Vide letter

dated 15-06-1998, 2 days more time was given to him. Thereafter,

punishment of dismissal was passed, which was

communicated to him vide letter dated 26-04-1999. Punishment

awarded to him was in accordance with the principles of natural

justice. The claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim

may be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

11. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled by my learned predecessor:

(1) Whether the enquiry conducted by the

management was fair and proper?

(2) Whether the charge sheeted employee was solely

responsible for issuance of interline tickets to the

persons named in the charge sheet? If so, its

effects

(3) Whether the Reciprocal List was up to date, as

claimed by the management?

(4) Whether any discrimination has been purported

by the management against the workman, as

alleged in para 7 of the claim statement? If so, its

effects.

(5) As per reference.

12.On appreciation of evidence of Ms.Meenakshi

Dua and the claimant and on consideration of submissions

of authorised representatives of the parties, issue No.1,

which was treated as preliminary issue, was answered in

favour of the Airlines and against the claimant vide order

dated 13-06-2011.

13. Arguments were heard at the bar. Ms.Deepa Rai,

authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri V.P.Gaur, authorised representative,

advanced arguments on behalf of the Airlines. I have given

my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the

bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows :

Issue No.2.

14. As projected above, domestic enquiry conducted

against the claimant was found not to be violative of the

principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is evident that

this Tribunal concluded that the Airlines could establish

that the findings of misconduct was a plausible conclusion

coming out of evidence adduced during the course of

enquiry. When such a situation has been established, the

Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit in judgement over the

decision of the Airlines as appellate body. However, the

Tribunal would be justified in interfering with the decision

of the employer when the findings arrived at in the domestic

enquiry are held to be perverse or the Airlines is found to

be guilty of victimization, unfair labour practice or malafide.

When findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not

held to be perverse or case of victimization, unfair labour

practice or malafide is not projected, it would be beyond

the pale of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the

managerial function. It would not be out of place to mention

here that findings of the Enquiry Committee were held to

be in accordance with the evidence and not opposed to

the while body of evidence adduced before it.

15.The expression ‘victimization’ has not been

defined by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the

Act). The word ‘victimization’ is not in any sense a term of

6242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

law. Ordinary meaning of the word is that the person has

become a victim, in other words, that he has been unjustly

dealt with. In Bharat Bank Ltd. [1950 (I) LLJ 921] it was

agitated before the Apex Court that the expression

‘victimization’ has acquired a special meaning in industrial

law and connotes a person who has become a victim of the

employer's wrath by reason of his trade union activities

and that the word could not relate to a person who has

been merely unjustly dismissed. However in view of peculiar

facts and circumstances of that case, above submissions

were not considered by the Court.

16. In Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. [1982 (I) LLJ

33], the Apex Court made interpretation of the word (‘victim’

as a person who is "victim of unfair and arbitrary action".

The concept of victimization has acquired considerable

significance in the area of disciplinary action, in the context

of industrial law. Broadly speaking, the expression

"victimization" means one of the two things: (1) where the

workman concerned is innocent and yet he is being

punished because he has in some way displeased his

employer, for example, by being an active member of a trade

union of workmen, who are acting prejudicial to the interest

of their employer, and (2) where the employer terminates

the services of the workman for refusal to carry out some

work which is not part of his duty. Victimization may partake

of various forms. For instance, if for a very trival or venial

breach of duty, the employer proposes to dismiss the

workman, or he pressurizes the employee to leave the union

or union activities and on his failure to do so, for that sole

reason he inflicts gross punishment on the employee which

no rational person would impose, or he punishes the

employee for a wrong which someone else has committed.

Victimization is a serious charge made by an employee and

onus lies on him to establish it.

17. Unfair labour practice on the part of the employers,

trade unions of the employers, workmen and trade unions

of the workmen are detailed in the Fifth Schedule appended

to the Act. Malafide is opposed to bonafide. Malafide would

include a colourable exercise of power, that is, an exercise

of power which is ostensibly so, but which is really a pretext

with the ulterior objective or for achieving some other end.

But it is for the party alleging malafide to establish that

element as a reasonable inference, on facts and probabilities

shown to exist. A mere allegation of malafide will not do

and the Tribunal has to take notice of the increasing trend

to allege malafide, sometimes with little or no substance.

18. Now it would be considered as to whether without

being sole responsible to issue interline tickets, the claimant

had been victimized or the Airlines practiced unfair labour

practice or acted in a malafide manner. When turned to

facts, it came to light that in his claim statement, the claimant

projects that tickets were issued on authority being

approved by Shri N.N. O'Connor, Shri Baldev Kumar and

Ms.Gyan Clair, under whom he was working. These facts

highlight that the claimant wants to assert that he had

processed requests and got authorities approved from the

aforesaid officers. In its report, the Enquiry Committee

concluded that the claimant was well aware that Shri

M.L.Moria was working as Store Superintendent while his

request was processed projecting him to be Finance

Manager on Reciprocal List. It has also come over record

that Shri Sandeep Kumar was well known to the claimant. It

was within his knowledge that Shri Sandeep Kumar was

son of Shri R.L.Moria while he processed request for

issuance of interline complimentary ticket in his favour

projecting him to be son of Capt. R. Kumar. Out of these

facts, it stood established that the claimant acted with

dishonest intention to defraud not only his superiors but

the Airlines also. In the light of these facts, it is apparent

that he acted with guilty intention and processed requests

for issuance of interline complementary tickets. He got

approved authority in favour of Shri R.L. Moria, Ms.Anita

Moria, Ms. Rakhi Moria, Shri Sandeep Kumar, Shri Umesh

Bhatia, Shri Vijay Kumar and Ms.Sonu Shaskar knowing

well that their names were not there in Reciprocal List.

19. Much hue and cry has been raised by the claimant

that it was Shri N.N. O'Connor, Shri Baldev Kumar and

Ms.Gyan Clair who approved authority for issuance of

tickets in favour of the persons, referred above. Whether

that very fact would bring acts of the aforesaid officials

within the arena of misconduct? For an answer to this

proposition it would be appropriate to know as to what

term ‘misconduct' means. The concept of misconduct is a

general concept and is not related to relationship of master

and servant only. The dictionary meaning of the word

‘misconduct' are: "improper behaviour, intentional wrong

doing or deliberate violation of a rule of standard of

behaviour. "Misconduct is a transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, where no discretion

is left except what necessity may demand: it is violation of

definite law, a forbidden act and differs from carelessness.

It comprises of positive acts and not mere neglect or failure.

20. Under Indian Penal Code and other special and

local laws some acts or omissions are offences for which a

person can be punished by the sovereign power of the

State. These offences or acts are considered to be prejudicial

to the interest of the society in general and, therefore, they

are prohibited by law. There are, however, various other

organizations such as professional bodies, educational

institutions, clubs, corporations etc. and anyone who wants

to be admitted to such bodies, by being member or

otherwise, is also required to act under certain rules and

remain subject to certain discipline. If he does anything in

violation of rules, regulations, or any law inconsistent with

his position as a member of that society, then he is liable to

lose advantage and facilities of the association with that

society or organization. Any such act is, therefore, generally

called misconduct. Primary meaning of the word

'misconduct' is bad management, mis-management and

malfeasance or culpable neglect of an official in regard to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6243

his office. Both in law and in ordinary parlance, the term

misconduct usually implies an act done willfully with a

wrong intention and as applied to professional acts, even

though such acts are not inherently wrongful, it means

also dereliction of or deviation from duty. Even assuming

that a particular act is negligence and not misconduct, such

a negligence which amounts to dereliction of or deviation

from duty cannot be excused. See In re:-Mehboob Alikhan

(AIR 1958 AP 116).

21. In N.M. Roshan Umar Karim and Co.(AIR 1936

Mad.508) following three different meaning of the word

'misconduct' were given:

"(a) Misconduct is not established by proving even

culpable negligence. It is something opposed to

accident or negligence and is doing of something

which the doer knows to be wrong or which he

does recklessly not careing what the result would

be.

(b) Misconduct is distinguished from accident and

is not far from negligence - not only gross and

culpable negligence and involves that a person

misconducts himself when it is wrong conduct

on his part, in the existing circumstances to do or

to fail or omit to do a particular thing or to persist

in the act, failure or omission or acting with

carelessness. It is incorrect that a misconduct

only refers to acts of gross or culpable negligence

and nor mere negligence.

negligence. The test of misconduct is not what a

reasonable man would have done in the

circumstances. It means that servant is guilty of

something which was inconsistent with the

conduct expected of him by the rules of the

company".

Above three meanings were quoted by the Apex

Court with approval in Shiv Nath (AIR 1965 SC

1666).

22. Whether mere negligence is a misconduct or not

will depend upon the nature of negligence and the

requirement of care which the employee was obliged to

use on the nature of services he was expected to perform.

Misconduct could be of three kinds:

(i) technical misconduct which leaves no trail of

indiscipline,

(ii) misconduct resulting in damage to the employer's

property which might be compensated by

forfeiture of gratuity or part thereof, and

(iii) serious misconduct such as acts of violence

against the management or other employee or

riotous of disorderly behaviour in or near the place

of employment, which though not directly causing

damage, is conductive to grave indiscipline.

23. In Ram Singh (1992 Lab. IC 2391) the Apex Court

observed that though the expression "misconduct" is "not

capable of precise definition, its dereliction receives its

connotation from the context, the delinquency in its

performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature

of duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper

or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, willful in character,

forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite

rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of

judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of

duty, the act complained of bears forbidden quality or

character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to

the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs,

regard being had to the scope of the statue and the public

purpose it seeks to serve."

24. In industrial law, the word 'misconduct' has

acquired a specific connotation. In Shalimar Rope Works

Ltd. (1953 L.A.C. 584) the Labour Appellate Tribunal laid

down the criteria for determination as to whether an act

would be misconduct, viz. the act (i) is inconsistent with

the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of service,

or (ii) is directly linked with the general relationship of

employer and employee or (iii) has a direct connection with

the contentment or comfort of the men at work, or (iv) has

a material bearing, on the smooth and efficient working of

the concern. If the answer to any of these criteria is in

affirmative, the action in question would amount to an act

of misconduct. In industrial law, there two kinds of

misconduct, namely; (I) gross or major misconduct which

justify punishment of dismissal or discharge, and (II) minor

misconduct which do not justify punishment of dismissal

or discharge but may call for lesser punishment. See also

Caltex India Ltd. [1966 (2) LLJ 137].

25. With above prelude in mind, it would be

considered as to whether Shri N.N.O'connor, Shri Baldev

Kumar and Ms.Gyan Clair also acted with guilty intention?

Whether they were well aware that names of the persons,

in whose favour they approved authority, were not there in

Reciprocal List? It was the claimant who was to receive

requests, process it and to get authority approved from his

superiors. For approval of the authority, he was supposed

to see names in Reciprocal List. Thus, it is emerging over

record that at the initial stage, the claimant was to initiate

action in the matter and to present facts before his superiors,

favouring approval of request or for getting it rejected.

Admittedly, the claimant processed requests of the

aforesaid persons and presented it before his superiors for

approval. Before approval of requests, the officers were

not required to see Reciprocal List, but to act upon the

judgment of their subordinate. It is not the case that they

connived with the claimant. On the other hand, they relied

the claimant and reposed confidence in him. The claimant

breached their confidence. Their action of placing reliance

on acts of the claimant may project them to be negligent.

6244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

But mere negligence on their part would not bring their

culpability over the record. It was their error of judgment

regarding reliability of their subordinate, which error would

not fall within the ambit of misconduct.

26. Shri N.N. O'Connor, Shri Baldev Kumar and

Ms.Gyan Clair approved authority for issuance of tickets

in favour of the persons referred above, in a negligent

manner. Care and attention required on their part was of

lesser degree, since they were not supposed to initiate

those requests and see Reciprocal List. When a superior

acts in a bona fide manner on recommendations of his

junior, who was supposed to assist the former, it can be

said that he exercised due care and attention in discharge

of his duties, unless it is shown that he was also a party to

the illegal act. No evidence worth name was brought before

the Enquiry Committee to raise an accusing finger on Shri

N.N. O'Connor, Shri Baldev Kumar and Ms.Gyan Clair.

Consequently, it cannot be said that they also connived

with the claimant and were parity to the episode of issuance

of interline complimentary tickets, in violation of settled

procedure.

27. In view of above reasons it is concluded that it

was the claimant alone who violated settled procedure for

issuance of interline complementary tickets to above

persons. No evidence is there to show that the Airlines had

made him a scapegoat and thus victimized him. No evidence

is there on record to give even an inference that the Airlines

practised unfair labour practice or proceeded against the

claimant with malafide intention. The issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the Airlines and against the claimant.

Issue No. 3

28. Much hue and cry has been made on behalf of

the claimant to the effect that Reciprocal List was

incomplete. In order to project his point of view, reliance

has been placed on facts unfolded by Ms.Gyan Clair before

the Enquiry Committee. However, when facts unfolded by

Ms.Gyan Clair are scrutinized, it came to light that there is

no substance in the contention advanced by the claimant

in that regard. She highlighted in her testimony dated

2l-11-1995 that Reciprocal List was complete in all respect.

There was an admission on her part to the effect that

Reciprocal List did not contain names of retired employees

even pior to or after 1986. She explained that as far as

requests received in favour of the aforesaid persons for

issuance of interline complimentary tickets were concerned,

the claimant had not processed those requests in

accordance with the well laid procedure. She further explains

that on 15-3-1993, she wrote a letter asking for an updated

list. From her explanation, it emerges over the record that

Reciprocal List was complete in respect of employees who

were in service of the Indian Airlines. In Reciprocal List,

names of retired employees were not there. Since the

claimant processed requests of the aforesaid persons for

issuance of interline complimentary tickets, without their

name being in the Reciprocal List, Ms. Clair demanded an

upto date list vide letter dated 15-03-1993. That demand

made by Ms. Gyan Clair nowhere make it a case that

Reciprocal List was incomplete, as far as employees who

were in service of the Indian Airlines were concerned. Even

otherwise, the claimant processed requests in favour of

Shri R.L. Moria and his family members knowing well that

Shri Moria was Store Superintendent and his name was

not there in Reciprocal List. He projected him as Finance

Manager, while Shri Sandeep Kumar was shown as son of

Capt. R. Kumar. Therefore, these facts make it clear that the

claimant had intentionally processed requests with guilty

intention, without looking in Reciprocal List at all. The

issue that Reciprocal List was not upto date was raised by

the claimant only with an idea to confuse the matter.

Accordingly, issue is answered in favourof the Airlines

and against the claimant.

Issue No. 4

29. As projected by the claimant, Shri N.N. O'Connor,

Shri Baldev Kumar and Ms. Gyan Clair were Officers who

had approved authority in favour of the persons, referred

above, for issuance of interline complimentary tickets. His

case has been that he was not the sole person responsible

for issuance of tickets. However, it is not a disputed fact

that requests were processed by the claimant. He got

authority approved in favour of above persons from his

superiors. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that

Shri R.L. Moria was Store Superintendent while his request

was processed projecting him to be Finance Manager. Shri

Sandeep Kumar happens to be son of Shri R.L. Moria,

while his case was processed as son of Capt. R. Kumar. It is

not a disputed fact that Shri Moria and Shri Sandeep Kumar

were personally known to the claimant. The claimant no

where disputes that he personally delivered tickets at the

residence of Shri Moria. These facts make it crystal clear

that the claimant acted with guilty intention and processed

requests of the aforesaid persons and got authority

approved from his superiors.

30. An act done willfully with a wrong intention

would amount to misconduct. Intention can be said to

consciously or willfully or deliberately doing an act which

it is known or foreseen or appreciated or realized, will as a

probable, perhaps highly probable, perhaps morally certain,

consequence, expose the victim to the risk of peril of death

or grievous bodily harm, even though the actor may not

wish or desire the result to ensure, may be certain that it

will ensue, or may have wanton disregard or indifference

as to whether it will nor not. Intention involves foresight or

knowledge of the probable or likely consequences of injury,

plus the desire or purpose or object or end to do an act

which will bring those consequences about. Foresight or

knowledge of the probable or likely consequences does

not or may not, itself suffice to constitute intention, but it

is naturally very strong evidence of such an intention.

Foresight or knowledge is the best basis to find the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6245

requisite intention proved and this must normally be

expected to follow.

31. “Good faith” plays an important part in law of

crimes and its presence is ordinarily a sufficient answer to

a charge of criminality in many cases. Good faith is defined

in positive aspect by section 3(22) of the General Clauses

Act, 1897, which definition is extracted thus:

“3. (22) A thing shall be deemed to be done in 'good

faith' where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done

negligently or not".

Element of honesty, introduced by the above

definition, is not present in the definition given in the Penal

Code. Negative definition of the phrase is given in section

52 of the Penal Code, which runs thus:

“52. Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good

faith' which is done or believed without care and attention".

32. As defined by the Penal Code, definition of

phrase 'good faith' has no reference to the moral element of

honesty and right motive which are involved in popular

significance of 'good faith', defined by General Clauses

Act. To establish good faith under the penal law, it is

necessary to prove that the person pleading good faith

acted with due care and attention and an honest blunder

cannot be protected, without establishing the exercise of

due care and attention. The plea of good faith may be

negatived on the ground of recklessness indicative of want

of due care and attention if the imputation in question,

have been made as categorical statements of facts. However

law does not exact the same degree of care and attention

from all persons. It varies with the position they occupy. In

this sense, the question of 'good faith' is always question

of fact to be determined in accordance with the proved

facts and circumstances of each case.

33. The 'due' care required must depend upon the

nature of the act, its magnitude and importance and the

facility a person has for the exercise of care and attention.

It does not constitute 'good faith' necessarily because the

person making the imputation believed it to be true. Due

care and attention imply a genuine effort to reach the truth,

and not the ready acceptance of an ill natured belief. A

surgeon working in his surgery would be judged by a

different standard from that applicable to a surgeon in the

field. But where a quack unskilled in surgery performs an

operation which even a trained surgeon seldom dares, he

cannot be accredited with good faith, if his patient trusting

him succumbs to his operation.

34. The circumstances that operate on the exercise

of care and attention are so varied and variable that it is not

possible to fix a general standard by which the presence or

absence of 'good faith' may, in any case, be tested. But at

the same time, in such cases, it is always permissible to

argue ex post facto; that is to say, it may be shown that

there was a want of 'good faith' because there was absence

of the requisite care and caution. On the other hand, a

person relying upon 'good faith' may show that he had

taken the necessary care and caution, and that, therefore,

his act was done in good faith. As observed by the Law

Commission in its First Report:

“He will be required to prove that his conduct was

such as to lead fairly to the inference that he acted in good

faith as alleged. It is true that he cannot prove directly

what was in his mind, but he may be able to prove facts by

which this may be sufficiently manifested". To satisfy the

Court of his good faith, he must show at least that he acted

advisedly and that he had reasonable ground prima facie

for believing that he ought to do what he did.

35. In order to establish belief in good faith, a person's

simple belief in good faith that circumstances are such and

such, ought not to be sufficient: there ought to be

sufficiently strong and just ground for his belief. Belief

must have a foundation and that must be shown. Where a

person acts with thoughtless precipitancy, without making

sufficient inquiries and jumping to a conclusion upon

materials wholly unjustifiable, it cannot be said that he had

exercised good faith.

36. As a person, acting in good faith, is excepted

from criminality, presence of good faith in each case must

depend upon the circumstances which alone entitle a

person to exemption from criminal responsibility. The

burden lies on the delinquent to prove that he acted with

good faith. The question of good faith must be considered

with reference to the position of the delinquent and the

circumstances under which he acted. The law does not

exact the same care and attention from all persons

regardless of the position they occupy. With this prelude

in mind, now I will proceed to ascertain whether due care

and attention was exercised by Shri N.N.O'Conner, Shri

Baldev Kumar and Ms.Gyan Clair.

37. As facts of the controversy bring it over the

record, the claimant processed requests of the aforesaid

persons for issuance of interline complimentary tickets and

got authority approved from his superiors. He had not

seen Reciprocal List when requests were processed by

him. His guilty intention was established to the hilt. His

superiors were to act when he presented those requests

before them. They had to act in accordance with

recommendations made by the claimant. They relied on the

claimant and accorded approval for issuance of interline

complimentary tickets. Circumstances suggest that it may

be a case of honest blunder on the part of N.N. O'Connor,

Shri Baldev Kumar and Ms. Gyan Clair, when they acted

advisedly and believed their subordinate. In such a

situation, degree of care and attention which was expected

to them was lesser than that which was required from the

claimant. When they were supposed to believe the claimant

and they had reasonable grounds prima facie believing the

6246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claimant, it cannot be said that in believing the claimant,

they failed to exercise due care and attention. Under these

circumstances, it does not emerge that any misconduct

was committed by Shri N.N. O'Connor, Shri Baldev Kumar

and Ms.Gyan Clair when they acted upon facts presented

before them by the claimant. Consequently, the Airlines

was not required to proceed against them for departmental

action. The claimant cannot assert that the Airlines had

discriminated him. The issue is, therefore, answered in

favour of the Airlines and against the claimant.

Issue No. 5.

38. To see whether punishment awarded to the

claimant is shockingly disproportionate to his misconduct

facts are to be scanned again. Charge sheet dated

15-4-1993 projects that interline requests were received

from the Indian Airlines for the staff against Reciprocal

List, which requests were received, processed and got

approved by the claimant in favour of the following persons:

Name

Ticket No.

Shri Umesh Bhatia

098/4413661829

Ms. Sonu Bhaskar

098/4413661830

Shri Sandeep Kumar

098/4413669000

Shri Vijay Kumar

098/4413669001

Shri RL Moria

098/4413669003

Ms. Anita Moria

098/4413669004

Ms. Rakhi Moria

098/4413669005

39. Subsequently, it revealed that above names do

not appear in Reciprocal List received from the Indian

Airlines. Without checking Reciprocal List, the claimant

got the authority approved without following laid down

procedure. In his reply dated 2-4-1993, the claimant

conceded that he knew Shri R.L. Moria and Shri Sandeep

Kumar son of Shri Moria personally. Despite his personal

knowledge that Shri Moria was working as Store

Superintendent in the Indian Airlines, he got authority

approved in his favour and his family members, projecting

him to be Finance Manager on Reciprocal List. He got

above tickets issued in favour of Shri Moria and his family

members fraudulently and delivered tickets at the residence

of Shri Moria.

40. The claimant failed to check Reciprocal List in

respect of Ms. Sonu Shaskar and Shri Umesh Bhatia,

daughter and son of Shri K.N. Shaskar and Capt. S. Bhatia

respectively, whose names were not there in Reciprocal

List. He got authority approved in favour of Shri Sandeep

Kumar as son of Capt. R.Kumar whereas he was well aware

that Shri Sandeep Kumar was son of Shri R.L. Moria.

41. In his reply, the claimant admitted that the got

tickets issued, bookings made and validation stickers affixed

before delivery of tickets to Shri Sandeep Kumar at the

residence of Shri Moria. As per charge sheet, above acts

on his part, if proved, constitute misconduct of fraud or

dishonesty in connection with his employer's business,

acts subversive of discipline and good behaviour and

neglect of work .

42. From analysis of evidence produced, the Enquiry

Committee reached conclusions, which are reproduced

below:

“(i) Shri M.C Sahdev, Office Assistant, St.No.6167,

Commercial Department, New Delhi (charge

sheeted employee), who was then dealing with

interline request from various Airlines, including

the period Jan.93 to March 93, had received,

processed and got approved from the competent

authority the four interline requests exhibited

as E-18 to E-21, which were received from Indian

Airlines on Reciprocal List basis against which

ticket as follows has been issued :

098/4413661829 in favour of Shri Umesh Bhatia

098/4413661830 in favour of Ms. Sonu Bhaskar

098/4413669000 in favour of Shri Sandeep Kumar

098/4413669001 in favour of Shri Vijay Kumar

098/4413669003 in favour of Shri RL Moria

098/4413669004 in favour of Ms.Anita Moria

098/4413669005 in favour of Ms.Rakhi Moria

(ii) Shri M.C. Sahdev, the charge sheeted employee,

personally on the request of Shri Sandeep Kumar,

known to him as the son of Shri R.L. Moria" an

employee of Indian Airlines and who used to

refer to him as 'uncle' got the interline requests

approved and tickets issued for him and for Shri

Umesh Bhatia and Ms.Sonu Shaskar, from

Jeevan Bhatri, got the bookings done for all four,

i.e. Shri Umesh Bhatia, Ms.Sonu Shaskar, Shri

Sandeep Kumar and Ms.Anita Moria for sector

DEL/SIN/BOM/DEL (E 11) on the same flight on

the request of Shri Sandeep Kumar that they

were all traveling together; prepared in his own

handwriting and affixed stickers (E-14 to E-17)

from the sticker booklet kept only for emergency

use in the M-NI's secretariat, with the PA to CRM-

NI, Shri I.J. Bhalla without his(Shri I.J. Bhalla)

knowledge and personally delivered the said

tickets to the residence of Shri Moria after

checking the travel documents on the request

of Shri RL Moria, who claimed to be himself busy

with some other work and his son having gone

somewhere.

(iii) That Shri Sahdev knew Shri Moria personally,

as has been admitted by him repeatedly. He had

confirmed that he got acquainted with Shri Moria

in the year 1973-74 when he was working at the

airport.

(iv) It is further confirmed by the self admission of

Shri Sahdev that he also knew that

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6247

Shri Sandeep Kumar, who used to be sent to his

office by Shri K. B. Kumar of Indian Airlines for

collection and submission of interline requests,

was the son of Shri Moria, who was known to

him. Shri Sandeep Kumar had got the interline

request approved for himself and his family

members two months before this incident, under

the reciprocal agreement and the same were

approved and handed over to him as confirmed

by Shri Sahdev in his reply dated 02-04-93 (E-

35). He was, therefore, fully aware that Shri

Sandeep Kumar was the son of Shri Moria.

However, despite the knowledge of fact, he got

approved the authority of Shri Sandeep Kumar

and Shri Vijay Kumar as sons of Capt. R Kumar,

Deputy Operations Manager, thus indulging in

an “act subversive of discipline”.

(v) That Shri Sahdav, the charge sheeted employee,

was therefore fully aware that the person

requesting for approval of interline request on

reciprocal basis(E-18) who was known to him as

the son of Shri Moria could also not be the son

of Capt. R Kumar at the same time.

(vi) Shri M.C. Sahdav was therefore fully aware that

the interline request (E-18) was being made

under a fictitious name of Capt. R. Kumar, deputy

operations manager as father of Shri Sandeep

Kumar.

(vii) Shri M.C. Sahdav, having full knowledge of the

above fact, not only got the fictitious airline

request (E-18) approved from the competent

authority (CRM-NI) but also helped Shri

Sandeep Kumar in getting his bookings

confirmed on the fraudulent ticket, personally

prepared and affixed the stickers on the sticker

against authority (E-18) and personally delivered

the fraudulent tickets as the residence of Shri

R.L. Moria to Shri Sandeep Kumar after checking

the documents, which was not the normal

practice. That he had checked the documents

and found nothing wrong with them further

establishes that although the documents, such

as passport and visa under the column 'father's

name' would have clearly revealed that Shri

Sandeep was the son of Shri R.L. Moria and not

Capt. R. Kumar and Anita Moria, not the

daughter of Shri R.L. Moria, he not only

deliberately permitted a loss to Air India, he also

indulged in an act of issuance, confirmation and

delivery of the fraudulent tickets.

(viii) As confirmed by exhibit E-32, Ms.Anita Moria

and Ms.Rakhi Moria were not the daughters of

Shri R.L. Moria. Further, Shri R.L. Moria was not

listed on the Reciprocal List (as per E-41, 49 and

46) when his interline request (E-21) showing as

Finance Manager was processed by the Shri

Sahdev himself. Shri Sahdev did not follow the

procedure of checking the Reciprocal List before

filling and putting up the authority (E-21) as well

as authorities (E-18 to E-20) and getting the same

approved from the competent authority. He also

did not put up a note to the competent authority

informing that the names of employees shown

under Exhibits E-18 to E-21 were neither in the

latest Reciprocal List of Indian Airlines available

with Air India nor did he seek any clarification

from Indian Airlines, which he always used to

do in case of requests received from Indian

Airlines for officials not featuring on the

Reciprocal List or cases of discrepancy or

suspicion as admitted by Shri Sahdev before

the enquiry committee. This negligence on the

part of the claimant has led to the issuance of

seven Air India tickets on free confirmed basis

to Shri Umesh Bhatia, Ms. Sonu Shaskar, Shri

Sandeep Kumar, Ms. Anita Moria, Shri R.L.

Moria, Rakhi Moria and Mr. Vijay Kumar, to

which they were not entitled. This clearly

establishes that Shri M.C. Sahdev was negligent

in performing the duties assigned to him, thereby

indulging in neglect of work.

(ix) It is admitted by the Mr. Sahdev that when Shri

Sandeep Kumar, son of Shri R.L. Moria went to

him with the interline requests in favour of

himself and his family members (E-18 to E-21),

he informed Shri Sahdev that his father had got

promoted and become part of Reciprocal List

and information would soon be reaching Shri

Sahdev in this regard. Despite this knowledge

that Shri R.L. Moria is not on the Reciprocal

List, Shri Sahdev got his authority (E-21)

approved on confirmed basis without confirming

his entitlement or details of dependents etc. from

Indian Airlines even though he had confirmed

that this was the procedure always followed for

requests received from Indian Airlines for

officials not featuring on the Reciprocal List.

This deliberate act of Shri Sahdev resulted in

issuance of three tickets on confirmed basis

fraudulently to Shri R.L. Moria, who was not

entitled for confirmed tickets and to some Ms.

Anita Moria and Rakhi Moria, who were shown

as daughters of Shri R.L. Moria (E-32) and were

therefore not entitled to these tickets and also

two tickets to Shri Sandeep Kumar and Sri Vijay

shown as sons of Capt. R Kumar while Shri

Sandeep Kumar was son of Shri R.L. Moria (E-

32). The above act of Shri Sahdev was done

with his full knowledge of facts as Shri R.L. Moria

6248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and Sandeep were personally know to him and

he has therefore indulged in an act of ‘fraud

and dishonesty’ in connection with the

employer's business.

(x) That Shri Sahdev has indulged in an act

subversive of discipline and fraud and

dishonesty in connection with the employer's

business is also corroborated by the fact that

Shri Sahdev not only processed the interline

requests received from Indian Airlines and also

got approved from Air India's competent

authority without checking the Reciprocal List

as per the required procedure but also got the

bookings made, confirmed the bookings for

tickets issued against these authorities in favour

of Shri Umesh Bhatia, Ms. Sonu Shaskar, Shri

Sandeep Kumar and Ms. Anita Moria bearing

tickets 0984413661829/30, 09484413659000/5

respectively. Further, he also prepared and

affixed stickers on the tickets (E-14 to E-17)

as admitted by him before the Enforcement

Directorate authorities and the Enquiry

Committee. He also confirmed having checked

the documents of Shri Sandeep and Anita

Moria when he went to deliver the tickets at

the residence of Shri R.L. Moria and confirmed

that there was nothing wrong with them

though he was fully aware that Shri Sandeep

Kumar was the son of Shri R.L. Moria and not

Capt. R. Kumar. This would also been revealed

by the documents. He would have also known

from the documents that Anita Moria was not

the daughter of Shri R.L. Moria. Yet despite

this full knowledge, he deliberately allowed

the issuance of fictitious authorities and tickets

and further also got the bookings and

confirmations done, stickers prepared and

affixed on these tickets and also personally

delivered them at the residence of Shri R.L.

Moria, thus indulging in fraud. Moreover,

these tickets also included tickets in favour of

Shri Umesh Bhatia and Ms. Sonu Shaskar and

Shri Umesh Bhatia was the person arrested on

10-3-1993 at IGI Airport, New Delhi by FERA

authorities just when he alongwith Ms.Sonu

Shaskar, Shri Sandeep Kumar and Ms.Anita

Moria were about board Air India flight AI-

404/DEL/SIN. Currency worth Rs.18 lakh in

foreign exchange were seized from Shri Umesh

Bhatia. As per the Times of India report of

10-3-1993(E-31), Shri Umesh and his

companions were also carrying forged

passports. That Shri Umesh Bhatia, Sonu

Shaskar and Anita Moria were known to each

other and to Shri Sandeep Kumar has also

been established so as the fact that Shri

Sandeep had helped Shri Umesh Bhatia and

Ms.Sonu Shaskar in getting the interline

approved through Shri M.C. Sahdev and also

their and his own, as well as Anita Moria's

bookings done, confirmation made for the same

flight and stickers prepared and affixed again

through Shri M.C. Sahdev. All through Shri

M.C. Sahdev knew that Shri Sandeep Kumar

was the son of Shri R.L. Moria and not of Capt.

R. Kumar. He thus indulged in an act of fraud

and dishonesty with the employer's business.

From the above, it stands established beyond doubt

that Shri M.C. Sahdev, Office Assistant, St. No. 06167,

indulged in acts subversive of good behaviour and

discipline, neglect of work and fraud and dishonesty with

the employers business and guilty of the following charges:

1. fraud or dishonesty in connection with the

employer's business,

2. acts subversive of discipline and

3. good behaviour, and neglect of work."

43. Ms. Rai presents that the punishment awarded to

the claimant is shockingly disproportionate to his

misconduct. According to her, when bar to get ticket issued

in favour of one's daughter-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-

law, brother and sister was removed, the misconduct, if

any, committed by the claimant was withdrawn from the list

of misdemeanor, which an employee of the Airlines may

commit. She presents that under these circumstances, the

claimant ought not to have been punished. Contra to this,

Shri Gaur argued that when misconduct was committed,

there was bar in favour of daughter in law of an employee

to get interline complimentary ticket. According to him,

subsequent development would not exonerate the claimant

from his liability. Even otherwise interline complimentary

tickets were issued in favour of persons who were not

eligible for the same, argued Shri Gaur. Therefore out of the

facts submitted by the rival parties it would be ascertained

as to what should be the appropriate punishment which

could be awarded to the claimant.

44. What should be the appropriate punishment,

which can be awarded to the claimant, is a proposition

which would be addressed by this Tribunal. Right of an

employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is

not unfattered. The punishment imposed must

commensurate with gravity of the misconduct, proved

against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of

Section ll-A of the Act, it was not open to the industrial

adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding

that the order of dismissal was too severe and not

commensurative with the act of misconduct. In other words,

the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the

punishment as it was not required to consider propriety or

adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6249

too severe. Apex Court, in this connection, had, however,

laid down in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Company [1963 (I) LLJ

291] that where order of punishment was shockingly

disproportionate with the act of the misconduct which no

reasonable employer would impose in like circumstances,

that itself would lead to the inference of victimization or

unfair labour practice which would vitiate order of dismissal

or discharge. But by enacting the provisions of Section 11.

A of the Act, the Legislature has transferred the discretion

of the employer, in imposing punishment, to the industrial

adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction of the industrial

adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment

for proved acts of misconduct, in cases of discharge or

dismissal. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of

discharge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstances

on the facts of a case, it has the power not only to set aside

order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back

wages, but it has also the power to impose certain conditions

as it may deem fit and also to give relief to the workman,

including award of lesser punishment in lieu of discharge

or dismissal.

45. It is established law that imposing punishment

for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing

authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered

with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required

to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment. But

where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,

regard being had to the particular conduct and past record,

or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in

like circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of

such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair

labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex

Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Ltd.

[1965 (I) LLJ 462]. Likewise in Management of the

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

[1971 (II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer

made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial

matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation

and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be

unwaranted. In Ram Kishan [1996 (I) LLJ 982] the delinquent

employee was dismissed from service for using abusive

language against a superior officer. On the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that the

punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate

to the gravity of the charge imputed to the delinquent. It

was ruled therein, “when abusive language is used by

anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the

environment in which that person is situated and the

circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of

abusive language. No straight-jacket formula could be

evolved in adjudicating whether the abusive language in

the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from

service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts”.

46. In B.M.Patii [1996 (II) LLJ 536], Justice Mohan

Kumar of Karnatka High Court observed that in exercise of

discretion, the Disciplinary Authority should not act like a

robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and

understanding. It has to assess each case on its own merit

and each set of fact should be decided with reference to

the evidence regarding the allegation, which should be

basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may

be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity

to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of

punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the

bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss

of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was

held that the punishment was too harsh and

disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

47. After insertion of Section 11-A of the Act, the

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with

the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed

by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act

of misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the

misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment

is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is

such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or

dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or

without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any

other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in

lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstance of the

case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in

Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab.I.C. 817). The discretion to award

punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or

dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal

can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment

imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to

the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be

made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [1994 (II)

LLJ 332]. Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now

jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of

punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is

satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not

justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case,

Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers

to the Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually the power of

appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer

in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence

and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost

importance, is the power of reappraisal of quantum of

punishment.

48. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [2005 (2) S.C.C.

481] the Apex Court was confronted with the proposition

as to whether power available to the Industrial Tribunal

under Section 11-A of the Act are unlimited. The Court

opined that “there is no such thing as unlimited jurisdiction

vested with any judicial or quasi judicial forum and

unfettered discretion is sworn enemy of the constitutional

guarantee against discrimination. An unlimited jurisdiction

leads to unreasonableness. No authority, be it

6250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

administrative or judicial, has any power to exercise the

discretion vested in it unless the same is based on justifiable

grounds supported by acceptable materials and reasons

thereof". The Apex Court relied its judgment in C.M.C.

Hospital Employees Union [1987 (4) S.C.C. 691] wherein it

was held that “Section 11-A cannot be considered as

conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or

the Labour Court. The power under section 11-A of the Act

has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal

or Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision

of a management under section 11-A of the Act only when

it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the

management is highly disproportionate to the degree of

guilt of the workmen concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or

Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision". In

Hombe Gowda Educational Trust [2006 (1) S.C.C. 430] the

Apex Court announced that the Tribunal would not normally

interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the

employer unless an appropriate case is made out therefore.

49. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal

and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is

not untramaled power. This power has to be exercised only

when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or

dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the Tribunal

is objective satisfaction and not subjective one. It involves

application of the mind by the Tribunal to various

circumstances like nature of delinquency committed by

the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency on

employer's business, besides length of service rendered

by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to consider whether

the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only after

taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal can

upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The

quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without

recording specific findings on points referred above. No

indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of

grave misconduct like cheating, fraud, misappropriation of

employer's fund, theft of public property etc. A reference

can be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa

[1995 (I) LLJ 960].

50. As projected above, claimant was under an

obligation to process requests for interline complementary

tickets, as per Reciprocal List, supplied by the Indian

Airlines. Instead of processing requests received in favour

of the above persons, claimant did not check Reciprocal

List available with him. Contra to it, Shri R.L. Moria, who

was well known to him, was working as Store

Superintendent with the Indian Airlines. The claimant

processed authority in favour of Shri R.L. Moria projecting

him as Finance Manager. Claimant was also aware that

Shri Sandeep Kumar was son of Shri R.L. Moria. He

projected Shri Sandeep Kumar as son of Shri R. Kumar,

Deputy Operation Manager and processed authority in

his favour. He got authority issued in favour of Shri R.L.

Moria and his family members fraudulently and delivered

tickets at the residence of Shri Moria. He did not check

Reciprocal List in respect of Ms.Sonu Shaskar and

Shri Umesh Bhatia, daughter and son of Shri K.N. Shaskar

and Capt. S. Bhatia respectively, whose names did not

appear on the Reciprocal List. He got authority approved

in their favour and thus acted in a fraudulent manner. For

these acts, claimant was dismissed from service with retiral

benefits.

51. Question for consideration comes as to whether

punishment awarded to the claimant was shockingly

disproportionate to his misconduct, justifying interference

by this Tribunal. In Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company

of India (Pvt.) Ltd. [1973 (1) S.C.C. 813], the Apex Court

ruled that once misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to

sustain order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating

victimisation. It has been further laid therein that if a proper

enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding

arrived at regarding the misconduct, the Tribunal, even

though now empowered to differ from the conclusion arrived

at by the management, will have to give very cogent reasons

for not accepting the view of the employer. Again in

Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. (N.W.K.R.T.C) [2005 (3)

S.C.C. 254] it was laid that question of quantum of

punishment would not be weighed on amount of money

misappropriated but it should be based on loss of

confidence, which is a primary factor to be taken into

account. Once a person is found guilty of misappropriating

his employer's fund, there is nothing wrong for the

employer to loose confidence or faith in such a person,

awarding punishment of dismissal.

52. The claimant acted in contravention of settled

procedure and with dishonest intention. It was well known

to him that Shri Moria was working as Store Superintendent

in Indian Airlines. He projected him as Finance Manager

and fraudulently got approved authority, issued tickets

and delivered the same at his residence. Knowing well that

Shri Sandeep Kumar was son of Shri R.L. Moria, he had

shown him as son of Shri R. Kumar, Deputy Operational

Manager. All these facts make it clear that the claimant

acted with dishonest invention with a motive to defraud

his employer. The same has been the case when he failed

to check Reciprocal List in respect of Shri Umesh Bhatia

and Sonu Shaskar.

53. Act of dishonesty or fraud constitute misconduct

of serious nature, warranting penalty of dismissal, whenever

an employee, holding responsible position, deliberately

allows others to cause loss to the property of his employer.

Misconduct committed by the claimant is of serious nature.

An employer cannot repose confidence in such an

employee. For such misconduct, punishment of dismissal

is the appropriate punishment. It cannot be said that the

punishment awarded to the claimant is shockingly

disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him.

54. In view of the reasons detailed above, I am of the

considered opinion that no interference with the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6251

punishment awarded to the claimant is called for. No reasons

are brought over record which may justify this Tribunal to

exercise its powers under section 11A of the Act and to

award lesser punishment to the claimant. Consequently,

no interference is made in the punishment awarded to the

claimant. His claim is dismissed, being devoid of merits. An

award is, accordingly, passed in favour of the Airlines and

against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate Government

for publication.

Dated: 27-6-2012

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2539.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ekjkBokMk xzkeh.k

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k]

ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 83@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@50@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2012

S.O. 2539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby

publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2005) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Marathwada Gramin Bank, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 6-7-2012.

[No. L-12012/50/2005-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/83/2005

Date: 11-6-2012.

Party No. 1

The Chairman,

Marathwada Gramin Bank,

Head Office- Shivaji Nagar,

Nanded (MS)-431602

Versus

Party No. 2

The General Secretary,

Marathwada Gramin Bank Employees

Federation, Head Office- Shivajinagar,

Nanded, (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 11th June, 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 Marathwada

Gramin Bank and their workman, Shri Vithal Sasane, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/50/2005-IR (B-I) dated

24-10-2005, with the following schedule :—

“Whether the action of the management of Marathwada

Gramin Bank, Nanded (MS) through its Chairman is

justified in awarding punishment of dismissal from

services to the workman Sh. Vithal Tukaram Sasane

w.e.f. 25-9-2001? If not, then what relief the workman

entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to

file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the workman Shri Vithal Sasane, (“the

workman” in short) through his union, “Marathwada Gramin

Bank Employees Federation”, (“the union” in short) filed the

statement of claim and the management of Marathwada Gramin

Bank, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union in

the statement of claim is that the workman was appointed on

18-8-1993 on compassionate ground and was posted at

Nanded Branch of the Bank and he served the Bank honestly

and faithfully for 7 years and no Memo or show cause notice

was issued against the workman during the period of his

service and on 29-12-1999, while he was serving as the cashier

of Chakalamba branch of the bank, during the course of

exchanging of big denomination notes for small denomination,

to a valued customer (Shri Prakash Yadavrao Deshpande) of

the Bank, he paid Rs. 60,000 instead of Rs. 10,000, leading to

cash shortage of Rs. 50,000, and such shortage of cash was

detected at the end of the business and the said fact was

brought to the notice of the branch manager and the workman

requested the branch manager to allow him to make enquiry

about the excess payment from the concerned customer and

to make arrangement for making good of the shortage of cash

of Rs. 50,000 from his relatives/friends etc and the workman

also gave his statement to the manager in regard to the cash

shortage and asked for one day leave, to make arrangement of

cash of Rs. 50,000 and during the enquiry, Mr. Deshpande

revealed that he had received excess cash of Rs. 50,000, while

exchanging the notes and refunded the excess amount of

Rs. 50,000 immediately and the workman was under pressure

due to family problems on 29-2-1999 and the excess payment

of cash of Rs. 50,000 to Shri Deshpande was not intentional

and due to mistake on the part of the workman and the

Branch Manager and Area Manager construed the

unintentional mistake of the workman as misappropriation/

fraud and reported the matter to the Central Office of the

bank and the management of the bank conducted

departmental enquiry, which was conducted with prejudiced

mind and by not giving natural justice to the workman and

finally, the management of the bank dismissed the workman

from services w.e.f. 25-9-2001, without taking into

consideration the objection raised by the workman against

the departmental enquiry and the penalty imposed against

the workman is disproportionate and excess.

Prayer has been made by the union to set aside the

punishment of dismissal from services imposed against

the workman and to reinstate the workman in service with

continuity.

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman was appointed on compassionate

6252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ground as a clerk- cum-cashier on 18-8-1993 and actually

on 29-12-1999, the shortage was detected by the Branch

Manager, while verifying the cash and the workman had

never reported about the shortage of cash to the branch

manager and instead, the workman prepared false cash

docket and showed the case as tallied and he had never

told about paying excess cash to the customer, but accepted

the responsibility in writing, before the Area Manager, who

investigated into the matter on 30-12-1999 and only

afterwards, the workman took the stand that excess

payment was made to one customer and such stand was

an afterthought, without any proof and such stand could

not be accepted, the same being illogical and not supported

by evidence and the workman intentionally defaleated the

amount and tried to conceal the facts by preparing false

and fabricated cash docket, showing the cash to have tallied

and as such, the matter was reported to the Head office by

the Area manager and with an intention to enquire into the

truth, the departmental enquiry was conducted against the

workman by issuing charge sheet dated 11-09-2000 and

full opportunity was given to the workman to defend his

case, as per the principles of natural justice and the

procedure of departmental enquiry was followed and after

taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the

parties, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the

charges have been proved against the workman and the

disciplinary authority also went through the enquiry report

and findings of the enquiry officer and came to the

conclusion that enquiry was properly conducted and the

findings submitted by the enquiry officer were based on

the evidence produced before him and after carefully

considering the aggravating and extenuating factors and

circumstances of the case, the disciplinary authority

conveyed the proposed punishment for the charges proved

and personal hearing on proposed punishment was given

to the workman on 14-8-2001 and the workman was present

along with his defence representative and during hearing,

the workman accepted the commission of the misconduct

and promised not to repeat the same and requested to

reduce the punishment and he did not raise any objection

to the departmental enquiry and after giving careful

consideration to the plea of the workman, the disciplinary

authority did not accept the request of the workman, in

view of commission of grave misconduct and imposed the

punishment of “dismissal without notice” and the appeal

filed by the workman against the order of punishment was

put up before the appellate authority on 23-11-2001, along

with the records of the enquiry and the appellate authority

after considering the seriousness of the misconducts,

evidence on record and argument of both sides came to

the conclusion that the punishment awarded was just,

proper and legal and therefore, dismissed the appeal and

the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance

with the principles of natural justice and the workman was

given every opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry

and as the workman committed the act of defalcation/fraud

of Rs. 50,000, which was proved against him in the

departmental enquiry, the punishment imposed against him

is proportionate and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that though the

workman filed his evidence on affidavit in support of his

claim, he did not appear for his cross-examination, inspite

of giving him several opportunities for the same. The

workman remained absent on 13-06-2007 and thereafter.

So, the evidence of the workman on affidavit was expunged

as per orders dated 21-02-2011.

5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity

of the departmental enquiry was taken up as a preliminary

issue for consideration and by order dated 16-4-2012, the

departmental enquiry was held to be legal, proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice.

6. It is necessary to mention here that as the workman

remained absent on 07-05-2012, to which date the case was

fixed for hearing of argument on the questions of perversity

of the findings and quantum of punishment, order was

passed to proceed exparte with the case against him and

argument was heard in full from the side of the party no.1

and the reference was posted for award.

7. Perused the record including the documents of

the enquiry proceedings produced by the party no. l. On

perusal of the documents, it is found that the findings of

the enquiry officer are based on the evidence adduced in

the departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer has assigned

cogent reasons in support of his findings. Hence, the

findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be

perverse.

8. So far the proportionality of the punishment is

concerned, it is found from the record that serious

misconducts including defalcation of Rs. 50,000 have been

proved against the workman in a properly conducted

departmental enquiry. The Bank is a financial institution

and the persons working in the Bank and dealing with

public money should possess highest degree of integrity

and trustworthiness and in such a case no leniency can be

shown. Taking into consideration the grave misconducts

committed by the workman the punishment imposed

against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly

disproportionate, calling for any interference. Hence, it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Marathwada Gramin

Bank, Nanded (MS) through its Chairman in awarding

punishment of dismissal from services to the workman

Sh. Vithal Tukaram Sasane w.e.f. 25-09-2001 is justified.

The workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6253

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2540.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tsV ,;jos”k

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (f'kdk;r

uEcj 323@2011 /kjk 33, ds varxZr) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11&07&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@4@2012&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

vthr dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2012

S.O. 2540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labaour Court No. 1,

New Delhi (filed under Section 33-A in the matter of ref . No.

323/2011) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of Jet Airways Limited and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 11-07-2012.

[No. L-20013/4/2012-IR(C-I)]

AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. NO. 323/2011

Sh. Surjeet Singh & Ors.,

H.No.1559, Sector-45,

Gurgaon, Haryana. . . .Claimant

Versus

M/s. Jet Airways Limited,

Jet Air House 13, Community Centre,

Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-l10049. . . . Management

AWARD

Claimants, ex-employees of Jet Air (Pvt.) Ltd. (herein

after referred to as the management), claim that they were

employed in various capacities such as drivers and loaders

with the management. Their service conditions were

miserable and no steps for amelioration were taken. They

raised a dispute before the Conciliations Officer, who

entered into conciliation proceedings. During the

pendency of those proceedings, the management made

them to submit applications for voluntary retirement.

Having no alternative, they tendered applications on 26th

Nov., 2010 for their voluntary retirement, which act of the

management is violative of the provisions of section 33 of

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Through

the present complaint, moved under section 33-A of the

Act, they seek reinstatement in the services of the

management.

2. Arguments are heard at the bar. Shri Rakesh Gaur,

authorised representative of the claimant, raised his

submissions at length. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and

cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues

involved in the controversy are as follows:

3. Section 33 of the Act bars alteration in conditions

of service "prejudicial" to the workman concerned in the

dispute and punishment of discharge or dismissal when

either is connected with pendentelite industrial dispute

"save with the permission of the authorities before which

the proceedings is pending''; or where the discharge or

dismissal is for any misconduct not connected with the

pendentelite industrial dispute without the "approval of

such authority". Prohibition contained in section 33 of

the Act is two fold. On one hand, they are designed to

protect the workman concerned during the course of

industrial conciliation, arbitration and adjudication, against

employers' harassment and victimization, on account of

their having raised the industrial dispute or their

continuing the pending proceedings and on the other,

they seek to maintain status quo by prescribing

management conduct which may give rise to "fresh

dispute" which further exacerbate the already strained

relations between employer and the workman. Where

industrial disputes are pendentelite before an authority

mentioned in the section, it was thought necessary that

such disputes should be conciliated or adjudicated upon

by the authority in a peaceful atmosphere, undisturbed

by any subsequent causes for bitterness or

unpleasantness. To achieve this object, a ban has been

imposed upon the employer exercising his common law,

statutory or contractual right to terminate the services of

his employees according to contract or the provisions of

law governing such service. The ordinary right of the

employer to alter the terms of his employees' services to

their prejudice or to terminate their services under the

general law governing contract of employment, has been

banned subject to certain conditions. This ban, therefore,

is designed to restrict the interference of the general rights

and liabilities of the parties under the ordinary law within

the limits truly necessary for accomplishing the object of

those provisions. Anxiety to know about ban on the right

of the employer, persuades me to reproduce the provisions

of section 33 of the Act thus:

"33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged

under certain circumstances during pendency of

proceedings.—(1) During the pendency of any

conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer

or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator

or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal

6254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer

shall:—

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the

dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen

concerned in such dispute, the conditions of

service applicable to them immediately before the

commencement of such proceeding; or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute,

discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or

otherwise, any workman concerned in such

dispute.

Save with the express permission in writing of

the authority before which the proceeding is

pending.

(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in

respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may,

in accordance with standing orders applicable to a

workman concerned in such dispute or, where there

are no such standing orders, in accordance with the

terms of the contract, whether express or implied,

between him and the workman-

(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with

the dispute, the conditions of service applicable

to that workman immediately before the

commencement of such proceeding; or

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the

dispute, discharge or punish, whether by

dismissal or otherwise, that workman:

Provided that no such workman shall be

discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid

wages for one month and an application has been

made by the employer to the authority before

which the proceeding is pending for approval of

the action taken by the employer.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (2), no employer shall, during the pendency

of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial

dispute, take any action against any protected

workman concerned in such dispute —

(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected

workman, the conditions of service applicable to

him immediately before the commencement of

such proceeding; or

(b) by discharging or punishing, whether any

dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman,

save with the express permission in writing of

the authority before which the proceeding is

pending.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a

"protected workman", in relation to an

establishment, means a workman who, being a

member of the executive or other office bearer of

a registered trade union connected with the

establishment, is recognized as such in

accordance with rules made in this behalf.

(4) In every establishment, the number of workmen

to be recognized as protected workmen for the

purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent of

the total number of workmen employed therein

subject to a minimum number of five protected

workmen and a maximum number of one hundred

protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose,

the appropriate Government may make rules

providing for the distribution of such protected

workmen among various trade unions, if any,

connected with the establishment and the manner

in which the workmen may be chosen and recognized

as protected workmen.

(5) Where an employer makes an application to a

conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-

section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the

authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such

application and pass, within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of such application, such order

in relation thereto as it deems fit :

Provided that where any such authority considers it

necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons

to be recorded in writing, extend such period by

such further period as it may think fit:

Provided further that no proceedings before any

such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that

any period specified in this sub-section had expired

without such proceedings being completed.

4. As noted above sub-sections (1) and (2) are

designed for different purposes since sub-section (1)

applies to the proposition when the employer wants to

alter service conditions of the workman to his prejudice in

regard to any matter connected with the dispute or for any

misconduct connected with the dispute, in that situation

he is obliged to seek prior permission in writing of the

authority before whom the dispute is pending and in a

case where the employer wants to alter service conditions

of a workman in regard to a matter not connected with the

dispute or for any misconduct not connected with the

dispute, in that situation he is obliged to seek approval of

the order under sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section.

When an employer violates the provisions of sub-section

(1) or sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act, an instant

remedy is provided to the workman by the provisions of

Section 33A of the Act. In other words, where an employer

has contravened the provisions of section 33, the

aggrieved workman has been given the option to make a

complaint in writing, to the authority before which an

industrial dispute is pending, with which the aggrieved

workman is concerned. The complaint of such

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6255

contravention can be made not to the adjudicating

authorities, but to the conciliatory authority also. If a

complaint is made to a conciliatory authority, viz. a

Conciliation Officer or a Board of Conciliation, clause (a)

of section 33 A of the act authorizes a Conciliation Officer

or the Board to take such complaint into account in

bringing about a settlement of the complained dispute.

The Conciliation Officer or the Board is not empowered to

adjudicate upon the dispute, which is the area of

adjudicatory authorities. When a complaint is made to

adjudicatory authority viz. Arbitrator, Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal, it will adjudicate upon the

dispute as if it is a dispute referred to or pending before it.

5. To attract the provisions of section 33A of the

Act, following conditions precedent are to be satisfied.

1. that there should have been a contravention by

the management of the provisions of section 33

of the Act,

2. that the contravention should have been during

the pendency of the proceedings before the

conciliatory authorites or Labour Court, Tribunal

or National Tribunal, as the case may be.

3. that the complainant should have been aggrieved

by the contravention, and that the application

should have been made to the Labour Court,

Tribunal or the National Tribunal in which original

proceedings are pending.

6. On turning to the facts, it is to be announced that

during the course of arguments, Shri Gaur projects that

the management made all the claimants to retire voluntarily

on 26-11-2010 and paid their retiral benefits. It is not a

disputed fact that their retiral benefits were paid through

cheques, which were encashed by them by way of

presentation of those cheques to their respective bankers

for encashment. Thus it is emerging on record that from

last one year the claimants have utilized the money given

to them by the management as retiral benefits. Their acts

and conduct make it implicit that their retirement from the

services of the management was owing to their acts of

violition, without any pressure or coercion from any corner.

Now with an ulterior motive, they want to assert that the

management made them to submit applications for

voluntary retirement. Their contention is unfounded and

cannot provide accolades to them. When voluntary

retirement was sought by the claimants, it cannot be said

that the management did some act of alteration of their

service conditions to their prejudice.

7. The claimants could not show any act on the part

of the management, which was in contravention of the

provisions of section 33 of the Act. Requisite conditions,

to invoke the provisions of section 33-A of the Act, has

not been brough over the record. Hence complaint is

dismissed at the threshold. An award is, accordingly,

passed. It be sent to be appropriate Government for

publication.

Dated: 30-11-2011

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2541.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;

foekuiÙku izkf/dj.k] eqEcbZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; u- 2] eqEcbZ ds

iapkV(lanHkZ la[;k&26@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11011@53@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2012

S.O. 2541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2008)

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 M/s. Airport Authority of India

(Mumbai) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-11011/53/2004-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT: K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/26 of 2008

Employers in Relation to the Management of

M/s. Airport Authority of India

The Airport Director

M/s. Airport Authority of India

Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport

Domestic Terminal 1-B

Mumbai-400 099

AND

Their Workman

The President

Airport Kamgar Union

CPWD Office Compound

Bamanwada

Vile Parle (E)

Mumbai-400099

6256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Employer

Mr. B. G. Goyal, Mr. V. Hariharan,

Advocates

For the Workman

Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 30th April, 2012

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L- 11011/53/2004-IR (M),

dated 28-4-2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

‘‘(i) Whether the contract between Airport Authority

of India and M/s. Sarathi Enterprises engaging Shri

Suresh Sakaram Veer and Six others listed in

Annexure-A is sham and bogus as claimed by the

Airport Kamgar Union? (ii) To what relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

Annexure ‘A’

1. Shri Suresh S. Veer

2. Shri Sahadev S. Main

3. Shri Suresh S. Dhumak

4. Shri Tukaram D. Kangane

5. Shri Shantaram D. Jadhav

6. Krishna G. Kangane

7. Anant S. Pawar

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. Second party union filed their statement

of claim Ex-7 praying to direct first party to absorb the

second party in its services as permanent workmen from

the dates of their initial appointment alongwith all

consequential benefits. First party resisted the statement

of claim of second party by filing their written statement

Ex-10. They denied all the contention made by the second

party in its statement of claim and prayed to reject the

reference in toto. Thereafter issues were framed at Ex-11

and the matter was fixed for evidence of second party.

3. Meanwhile second party union filed application

dated 30-4-2012 (Ex-12) for disposing the reference for

want of prosecution as they would take appropriate steps

for re-dressal of their grievance for payment of dues.

4. As prayed in the application Ex-12 by Second

party union, the reference is dismissed for want of

prosecution. Thus 1 pass the following order :

ORDER

Reference stands dismissed for

want of prosecution. No order as

to cost

Date: 30-4-2012

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2542.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lruk

LVksu ,aM ykbZe daiuh fyfeVsM] dksydÙkk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k&31]32]33@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@58] 59] 60@2007&vkbZvkj(,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2012

S.O. 2542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.31,32,33/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Satna Stone Lime Co. Ltd. (Kolkatta)

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2-7-2012.

[No. L-29012/58, 59, 60/2007-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/31/08,32/08 & 33/08

Shri Ram Saroj Kushwaha,

General Secretary,

AITUC Distt. Parishad,

AITUC Office, Sidharth Nagar,

Post Birla Vikas,

Distt. Satna (MP) ....Workman/Union

Versus

The Managing Director,

Satna Stone Lime Co. Ltd.,

6, Middle Road, Hasting,

Kolkatta .....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of May, 2012

1. (a) The Governmentr of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No. L- 29012(58)/2007-IR(M)

dated 25-2-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal :—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6257

‘‘Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-00 was legal or not?”

‘‘Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Chhedilal Chamaar,

S/o Shri Ramsajivan Chamaar and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

(b) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No. L-29012(59)/2008 -IR(M)

dated 25-2-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal :—

‘‘Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

‘‘Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Shri Keshri Chamaar

S/o Shri Devideen Chamaar and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

vide its Notification No. L-29012(60)/2008-IR(M)

dated 25-2-2008 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal :—

‘‘Whether the lock-out of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.

17-8-2000 was legal or not?”

‘‘Whether the action of Satna Stone & Lime

Company Ltd., Siding, Satna MP in not paying wages

w.e.f. 1-5-2000 to 17-8-2000 to Smt. Shanti Chamaar

in W/o Shri Chunka Chamaar and bonus and

retrenchment compensation for the period 1999 to

2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

2. All the three reference cases are taken up together

as all are between the same parties and are on a

common subject matter.

3. The Union nor any workmen appeared in the

reference cases inspite of proper and sufficient

notice issued against the Union by Registered

post. The reference order was also sent by the

Desk Officer directing the Union to file statement

of claim complete with relevant documents, list of

relivance and witnesses with the Tribunal within

fifteen days of the receipt of the order but the

Union had not filed his claim in the reference cases

pending since long. This shows that now there is

no industrial dispute left between the parties.

4. On the other hand, the management has also

not appeared in the case inspite of registered

notices nor complied the order of reference of

the Ministry. This shows that there is no dispute

between the parties. Thus these cases are of no

dispute. Accordingly the references are

answered.

5. In the result, a common award of no dispute is

passed in all the references without any order to

costs.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN. Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2543.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ-lh-vkbZ-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (vkbZMh la[;k 93@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&07&2012 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@167@1992&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/2000)

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 FCI and

their workman,which was received by the Central

Government on 13-07-2012.

[No. L-22012/167/1992-IR(C-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

No. CGIT/NGP/93/2000

Dated 18-6-2012

Party No. 1

The Distt. Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Ajni, Nagpur

V/s

Party No. 2

The Secretary,

Food Corporation of India,

Employees Association,

C/o. Food Corpn. of India,

Ajni, Nagpur

6258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Dated : 18th June, 2012)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (‘‘the Act” in

short), the Central Government had referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of FCI and their workman, Shri R.B.S. Prasad ,

for adjudication as per letter No. L-22012/167/F/92-IR (C-

II) dated 31-8-92, to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for

adjudication with the following schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Nagpur, in not promoting

Shri R.B.S. Prasad AG. Gr. III (Depot) to AG Gr. II

(Depot) in the year 1989 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman concern is entitled?”

Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this

Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri R.B.S.

Prasad (‘‘the workman” in short) through his union, the

‘‘Food Corporation of India Employees Association” (‘‘the

union” in short) filed the statement of claim, claiming that

he (the workman) is entitled for promotion from AG Gr. III

(D) to AG Gr. II (D) w.e.f. 21-2-1990, the date on which his

juniors were promoted.

3. The management of FCI (‘‘party no. 1” in short)

filed the written statement pleading inter-alia that the

workman was not entitled for promotion, as a departmental

proceeding was initiated against him for committing

misconduct and he was charge sheeted on 31-8-1991.

4. During the pendency of reference, the workman

expired. The representative of party no. 1 filed an application

alongwith zerox copy of the death certificate of the workman

and a document showing the payment of terminal benefits to

the workman’s legal heirs, on 10-5-2012, and prayed to close

the reference. On 18-6-2012 the Secretary of the union also

filed an application for closure of the reference on the ground

of the death of the workman.

As admittedly, the workman is already dead and there

is no substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased

workman and as the union, who had espoused the dispute

doesn’t want to proceed with the case, it is necessary to

pass a ‘‘no dispute” award in this case and to close the

reference. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The reference may be treated as ‘‘no dispute” award.

The application filed by the management and so also the

union are made part of the award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

CGIT Case No. 93/2003

Applicant

: Late R.B.S. Prasad

(Through the Secretary FCIEA Now

B.K.N.K. Sangh, Nagpur)

Versus

Non-applicant

: District Manager (Now Area Manager,

FCI, Nagpur)

Rejoinder by the Management of Food Corporation of

India, Nagpur

That as per the order dt. 27-2-2012. the Non-

Applicant is filling the following documents.

That the Applicant viz, Shri (Late) R.B.S. Prasad,

expired on 22-4-2006 at Wardha, The attested Xerox

copy of his Death Certificate No. 62 dated 17-5-2006

issued by Gram-Panchyat, Warud, District Wardha

in enclosed here with as Annex-A

That all the dues, have already been paid to the

legal heir of Shri (Late) R.B.S. Prasad. A declaration

dtd. 22-3-2012 recived from Manager (A/Cs), FCI,

Nagpur, intimating that no amount is outstanding,

is also enclosed herewith as Annx-B

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :—

Close the case as the applicant R.B.S. Prasad is no

more.

Any other relief to which the non applicant may be

found entitled to may also kindly be granted.

Nagpur

Dated : 10-5-12

NON-APPLICANT

DISTRICT MANAGER/AREA MANAGER

F.C.I. D.O. NAGPUR

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/93/2003

Applicant: Shri RBS Prasad

Through Secretary B.K.N.K. Sangh, Nagpur

Vs.

Non Applicant: The District Manager

FCI Nagpur

APPLICATION FOR CLOSURE OF THE

CASE ON MERIT

The Applicant union most respectfully prays before

your authority that due to demise of Workman and the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6259

wife of deceased employee is not keeping good health

due to that she is unable to attend the case. Therefore,

kindly close the case on merit.

It is therefore, requested to close the case on merit.

N.S. SHUKLA, Secy, B.K. N.K. SANGH

FCI: Nagpur

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2544.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&07&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@66@2006&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 21/2007) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of WCL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 13-07-2012.

[No. L-22012/66/2006-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case.No.CGIT/NGP/21/2007 dated: 22-6-2012

Party No. 1 :

The Chief General Manager

WCL, Pench Area, PO: Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara, (MP)

Versus

Party No. 2 : The General Secretary,

R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC), PO: Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara, (MP)

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd June, 2012)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disptues 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 Parikshit

Dutta, for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 22012/66/2006-

IR (CM-II) dated 2-3-2007, with the following schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management in not

granting additional increment to Shri Parikshit Kumar

Dutta, LDC, on acquiring B.A. degree is legal &

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

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

Parikshit Kumar Dutta, (‘‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim through the union and the management

of WCL, Pench Area, (‘‘Party No.1” in short) filed its written

statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that the workman is working as

a clerk in EDC colliery, Pench Area of Western Coalfields

Ltd.and the workman passed B.A. examination in

December, 1999 from National Open University and such

result was declared in April, 2000 and according to the

policy of WCL, an employee is entitled for one advance

increment for obtaining B.A. degree and on the basis of

such policy, the workman made an application on 2-6-2000

to the Area Personnel Manager, Pench Area, for grant of

the advance increment in his favour, but as no action was

taken by the management on his application, the workman

again on 20-11-2000 gave a reminder and the same was

forwarded by the Manager of EDC colliery vide letter no.

WCL/Pench/EDC/2000.676 dated 20-11-2000 to the Area

personnel Manager, Pench Area for further action and

though on the basis of the above mentioned policy, Ganesh

Prasad and three others had been granted one advance

increment each, vide letter no. WCL/Pench/P/145/512/99

dated 27-2-1999 of the Personnel Manager, Pench Area,

the workman was not granted such increment by the

management and as such, the industrial dispute was raised.

The union has prayed to direct the management of

WCL to grant an advance increment to the workman w.e.f.

21-6-2000 and to pay the payment of the arrears.

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the reference is highly belated and the

workman has sought relief w.e.f. 2000, whereas, the present

dispute was raised only in the year 2007, after a lapse of

seven years and as such, the dispute is not maintainable,

in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC-839

(Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. Madhvan Kutti and others). It

is further pleaded by the party no. 1 that service conditions

of the employees working in the Coal Industry are

governed by provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement

(NCWA), cadre scheme made there under and provisions

6260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Standing Orders and circulars issued by the manageemnt

from time to time are also binding on the employees and

the workman claimed for grant of advance increment, for

acquiring professional qualifications as contained in para

7.8 of Chapter VII of common coal cadre, on the ground of

his obtaining B.A. degree and as according to paragraph

7.8 of Chapter-VII of the Common Coal Cadre, an employee

is entitled for an additional increment, only on the ground

of acquiring additional professional qualification, as

contained in the said chapter and as B.A. degree is not an

additional professional qualification, the workman is not

entitled to such benefit and the Coal India vide circular

dated13-3-2001 advised all the Subsidiary Companies not

to grant advance increment to any employee under the

aforsaid common coal cadre, till further decision in the

matter, because the said provision is under review and the

said circular is binding on the employees and the

management and the said circular is still in force and unless

and until, the circular is withdrawn and struck down by

the appropriate authority, the same is binding on the

workman as well as the management and as long as the

said circular is in force, the workman is not entitled to the

benefit of advance increment and he has no case.

4. In the rejoinder, the union has pleaded that the

reference is maintainable in view of the decisions of the

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2001 AIR SUW-2685 (Sapan

Kumar Pandit Vs. UP State Electricity Board and others),

AIR 2000 SC-469 (National Engineering Industrial Ltd. Vs.

State of Rajasthan) and (1984) 4 SCC-392 (Workmen

Employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever

Ltd.) and the case of the workman falls under the operation

period of NCWA VI and the workman obtained B.A.Degree

in December, 1999 and applied in 12-5-2000 for the

additional increment and as such, he is entitled for the

increment and as per item no. 10 of schedule I of Para 7.8

of Chapter VII for obtaining ‘‘Any other type of recognized

technical professional skill or proficiency relevant to Coal

Industry”, an employee is entitled for one increment and

vide circular no. 309 dated 1-9-1997, the Additional Chief

Personnel Officer (Administration), WCL, Nagpur under

approval of CMD,WCL, Nagpur sent directions regarding

grant of one increment for obtaining B.A.Degree to the

employees, to all General Managers, All Finance Manager

and all Head of Departments, Nagpur and as such, the

workman is entitled for the increment.

5. Besides placing reliance on the documentary

evidence, both the parties led oral evidence in support of

their respective claims. The workman examined himself as

a witness in support of the claims raised in the statement

of claim. One, Shri M.B. Kumbhare, Sr. Manager

(Personnel), Newton Sub Area was examined as a witness

on behalf of party no. 1. The examination-in-chief of the

workman and so also of Shri Kumbhare is on affidavit.

The workman and Shri Kumbhare have reiterated the facts

mentioned in the statement of claim and written statement

respectively. However, in the cross-examination, Shri

Kumbhare has admitted that there are provisions for grant

of one advance increment for acquiring additional

professional qualification in common coal cadre only and

one advance increment had been granted to three

employers for passing B.A. examination as per office order

dated 28-2-1999 of the Area Personnel Manager, Pench

Area and number of other employees have been granted

advance increment for passing B.A. Examination by the

management of WCL, as per documents W-22 to W-30

and the circular M-1 was issued on 13-3-2001 and the same

is applicable from 13-3-2001 and not prior to that.

6. During the course of argument, three objections

were raised by the learned advocate for the party no.1 for

disentitlement of the workman to get the advance

increment. The three objections are (i) The dispute was

raised in 2007, though relief sought for relates to the year

2000 and as such, the claim is highly belated and is not

maintainable, (ii) B.A. degree is not an additional

professional qualification. iii) The Coal India Limited issued

circular dated 13-3-2001), advising all the Subsidiary

companies not to grant advance increment to any

employee under the provisions of common coal cadre till

further decision and the said circular is still in force, so the

workman is not entitled for the increment.

7. So far the first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 regarding delay in raising the

dispute is concerned, it was submitted that in view of the

principles enunciated in the decision reported in AIR 2000

SC-389 (Supra), the claim is not maintainable. However, with

respect, I am of the view that the said decision has no

application to the present case in hand, as because,in the

case referred in the decision, seven years after his dismissal

from services, the workman raised the dispute,when two

other dismissed employees were rainstated by the bank, on

the ground of discrimination and the Hon’ble Apex Court

considering the facts have been pleased to hold that, ‘‘under

what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently

reinstated nowhere mentioned- cannot be said that

complaint made after laps of 7 years give rise to industrial

dispute or that industrial dispute could be apprehended,”

which is not the case in the present case in hand.

Moreover, in the decision reported in 2001 AIR SCW-

2685 (Supra) after taking into consideration the case

reported in AIR 2000 SC-839 (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex

Court have held that:—

‘‘U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (28 of 1947), S.4-K-

Reference -Limitation- Period envisaged by term ‘‘at any

time” in S-4-K-Terminates with eclipse of Industrial

Dispute-Facts showing that conciliation proceedings were

not concluded on date of making reference-Thus dispute

existed on that day-Referene of dispute by Govt.- Cannot

be quashed on ground of long delay.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6261

The above section is almost in tune with section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the difference between

these two provisions does not relate to the points at issue

in this case. Though no time limit is for making the reference

for a dispute for adjudication, could any State Government

receive a dispute which had submerged in stupor by long

lapse of time and re-linked making a referecne of it to

adjudication? The words ‘‘at any time” as used in the section

are prime facie indicator to a period without boundary, but

such an interpretation making the power unending would

be pedantic. There is interest evidence in this section itself

to indicate that the time has some circumscription. The

words ‘‘where the Government is of the opinion that any

industrial dispute exists or is apprehended” have to be read

in conjunction with the words ‘‘at any time”, They are in a

way, complementary to each other. The Government’s power

to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication has thus one

limitation of time and that is, it can be done only so long as

the dispute exists. In other words, the period envisaged by

the enduring experssion ‘‘at any time” terminates with the

eclipse of the industrial dispute. It therefore, means that is

the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made

by the Government it is idle to ascertain the number of

years which elapsed since the commencement of the dispute

to determine whether the delay would have exinguished the

power of the Government to make the reference.

Hence, the real test is, was the industrial dispute in

existence on the date of reference for adjudication? It the

answer is in the negative then the Government’s power to

make a reference would have exinguished. On the other

hand, if the answer is in positive terms, the Government

could have exercised the power, whatever be the range of

the period which lapsed since the inspection of the dispute.

This apart, the decision of the Government in this regard

cannot be listed on the possibility of what another party

would think whether any dispute existed or not. The section

indicates that if in the opinion of the Government the dispute

existed then the Government could make the reference. The

only authority which can from such an opinion is the

Government. If the Government decides to make the

reference there is a presumption that in the opinion of the

Government there existed such a dispute.”

8. In the decision reported in (1984) 4 SCC-392

(Workman Employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan

Lever Limited), the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex

Court have held that:—

‘‘Labour and Services- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-

Section 10 and 2(K)- Once a reference is validly made by

appropriate Government. Tribunal must adjudicate the

dispute on merits- Practice of raising preliminary objections

to the reference disapproved.

9. So, applying the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above to

the present case in hand, it can be held that the claim

made in the reference cannot be held to be a belated or

state claim and is barred by limitation and the claim is to

be decided on merit.

10. Moreover, it is clear from the materials on record

that the dispute was raised on 29-10-2002, before the

Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara on

behalf of the workman by the union. So, it cannot be said

that there was delay in raising the industrial dispute.

Hence, I find no force in the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the party no.1 on that score.

11. The second point raised by the learned

advocate for party no. 1 was that B.A. degree is not

an additional professional qualification as per para

7.8 of Chapter VII of Common Coal cadre and as such,

the workman is not entitled for the increment for

obtaining B.A. degree. However, I find no force in the

said contention, because from the documents filed by

the union and so also from the admission of the

witness examined on behalf of party no. 1, it is clear

that party no. 1 as per documents Ext. W-9 and Ext.

W-10, dated 1-9-1977 had directed to allow one

increment to the employees for obtaining B.A. degree

and party no. 1 had also granted one increment to

other employees for obtaining B.A. degree as per

documents W-22 to W-30.

12. The third contention raised by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 was that in view of the circular

dated 13-3-2001 of Coal India Limited not to grant advance

increment under para 7.8 of Chapter VII of Common Coal

Cadre, the workman is not entitled for the increment. It is

admitted that the said circular came into existence on

13-3-2001 and is has no retrospective effect. The

workman obtained B.A. degree in December, 1999 and he

applied for the increment on 21-6-2000. So, the circular of

Coal India Limited dated 13-3-2001 has no application to

the case of the workman.

In view of the materials on record and the

discussion made above, it is found that the workman is

entitled to get the advance increment for obtaining B.A.

degree from the date of application i.e. 21-6-2000. Hence,

it is ordered:—

The action of the management in not granting

additional increment to Shri Parikshit Kumar Dutta, LDC

on acquiring B.A. degree is illegal and unjustified. The

workman is entitled for one additional increment for

obtaining B.A. degree from the date of application, i.e.

21-6-2000 alongwith the arrears for grant of such

additional increment.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

6262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2545.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23 @2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@229@2004&vkbZvkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Western

Coalfields Limited, and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/229/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP /23/2005

Date: 4-6-2012.

Party No.1

: The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Western Coalfields Limited,

Umrer Area, Tah- Umrer,

Distt. Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2

: Shri Mohd. Tajuddin, General Secretary,

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union

(CITU), Coal Estate, Civil Lines,

Nagpur - 440 001.

AWARD

(Dated: 4th June, 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 Mangal

Daulat, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/229/2004-

IR (CM-II) dated 30-3-2005, with the following schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Western Coalfields Limited in relation to Umrer Area

through Chief General Manager, Umrer Area, P.O.

Umrer, Nagpur in denying protection of basic wage

of Cat.III to Shri Mangal Daulat as it existed on

25-10-1999 while posting him as General Mazdoor

in Cat.I is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the Union, ‘‘Lal Zanda Coal

Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU),’’ filed the statement of

claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Mangal Daulat (“the

workman” in short), and the management of the

WCL,(‘‘Party No. I’’ in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as projected by the union

in the statement of claim is that the workman was earlier

posted as Timber Mistry cat. IV at Kamptee Mine of Nagpur

Area and while he was working in Umrer extension of

Makardhokda Sub-Area, in the course of his employment

in the mines, on 28-12-1996, he sustained injuries in an

accident and he remained under treatment for a long period

of time and thereafter, he was referred to PPD Medical

Board for medical examination and the Board found the

workman not to be fit to work underground and

recommended for alternative duty on surface and vide

office order dated 20-8-1997, the workman was deployed

with the same designation and category at Kamptee mine

and subsequently his services were transferred to Umrer

Area vide office order dated 8-9-1999 with the same

designation and category and he was relieved from

Kamptee Mine vide office order dated 10-9-1999 and vide

office order dated 15-9-1999, the workman was allowed to

work on surface with the same designation and category

at Murpar project and he was transferred to Umrer

Extension from Murpar project vide office order dated

25-10-1999, but after joining at Umrer Extension, the party

no. 1 illegally and arbitrarily reverted the workman to the

post of General Mazdoor cat. I, without protecting his

wages of category IV and made the workman suffer loss

of wages and it was stated by the management that such

reversion was effected on the basis of the request made

by the workman, but conveniently suppressed the fact

that due to receiving of injuries by the workman in the

accident while on duty, the Medical Board declared him

unfit to do underground work and recommended for

alternative duty on surface and the workman was initially

allowed to draw wages of cat.IV for almost 13 months from

December, 1999 to December, 2000 and after the lapse of

13 months, party no. 1 started to pay his wages in the pay

scale of cat.I and such reduction of pay of the workman

goes against Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities

(Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Protection) Act, 1995, which postulates that if an employee

after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he

was holding, should be shifted to some other post with

same pay scale and service benefits and needless to

mention that In this legal background, there cannot be

any relevance to any written consent to change over to

any inferior post perforce given by the workman to remain

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6263

in service and even otherwise, the impugned action in

reducing the basic pay of the workman, consequent to his

transfer on medical advice and administrative grounds is

wholly illegal and unjustified and the workman is entitled

to pay protection and to receive the pay scale, which he

was receiving prior to his transfer.

Prayer, has been made to declare the action of party

no. 1 In denying protection of basic wages of the workman

as it existed on 25-10-1999 as illegal and to give the workman

prostection of his pay.

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the dispute is not maintainable in the eyes

of law and the claim has been filed with a view to gain

unlawful gains and various facts have been concealed by

the union and the proceeding is nothing but material

suppression of fact and misinterpretation of law and the

union has not come with clean hands and on that grounds

only, the proceeding is liable to be dismissed and the union

is not a recognized union by the management and as such,

it has no locus standi to contest the case on behalf of the

workman and on that ground also, the reference needs to

be answered in negative, being not maintainable and the

workman is presently working as a explosive carrier and

he met with an accident on 28-12-1996 at Kamptee colliery

and due to the accident, he was declared unfit for

underground work and the workman was transferred to

Umrer Area and posted at Makardhokda project and on

the request and consent given by the workman, he was

given the work of General Mazdoor on 25-10-1999 and

was posted at Murpar and on 28-10-1999, he was

transferred to Makardhokda and in his release order, it

was clearly mentioned that the post of General Mazdoor

was as per the consent of the workman and vide letter

dated 21-2-2002 issued by the personal Manager,

Makardhokda Sub-Area, the workman was released and

posted as explosive carrier and as such, there was no

deviation of the services from 1996 and in such

circumstances, the complaint filed by the workman is

devoid of substance and is liable to be rejected and the re-

designation of the workman was done as per his request

and not by on its own and as it was a consent posting,

additional benefits cannot be granted and as the declaration

of the workman was voluntary, principles of Promissory

estoppels is applicable in this case and the workman

cannot back out from the promise made by him and the

workman at the instigation of the union has raised a

fictitious claim, which has no significance in the eyes of

law and the union has categorically admitted that the

conversion was mutual and by the consent of the workman

and the conversion is not by the management for

administrative exigencies or any other reason whatsoever

and in such circumstances, the plea raised by the workman

is not tenable in the eyes of law and the said order of

reversion has become final and the workman did not

challenge the same and on the contrary, he joined in the

new post, in compliance of the said order and thereafter

he has been working in the same post and the claim of the

workman is a stale claim and the workman raised the dispute

for the first time before the ALC sometime in 2004 i.e. after

a period of over 3 years and as such, the claim cannot be

entertained and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

both the parties led oral evidence in support of their

respective claims.

The workman examined himself as a witness in

support of his claim. His examination-in-chief is on

affidavit. He has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim, in his evidence. His evidence has

remained unchallenged, as on 21-12-2010, to which date

the reference was fixed for the cross-examination of the

workman, none appeared on behalf of the party no. 1 to

cross-examine him and for that ‘‘no cross’’ order was

passed.

5. Shri Shailendra Shende, the Senior Personnel

Manager of Makardhokda Sub-Area was examined as a

witness on behalf of the party no.l. The evidence of this

witness is also on affidavit and in his evidence, he has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement filed

by the party no. 1. However, in his cross-examination, this

witness has admitted that the workman sustained injuries

while working in Kamptee colliery on 28-12-1996 and the

workman was examined by the Medical Board and was

declared unfit to work underground and the Board

recommended to give him work on surface as per the

documents, Exts W-Il and W-III respectively. This witness

has further admitted that as the Medical Board found the

workman unfit to work underground, it was not possible

to engage him in underground and by office order dated

15-9-1999, the workman was allowed to work as surface

trammer and document, Ext. W - IV is the copy of the said

order and the consent of the workman given in witting has

not been filed and as the workman was found unfit to work

in the underground, management was bound to give work

on surface, even if no written consent was given by the

workman and from December, 1999 to December, 2000,

wages of Timber Mistry, Category IV was paid to the

workman and the case of the workman is not a case of

conversion from piece rated worker to time rated worker,

with the consent of the workman.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that it is the admitted

case that the workman sustained injuries during and in

the course of his employment in the mines on 28-12-1996

and after prolonged treatment, he was referred to PPD

Medical Board for examination and after examination by

the said Board, he was found unfit to work underground

and the Medical Board recommended to give him

alternative job on surface and though the workman was

transferred to Umrer Extension from Murpar vide office

6264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

order dated 23/25-10-1999 in his existing designation and

category, after joining of the workman at Umrer extension,

party no. 1 illegally, arbitrarily reverted the workman to the

post of General Mazdoor cat. I without protecting his

wages, though the workman was initially allowed to draw

wages of cat.IV for almost 13 months from December 1999

to December 2000, but after lapse of 13 months, party

no. 1 started drawing his wages in the pay scale of cat.I

and such reduction of pay is against the provisions of

Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)

Act, 1995 and the workman is entitled to get the protection

of his wages.

In support of his contentions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2003 SCC (L & S) 482 (Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India)

and 2011 (III) CLR 976 (Dhammadip Bhaurao Mankar Vs.

Union of India).

7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 that the reference is based on

the order dated 25-10-1999 and the workman for the first

time raised the dispute before the ALC in the year 2004

and filed the statement of claim on 15-5-2007, which is

hopelessly time barred in view of the various judgments

of the Hon ’ble Apex Court 'and Hon'ble High Courts and

therefore the same is not maintainable and the re-

designation of the workman was done at the request of

the workman himself and not by the management and it

was a consent posting and as such, principles of

promissory estoppels is applicable in this case and the

order of reversion became final and the workman did not

challenge the same and on the contrary he joined the post

without any protest and therefore, the workman is not

entitled to any relief and the reference needs to be rejected.

8. So far the submission made by the learned

advocate for party no.1 regarding the claim not to be tenable

as the same is a very belated claim and the delay in raising

the dispute has not been explained is concerned, it is well

settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions reported

in 2001 AIR SCW 2685 (Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State

Electricity Board) that

‘‘U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (28 of 1947), S4-K-

Reference-Limitation- Period envisaged by term ‘‘at

any time’’ in S.4-K-Terminates with eclipse of

Industrial Dispute-Facts showing that conciliation

proceedings were not concluded on date of making

reference-Thus dispute existed on that day -

Reference of dispute by Govt.- Cannot be quashed

on ground of long delay.

The above Section is almost in tune with Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the difference

between these two provisions does not relate to the points

at issue in this case. Though no time limit is for making the

reference for a dispute for adjudication, could any State

Government receive a dispute which had submerged in

stupor by long lapse of time and re-linked making a

reference of it to adjudication? The words ‘‘at any time’’

as used in the section are prima facie indicator to a period

without boundary, but such an interpretation making the

power unending would be pedantic.

There is interest evidence in this section itself to

indicate that the time has some circumscription. The words

‘‘where the Government is of the opinion that any industrial

dispute exists or is apprehended’’ have to be read in

conjunction with the words ‘‘at any time”. They are in a

way, complementary to each other. The Government's

power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication has

thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be done only

so long as the dispute exists. In other words, the period

envisaged by the enduring expression ‘‘at any time’’

terminates with the eclipse of the industrial dispute. It

therefore, means that if the dispute existed on the day

when the reference was made by the Government it is idle

to ascertain the number of years which elapsed since the

commencement of the dispute to determine whether the

delay would have extinguished the power of the

Government to make the reference.

Hence, the real test is, was the industrial dispute in

existence on the date of reference for adjudication? It the

answer is in the negative then the Government's power to

make a reference would have extinguished. On the other

hand, if the answer is in positive terms, the Government

could have exercised the power, whatever be the range of

the period which lapsed since the inspection of the dispute.

This apart, the decision of the Government in this regard

cannot be listed on the possibility of what another party

would think whether any dispute existed or not. The

section indicates that if in the opinion of the Government

the dispute existed then the Government could make the

reference. The only authority which can form such an

opinion is the Government. If the Government decides to

make the reference there is a presumption that in the

opinion of the Government there existed such a dispute.’’

9. In the decision reported in (1984) 4 SCC-392

(Workman Employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs.

Hindustan Lever Limited), the three Judges Bench of the

Hon 'ble Apex Court has held that:—

‘‘Labour and Services- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-

Section 10 and 2 (K) - Once a reference is validly

made by appropriate Government. Tribunal must

adjudicate the dispute on merits- Practice of raising

preliminary objections to the reference disapproved.

10. So, applying the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above to

the present case in hand, it can be held that the claim made

in the reference cannot be held to be a belated or stale

claim and is barred by limitation and the claim is to be

decided on merit.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6265

11. In this case, all most all the facts are admitted by

the parties. According to the party no. 1 , as the conversion

of the workman was done basing on the consent of the

workman and such reversion was not challenged, the same

has become final and the same is not liable to be

challenged.

12. It is necessary to mention here that party no.l

has failed to produce the written consent of the workman

for his reversion. This fact has been admitted by the

witness examined on behalf of the party no. 1 in his cross-

examination. It is clear from the evidence on record that

due to the injury sustained by the workman, he was

declared unfit to work underground by the Medical Board

and the Medical Board recommended to provide light work

to him on surface and party no.1 was bound to provide

him light duty on surface. Moreover, the two office orders

filed by the party no.1 also show that the transfers of the

workman were made in his existing/ grade and scale of

pay. It is also found from the evidence on record that even

after the conversion of the workman as General Mazdoor

Cat.I, he was paid wages of Timber Mistry Cat.IV from

December, 1999 to December, 2000. The workman was never

given any chance of having his say before reduction of

his wages.

It is also found that provisions of Section 47 of the

persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities Protection

of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 are applicable

to the case of the workman.

So, applying the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the two decisions cited by the

learned advocate for the workman to the present case in

hand, it is found that the workman is entitled for protection

of his basis wages. Hence, it is order :—

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Western

Coalfields Limited in relation to Umrer Area through Chief

General Manager, Umrer Area, P.O. Umrer, Nagpur in

denying protection of basic wage of Cat.III to Shri Mangal

Daulat as it existed on 25-10-1999 while posting him as

General Mazdoor in Cat.I is illegal & unjustified. The

workman is entitled to protection of his basic wages as it

existed on 25-10-1999 and to get the arrears from January,

2001 and all consequential benefits to be accrued due to

protection of his wages.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2546.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69

@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@397@2004&vkbZvkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Western

Coalfields Limited, and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/397/2004-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP /69/2005

Date: 8-6-2012.

Party No. 1

: The Sub-Area Manager,

M/s. Western Coalfields Limited,

Kamptee Sub Area,

PO : Kamptee, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2

: The General Secretary,

Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union

Coal Estate, Civil Lines,

Nagpur - 440 001.

AWARD

(Dated: 8th June, 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 Yuvraj Zibal

Meshram, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/397/

2004-IR (CM-II) dated 18-8-2005, with the following

schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Western Coalfields Limited, Kamptee Sub Area, PO.

Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur (M.S.) in dismissing

Shri Yuvraj S/o. Zibal Meshram, Genreal Mazdoor

from service w.e.f. 14-2-1990 is legal & justified? If

not, to what relief is workman 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 Yuvraj

Meshram, (‘‘the workman’’ in short), filed the statement of

6266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claim and the management of the WCL, (‘‘Party No.1’’ in

short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he was appointed as a General

Mazdoor in the year 1980 and was posted to Kamptee Sub

Area and in the year 1985, he was appointed as a security

guard and his service record was clean and unblemished

and there was a report of theft of a gear box from Kamptee

workshop on 20-8-1989 and in connection of the said theft,

charge sheets were issued against him and two other

employees, namely, Arshad Kamal Ansari and Sheikh Ismail

Sheikh Mehboob separately and on the basis of the charge

sheet issued against him, a departmental enquiry was

conducted and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry

in a farcical manner and in utter violation of the principles

of natural justice and he was not afforded a reasonable

opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and the

findings of the enquiry officer were based on extraneous

considerations and not based on facts and the enquiry

officer totally failed to apply judicious mind and

mechanically drew the conclusions holding him guilty of

committing theft of the gear box along with the other two

workers named above and on the basis of the enquiry

report, the Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned

order of dismissal on 13-2-1990 against him.

The further case of the workmen is that out of the

three dismissed employees including himself, Shiekh Ismail

was reinstated in service with full back wages on

8-2-1996, on the basis of the agreement reached between

the management and the union (AITUC) and such

reinstatement was subjected to depositing of the entire

cost of the gear box alleged to be stolen and accordingly,

Sheikh Ismail deposited an amount of Rs. 51,000 with the

management towards the cost of the stolen property and

from the said facts, it can be safely concluded that the

person actually responsible for the theft admitted his guilt

by paying the cost of the stolen gear box and in these

circumstances, it is wholly illegal and unfair to keep him

out of service, while rewarding the guilty person by way

of reinstatement.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in

service with full back wages and all consequential reliefs.

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that while the workman was working as a security

guard at Regional workshop of WCL, instead of acting in

a diligent manner to protect the property of the employer,

involved himself in commission of theft, a grave

misconduct, resulting issuance of a charge sheet against

him and after the charges were proved against him, he was

dismissed from services w.e.f. 14-2-1990, as per the order

of the Disciplinary Authority and in the past also, the

workman was negligent in his duties, for which, he was

warned several times and his past record was not clean

and the workman in the enquiry had accepted about receipt

of several charge sheet and warning for negligence in duty.

The further case of the party no. 1 is that the charge sheet

was served on the workman on 2-9-1989 and the workman

submitted his reply on 7-9- 1989 and in the departmental

enquiry, the workman was given due opportunity to defend

himself and he was represented by his co-worker and

principles of natural justice were duly complied with by

the enquiry officer and the acts of the workman were of

the nature of involving moral turpitude and management

has lost confidence in the workman and the findings of the

enquiry officer are based on the evidence on record and the

allegations against the worker, Sk. Ismail were minor in nature

and he was not the real culprit, but the workman is the

Kingpin behind the entire episode and as such, he cannot

seek parity with Sk. Ismail. Party no. 1 has also pleaded that

the enquiry was completed in 1989 and there is 16 years

delay in making the reference and as such, the reference is

liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after holding of a departmental enquiry, the

fairness of the departmental enquiry was taken up for

consideration as a preliminary issue and as per order dated

4-11-2008, the departmental enquiry conducted against

the workman was held to be vitiated on the ground of

non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report to the

workman and party no. 1 was allowed to prove the charges

against the workman by adducing evidence before this

Tribunal.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-2008,

party no. 1 filed writ petition no. 4625 of 2009 before the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur and the Hon'ble High Court by order dated

16-4-2010, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed and set

aside the order dated 4-11-2008 and remanded the case

with a direction to decide and dispose of the reference as

expeditiously as posible a-fresh.

6. As per the directions of the Hon 'ble High Court in

WP no.4625 of 2009, the preliminary issue of the validity

of the enquiry was taken up for consideration again and

by order dated 27-9-2010, the enquiry was held to be not

proper and valid, in view of the non-supply of the enquiry

report of the enquiry officer as provided under Rules 28.10

of the Certified Standing Orders of Western Coalfields

Limited and the case was posted for hearing on the

questions of perversity of the findings and quantum of

punishment.

7. On 21-11-2010, advocate for the party no.1 filed

an application for permission to lead evidence and to prove

the charges against the workman. After consideration of

the said application, party no. 1 was allowed to adduce

evidence to prove the charges against the workman.

8. Before this Tribunal, management examined three

witnesses, namely, Vinay Kumar Mishra, Baburao Hiwarale

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6267

and Jaggu Rajan Yadav and filed the documents of the

departmental enquiry to prove the charges against the

workman. The workman examined himself as a witness in

rebuttal.

9. The English version of the charges levelled in the

charge sheet against the workman in Hindi language are

as follows:—

That on 20-8-1989, in the second shift i.e. from 4 PM

to 12 night, you were on duty as a security guard in the

Auto garage of Kamptee Sub-Area and while you were on

duty, you along with Sheikh Ismail S/o. Sheikh Mehboob,

driver, who was also on duty in the second shift on that

day committed theft of the following auto parts from the

Auto garage, the value of which was about Rs. 51,000

(rupees fifty one thousand only) complete assembled gear

box set type-GB 40 of Tata Tipper, gear box housing of

Jeep and counter shaft of gear box of Tipper, It was also

found that on that day at about 11 PM you left the place of

your duty and went to the Sub Area office, as a result of

which the garage was completely remained unguarded. In

this manner, during the period of your duty, you along

with the driver on duty committed the theft of the property

of the company which amounts to misconduct under clause

17(i) (1) of the Standing orders of the company which

deals with Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with

employer's business or property, under clause 17 (i)(3) ,

for willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone

or in conjunction with another or others, of any lawful or

reasonable order of a superior, under clause 17 (i)(7), for

habitual indiscipline, under clause 17 (i)(9) , for causing

willful damage to work in progress or property of the

employer, under clause 17(i)(16) for leaving work without

permssion or sufficient reason, under clause 17 (i) (17), for

any breach of the Mines Act, 1952, or any other Act or any

rules, regulations or by-laws there under, or of any Standing

Orders and under clause 17(i)(29) for leaving workplace

during duty hours without permssion.

10. Before delving into the merits of the matter, I

think it proper to deal with the submissions made by the

learned advocate for the party no.1 regarding the non-

maintainability of the reference on the ground of delay

and latches on the part of the workman.

In the written notes of arguments, it was submitted

by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the present

dispute is not maintainable in the eyes of law, as it suffers

from delay and latches and is purely a stale claim and the

workman was dismissed from service on 13-2-1990 and

the reference was made in the year 2005, i.e. almost after 15

years of the dismissal of the workman from services.

In support of such contentions, reliance was placed by

the learned advocate for the party no. 1 in the decisions reported

in (2006) 5 SCC-433, (U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Babu Ram), (2008) 17-

SCC-627 (U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ram Singh) and (2005) 5 SCC-91

(Haryana State Coop and Development Bank Neelang.

In the decision reported in (2006)5 SCC-433 (Supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:—

‘‘S.10-Delay in seeking reference under-Effect-Need

for raising industrial dispute within reasonable time-Onus

of showing that industrial dispute was reasonable time-

Held, no formula of universal application can be laid down

for determination of the said question - It would depend

on facts of each individual case- It is for workman

concerned to show that the dispute was raise within a

reasonable time and that he was not responsible for any

delay - Courts below must record a finding to this effect,

on the basis of materials placed on record by workman-

Delay cannot be condoned merely on surmises and

conjectures.’’

11. In the decision reported in (205) 5 SCC-91 (Supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:—

‘‘ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Ss. ll-A and 11-

Discretionary nature of power under-Importance of

conduct of workman in grant of relief-Applicability of

doctrines of estoppels, waiver, acquiescence and

acceptance sub silentio-Moulding of relief-Considerations

involved-Power of Supreme Court to legislate of universal

rule - Held, there is no proposition of law that once an

order of termination is held to be bad in law, irrespective of

any other consideration, the Labour Court would be bound

to grant relief to the workman - Aim and object of ID Act

may be to impart social justice to workman but that by

itself does not mean that irrespective of his conduct a

workman would automatically be entitled to relief-

procedural laws like estoppels, waiver and acquiescence

are equally applicable to industrial proceedings-Person in

a certain situation may even be held to be bound by the

doctrine of acceptance sub silent-Extent to which relief

can be moulded will inevitably depend upon facts and

circumstances of each case. In absence of any express

provision contained in the statute in this behalf, it is not

for the Supreme Court to lay down a law which will have

universal application - On facts, held, conduct of

respondent in approaching the labour court after more

than seven years was rightly considered a relevant factor

by it in refusing to grant relief to her-Moreover, she had

even accepted alternative employment and had been

continuing therein for 18 years- The fact that she had filed

a Writ Petition within a period of three years, and on

withdrawing the same four years later due to the availability

of alternative relief before the Labour Court, had raised an

Industrial Dispute thereafter, did not render the exercise

of discretion by the Labour Court injudicious, arbitrary or

capricious-Further held,’ having considered the equities

between the parties, this was not a fit case where the High

Court should have interfered under Art.226 with the

discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court.’’

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported

in (2008) 17 SCC-627 (Supra) have held that:—

6268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘‘A. Labour law- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- S.10-

Delay in raising dispute-Reference of dispute to Labour

Court- Delay should not be unreasonable-Delay of 13 years

in raising dispute-Held unreasonable-Fact that workman

was making repeated representations not sufficient

explanation for the delay.’’

13. So, now, the present case in hand is to be

considered with the touch stone of the principles

enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above.

On perusal of the materials on record, including the

copies of the letters dated 18-7-1991 and 9-10-1999 written

by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, (Central)-I, Nagpur to

the Sub-Area Manager, Inder & Kamptee colliery of WCL,

the letter of the workman dated 30-10-1992 to colliery

Manager, Inder colliery and letter dated 28-6-2004 written

by the Lalzanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union to the sub-

area Manager, Inder and Kamptee Colliery filed by the

workman, it is found that the industrial dispute was raised

by the workman before the ALC on 21-1-1991, soon after

his dismissal from services and there was no delay or

latches on the part of the workman to raise the dispute and

that he was not responsible for the delay in making the

reference to the Tribunal. Hence, I find no force in the

contention raised by the learned advocate for the party

no. 1 that the reference is not maintainable due to delay

and latches.

14. In the written notes of argument, it was submitted

by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that in this

case, three witnesses have been examined before the

Tribunal and in the departmental enquiry, management

witnesses, Shri Uke and Shri Humane had stated that on

21-8-1989 at 9 PM, they found the workman in Kamptee

town with some motor parts in a tin on a cycle and it is well

settled that in the departmental proceeding, strict proof of

evidence is not necessary and as such, it can be held that

the charges of theft in collusion with other employees is

duly proved against the workman.

It was also submitted in the written notes of argument

by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that during the

departmental enquiry, the workman in his statement

admitted about Sk. Ismail coming with the Tipper/Truck at

7 PM to the garage and then left the garage and that he did

not make any entry in the "In- Out register" in that regard,

which proves that the workman was not only negligent in

his duty, but was also involved in the theft and the claim

of the workman that he should be given parity with Sk.

Ismail cannot be considered, as he is the main culprit

behind the theft and management has lost confidence in

the workman.

The further contention raised by the learned

advocate for the management is that in the departmental

enquiry, management witness no. 4, Yadav had stated that

the workman came to the office at 11 PM, leaving his duty

place on the date of incident and management withess

no. 5, Vijay had stated about the workman asking him to

take charge before the 3rd shift, which shows lack of interest

of the workman in the work assigned to him and workman

admitted of committing misconducts in the past in the

enquiry and the charges before the enquiry officer were

duly proved, so the management was right in imposing

the punishment of dismissal from service.

15. On the other hand, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that party no. 1 has

failed to prove the charges against the workman and the

evidence of the three witnesses has no evidentionary value

and the evidence of the workman has remained

unchallenged and management has failed to prove the

charges against the workman and as such, the workman is

entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and

full back wages.

16. The learned advocate for the party no. 1 has

referred the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry

to hold that the charges against the workman have been

proved. However, it is to be mentioned here that as the

departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has

already been held to be not fair and on the prayer of the

party no. 1, permission was accorded to lead evidence to

prove the charges before this Tribunal, the evidence

adduced in the reference is to be considered to decide as

to whether the charges have been proved or not. The

record pertaining to domestic enquiry does not constitute

fresh evidence or evidence or material on record. Hence,

the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry cannot be

considered, while deciding as to whether the management

has been able to prove the charges against the workman.

17. So, now it is to be considered as to whether

party no.1 has been able to prove the charges against the

workman.

Witness, Vinay Kumar in his evidence has stated

that on 20-8-1989, he was working as a security sub-

inspector in Kamptee sub-area and a theft took place on

20-8-1989 in the garage of party no. 1 and accordingly, a

charge sheet dated 2-9-1989 was issued against the

workman and charge sheets were also issued against

Sheikh Ismail and Arshad Kamal Ansari and he was a

witness for the management in all the three enquiries and

his statement given in the enquiry be treated as his

evidence against the workman in this proceedings. This

witness has further stated that on 23-8-1989, he had given

a written report to the Sub Area Manager regarding theft

of gear box and some other parts from the workshop of

Kamptee Sub Area and about apprehension of the

workman, Yuvraj and Sheikh Ismail by the police on

22-8-1989 and Ext. M-II is the said report. In his cross-

examination, this witness has admitted that the theft was

committed in the 2nd shift of 20-8-1989 and he came to

know about the theft in the morning on 21-8-1989 and he

did not see the workman committing the theft and he

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6269

cannot say if any vehicle went to outside from the

workshop of the Sub Area between 4 PM to 12 night on

20-8-1989.

18. Witnesses, Waman Baburao and Jaggu Rajan

Yadav have stated that the Tribunal directed to give their

respective statement on affidavit and they had given them

their statements in the enquiry proceedings and they were

also cross-examined and their statements in the

departmental proceedings be treated as their statements

in the present proceedings also. Witness, Waman Baburao

in his cross-examination has stated that the theft was

committed on 20-8-1989, but he cannot say the time of

commission of the theft and he has no personal knowledge

about the theft.

Likewise, witness, Jaggu Rajan Yadav in his cross-

examination has stated that the workman had come to the

Sub-Area office at 10.30 PM and the workman asked his

reliever, Bijay Bahadur to take charge of the duty, but

Bijay told him to take charge at 12 night.

19. On the other hand, the workman in his evidence

has stated that he had been falsely implicated in the theft

case and he was not involved in any theft. The evidence

of the workman remained unchallenged, as none appeared

on behalf of the management to cross-examine him and

due to none appearance of anybody from the side of party

no. 1 to cross-examine the workman, on 13-3-2012, ‘‘no

cross’’ order was passed.

On assessment of the evidence adduced by both

the parties, it is found that party no. 1 has failed to prove

any of the charges levelled against the workman.

Hence, it is held that the punishment of dismissal

from services imposed against the workman is not

sustainable. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Western

Coalfields Limited, Kamptee Sub-Area, PO. Kamptee, Distt.

Nagpur (MS) in dismissing Shri Yuvraj S/o Zibal Mesram,

General Mazdoor from service w.e.f. 14-2-1990 is illegal

and unjustified.

The management of WCL is directed to reinstate the

workman, Shri Yuvraj in service with continuity from the

date of his dismissal i.e. 14-2-1990. Taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I

do not think it proper to grant full back wages to the

workman from the date of his dismissal. Due to the delay

in referring the dispute to the Tribunal, I think that payment

of 25% of' the back wages from the date of his dismissal

will meet the ends of justice in this case. So, the

management is directed to pay 25% of the back wages

w.e.f. 14-2-1990 to the workman. The workman is also

entitled to get the consequential benefits, such as,

promotion, wage fixation under the N.C.W.A. and annual

increments.

Management is directed to implement the directions

given in the award within one month from the date of

publication of the notification in the Official Gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2547.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u- ,y- lh-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSÂbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@160@2011&vkbZvkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of NLC Ltd., and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/160/2011-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday the 2nd July, 2012

Present:

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 16/2012

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),

between the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Ltd. and their Workman]

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

:1st Party/Petitioner Union

NLC Pattali Thozhil Sangam

D-10, K.N. Subburaman Salai

Neyveli-607803

Vs.

The Chairman-cum-Managing:2nd Party/Respondent

Director NLC Ltd.

Neyveli

6270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : Set Ex-parte

For the 2nd Party/Management

: M/s. T. S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide

its Order No. L-22012/160/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 20-3-2012

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of Neyveli

Lignite Corporation Ltd. in proposing the change of

increase in working hours in Administrative Office

of NLC Ltd. is justified or not? To what relief the

concerned workmen are entitled?’’

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 16/2012 and issued notices

to both sides. Second Party entered appearance through

an Advocate. Notice issued to the First Party was initially

returned with an endorsement ‘‘Door Locked’’.

Subsequently second notice issued was duly served and

acknowledgement card was received back on 11-6-2012.

Despite more than one adjournment was given thereafter

petitioner did not enter appearance to proceed with the

matter and eventually he has been called absent and set

ex-parte.

3. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action in proposing change of

increase in working hours in administrative office

of NLC is justified or not?

(ii)To what relief the concerned petitioner is entitled?

Points (i) & (ii)

4. The petitioner remaining absent and has been set

ex-parte. He has not chosen to give any evidence or to

appear before this Court to prove his claim. Needless to

say it is upon the petitioner to substantiate his case that

the action allegedly on proposal for change of increase in

working hours in administrative office of NLC is not legal

and justified, if it is actually so. When he wishes the Court

to be satisfied and made believe that it is so it is for him to

discharge that burden which has not been done. The

inevitable conclusion is that the action of the management

is only legal and justified and he is not entitled to any

order in his favour.

5. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 2nd July, 2012)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Peitioner Union : None

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2548.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y- ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] vlalksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2010) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@21@2009&vkbZvkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Dalurband Colliery,

Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. ECL, and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/21/2009-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present: SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 01 OF 2010

Parties :

The General Secy., K.M.C., Asansol (W.B.)

Vs.

The Agent, Dalurband Colliery, ECL,

Burdwan (W.B.).

Representatives:

For the Management

: Sri P.K. Goswami, Ld.

Advocate

For the Union (Workman) : Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.

Representative

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6271

Dated - 20-6-12

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), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of labour vide its letter No.L-22012/

21/2009- IR(CM-II) dated 29-12-2009 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

Dalurband Colliery, Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in denying annual increments/SLU etc.

at the time of fixation of wages while reinstating Sri Kalu

Swain, Tyndal is legal and justified? To what relief is the

concerned workman entitled?’’

Having received the Order of Letter No.L-22012/21/

2009-IR(CM-II) dated 29-12-2009 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

01 of 2010 was registered on 14-1-10 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 parties concerned.

Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Representative of the Union,

submits that the case may be closed as the workman does

not want to proceed with the case. So the case is closed

and accordingly an order of ‘‘No Dispute’’ is hereby

passed.

ORDER

Let an ‘‘Award’’ be and the same is passed as no

dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information

and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2549.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u- ,y- lh-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSÂbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2012)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@162@2011&vkbZvkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of NLC Ltd., and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 13-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/162/2011-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday the 2nd June, 2012

Present:

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 19/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947),

between the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Ltd. and their Workmen)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

:1st Party/Petitioner Union

NLC Thozhilalar Ottrumai

Maiyam 36. Haja Lane,

Gangaikondan

Neyveli-607802

Vs.

The Chairman and

:2nd Party/Respondent

Managing Director

NLC Ltd. Neyveli

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : Set Ex-parte

For the 2nd Party/Management

: M/s T.S. Gopalan &

Co., Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order No. L-22012/162/2011-IR

(CM-II) dated 20-3-2012 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of Neyveli

Lignite Corporation Ltd. in proposing the change of

increase in working hours in administrative Office of NLC

Ltd. is justified or not? To what relief the concerned

workmen are entitled to?’’

6272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 19/2012 and issued notices

to both sides. Respondent entered appearance through

his Advocate but the petitioner did not. In spite of further

notice also issued to the petitioner he has not appeared to

prosecute the claim. Eventually he has been called absent

and set ex-parte. No claim or counter statement has been

filed.

3. Points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the proposed change of increase in

working hours in the administrative office of NLC

is justified or not?

(ii)

To what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled?

Points (i) & (ii)

4. The petitioner remaining absent and has been

set-exparte. He has not chosen to give any evidence as

well by appearing before this Court to prove his claim.

Needless to say it is upon the petitioner to substantiate

his case. When he wishes the Court to be satisfied and

made believe that it is so it is for him to discharge that

burden which has not been done. The inevitable

conclusion is that the proposed change of increase in

working hours in administrative office of NLC is only legal

and justified and he is not entitled to any order in his

favour.

5. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 22nd June, 2012)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : None

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2550.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21 @2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@343@2007&vkbZvkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2550—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Western

Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/343/2007-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT /NGP /21/2008

Date: 20-6-2012.

Party No. 1 : The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Western Coalfields Limited,

Ballarpur Area, Post : Sasti,

Tah, Rajura,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

Versus

Party No. 2 : The General Secretary,

Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

C/o. Sakinala Narsayya, Opp. WCL Guest

House, Post : Sasti, Tah, Rajura,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 20th June, 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 88 workmen, (as per list

enclosed) for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/343/

2007-IR (CM-II) dated 9-7-2008, with the following

schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur

Area of M/s. WCL in denying to extend the Transfer Grant

and other admissible benefits to their 88 transferred

workmen (as per the list enclosed) is legal & justified? To

what relief are these workmen 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, "Sanyukta Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh’’, (‘the union’ in short), filed the statement

of claim on behalf of the 88 workmen and the management

of WCL, (‘‘Party No. I’’ in short) filed its written statement.

The case as presented by the union on behalf of the

88 workmen in the statement of claim is that the 88 workmen

as per the list furnished alongwith the letter of reference

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6273

were transferred by party no. 1 temporarily from Dhoptala

OCM to Gowari OCM and from Gowari OC'M to Dhoptala

OCM and from Powani OCM to Gowari OCM and from

Dhoptala OCM to Ballarpur OCM,without following the

mandatory provisions in respect of the transfer benefits

and without granting settling leave and other benefits to

them and the transfer of the 88 workmen was beyond 33

Kms from the original working place and also from one

sub mine to another sub mine and therefore, they were

entitled to transfer benefits as per the office circular .dated

28-11-1999 and the party no.l played tactics not to give the

transfer benefits to the said workmen by way of temporary

transfer, whereas, there is no provision of temporary

transfer in the Standing Orders and as such, the 88 workmen

are entitled to the transfer grant and other admissible

benefit and the action of the party no. 1 is not justified and

they demanded to give the settling leave, transfer grant,

10% HRA and additional transport subsidy to the said 88

workmen, but party no. 1 refused to fulfill the demands,

therefore, the industrial dispute was raised before the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner(Central), Chandrapur and as no

solution came out from the negotiation, failure report was

submitted by the ALC to the Central Government and the

Central Government have referred the dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

The union has prayed for a direction to party no.1 to

give transfer grant, settling leave allowance, 10% HRA

and additional transfer subsidy to the 88 workmen.

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the present case does not constitute an

industrial dispute as contemplated in section 2-K of the

Act, as because, out of the 88 workmen, in respect of

whom, the dispute has been raised, only seven workmen

are the member of the union, which has raised the dispute

and as such, the union is not entitled to represent all the

workmen and the union has neither mentioned in the

statement of claim as to whether all the 88 workmen

(wrongly mentioned as 89 in the written statement) are its

members, nor produced any documentary evidence to

demonstrate the said fact and the union has not produced

any document establishing that they have been

empowered and resolved accordingly to espouse and

champion the cause of the workmen and on this ground

alone, the reference is not maintainable. The further case

of the party no. 1 is that the word "transfer" has been

loosely used and in fact, there was no transfer, rather it

was redeployment of the concerned workmen in the

neighboring mines of the same management and Ballarpur

Area of Western Coalfields regulates the activities of eight

mines including Dhoptala OCM and Gauri area mines and

the said mines consist of necessary staff on its roll and

due to technical difficulties, excavation of coal in Dhoptala

Mine was decided to be stopped by it, as a result of which,

the staff working at Dhoptala mine became idle for couple

of days and such position was known to all the functioning

trade unions including the present union and it was decided

to utilize the idle staff of Dhoptala, by deploying them in

Gauri sub area, with a clear understanding that whenever

position to extract coal in Dhoptala mine would come in

sight, all such redeployed staff shall be brought back to

Dhoptala mine and while taking the said decision, care

was taken to keep the seniority of all the concerned

employees of Dhoptala mine in tact at Dhoptala and not to

disturb the same at all, for the purpose of their due

promotions/elevation to higher grade and there was no

change in their service conditions, except their original

place of working and the 88 workmen were working at

Dhoptala mine at the time of stoppage of mining activities

and there was no work to be provided to them and as it

was not possible to retain them in the same mine, they

were deployed in neighboring mines within a radius of

five miles and in fact, it was not a case of transfer in real

sense, as it did not cause any dislocation of their

establishment and other facilities at Dhoptala mine and

wage bills were also prepared and paid to them at Dhoptala

and their all accounts including CMPF and leave were

maintained at Dhoptala and as such, the said workmen

were not entitled for the benefits arising out of transfer

and in this view of the matter, it first came out with a notice

dated 31-3-2007, which was conspicuously displayed and

while doing the above exercise and keeping in view the

interest of the industry, care was taken that salary of all

such deployed employees were drawn at Dhoptala only

and promotions were given effect to in respect of eligible

employees amongst the group of seniority meant for

Dhoptala mine only and except change of place of working

from Dhoptala to Gauri mine, there was no change in the

service conditions and no employee was put to any

inconvenience and the workmen have already been put

back at their original place of work i.e. Dhoptala mine and

therefore, no dispute much less industrial dispute is in

existence and the workman are not entitled to any relief.

4. In support of the claim made in the statement of

claim, the union has examined Shri Ravi Wadhai, its

Secretary as a witness. This witness in his examination-in-

chief has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

in claim. In his cross-examination, this witness has

admitted that all the 88 workmen, on whose behalf the

dispute has been raised are not members of his union and

he cannot say how many of them are members of the union.

He has further admitted that due to non availability of

working field, the 88 workmen were shifted and deployed

in other mines and it was a temporary transfer and though

the 88 workmen were transferred to different mines, their

establishments were not shifted and they were staying in

their respective establishments at Dhoptala and they were

paid wages from Dhoptala and the workmen were also

promoted from Dhoptala and no documents has been filed

to show that the 88 workmen were transferred to places

situated beyond 33 kilometers and ‘‘Settling leave’’ means

6274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Joining time and for availing joining time, it is necessary

for the employees to apply for the same and no document

has been filed to show that the said 88 workmen had filed

application for availing joining time or transfer grant and

the workmen did not demand individually for payment of

HRA at the rate of 10% or the aforesaid four allowances.

No oral evidence has been adduced by party no.1.

5. It is necessary to mention here that on 1-12-2011

and thereafter, no body appeared on behalf of the union

and on 16-3-2012, orders was passed to proceed ex-parte

against the union.

6. At the time of argument, the learned advocate for

the party no. 1 submitted that the reference is vague, as

except transfer grant, the other benefits have not been

specified and the union is not competent to raise the

dispute, as the workmen, on whose behalf the dispute has

been raised are not members of the said union and there is

no authorization to raise the dispute and it is clear from

the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the

union that the concerned workmen had never made any

individual claim for the benefits and they had no grievance

and the union on its own has raised the alleged dispute

without authority and it is clear from the materials on record

that due to non availability of work at Dhoptala Mines,

the workmen were deployed in other mines and in real

sense, it was not a transfer and except the change of place

of service, the service conditions were not changed and

as per Section 25- E of the Act, an employee could be

provided alternative employment within the radius of 8

miles subject to conditions laid down and therefore, the

deployment of the concerned workmen within the radius

of 5 miles was legal and the workmen are not entitled to

any relief.

7. First of all, I will take up the contention raised by

the learned advocate for the party no.1 regarding

applicability of Section 25- E of the Act. Section 25- E of

the Act deals with payment of compensation to a workman

who has been laid off and not regarding entitlement or

otherwise of transfer benefits by a workman on transfer.

Hence, it is found that Section 25-E of the Act has no

application to this case.

8. On perusal of the entire materials on record

including the pleadings of the parties and evidence of the

witness examined on behalf of the union, it is found that in

this case, none of the concerned 88 workmen had filed any

application to grant the benefits as claimed in the statement

of claim by the union, even though submission of such

application was necessary. The union has failed to show

that the concerned workmen have authorized it to raise

the dispute. There is also no legal evidence on record to

show that any of the workmen was transferred to another

mine from Dhoptala situated beyond 32 Kilometers. It is

admitted by the witness examined on behalf of the union

that due to non availability of working field, the workmen

were shifted and deployed in other mines and it was a

temporary transfer and due to the said transfer, the

establishments of the workmen were not shifted and they

were staying in their respective establishments at Dhoptala.

In view of such admission of the witness, it is clear that

though the workmen were deployed to work in the nearby

mines of Dhoptal, there was no change in their

establishments and they were staying in their respective

establishments and as such, they were not entitled to get

transfer grant or any other benefit. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Ballarpur Area of

M/s. WCL in denying to extend the Transfer Grant and

other admissible benefits to their 88 transferred workmen

(as per the list enclosed) is legal & justified. The workmen

are not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

L-22012/343/2007-IR (C-II)

LIST OF WORKMEN

1- Jh ds- ch- dkys

2- Jh ch- ch- uxjkys

3- Jh Vh- ,e- Fksoys

4- Jh ,- ch- vyeLr

5- Jh Ogh- Mh- cksuxhjokj

6- Jh ,- ch- pkScs

7- Jh vkj- ,l- ;seqYyk

8- Jh Vh- ch- dkdMs

9- Jh ok;- Vh- fuets

10- Jh Ogh- MCY;q- jkBqM

11- Jh ,- ch- Bkdjs

12- Jh Ogh- ,y- ojHksZ

13- Jh ;q- ,u- oqaQHkkjs

14- Jh ,u- lh- vEckMs

15- Jh vCnqy ogkc

16- Jh cÙkqyk jfo y{e.k

17- Jh ,u- vkj- oqQyesFks

18- Jh MCY;q- ds- Beds

19- Jh ,l- Vh- manhjokMs

20- Jh th- Mh- jsordj

21- Jh :nzkji 'kkelqanj

22- Jh ih- ,l- >kMs

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6275

23- Jh vkj- ch- ¯iiydj

24- Jh MCY;q- ok;- pksrys

25- Jh jkeÕ;k 'kke;~k

26- Jh th- Ogh- eksghrdj

27- Jh ,l- ,p- vkpk;kZ

28- Jh ch- ,l- xqjuqys

29- Jh dklyk jkeLokeh

30- Jh vkj- ih- dkVksys

31- Jh vkj- Mh- lkriqrs

32- Jh vkj- ,l- pÂs

33- Jh ih- ts- xk;dokM

34- Jh Ogh- ih- ikydj

35- Jh Mh- >sM- Mk[kjs

36- Jh ,- ,l- jk[kqaMs

37- Jh th- th- nqcs

38- Jh Jhfuokl dkddksMs

39- Jh ,l- O;adVLokeh

40- Jh ,- ds- dkrqjs

41- Jh ,l- Ogh- oka<js

42- Jh ch- osQ- ukys

43- Jh vkj- th- Hkks;j

44- Jh Mh- ;q- oSjkxMs

45- Jh vkj- ch- jksgus

46- Jh ,l- th- ykaMs

47- Jh ih- vkj- ;sjyk

48- Jh ¯lre lkjaxe

49- Jh ,e- Ogh- Fksjs

50- Jh ,p- ,l- oqQVs

51- Jh ,e- th- [kkVhd

52- Jh ,- ,p- [kqjxs

53- Jh Mh- ,e- ckscMs

54- Jh ,e- ch- ckscVs

55- Jh th- enuÕ;k

56- Jh ds- [kkeÕ;k

57- Jh ds- y{ehukjk;.k

58- Jh ,l- ,u- tkuos

59- Jh ,u- th- ok?ks

60- Jh ,- vkj- dksMkis

61- Jh ,- vkj- ukxrksMs

62- Jh Lkh- ,e- eqlys

63- Jh ,l- ,u- dksjkls

64- Jh ,p- vkj- cSal

65- Jh Vh- Ogh- fofgjxVs

66- Jh ,- vkj- mekys

67- Jh jkeLokeh xksan;kyq

68- Jh ih- ih- jkmr

69- Jh Ogh- ih- oSjkxMs

70- Jh vkj- ,u- dkrksjs

71- Jh Ogh- Mh- lkyos

72- Jh ¯prkyk eksaMÕ;k

73- Jh ,u- MCY;q- lksuous

74- Jh Hkkmjko ckj¯lxs

75- Jh lqfuy dyEcs

76- Jh th- Hklkjdj

77- Jh ,u- vkj- cqjMdj

78- Jh Ogh- ,y- nkaMsdj

79- Jh Ogh- ds- cko.ks

80- Jh ch- ts- cksHkkVs

81- Jh ,l- ,y- vkLoys

82- Jh fujatu ¯yxÕ;k

83- Jh th- >sM- ipkjs

84- Jh vkj- ,l- ftyVs

85- Jh vkj- vkj- lqanjfxjh

86- Jh HkSÕ;k Mgkjs

87- Jh ih- ch- bleiYyhokj

88- Jh Hkksxk izYgkn

6276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2551-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26 @2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@15@2002&vkbZvkj(lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.

26/2003) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Ballarpur

Area of Western coalfields Ltd., and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/15/2002-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT /NGP/26/2003

Date : 21-06-2012

Applicant

Shri Madan Singh, President,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

Qrt. No. 86/4, Ballarpur Colliery,

PO & Tah. Ballarpur, Distt.

Chandrapur (MS).

Versus

Opposite Party

The Chief General Manager,

Ballarpur Area of WCL,

PO & Tah. Ballarpur, Distt.

Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 21st June, 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 Western Coalfields Limited and the

applicant, Shri Madan Singh, President, Koyala Shramik

Sabha (HMS) for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/

15/2002-IR (CM-II) dated 22-11-2002, with the following

schedule :—

‘‘Whether the action of management of Ballarpur

area of Western Coalfields Ltd., in converting the

loaders of Sasti U/G Colliery Ballarpur U/G Colliery

3 & 4 pits from piece rated category to time rated

category (as per list enclosed) resulting in to loss of

pay to the concerned workmen without notice u/s

9A is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the

concerned workman entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the union, “Koyla Shramik

Sabha” (HMS) (“the union” in short) filed the statement

of claim on behalf of all the 346 workmen, (as per list) and

the management of WCL,(‘‘Party No. 1’’ in short) filed its

written statement.

3. Before proceeding further, I think it necessary to

mention here that the Central Government as per letter No.

22012/15/2002 dated 22-11-2002 had referred the industrial

dispute for adjudication without the list of the 346 workmen.

So the union took up the matter with the appropriate

authorities and the Central Government vide their letter

dated 20-12-2005 referred the dispute with a substituted

schedule (furnishing the list of the workmen) for

adjudication. It will not be out of place to mention here

that the Party No. 1 challenged the addition of list of the

workmen with the schedule of reference, before the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,

Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 5240 of 2006 and the Hon’ble

High Court by order dated 19-12-2006 dismissed the Writ

Petition holding that :

“Thus only by adding name of some loaders, the

nature of dispute does not undergo any change. The order

of reference clearly shows that the Conciliation Officer

has tried to conciliate between the parties and submitted

failure report. There is no non-application of mind. Writ

Petition is thus dismissed. No Cost.”

4. The case as projected in the statement of claim by

the union is that it is a registered trade union and Party

No. 1 is a company owned and controlled by the Central

Government and the management of subsidiaries of Coal

India Limited are not competent to change the service

conditions, wage structure, minimum increase/monetary

benefits and seven NCWAs have been signed by the JBCCI

and most of the workmen involved in the instant dispute

were appointed as piece rated loaders in group-V-A of

NCWAs and some of them were appointed even prior to

commencement of NCWAs and they were converted as

time rated workers in accordance with the requirement of

management and exigencies of job, as per the orders of

Party No.1 dated 6/7-08-1999, 2/5-09-1999, 27-07-1999,

15-01-1989, 30-07-2000, 18/22-07-2000, 26-02-1999,

1/7-02-1999 and 27-07-1999 as per man power budget,

without issuing any notice under Section 9-A of the Act

and due to such conversion of the workmen, their wages

(basic + SPRA) was reduced and the action of Party No. 1

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6277

was illegal and arbitrary and against the statutory

provisions of the Act and the benefits granted under the

NCWAs and it is clear from the orders of conversion of

the workmen that at the time of their conversion, they

were not given the benefit of protection of their pay and

as per the provisions of clause 21.1 of the Certified

Standing Orders, the pay, grade and other conditions of

services are not to be disturbed in case of the transfer of a

workman to exigencies of work from one coal mine to

another or from one establishment/department/section to

another and any change of service condition of the

workman contrary to the same is illegal. It is further pleaded

by the union that due to rapid mechanization of

underground mines, by way of introduction of SDL and

LHD and due to introduction of voluntary retirement

schemes, natural wastage due to death, resignations,

accidental death and dismissal, number of piece rated

workmen became surplus, whereas, there was shortage of

time rated workmen, for which, the piece rated workmen

were converted into time rated workmen, as per the decision

of the functional Directors of the company and such

conversion amounted to transfer and as such, their pay,

grade and other service conditions should not have been

protected and in South Eastern Coalfields Limited having

its Headquarters at Bilaspur (M.P.) while converting the

piece rated workers to time rated workers, gave protection

of their wages was protected and there was a settlement

between the management of WCL and the union, RKKMS

(INTUC), Nagpur on 02-11-1992, before the ALC, to give

pay protection to the workmen at the time of conversion

of the piece rated workman to time rated category and the

settlement dated 02-11-1992 is still in operation and the

same has neither been amended not has been withdrawn

and in view of the said settlement, basic pay and special

piece rate allowance of the 346 workmen have to be

protected and on 05-07-1996, management of Chandrapur

Area of WCL signed a memorandum of settlement in form

No. H with RKKMS union to give protection of group

wages and SPRA to 174 piece rated loaders and to pay

arrears arising out of such settlement and the 346 workmen

are entitled to protection of wages and SPRA.

5. The Party No.1 in its written statement, besides

pleading in detail about the illegality and impropriety of

making the reference by the government and especially

adding the list of 346 workmen to the schedule of reference

has pleaded inter alia that in order to regulate and manage

the problems of conversion of the loaders from piece rate

to time rate policy decisions had been taken by it from

time to time, to the full knowledge of the unions and the

workers and initially, when the piece rated loaders were

being deployed in time rated categories, they were being

paid at the initial basic of the time rated categories,

irrespective of the reasons of deployment and in 1987, the

Addl. CPM vide letter dated 16/19-01-1987 issued guideline

in this respect in terms of which the wages of the piece

rated loader were to be determined and fixed under different

circumstances and such a decision directive was not

protested and the same remained in force for a long time

and due to the strike notice served by RKKMS union over

several issues including the conversion of piece rated

workers to time rated monthly rated posts, a settlement

was signed on 02-11-1992 and in the said settlement, the

issue of conversion from piece rate to time rate was

resolved with certain conditions, but as difficulties were

experienced in implementation of the settlement,

management decided to terminate the said settlement and

issued notice for termination of the same in accordance

with law and before taking final action upon the notice,

there was discussion, between the management and the

union and an agreement was reached on 31-10-1995,

whereby the settlement dated 02-11-1992 was modified

and intimation of this modification was circulated to all

the ALC(C) in whose jurisdiction, the modification was

applicable and to all the areas for implementation and this

modification was not challenged by any union or worker

and after the agreement dated 31-10-1995, all cases of

conversion from piece rate to time rate are being regularized

in terms of the said agreement and there might be some

deviations at some places, due to oversight and error. The

further case of the Party No.1 is that vide office orders

dated 6/7-08-1989 and 2/5-09-1999, the conversion was

done in accordance with the modified settlement and policy

decision of the Director (P) and in the orders, the categories

and rates of wages which were to be paid to the concerned

persons had been specifically indicated and the orders

were complied by the workers without protest and if they

had any objection, then they could have been put back in

to their original job and by office order No. 671 dated

27-07-1999, 18 workmen were converted from piece rated

to time rated workers and their case is already pending

adjudication in reference case No. 68/2002 and therefore,

inclusion of the case of the said 18 workmen in this case is

ab-initio void and all the said workmen opted for time rated

jobs, where in, they had specifically stated of their not

claiming protection of wages and their cases were disposed

of in accordance with the modified settlement and they

did not raise any objection about their fixation of wages

which were specifically mentioned in the office order and

workmen at serial nos. 25 to 53 in the list were converted

from piece rate to time rate as per office order 202/38 dated

15-01-1989, about 15 to 16 years back and in the said office

order, there was specific mention of their wages being

fixed in time rated categories, which was never protested

and they have been drawing their time rated wages without

protest since such a long time and their claim being belated

deserves to be rejected and office order 1996 dated 30-07-

2000, relates to 95 workmen and in this order, it was

mentioned that their group wages and SPRA would be

maintained and there is no dispute in regard to these cases

and the cases of the workmen as per office order no. 2255

dated 18/22-07-2000 were regularized under the principle

evolved in terms of clause 1.4 of the settlement dated

6278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

02-11-1992 and they had also opted for time rated jobs and

there was no protest from the concerned workmen against

their aforesaid conversion and by office order No. 723

dated 26-02-1999/04-03-1999, the conversion of the

workmen was made on the basis of attendance in

accordance with clause 1.4 of the settlement dated

02-11-1992 and further modification dated 30-10-1995 and

in the order, their fixation of pay at the midpoint of the

respective categories had been specifically mentioned and

the concerned workmen had complied with the office order

without any objection and no breach of any law was

committed and office order 37/397 dated 1/7-02-1998 was

only in the form of an offer and acceptance, but not of

actual conversion and therefore, the question of violation

of any settlement or rules does not arise and letter no.

1304 dated 27-07-1999 was written by Manager of Wirur

Area to Supdt./Manger of Mines, Sasti Colliery furnishing

the details of the piece rated loaders, who were converted

to time rated categories and transferred to Sasti Colliery

and in fact their conversion was not done by the

management of Sasti Colliery, to which, the reference

relates and therefore, it falls outside the terms of reference

and from the analysis of the said office orders, it is noted

that the concerned loaders had been converted to time

rated categories on different dates and under different

background and some of them had been regularized, some

had opted and some had expressed willingness to work in

time rated categories and in respect of some of them

reference is already pending before this Tribunal and some

of them had been given wage protection and had all these

cases been brought to its notice, during conciliation, it

could have examined and answered them suitably and the

legal complication could have been avoided and the

conversion was made in accordance with the relevent

settlement/agreements and policy decisions and there has

been no breach of any law or service condition, warranting

notice U/s 9. A of the Act and the workmen are not entitled

either for protection of group wages or any other relief.

6. It is necessary to mention here that during the

pendency of the reference, on 11-07-2011, the learned

advocate for the union files a Pursis of no instruction and

to allow him to withdraw the power. In view of the pursis

and in the interest of natural justice, order was passed to

issue notice to the petitioner. In compliance to the said

order, notice was sent to the petitioner in his given address

by RP with AD, but the notice returned back without

service, with endorsement of the Postal Department that

the addressee had already left the place. As no other

address was available with the Tribunal, on 07-09-2011,

order was passed to proceed with the case ex- parte against

the petitioner.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for Party No.1 that the burden was on

the union to establish their claim but the union did not

appear in the reference and did not adduce any evidence

and the union had left the matter halfway and the reference

made by the Central Govt. is ab-initio void and invalid,

because in respect of some of the workers reference had

already been made in reference case No. CGIT ‘NGP’

68/2002 and the conversion of the workmen was made in

accordance with the settlement dated 31-10-1995 and the

policy of the company and there was no contravention of

any law and as such, the workmen are not entitled for any

relief.

It is well settled that when 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.

In this case, the union has challenged the orders of

conversion of the workmen, but no evidence has been

adduced to show that the orders were illegal. Hence the

reference cannot be answered in favour of the union.

Hence it is ordered :

ORDER

The reference is answered in negative. The

concerned workmen (as per list attached to this award) are

not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

List of following Loaders/workers of Ballarpur

Colliery 3/4 pits and Sasti U/G who were converted from

piece Rated to Time Rated Catagory.

Sr.

Name of Employee

Designation

Catagory

No.

of Which

Converted

(1)

Ballarpur Colliery Office Order-Ref. No. Vekoli/

BA/BC/54-A/Hi-725. dt. 6/7-8-1999

Shri Sharif Ahmmad

H.T.T

Shri Gulab Mithailal

H.T.T

Shri Dabbetla Satya-

H.T.T

narayan

Shri Omprakash

H.T.T

Dhudnath

(2)

Office Order Ref. No. Vekoli/BA/BC/53/Hi-810

dt. 2/5-09-1999

Shri Kamlaprasad Yadav

Cableman

III

Shri Kamruddin

Cableman

III

Fakhrudding

(3)

Office Order Ref. No. Vekoli/BA/ BC/ 54-1-A/HI-

671 dt. 27-07-1999

Shri Anand Madnaiah

Trammer

III

Shri Sunil Laxman

Ele. Helper

Endhuri

Shri Shivpujan Ramnath H.T.T.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6279

10.

Shri Bhanji S. Chaple

Cap. Helper

11.

Shri Dharampal Sailani H.T.T.

12.

Shri Shrinivas Sakal Eram Trammer

III

13.

Shri Sanjay M. Boyniwar Trammer

III

14.

Shri Gurjala Lingaiah

H.T.T.

15.

Shri Bhanudas Darla

H.T.T.

Ashalu

16.

Shri Balkishan Atmaram

Trammer

III

17.

Shri Ramesh Jagmohan

Trammer

III

18.

Shri Kirthikumar Murlidar Expo. Carrier

19.

Shri Ageshwar Sukha

H.T.T.

20.

Shri Kamleshkumar

H.T.T.

Ramsanjeevan

21.

Shri Bansilal Lalli

Cableman

III

22.

Shri Prassannakumar

H.T.T.

Narayan

23.

Shri Suresh Kumar

Gen. Maz

Swamidin

24.

Shri Ramesh Ramilla

Gen. Maz

Venkati

(4)

Office Order Ref. No. WCL/BC 202/38 dt. 15-01-1989

25.

Shri Ashok Govindrao

Gen. Maz

26.

Shri Ramlal Omprakash

Gen. Maz

27.

Shri Nakhroo Khichroo

Gen. Maz

28.

Shri Sivashankar

Gen. Maz

Chhotelal

29.

Shri Rambahadur Lotan

Gen. Maz

30.

Shri Kankaiya Lingloo

Gen. Maz

31.

Shri Vithal Mallaya

Gen. Maz

32.

Shri Sukhupd. Namdeo

Gen. Maz

33.

Shri Shio Basantoo

Gen. Maz

34.

Shri Lalchand Ramnihore Gen. Maz

35.

Shri Thandaram Brijlal

Gen. Maz

36.

Shri Shiodas Guljarilal

Gen. Maz

37.

Shri Engurala Rajeshwar

Gen. Maz

38.

Shri Sidhnath Kuware

Gen. Maz

39.

Shri Framallu Narsaiah

Gen. Maz

40.

Shri Manyah Railingu

Gen. Maz

41.

Shri Shankar Hasmkar

Gen. Maz

42.

Shri Parasnarayan Sohan Gen. Maz

43.

Shri Itwarilal Metheram

Gen. Maz

44.

Shri Girdhari Laxman

Gen. Maz

45.

Shri Samnaya Mallaya

Gen. Maz

III

46.

Shri Milind Moreshwar

Gen. Maz

III

Gade

47.

Shri Gausmiya

Gen. Maz

III

Md. Ankush

48.

Shri Premdas Balaya

Gen. Maz

III

49.

Shri Dipchand Durbal

Gen. Maz

III

50.

Shri Lodhi Sahtoo

Gen. Maz

III

51.

Shri Namdeo Poonam

Gen. Maz

III

52.

Shri Ramesh Bhadraya

Gen. Maz

III

53.

Shri Shankar Motiram

Gen. Maz

III

(5)

Office Order Ref. No. WCL/BA/BC/54-A/1996

dt. 30-07-2000

54.

Shri Shiocharan Chunkai

Gen. Maz

55.

Shri Bajrangi Daulat

H.T.T.

56.

Shri Shyamnarayan

Cableman

III

Nankoo

57.

Shri Bhaiyalal Rami

H.T.T.

58.

Shri Ramgati Zurl

Gen. Maz

59.

Shri Ramjanam Samaroo

Cableman

III

60.

Shri Angnoo Shibodahan Cableman

III

61.

Shri Ramlal Shionandan

Cableman

III

62.

Shri Dinanath Birja

H.T.T.

63.

Shri Surajpal Nathu

Site. Cew

64.

Shri Ramasre Budhawa

H.T.T.

65.

Shri Chunna Subroo

Gen. Maz

66.

Shri Indrapal Ramkisan

S.T.T.

67.

Shri Morodhwaj

H.T.T.

Mohabat

68.

Shri Baori Faujdar

H.T.T.

69.

Shri Rajjan Angnoo

H.T.T.

70.

Shri Kamta Chunna

S.T.T.

71.

Shri Vijay Puni

Exp. Carrier

72.

Shri Ramgarib Sampat

Cableman

III

73.

Shri Paltan Sumer

Cableman

III

74.

Shri Babulal Jagannath

P. Kha

75.

Shri Kankutla Odeloo

H.T.T.

76.

Shri Sangala Komaraiah

Cableman

III

77.

Shri Pitambar Matadin

Gen. Maz

78.

Shri Sugriv Haricharan

Gen. Maz

79.

Shri Ramkrit Zunnoo

Cableman

III

80.

Shri Jagmohan Chunna

H.T.T.

81.

Shri Surajdin Dukhi

H.T.T.

82.

Shri Ramlal Chedilal

H.T.T.

83.

Shri Rambrich Fulchand

Gen. Maz

84.

Shri Ramji Shiodas

Cableman

III

85.

Shri Ramdin Mahadeo

H.T.T.

6280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

86.

Shri Ramkesh Saideo

Mason

87.

Shri Baiju Ramdhani

Mason

88.

Shri Yenmulla Ralmalloo

Body Sear

89.

Shri Anjuri Zumeri

S.T.T.

90.

Shri Badri Ramprasad

Gen. Maz

91.

Shri Chotelal Deoraj

T. Maz

92.

Shri Pullar Budhu

H.T.T.

93.

Shri Laxminarayan Motilal

Cableman

III

94.

Shri Suresh S. Khandale

Trammer

III

95.

Shri Ramsurat Zunoo

Cableman

III

96.

Shri Ramdulas Bira

Cableman

III

97.

Shri Kalloo Rambisal

Gen. Maz

98.

Shri Dukhiram Doman

Driller

99.

Shri R. B. Jha

Cableman

III

100.

Shri Matabadal Bhagwat

Gen. Maz

101.

Shri Sadola Darsan

S.T.T.

102.

Shri Sriram Prahlad

H.T.T.

103.

Shri

104.

Shri Srikantpd Rambrich

S.T.T.

105.

Shri Rajaiya Komraiah

Gen. Maz

106.

Shri Basudeo Sukroo

Cableman

III

Yadav

107.

Shri Ramprasad Sadloo

Cableman

III

108.

Shri Gharbaran Dashrath

S.T.T.

109.

Shri Mallesh Kottur

S.C.

110.

Shri Rambharose Kalidin

H.T.T.

111.

Shri Mukhalal Ram Pd.

S.C

112.

Shri Ramkisan Mangriya

S.C

113.

Shri Ashok Shyamlal

H.T.T.

114.

Shri Badalwa Malkoo

Gen. Maz

115.

Shri Sumer Loku

Ash. Maz

III

116.

Shri Shardapd. Mathura

Cableman

III

117.

Shri Nankawna Ganoshi

Cableman

III

118.

Shri Isaque Khan

Gen. Maz

119.

Shri Bhola Badalwa

H.T.T.

120.

Shri Chedu Mitalwala

Site. Crew

121.

Shri Rampal Pachhu

H.T.T.

122.

Shri Gauri Shankar

Cableman

III

Sitaram

123.

Shri Santoo Ramnandan

Gen. Maz

124.

Shri Shyamlal Munna

H.T.T.

125.

Shri Balchand Bandan

Cableman

III

126.

Shri Ramadhar Zapola

H.T.T.

127.

Shri Wahabuddin

Gen. Maz

Azmuddin

128.

Shri Ramkripal Baura

H.T.T.

129.

Shri Nankoo Sukroo

Cableman

III

130.

Shri Bhagwandin Bhairma

H.T.T.

131.

Shri Jugilal Chetanpd.

M. Maz

132.

Shri Chedilal Shiomangal

Gen. Maz

133.

Shri Shoshankar

Pump. Kha

Shionayak

134.

Shri Babadin Nanku

M. Maz

135.

Shri Gajodhar Matadin

S. C

136.

Shri Prahlad Gokul

H.T.T.

137.

Shri Munnilal Gilori

Trammer

III

138.

Shri Dalmuni Kalloo

H.T.T.

139.

Shri Mewalal Shree

Cableman

III

140.

Shri Cheitu Badlu

D. Maz

141.

Shri Badloo Sewak

B. Searcher

142.

Shri Nakroo Klichroo

H.T.T.

143.

Shri Ramgopal Gopi

Trammer

III

144.

Shri Kanai Pritam

S.C

145.

Shri Basant Jadu

Cableman

III

146.

Shri Chandrahit Methoo

Gen. Maz

147.

Shri Prakash Sukhlal

Gen. Maz

148.

Shri Odaya Mallaiah

Gen. Maz

(6)

Sasti Colliery Office Order Ref. No. WCL/SC/6-

F/ 2255 dtd. 18/22-07-2000

149.

Shri Raghunath Vithu Ku

D. Tranner

150.

Shri Kabwala

Driller

Ramaswamy

151.

Shri Bisal

Inspector

III

152.

Shri Yehnada Pocham

Dresser

III

Mallaya

153.

Shri Sham Shoram

Tim. Mazdoor

Channe

154.

Shri Undeu Matkra

Gen. Maz

155.

Shri lunjipelli

Cableman

III

156.

Shri Madgulla Ailava

S. P. Mazdoor

157.

Shri Chandraya Bandel

Body Searcher

158.

Shri Chiti Hamnaya

Driller

159.

Shri Rameshchandra

Screen Tram

III

Bhaggu

160.

Shri Abdul Husain

Driller

161.

Shri Ramkisan Chotelal

Cableman

III

162.

Shri Dharampal Kallu

T. R. Maz.

Varma

163.

Shri Ramashraj

Tub. Pusher

III

Shiomangal

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6281

164.

Shri Bhola Pannu

Cableman

III

165.

Shri Ramsaran Wasudeo

Pump. Operator

166.

Shri Ansar Ahmad

S. P. Maz.

167.

Shri Chandraya Prema

Gen. Maz

168.

Shri Odel Madnaya

Tub. Pusher

III

Eraya

169.

Shri Sattaya Sunkar

Driller

l70.

Shri Yellaya Chandraya

S. P. Maz

171.

Shri B.H. Walke

Driller

172.

Shri Sudhakar T. Channe. Pump. Optr.

173.

Shri Junjipelli Ralnarsu

Trammer

III

174.

Shri Shankar Bhandari

S. P. Maz

175.

Shri Wasudeo Ramaji

Driller

176.

Shri Kisan Dadaji

Tub. Pusher

III

177.

Shri Chotepal Hublal

Cableman

III

178.

Shri Vilas Madhukar

Cableman

III

Sakinala

179.

Shri Rainarsu Railingoo

Tim. Maz

180.

Shri Farzan Nizamuddin

Exp. Carrier

181.

Shri Dandu Yeshwant

Cableman

III

Yele

182.

Shri Jainath Dishambar

Cableman

III

183.

Shri Parma Shama Dubber

Exp. Carrier

184.

Shri Janardhan R. Jiwne

Cableman

III

185.

Shri Bairu Laxman

Cableman

III

186.

Shri Dhansraj Sadashio

S. P. Maz

Thamke

187.

Shri Landu Ganpat

Tub. Pusher

III

Itankar

188.

Shri Tarachand

Cableman

III

K. Pendor

189.

Shri Mukunda

Cableman

III

Sitaram Jiotode

190.

Shri Parshuram Sanupa

Cableman

III

191.

Shri Ramesh Jairam Bele

S. P. Maz

192.

Shri Jagatpal Rampal

Pump Optr.

193.

Shri Kisan Raoji

Tub. Pusher

III

Wadaskar

194.

Shri Dilip Shamrao

S. P. Maz

Itankar

195.

Shri Dasar Tirupathi

B. Searcher

Mondaya

196.

Shri Yelpula Pocham

Cableman

III

Bondyaloo

197.

Shri Soddu Lachmaya

Driller

198.

Shri Madhao Munna

Dresser

III

199.

Shri Chandraya Mallaya

Tub. Pusher

III

200.

Shri Yelpula Rainwillu

H. Trammer

201.

Shri Deshraj Shiosabaya

Cableman

III

202.

Shri Ramsanehi Maiku

Gen. Maz

203.

Shri Ramesh Keshao

Tub. Pusher

III

Rani

204.

Shri Mahadeo V. Kude

Cableman

III

205.

Shri Raimallu Rajan

H. Trammer

206.

Shri S. V Gurnule

Cableman

III

207.

Shri Bandi Yenkat Narsa

H. Trammer

208.

Shri Jamunaprasad

Cableman

III

Ramsajiwan

209.

Shri Nathu Shital

Cableman

III

210.

Shri Kamta Garibdas

Cableman

III

211.

Shri Darshrath Sunkar

Cableman

III

Ramaya

212.

Shri Ande Rajelia

Gen. Maz

Pocham

213.

Shri Deokumar Lala

H. Trammer

214.

Shri Krishana R. Yadao

Roof Stit Crew

215.

Shri Prakash

Trim. Maz

Ramaswamy

216.

Shri Ramadhar

Fan Operator

S. Tandan

217.

Shri Ramsaran Ganayam

Roof Stit Crew

218.

Shri Bigau Basant Timal

Expl. Carner

219.

Shri Witenera Patkula

Line. Maz.

220.

Shri Kade Mallesh

Gen. Maz

Sattaiah

221.

Shri Shrinivas Narsaiah

Line. Maz.

Bijari

222.

Shri Banthu

Trim. Maz

Venkataswami Narsaiah

223.

Shri Gopal Sukhdeo

Exp. Carrier

Pandey

6282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

224.

Shri Shekh Mukhtiyar

Trim. Maz

Peergulab

225.

Shri Gotte Rajeshwar

Trim. Maz

Bhumaiah

226.

Shri Raselli Komralah

Tub. Pusher

III

227.

Shri Digutla Mallaiah

Trim. Maz

228.

Shri Regula Chandra

Pum. Operator

Reddy

229.

Shri Kolluri Ramesh

Tub. Pusher

III

230.

Shri Narottamsigh

Surve. Maz.

Sundersingh

231.

Shri Shankar

S. P. Maz

Girgule

232.

Shri Shankar

Elect. Helper

Ramaswami Raola

233.

Shri Sanjay Manik

Helper

Dasarwar

234.

Shri Balaji Shrawan

Dresser

III

Pimpalkar

235.

Shri Errandula Sarraya

Pump. Operator

236.

Shri Gunti Sampathi

Tub. Pusher

III

Rainarsu

237.

Shri Mansingh Lalbua

Gen. Maz

238.

Shri Mangali

Cableman

III

Shankaraiah

239.

Shri Pol Ramdoo Yenkati

Gen. Maz

240.

Shri Rampyare

Roof Stif. Crew

Shiodayal

241.

Shri Ramesh

Line Maz.

Fakroo Sao

242.

Shri Ramasajiwan

Cableman

III

Ramaotar

243.

Shri Shalikrao

Pump. Optr.

Kashinath

(7)

Office Order Ref. No. WCL/SC/6-E/723 dtd.

26-02-1999

244.

Shri Kamtam

Cableman

III

Bhumaya Pocham

245.

Shri Donta Rajam

S. P. Maz.

Balaya

246.

Shri Yelpula Pocham

Cableman

III

Bondiyaloo

247.

Shri Boddu Lachma

Driller

Pocham

248.

Shri Pol Ramdoo

Gen. Maz.

Yenkati

249.

Shri Madhao Munna

Dresser

III

250.

Shri Chandraya

Tub. Pusher

Mallaya

251.

Shri Yelpula Raimallu

Hau. Tram

Nataya

252.

Shri Samudrala Lachma

Dresser

III

253.

Shri Desraj Shosahay

Cableman

III

254.

Shri Ramsanchi Maiku

Gen. Maz

255.

Shri Ramesh

Tub. Pusher

III

Keshao Raut

256.

Shri Mahadeo

Cableman

III

Vishwanath Kude

257.

Shri Onkarsingh

Tim. Maz.

Shankarsingh

258.

Shri Pullur Durgayya

Tub. Pusher

III

259.

Shri Raimallju Rajam

Hau. Tram.

260.

Shri Dontamalla Rajam

Tub. Pusher

III

Lachmaya

261.

Shri Karke Shrinivas

S. P. Maz.

Reddy

262.

Shri S.V. Gurnule

Cableman

III

263.

Shri Bandi Yenkatnarsa

Rau. Tram

Ramaya

264.

Shri Nirwatla Kistaya

Rau. Tram

Pocham

265.

Shri Jamuna Prasad

Cableman

III

Ramsajiwan

266.

Shri Rampayare

Roof Stif. Maz.

Shodayal

267.

Shri Nathu Sheetal

Cableman

III

268.

Shri Kamta Garib Das

Cableman

III

269.

Shri Dashrth Sunkar

Cableman

III

Ramaya

270.

Shri Ande Rajuvella

Gen. Maz

Pocham

271.

Shri Ramaswaroop

Cableman

III

Mahadeo

272.

Shri Mathamg Yellaya

Singleman

273.

Shri Deokumar Lala

Hau. Tram.

274.

Shri Erki Banayya

Tim. Maz.

III

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6283

(8)

Office Order Ref. No. WCL/SC/37/397 dt. 1/7-02-1998

275.

Shri Shankar

Gen. Maz

Kashinath Bhandari

276.

Shri Sharad Bakloo

Gen. Maz

Reddy

277.

Shri Ganesh Bhandari

Gen. Maz

278.

Shri Deokumar Lala

Gen. Maz

279.

Shri D. R. Shende

Gen. Maz

280.

Shri Ramchandra

Gen. Maz

Maroti Itankar

281.

Shri Nathu Namdeo Zade Gen. Maz

282.

Shri Suresh

Vishwanath Kale

Gen. Maz

283.

Shri Ankush

Gen. Maz

Lachmayya Barre

284.

Shri Dhanraj

Gen. Maz

Sadashio Thamke

285.

Shri Dadaji Vasudeo

Gen. Maz

Atkare

286.

Shri Devidas

Gen. Maz

B. Dewalkar

287.

Shri M.S. Jiotode

Gen. Maz

288.

Shri Anil Madhukar

Gen. Maz

Deshpandey

289.

Shri Dilop Dhondu

Gen. Maz

Mathankar

290.

Shri Manoj Mondi

Gen. Maz

291.

Shri Amarsingh

Gen. Maz

Ballusingh Rathod

292.

Shri Yeshwant Kisan

Gen. Maz

Bhongre

293.

Shri Kankutla Mondi

Gen. Maz

294.

Shri Tirupathi Bapurao

Gen. Maz

295.

Shri Poonam Chand

Gen. Maz

Ramnath

296.

Shri Inayat Hussain

Gen. Maz

297.

Shri Chintala

Gen. Maz

Mallesh Rajaya

298.

Shri Kisan Raoji

Gen. Maz

Wadaskar

299.

Shri Dilip Shamrao

Gen. Maz

Itankar

300.

Shri Devidas

Gen. Maz

Nago Nale

301.

Shri Erki Banaya

Gen. Maz

Kistaya

302.

Shri Mangal

Gen. Maz

Shankaraiah Lingloo

303.

Shri Ramkewal

Gen. Maz

Gourishankar

304.

Shri Sudesh Rajam

Gen. Maz

Junjipelli

305.

Shri Ramdas Mahakali

Gen. Maz

Boyani

306.

Shri Dharam Narayan

Gen. Maz

Rambhajam Kewat

307.

Shri Ashok Hiraman

Gen. Maz

Petkar

308.

Shri Shankar

Gen. Maz

Laxman Bobde

309.

Shri Odayya Durgayya

Gen. Maz

(Transfer to Wirur SA)

310.

Shri Ramesh

Gen. Maz

Sunkar Pocham

311.

Shri Ramsajiwan

Gen. Maz

Ramautar

312.

Shri Gajula Odayya

Gen. Maz

313.

Shri Rodda

Gen. Maz

Ramswamy Mallaya

314.

Shri Tandra Mallaya

Gen. Maz

Rajam

315.

Shri Shankar Waghu

Gen. Maz

Girgule

316.

Shri Pol Ramdoa

Gen. Maz

Yenkati

317.

Shri Raola

Gen. Maz

Ramaswamy

318.

Shri Shalikram

Gen. Maz

Motiram

319.

Shri Shersingh

Gen. Maz

Vishnu Chouhan

320.

Shri Jillala Raimalla

Gen. Maz

Rajaya

321.

Shri Santosh Kumar

Gen. Maz

Krishnarao Amleshwar

322.

Shri Gunti Sampathi

Gen. Maz

Rainalu

6284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

323.

Shri Kolluri Ramdeo

Gen. Maz

Yenkau

324.

Shri Rajkumarprasad

Gen. Maz

Ramdas

325.

Shri Rampyare

Gen. Maz

Shrodayal

326.

Shri Bhurra Komaraiyeq

Gen. Maz

327.

Shri Pocham Raimallu

(9)

WIRUR Office Order Ref. No. WCL/BA/WR/SOM/

1304 dt. 27-07-1999 (Transfer for Wirur)

328.

Shri Bantu

Trim. Maz.

Venkatswamy

329.

Shri Bigau Timmar

Carrier

330.

Shri Gopal Pandey

Carrier

331.

Shri Kade Mallesh

Mate

332.

Shri Kamlesh Shriwas

Driver (T)

333.

Shri Kolluri Ramesh

Trammar

III

334.

Shri Krishna Yadao

Stiching

335.

Shri Narottam Singh

Survey Maz.

336.

Shri Ramadhar Tandan

Sub Station/F/O

337.

Shri Ramsaran Gangaram

Stiching

338.

Shri Raseli Komrraya

Trammer

III

339.

Shri Regula C. Reddy

Pump Khalasi

340.

Shri Shalirao Pendor

Pr.

341.

Shri Sk. Mukthyar

Timber Maz.

342.

Shri Suresh Meshram

Peon

343.

Shri Gotte Rajeshwar

Tim. Maz

344.

Shri Jeetendra Patkula

Line. Maz.

345.

Shri Prakash

T/Maz.

Ramaswamy

346.

Shri Shriniwas Bojari

Line. Maz.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2552-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 278@99)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@31@1999&vkbZ vkj(lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2552—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.

278/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of WCL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[ No. L-22012/31/1999-IR (C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/278/99

Present : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

General Secretary,

BKKMS (BMS), PO Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara,

Chhindwara

. . . Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area, PO Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Chhindwara

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day of June 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No. L-22012/31/99-IR(CM-II) dated

3-8-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :—

“Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Pench Area i.e. General Manager, WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in not

regularizing Shri Santosh Kumar Rajput as

Headpeon of G. M. Office, WCL, Pench Area is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. The case of the workman/Union in short, is that

the workman Shri Santosh Kumar Raiput is appointed as

a peon in General Manager’s office, Pench Area. The Head

Peon was elevated to other cadre in the 1994 and the post

became vacant. He was authorized to officiate the post of

Head peon vide office order No.WCL/Pench/P/139/273/

95 dated 16-20/1/1995 issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel

Manager, Pench Area when he completed 240 days on the

officiating post, he gave representation dated 23-12-95 to

the Personnel Manager to regularize him on the said post

but no action was taken and instead he was allotted shift

duty without withdrawing the officiating post. It is

submitted that the management be directed to regularize

on the post of Head Peon with payment of difference of

pay and other incidental benefits.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6285

3. The management appeared in the case and filed

the Written Statement in the reference case. The case of

the management, interalia, is that admittedly Shri Santosh

Kumar Rajput was appointed as a peon and posted at

Manager’s office, WCL, Pench Area. It is denied that he

worked as a Head Peon. It is stated that several peons

were working as peons. The peon posted in the office of

Manager were given shift duties. The workman and

Shri Mahendra Prasad Soni were also given shift duties in

the office of the Manager. The workman cannot claim for

regularization to the post of Head peon as he had never

worked on the said post. He was junior to many of the

peons and therefore he cannot be promoted/regularized

to the post of Head peon superseding the seniors. It is

submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

following issues are for adjudication—

I. Whether the action of the management in not

regularizing the workman as Head peon of

G.M.Office, WCL, Pench Area is justified?

II. To what relief the workman is entitled?

5. During the pendency of the reference, the

workman/Union became absent. Sufficient dates were

given to contest the reference. Lastly the then Tribunal

proceeded the reference exparte against the workman on

17-4-07.

6. Issue No. I

To prove the case, the management has examined

oral evidence. The management witness Shri Abdul

Hakeem is working as Personnel Manager. He has stated

that there are 22 peons working in the office of the General

Manager and 13 peons are senior to the workman. He has

stated that Promotion/regularization is given as per

guidelines of the company and seniority is to be taken

into account. He has further stated that the promotion/

regularization cannot be given to the workman superseding

the seniors. There is nothing to show that simply on

officiating the post of Head peon, he creates entitlement

to be promoted/regularized on the said post. He has denied

in his evidence that he worked as Head peon. It appears

that there is no evidence that he was senior most in the

cadre of peon rather the evidence shows that 13 peons are

senior to the workman. I find that the action of the

management in not regularizing the workman as Head peon

is justified. This issue is decided against the workman and

in favour of the management.

7. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above, it is

clear that the workman was junior to many of the peons

and therefore he was not entitled to be regularized on the

post of Head Peon. This shows that the workman is not

entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly

answered.

8. In the result the award is passed without any

order to costs.

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2553&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p-,-,y- ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] la[;k&1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (vkbZMh la[;k

30@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13&7&2012

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@26@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2012

S.O. 2553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 30/2004) of

the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No.1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of M/s. Hindustan

Aeronautics Limited, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 13-7-2012.

[ No. L-42012/26/2003-IR (CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

Ref. No. 30/2004

Dated 7-6-2012

Mr. V. H. Jadhav, Adv. present for the management.

Mr. J. P. Sawant, Adv. present for the workman.

Learned counsel for the second party workman has

filed an application stating therein that the second party

workman prays that this reference be disposed of for want

of prosecution.

Heard.

As per the prayer of the second party workman the

reference stands disposed of for want of prosecution and

it is held that the second party workman is not entitled to

any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

Sd./-illegible

(Presiding Officer)

6286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2012/SHRAVANA 13, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tqykbZ] 2012

dk-vk- 2554-&dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 34) dh /kjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr

/kjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eSllZ

lsUVªy dkWVst baMLVªht dkWiksZjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds

dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa (lHkh bdkb;ksa) ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks

bl vf/fu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gS A ;g NwV]

vf/lwpuk ds tkjh fd, tkus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/ ds

fy, ykxw jgsxh A

2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu gS_ vFkkZr %&

(1) iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj

j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke

fn[kk;s tk;saxs_

(2) bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/fu;e ds

v/hu ,slh izlqfo/k,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds

fy, os bl vf/lwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh

rkjh[k ls iwoZ lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kj ij gdnkj gks tkrs

gSa_

(3) NwV izkIr vof/ ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd,

tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs_

(4) mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/ dh ckcr

ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/fu;e

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/ dgk x;k gS)

izorZeku Fkk ,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh

fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks deZpkjh jkT; chek (lk/kj.k)

fofu;e] 1950 ds v/hu mls mDr vof/ dh ckcr nsuh

visf{kr gksrh Fkha_

(5) fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e dh /kjk

45 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ

fujh{kd ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/Ñr dksbZ vU;

in/kjh_

(i) /kjk 44 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] mDr vof/ dh

ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks lR;kfir

djus ds iz;kstukFkZ_ vFkok

(ii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;

chek (lk/kj.k) fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr jftLVj

vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/ ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks ;k ugha_

(iii) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu iQk;nksa dks] ftlds iQyLo:i

bl vf/lwpuk ds v/hu NwV nh tk jgh gS] udn esa vkSj

oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha_ ;k

(iv) ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/ ds

nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/ esa vf/fu;e ds

mica/ izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/ksa dk vuqikyu fd;k

x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr

gksxk %&

(d) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd og

mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr fujh{kd ;k vU;

in/kjh vko';d le>rk gS_ vFkok

([k) ,sls iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/Hkksxk/hu]

fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa

fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k djuk vkSj mlds

izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds

fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/r ,sls ys[kk]

cfg;ka vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU;

in/kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus

nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa_

(x) iz/ku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ ;k

lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls dkj[kkus]

LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa ik;k tk,] ;g

fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh

gS] ijh{kk djuk_ ;k

(?k) ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa

j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU; nLrkost

dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m¼j.k ysuk_

(Ä) ;Fkkfu/kZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk A

fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jí gks

tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj

dh vuqefr ysuh gksxh A

¹la- ,l&38014@13@2011&,l-,l-&Iº

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2554.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establishments of M/s. Central Cottage Industries

Corporation of India Ltd. (All Units) from the operation of

the said Act. The exemption shall be effective from the

date of issue of this Notification for a period of one year.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely :—

(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a register

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 4] [email protected] 13] 1934

6287

showing the name and designations of the

exempted employees;

(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees

shall continue to receive such benefits under the

said Act to which they might have become entitled

to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to

the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the

said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period),

such returns in such forms and containing such

particulars as were due from it in respect of the

said period under the Employees State Insurance

(General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45

of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :—

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub- section (1) of

Section 44 for the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were

maintained as required by the Employees State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said

period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer

in cash and kind. being benefits in consideration

of which exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation to

the said factory to be empowered to :

(a) require the principal or immediate employer

to him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to

produce to such inspector or other official and

allow him to examine accounts, books and

other documents relating to the employment

of personal and payment of wages or to

furnish to him such information as he may

consider necessary; or

his agent or servant, or any person found in

such factory, establishment, office or other

premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable

cause to believe to have been an employee;

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any

maintained in such factory,establishment,

office or other premises,

(e) exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

6. In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[ No. S-38014/13/2011-SS-I ]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.