This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. (एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

REGD. NO.D.L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 321

No. 321

दिल्ली, अगर अगस्त11 , 2012 , शनिवार/ श्रावण 14-श्रावण 20, 1934

EW DELI, AUGUST 5- AUGUST 11, 2012, SATURDAY/SHRAVANA 14- SHRAVANA 20, 1934

में चिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा का सके

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

भाग 11- खण्ड उप- खण्ड (ii)

PART I-Section 3- Sub- section ( ii )

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

लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

( कार्षिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 1 अगस्त, 2012

का. भा. 2555, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित भारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राजस्थान राज्य सरकार, गृह ( ग्रेड- V ) विभाग , जयपुर की दिनांक 12 अक्तूबर , 2011 की अधिसूचना सं. एफ. 19 (13) गृह-5/2011 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से अर्थात्ः-

क्रम सं. मामला

विधि की धारा

131/11

भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) के अधीन धारा 147 ,

148, 149, 323, 341 , 379 तथा 435 2.

138/11

दिल्लीविशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण राजस्थान राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/65 /2011 - एवीडी- II ]

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 1st August, 2012

S. O. 2555.In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 5 read with Section 6 oftheDelhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government ofRajasthan , Home (Gr. V) Department , Jaipur videNotification F.19 ( 13)Home-5/2011 dated 12th October, 2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction ofthemembers ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishmenttothewhole ofthe Stute ofRajasthan for investigation ofoffences viz:-

भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) के अधीन धारा 147,

148, 149, 153-ए तथा 307 SL.No. Case No. Section Laws

131/11

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 , 379 and 435 ofthe Indian Penal Code,

1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) .

राजस्थान, जिला- भरतपुर, पुलिस स्टेशन गोपालगढ़ में दर्ज मामलों तथ्था उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या उससे संबद्ध प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरण तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए

2817 G1/2012

(6289) 138/11

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 153 -A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860(Act No.45 of 1860).

[PART II Sec . 3(ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA20 , 1934

6290

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX

Bhopal , the 1st August, 2012

No. 16/2012

[Under Rule 74 ofthe CCS (Pension ) Rules , 1972 ] registered at Police Station Gopalgarh , District Bharatpur (Rajasthan ) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed incourse ofthe same transaction or arising out ofthe same facts .

[F.No. 228/65/2011 -AVD- II ] RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

S.O. 2557.- Following officers of Group ' B ' of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Bhopal are retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation in the afternoon of31st July, 2012 .

Date of retirement

Designation

शुद्धि-पत्र नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2012

St No. Name of Officer S/Shri

Superintendent 31-7-2012

1. Sompal Singh

Superintendent 31-7-2012

2 N.K. Jauhari

का.आ. 2556.-इस विभाग की दिनांक 20-4-2012 की अधिसूचना सं. 202/5/2011- एवीडी- II का आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए छठी पंक्तिमें आने वाले शब्द " उत्तर प्रदेश " को " मध्य प्रदेश " पढ्ढ़ा जाए ।

[F.No. Il (3)08/2010/Et.1/ 6125 ] Dr. D.K. VERMA, Commissioner [सं. 202/5/2011- एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव (वी- II )

भोपाल , 1 अगस्त , 2012

सं. 15/2012

CORRIGENDUM New Delhi , the 3rd August, 2012

[सी.सी.एस. (पेंशन ) नियमावली , 1972 के नियम 74 के तहत ] S.O. 2556.- In partial modification of this Department'snotification No. 202/5 /2011 - AVD - Il dated 20-4-2012, the word " Uttar Pradesh" appearing in 6th line may be read as " Madhya Pradesh" .

[No. 202/5/2011 -AVD- II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy. (V- II )

का.आ. 2558.-श्री आर. डी. शर्मा, अधीक्षक, केन्द्रीय सीमा शुल्क, उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवाकर आयुक्तालय , भोपाल के ऐच्छिकसेवानिवृत्ति आवेदन दिनांक 26-4-2011 को केन्द्रीय सिविल सेवा के पेंशन नियम 1972 के नियम 48 ( 1 ) ( a ) के अंतर्गत दिनांक 1 अगस्त, 2012 से स्वीकृत किया गया एवं वे दिनांक 31 जुलाई , 2012 को अपरान्ह में शासकीय सेवा से निवृत्त हुए ।

[फा. सं. 11 (3 )08/2010 /ईटी 1/6140 ]

डॉ. डी. के. वर्मा , आयुक्त कार्यालय , आयुक्त केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क , सीमा शुल्क एवं सेवाकर भोपाल , 1 अगस्त, 2012 सं. 16/2012

[सी.सी.एस. (पेंशन) नियमावली , 1972 के नियम 74 के तहत ]

Bhopal , the 1st August, 2012 No. 15/2012

[Under Rule 74 ofthe CCS (Pension ) Rules , 1972] का. आ.2557. कार्यालय केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, सीमा शुल्क एवंसेवाकर भोपाल के निम्नलिखित समूह ' ख ' अधिकारी सेवानिवृत्ति आयु प्राप्त करने पर दिनांक 31-7-2012 को अपरान्ह में शासकीय सेवा से निवृत्त हुए ।

सेवानिवृत्तिकीदिनांक

पदनाम

क्र.सं. अधिकारी का नाम सर्वश्री

31-7-2012

अधीक्षक

S.O. 2558. The application dated 26-4-2011 for Voluntary Retirement tendered by Shri R.D. Sharma, Superintendent, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Hqrs . Bhopal has been accepted with effect from 1st August , 2012 under Rule 48 ( 1 )(a) ofCCS (Pension) Rules , 1972 and he is retired from Government Service in the afternoon of31st July, 2012 .

1. सोगपाल सिंह

31-7-2012

अधीक्षक

एन.के. जौहरी

[F.No. II(3 )08/2010/Et . 1/6140] Dr. D.K. VERMA, Commissioner

[फा. सं. 11 (3 )08/2010/ईटी 1/6125 ]

डॉ. डी. के. वर्मा , आयुक्त

6291

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 3 अगस्त, 2012

का.आ. 2559.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर , एतद्वारा घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उप- खण्ड (i ) के उपबंध यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पर लागू नहीं होंगे , जहां तक उनका संबंध यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक श्री डी. सरकार को स्टार यूनियन दाई- ईची जीवन बीमा कंपनी लि. के बोर्ड में गैर- कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष और नामित निदेशक के रूप में नामित होने से है ।

[फा.सं. 13/ 1/2012- बीओ-1 ] विजय मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

NewDelhi , the 3rd August, 2012

S.O. 2559.- In exercise ofthe powers conferred by Section 53 ofthe Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 1949), the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions ofsub-clause ( i) ofclause (c) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 10 ofthe saidAct 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 nominee director on the Board of Star Union Dai- Ichi Life Insurance Company Ltd.

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

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नईदिल्ली, 17 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2560 भारतीय मानक ब्यरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

स्थापित तिथि

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

स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों)की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(2)

(1)

आई एस/आईईसी 60947-5-2 2007 निम्न - वोल्टता केस्विचगियर और नियंत्रणगियर भाग 5 परिपथ नियंत्रण उपकरण और स्विचिंग घटक अनुभाग 2 प्राक्सिमिटी स्विच

(4) (3)

17-7-2012

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

[संदर्भ: ईटी 07/टी -47 ]

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

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumerAffairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 17th July, 2012 .

S.O. 2560. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe 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:

6292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVAΝΑ 20 , 1934

(PART 11-Sec. 3( ))

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. No. and Year ofthe Indian Standard

Date of Establishment

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

(2)

(1)

1. IS/IEC 60947-5-2: 2007 Low-Voltage Switchgear and controlgear part 5 control circuitdevicesand switching elements sec 2 proximity switches

(4) (3)

17-7-2012

CopyofthisStandard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhawan , 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices:Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref.: ET-7/T-47)

R.K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E' & Head ( Electrotechni

नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2561.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणम ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप -विनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मान ब्यूरो एक्यू‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विचरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

लाइसेंस संख्या स्वीकृत करने की तिथिवर्ष पाह

4 2

1. 3839276

1-6-2012

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप

हीरो एग्रो प्लास्टप्राइवेट लिमिटेड प्लोट नम्बर 2309- 2310 जी आई डीसी मेटोडा, तालुका लोधिका, जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-360021

2 3839377

1-6-2012

1710

साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए उर्ध्व टर्बाइन मिश्रित और अक्षीय प्रवाह पंपों की विशिष्टि

मारूती एग्रो इन्डस्ट्रीज सर्वे नम्बर 458 अमरेली रोड बेकारीया परा टेलीफोन एक्सचेन्ज केपास धारी

जिला अमरेली गुजरात-365640

1-6-2012

3839478

1710

जय श्री बालाजी इन्जीनियरिंग वर्क्स सरासिया रोड, रेलवे क्रोसिंग के समाने धारी , जिला अमरेली , गुजरात-365640

3840160

7-6-2012

710

2010 समुद्री उपयोग के लिए प्लाईवुड़

रूसाका प्लाई इंडिया लिमिटेड सर्वे नं. 2581 गाँव नानी चीराई तालुका भचाऊ जिला कच्छ गुजरात-370140

3841465

12-4-2012

2000 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप

आनंद पोलिमर्स इन्कोपोरेशन शीतल इन्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , प्लोट नम्बर 13 जामवाड़ी पेट्रोल पम्प के सामने जामवाड़ी, तालुका गॉडल जिला राजकोट गुजरात -360311 6293

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6. 3842366

13-6-2012

7 89

1999

1417

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

श्रीचीज्वेलर्स

कीर्ति मंदिर के पास मानेक चौक,

गुजरात -360575

22-6-2012

3844871

8034

2002 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसेट्स

सन्तन इलैक्ट्रिक इन्डस्ट्रीज रामेश्वर इन्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया गोंडल रोड राजमार्ग , बाबड़ी सर्वे नम्बर 18 प्लोट नम्बर 16 बाबड़ी राजकोट, गुजरात-360003

26-6-2012

3844875

14220

1994

खुले कुएँ के लिए सबमर्सिबल पम्पसेट्स

स्पीड टेक पम्प सम्राट इन्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया गली नम्बर 6 , जगन्नाथ मारबल्स के के सामने गॉडल रो राजकोट गुजरात- 360004

26-6-2012

3844976

12269

1987 53 ग्रेड की सम्भारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

वेस्टर्न सिमेन्ट प्राईवेट लिमिटेड सर्वे नं. 47पी , प्लोट नं. 10-11 , हड़मताला तालुका कोटडा सागांनी जिला राजकोट गुजरात -360311

27-6-2012

10. 3845473

2006

2062

सामान्य संरचना कार्यों के लिए इस्पात

एवरशाईनस्टील सर्वे नम्बर 30 /31 -पी , घन्थाली रोड गाँव वडीया , तालुका शिहोर, जिला भावनगर , गुजरात-364240

27-6-2012

11. 3845574

2006

6595 1

साफ और ठंडे पानी के लिए क्षैतिज अपकेन्द्री पम्प-विशिष्ट

श्री राम एग्रीकल्चर इन्डस्ट्रीज 6 आबी वसाहत 80 फिट मेईन रोड गंगाधर इन्डस्ट्रीज के सामने , राजकोट, गुजरात-360003

27-6-2012

12 3845776

1999

1417

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

जसुभाई आर. नानावटी

शराफ बाजार , महुवा

जिला भावनगर, गुजरात

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13: 11 ]

एम. राधाकृष्ण, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख

NewDelhi, the 24thJuly, 2012

S.O. 2561.-In pursuance of sub -regulation (5) ofregulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given below in the following schedule:

Licence No. Grant Dese Name and address of the party

Sl .No.

276

1-6-2012

Title ofthe Standard IS No. Part Sec. Year

6 7 ४ 9 5

2000

4985-

PlotNo. 2309& 10, G.I. D.C.

UnplasticizedPVС PipesforPotable Water Supplies

HeroAgro Plast Pvt . Ltd.

Metoda, Taluka Lodhika,

Distt.:Rajkot

Gujarat-360021

6294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

4 1

3839377

1-6-2012

[PART II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

7 8

1989 Specification for Pumps- 1710 Vertical Turbine Mixed and Axial Flow, for Clear ColdWater

Maruti Agro Industries Survey No. 458 , Amreli Road, VekariyaPara, Near Telephone Exchange, Dhari , Distt.:Amreli , Gujarat-365640

3839478

1-6-2012

1989 Specification for Pumps - 1710 Vertical Turbine Mixed and Axial Flow, for Clear Cold Water

Jay Shree Balaji Engineering Works , Sarashiya Road , Opp. Railway Crossing, Dhari , Distt.:Amerli , Gujarat-365640

3840160

7-6-2012 Russaka Ply India SurveyNo. 258/1 , VillageNani Chirai , Taluka Bhachau , Distt.: Kachchh Gujarat-370140

12-6-2012

3841465

2010 Specification for Marine 710 Plywood

2000 Unplasticized PVC Pipes-4985 - for Potable Water Supplies

Anand Ploymers Incorporation Shital IndustrialArea, Plot No. 13 , Opp. Jamwadi Petrol Pump, Jamwadi , Taluka Gondal , Distt. , Rajkot Gujarat- 360311

3842366

13-6-2012 Shreeji Jewellers Near Kiriti Mandir, Manekchok, Porbander, Gujarat-360575

3844471 22-6-2012

1999

1417

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

2002 Submersible Pumpsets 8034 -

Santan Electric Industries Rameshwar Industrial Area, Gondal RoadHighway, Vavdi SurveyNo. 18, Plot No. 16 , Vavdi , Distt.: Rajkot Gujarat- 360003

26-6-2012

3844875

Speed Tech Pump Samrat Industrial Area, Steet No.6 , Opp. Jagnath Marbles, Gondal Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004

3844976

26-6-2012

14220- 1994 Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

12269-

1987 53 grade ordinary Portland cement

Western Cement Private Limited SurveyNo. 47P, Plot No. 10-11 , At. Hadamtala, Taluka Kotada Sangani , Distt:Rajkot Gujarat- 360311

10.

3845473

27-6-2012

2062 2006 Steel for General Structural Purposes

Evershine Steels Survey No. 30/31 - P, Ghanghali Road, Village Vadiya Taluka Shihor, Distt .: Bhavnagar Gujarat-364240 अगस्त 11 , 2012/ 20, 1934

भारत का समपत्र

[भाग II- 3( ii)]

6 7 8 9

27-6-2012

3845574

11 .

Horizontal Contrifugal 4095 1

Shree Ram Agriculture Industries

2006

6,Aji Vasahat, 30 FeetMain

Pumps forClear,Cold

Water- Specification

Raod, OppositeGangadhar

Industries, Distt: Rajkot

Gujarat-360003

Part 1 :Agriculturaland RuralWater Supply

Purposes

1999 27-6-2012 Jasubhai R. Nanavti

12. 3845776

Jewellery/Artefacts-

GoldandGoldAlloys, 1417 Fineness and Marking

Sharaf Bazar, Mahuva, Distt: Bhavnagar

Gujarat

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

M. RADNAKRISHNA, Scientist ' F' &Head

नई दिल्ली , 24 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2562.- भारतीय मानक ब्यरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं को लाइसेंस रद्द किए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या

अनु रद्दीकरण तिथि

भामा भाग संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम

सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

2112

26-6-2012

1. 3624255

चाँदी एवं चांदी मिश्रधातुएँ,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकरन-विशिष्टि

रिलायन्स हाईपर मार्ट लिमिटेड रिलायन्स मार्ट,. रिफाईनरी मेईन गेट के सामने , रिलायन्स ग्रीन के पास , मोटी खावडी, जिला जामनगर, गुजरात-361140

26-6-2012

1417

3624356

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता

एवं मुहरांकन विशिष्टि

रिलायन्स हाईपर मार्ट लिमिटेड रिलायन्स मार्ट; रिफाईनरी मेईन गेट के सामने , रिलायन्स ग्रीन के पास, मोटी खावडी, जिला जामनगर, गुजरात-361140

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 11 ]

एम. राधाकृष्ण , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2012

S.O. 2562. In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the licences particulars of which are given below have been concelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Part Sec .

ISNo.

Article/Process with

Name and address of the Licensee

Sl. Licence No.

Date of Cancellation

relevant Indian Standards

No. CM/L

covered by the licence

cancelled/ suspension

26-6-2012 1. 3624255

2112

RelianceHypermart Ltd Reliance Silverand Silver Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking

Mart, Opp . Refinery MainGate , NearRelianceGreen, Moti Khavdi Distt: Jamnagar

Gujarat-361140 6296

[PART I-Sec. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6 7

2 3624356

1417

26-6-2012 RelianceHypermart Ltd. Reliance Mart, Opp. Refinery MainGate,

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-

Near Reliance Green, Moti Khavdi Fineness and Marking

Distt:Jamnagar

Gujarat-361140

[No. CMD/13

M. RADHAKRISHNA , Scientist ' F' &F

नईदिल्ली , 30 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2563 भारतीय मानक ब्यरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय म ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: -

अनुसूची

संशोधन संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या, वर्ष

संशोधन लागूहोने की क्रम संख्या और शीर्षक

संशोधन संख्या 1 वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आंई एस 826: 1980-अमोनियम सल्फेट, उर्वरक ग्रेड की विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 1013:1972-ट्रिपल सुपर फॉस्फेट की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन संख्या 1 वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 2409: 1985-कैल्शियम अमोनियम नाइट्रेट की विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन संख्या 3 वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 2764: 1980 पोटेशियम सल्फेट , उर्वरक ग्रेड की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 2779:1980-पोटेशियम क्लोराइड (पोटाश की लवणमय ) , उर्वरक ग्रेड की विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 4830:1979-अमोनियम फॉस्फेट सल्फेट, दानेदार की विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 5406: 1979 -यूरिया, उर्वरक ग्रेड की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012

31मई 2012 आई एस 5409 ( भाग 2 ) : 1985 - मिट्टी संशोधन सामग्री के रूप में इस्तेमाल करने वाला कृषि चूना की विशिष्टि भाग 2 चूना पत्थर और डोलोमाइट (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 6448: 1983-डाईअमोनियम फास्फेट विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन संख्याः। वर्ष 2012

31 मई 2012 आई एस 6661 : 1972-पोटेशियम शूनाइट की विशिष्टि

31 मई 2012

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012

आई एस 7863: 1975- भौतिक उर्वरक मिश्रण की विशिष्टि

संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012

30जून 2012 आई एस 8249:1994- जिंक सल्फेट हेप्टयहाइड्रेट कृषि ग्रेड -विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6297

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

 13.    आई एस 8359: 1993- यूरिया अमोनियम फॉस्फेट
        से बने उर्वरक - विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)
 14.    आई एस 8558 : 1977- खाद वाले नीम केक की
        विशिष्टि
 15.    आई एस 8559: 1977- खाद वाले महुआ केक की
        विशिष्टि
 16.    आई एस 9024:1978- दानेदार उर्वरक मिश्रण की
        विशिष्टि
 17.    आई एस 10170:1982- प्रतिफल जिप्सम की विशिष्टि
 18.    आई एस 12113 :1987- फैरस सल्फेट हेप्टाहाइड्रेट ,
        कृषिग्रेड कीविशिष्टि
 19.    आई एस 13921 : 1994 चेलेटिड जिंक ( Zn-EDTA ) ,
        कृषि ग्रेड-विशिष्टि
20.     आई एस 13922: 1994- कीलेटिड ( Fe - EDTA ) ,
        कृषीय ग्रेड - विशिष्टि
21.     आई एस 14403 : 1996- भूमि सुधार के लिए
        कृषि ग्रेड के लौह पाइराइट- विशिष्टि
22.     आई एस 14806:2000- एजोस्पिरिलम जीवाणु
        कल्चर
23.     आई एस 14807:2000- घुलनशीलनीय फास्फेट जीवाणु
        कलचर ( पी.एस.बी.आई. )-विशिष्टि
24.     आई एस 15343 :2003- सोडिक भूमि उद्धार के लिए
        प्रेसमड - विशिष्टि
25.     आई एस 15848 :2009- जिंक सल्फेट , मानोहाईड्रेट ,
        कृषिग्रेड-विशिष्टि
26.     आई एस 15849:2009- फास्फेट सोल्युबिलाईजिंग
        फंगल इनोकुलेन्ट्स - एस्पेरजीलस एवामोरी - विशिष्टि

                                                                                                        4
                                                                   संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012         31 मई 2012
                                                                   संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012         31 मई 2012
                                                                   संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012         31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012          31 मई 2012
                                                                   संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012         31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012          31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012          31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012          31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012          31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012         30 जून 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या 2 वर्ष 2012         30जून 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012          31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012         31 मई 2012
                                                                  संशोधन संख्या । वर्ष 2012          31 मई 2012
          इस संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110002. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई
दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चैन्नई , मुम्बई , चण्डीगढ़ तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद ,
जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एफएडी/जी-128 |

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

New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2563.-- In pursuance of Clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendment to the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

2817 GI/ 2012-2 6298

[ PART 11-- SEC. 3 (ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Amendment

Amendment No. 1Year 2012

15. IS 8559: 1977 Specification for Mahua Cake for Manuring

31May2012 6299

(1)

1. आई एस4622: 2003- स्थिर- व्हील गेट के संरचनात्मक डिजाइन की सिफारिशें (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

(3)

(4)

30 जून 2012 संशोधन संख्या । , जून 2012 6300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30जून 2012

संशोधन संख्या1 , जून 2012

आई एस 6938: 2005 - द्रवचालित दरवाजों के लिए रस्सा डूम और चेन शृंखला हाइस्टों के डिजाइन -रीति संहिता ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिलून कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चैन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर. कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं । भारतीय मानकों/संशोधनों को http://www.standardsbis.in पर इंटट द्वारा प्राप्त किया जा सकता है ।

[ संदर्भ : डब्लू आर डी 12/टी-1 और टी-4 ] जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( जल संसाधन विभाग ) New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2564. In pursuance of Clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule (7) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the! Bur au of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the Amendment

SI No.

No. litle and Year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1 .

Amendment No. 1 , June 2012

30 June 2012 IS 4622: 2003 Recommendations for structural design of fixed wheel gates (third revision)

30 June 2012

Amendment No. 1 , June 2012

IS 6938 : 2005 Design of rope drum and chain hoists for hydraulic gates- Code of Practice ( second revision)

Copy of these Amendments are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhawan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur . Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram . Indian Standards /amendments can be obtained at http: //www. stan- dardsbis. in.

[Ref.: WRD 12/T- 1A&T-4 ]

J.C. ARORA , Scientist . ' F' & Head ( Water Resources Deptt . )

नई दिल्ली , 30 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2565.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

अनु वर्ष क्रमः संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामा भाग संख्या

7 8 9

1. 3787384

3-1-2012

1417

1999

मैसर्स सुवर्णाशिल्पी ज्वैलर्स प्रा. स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं

लिमिटेड, 107 आशीष काम्पलैक्स. स्वास्तिक क्रास रोड ,

के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

अहमदाबाद -380009

3799200

3-1-2012

14543

मैसर्स साबर बिवरेजिस ,

2004

एट पोस्ट चिबोडा,

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल 6301

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4 2

7 8.9

मिनरल वाटर )

ता भिलोडा, साबरकांटा, भिलोडा

4-1-2012

3. 3787687

13779

1999 एसी स्टेटिक वाटहावर मीटर

मैसर्स संगनी टैक्नोलोजिस प्रा. लिमिटेड, बी/5 , जी आई डी सी इलैक्ट्रोनिक एस्टेट, सैक्टर 25 , गांधीनगर 382 044

6-1-2012

3787788

1417

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स श्री रंग ज्वैलर्स , 3, 4 शिवशक्ति काम्पलैक्स, स्टेशन रोड, सचिन कृष्णा काम्पलैक्स, के सामने , सूरत- 394 230

6-1-2012

5. 3787889

1417

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स चोकसी मुलचंदभाई शंकरदास पटेल , शाक मार्केट के पास, चांदनी चौक, पीओ डीसा, डिस्ट्रिक्ट साबरकांटा- 385 535

6-1-2012

6. 3789085

1983

9537 3

कन्डयूट फार इलैक्ट्रिकल इंस्टालेशन पार्ट 3 रिजिड प्लेन कन्डयूट आफ इंसूलेटिड मैटिरियल

मैसर्स क्राउन इंडस्ट्रीज, प्लाट नंबर 6 , टोरेंट पावर सब स्टेशन के सामने , शाहवाडी बस स्टाप के पीछे , नारोल , अहमदाबाद -382 405

7. 3789287

6-1-2012

14543 2004

मैसर्स एकवारियस एक्सिम प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 114 , जी आई डी सी, मोतीपुरा , हिम्मतनगर , साबरकांटा-383 001

9-1-2012

8. 3789388

पैकेटबंद पेयजल ( अदर दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर ) इंसूलेटिड मैटिरियल

1989

12786

ईरीगेशन इक्यूपमेंट पालथिलीन पाईप्स फार इरीगेशन लेटरलस

मैसर्स अमीधारा ड्रिप इरीगेशन , प्लाट नंबर 1801/16 , जी आई डीसी, फेस 4 , विठठल उद्योग नगर , आनंद, वी यू नगर-388 121

9-1-2012

9. 3789489

2008

14151 2

ईरीगेशन इक्यूपमेंट स्प्रिइलकलर पाईप्स

9-1-2012

10. 3789186

2008

13488

एमीटिंग पाईप सिस्टम

मैसर्स डांगा वाटरटैक प्रा. लिमिटेड प्लाट नंबर 3 , कैलाश इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, सर्वे नंबर 189/1 & 2 , एसार पेट्रोल पम्प के सामने , सानंद विरमागाम हाइवे , एट आईवा , अहमदाबाद , सानंद -382 170

10-1-2012

11. 3791880

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर )

मैसर्स नचिकेत मार्केटिंग , प्लाट नंबर 44 , शायोना सिल्वर एस्टेट , सिल्वर ओक क्लब के पीछे , परासंग पार्टी प्लाट के पास , एस जी हाइवे , गोटा अहमदाबाद 6302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

11-1-2012

12. 3791981

PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

1239 1

2004 माईल्डस्टील टयूब्स ट्यूबलर्स तथा अदर रॉट स्टील फिटिंग्स

मैसर्स विनय वायर्स तथा पोली प्रोडक्टस प्रा. लिमिटेड , 1366 तथा 1368 ओल्ड अहमदाबाद हाइवे , बालापुर दरगाह के पास अहमदाबाद , विरमगाम -382150

13. 3790373

11-1-2012

1417

1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स सुनिल ज्वैलर्स, 1 बी/1220 , ग्राउंड फ्लोर , काकाजी स्ट्रीट , मारवाडी स्ट्रीट के सामने , तिमालियावाड , नानपुरा , सूरत- 395 001

11-1-2012

14. 3790474

1417

1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स मधुरम ज्वैलर्स, 179, रघुवीरनगर सोसाइटी, जलाराम टाकीस के सामने , कोसाड रोड , अमरोली , सूरत-395004

15. 3790575

11-1-2012

1417

1999

मैसर्स गायत्री ट्रेडर्स , बी 157 , चोकसी बाजार , पी ओ सोजितरा , आनंद-387240

11-1-2012

16. 3790878

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

2925

1994 इंडस्ट्रियल सेफ्टी हैलमैट

मैसर्स हेमंत इंडस्ट्रीज, 269 , जी आई डी सी स्टेट , मकरपुरा रोड, वडोदरा -390 010

11-1-2012

17. 3791072

1417

1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स शी ज्वैलर्स , 102, 101 निलय चैम्बर्स , दालिया शेरी , महीधरपुर, सूरत-395 003

11-1-2012

18. 3791173

1417

1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स न्यूप्रीति डायमंड गोल्ड ज्वैलरी , 52 , सिप्रिंग फिल्ड रॉ हाउस, अक्षरधाम फ्लैटस के सामने, जजिस बंगला रोड, वस्त्रापुर रोड, अहमदाबाद-380 015

11-1-2012

19. 3791274

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं 1417 के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स रिद्धिज्वैलर्स , 2, शिवधारा काम्प्लैक्स, श्याम धाम क्रास रोड , नाना वराछा , सूरत-395 010

11-1-2012

20. 3791678

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स श्री कृष्णा फूडस तथा एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 317 , श्री कृष्णा इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, बापा सीताराम हाल के सामने , लसकाना, कामरिज रोड, सूरत

21. 3792579

11-1-2012

2062

2006

स्टील फार जनरल स्ट्रकचर्ल परपस

मैसर्स खांडेवाल स्टील इंडस्ट्रीज , ब्लाक नंबर 1988 , पोस्ट वामाज , ता कडी, डि मेहसाना [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6303

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012 / श्रावण 20 , 1934

4 1

22. 3792882

11-1-2012

8 9

2046

1995 डैकोरेटिव थर्मोसैटिंग सिंधैटिक रेसिग बांडिड लैमिनेटिड शीट्स

प्लाट नंबर 13 से 16 , ए/4 और ए/5, महागुजरात इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट , गाँव मोरैया, अहमदाबाद , चांगोदर-382 213 मैसर्स स्काईलाम प्रा. लिमिटेड ,

23.3793076

11-1-2012

1997

4923

हॉलो स्टील सैक्शन्स फार स्ट्रक्चर्लयूस

मैसर्स विनय वायर्स तथा पोली प्रोडक्टस प्रा. लिमिटेड, 1366 तथा 1368 ओल्ड अहमदाबाद हाइवे , बालापीर दरगाह के पास, अहमदाबाद विरमगाम-3821 150

24. 3792377

12-1-2012

2046

1995 डैकोरेटिव थर्मासैटिंग सिंधैटिक रेसिन बांडिड लैमिनेटिड शीटस

मैसर्स एमबीशन माईका प्रा लिमिटेड , ब्लॉक नंबर 309, जाक वाहेलाल रोड , गाँव जाक , ता देहगाम, गांधीनगर -382 305

12-1-2012

25. 3791779

12269

1987 53 ग्रेड आडिनरी पोटलैंड सीमेंट

मैसर्स तिरूपति इंडस्ट्रीज , वनसदा रोड, ब्लॉक नंबर 243/2/1 , बंसीधर क्वेरी के पास , एट तथा पी ओ रेठवेनिया, नवसारी , चिखली-396 521

12-1-2012

26. 3795888

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स जिगर इंडस्ट्रीज , मार्केट यार्ड के सामने , महाकाली डायनिंग के पास , कुक्करवाडा (मंडली ) , ता मानसा , डि गांधीनगर-382 830

27. 3792276

13-1-2012

2008

हाई स्ट्रेंथ डिकामड स्टील 1786 बार्स तथा वायर्स फार कांक्रीट रेनिफोर्समेंट

मैसर्स सतलुज स्टील रोलिंग मिल्स प्रा. लिमिटेड , 33 , अश्वामेष एसटेट , चांगोदर , ता सानंद, अहमदाबाद-382 213

28. 3792478

13-1-2012

13488

2008 एमिटिंग पाईप सिस्टम

मैसर्स अमीधारा ड्रिप इरीगेशन , प्लाट नंबर 1801/16 , जी आई डीसी, फेस 4 , वी यू नगर , आनंद, वी यू नगर -388 121

16-1-2012

29. 3792781

458

2003 प्रीकास्ट कांकरिट पाईप्स (विद तथा विदाउट रेनिफोर्समेंट,

मैसर्स आर एस पाईप तथा आर्टिकल वर्क्स , एट पी ओ मोडासर , (नासवाडी रोड ) बोडेली , ता सनखेडा, वडोदरा

18-1-2012

30. 3794684

2046

1995 डैकोरेटिव थर्मोसैटिंग सिंथैटिक रेसिन बांडिड लैमिनेटिडशीट्स

मैसर्स डूरोलाम लिमिटेड, 34, ओमकार हाउस , सी जीरोड, नवरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद , मेहसाना-382 706- 6304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

4 1

20-1-2012

31. 3795282

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

13592

1992

मैसर्स एसट्राल पालीटैकनिक लिमिटेड , 207/1 , एसट्राल हाउस , राजपथ क्लब के पीछे, अहमदाबाद-380059

21-1-2012

32. 3795787

यूपी वी सी पाईप सायल तथा वेस्ट डिस्चार्ज सिस्टम इनसाईड बिल्डिंग इनक्लूडिंग वैनटिलेशन तथा रेनवाटर सिस्टम

1983

9537 3

मैसर्स हीमा सेल्स कार्पोरेशन , ब्लॉक नंबर 795/6 , नीलकंठ होटल के पास , सर्वे फार्मा के सामने, रकनपुर , गांधीनगर -380001

33 3800249

24-1-2012

13098

1991 आटोमोटिव विहीकल - ट्यूबस फार न्यूमैटिक टायर

मैसर्स यश पोलिमर्स , ब्लॉक नंबर 58 , प्लॉट नंबर 17 सी 2 टैंपा गली , पीपोदरा , जी आई डी सी , ता , मंगरोल , सूरत-394110

| सं. सीएमडी/ 13: 11 ]

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

New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2565.- In pursuance of sub-regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifica- tion) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Licences No. Grant Date

Sl . No.

Title of the Standard IS No. Part Sec . Year

Name and Address of the party

3787384

3-1-2012

6 7 89

1999

Gold and gold alloys , 1417 jewellery/artefacts - fineness and marking

M/ s. Suvarnashilpi Jewellers Pvt, Ltd. , 107 , Ashish Complex, Swastik Cross Road , Ahmedabad -380009

3-1-2012

3799290

2004

14543

M/ s . Sabar Beverages at PostChiboda, Tal Bhiloda , Sabarkantha Bhiloda

4-1-2012

3787687

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

1999

13779

AC static watthour meters

M/s . Sangani Technologies Pvt , Ltd. , B/5 , G.I.D.C. Electronic Estate , Sector 25, Gandhinagar- 382044

6-1-2012

3787788

1999

Gold and gold alloys , 1417 jewellery/ artefacts - fineness and marking

M/ s . Shree Rang Jewellers , 3 , 4, Shivsakti Complex , Station Road , Sachin Krisna Complex in same , Surat -394230

3787889

6-1-2012

1417- 1999

Gold and gold alloys jewellery/artefacts - fineness and marking

M/s . Choksi Mulchadbhai Shankardas Patel . Near Shak Market, Gandhi Chawk PO Deesa . Distt . Banaskantha- 385535 6305

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6-1-2012 6.

3789085

7 89 5

1983

9537 3

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

6-1-2012 7.

3789287

Conduits for electrical installations : part 3 rigid plain conduits.of insulating materials (Superseding IS: 2509)

2004

14543

M/s.Aquarius Exim Pvt Ltd. Plot No. 114,GI.D.C. Motipura Himatnagar, Sabarkantha- 383001

9-1-2012 3789388

Packageddrinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater)

1909

12786

Irrigation equipment- polyethlene pipes for irrigation laterals

M/s.AmidharaDrip irrigation PlotNo. 1801/16, GIDC, Phase IV, Vitthal Udyog Nagar, Anand, V. U. Nagar -388121

9-1-2012 3789489

2008

14151 2

Irrigation equipment- sprinkler pipes

Amidhara Drip Irrigation PlotNo. 1801/16, GIDC PhaseIV, Vittal Udyog Nagar, Anand -388121

9-1-2012 3789186

2008

13488

Emitting pipes system

M/s. DongaWatertech Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 3 , Kailash Industrial Estate, Survey No. 189/1 & 2, Opp.Essar Petrol Pump, Sanand- Viramgam Highway at lyava, Ahmedabad, Sanand-382170

10-1-2012 3791880

11.

2004

14543

Packageddrinking water(other than packaged naturalmineral water)

M/s. Nachiket Marketing Plot No. 44, Shayona Silver Estate, B /H Silver Oak Club, Near Prasang Party, Plot, S.G. Highway, Gota Ahmedabad -38248

11-1-2012 12. 3791981

2004

1239 1

Mild steel tubes , tubulars and other wrought steel fittings

M/s. Vinay Wires & Poly products Pvt. , Ltd. 1366 and 1368 Old Ahmedabad Highway, NearBalapir Dargah Ahmedabad, Viramgam-382150

11-1-2012 37903.

13.

1417 1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts - fineness and marking

M/s . Sunil Jewels 1B/1220, Ground Floor, Kakajisireet, Opp . Marvadi Street, Timaliyawad, Nanpura Surat- 395001

1-1-2012 14. 379047-3

1999

1417

Goldand gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

M/s. Madhuram Jewellers 179, Raghuvirnagar Society, Opp.Jalaram Takies , Kosad Road,Amroli , Surat-395004

11-1-2012 3790575

15.

1417 1999 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts - fineness and marking

M/s. Gayatri Traders B -157 , Choksi Bazar, P.O. Sojitra, Arrand-387240

11-1-2012 3790878

16.

1994

2925

Industrial safety helmets

M/ s . Hemant Industries 269, GIDC Estate, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390010

2817 G1 /2012-3 6306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

4 2

17. 3791072 . 11-1-2012

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

1999

1417

Gold and gold allcy's , jewellery/artefacts - fineness and marking -

M/ s. She Jewels 102, 101 , Nilay Chambers , Dalia Sheri ,Mahidharpura, Surat-395003

11-1-2012 18. 3791173

1999

1417

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

M/s. New Priti Diamond Gold Jewellery, 52 , Spring field Raw House, Opp . Akshardham Flats JudgesBunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad -380015

3791274

19.

11-1-2012

1417 1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts - fineness and marking -

M/s. Riddhi Jewellers 2, Shiv Dhara Complex, Shyam Dham Cross Road , Nana Varachha , Surat- 395010

3791678

11-1-2012 20.

14543

2004 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s . Shree Krishna Foods & Agro Industries , Plot No. 317 , Shree Krishna Industrial Estate, Opp . Bapa Sitaram Hall , Laskana, Surat- Kamrij Road , Surat

21.

3792579

11-1-2012

2062

2006 Steel for general structural purposes

M/s. Khandelwal Steel Industries Block No. 1988 , Post Vamaj Ta. Kadi , Distt . Mehsana

3792882

11-1-2012 22.

2046 1995 Decorative thermosetting synthetic resin bonded laminated

M/s. Skylam Pvt Ltd. Plot No. 13 to 16 , A/ 4 & A/ 5 , Mahagujarat Industrial Estate, Village Moriya , Ahmedabad Changodar -382213

23.

3793076

11-1-2012.

4923 1997 Hollow steel sections for structural use

M/ s . Vinay Wires & Poly Products Pvt Ltd. 1366 and 1368 Old Ahmedabad Highway, Near Balapir Dargah Ahmadabad , Viramgam - 382150

24. 3792377

12-1-2012

2046 1995 Decorative thermosetting synthetic resinbonded laminated sheets

M/ s. Ambition Mica Pvt Ltd. Block No. 309 , Zak-Vahelal Road , Village Zak , Taluka Dahegam , Gandhinagar - 382305

25.

3791779

12-1-2012

12269 1987 53 grade ordinary portland cement

M/ s. Tirupati Industries Vansda Road, Block No. 243/2/1 , Near Bansidhar Quarry at & PO: Rethveniya , Navsari Chikhli -396521

26.

3795888

12-1-2012

14543 2004 Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

M/s. Jigar Industries Opp. MarketYard, Near Mahakalidinning , Kukarwada (Mandali ), Ta Mansa, DistGandhinagar- 382830

27. 3792276

13-1-2012 High strength deformed 1786 2008

steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

M/s. Satluj Steel Rolling Mills PvtLtd. 33 , Ashwamegh Estate , Changodar, Ta.Sanand , Ahmedabad- 382213 6307

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4 2

13-1-2012

28. 3792478

789 5

2008

13488

Emitting pipes system

Amidhara Drip Irrigation Plot No. 1801/16, GIDC, Phase IV, V. U. Nagar Anand, V U Nagar-388121

3792781

16-1-2012

29.

2003

458

Precast concrete pipes (with and without reinforcement )

R.S. Pipe & Article works AtPO Modasar , (Naswadi Road ) Bodeli , Ta Sankheda , Vadodara

18-1-2012

30. 3794684

1995

2046

Durolam Limited 34, Omkar House , C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Mahesana- 382706

20-1-2012

31. 3795282

1992

13592-

Astral Polytechnik Limited 207/1 , Astral House , B/H Rajpath Club, Ahmedabad- 380059

32.

21-1-2012

3795787

Decorative thermosetting synthetic rasin, bonded laminated sheets - Upvc pipes for soil and waste discharge systems inside buildings including ventilation and rainwater system

1983

HimaSales Corporation Block No. 795/6, Near Nilkanth Hotel,Opp . Serve Pharma Rakanpur , Gandhinagar - 380001

24-1-2012

3800249

33.

Conduits for electrical 9537 3 installations: part 3 rigid Plainconduits of insulating materials (superseding IS: 2509)

1991

13098

Automotive vehicles tubes for pneumatic tyres -

YashPloymers Block No. 58 , Plot No. 17 C2 , TempaGali, Pipodra,GI.D.C . Tal Mangrol , Surat Pipodra- 394110

| No. CMD/13: 11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2566.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पत्ता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

3628869

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

19-1-2012 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर ) आई एस 14543:2004

मैसर्सत्रिमूर्ति फुड तथा बिवरेज ब्लाक नंबर 32 , अमरोलीछापरा भथा रोड , तक्षिला स्कूल के पास, सूरत

7143663

311-2012

सिंगल फेस स्माल ए सी एंड यूनिवर्सल इलैक्ट्रिक मोटर्स आई एस 996: 1979

मैसर्स मीरा इंडस्ट्रीज , 312 , मैमको बस स्टाप के पीछे , पी ओ सैजपुर बोघा, नरोडा रोड , अहमदाबाद-382345

| सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13 ]

टी. बी. नारायणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख 6308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

PART INSEC . 3 ( ii ) )

New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2566.- In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of the regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifi cation) Regulations, 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are givenbelow have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Name &Addess of the Licensee

Date ofCancellation Licences No. CM/L-

No.

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

1. 3628869

19-1-2012

Packaged drinkingwater (other than Packaged natural Mineralwater) IS14543 :2004

M/s. Trupti Food and beverages BlockNo. 32,Amroli Chhapra Bhatha Road, Nr. Taxsila School, Surat, Distt . Surat

2. 7143663

31-1-2012 M/s . Mira Industries 312, Behind Memco Bus Stop, PO SaijpurBogha, NarodaRoad, Distt:Ahmadabad- 382345

Single-phase small ac and universal electric motors IS996: 1979

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

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

नईदिल्ली, 30 जुलाई , 2012

का.अ. 2567. भारतीय मानक स्थरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एक्यू‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

भाग अनु वर्ष क्रम संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामा संख्या

1 2

7 8 9

1. 3800148

2-2-2012

458

2003

प्रीकास्ट कांक्रीट पाईप ( विद तथा विदाउट रेनिफोर्समेंट)

मैसर्स सी एच पटेल तथा कम्पनी , ब्लाक नंबर 268 तथा 19 , पटेल कंपाउंड , मार्केट यार्ड के पीछे , वडोदरा , बोडेली-391135

7-2-2012

3802758

9281 3

1981

इलैक्ट्रानिक वेयिंग सिस्टम्स

मैसर्स एनडैवर इंस्ट्रूमेंट प्रा लिमिटेड 45/3चांगोदर इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , अहमदाबाद डिस्ट्रिक्ट को ओ बैंक रोड, एस टी स्टैंड के सामने , सरोज बावला हाइवे , चांगोदर ता सानंद , अहमदाबाद -382213

3. 3801554

1660

8-2-2012

2009

राट एलुमिनियम यूटैसिल

मैसर्स आर आर इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 54 व 65 , न्यू जी आई डीसी , वलसाद-396171

8-2-2012

2347

3801655

2006

डोमैस्टिकप्रेशर कुकर

मैसर्स आर आर इंडस्ट्रीज, प्लाट नंबर 54 व 65 , न्यूजी आई डी सी , वलसाद-396171

2347

3801958

8-2-2012

2006

मैसर्स राधे इंडस्ट्रीज ,

डोमैस्टिक प्रेशर कुकर

प्लाट नंबर 1517 , फेस- II , ओल्ड खोडियाल होटल के पास , जी आई डी सी , गांधीनगर , छतराल-382729 6309

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4 1

6. 3802253

8-2-2012

8 5

1417

1999

मैसर्स मणीरत्ना ओरनामैंट्स (इंडिया) प्रा. लि. 1 , शंकेश्वर काम्पलैक्स, अंबामाता मंदिर के सामने, वी पी रोड, क्लसाद-374521

3802354

8-2-2012

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स चोकसी बालमुकंद जमनादास तथा ब्रदर्स , 2365/66 , रानीना हजीरा के पास , मानेक चोक , अहमदाबाद-380001

8-2-2012

3802455

1417

1999

मैसर्स कृष्णाज्वैलर्स, 798, गुरजर पोल के सामने , डि साबरकांटा, प्रातिज-383205

8-2-2012

3802556

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स चिंतन ज्वैलर्स, 2/ए, सुयोग काम्पलैक्स , बलियादेव मंदिर के सामने, वेजलपुर बस स्टेशन के पास, अहमदाबाद-380051

10. 3803154

10-2-2012

2000

4985

अनप्लास्टिसाइड पी वी सी पाईप फार पोटेबल वाटर सपलाईस

मैसर्सपेरागान सिथैरिक तथा पालिमर्स लिमिटेड, यूनिट 2, 102/2 , जी आई डी सी, मकरपुरा , वडोदरा -390010

11. 3805461

13-2-2012

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( अदर दैन पैकेज्ड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

मैसर्स ओशन मिनरल तथा बिवरज , प्लाट नंबर 3 /पी 2,गाँव पानेलव , ता हलोल , पंचमहल-389350

14-2-2012 12 3803659

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स वानूभाईज्वैलर्स सामेश्वर महादेवस स्ट्रीट , रणछोडजी टैंपल के सामने, एम बी रोड, वडोदरा -390001

14-2-2012 13. 3804257

2001

14927 2

केबल ट्रॅकिग तथा डक्टिंग सिस्टमफार इलैक्ट्रिकल इंस्टालेशन

मैसर्स हीमा सेल्स कापरिशन , ब्लाक नंबर 759/6 , नीलकंठ होटल के पास , सर्व फार्मा के सामने, रकनपुर , गांधीनगर

14-2-2012

14 3805158

2010

15907

एग्रो टैक्सटाईल हाई डैनसिटी पालथिलीन (एच डी पी ई) वोवन बैडस फार वर्मीकल्बर

मैसर्स यूनियन क्वालिटी प्लास्टिक लिमिटेड, 204 व 205 जी आई डीसी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, अंबरगॉव, वलसाद

15. 3804459

15-2-2012

14151 2

2008 ईरीगेशन इक्यूपमेंट स्त्रीनकलर पाईप

पैसर्स डोंगा वाटरटैक प्रा लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 3 , कैलाश इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , सर्वे नंबर 189/1 व 2 , इससार पेट्रोल पम्म के सामने, सानंद विरमगाम हाइवे , एट आइवा ,

ता, सानंद , अहमदाबाद-382170

16-2-2012 16. 3805360

2000

4985

अनप्लास्टिसाइड पी वी सी पाईप फार पोटेबल वाटर सप्लाईस

मैसर्स एसट्राल पालिटैकनिक लिमिटेड , 207/1 , एसट्राल हाऊस , राजपथ क्लब , अहमदाबाद-380059 [PART I -SEC. 3 (ii )]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6310 .

16-2-2012 17. 3805562

8 9

12786

1989

इरीगेशन इक्यूपमेंट- पालीथलीन पाईप फार इरीगेशन लेटूल

मैसर्स डोंगा वाटरटैक प्रा लिमिटेड, प्लाट नंबर 3 , कैलाश इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , सर्वे नंबर 189/1 व 2 , एसार पेट्रोल पम्प के सामने, सानंद विरमगाम हाइवे , एट आइवा , ता सानंद , अहमदाबाद-382170

17-2-2012 18. 3806867

1996

325

थ्री फेस इंडक्शन

मोटर्स

मैसर्स जय इलैक्ट्रिकल इंडस्ट्रीज , 5 , राजकमल एस्टेट , सोनी चाल के पास , ओढव रोड , रखियाल , अहमदाबाद -380023

23-2-2012 19. 3806968

1996

12232 1

इरीगेशन इक्यूपमेंट -

रोटेटिंग स्प्रीनकलर

मैसर्स स्प्रिंग बर्ड पालीटैक , 18, सिधी एस्टेट , पाना एसटेट रोड़ , मालेक साबन स्टेडियम के पास , अहमदाबाद रखियाल-380023

27-2-2012 20. 3808063

12232 1

1996

इरीगेशन इक्यूपमेंट

मैसर्स नेटाफिम इरीगेशन इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड , 268-270 , जी आई रोटेटिंग स्प्रीनकलर डीसी, मंजूसर , सावली, वडोदरा -391775

28-2-2012 21. 3808972

1998

8472

पम्पस - रिजैनरेटिव या क्लीयर , कोल्ड वाटर

मैसर्स पटेल इंजिनियरिंग वर्क्स , 5/105/106 , भगवती फाउंडरी के सामने , ओढव , अहमदाबाद- 382415

28-2-2012 22. 3810050

2004

5312 1

मैसर्स हवा इंजिनियर्स लिमिटेड 307 , चांदोला पुलिस चौकी के पीछे अहमदाबाद-380028

29-2-2012 23. 3811355

स्ींग चैक टाईप रिफक्लस ( नान रिर्टन ) वाल्वस फार वाटर वर्क्स परपस

1996

1328

वीनरड डैकोरेटिव प्लाईवुड

मैसर्स तुराखिया ओवरसीस प्रा. लिमिटेड, प्लाट नंबर 317-325 , कारोली गाँव , पोस्ट हाजीपुर, जलाराम सिरामिक्स के पास , गांधीनगर , ता. कलोल

[ सं. सीएमडी/13: 11 ]

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

New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2567. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifica- tion ) Regulations 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule: --

SCHEDULE

IS No. Part Sec . Year Title of the Standard

Name and address of the party

Licence No. Grant Date Sl. No.

2-2-2012 3800148

2003

Precast concrete pipes 458 (withand without reinforcement)

M/s. C.H. Patel & Co. Block No. 268 & 19, Patel Compound, Behind Market Yard Vadodara Bodeli - 391135 6311

भारत का राजपुत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

4 2

7-2-2012

3802758

7 8 9

1981

9281 3

Electronic weighing systems

Endeavour Instrument Pvt . Ltd. , 45/3,Changodar Industrial Area, Ahmedabad Dist . Co-op. Bank Road, Opp . S.T. Stand, Sarkhej BavlaHighway Changodar, Taluka Sanand, Ahmedabad- 382213

3801554

8-2-2012

2009

1660

Wrough aluminium utensils

M/s . R. R. Industries

PlotNo.54& 65, NewGIDC

Valsad, Umbergaon-396171

8-2-2012

3801655

2347

2006 Domestic pressure cookers

M/ s . R. R. Industries PlotNo. 54& 65 , NewGIDC Valsad, Umbergaon-396171

8-2-2012

3801958

2347

2006 Domestic pressure cookers

M/ s. Radhe Industries Plot No. 1517, Phase- II , Near Old Khodiyal Hotel , GI.D.C. Gandhinagar, Chhatral -382729

3802253

8-2-2012

1417 1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking

M/s. Maniratna Ornaments (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1. Shankheshwar Complex , Opp . Ambamata Mandir, V.P. Road, Valsad -374521

8-2-2012

3802354

1999

1417

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

M/s. Choksi Balmukund Jamnadas &Brothers, 2365/66, Near Ranina Hajira, Manek Chowk, Ahmedabad- 380001

3802455

8-2-2012

1417 1999

M/s. Krishna Jewellers 798, Opp. Gurjar Pol , Prantij , Dist. Sabarkantha Prantij - 383205

3802556

8-2-2012

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

1999

1417

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

Chintan Jewellers 2/A, Suyog Complex ,Opp . Baliyadev Mandir, Near Vejalpur bus station , Ahmedabad- 380051

3803154

10.-2-2012

10.

4985

2000

Paragon Synthetics & Polymers Ltd. , Unit- II , 102/2, GI.D.C. Makarpura, Vadodara- 390010

11.

3805461

13-2-2012

Unplasticized PVC pipesfor potable water supplies

2004

14543

OceanMineral & Beverage Plot No. 3 /P2 , Vill . Panelav, Tal Halol -389350, Panchmahal 389350

12.

3803659

14-2-2012

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

1447 1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts - fineness and marking

Vanubhai Jewellers Sameshwar Mahadevs Street, Opp . Ranchodji Temple , M.G Road, Vadodara -390001

14-2-2012

13. 3804257.

14927 2 2001

M/s. Hima Sales Corporation Block No. 759/6, Near Nilkanth Hotal , Opp. Serve Pharma, Rakkanpur, Gandhinagar

Cable trunking and ducting systems for electrical installations Part 2 cable trunking and ducting systems intended for mounting onwalls or ceiling PART 11-SFC . 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6312

14-2-2012

3805158

14.

6 7 8 9 5

2010

15907

Union Quality Plastics Limited 204& 205 , GIDC Industrial Estate Umbergaon, Valsad

15-2-2012

3804459

15.

(hdpe) woven beds for vermiculture Agro-textiles -high , density polyethylene

2008

14151 2

Irrigation equipment- sprinkler pipes

Donga Watertech, Pvt . , Ltd. Plot No. 3 , Kailash Industrial Estate, Survey No. 189/1 & 2, Opp.Essar Petrol Pump , Sanand Viramgam Highway At. Iyava Tal- Sanand, Ahmedabad- 382170

16-2-2012

3805360

16.

2000

4985

Unplasticized PVC pipesfor potable water supplies

AstralPolytechnik Limited 207/1 , Astral House , B/H Rajpath Club , Ahmedabad-380059

16-2-2012

3805562

17.

1989

12786

Irrigation equipment- polyethlene pipes for irrigation laterals

Donga Watertech Pvt . Ltd. , Plot No. 3 , Kailash Ind . Estate , Survey No. 189/1 & 2, Opp . EssarPetrol Pump Sanand- Viramgam highway At . lyava, Tal - Sanand , Ahmedabad-382170

17-2-2012

18. 3806867

1996

325

Three-phase induction motors

M/s. Jai Electrical Industries 5, Rajkamal Estate Near Soni Chawl , Odhav Road, Rakhial , Ahmedabad- 380023

23-2-2012

3806968

19.

1996

12232 1

Irrigation equipment rotating sprinkher

Spring Bird Polytech 18 , Siddhi Estate, Panna, Estate Road, Near Malek Saban Stadium , Ahmedabad, Rakhial -380001

27-2-2012

3808063

20.

1996

12232 |

Irrigation equipment- rotating sprinkler

Netafim Irrigation India Pvt . Ltd. , 268 , 270, GI.D.C. Manjusar, Savli, Vadodara -391775

28-2-2012

3808972

21.

1998

8472

Pumps - regenerative orclear, Cold water

Patel Engineering Works 5/105/106, Opp . Bhagawati Foundry, Odhav Ahmedabad- 382415

28-2-2012

3810050

2004

5312 1

Chowky, Chandola, Hawa Engineers Ltd. , 307, Behind Chandola Police Ahmedabad-380028

29-2-2012

3811355

23.

Swing check type reflux (non-return) valves for water works purposes

1996

1328

Veneered decorative plywood

Turakhia Overseas Pvt . Ltd. , Plot No. 317-325, Karoli Village , Post:Hajipur, Near Jalaram Ceramic, Gandhinagar, Taluka Kalol

[No. CMD/13: 11 ]

T. B. NARAYANAN , Scientist ' F ' & Head 6313

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2568.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उप - विनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है: -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्र. सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

7655084

मैसर्स चोकसी मणीलाल कालिदास तथा सन्स, बी/30 , यागनिक चैम्बर्स , एस टी बस स्टैंड के सामने , पी ओ मानसा, डि गांधीनगर-382845

7980301

मैसर्स लक्ष्मी ज्वैलर्स , 13- ए , आर ई सी नंबर 61 , शॉप नंबर 2021/ , जॉली आरकडे , रंगीला पार्क के सामने , गोड डोड रोड , आथवा , सूरत-395001

3. 7911379 मैसर्स हाई डिस्चार्ज सबमर्सिबल पम्प, 29 , यादव एस्टेट , नवाब एस्टेट, जीडी रोड, सैजपुर , अहमदाबाद-382345

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

15-02-2012 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 :1999

28-02-2012 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट आई एस 8034: 2002

[ सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 13 ]

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

New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2568. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6 ) of the Regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

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

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licences No. CM/L-

(3)

(2)

(1)

7655084 M/s. Choksi Manilal Kalidas 1.

&Sons , B/30, YagnikChambers , Opp . S. T. Bus Stand, PO: Mansa, Distt.:Gandhinagar - 382845

7980301

M/s. Laxmi Jewellers 13 -A, RE. S.H. No. 61 , Shop No. 2021 /, Jolly Arcade Opp. Rangila Paark, GhodDod Road, Athwa , Surat-395001

2817 GI /2012-4

Date of

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

(5) (4)

15-02-2012

Gold and gold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking IS 1417: 1999

15-02-2012

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking IS 1417:1999 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 6314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20, 1934

(5)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

28-02-2012

31 7911379

Submersible Pumpsets

IS8034: 2002

M/s. High Discharge Submersible Pump 29, Yadav Estate , OppNavab Estate, G D. Road, Saijpur, Ahmedabad- 382345

[No. CMD/ 13 : 13 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2569.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप - नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

अनु वर्ष

भा. मा. भाग संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि, वर्ष/माह

(9 )

(5)

(6) (7) (8)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

2007

15778

3808568

01-03-2012 मैसर्स डयूट्रान पालिमर्स लिमिटेड, एन एच नंबर 8 , ब्लाक नंबर 642 , एट हरियाला , ता मातर, खेडा, हरियाला-387411

क्लोरिनेटिड पी वी सी पाइप फार पोटेबल हॉट तथा कोल्ड वाटर डिस्ट्रिब्यूशन सप्लाईस

1999

1417

02-03-2012

3809368

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स अवेसोम स्पारकलर्स , 319 , क्लासिक काम्पलैक्स, एवी सन्स, गोड डोड रोड, सूरत-395007

1417

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण

3809469 02-03-2012 मैसर्स ओम ज्वैलर्स , 79/नाविल पार्क सोसाइटी , गायत्री मंदिर के पीछे , आलथा ,

धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

सूरत-395017

1417

1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण

3809570 02-03-2012 मैसर्स कुबेर ज्वैलर्स , एट पारदीबाजार , कलोल,

पंचमहल-389330

धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1999

1417

3809671 02-03-2012

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स गुरुकृपा ज्वैलर्स , 3/28 , स्टेट बैंक ऑफ सौराष्ट्र के पास , पी ओ पेटलाड, आनंद-388450 6315

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii)]

(4)

(1) (2)

(3)

02-03-2012

6. 3811052

मैसर्स अंज हैल्थ केयर बी-3 , शंकर भाई पटेल एस्टेट, एट मंजूसर , तासावली, डिस्ट्रिक्ट वडोदरा

3812054

07-03-2012 मैसर्स कृष्णा एंटरप्राईस , 18 , शिवम इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , पार्ट 1 , निर्मल पार्क, ओढव अहमदाबाद-382410

8. 3812155

07-03-2012 मैसर्स एईरा यूरो आटोमेशन प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 124 , एइरा एसटेट, सिक्यूरिटी एस्टेट के पीछे, काशीराम टैक्सटाईल मिल के पास , नरोल रोड, अहमदाबाद-382405

09-03-2012

9. 3811961

मैसर्स एस एन बी ज्वैलर्स प्रा, 6/2066 , हरीपुरा , हाट फालिया, घीकाटा रोड, सूरत-395003

09-03-2012

10. 3811254

मैसर्स जे जे जवैलर्स राओपुरा , शीयापुराण , लोहाना बिल्डिंग के पास , वडोदरा -390001

11. 3811860 12-03-2012 मैसर्स निधी इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट नंबर 1-102 , रोड नंबर 6 , जी आई डी सी , सचिन , सूरत-394230

12-03-2012

12. 3813056

मैसर्स अमिनं बिवरेजस प्रा. लिमिटेड, 2/5 , बी आई डी सी एसटेट , गोरवा, वडोदरा -390016

12-03-2012

13. 3813561

मैसर्स केनकुक एपजासिंस बी-245 , न्यूएसटेट रोड नंबर 6 -डी, उधना, उद्योगनगर, सूरत -394210

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

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदरदैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

2007

एक्स्पलोसिव

एटमासफियर

आई एस/ 1 आई ई सी60079

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

1417

1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

2008

13488

एमिटिंग पाईप सिस्टम

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

2006

2347

डोमैस्टिक प्रेशर कुकर 6316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

14.

3813864 13-03-2012 मैसर्स शिव प्रोडक्ट्स प्रा. लि. , प्लाट नंबर 75 , सांतेज वडसर रोड, रामदेव मसाला फैक्टरी के पास, गांव सांतेज, ता कलोल डि. गांधीनगर-382010

15. 3812963

13-03-2012 मैसर्स श्री साई नीर इंडस्ट्रीज , 58/1, चिराग इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट, रेवाभाई एसटेट रोड के पास , सी टी एम अमराईवाडी, अहमदाबाद -380026

3813662

16 .

15-03-2012 मैसर्स सूर्या जवैलर्स एफ एफ-146 , 147 , गंगोत्री कामप्लैक्स, यश कामप्लैक्स, के सामने गोतरी , वडोदरा -390021

17. 3818369 16-03-2012 मैसर्स डायमंड पावर इंफ्रास्टकचर लिमिटेड, फेस- II , गांव वडाडला ता. सावली.

डि. वडोदरा

18. 3819472 19-03-2012 मैसर्स सिंग तथा कम्पनी , प्लाट नंबर 3602 , फेस IV, जी आई डी सी. वापी , डि. वलसाद-396195

19. 3818167

23-03-2012 मैसर्स केयरवैल सेफ्टी सिस्टमस , प्लाट नंबर 95 , एक्सपेंशन एरिया, जी आई डी सी. इंडस्ट्रियल एसटेट , अंबरगांव, डि वलसाद

3821257

20.

28-03-2012

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

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

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदुर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (अदर दैन पैकेजड नेचुरल मिनरल वाटर)

1417

1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

7098

1993 क्रास लिंकड पालीथलीन इंसूलेटिड थर्मोप्लास्टिक शीथड केबलस

13997

1994 ड्रम लार्ज ओपन टाप

2925

1984 इंडस्ट्रियलसेफ्टी सिस्टमस

15227

2002 डैल्टामैथरिन यूएल वी

मैसर्स बायर क्राप साईंस लिमिटेड, प्लाट नंबर 66/1 से 75/2तक , जी आई डी सी एसटेट , हिम्मतनगर , साबरकांटा-383001

3819775

29-03-2012 मैसर्स सुपर साल्टस प्रा. लिमिटेड , सर्वे नंबर 1414- 1416,1419-1421,1427- 1431, 1443 एवं 1554- 1556 , गांव मगनाड, ता जंबूसर , भारूच-392150 आयोडासिडट

7224

2006

साल्ट [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6317

भारत का राजपत्र अंगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

22. 3822663 31-03-2012 मैसर्स देवीदयाल ( सेल्स) लिमिटेड, 50/ए जी आई डी सी , इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , डैरोल कलोल पंचमहल , कलोल 389330

(7)

(5)

(6)

(9)

(8)

1977

8498

टैमीफोस इमलस्फायेबल कंसनट्रेटस

| सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11 ]

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

New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2569.-In pursuance ofsub -regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

Licences No.

Sl . No.

Name and Address of theParty

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1-3-2012

1. 3808568

Dutron Polymers Ltd. N.H. No.8 , BlockNo. 642, At Hariyala , Tal Matar, Kheda Hariyala 387411

2-3-2012

3809368

Awesome Sparklers 319, Classic Complex, OppA. V. Sons , Ghod-dod-Road Surat395007

2-3-2012

3. 3809469

Aum Jewells 79/Navil Park Society, B/H Gaytri Temple Altha, Surat 395017

2-3-2012

3809570

KuberJewellers , At. Parvdibazar, Kalol Panchanahal 389330

2-3-2012

3809671

Gurukrupa Jewellers, 3/28 . NR State Bank ofSaurashtra, P.O. Petlad Anand 388450

2-3-2012

6. 3811052

AnjHael Thcare B-3, Shankarbhai Patel Estate , At Manjusar, Tal Savli Dist. Vadodara

ISNo. Part Sec. Year Title ofthe Standard

(5)

(7) (8) (9)

(6)

2007

15778

Chlorinated PVC pipesfor potable hot and cold water distribution supplies

1999

1417

Gold andgold alloys , Jewellery/ artefacts-fineness andmarking

1417

1999

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

1417

1999

Goldandgold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts- fineness andmarking

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts-fineness andmarking

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineralwater) [ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6318

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

7-3-2012

7 3812054

Krishna Enterprise 18 , Shivam Industrial Estate, Part 1 , Nirmal Park, Odhav, Ahmedabad 382410

7-3-2012

8 3812155

Aira Euro Automation PvtLtd. , Plot No. 124 , AIRA Estate , В /Н Security Estate, Near Kashiram Textile Mill Narol Road, Ahmedabad 382405

9-3-2012

9 3811961

SNB Jewellers Pvt . , 6/2066,Haripura, HatFaliya Gheekata Road Surat 395003

9-3-2012

10 3811254

J.J. Jewellers , Raopura, Shiyapuran Near Lohana Bulding Vadodara 390001

12-3-2012

11. 3811860

Nidhi Industries Plot No. 1-102, Road, No. 6, G.I.D.C. Sachin, Surat394230

12-3-2012

12. 3813056

M/s. Amin Beverages PvtLtd. 2/5 B..I.D.C . Estate, Gorwa Vadodara 390016

3813561

12-3-2012

13.

Kencook Appliances B-245 , New Estate Road No. 6 - D Udhana, Udhyognagr Surat394210

13-3-2012

3813864

14.

Shiv Products Pvt Ltd. Plot No. 75, Santej- Vadsar Road, Near Ramdev Masala Factory, Village Satej .TalKalol Dist.Gandhinagar 382010

(9)

(6)

(5)

(7) (8 )

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

IS/IEC 1 2007

60079

Explosive atmospheres part 1 equipment protection by flameproof enclosures " d "

1999

1417

Gold and gold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts-fineness andmarking

1417 1999

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

13488 2008

Emitting pipes system

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)

2006

2347

Domestic pressure cookers

2004

Packaged drinking 14543

water (other than packaged natural mineralwater) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

(1)

(3)

(4)

15. 3812963

13-3-2012 Shree Sai Neer Industries, 58/1, Chirag Industrial , Estate, Near Revabhai EstateRoad, C.T.M. Amraiwadi Ahmedabad 380026

16. 3813662

15-3-2012

M/ s. Surya Jewellers , FF- 146, 147, Gangotri Complex, Opp. Yesh Complex,Gotri Vadodara 390021

17. 3818369

16-3-2012 Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. Phase- II , Village Vadadala, Tal Savli DistVadodara

18. 3819472

19-3-2012

Singh and Companies Plot No. 3602 Phase IV, G.I.D.C.Vapi DistValsad 396195

19. 3818167

23-3-2012

Carewell Safety Systems , Plot No.95 , ExpansionArea, G.I.C.D. Industrial Estate, Umbergaon DistValsad

20. 3821257

28-3-2012

BayerCropscience Limited, Plot No. 66/1 to 75/2 GIDC Estate Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383001

29-3-2012

21. 3819775

Super Salts Pvt . Ltd. Survay Nos . 1414- 1416, 1419-1421,1427- 1431 , 1443 & 1554- 1556, Vill Magnad , Tal-Jambusar, Bharuch 392150

22. 3822663

31-3-2012

Devidayal (Sales) Limited , 50/ A , GIDC Industrial Estate Derol -Kalol , Pancha- mahal, Kalol Gujarat 389330

6319

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

14543

2004 Packed drinking water(other than packaged natural mineralwater)

1417

1999 Goldandgold alloys, Jewellery/ artefacts- fineness andmarking

7098

1993 Cross- linked polyethylene insulated thermoplastic sheathed cables

13997

1994 Drums large open top

2925

1984 Industrial safety helmets

15227

2002 Deltamethrin ulv

lodized salt

7224

2006

8498

1977 Temephos emulsifiable concentrates

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

T. B. NARAYANAN , Scientist ' F ' & Head [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6320

नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2570.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है: -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्र. सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

(2)

(3)

(1)

11 7714680 मैसर्स गिरशिचंद्रा नानचंदभाई चोकसी , 3/137 , नवापुरा, पारसी शेरी , डिः सूरत 395003

(5) (4)

12-03-2012 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417: 1999

[.सं. सीएमडी/13: 13 ]

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

New Delhi , the 30th July, 2012

S.O. 2570.- In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6 ) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations, 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. CM/L-

(3)

(1) (2)

1. 7714680

3/137 , Nawapura,

M/ s . Girish Chandra Nanchandbhai Choksi , Parsi Sheri, Distt: Surat395003

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

(5) (4)

12-03-2012 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- fineness and marking IS 1417: 1999

[No. CMD/13 : 13]

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

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त , 2012

का.आ. 2571.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , कोयला धारकं क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्याक का.आ. 2954 तारीख 30 नवम्बर , 2010 द्वारा जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 4 दिसम्बर, 2010 में प्रकाशित की गई थी उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट अवस्थान में ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों के अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और महाराष्ट्र सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 1596.00 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 3943.786 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिएं ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित 1596.00 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) या 3943.786 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या ऐसी भूमि पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ].

6321

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्याक सी. 1 ( ई ) III /एफयूआर/ 871-1011 तारीख 3 अक्टूबर , 2011 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक । , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल एस्टेट, सिविल लाइन्स , नागपुर -440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

दिनेश ओपनकास्ट ( मकरधोकरा- III ) खान

उमरेर क्षेत्र

जिला-नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र )

[ रेखांक संगवाक सी.1 ( ई ) III/ एफयूआर/ 871-1011 तारीख 3 अक्टूबर , 2011 ]

सभी अधिकार

ग्राम का नाम

क्रम सं.

पटवारी सर्किल संख्या

मकरधोकरा

16 सुकली

बोपेश्वर

हेवटी

कटारा

दहेगांव

16 6.

सायकी

16 7.

तहसील

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

जिला

टिप्पणियां

उमरेर

646.84

भाग नागपुर

447.55

उमरेर

भाग नागपुर

उमरेर

205.81

भाग नागपुर

उमरेर

209.63

भाग नागपुर

उमरेर

भाग

46.88

नागपुर

उमरेर

भाग

28.77

नागपुर

10.52

उमरेर

भाग नागपुर

कुल क्षेत्र:-1596.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 3943.786 एकड़ ( लगभग )

ग्राम मकरधोकरा में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक:

26, 27, 28 , 29, 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 34, 35 , 36, 37, 38 , 39 , 40/1 , 40/2 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 , 49, 50, 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 79. 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90/1 , 91/2 , 93 , 94, 95 , 96 , 97, 98 , 99/1 , 99/2, 100/1 , 100/2 , 101 , 102, 103 , 104, 105, 106/1 .

106/2, 107, 108 , 109 , 110, 111 , 112, 113, 114, 115 , 116/1 , 116/2, 117, 118/1 , 118/2 , 119, 136/1 , 136/2 , 137, 138 , 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151/1 , 151/2 , 152/1 , 152/2 , 153 , 154, 155 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165/ 1 क, 165/11 , 165/1 ख2. 165/2, 166/1 , 166/2 , 166/3 , 167, 168, 169, 170, 171/1 , 171/2, 172/2 , 173 , 174, 175 , 176, 177, 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182, 183 , 184, 185, 186/, 186/2 , 187 , 188 , 189/1 , 189/2 , 190 , 191 , 192, 193 , 194 , 195, 196 , 197 , 198 , 199, 200, 201/1 , 201/2 , 202, 203 , 204/1 , 204/2, 205 , 206 , 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213 , 214, 215/1,215 /2,215/3,216/ 1,216/2, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221 , 222/1 , 222/2 , 223 , 224/1,224/2,224/3 , 224/4 , 225 , 226/1 , 226/2,227, 228, 229/ 1 क, 229/1 ख , 229/2,229/3 , 229/4 , 230 , 231 , 232/ 1,232/2,232/3 ,

233/1 क, 233/ 1 ख , 233/2, 233/3 , 234/1 /क1 , 234/1 /क2, 234/1 /क3 , 234/ 1/ क4, 234/1/ख 1 , 234/1/02, 234/1/3, 234/ 1 /ख4, 234/1 ग, 234/2, 234/3, 234/4, 234/5 क , 234/5 ख, 234/6 क, 234/6ख, 235/ 1,235/ 2 , 236 , 237,238,239,240/ 1 क 240/ 1 ख, 240/2,240/3,241/1 ,

241/2,241/3,241/4,242, 243 , 244/1 , 244/2 , 245, 246, 247/1,247/2 , 248 , 249, 250/1 क 250/ 1ख, 250/2 , 250/3 , 251,251 / 1,252/2,253 , 254/1,254/2,254/ 3, 255, 256, 257/1,257/2,258 / 1,258/2, 259 , 260 , 261 , 262, 263 , 264 , 265, 266, 267 , 268 , 269, 270, 271 , 272 , 273/1,273/2,274,275/ 1,275/2,276/ 1,276/2,276/3,276/4,276/5,277,278,279,280,281,282,283 , 284, 285/ 1,285/2,286,287, 288/ 1,288/2,288/3,288/4, 289, 290, 291 , 292, 293, 294, 295, 296 , 297, 298, 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303/4 , 303/2, 304 , 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310/ 1 क 310/1 ख,1,310/2,310/3 , 311 , 312, 313/ 1,313 /2,314/1,314/2,315,316,317,318,319, 320 , 321 , 322, 323 , 324 , 325, 326, 327,

328,329/ 1क, 329/ 1 ख, 329/2, 330, 331 , 332 , 333/1 , 333/2,333/3,334, 335/1 , 335/2,336,337/1,337/2,559,571/ 1,571/ 2,571/3,574 ,

2817 GI /2012--5 6322

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 / SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

575,578,579/1,579/2, 580, 581 , 582 , 583 , 584, 585, 588 , 589, 590 , 591 , 592, 593 , 594/1 , 594 /2,595, 596/ 1क, 596/ 1 ख, 596/2, 597. 598,599,601 , 602, 603 , 604, 605 , 606 , 607, 608 , 609, 610 , 611 , नहर, नाला और सड़क ।

ग्राम सुकली में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक

1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12/1 , 12/2 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17, 18 , 19, 20 , 21 , 22/1 , 22/2 , 23 , 24. 25. 26/1 , 26/2 , 26/3 , 26/4 , 27, 28 , 29/1 , 29/2 , 30/1 , 30/2 , 31 , 32 , 33/1 , 33/2 , 34/1 , 34/2 , 35, 36 , 37, 38 , 39, 40 , 41 , 42, 43 , 44 , 45, 46, 47/1 , 47/2 , 47/3 . 48, 49, 50 , 51 , 52/1 , 52/2 , 52/3 , 52/4 , 53/1 , 53/2 , 53/3 , 54, 55 , 56 , 72 , 73 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97, 98 , 99, 100 , 101 , 102, 103 , 104, 105, 106, 107/2, 109, 110/1 , 110/2, 110/3 , 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 , 119 , 120/1 , 120/2 , 120/3 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124/1 , 124/2 . 125/1 , 125/2 , 125/3 , 126/1 , 126/2 , 127, 128 , 129/1 , 129/2 , 129/3 , 130, 131 , 132, 133 , 134 , 135, 136, 137/1 , 137/2 , 138 , 139, 140/1 , 140/2 , 141 , 142 , 143/1 , 143/2 , 144/1 , 144/2 , 145 , 146, 147, 148, 149 , 150, 151 , 152 , 153/1 , 153/2 , 154 , 155, 156/1 , 156/2 , 156/3 , 156/4, 156/5 , 157 , 158 , 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163 , 164, 165 , 166, 167, 168/1 , 168/2 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178/1 , 178/2 , 179 , 180, 181 , 182, 183 , नहर , नाला और सड़क ।

ग्राम बोपेश्वर में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक:

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8/1 , 8/2 , 9/1 , 9/2, 10, 11 , 12, 13 , 14, 15 , 16/1 , 16/2, 17/ 1 क, 17/ 1 ख, 17/2 क, 17/2ख , 18 , 19/1 , 19/2, 20/1 , 20/2, 20/3 , 20/4 , 21/1 , 21/2 , 22 , 23 , 24, 25 , 26, 27 , 28 , 29 , 30, 31/1 , 31/2 , 33 , 34, 35 , 36 , 37/1/1 , 37/1/2 , 37/1/3 , 37/ 1 क, 37/ 1 ख, 37/2, 37/3 , 37/4, 38 , 39, 40/1 , 40/2 , 41/1 , 41/2 , 41/3 , 41/4, 42/1 , 42/2 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80/1 , 80/2 , 80/3 , 80/4 , 81 , 82/1 , 82/2 , 83 , 84 , 85/1 , 85/2 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91/1 , 91/2, 91/3 , 91/4 , 92/1 , 92/2 , 93/1 , 93/2 , 94/1 , 94/2 , 94/3 , 95 , 96 , 97/1 , 97/2 , 97/3,97 /4, 97/5, 98/1 , 98/2 , 98/3 , 98/4, 98/5 , 98/6, 99, 100, 101/1 , 101/2 , 102/1 , 102/2, 102/3 , 103 , 104/1 , 104/2 क, 104/2ख, 104/3 , 104/4, 104/5 , 105/1 , 105/2 , 105/3 , 106/1 , 106/2 , 107, 108 , 109/1 , 109/2 , 110 , 111/1 , 111/2 , 112/1 , 112/2, 113/1 , 113/2 , 114/1 , 114/2 , 115 , 116/1 , 116/ 1 /क 1. 116/ 1 /क2, 116/1/3 , 116/ 1 ग , 116/2 , 116/3, 116/3क, 116/4, 116/5, 116/6 , 117 , 118 , 119/1 , 119/2 , 120 , 121 , 122, 123 ,124 , नाला सड़क ।

ग्राम हेवटी में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक:

1 , 2, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13 , 14/1 , 14/2 , 15/1 , 15/2 , 15/3 , 15/4 , 16/1 , 16/2 , 16/3 , 17, 18 , 19 , 20, 21 , 22, 23 , 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30 , 31/1 , 31/2, 31/3 , 31/4, 32, 33, 34, 35 , 36, 37 , 38/1 , 38/2 , 38/3 , 39 , 40, 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 , 49, 50 , 51, 52, 53 , 54 , 55, 60, 61/1 , 61/2 , 62, 102/1 , 102/2 , 102/3 , 103 , 104, 105 , 106, 107/1 , 107/3 , 111 , 112/1 , 112/2 , 112/3 , 113 , 114, 115 , 116/1 , 116/2, 117 , 118 , 119, 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176, 177, 178 , 179, 180/1 , 180/2 , 181 , 182, 183, 184, 185 , 186, 187, 193, 220, 221 , 222 , 223 , 224, 225 , 226 , 227, 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 247 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252/ 1 क, 252/ 1 ख , 252/2 , 252/3 क, 252/3ख, 252/4, 253 , 254/1,254 /2,255 / 1,255 /2 , 256 , 257, 258 , 259 , 260, 261 , 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266, 267, 268 , नहर, नाला और सड़क ।

ग्राम कटारा में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक:

6/1 और 7/3, 6/2 और 7/3 क, 7/1 , 7/2, 7/4,8/ 1 , 8 / 2,9 / 1 , 92 , 93 , 9/4,9/ 5 , 9/6 , 9/7 , 9/8 , 9/9, 9/10 , 10/1 , 10/2 , 11 , 12 , 13/1 , 13/2, 13/3 , 13/4 , 13/5 , 14 , 15 , 16, 17 , 18 , 19, 25 , 26 , 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 , 32 , 33 , 131 , 132/1 , 132/2 , 132/3 , 132/4 , 132/5 , सड़क ।

ग्राम दहेगांव में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक:

94/1, 94/2 , 95 , 96, 97, 98 , 99, 100, 106 , 107 , नाला , सड़क ।

ग्राम सायकी में अर्जित किए गए प्लॉट संख्यांक:

215, 216, 219, नाला , सड़क ।

सीमा वर्णन: -

कख:

रेखा ग्राम सायकी और ग्राम सुकाली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' क' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम सुकाली में प्लॉट संख्याक 56 ( वन ) से होकर गुजरती है फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 51 , 52/1 , 52/2 , 52/3 52/4 , 53/1 , 53/2 , 53/3 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और सड़क पार करती है फिर प्लॉट संख्या 55 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और सड़क पार करके , सड़क और नाले से लगकर गुजरती है फिर प्लॉट संख्या 72 ( सरकारी ) से होकर गुजरती है फिर सड़क पार करती है और फिर प्लॉट संख्या 73 से होकर गुजरती है , फिर सड़क पार करती है , फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 94 , 102 , 103 , 107/2, 106 , 109 , 116 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और ग्राम सुकाली और ग्राम हेवटी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।

6323 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

ख-ग : रेखा ग्राम हेवटी से नहर के किनारे से लगकर बिन्दु ' ख ' से गुजरती है फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 60 , 61/2 , 61/1 , 62 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है , नहर पार करती है फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 102/2 , 107/3 , 107/1 , 111 , 112/2 , 112/3 , 112/1 , 114 ( वन ) की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है फिर सड़क पार करती है और पुनः प्लॉट संख्यांक 115 , 116/1 , 119 ( वन ) , 118 , 174 , 172 , 171 , की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है फिर सड़क पार करती है और फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 184 , 187 , 186 , 193 , 222 , 221 , 220 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है ।

ग- ध : रेखा ग्राम हेवटी से प्लॉट संख्यांक 220 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 249 , 247 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है फिर नाला पार करती है और ग्राम हेवटी और ग्राम बोपेश्वर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है ।

घ-ड. : रेखा ग्राम बोपेश्वर से , प्लॉट संख्यांक 41/1 , 42/1 , 42/2 फिर 42/1 , 40/1 , 36 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 31/1 , 29 , 28 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80/2, 80/4 की सम्मिलित सीमा से लगकर बिन्दु ' घ ' से आरंभ होती है फिर ग्राम बोपेश्वर और ग्राम कटारा की सम्मिलित सीमा को पार करती है फिर ग्राम कटारा से प्लॉट संख्यांक 19 की सम्मिलित सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है , सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्या 25 की सम्मिलित सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ड. ' पर मिलती है ।

ड. -च: रेखा ग्राम कटारा से होते हुए बिन्दु ' ड. ' से आरंभ होती है , रेलवे की सीमा और प्लॉट संख्यांक 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29, 30, 31 , 32 , 33 की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है फिर सड़क पार करती है, फिर रेलवे की सीमा और प्लॉट संख्यांक 9/4, 9/5 , 8/2 , 7/2 , 7/4, 7/1 , 6/2 , और 7/3 क , 131 , फिर 6/2 और 7/ 3 क , की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है फिर ग्राम कटारा और ग्राम बोपेश्वर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है फिर रेखा ग्राम बोपेश्वर से रेलवे सीमा और प्लॉट संख्यांक 117 , 118 , 124 , 123 की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है फिर ग्राम बोपेश्वर और ग्राम मकरधोकरा से, सड़क से लगकर गुजरती है , फिर रेलवे सीमा और प्लॉट संख्यांक 203 , 161 सड़क, 154 , 155 की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है और नाले के मध्य में बिन्दु ' च ' पर मिलती है ।

च-छ : रेखा , ग्राम मकरधोकरा से होते हुए बिन्दु ' च ' से आरंभ होती है , रेलवे सीमा और प्लॉट संख्यांक 137 की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है फिर सड़क पार कर , सड़क के किनारे से लगकर गुजरती है , फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 136/2 , 119 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है फिर सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 73 , 74 , 598 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है फिर नाला पार करती है , नाले के साथ गुजरती है, फिर प्लॉट संख्यांक 83 , 89 , 90/1 , 91/2 , 97 , 96 , 93 की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है , फिर रेलवे सीमा और प्लॉट संख्यांक 93 , 50 , 49 की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है फिर सड़क पार करती है और पुनः रेलवे सीमा और प्लॉट संख्यांक 33 , 32. 26 ( वन ) की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुजरती है और ग्राम मकरधोकरा और ग्राम दहेगांव की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' छ ' पर मिलती है ।

छ-क: रेखा , ग्राम दहेगांव से होते हुए बिन्दु ' छ' से आरंभ होती है, सड़क और प्लॉट संख्यांक 107 ( वन ), 106 ( वन ) , 100 की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है , फिर नाला पार करती है फिर सड़क और प्लॉट संख्यांक 94/2 , 94/1 , 96, 95 (वन ) की बाह्य सीमा से एक साथ लगकर गुजरती है , फिर ग्राम दहेगांव और ग्राम सायकी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है , फिर रेखा ग्राम सायकी से वन प्लॉट संख्या 219 से होकर गुजरती है, नाला पार करती है . फिर प्लॉट संख्या 216 ( वन ) से होकर गुजरती है , सड़क पार करती है फिर प्लॉट संख्या 215 ( वन ) से होकर गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/4/2009 पीआरआईडब्ल्यू ।।

हेमन्त जैन , उप- सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 7th August , 2012

S.O. 2571. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 2954 . dated the 30th November , 2010 , issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas- ( Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India , Part II . Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) , dated the 4th December, 2010 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 1596.00 hectares ( approximately ) or 3943.786 acres (approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

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

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6324

Andwhereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Maharashtra, is satisfied that the lands measuring 1596.00 hectares ( approximately ) or 3943.786 acres ( approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957 ), the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 1 $ 96.00 hectares ( approximately) or 3943.786 acres (approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule are hereby acquired .

The plan bearing number C - i ( E ) III/ FUR/ 871-1011 , dated the 3rd October, 2011 of the area covered by this notification , may be inspected at the office of the Collector, Nagpur ( Maharashtra ) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700 001 or at the office of the General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Department) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440001 ( Maharashtra) .

SCHEDULE

DINESH OPENCAST ( MAKARDHOKRA- III) MINE

UMRER AREA

DISTRICT- NAGPUR ( MAHARASHTRA)

Plan bearing number C- 1 ( E ) III/ FUR/ 871-1011 , dated the 3rd October, 2011 )

( showing plot - wise land acquired in villages Makardhokra , Sukali , Bopeshwar, Hewati , Katara , Dahegaon and Sayaki and their boundary description) .

All Rights :

Tahsil SI. No.

Name of Village

Patwari Circle number

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

Makardhokra

Umrer

Umrer Sukali

Umrer Bopeshwar

Hewati

Umrer

5 Katara

Umrer

Umrer 19 Dahegaon

Umrer Sayaki

Plot numbers acquired in village Makardhokra :

District

Remarks Area in hectares

(7) (5)

(6)

646.84

Part Nagpur

Part

447.55

Nagpur

205.81

Part Nagpur

Part

209.63

Nagpur

Part

46.88

Nagpur

Part

28.77

Nagpur

10.52

Part Nagpur

Total area : 1596.00 hectares ( approximately) 3943.786 acres ( approximately) or

26, 27, 28 , 29, 30, 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40/1 , 40/2 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46, 47, 48 , 49 , 50 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 80,81, 82 , 83 , 84, 85 , 86, 87, 88 , 89 , 90/1 , 91/2 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99/1 , 99/2 , 100/1 , 100/2 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106/1 . 106.2, 107 , 108, 109, 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114, 115, 116/1 , 116/2 , 117 , 118/1 , 118/2 , 119, 136/1 , 136/2 , 137 , 138 , 139, 140 , 141 , 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 , 149 , 150 , 151/1 , 151/2 , 152/1 , 152/2 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 161 , 162, 163 , 164, 165/ 1A, 165/181 , 165/182 , 52,166/ 1,166/2 , 166/3 , 167 , 168 , 169, 170 , 171/1 , 171/2 , 172/2 , 173 , 174 , 175, 176, 177, 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 186-2, 187 , 188 , 189/ 1,189/2,190,191,192,193,194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199,200,201 / 1,201 /2,202 , 203 , 204/1 , 204/2 , 205 , 206 , 207,208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 / 1,215 /2,215/3,216/ 1,216/2,217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 / 1,222/ 2,223,224/ 1,224/2 , 24/3,224/4,225,226/ 1 , 226/2 , 227 , 228 , 229 / 1A , 21,226/2 , 227 , 228 , 229/ 1A , 229 / 1B , 229/2 , 229/3 , 229/4 , 230 , 231 , 232/ 1,232/ 2,232/ 3 , 233/ 1A , 233 / 1B , 233-2,233/3,234/1 / A1,234/1 / A2,234/1/ A3,234/1/ A4.234/1/B1,234/ 1/ 82 , 234/1/B3 , 234/ 1/B4 , 234/ 1C, 234/2,234/3 , 234/4 , 34/ 5A, 234/5B , 234 /6A, 234/6B, 235/1 , 235/2 , 236, 237,238,239 , 240/ 1A , 240/1B , 240/2 , 240/3 , 241/1 , 241/2 , 241/3 , 241/4 , 342.243.244/1 , 244/2 , 245 , 246, 247/ 1,247/2 , 248 , 249 , 250/ 1A, 250/ 1B , 250/2 , 250/3 , 251 , 251/1 , 252/2 . 253,254/1,254/2 , 6325

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

254/3, 255, 256, 257/ 1,257 /2,258/ 1,258/2, 259, 260, 261 , 262,263 , 264, 265, 266, 267, 268 , 269, 270, 271 , 272, 273/1,273/2,274, 275/1,275/2,276/1,276/2,276/3,276/4,276/5,277,278, 279, 280, 281 , 282, 283 , 284, 285/1 , 285/2,286, 287, 288/1,288/2,288/3 288/4, 289, 290 , 291 , 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 , 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303/1 , 303/2, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310/ 1A, 310/1B, 310/2 , 310/3 , 311 , 312, 313/1,313/2,314/1,314/2,315,316,317 , 318, 319, 320, 321 , 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329/ 1A, 329/ 1B, 329/2, 330, 331 , 332, 333/1 , 333/2, 333/3 , 334, 335/1 , 335/2, 336, 337/1,337/2,559,571/1 , 571/2, 571/3,574,575,578 , 579/1,579/2, 580,581,582, 583,584, 585, 588, 589,590, 591 , 592,593 , 594/1, 594/2,595, 596/1A, 596/18, 596/2, 597,598,599, 601,602,603,604,605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611 , Canal, Nallah, and Road.

Plot numbers acquired in village Sukali:

1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9, 10, 11 , 12/1 , 12/2 , 13 , 14, 15, 16 , 17, 18 , 19, 20, 21 , 22/1 , 22/2 , 23 , 24, 25, 26/1 , 26/2 , 26/3 , 26/4, 27, 28 , 29/1 , 29/2 , 30/1 , 30/2, 31 , 32, 33/1 , 33/2 , 34/1 , 34/2 , 35 , 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 , 41 , 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47/1,47/2 , 47/3 , 48,3, 49, 50 , 51 , 52/1 , 52/2, 52/3 , 52/4 , 53/1 , 53/2, 53/3 , 54, 55, 56, 72, 73, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102, 103 , 104, 105, 106, 107/2, 109 , 110/1 , 110/2, 110/3 , 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120/1 , 120/2, 120/3 , 121 , 122, 123 , 124/1 , 124/2 , 125/1 , 125/2 , 125/3 , 126/1 , 126/2, 127, 128, 129/1 , 129/2, 129/3 , 130, 131 , 132, 133, 134, 135 , 136, 137/1 , 137/2 , 138 , 139, 140/1 , 140/2, 141 , 142, 143/1 , 143/2 , 144/1 , 144/2 , 145 , 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 , 152 , 153/1 , 153/2 , 154 , 155 , 156/1 , 156/2 , 156/3 , 156/4, 156/5, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163 , 164, 165, 166, 167, 168/1 , 168/2, 169 , 170, 171 , 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178/1 , 178/2, 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183 , Canal, Nallah and Road.

Plot numbers acquired in village Bopeshwar:

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8/1 , 8/2,9/ 1 , 9/2 , 10, 11 , 12, 13 , 14, 15, 16/1 , 16/2, 17/ 1A, 17/18 , 17 /2A, 17/28 , 18, 19/1 , 19/2,20/ 1 , 20/2, 20/3 , 20/4 , 21/1 , 21/2 , 22, 23 , 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31/1 , 31/2, 33 , 34, 35, 36, 37/1/1 , 37/1/237/1/3 , 37 /1A, 37/ 1B, 37/2, 37/3 , 37/4,38 , 39 , 40/1 , 40/2, 41/1 , 41/2, 41/3 , 41/4 , 42/1 , 42/2, 77, 78 , 79, 80/1 , 80/2, 80/3 , 80/4 , 81 , 82/1 , 82/2 , 83 , 84, 85/1 , 85/2 , 86 , 87 , 88, 89, 90 , 91/1 , 91/2 , 91/3 , 91/4 , 92/1 , 92/2 , 93/1 , 93/2 , 94/1 , 94/2 , 94/3 , 95 , 96 , 97/1 , 97/2 , 97/3 , 97/4, 97/5, 98/1 , 98/2 , 98/3 , 98/4 , 98/5, 98/6, 99 , 100 , 101/1 , 101/2 , 102/1 , 102/2 , 102/3 , 103, 104/1 , 104/2A, 104/2B , 104/3, 104/4 , 104/5, 105/1 , 105/2, 105/3 , 106/1 , 106/2, 107, 108 , 109/1 , 109/2 , 110, 111/1 , 111/2, 112/1 , 112/2, 113/1 , 113/2, 114/1 , 114/2 , 115, 116/1 , 116/ 1 / A1 , 116/ 1 / A2 , 116/ 1 / A3 , 116/ 1C, 116/2 , 116/3 , 116/3A, 116/4 , 116/5 , 116/6, 117, 118 , 119/1 , 119/2 , 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124 , Nallah and Road.

Plot numbers acquired in village Hewati:

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10 , 11 , 12, 13 , 14/1 , 14/2 , 15/1 , 15/2, 15/3 , 15/4 , 16/1 , 16/2 , 16/3 , 17, 18 , 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23 , 24, 25, 26, 27 , 28, 29, 30, 31/1 , 31/2 , 31/3 , 31/4, 32 , 33 , 34, 35 , 36 , 37, 38/1 , 38/2 , 38/3 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42, 43 , 44 ,45 ,46,47,48 ,49, 50, 51, 52, 53 , 54 , 55, 60, 61/1 , 61/2, 62, 102/1 , 102/2 , 102/3 , 103 , 104, 105, 106, 107/1 , 107/3 , 111 , 112/1 , 112/2 , 112/3 , 113 , 114, 115 , 116/1 , 116/2 , 117, 118 , 119 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174, 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 ,1175 , 176, 177 , 178 , 179, 180/1 , 180/2, 181 , 182, 183 , 184, 185 , 186, 187 , 193 . 220, 221 , 222, 223 , 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 , 229 , 230, 231 , 232, 233 , 247, 249, 250, 251 , 252/ 1A, 252/ 1B , 252/2 , 252/ 3A, 252/33. 252/4, 253, 254/ 1,254/2,255 / 1,255/2,256,257,258,259,260, 261 , 262, 263 , 264, 265 , 266, 267 , 268 , Canal , Nallah and Road.

Plot numbers acquired in village Katara:

6/1 and 7/3 , 6/2 and 7/3A, 7/1 , 7/2 , 7/4,8/ 1 , 8/2,9/ 1 , 9/2,9/3 , 9/4,9/5 , 9/6, 9/7 , 9/8 , 9/9 , 9/10 , 10/1 , 10/2, 11 , 12 , 13/1 , 13/2, 13/3 , 13/4 , 13/5, 14, 15, 16, 17 , 18 , 19 , 25 , 26, 27, 28 , 29, 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 131 , 132/1 , 132/2, 132/3 , 132/4 , 132/5 Road.

Plot numbers acquired in village Dahegaon :

94/1,94/2 , 95 , 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106, 107, Nallah and Road.

Plotnumbers acquired in village Sayaki :

215, 216, 219 , Nallah and Road .

Boundarydescription:

A-B- :

Line starts from point ' A' from common village boundary of villages Sayaki and Sukali and passes through village Sukali through plot number 56 (Forest ) , then passes along with the outer boundary of plotnumbers 51 , 52/1 , 52/2 , 52/3 , 52/4,53 / 1 , 53/2 and 53/3 , crosses road, again passes along with the outer boundary of plot number 55 , then again crosses road and passes along the road and nallah, then passes through plot number 72 (Government ) , crosses road , then again passes through plot number 73, crosses road , then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 94, 102, 103 , 107/2, 106 , 109 and 116, and meets at point ' B ' on the common village boundary of villages Sukali and Hewati .

B-C:

Line passes from point ' B ' through village Hewati along the canal , then passes along the outer boundary 6326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

ofplot numbers 60, 61/2, 61/1 and 62, then crosses canal, then again passes along the outer boundary of plotnumbers 102/2, 107/3 , 111 , 112/2 , 112/3 , 112/1 and 114 (Forest) , then crosses road and again passes along the outer boundary ofplot numbers 115, 116/1 , 119 (Forest) 118 , 174, 172 and 171 , crosses road and thenagain passes along with the outer boundary ofplot numbers 184, 187 , 186, 193, 222, 221 and 220 , and meets at point ' C' .

C-D:

Line passes from point ' C ' through village Hewati along the outer boundary of plot numbers 220 , 231 , 232, 233 , 249 and 247, crosses nallah and meets at point ' D ' on common village boundary of village Hewati andBopeshwar.

D-E:

Line passes from point ' D ' through village Bopeshwar along the outer boundary of plot numbers 41/1 , 42/1 and 42/2 , and again 42/1 , 40/1 , 36 , 33 , 34, 35 , 31/1 , 29, 28, 77 , 78 , 79, 80/2 , and 80/4 , then crosses common village boundary of villages Bopeshwar and Katara , then passes through village Katara along plot number 19, then crosses road , then passes along the outer boundary of plot number 25 and meets at point ' E' .

E-F

Line passes from point ' E ' through village Katara , simultaneously along the railway boundary and outer boundary ofplot numbers 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30, 31 , 32 and 33 , then crosses road and again passes along the railway boundary and outer boundary of plot numbers 9/4, 9/5 , 8/2, 7/2 , 7/4 , 7/1 , 6/2 , 7/3A and 131 , and again 6/2 and 7/ 3A, then crosses common village boundary of villages Katara and Bopeshwar , then passes through village Bopeshwar along the railway boundary and outer boundary of plot numbers 117,118 , 124 and 123 , then crosses common village boundary of villages Bopeshwar and Makardhokra , thenpasses through village Makardhokra along the road and simultaneously along the railway boundary and outer boundary of plot numbers 203 , 161 , road, 154 and 155, and meets at point ' F ' on the center of nallah.

F-G

Line passes from point ' F ' through village Makardhokra , simultaneously along the railway boundary and outer boundary of plot number 137 , crosses road , then passes along the road and passes along plot numbers 136/2 and 119, then crosses road , then passes along plot numbers 73 , 74 and 598 , then crosses nallah and passes along the nallah , then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 83 , 89 , 90/1 , 91/2, 97 and 96 , then passes simultaneously along the railway boundary and outer boundary of plot numbers 93 , 50 and 49, crosses road , then again passes along railway boundary and outer boundary of plot numbers 33 , 32 and 26 ( Forest) , and meets at point ' G ' on common village boundary of villages Makardhokra and Dahegaon.

G-A:

Line passes from point ' G ' through village Dahegaon , simultaneously along the road and outer boundary ofplot numbers: 107 ( Forest) , 106 ( Forest ) and 100 , then crosses nallah and passes along plot numbers 94/2 , 94/1 , 96 and 95 ( Forest ) , then crosses common boundary of villages Dahegaon and Sayaki , then passes through village Sayaki through forest plot number 219 , crosses nallah , then passes through plot number 219 ( Forest ) , again crosses nallah , then passes through plot number 216 ( Forest ) , then crosses road, then passes through plot number 215 ( Forest ) and meets at starting pomt 'A' .

[F. No. 43015/4/2009- PRIW- 1 |

HEMANT JAIN , Dy. Secy.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 10 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2572.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाईपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अधिसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की संख्या का. आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए. उक्त भूमियों में , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार एच.पी.सी.एल. मित्तल पाईपलाईन्स लिमिटेड में निहित किया गया था ।

[ भाग 11--खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6327

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि एच.पी.सी. एल. मित्तल पाईपलाईन्स लिमिटेड द्वारा कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए गुजरात राज्य के मुंद्रा से पंजाब राज्य के भठिण्डा तक उक्त भूमि में पाईपलाईन बिछाई जा चुकी है , अतः उस भूमि के बारे में , जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है , ऐसे प्रचालन को समाप्त किया जाएं ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाईपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण -1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 6 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को जिला- सिरसा , हरियाणा राज्य में प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची

 का. आ. सं. व            गांव का नाम         तहसील         जिला          राज्य       प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख
 तारीख
 1                          2                   3            4            5                 (6
4008 दिनांक3-12-2002 ,    कर्मशाना          ऐलनाबाद        सिरसा         हरियाणा          65 2012
 374 दिनांक 30-1-2003 ,  मिठनपुर            ऐलनाबाद        सिरसा         हरियाणा           6 5 2012
 2647 से 2648 दिनांक     खारी-सुरेरा        ऐलनाबाद        सिरसा         हरियाणा          6.5 2012
 16-09-2003              मिठी-सुरेरा        ऐलनाबाद        सिरसा         हरियाणा           6 5 2012
                         ममेरा              ऐलनाबाद        सिरसा         हरियाणा           6 5 2012
                         मौजुखेड़ा          ऐलनाबाद        सिरसा         हरियाणा          6 5 2012
 3468 दिनांक 1-11-2002 , नकौड़ा             रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा           6 5 2012
221 दिनांक 16-4-2003 ,   जीवन नगर           रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा          6 5 2012
 2721 से 2722 दिनांक     रानियां            रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा          6-5 2012
22-09-2003, 1690         भड़ोलावाली         रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा          65 2012
दिनांक 15-7-2004         बालासर             रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा          65 2012
                         कुस्सर             रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा          65 2012
                         मैहनाखेड़ा         रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा          6 5 2012
                         भुना               रानियां        सिरसा        हरियाणा           6-5-2012
                         खारियां            रानियां        सिरसा         हरियाणा          65 2012
3534 दिनांक 7-11-2002 ,  जलालाना            सिरसा          सिरसा        हरियाणा           6 5 2012
2471 दिनांक 28-8-2003 ,  देशुमलकाना         सिरसा          सिरसा         हरियाणा          6 5 2012
3059दिनांक 22-10-2003    खाई शेरगढ          सिरसा          सिरसा        हरियाणा           6.5-2012
3078 दिनांक 27-09-2002 , घुकांवाली          डबवाली         सिरसा        हरियाणा           65-2012
2199 दिनांक 01-08-2003 , राम नगर            डबवाली        सिरसा         हरियाणा           65.2012
1137 दिनांक 28-4-2009,   औढां               डबवाली         सिरसा        हरियाणा           6-5-2012
2450 दिनांक 23-9-2009   जगमालवाली           डबवाली         सिरसा        हरियाणा           6-5-2012
                         हस्सू              डबवाली        सिरसा         हरियाणा           65-2012
                         नवरंग              डबवाली        सिरसा         हरियाणा           6 5 2012

[फा. सं. आर-31015/ 2/2012-ओ आर-11 ]

लाल छन्दमा, अवर सचिव 6328

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 / SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2011

S.O. 2572. Whereas, by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , S.O. Nos . and date as mentioned in the Schedule attached issued under sub - section (i ) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the schedule appended to those notifications .

And, whereas , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government vested the right of user in the said lands, free from all encumbrances in the HPCL- Mittal Pipelines Limited .

And, whereas, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab by HPCL- Mittal Pipelines Limited has been laid in the said land, so the operation may be terminated in respect of the land the description of which în brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification .

Now, therefore, as required under Explanation 1 of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Rules 1963 , the Central Government hereby declares the dates mentioned in Column 6 of the said schedule as the dates of termination of operation in villages of District Sirsa in the State of Haryana .

SCHEDULE

S.ONo. and Name ofthe Tehsil District State Date of Termination
Date Village
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4008 dtd. 3-12-2002, Karamsana Ellenabad Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
374 atd. 30-01-2003 , Mithanpur Ellenabad Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
2647 to 2648 dtd . Khari Surera Ellenabad Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
16-09-2003. MithiSurera Ellenabad Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Mamera Ellenabad Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Mozukhera Ellenabad Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
3468 dtd. 1-11-2002, Nakora Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
221dtd. 16-4-2003 , JiwanNagar Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
2721 to 2722 dtd . Rania Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
22-9-2003, 1690 Bharolanwali Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
dtd. 15-7-2004 Balasar Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Kussar Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Mehnakhera Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Bhuna Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Kharian Rania Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
3534 dtd . 07-11-2002 , Jalalana Sirsa Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
2471 dtd . 28-08-2003 , Desumalkana Sirsa Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
3059 dtd . 22-10-2003 Khai Shergarh Sirsa Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
3078dtd . 27-09-2002 , Ghukanwali Dabwali Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Ram Nagar Dabwali Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
2199 dtd. 01-08-2003 ,
Odhan Dabwali Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
1137 dtd. 28-04-2009,
2450dtd. 23-09-2009 Jagmalwali Dabwali Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Hassu Dabwali Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Dabwali Sirsa Haryana 06-05-2011
Navrang

[F. No. R - 31015 /2 /2012 -OR- II ]

LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy .

6329 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

नईदिल्ली , 10 जुलाई , 2012

का. आ. 2573.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भठिण्डा तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वार। प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करतो है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री मघाराम चौधरी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, एचपीसीएल मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ई 103 , कल्पतरु शॉपिंग सेन्टर , कल्पतरु सिनेमा के पास , जोधपुर , राजस्थान-342001 , को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 10 के अध्यधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए एचपीसीएल मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरूद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : रावतसर

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला : हनुमानगढ

खसरा संख्या

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं गाँव का नाम

बीघा

बिस्वा

784

कल्लासर

323

नौलखी

[फा. सं. आर-31015/14/2002-ओआर ।।। लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचित्र

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2012

S.O. 2573. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab, a pipeline should be laid by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited ( a subsidiary of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) ;

Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

2817 GI/2012-6 6330

[PART I SEC. 3 (ii) }

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

Authority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project , HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, E- 103 , Kalpataru Shopping Center , Near Kalpataru Cinema, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342001 .

HPCL- Mittal Pipelines Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 ofthe P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.

SCHEDULE

District : Hanuman Garh

Tehsil: Rawatsar

State: Rajasthan

Area

Khasra Number

Sl . No. Name of the Village

Kalasar

2. Nolkhi

Biswa

Bigha

784

323

[F. No. R- 31015/ 14/2002 -OR- II ] LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 10 जुलाई, 2012

का. आ. 2574.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भठिण्डा तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एचपीसीएल मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड ( गुरु गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस स उगबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमे उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन्स बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री मघाराम चौधरी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , एचपीसीएल मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , ई-103 , कल्पतरु शॉपिंग सेन्टर, कल्पतरु सिनेमा के पास , जोधपुर, राजस्थान 342001 , को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 10 के अध्यधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए एचपीसीएल मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरुद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी

अनुसूची

जिला: नागौर

तहसील: खिवसर

क्रम सं गांव का नाम

1. कांटिया ( मगरा वाली ढाणी )

2 दजासर

चाबंडिया

4 सुखोलाव

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

बीघा

बिस्त्रा

1777/1113

1776/1113

979

273

392

392/1

[फा. सं. आर-31015/46/2002-ओआर- II ]

लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव 6331 [ भाग II खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2012

S.O. 2574.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation ofCrude Oil from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab , a pipeline should be laid by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, ( a subsidiary ofGuru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited); And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Magharam Chaudhary, Competent Authority, Mundra Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline Project, HPCL- Mittal Pipelines Limited , E- 103 , Kalpataru Shopping Center, Near Kalpataru Cinema, Jodhpur , Rajasthan - 342 001 .

IPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act , 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Khinwsar

State: Rajasthan

District: Nagaur

Area

Khasra Number

Sl . No. Name of the Village

Biswa

Bigha

1777/1113

1 . Kantiya ( Magra Wali Dhani )

1776/1113

979

Dujasar

273

Chanwandiya

Sukholav

392

392/1

[F..No . R-31015/46/2002-OR II ] LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2012

का. आ. 2575.-पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग अधिकार अधिग्रहण ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में तथा भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 4711 दिनांक 13-12-2005 का अधिग्रहण करते हुए केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री मनोज कुमार जाधव , उप प्रबंधक ( आरओयू) पाइपलाइन , भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लि. ( बीपीसीएल ) को, अपने कर्तव्यों के अतिरिक्त महाराष्ट्र और मध्य प्रदेश राज्यों की सीमा में, बीपीसीएल की मुंबई- मनमाड- बिजवासन पाइपलाइन के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के तहत सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[फा.सं. आर-31015/4/2012- ओआर- II ] लाल छन्दमा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd August, 2012

S.O. 2575. In pursuance of clause (a) ofsection 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of user in land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) and in supersession of Notification of the Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. S.O. 4711 dated 13-12-2005, the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Manoj Kumar Jadhaw, Dy. Manager ( ROU ) Pipelines , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ( BPCL ) , to perform the functions of Competent Authority for Mumbai Manmad Bijwasan pipelines of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , in addition to his own duties under the said Act within the Territory of States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh .

[F. No. R-31015/4/2012-OR- II ] LAL CHHANDAMA , Under Secy.

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6332

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2576.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जरनल मैनेजर , बी.एस.एन.एल. , मंगलौर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40011/23 /2001- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2012

S.O. 2576. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. C.R. No. 84/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager , BSNL, Mangalore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2012 .

[No. L-40011 /23 /2001 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 21st November , 2011

PRESENT

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND

PRESIDING OFFICER

C. R. No. 84/2001

II PARTY

I PARTY

The General Manager, The President ,

2. After receipt of the reference consequent to the notices issued by this tribunal to both the sides , the President , Bharatiya Doora Samparka llaka ,, Dinagooli Naukara Sangha , Felix Pai Bazaar , Mangalore ( hereinafter referred as the first party ) entered his appearance through the advocate and filed his claim statement on 08-04-2002 . whereas , the General Manager ( Staff) , BSNL Dakshina Kannada Telecom District , Mangalore ( hereinafter referred as second party ) also entered his appearance through advocate and filed counter statement through the Assistant General Manager ( Staff) on 12-3-2003 . After completion of the pleadings on behalf of the second party to substantiate its impugned action while examining the Assistant General Manager (Administration ) as MWI subjected him to cross examination by the learned advocate appearing for the first party. Interalia on behalf ofthe first party affidavit of Shri Vasantha S /o K. Shyama Sunder whose name appeared at Sl . No. 22 of the claim statement and at Sl . No. 23 of schedule G to the reference came to be filed and examined on oath as WWI and as many as 80 documents got marked in his evidence as Ex . W 1 to W80 the detailed description of which are narrated in the annexure . After both sides led their evidence , the arguments addressed by their learned advocates were heard . It was urged on behalf of the first party that since the first party workmen have worked for a period of 4 years as casual workers , stopping work to them by the second party without complying the provisions ot Section 25F of the I.D. Act is unjustified and that they are entitle to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service . Interalia it was urged on behalf of the second party that admittedly the first party workmen were being engaged as casual workers for the installation of the lines and not against any permanent post in the department and having failed to establish that none of them worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a year the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act are not attracted as such the reference is liable to be rejected.

BSNL Dakhsina Kannada

Bhartiya Doorasamparka

Telecom District ,

Telecom House Road, Hakha Dinagooli Naukara Sangha , Felix Pai Bazar ,

Mangalore- 575001 Mangalore- 575001

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 11947 ) has referred this dispute vide order No. L-40011 /23/ 2001 - IR ( DU ) dated 6th December, 2001 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ofthe General Manager , BSNL, Telecom District, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in stopping 139 workers whose names are furnished in Annexure G from work without complying with the provisions of law after extracting work for years together during 1992 to 1996 is justified ? If not to whatrelief the said workmen are entitled ? " 3. On appreciation of the pleadings , oral and documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both sides there is no reason to accept the claim of the first party the impugned action of the second party being not justified for the following reasons: Reasons:

4.In the claim statement filed by the President ofthe firstparty union it is alleged earlier the second party was called as Dakshina Kannada Telecom and later it became a corporate entity in the name and style of BSNL Dakshina Kannada and that its members were working in the D.K. District Telecom and due to their illegal termination from service the present dispute has been raised. In his claim statement while giving the details of 124 workmen mentioning the name , alleged date of joining and termination , address , nature of work, cadre belonging, last place ofwork and their controlling officer as under :-

6333

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Address SI . Name No.

Date ofjoining- ( J) Termination -(T)

1 2

23/03/1985 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

1. Suresh . T. S/o Mahabala

Controlling officer Cadre Lastplace belonging ofwork

Nature ofwork

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E. O/O Kulai

Baikampady Exchange

10thThokur,

Haleyangady,

M'lore. -574146

03/05/1985 (J) 30/10/1999(T)

2. Narayana S/ o Aitappa

KumerHouse, Marpady village, Moodabidre Post , Karkala Tq..

3. Vijaya Kumar S/o Late Kettappa

01/09/1987 (J) 01/10/1999 (1)

L.M.

Line work

Mulky Exchange

S.D.E. Mulky

R.M.

O/O.S.D.E. H.H. Kadri

S.D.E. H.H. 0/0 . GM.T Lorry cleaner

SanjayNagar,

Mugrodi ,

Shaktinagar,

M'lore

20/02/1988 (J)                        Line      L.M.      Surathkal      S.D.E. O/O
01/10/1999 (T)                        work                Exchange      Kulai

Chitrapu village,

Mulky post, M'lore

4. Udaya S/ o Late Aitha Mestri

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. Mulky

Mulky Exchange-

DevikripaHouse,

Balakaje post

5. Shekar Kundar     01/03/1988 (J)
   S/o Naganna       01/10/1999 .(T)
   Kundar
6. Harish Kumar      20/05/1988 (J )                       Line      L.M.      Mulky         S.D.E.
   S/o Raju Kotian   01/10/1999 (T)                        work                Exchange     Mulky

Kanthu Bhoomi

House,

Athikaribettu post,

Kavathur village,

M'lore

7. K. Mohan Kumar S/o Krishna

01/04/1989(J) 25/09/1999 (T)

Karamala House, Kasba village , Puttur- 574201 .

01/04/1989(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

8. Krishnappa . P. S/oGiriya

Pamela House, Pajiru post & village, Bantwal Tq .

9. Shankar Kotian S/o Beacha

L.M.

S.D.O.T. Puttur Line work

Puttur Exchange

Indoor R.M

S.D.E. T.D. Kadri

Kadri Exchange

L.M.

S.D.E. O/D Kulai Line work

Surathkal Exchange

Chitrapuvillage,

Mulky post, M'lore

10/06/1989 (J) 01/10/1998 (T)

10. Vasu S/ o Janardhana

17/09/1989(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Garde- RM. ner

S.D.E. (Ade)/O/O GM.T.

O/OGM . Telecom, M'lore

Near Adishakthi

temple , Kumpala,

Kolya, Kotekar ,

M'lore

                                       Line      L.M.      Surathkal     S.D.E.O/D
25/10/1989 (J )
                                      work                 Exchange      Kulai
01/10/1999 (T)

Chitrapu village,

Mulky post, M'lore

11. Rajesh S/o Gopala

04/02/1990 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

12. H. Sunder Naik S/o H. janaNaik

L.M.

S.D.E.T. Vittal Line work

Vittal Exchange

Hedge Kodi House, Koda padavu post , Bantwal Tq .

01/03/1990 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

13. Jagannatha S/o Annu Mestry

L.M.

S.D : E.O/D Kulai Line work

Surathkal Exchange

'Suvarna Nilaya'

Chitrapu village ,

Mulky post, M'lore

10/04/1990 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

14. Suresh Kumar S/o Gopal Kotian

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E.O/D Kulai

Surathkal . Exchange

Site No. 515 , 3rd

block, Katipalla,

M'lore

6334

[PART IISec. 3 ( ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

4 1

03/06/1990(J)

15. Leelavathi D/o . Babu B.

01/10/1999 (1)

8 5

Attender R.M.

S.D.E. (Ade)O/O GM.T.

O/OG M. Telecom, M'lore

W/o Nagendra, Vatamory IInd Cross Road, Kodialbail, M'lore - 575003

16. Vasantha S/o Tukura Kundar

06/10/1990(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. O/D Kulai

Katipalla Exchange

T.T. Kunder House, Chitrapu Village, MulkyPost, M'lore- 574154

02/02/1991 (J)

17.Ashok S/o Krishna

24/09/1999(T)

R.M.

Watch- man

S.D.E. U.P.G.

Karamala House, KasbaVillage, Puttur-574201

18. M. Nagesh Gowda S/o Lingappa

26/02/1991 (J)' 01/10/1999 (1)

Uppinan- gady Exchange

Line

L.M.

S.D.E.

work

GH . Urva

Urva Exchange

' Shri Tulsi Nilaya' Martady House, Kanyana Post& Village

09/03/1991 (J) 01/10/1999(T)

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E.T. Vittal

Vittal Exchange

Poorlapady House, Kodangaye Post,. Bantwal Tq.

19. P. Balakrishna S/oShivappa Poojary

20.

12/04/1991 (J) 01/10/1999(T)

Jagadish K. S/o Shivappa

R.M.

Attender

O/OGM. Telecom M'lore

S.D.E. (Adu) O/O G.M.T. M'lore

Sooterpete, Near Zenith washing factory, Kankanady Post, M'lore -2

S.D. C.O.D Kulai

A.B. Kadra, Thokur , Jogatte Post, M'lore

04/05/1991 (J) 01/10/1999 (1)

21. James Prasad D'souza S/o Izaz D'souza

10/05/1991 (J) 20/09/1999 (T)

22. Vasanth S/o K.Shyam- sunder

Line L.M. work

Surathkal Exchange

Τ.Ο.Α

Clerical

D.E. Exge- II

O/OD.E Exge- II

C/ o Smt. Bhavani , Yeyyadi , Gundalike, Bejai Post, M'lore -4

03/07/1991 (J)

01/10/1999(T)

23. Dinesh Pandith S/ o Balakrishan Pandith

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. O/D Kulai

Surathkal Exchange

' Kalyani Pandith' 6thblock, Krishnapura , D/o No. 162/2 , Surathkal , M'lore

03/07/1991 (J)

24. Muralidhar.K.V. S/o K.V. Kunhivelu 01/10/1999 (T)

Indoor R. M.

S.D.E. GH . Urva

Urva Exchange

Telecom quarters , Lady Hill, M'lore -6

10/08/1991 (J)

25. B. Praveen S/o Sudhakar 23/10/1999(T)

R. M.

Water man

LadyHill Quarters

Type 2-5 , Ladyhill Telcom quarters , M'lore - 6 .

13/08/1991 (J)

26. Jayanth S. Kundar S/o Sunder Salian 01/10/1999 (T)

S.D.E. Groups, M'lore

S.D.E. O/D Kulai Garde- R.M. ner

Bykampady Exchange

Akshaya Nivas , Nadubettu , Kulai , M'lore- 574196

01/11/1991 (J)

27. N. Vishwanath S/o N. Mohan 01/10/1999(T)

S.D.O.T. Udupi

'Asha Nilaya' Nittur Post, Nittur, Udupi -3

02/01/1992 (J) 24/09/1999 (T)

28. K. Vishwanath Gowda S/ o K. Damanna Gowda

Watch- R.M. man

0/0 S.D.O.T. Udupi

R.M.

Watch- man

S.D.E. Uppinan- gady

Uppinan- gady Exchange

Kaniya House , Bajathur Village, Uppinangady Post Puttur Tq .

6335

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4 2

04/01/1992(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

29. DevappaGowda K. S/ o Monappa Gowda. K.

8 5

L.M.

Line work

Uppinan- gady Exhcange

S.D.E. Uppinan- gady

KaniyaHouse, Bajathur village , Uppinangady post, PutturTq .

20/01/1992(J)

30. Thimappa . D. S/o Kunda mugera 01/10/1999 (T)

L.M.

Line work

Uppinan- gady Exchange

S.D.E. Uppinan- gady

Uppinangady Village, Hiriyadkapost, Puttur - 574241

31. Keshava.О . 28/01/1992(J) S/o Bucha Gowda 01/10/1999 (T)

L.M.

Line work

Uppinan- gady

S.D.E. Uppinan- gady

Kaniya odla House, Bajathur village, Uppinangady post, Puttur Tq.

02/02/1992(J)

R.M.

Watch man

S.D.E.T. Vittal

Vittal Exchange

Bajathurvillage & district , Bantwal Tq .

01/10/1999 (T)

32. Lingappa S/o Kantappa Moolya

01/04/1992 (J)

01/10/1999 (T)

33. Jayararn.B . S/o Annu Naik.B.

L.M.

Line work

Uppinan- gady Exchange

S.D.E. Uppinan- gady

'Onti Thali ' Nekkiladi village & post, Putiur

13/08/1992 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

34. Sunil Kumar S/oSanthosh Gatty

Attender R.M

O/OGM . Telecom M'lore

Santhosh Nagar, Munnur post, M'lore - 574183

18/04/1992 (J)

35 Dinesh Naik S/o Basava Naik 01/10/1999 (T)

S.D.E. (Ad) O/OGM.T. M'lore

L.M.

Udupi Exhcange

Line work

S.D.O.T. Udupi .

Belva Keremane , Belvavillage & post, Kundapura

01/07/1992 (J)

01/10/1999 (T)

36 H. Dayananda S/o Honnu Poojary

L.M.

Line work

Mulky Exchange

S.D.E. Mulky

'Chennamma Nivas ' Kolachikambla, Mulky, M'lore Tq .

05/11/1992 (J)

37. M. Harish Kumar S/o Dogu Mukari 01/10/1999 (T) Indoor RM.

Urva Exchange

Alagatu gudda, Mudkuru post , Karkala - 576121

01/10/1992 (J)

38. Sandeep Kumar.H . S/oH.P.Sapaliga 01/10/1999 (T)

S.D.E. GH. LadyHill

Electri- L.M.

S.D.E.T.D. Kadri

Kadri Exchange

cian

Nagana valachil , Sajipa Munnur post, Bantwal Tq.

39. Rukmayya.D. S/ o B.M. Rama

01/10/1992 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Attender RM.

OIOGM. Telecom, M'lore

S.D.E. (Adu) O/OGM.T. M'lore

Hosangady Cross road, Near Bhajana Mandir, Hosangadi , Manjeshwar-671323

06/12/1992 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Electri- L.M. cian

OIOGM. Telecom, M'lore

Vivekananda Road, Kankanady post, Nanthur, M'lore -2

40. Francis. F Fernandes S/o Joon CFernandes

11/12/1992 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

41. Parthasarathi Upadhyaya S/ o Narasimha Upadhyaya

S.D.E. (Ad) O/OGM . M'lore

Attender R.M.

Pandeshwar Exhcange

S.D.E. Pandesh- war

D. No. 11-116D, Kashi Narasimha House, Nehrunagar, Someshwar village, Kotekar post, Ullal , M'lore 6336

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

03/01/1993 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

42. K. Lingappa Gowda S/o Sankappa Gowda

8 6

R.M.

S.D.E U.R.G Watch- man

Nelyadi Exchange

KadiraHouse, Kokkada post, Belthangady, Puttur

06/01/1993 (J) 07/10/1999 (T)

Watch - R.M. man

S.D.E.P. Udupi.

Udupi Exchange

Kannarpady village, Kodakar post, Udipi District. 43. Bhaskar Achar S/o Angara Pooiary

03/02/1993(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

44. Balachandra.K . S/o Narayana

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E LadyHill

LadyHill Exchange

Derebail, Daddalkad, Yadav compound , M'lore- 6

12/03/1993 (J)

01/10/1999 (T)

45. J.A. Madhavaraj S/o R.J.Achutan

EE. Elect.

Attender R.M.

Ο/ΟΕ.Ε Electrical LadyHill

LadyHill Telecom Quarters , Q.No.3 -B1 Lady Hill, M'lore - 6

46. Surekha Koitan S/ o Janardhan

29/04/1993 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

R.M.

Attender

O/OG M. Telecom; M'lore

C/o . Baby Kotian , Site no.49 , Mangala Nagar, M'lore- 1

14/05/1993 (J)

01/10/1999 (T) 47. Sundar Devadiga S/oGopal Devadiga

S.D.E. (Ad O/OG.M.T. M'lore

R.M.

Attender

Ajiarkad Exchange

S.D.O.T. Udupi

Lakshmi Nivas , Majur Uliyar, Majur post, Kapa , Udupi

01/06/1993 (J)

01/10/1999 (T) 48. NaveenKumar. G. S/oGangadhara

R.M.

Indoor

Kankanady Exchange

S.D.E (Ι.Ν.Τ) K.K.D.Y.

Shantha Alva Compound, Near Railway I bridge, Attavar, M'lore - 1

20/06/1993 (J) 01/10/1999(1) 49. Nagaveni W/o. Anand Achar

R.M.

Attender

Ompattukere, Ullal post, Ullal ,M'lore

01/07/1993 (J)

01/10/1999 (T) 50. Suresh . Ν . S/o B. Sanjeeva

O/OGM . Telecom M'lore

S.D.E. (Ad) O/OG M.T M'lore

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E.P. Udupi

Udupi :Exchange

Nittur, Near Vishnumurthy Temple, Nittur post, Udupi - 576103 .

03/07/1993(J).

01/10/1999 (T) 51. Gopa/ Poojary S/o Tany Poojary

L.M.

Line work

Urva Exchange

S.D.E. (Exh.) Urva

' Hanchina Mane' Malamar, Ashoknagar post , M'lore -6 .

52. Abdul Hakeem K.P. S/oMumunkh

05/07/1993 (J) 01/10/1999 (T) R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E. O.C.B.

Kadri Exchange

'PeradeMane' , Manjanady village & post, Assaigoli, Mangalore.

03/08/1993 ( J) 01/10/1999 (T) 53. Bhaskar K. Salian S/o Sanjeeva Devadiga

L.M.

S.D.E. O/D Kulai Line work

Katipalla Exchange

Site no.606, 3rd cross , Katipalla post, Katipalla, M'lore

06/08/1993 (J) 01/10/1999 (T) L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. Uppinan- gady

Uppinan- gady Exchange

Anegundi House & post, K.C.Forum, Koila, Puttur .

54 Raghava A. S/o Shivarama. Gowda. A.

22/08/1993(J) 01/10/1999 (T) 55. Ambarish.M . S/o Late M. Vasu

R.M.

Attender

S.D.E. Insth

O/O S.D.E. Insth, Kadri

DeepikaNivas,

Kajur House ,

Badaje,

Mnajeshwar - 671323

6337

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

12/1211993 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

56. Puttaraju S/o Rangaiah

Attender R.M.

Railway Quarters, Qrtrs . No. 42B M'lore-1

01/02/1994(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

57. Sesa Naik S/oAitappa NaikK.

O/OGM.T. Telecom, M'lore

S.D.E (Ade) O/OGM.T. M'lore

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E.T. Vittal

Vittal Exchange

Malethadka, Punacha Post, PunachaVillage .

58. Kalavathi D/o A. Narayana

08/02/1992(J) 01/10/1999 (1)

R. M

Attender

O/OGM.T . M'lore

SeethaNilaya, Pandeshwar New Road, M'lore -1

01/03/1994 (J)

01/10/1999 (1)

59. Chandrahas Shetty S/o Raghuram Shetty

S.D.E. (Ade) O/O GM.T. M'lore

Driver Driver O/OG.M.T. Telecom M'lore

NambiarCompound, Jeppu Bappal , Kankanady Post, M'lore -2

60. Purandara . Y. S/ o Santhogi Rao

03/04/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

S.D. E. (Ade) O/OGM.T. M'lore

L.M.

Line work

Ajjarkad Exchange

S.D. O.T. Udupi

Yelanthady House, Vaninagar Post, ViaPerla, Kasargod

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E. Inth

Kankanady Exchange

Suvarna Kripa, Ashoknagar , M'lore-6-

09/03/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

61. Naveen Kumar S/o Lakshman Kotian

01/04/1994 (J)

62. M.K. Jaganatha S/ o M. Krishna

01/10/1999 (T)

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. O/D Kulai

Katipalla Exchange

VijayaNagar, Madhya Post , Katipalla, via Surathkal , M'lore

63. Pushpa K. W/o Krishna

12/04/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Attender R.M,

O/OGM.T. Telecom, M'lore

S.D.E. (Ade) O/OG : M.T. M'lore

Sharath Nivas , Jalligudda House , Mallur Village , Gurupur, M'lore

02/05/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

64. Yogeshwari D/ o Jaya Shetty

Attender R.M.

Pakkala House, Katipalla Village , M'lore

65. Girish M.P. S/ o Purushotham

09/05/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

O/O GM.T. Telecom, M'lore

S.D.E. (Ade) O/OGM.T. M'lore

Attender R.M.

O/OGM.T. Telecom M'lore

TelecomQuarters , Block No. B2, D- 1 , LadyHill , M'lore

66. Suchitra Shetty D/o Annu Shetty

20/12/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

S.D.E. (Ade) OOGM.T. M'lore

Attender R.M. OVOGM.T. Telecom, M'lore

M. Appu Compound, Jeppu Bappal , M'lore - 575002

01/08/1994 (J) 01/10/1999(T)

67. Mahesh.P. S/oGopal

S.D.E. (Ade) O/OGM.T. M'lore

Watch RM.

man

Kadri Exchange

S.DE C. 10B- 1 Kadet

ArunKripa' , Krishna Nagar, Thokottu, Ullal ,D.K.

15/05/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

68. Rathnakar Shettigar S/o Vaman B. Shettigar

Indoor R.M.

S.D.E.T. Udupi

Kemannu Exchange

Viewers Colony, Gerukatte , Doddannagudde, Kajibettu Post, Udupi-576102

2817 GI/2012--7 6338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVAΝΑ 20, 1934

4 1

25/08/1994(J) 01/10/1999(T)

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

8 6

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. , That Urva

Urva Exchange

'Chudamani House' Kodikal ,Alagudda, M'lore - 575006 69. Umanath Kumar S/ o Lakshman Poojary

70. Ganesh S/ o Somappa

10/09/1994(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Watch- R.M.

man

Udupi Exchange

S.D.E. Udupi .

Pithrodi post, Opp Syndicate Bank, Udyavar village , Udupi

71. Thilakamalini D/o B.M. Madhava

24/11/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Attender RM .

O/OGM.T. Telecom. M'lore

S.D.E. (Ade) O/OGM.T . M'lore

Pandeshwar Railwaygate , Choutas compound, M'lore- 1

08/12/1994 (J)

01/10/1999 (T)

12. Surekha D/o Sanjeeva Nayak

Gangadhar Upadhyaya compound , Mangaladevi , M'lore - 1

09/12/1994 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

73. Kamalaksha . M. S/ o Chennogi Rao

Attender RM.

O/OGM.T. Telecom. M'lore

S.D.E. (Ade) O/O GM.T. M'lore

L.M.

Line

work

Udupi Exchange

S.D.E.T. Udupi

Mavina Kallu House , Kundamkuzhi post , Kasargod District .

74. Surendra Nittoor S/o B.Sanjeeva

16/12/1994 (J ) 01/10/1999 (T)

Indoor RM.

Kankanady Exchange

S.D.E.T. Udupi

7-54 B, Near Vishnumurthy Temple, Nittoor Post, Udupi -576103

25/12/1995 (J)

75. Deepak Kumar.M. S/ o M.Nagaraj.K . 01/10/1999 (T)

Indoor RM.

S.D.E. K.K.D.Y-I

Áttavara Melina . Mogaru , M'lore - 2

28/02/1995 ( J )

01/10/1999 (T)

Kankanady Exchange

L.M.

Surathkal

Line work

S.D.EO/D Kulai

Exchange

Site No 174 , 6th block, Krishnapura, M'lore 76. Kishore Kumar S/ o Poovappa : Poojory

04/04/1995 (J )

01/10/1999 (T)

77. Balakrishna Shetty S/ o Koragappa Shetly

Attender RM .

O/O GM.T. Telecom M'lore

Kukkarugudda

House, Mangalpady

post, Kasargod-

671324

78. Santhosh C.H. S/ o C.H. Sadashiva

28/04/1995(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

S.D.E. (Ade) O/OGM.T. M'lore

Electri- L.M.

Pumpwell,

Kankanady, M'lore -6 cian

01/05/1995 ( J )

01/10/1999 (T)

79. Ravichandra S/o Kodya Amin

O/OGM . Telecom M'ore

S.D.E. (Ade) O/O GM.T. M'lore

Watch RM.

man

Udupi Exchange

S.D.E Udupi

Udyavar, Padakere post, near bhajana Mandir , Udupi

04/07/1995 (J)

80. A. Vishwanatha S/o Annu Poojary 01/10/1999 (T)

L.M.

S.D.E. U.P.G

Uppinan- gady

Line work

Attemar House

Hirebandad y Village

&post, Puttur

28/07/1995 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Attender R.M.

S.D.E. O/D Kulai

Surathkal Exchange

Site No. 152 , 6th block , Krishnapur, M'lore 81. Dhananjaya S/oSankappa Poojary

01/12/1995 (J ) 29/11/1999 (T)

82. Nalini.S.Prasad S/o Govinda Nayak

R.M.

Attender

O/OG.M.T. Telecom M'lore

C/ o . Sai Prasad , Sequera Соварound , Eminekere, Bolar, M'lere-1

S.D.E. (Ade) O/O GM.T M'lore 6339

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II ----खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4 2

27/12/1995 (J) 01/10/1999 (T) S/ o Jayantha 83. Rajesh

8 5

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E. O/O Kulai

Katipalla Exchange

Street No.210 , IInd block, Katipalla, More -574149

01/02/1996 (J)

01/10/1999 (T) 84. Shivamoorthy.A.S . S/o Siddalingaiah

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E. Carstreet

Carstreet Exchange

Opp: Shettytile

factory, Kutturpadav,

M'lore - 574183

85. Harish Naik        02/02/1996 (J)  PerajeManjatti       Watch     R.M.      Mani          S.D.E.T.
    S/ o Sheena Naik  01/10/1999 (T)   House , Neralakatte  man                 Exchange      Bantwal
                                       post,
                                       Bantwal- 574253
86. Sheena Naik       02/02/1996. (J)  Onibagilu House ,     Line     L.M.      Peruvai       S.D.E.T.
    S/ o Narayan Naik  29/09/1999 (T)  Peruvai village&     work                Exchange      Vittal
                                       post, Bantwal
 87 Harish Devadiga    05/03/1996 (J)  Devinilaya House,    Attender R.M.        O/OGM.       S.D.E.(A)
    S/ o Sesappa       01/0/1999 (T)   Devadiga                                 Telecom        O/OG M.T.
    Devadiga                           Compound , Kanka-                        Mangalore     Mangalore
                                       nady, Bye pass
                                       Road, M'lore-2
88. Loy Dias          03/04/1996(J)    Beppalige House,     Lline      L.M.     Puttur         S.D.E.
    S/ o Santhruiew    25/09/1999 (T)  Puttur- 574201       work                Exchange      Puttur
    Dias
89. Arun Kumar        05/04/1996 (J)   Nittoor Post,         Line     L.M.      Kalyanpur      S.D.ET.
    S/ o N.Mohan      06/10/1999 (T)   Udupi - 576103       work                Exchange      Udupi
90. Mallika Rao        13/04/1996(J)   Adarsh Nagar,         Store    R.M ..    Urva           S.D.E
    D/ o T.Raharam     01/10/1999 (T)  Chilimbi Hill,       keeper              Exchange      Urva
    Rao                                M'lore - 575006
91. Satish G.          19/04/1996 (J)   Salmara, Udyavar ,  Line      L.M.      Udupl          S.D. E.T
    S/o Ganapayya      01/10/1999 (T)   Udupi               work                Exchange      Udupi
    Ganiga
92. M.R. Sanjeeva      12/05/1996 (J ) Moodbidre Post ,     Driver    Driver     Moodabidre    S.D.E O/D
    S/ o M.Radha-      01/10/1999 (T)  Mstikatte House ,                        Exchange      Moodabidre
    krishna                            Karkala
                       13/05/1996(J)                        Clerical   ToA      Kavoor         S.D.E
                       01/10/1999 (T)                                           Exchange      Kavoor

Melkoppala House,

Kuloor post, Karkala

93. Latha D'souza D/o Late Valerian Dsouza

94. Lokesh Kumar       22/05/1996 (J)   Near Govt . college , Watch-   RM.       Kadri          S.D.E.O/DII
    S/o H.Raghava      01/10/1999 (T)   Gandhinagar,         man                 Exchange      Kadri
    Poojary                             Kavoor, M'lore - 15
95. Raghava Shenigar   22/05/1996 (J)   NearGanapathy        Watch     RM.       Kalyanpur      S.D.E.T.
    S/o Krishna        16/10/1999 (T)   Temple, Udyavar,     man                 Exchange      Udupi
    Shrigar                             Udupi - 574118
96. Jayalakshmi A.S.   08/06/1996 (J )  Opp: Shettytile      Clerical   TOA      LadyHill       S.D.E.
    D/o Siddalingaih   01/10/1999 (T)   factory, Kuttav                          Exchange      LadyHill
                                        padav,
                                        M'lore 574183
97. Kiran              01/12/1996 (J)   Adarsh nagar,        Indoor    R.M.      Kadri          S.D.E. O/D II
                       01/10/1999 (T)   chilimbi Hill,                           Exchange       Kadri
    S/o Late .I .
    RajaramRao                          M'lore-6

6340

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

4 1

198.

10/12/1996(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

S. Shakhar S/o Late PadmayyaGowda

Line

L.M.

S.D.E.

work

U.P.G

Karabethul House ,

Golithotty post,

Alanthava, Puttur

99 K. Madha S/o Kaipa

01/01/1997(J) 01/10/1999(T)

Uppinan- gady Exchange

L.M.

Line

work

S.D.E. U.P.G

Uppinan- gady Exchange

Karnadka, Dorkhas ,

Koilavillage,

K.C.Forum , Koila

post, Puttur- 574288

27/01/1997 (J)

01/10/1999(T)

100. M. Manjunatha S/oNarayan Acharya

Attender RM .

S.D.E. Udupi

0/0 S.D.O.T. Udupi

Swati Nilaya, Near M.I.T. LadiesHostel , Adarsh Nagar, Chilimbi Hill , M'lore-6

101.

28/01/1997(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

P.Mohandas S/o Purushothan J. Shettigar

Attender R.M. Katipalla Exchange

S.D.E. Udupi Kulai

D.No. 1/5 , Hanuman Nivas, Ist block , Katipalla, Ganeshpura, M'lore-574149

102. Yashodhara

29/01/1997(J)

Attender R.

Block No.1 , site

M.Katipalla Sto Vittala Sirriyah

S.D.E.O/D 01/10/1999 (T)

Kulai

Exchange

no.1 , Katipalla,

Ganeshpura.

M'lore- 574149

01/03/1997(J)

103. K. R. Krishna S/o Balu Mestri 08/10/1999(T)

Attender R.M. Kemannu Exchange

S.D.E.T. Udupi

Kambigara Kodlu,

Hanehalli village,

Barkur post ,Udupi

104 Shankar Naik S/o Rama Naik

02/03/1997 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

Ι.Μ.

Line

work

S.D.E. Udupi

Udupi Exchange

Baragundi ,Albadi

village , Belve post,

Kundapur, Udupi

post

04/04/1997(J)

01/10/1999(T)

R.M.

Indoor

S.D.E. T/D Kadri

Banavasi , Goroor

post, Hassan District

105 B. P. Kantharaj S/ó Puttaswamy

24/04/1997 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

106 M.G.Ganesh salian S/o Gundappa Satian

Kadri Exchange

Clerical ToA

Kadri Exchange

S.D.E. C/OB- II Kadri

JoyNiketan,

Atikaribettu post,

NearBanottu,

Mulky- 574171

107 SwamyR. S/o Rudrampa

16/06/1997(J) 01/10/1999 (1)

Attender R.M.

Kadri Exchange

S.D.E. C/OB- II Kadri

Ruby Lobo Compound , Rabit House , Bejai New Road, M'lore -4

25/06/1997(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

108 A. Yashawantha S/o Padmanabha Kurnad

Indoor R.M.

S.D.E. O/O Kulai

Baikampady Exchange

Ammembala House ,

Kurnad post&

Village,M'lore

109 Anand S/o Puttana

01/08/1997(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

L.M.

S.D.E.T. Urva

Urva Exchange

Line work

Aitappa Shetty

compound, Derebail .

Mangalore

11/10/1997(J)                       Attender R.M.      O/OGM.       S.D.E.(A)
01/10/1999 (T)                                        Telecom,      O/OGM.T.
                                                      Mancalore

NarlaHouse,

Talapady post,

Mangalore -574184

110 Jayaprakash Shetty, S/o Narayana Shetty

12/12/1997(J) 01/10/1999 (T)

111 Vaishali D/ o Santhosh Kumar

Attender R.M.

S.D.E. (A) O/O GM.T.

S.L.Sadan, Near

Chakrapani Temple,

Attavar, M'lore - 1

O/OGM.T. Telecom, Mangalore [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6341

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

112 K. Chandrahasa S/o PoovaNaik

24/02/1998(J) 30/11/1999(T)

R.M.

Watch- man

M/W Project LadyHill

S.D.E.M/W LadyHill

Karamala House,

VittalPodhurVillage ,

Kadangayi post,

Bantwal

113 Prakash Kediyur    27/02/1998 (J)  Kediyur Bail House , Watch-   RM .      Moodubelle   S.D.E.T.
    S/o Narnappa       01/10/1999 (T)  'Kediyur post, Udupi . man             Exchange      Udupi
    Sunagona
114 Praveen Kumar     02/03/1998(J)                        Line      L.M.      Patla        S.DE.T.
    S/o Koti          01/10/1999 (T)                       Work               Exchange      Udupi

Gandhinagar,

Tiraplake,

Moodubelle post,

Udupi -576120

115

04/04/1998 (J)

01/10/1999 (1)

Varadaraj Shenoy S/o Late M. Somesha Shenoy

Watch- R.M. man

S.D.E.T Udupi

Moodubelle Exchange

Near Vishnumurthy

Temple ,

Koragarapady,

Udupi

22/04/1998 (J)

01/10/1999 (T)

116 Nalini Bhandary D/o Sankappa Bhandary

Attender R.M.

S.D.E.(A) O/OGM.T.

O/OGM . Telecom Mangalore

Shaktinagar

Housing Board

Colony,MIG-5,

Shaktinagar,

M'lore-7

10/05/1998(J)

07/10/1999 (T)

117 Ramani D/ o Late Sridhar Acharya

Indoor R.M.

S.D.E.T Udupi

Kalyanpur Exchange

Behind Kalikamba

Temple, Barkur

post, Udupi - 576210

20/05/1998 (J)

118 Bhoja S/o Pinchila

Paduvari , Byndoor,

Kundapur

  121 Harish Suvarna     01/10/1989 (J )  TalipadyHouse,        Line       L.M.      O/O.S.D.E.     S.D.E.
      S/o Bantappa       01/10/1999(T)    Padu post,            work                 Ext. - I , M'lore Ext - l,
M'lore
      Suvarna                                                                        (PDR)

Bandanthila Village,

Mangalore

01/04/1991 (J) 01/10/1999 (T)

122 Manoj Kumar Rai S/o Ramesh Rai

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. Ext. -I, MR

Babukatte , Pandith

House, Permannur

Post,Ullal

04/06/1993 (J)

01/10/1999(T)

123 Santhosh Kumar T S/o G. M. Tilak- chandra

O/OS.D.E. Ext.1, Mangalore . (PDR)

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. Ext. I , Mangalore

O/OS.D.E. Ext. I Mangalore . (PDR)

Periyathur,

Bhandara House,

Kolya- II ,

Someshwar,

Kotekarpost,

Mangalore.-574152

124 Sunil S/ o A.Sundara

07/12/1991 (J ) 01/10/1999 (T)

L.M.

Line work

S.D.E. Ext . I Mangalore

Pandeshwar,

Railway gate ,

Chowtas

Compound, M'lore

0/0 S.D.E. Ext . 1 Mangalore (PDR) [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6342

It is alleged they are all workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and that they have worked for more than 240 days in a year. It is further alleged prior to 1987 there was a prohibition for the recruitment of empioyees in the second party industry and subsequently as it witnessed a sudden expansive growth in its activities it extracted work from the persons engaged on full time permanent basis calling them in different terminology such as . casual/contract/daily wages workers etc, and subsequently it started denying the very existence of such employment and issued communication dated 6-9-1998 and 14-9-1998 and that in order to conceal the wages paid to the first party workmen it adopted a very strange practice and when it approached the Assistant LabourCommissioner (Central) Mangalore for conciliation due to the adamant attitude of the second party it failed hence it resulted in this reference .

5. Interalia it is contended in the Counter Statement that the Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred as BSNL) being a Corporate Entity under. Department of Telecommunication is responsible for installation , maintenance and provision ofall kinds of Telecom facilities in the country utilizes services of its regular employees appointed as per the provisions of Central Government Civil Service Rules , Recruitment Rules and Disciplinary Rules and whenever large scale projects or works are undertaken which includes bulk release of New Phone connections , expansion of exchanges , it has to carryout certain items of unskilled work such as digging trenches through outsourcing mechanism which are purely need based and occasional . It is further alleged w.e.f. 31-3-1985 the Central Government imposed a ban on recruitment therefore, no officer of the department is authorized to engage or recruit any labourers knowing this position and limitations a group of 124 individuals who under the name of an entity called ' Bharathiya Doorasamparka Llakha Dinagooli Noukarara Sangha' have been trying now in vain to secure regular employment in the department and they are neither recruited, appointed or assured officially of any appointment in the department . It is further alleged the individuals whose names are furnished by the first party in the claim statement are not the employees of the department and none of them have worked more than 240 days in the preceding year and the documents submitted by the first party lacks clarity and sanctity some of them being forged , concocted and that they are not entitle for any relief.

Onlybecause these workmen worked for a period spread over for four years i.e. 1992 to 1996 they are not entitle for the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act unless it is demonstrated that they worked continuously for a period of240 days in a year. On this aspect of the case decision relied on by the learned advocate appearing for the second party in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs.Mohd. Rafi reported in (2006)9 Supreme Court cases 697 isaptly applicable to the case on hand . In that reported case the workman had been working as a daily wage employee with Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Limited between 29-10-1989 to 1-4-1996 which was executing the Upper Krishna Project in the State of Karnataka and it was claimed that his services were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and on reference of that dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (C) of the Act to Labour Court , Gulbarga, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the services of the workman had beenterminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act and therefore , the termination was illegal and directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity of service . When this award was challengedby way of Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka it was set aside holding that the workman had not discharged the initial onus of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year with the Jalnigam Limited and therefore , the award directing his reinstatement was illegal . When the said order in the writ petition was taken in writ appeal before the division bench it was allowed and when this order in the writ appeal was taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it reversed the order of the division bench and restored the order of the Singlejudge in the writ petition holding that the burden of proof is on the workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year and it is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box and adducing cogent evidence comprising of oral and documentary. Therefore , inthe present case except asserting in the claim statement particular workman having worked from particular day till particular day and his services were terminated on particular date no evidence is placed on record to demonstrate that they continuously worked for that period or for a period of 240 days in a given year. Under the circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be said that these workmen were entitle for the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial DisputeAct before stopping of work to them by the second party. Under the circumstances in my considered view the action of the second party in stopping 139 workmen whose names are furnished in the annexure G from work without complying with the provisions of law, after extracting work for years together during 1992 to 1996 is justified and they are not entitle for any relief.

7. In the result 1 pass the following award.. AWARD The reference is rejected holding that the action of the management in stopping 139 workmen whose 6. The entire pleadings and evidence on both sides do suggest the second party having executed its work like digging trenches , fixing the poles in the expansion of its communication work engaging the services of casual labourers, in this connection some ofthe receipts produced for the first party which are at Ex . W8 to W30 do suggest this aspect . No effort is made on behalf of the first party workmento demonstrate that anyone of them worked for continuous period of 240 days in a year to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act .

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6343

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

names are furnished in the annexure G from work without complying with the provisions of law, after extracting work for years together during 1992 to 1996 is justified and they are not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 21-11-2011 )

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

Annexure CR. No. 84/2001

Listof witnesses examined for the Management/Second party

WW 1 1. Shri Lakshniinarayana Bhat, Asstt . General Manager

Listof documents marked for the Second party/Management

Nil

List of witnesses examined for the First Party.

WW 1 1. Shri Shri Vasantha

List ofdocuments marked for the First Party

Ex . W 1 1. Copy of the Certificate said to have been given by Shri P Narayana, Phone Mechanic in DK Telecom in favour of Shri Shankar

Ex. W 2 2. Copy of the Certificate said to have been given by Shri K.M. Paulose , Telecom Mechanic in favour of Shri Vasantha .

Ex. W 3 3. Copy of the letter said to have been issued by Shri K. Rama, Chief General Manager dated 18-3-1996 appreciating Shri Jagadish for the excellent work done byhim.

Ex. W4 4. Copy of the certificate said to have been issued by N.R. Shetty , Divisional. Engineer Telecom , Mangalore dated 26-5-98 to Shri Vasantha.

Ex. W.5 5. Copy of the certificate said to have been issued by SDO , Telegraphs , Udupi in favour of Shri Vishwanath .

Ex. W 6 6. Copy of the certificate said to have been infavour of Shri M. Harish Kumar working on contract basis without the name and designation of the issuing authority.

Ex. W7 7. Copy of the Extract of Wages bill of the mazdoors said to have been worked duringApril 1990 and July 1996 .

Ex. W 8 8. Copy of the cash receipt said to have been given by Shri Ashoka for having received Rs . 1860 for the month of January 1999.

Ex. W9 9. Copy of the cash receipt said to have been given by Shri Vishwanatha Gowda K, Uppinangady for having received Rs . 1860. for the month of January 1999.

Ex. W 10 10. Copy of the cash receipt said to have been given by Shri K. Lingappa Gowda for having received Rs . 1800 for the month ofNovember 1998 .

Ex. W 11 11. Copy of the acknowledgement for having received Rs . 1860 towards Day watchman duty on account of wages from 1-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 ( the name ofthe recipient is not clear) .

Ex. W 12 12. Copy of the cash receipt said to have been given by Shri Chandrababu having received Rs . 1980 towards arranging one contract driver wages for the month ofNovember 1998 .

Ex. W13 13. Copy of the cash receipt said to have been given by Shri M.G. Ganesh having received Rs.480 for 8 days wages towards the duty performed at telephone exchange during August 1998 .

Ex. W 14 14. Copy of the Cash Receipt said to have been given by Shri Swamy R for having received Rs.480 for 8 days wages during August 1998 towards the duty performed as building caretaker at kadri exchange.

Ex. W 15 15. Copy of the contractors bill said to have been given by Shri Lingappa for having received Rs . 1620 to wards engaging a NightWatchman at Vittal Exchange for 27 days .

Ex. W 16 16. Copy of the receipt said to have been givenby Shri Sunil Kumar for having received Rs . 1560 towards labour engagement wages from 16-2-99 to 28-2-1999 for 13days each for two persons .

Ex . W 17 17. Copy of the receipt said to have been given by Shri Sunil Kumar for having received Rs . 1560 towards labour engagement wages from 16-2-99 to 28-2-99 for 13 days each for two persons .

Ex. W 18 18. Copy of the receipt said to have been of contractor for having engaged mazdoors during February 1999 for having received Rs.5460

Ex. W 19 19. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having engaged four persons as labourers during November 1997 and received Rs.3060 .

6344

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

Ex. W 20 20. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having engaged four persons as labourers during January 1999 for 18 working days amounting to Rs . 5230 .

Ex. W 21 21. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having engaged four persons as labourers during February 1999 amounting to Rs . 2160 .

Ex. W 22 22. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having engaged three persons as labourers during January 1999 amounting Rs.2100 for 13 days, 12 days and 10 days respectively.

Ex. W23 23. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having received Rs.1440 towards house keeping charges in works section, GM'TD , Mangalore for Nov. 1998 .

Ex. W24 24. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having received Rs.9,240 towards house keeping charges for 5 persons for 154 days in commercial section, GMTD, Mangalore for Nov. 1998.

Ex. W25 25., The copy of the receipt said to have been for having paid wages during June 1998 for 28 days in respect of Sri Santhosh , Labour.

Ex. W26 26. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having received Rs. 1620 towards wages for the month January 1999 by Smt. Nalini .

Ex. W 27

27. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having received Rs.3240 wages for the month of February 1999 by Vaishali and another labourer for 27 days each .

Ex. W28 28. Copy of the receipt said to have been for having received Rs . 1440 towards wages for the month January 1999 by Smt. Nalini .

Ex. W 29 29. Copy of the payment receipt said to have been for the wages paid for during the vehicle at Modbidri .

Ex. W 30 30. Copy ofthe receipt said to have been for having received Rs.450 towards the office peon duty charges given by Shri Madhava Raj for the period from 1-4-98 to 15-4-98 .

Ex. W31 31. The copy said to have been of the peon duty chart of surathkal telephone exchange for the week ending 8-10-1994 and 15-10-1994

Ex. W 32 32. Copy said to have been of the duty chart of Katipalla Telephone exchange for the week ending 23-1-1999 and 29-1-1999 .

Ex. W 33 33. Copy said to have been of the log book ofsome department ofvehicle.

Ex. W 34 34. Copy said to have been of the office order issued by AGM( Commercial ) , Mangalore in arranging Group D duty in his section .

Ex. W 35 35. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by the Accounts Officer , Mangalore regarding replacement of burnttube light in TR II Section addressed to the Sub - Divisional Engineer (Admn . ) , Mangalore

Ex. W 36 36. Copy said to have been of authorization in the name of Shri Harish for collecting Rs.1800 issued by Shri S.M. Hegde .

Ex. W37 37. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by Sub -Divisional Engineer regarding issue of one no. ORIT card to Shri Kiran.

Ex . W38 38. Copy said to have been of the routine correspondence addressed to Shri P. Krishnappa , RLU Exchange Kadri by the Assistant Engineer ( Admn . )

Ex. W 39 39. Copy said to have been of the Recreation Club Kadri receipts .

Ex. W40 40. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by Shri Mathew George, Dy. Director General regarding casual labourers (grants for temporary status and regulation) scheme .

Ex. W41 41. Copy said to have been of the letter addressed to the Chief General Manager dated 14-8-1999 by the DDO(P) Shri H.K. Gupta .

Ex. W42 42. Copy said to have been of the Circular issued by the Asst . General Manager (Admn.) regarding recruitment etc.

Ex. W43 43. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by the General Manager regarding information on casual mazdoors .

Ex. W44 44. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by the General Manager regarding case for grant of temporary status of casual labourers working in the department .

Ex. W45 45. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by the Divisional Engineer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6345

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

regarding posting of RMs for Nanthur Exchange regarding .

Ex. W46 46. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by the Jr. Telecom Officer regarding engaging of casual mazdoor.

Ex. W47 47. Copy said to have been of the letter addressed to General Manager Telecom regarding letterdated 11-9-1998.

Ex. W48 48. Copy said to have been by the Accounts officer regarding objection raised on SDERLU Bijai .

Ex.W49 49. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by Sub-Divisional Engineer regarding engagement of casual . labourers -ban .

Ex. W50 50. Copy said to have been of the letter issued by the Sub- Divisional Engineer regarding engaging of Mazdoors on Contract basis

Ex.W51 51 Copy said to have been of the letter dated 30-3-1999 issued by the Sub Divisional Engineer regarding engaging ofMazdoors on contract basis .

Ex.W52 52. Copy said to have been of the letter dated 18-12-1998 addressed , to the GM, Telecom issued by the DE ( Kadri ) regarding Agenda for bimonthly meeting .

Ex.W53 53. Copy said to have been Office note dated 28-6-1996.

Ex.W54 54. Copy said to have been of the minutes ofweekly management meeting held on 9-10-1996 signed by the Asst . General Manager (Admn) .

Ex.W55 55. Copy of the letter issued by the Assistant Director General dated 4-11-90 regarding payment ofwages to semi skilled/skilled casual workers .

Ex.W56 56. Copy said to have been of the letter No.269-8/94STN dated 9-5-1994 signed by the Assistant Director.

Ex.W57 57. Copy said to have been of the revision of labour rates signed by the Accounts Officerdated 2-7-1998 .

Ex.W58 58. Copy said to have been of the Application No.559/99,685 to 823/2000 filed before the CAT, Bangalore .

Ex.W59 59. Copy said to have been of the complaint filed for illegal termination ofservice before the ALC ( Central ) Mangalore .

Ex. W60 60. Copy. said to have been of the memo dated 4-6-2001 filed by the first party

2817 GI/ 2012-8

before the ALC (Central ) Mangalore.

Ex. W61 61. Copy said to have been of the memo dated4-7-01 filed by the first party before theALC( Central) Mangalore

Ex. W62 62. Copy said to have been of the minutes ofthe conciliation proceedings held on4-7-2001

Ex. W63 63. Copy said to have been of the failure report sent to Secretary to Govt. of India bythe ALC(Central) , Mangalore.

Ex. W64 64. Copy said to have been of the letter regarding permission for recruitment inthe cadre of Regular Mazdoor dated 30-7-2001 issued by the Assistant DirectorGeneral (TE) .

Ex.W65 65. Copy said to have been of the registration , registering first party union under Indian Trade union Act.

Ex. W66 66. Copy said to have been of the documents showing the payment of salary to Shri Vasanth from January 94 toMarch 1999 .

Ex. W67 67. Copy said to have been of the document showing the payment of salary to Shri Sunil Kumar from 27-10-1993 to 28-2-1999

Ex. W68 68. Copy said to have been of the document showing the payment of. salary to Girish M.P for the period May 94 to 29-9-98

Ex. W69 69. Copy said to have been of the extract of wagebill ofcasual . employees who worked inGM Office for the period from April92 to July 96.

Ex. W:70 70. Copy said to have been of the Chart ofthe employees who worked inGM Office as per the documentNo.5 producedbefore the Conciliation Officerduring conciliation.

Ex. W71 71. Copy said to have been of the Objection statement filed by the. second party before the conciliation officer dated 4-7-2001

Ex. W72.

72. Carbon copy of the minutes dated 4-7-01 said to have been recorded during the conciliation by the conciliation officer.

Ex. W73 73. Carbon copy of the report of failure report dated 20-7-2001 submitted by the conciliation officer to the Government .

Ex. W:74 74. Rejoinder said to have been filed by the first party dated 20-3-2001 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6346

Ex. W75

Puthencruz P. O. , Ernakulam . By Adv . Shri . C.Anilkumar. 75. Parawise counter submitted said to have been by the second party to rejoinder dated 20-3-2001

Managements : 1.

Ex. W76

BPCL - KR, CorporateOffice, Kundanoor. The General Manager -H.R. , 76. Written statement said to have been ofthe first party dated 23-5-2001

Ex. W77

77. Memo of the first party dated 4-6-2001

Ex. W78

78. Proceedings / minutes said to have been of the joint discussion held on4-6-2001

2. Shri . K. K. Aliaz, S/o . Shri . Kurian , Kallummel House, Peringala P. O. , Kumarapuram , Ernakulam.

Ex .W79

79. Minutes of discussion said to have been dated 23-5-2001

Ex. W80

80. Minutes ofjoint discussion said to have been dated 23-4-2001 .

M/s. S.B.Construction and Travels , Mundackal House , Parappillil Road, Thiruvamkulam P.O. , Ernakulam - 682305 .

By M/ s . Menon & Pai- 1st Management . By Adv . Alias M.M. (2nd & 3rd Managements)

This case coming up for final hearing on 28-5-2012 andthisTribunal-cum - Labour Court on 30-5-2012 passed thefollowing:

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2012 का.आ.2577.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी. पी. सी. एल. कोच्चि रिफाइनरी , के के एलीयाज , एस बी कस्टसन एण्ड टवल्स इरनाकुलम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/1/2010- आईआर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2012

iis 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 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government, Ministry of Labour has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication as per order No.L-30012/1 /2010 - IR( M ) dated 3-6-2010.

2. The dispute is :

"Whether the action of Shri.K.K. Elias , the erstwhile Transport Contractor of M /s.BPCL - Kochi Refinery Interminating the services of Shri.Shaji K.O. w.e.f. 1-4-2009 is fair and justified?

S.O.2577 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. C.R. No. 22/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s BPCL , Kochi Refinery, Shri K.K. Aliaz . S. B. Construction ( Ernakulam ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-7- 2012.

[No. L-30012/ 1 /2010- IR(M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

Whether the action of S.B. Construction and Travels , a contractor of M/ s . BPCL- Kochi Refinery in not providing employment to Shri . Shaji K.O. , whereas employment was alleged to have been provided to otherworkmen junior to him , is legal and justified?

ANNEXURE

What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date ? "

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT , ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri . D. Sreevallabhan , B. Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 30th day of May, 2012/9th Jyashtam , 1934)

I.D.22/2010

Workman :

3. The workman was working as a driver under the 2nd management engaged by the first management for the purpose oftransportation of canteen food items to various locations in vehicles . He had worked until the expiry of the term ofthe contract between the first management and the 2nd management . Thereafter the 3rd management entered into the contract for the transportation of food items . The first management declined to issue gate pass to him and hence 3rd management could not provide employment to him. All the other drivers junior to him Shri . Shaji K.O. , Kannammolayil IHouse , Puttumanoorkara , [ भाग II---खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

6347

were engaged by the 2nd management were employed by the 3rd management . It has resulted in raising the industrial dispute by the workman challenging the termination of his service by the 2nd management and refusal to provide employment to him by the 3rd management .

4.Workmanfiled claim statement after his appearance before this Tribunal with a prayer to pass an award directing the first management to reinstate him with back wages , continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. It isalleged that he was working as a casual driver attached to the first management continuously and in an uninterrupted manner from 5-5-2000 until the expiry ofthe period of contract of the 2nd management on 31-3-2009. The 3rd management which entered into the contract with the first management afterwards was willing to provide employment to him . Due to the refusal of the first management to issue gate pass and the instructions of its officials not to provide employment to him he was not employed by the 3rd management . Hence the termination of his service was by the first management due to non issuance of gate pass and the same was effected without following any procedure and without hearing him . During the time of conciliation proceedings first management raised the allegation that he was responsible for an accident occurred on 12-11-2008 with the fire truck ofthe firstmanagement and in order to cover up the same the fire truck was painted by him without the knowledge of its officials . Nobody can do such painting work inside the refinery as it is a high security area . The fact that he was allowed to continue to work till 31-3-2009 and was not issued with any charge sheet or imposed with any punishment is indicative of the falsity of the allegation levelled against him by the first management . His service wasterminated without any justifiable reason . All other drivers , who were juniors to him were engaged and his service alone was terminated in violation of the provisions ofSs.25 - F, 25 -G and 25- H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

management which had undertaken the contract for vehicles for the supply of food to the various locations in the refinery was found responsible for an accident that occurred . at around 00.10 hours on 12-11-2008 due to his rash and negligent driving . It had resulted in causing damage to the fire truck owned by the first management and while 2nd management was making enquiry about it he had painted the fire truck without the approval of the Fire& Safety Department with the paint brought by him inside the refinery premises without intimating the security department . It is a clear violation ofthe Safety and Security Rulesof the refinery. Hence instruction was issued by the Safety Department prohibiting his entry into the refinery premises and so the 3rd management did not engage him for the above work . He was the driver engaged by the 2nd management and on termination of his employment he waspaid all the terminal benefits by the 2nd management as per the terms and conditions of the settlement entered into between the Contractors ' Association and the Trade Unions of the contract labours . He can still be engaged by the 3rd management in the vehicles making services outside the refinery. He was never engaged by the first management directly. After awarding the fresh contract to the 3rd management some of the workers of the previous contractor were engaged due to reasons best known to them and the first management has not interfered in those matters . The allegation that his service was terminated by the first management is totally incorrect . The first management is having valid reasons in objecting his entry in the premises. There was no termination of employment by the first management and the provisions of Ss.2S- F, 2S-G & 2S - H are not applicable In the absence of any employer- employee relationship . His entry in the refinery premises is detrimental to the safety of the refinery and the interest of the first management . In view of the nature of the act committed by him the prevention of his entry in the refinery premises is legal and valid. The workman is not entitled to get any relief as against the first management . The 3rd management is perfectly justified in not engaging the workman in connection with the works taken on contract with the first management .

6.Workman filed rejoinder denying the contention that the first management is not a necessary party to the proceeding and reaffirming the allegations in the claim statement about the accident and also challenging the justifiability in denying the issuance of gate pass to him .

7. For the purpose of deciding this reference workman was examined as WWI and Exts . W1 & W2 were got marked. For the first management one witness was examined as MW 1 .

8. The points for determination are :

( 1 ) Whether the termination of service of the workman by the 2nd management is fair and justified ?

5. All the three managements entered appearance but afterwards managements 2&3.remained exparte . The first management alone filed written statement and the contentions put forward are that the workman was never employed by the first management and there was no employer - employee relationship at any time between the firstmanagement and the workman . There cannot be the question of denial of employment to him by the first management and hence he is not entitled to raise any valid industrial dispute against the first management under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The demand oftheworkman against the first management will not come within the definition of industrial dispute under section 2(k) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . The first management is not a necessary or proper party in a dispute alleging termination of employment by the contractor and hence the same is unnecessarily made as a party to the reference . The workman while working as the driver under the 2nd THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11,2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 6348

(2) Whether the action of the 3rd management in not providing employment to the workman is legal and justified?

(3) Whether the 1st management is a necessary party to this reference ?

(4) What relief, if any, the workman is entitled to ?

9. Point No. (1 ) : Two limbs are there for this reference .

in not providing employment to the workman while the other workmen junior to nim were provided employment . There is no case for the workinan that the 3rd management denied employment to him . It is expressly stated in para 3 ofthe claim statement that the 3rd management was willing to provide employment to him but it is because of the refusal of the first management to issue gate pass he was not employed by the 3rd management . After the expiry of the contractual period of the 2nd management the 3rd management was engaged by the first management for the transportation of food items from the canteen to various locations . Workman had worked up to 31-3-2009, till the expiry ofthe term of the 2nd management . It is after that he wasdenied employment when the 3rd management was engaged as the contractor by the first management . There isnothing to show that the workman has got the right to continue to be employers casual labour of the first management after the engagement ofthe 3rd management as the contractor or that the first management is not having the right to refuse to permit entry by not issuing the gate pass .No challenge was made about continuity of service or refusal to provide employment by the first management tothe workman. The 3rd management applied for issuance ofgate pass to the workman and the same is evidenced by Ext.W2 letter dated 28-4-2009 . The first management refused to issue gate pass to him stating that there was misconduci on his part while working under the 2nd management . It does not deserve much consideration in thiscase as the question referred to is confined with regard tothe justifiability ofthe action of the 3rd management in denying employment to him while his juniors were being employed. As there is no challenge with regard to the denial of employment by the 3rd managementand there is the express plea that the 3rd management is willing to provide employment to him it cannot be held that the 3rd management is notjustified in not providing employment tohim.

11. Point No.3 : As the 2nd and 3rd managements

were engaged by the first management as the contractors it cannot be said that the first management is not a necessary party with regard to the dispute as to the termination of his service by the 2nd management and as tothe justifiability of the action of the 3rd management in not providing employment to him in view of the facts and circumstances in this case .

12. Point No.4: In View of the aspects discussed above it can be held that the action of the 2nd management interminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 1-4-2009 is fair and justified and the action of the 3rd management in not providing employment to him under the first management is legal and justified. Hence the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Thefirst limb iswhether theaction ofthe 2nd management, theerstwhiletransport contractor of the first management, Interminating the service ofthe workman w.e.f. 1-4-2009 is fair and justified . It is not in dispute that the 2nd management was engaged by the first management for the purpose of the supply of canteen foods to various locations in the refinery in vehicles and the workman was one of the drivers who were working under the 2nd management to carry out the work . There is no case for the workman that his service was terminated by the 2nd management either in the pleadings or in the evidence . The specific case put forward by him in his claim statement is that he could not have been employed by the 3rd management due to the refusal of the first management to isare gate pass to him and the same has resulted in the termination ofhis service by the first management and the termination is in violation of the provisions under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25- H of the Industrial Disputes Act . He claims that the first management is to be made liable to paythe salary and other benefits due to the termination of his service . It is not a matter to be considered to answer the reference as the reference is with regard to the justifiability of termination of his service by the 2nd management . In para 8 of the written statement it is specifically.contended that he was engaged by the 2nd management and on termination of his employment the 2ndmanagement had paid all the terminal benefits to the workman as penthe terms and conditions of the settlement entered into thetween the Contractors ' Association and the trade unions of the contract labours and the same is not deniedby theworkman in the replication filed by him or at the time ofhis examination as WW 1. In para 3 ofthe dlaim statement it is stated that he had worked up to 31-3- 2009 till the expiry of the term of the previous contractor who is the 2ndmanagement. He has no case that his service was not validly terminated by the 2nd management . It is specifically contended by the first management that there is no employer- employee relationship between the workman and the first management . There is nothing on record to satisfy that he was at any time an employee under the first management . There is absolutely no pleading or any evidence to satisfy that his service was not validly terminiated by the 2nd management . On the basis of the available evidence it can be held that the action of the 2wd management in terminating. the service oftheworkman is fair and justified.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette.

10. Point No.2 : The second limb of the reference is as to the justifiability ofthe action of the 3rd management 6349

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th day ofMay, 2012 .

D. SREEVALLABHAN , Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

WWI - Shaji K.O. , S/o K.V. Ouseph , Kannamoolayil House , Puttumanoorkara , Puthencruz P.O. , Ernakulam.

Witness for the first management

MW 1 -Shibu Mani , Manager ( Legal ) , BPCL , KR , Corporate Office, Kundanoor.

Exhibits for the workman

WI- Photocopy of the statement dated 14-8-2009 filed by the first management before the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central ).

W2 Photocopy of the letter dated 28-4-2009 of SB Constructions & Travels addressed to the Chief Manager (F &S) , BPCL ( KR) , Ambalamughal .

Exhibit for the first management-Nil.

नई दिल्ली , 12 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2578. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक नोटमुरडन प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -16012/01/2008- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्रकुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2012

S.O. 2578. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. C.R.No. 18/ 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Murdan Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-7-2012 .

[No. 1-16012/01 /2008 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated, Ist June , 2012

Present : SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 18/2009

I PARTY

Shri N. Devadoss,

Talluru Village & Post Kanigiri Mandalam , Prakasham District (AP), Prakasham District - 523111

II PARTY

The General Manager ,

Mudran Pvt . Ltd.,

Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note No.3 & 4, Ist Stage , BTM Layout, Bannerghatta Road,

Bangalore-560029

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 of1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 16012/1/ 2008 - IR ( DU ) dated 9-4-2009 for adjudication on the following Schedule .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ofthe management of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran ( P ) Ltd. , in terminating the services of their workman Shri N. Devadoss w.e.l. 23-7-2004 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. After receipt of the reference pursuant to the notices issued by this court the first party and the second party entered their appearance through their respective advocates and filed the claim and counter statement .

3. The first party in his Claim statement filed on 29-9-2010 asserts that he who joined the services of the second party as Grade - IV Production Employee on 15-10-1997 having regard to his sincerity, honesty and hard workthe second party deputed him for training on currency pre-printingto Switzerland and on completion ofhis training he was regular to his duties and in the first week of June. 1999 he was arrested on the allegations of committing murder ofhis wife by the Kanigiri police in Andhra Pradesh and he informed the same to the second party management on telephone apart from writing letter expressing his inability to attend his duties and as he was released on bail after 54 days he reported to duty and continued to work and to his misfortune in respect of the said case registered 6350

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

in SC NO 116/2000 on the file of III Addl . District and Sessions Jidge (Fast Track Court ) , Ongole , Andhra Pradesh, on 4-11-2003 judgement was delivered and he was found guilty and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1500 and indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years , as such from that day onwards he could not attend to his duties and he informed the same news and his inability to report to Shri D.K. Rao , the then Dy. Manager and also sent telegram from the jail to the second party management on 17-11-2003 intimating his plight and that on his appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 324/2004 through judgement dated 4-9-2006 he came to be acquitted and pursuant to that order of acquittal cametobe released from jail on 7-9-2006 and immediately thereafter obtaining the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh he requested the second party management for permitting him to report to duties by his letter dated 9-10-2006 but he was not permitted to report to duty saying that he has been terminated from the services w.e.f. 23-7-2004 itself by holding exparte departmental enquiry. It is further stated that due to the wrong conviction by the III Addl . District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) , Ongole through its judgement dated 4-11-2003 he was compelled to remain absent from 3-11-2003 till he was released from the jail on 7-9-2006 , pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 324/2004 and inspite of he communicating the same the second party management without duly serving him notice while he was in the Jail terminated his services which is illegal and he being not gainfully employed he prays to set aside the order of termination and to direct the management to reinstate him with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

4. The second party which filed its counter statement through its General Manager ( Finance- Cum- Company Secretary) dated 1-9-2010 without disputing the first party joining the services of the second party as an Industrial Workman Grade -IV on 15-10-1997 and that he underwent training at Switzerland for the pre - printing of notes contended that since first party remained unauthorisedly absent from 3-11-2003 he was issued with notices dated 26-11-2003, 20-12-2003 and 31-1-2004 and as there was no response to the same the competent authority issued the charge sheet for his unauthorized absence from 3-11-2003 as his whereabouts were not traceable sent it by registered post with Acknowledgement Due to his native address which was received by his mother and despite receipt of the same since there was no response either in writing or otherwise from the first party the competent authority resorted to substitute service of notice to the first party in two daily newspapers , one published from Mysore and one published from Guntur (Eenadu ) regarding the unauthorized absence and further informed that disciplinary action being initiated against him pursuant to the charge sheet issued to him to appear before the enquiry officer on 13-4-2004 at 10 hours in the company's premises and inspite of due publication of the said notices in the newspapers dated31-3-2004 and 2-4-2004 he did not appear before the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer while placing him exparte examining one witness for the management and receiving 12 records marked as Ex. M 1 to M 12 , by his reasoned conclusion submitted his finding that the charge levelled for unauthorized absence from 3-11-2003 being proved and after the competent authority while forwarding the copy of the report to the first party through his letter dated 11-5-2004 giving him an opportunity to make his representation on the findings of the enquiry officer which was received by his mother at his native address , since no response was received from the first party concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer proposing to dismiss the first party from the services he issued show cause notice which came to be received by his mother again at hisnative address and as no response was received to the same the competent authority by order dated 23-7-2004 dismissed him from service . Thus it is contended due to the unauthorized absence of the first party from 3-11-2003 after holding enquiry he has been dismissed from service. Thus the management contended its order dismissing the first party from service is proper as such there is no reason to interfere in the same .

5.Since having regard to the specific allegations made bythe first party that the Domestic Enquiry was conducted behind his back when he was put injail on wrong conviction for the alleged murder of his wife , while framing preliminary issue "whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper ? " , afterreceiving the evidence of the enquiry officer for the management and through him marking Copy of Order dated 27-3-2004 appointing Shri Sibaji Choudhury as Enquiry officer ; Copy of Order dated 27-3-2004 appointing Shri Subodh Kumar as Presenting Officer; Photo copy of letter dated 29-3-2004 addressed to the first party informing him of the date of hearing as 13-4-2004; Proceedings of the domestic enquiry held on 13-4-2004 ; Evidence of Smt . Suchitra U as Management Witness 12 documents marked in evidence in the enquiry proceedings as Ex.MI to M12; Extract of the Standing Orders of Second Party; EnquiryOfficer report with covering letter dated 5-5-2004 as Ex.M1 to M8 and the evidence of the first party and marking through him Letter dated 15-11-2006 of the management/ Second Party as a reply to the first party dated9-10-2006 refusing him permission tojoin duty; Copy of representation said to have been given by the first party dated 31-8-2007; Copy of another representation by the first partyto the second party dated 25-10-2007 ; Certificate issued by Post master Kanigiri Head Office certifying that atelegram was booked on 17-11-2003 at 13.30 under Sl.No. A

1 and receipt No.305 for Rs.15 of destination to Mysore (under which conviction of first party was said to have been intimated) ; Admission card of first party being admitted in Jail from 14-11-2003 being convicted by the 3rd 6351

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Additiona' District and Session Judge, Ongole for offences under rector 302 and 201 ofthe IPC; Professional Couriers receipt dated 8-9-2004 ; three letters addressed by the first party to the second party dated Nil said to have been returned to him; Second Party's letter dated 1-7-2008 forwarding copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30-6-2008; the representation of first party to the RLC ( C ) dated 7-3-2008 ; Eenadu Daily newspaper dated 20-11-2010 ; Eenadu Daily newspaper dated 22-11- 2010 Guntur Dist ; Eenadu Daily newspaper East Godavary Dist . Dated 20-11-2010 ; Eenadu Daily, News Paper Prakasham Dist . Dated 23-11-2010 ; Eenadu Daily Newspaper Krishna Dist . Dated 23-11-2010 as Ex . WI to W14 , after hearing the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides by order dated 7-04-2011 the said issue has been answered in the 'negative' holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party being ' not fair and proper ' now the second party, and the first party having led evidence on merits by examining Shri A Satyanarayana, Dy. General Manger for the second party and exhibiting through him office copy of the letter sent to the first party by the competent authority dated 11-5-2004 through registered post; Postal acknowledgement regarding service ofthe letter dated 11-5-2004 on the mother of the first party; Office copy of the Memo issued to the first party dated 1-6-2004 ; Copy of another memo issued to the first party dated 23-7-2004 forwarded through registered post ; Postal acknowledgement regarding service of the said memo on the mother of the first party; Photostat copy of the account payce cheque sent to the first party along with memo dated , 26-7-2004 towards one months notice pay as Ex . Mito M6 and with the consent of the first party counsel Ex. MI to M12 which were marked in the Domestic Enquiry, as Ex. M7 series and interalia the first party examined himself as WWI and got marked the same documents that he had got marked while giving evidence on the Domestic Enquiry as Ex . WI to W14 as Ex . WI series with the consent of the counsel for the second party, now it is to be seen on merits whether the second party is justified in terminating the services of the first party w.e.f. 23-7-2004 .

while getting the service of notice on his mother which is held insufficient and thus the fact that the first party who went to Ongole to appear before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court ) on 4-11-2003 the date on which it was posted for judgement and on that day since he was held guilty of the charge and also convicted for life and taken to custody he was unable to report his duties till he was released by virtue of the judgement of the Appellate Court on 7-9-2006 . Having regard to the fact of his conviction by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge ( Fast Track Court ) and acquittal by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh since it was found that he was compelled to remain absent from his duties frort 3-11-2003 to 7-9-2006 and the Domestic Enquiry came to be set aside by due enquiry the learned counsel appearing for the second party was instructed to advise the management since first partyjailed in some criminal case not connected to the second party management to reinstate him negotiating on the subject of back wages but the management did not take any action on the said advise and proceeded on merits . Since there is no dispute that due to the wrong conviction by the court he could not attend his duties from 3-11-2003 to 7-9-2006 the date on which he was released by virtue of order of the Appellate Court andwhen the same was brought to the notice ofthe second party by his letter dated 9-10-2006 under which he requested for allowing him to resume the duty the management ought to have recalled its order terminating his services and reinstate him denying the wages from 3-11-2003 the date from which he had remained absent till the date on which he appeared with a request to permit him to report to the duty. In a similar situation the apex court of the country in the case of Shri Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs.Union of India & Anr reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1633 relied on by the leaned advocate appearing for the first partyit is held " if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty ismade, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful and in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct and absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence , but it does not always mean willful because there may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness , accident, hospitalization etc. but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty and behaviour unbecoming of a Government Servant . Further it is concluded in the said judgment when the appellants were charged of failure of devotion to duty and behaviour unbecoming of a Government Servant on account of his unauthorized absence from duty and without finding that the absence waswillful , he was dismissed from service and the order of dismissal was liable to be set aside . " In the present case on hand from the evidence on record since it is found that since he was wrongly convicted by III Addl . District and Sessions Judge ( Fast Track Court ) for allegedly committing murder of his wife through judgement dated 6. Taking into account the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the sides on preliminary issue a finding has been arrived at that the first party who was charge sheeted for allegedly committing murder of his wife before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge ( Fast Track Court) registered in SC No. 116/2000 he was held guilty of the said charge and was being convicted for the same through judgement dated 4-11-2003 he was taken to custody and sent to jail and on his appeal to the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.324/ 2004 he came to be acquitted by setting aside the judgement of conviction by order dated 4-9-2006 and came to be released on the basis of the said judgement on 7-9-2006 and during that period the second party management issued charged sheet , conducted the Domestic Enquiry exparte 6352

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 11 , 2012 / SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

NGP/ 208 / 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Sub Divisional Engineer, Telecom Group Amravati and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-7-2012 .

[No. L-40012147/2000 - IR ( DU ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date: 15-6-2012 Case No.CGIT /NGP / 208/2000

PartyNo. 1

The Sub Divisional Engineer, TelecomGroup, PO & Tah: Achalpur, District: Amravati , Maharashtra .

Versus

Party No. 2

4-11-2003 and was immediately taken to custody and he came to be released from jail on 7-9-2006 by virtue ofthe Appellate Court setting aside the said conviction through its judgement dated 4-9-2006; the unauthorized absence between 3-11-2003 to 7-9-2006 it was beyond his control and as such same cannot be as one amounting misconduct . Under the circumstances the impugned punishment of terminating the services of the first party by the second party is not sustainable . Since the impugned punishment imposed by the second party is held unsustainable the second partybeing entitle for reinstatement , the only fact remains for consideration is as to what reliefs he is entitle to. Since admittedly due to the wrong conviction which was beyond his control he could not attend to his duties from 3-11-2003 till 7-9-2006 the date on which he was released from jail for which the second party also cannot be held responsible he cannot claim the salary pertaining tothat period. Since after his release from the jail on 7-09- 2006 according to his own evidence he approached the second partymanagement seeking permission to report to the duties only on 9-10-2006 he cannot claim any wages or salary for the period 3-11-2003 to 9-10-2006. At the same time since the absence from duty from 3-11-2003 to 9-10- 2006 was beyond his control he cannot be denied continuity ofservice . In the result 1 arrived at the conclusion that the action ofthe management is not legal and justified and that the first party is entitle for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 9-10-2006. In the result I pass the following Award .

AWARD

The action of the management of Bharatiya Reserve BankNote Mudran (P) Ltd. , in terminating the services of their workmanShri N. Devdoss with effect from 23-7-2004 is not legal and justified and that he is entitle for reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages from 9-10-2006 the date on which he requested to pernait him to report to the duty.

S: N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2579:-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सब डिविजनल इन्जीनियर , टेलीकाम ग्रुप , अमरावती के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एन.जी.पी./208/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/ 147/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2012

S. O: 2579:-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT// R/ o . Gupta Nagar, Khandli , PO: Paratwada , Tah.Achalpur,

Shri Dinesh S/o . Gajanan Londhe Distt. Amravati , Maharashtra .

AWARD (Dated: 15th June , 2012 )

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the Sub Divisional Engineer, TelecomGroup and their workman , Shri Dinesh Londhe , for adjudication , as per letter No.L-40012/ 147 /2000 - IR ( DU ) dated 30-6-2000, with the following schedule: -

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom through its Sub Divisional Engineer, Telecom Group , Achalpur Distt . Amravati in terminating/removing the services of She Dinesh Gajanan Londhe w.e.f. 2-10-1999 is legal , proper & justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

2.Onreceipt ot the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri Dinesh Londhe, (" the workman " in short ) , filed the statement of claim andthe management of the Sub Divisional Engineer, Telecom Group ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .

The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he is a permanent resident of Khandali and is a handicapped person due disarticulated [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6353

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

right shoulder and a post of Sweeper was vacant in the office of party no . 1 and he was applied for the said post and party no . 1 considered his application for appointment on the said post , as per Government policy and he was engaged by party no . 1 as a sweeper w.e.f. 17-7-1998 and he continued to work till 30-9-1999 , but party no. 1 did not issue any appointment order to him , even though his attendance was taken in the attendance register from 17-07-1998 . The further case of the workman is that party no. 1 did not pay him salary as per the minimum wages Act and paid only Rs.5 per day and he gave number of applications requesting to pay him the minimum wages as his salary and because of his insistence for regular salary, the party no . I became prejudice against him and terminated hisservices w. e . f. 1-10-1999 and he came to know that after his removal from the services, party . 1 engaged one shri Balu in his place and by letter dated 7-12-1999, he approached the party no.1 to allow him to continue in service , but to no effect and the termination of his services was inbreach of the provisions of Sections 25 -F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and inspite of his repeated request for his reinstatement in service , party no.1 did not take any action in the matter, so he raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner and in the written statement filed before the Labour Commissioner, party no . 1 took the plea that his employment was adhoc employment and some other persons were also engaged by the authority for doing the work of sweeper during the period in question and from the date of appointment, he worked continuously till the date of termination and no other person was engaged by party no. 1 to do the work of sweeper during that period.

The workman has prayed to reinstate him in service withcontinuity and full back wages .

3. Party no.1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged on contract basis for half an hour a day, on agreed daily wages and as the engagement ofthe workman was on contractual basis, there was no relationship of employer and employee between it and the workman and as such , provisions of the Act are not applicable and the reference has been wrongly referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and on the ground of want ofjurisdiction, the reference has to be answered in negative and the workman had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year and the party no. 1 was engaged for the periodfrom 15-7-1998 to 31-7-1999 and worked for 143 days during the said period and the workman is not entitled for claiming permanency and there is no sanctioned post of sweeper in its office , hence question of regularisation of theworkman does not arise and the contractual engagement wasdiscontinued and its office has already been shifted to a new premises at Paratwada and the services of the workman are no more required and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4.Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence, parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective

2817 GI /2012-9

claims . The workman has examined himself as a witness in support of his claim . His evidence is on affidavit. In his evidence, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. He has also proved the Xerox copies ofthe attendance register as Ext .W- II .

In his cross -examination , the workman has stated that his age was 18 years , when he started working in the office of SDE and he has passed class 12th and he had not made any application to the authority for payment ofthe minimum wages and he does not know if party no . 1 engaged one Balu as the sweeper, after his removal from services or not and no written order was issued regarding the termination of his services .

5. One Anand Damodhar Petkar a Divisional Engineer, BSNL , has been examined as a witness on behalf ofthe management . His examination - in- chief, which is on affidavit is also in the same line of the stands taken by party no. 1 in the written statement.

In his cross- examination , this witness has admitted that the workman was working in the office of SDE, Achalpur and the attendance register of the workman has not been produced by the management , even though an order was passed by the Tribunal for the same and Ext. WII is the copy of the attendance register of the workman and no documents has been filed to show that theworkman was engaged contract basis.

6.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman is a handicapped person and the post of sweeper was vacant in the office of party no . 1 at Achalpur and the workman applied for the said post and the authority took interview after considering has application and appointed the workman on regular basis and the workman worked continuously from 17-7-1998 to 30-9-1999 without anybreak and such facts have been duly proved by the workman by producing evidence including Ext . W- II and without compliance ofthe mandatory provisions of Section 25- F oftheAct, the services of the workman were terminated on 1-10-1999 and such termination amounts to retrenchment and as the termination of the workman is illegal , he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and fullbackwages .

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged on contract basis to sweep the office and the attendance registerwas maintained just to count the number ofworking days of the workman and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the party no. 1 and the workman and as such , provisions of the Actdo not apply to this case and the reference has been wrongly made to this Tribunal and the reference is not maintainable due to wantofjurisdiction and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in any calendar year and he was engaged initially from 17-7-1998 to 31-7-1999 and worked for 6354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

113 days during that period and there is no sanctioned post of sweeper in the office of party no.1 hence , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all , I will take of the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged on contract basis to do the work of sweeping for half an hour daily, on payment of the agreed wages and as such there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and the reference has been wronglymade for adjudication .

Onperusal of the materials on record , it is found that there is no legal evidence on record to show that the engagement ofthe workman was on contract basis . Except the oral evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the party no . 1 , there is no other evidence on record in support of such claim . From the materials on record , it is found that the claim of party no . I that the workman was engaged on contract basis and that there was no employer and employee relationship between it and the workman has no force and therefore , there is no force in the contention that the reference has been wrongly made and the reference cannot be adjudicated due to want ofjurisdiction .

9. During the course of argument , it was contented by the learned advocate for the workman that the appointment of the workman was made on regular basis after interview. However, it is necessary to be mentioned here that such contention cannot be entertained , as there is neither such pleading in the statement of claim nor the workman has stated so in his evidence . There is also no evidence on record in support of such claim . Rather , the workman in the statement of claim and so also in his evidence has stated that he was being paid Rs.5 per day as wages and as he insisted for payment of the minimum wages as regular salary, the party no.l terminated his services . From the materials on record , it is clear that the engagement of the workman was on temporary basis on daily wages and his engagement was not done in accordance with the recruitment Rules .

10. It is well settled that before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25 - F of the Act , he has to show that he had rendered 240 days of work within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date i.e. the date of retrenchment .

In this case, the workman has claimed that he worked continuously from 17-7-1998 to 30-9-1999 and his services wereterminated orally on 1-10-1999. Party no . I has denied that the workman completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. According to party no.l , the workman worked for only 113 days between 17-7-1990 to 31-7-1999 . So, it is to be found out as to whether the workman has been able to prove that infact , he had worked at least for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of his termination i.c. 1-10-1999 .

[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Perused the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence , both oral and documentary. Though the party no . I has pleaded that the attendance ofthe workman was being taken in the register to count the number of working days of the workman , such register was not produced inspite of direction in that regard . Moreover, there is no specific denial in the written statement that the workman worked from 17-7-1998 to 30-9-1999 . Ext. W- II , the copy of the attendance register ofthe workman relates to the period from 17-7-1998 to 30-4-1999 . From Ext . W- II , the genuineness of which has not been disputed by the witness examined by party no . 1 , it is found that from 17-7-1998 to 30-4-1999 , the workman had worked for more than200 days excluding Sundays and public holidays . So , by taking the entire evidence on record , it is found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 1-10-1999 . Admittedly , the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act , which are mandatory in nature were not complied by the party no . 1 , before termination of the services of the workman . So , the termination of the services of the workman which amounts to retrenchment is illegal.

11. Now, the question remains for consideration is as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled to .

The workman has neither pleaded nor proved that from the date of the termination of his services , he is not in gainful employment . Hence , it is found that the workman is not entitled to any back wages .

12. The question now for consideration is as to whether, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service . In this regard, I think it proper to mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case , between " The in - charge officer and another versus Shankar Shetty " reported in 2011 ( 1 ) MPL J 11 : 2010 ( 8 ) SCALE- 583 . In the said decision , the Hon ' ble Apex Court have held that , " Industrial Disputes Act , 1947-Section 25- F/Daily wager/Termination of service in violation of Section 25 ( F ) / Award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement /Respondent was initially engaged asdaily wager by appellants in 1978. His engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 6-9-85/ Respondent raised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of procedure prescribed in Sec . 25( F) of the Act/ Labour Court rejected respondents claim : holding that Section 25 ( F) of the Act was not attracted since the workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination 6-9-85 . On appeal , High Court directed reinstatement of Respondent into service holding that termination of respondent was illegal-Whether an order of reinstatement will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of " Section 25 (F ) of theAct - Allowing the appeal -held "

The High Court erred in granting relief of rei..statement to the respondent . The respondent was [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6355

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012 / श्रावण 20 , 1934

and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 11-7-2012 .

[No. L-41011 /21 /2004 - IR (B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 year intermittently up to September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back . In a case such as the present one it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice . In our considered opinion the compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs . 1,00,000 ) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just and equitable " .

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Presiding Officer , Sh . N. K. PUROHIT

I.D.131 /2005

Reference No. L-41011 /21 /2004- IR( B - I ) dated: 18-11-2005

The General Secretary Paschim Railway Kamgar Sangh XFS - 140m Gurunagar, Gandhidham. V/s

The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above are squarely applicable to the present case at hand. In this case , about 13 years back, the workman was engaged on daily wages on 17-7-1998 and his engagement continued up to 30-9-1999 . So , taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and applying the principles as mentioned above , it appears that the relief of reinstatement is not justified in this case and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice . In my considered opinion compensation of Rs . 10,000 ( Rupees ten thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate , just an equitable . Hence it is ordered: -

1.The General Manager North West Railway Zonal Office, Jaipur.

ORDER

2.The Principal Zonal Training School Near Sukharia Circle , Udaipur.

Present

Forthe applicant Union : Sh. O. P. Vashishtha For the non-applicants : Sh . C.L. Chittara AWARD

The action of the management of Telecom through its Sub Divisional Engineer, Telecom Group , Achalpur Distt. Amravati in terminating/ removing the services of Shri Dinesh Gajanan Londhe w.e.f. 1-10-1999 ( not from 2-10-1999 as mentioned in the reference) is illegal , improper and unjustified . The workman is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs. 10,000 in lieu of reinstatement. He is not entitled for any other relief.

29-5-2012 The party no . 1 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs . 10,000 to the workman within one month from the dateof Publication of the award in the official gazette .

J. P. CHAND, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 13 जुलाई , 2012

1.The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication: -

"Whether the demand of the Union for granting similar wages and service conditions as are applicable to Group ' D' &Group ' C ' Railway employees working in the Mess run in Zonal Training School , North Western Railway, Udaipur is legal and justified ? If so to what relief they are entitled for ? "

का.आ. 2580, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41011/ 21 / 2004- आई आर ( बी- I) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th July, 2012

S. O.2580.-In. pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.131 /2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North West Railway

2. The union in its claim statement has pleaded that there is a mess under the control of the Principal , Zonal Training School , Udaipur (ZTS -UD) which is cooking meals and serving to the trainees who are taking training in the said training school . There are 8 persons in Group ' C ' i.e. MessManager-3 , Mess Cook -3 , Mess Mukadam -2 and 45 group ' D' workers such as Langari , Server, Safaiwala etc. The Total strength of staff in the Mess is 53. These persons are being paid by Mess Management Committee ( MMC) which is functioning under the control of the Principal , Zonal Training School . Their wages are less than the wages of the workers doing similar type of work in the 6356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11,2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

Railway Catering department, Railway Rest Houses and Running rooms , where such type ofservices are rendered. The union has further pleaded that the workmen are not given passes , P.T.O's , Travel concession , pension and other retirement benefits as is given to the other Railway Permanent Servants doing similar type of work. The union has also pleaded that the establishment of mess is a permanent department functioning under the control of the principal , Zonal Training School . The workmen are doing perennial nature of work & full strength of regular workers is required to do the mess work. Thus , the union has prayed for the grant of similar wages and service condition for the workmen as are applicable to group ' C ' and 'D' Railway employees , working in the mess run in Zonal training School , North West Railway, Udaipur.

3. In reply, the non-applicant has contended that workmen working in the mess of training institute are not governed by Railway's Rules . They have not been appointed by the non- applicant . They have been hired to run the mess as per the needs of trainees . This is purely an autonomous arrangement for smooth running of mess and theywere never appointed by any Railway authority , hence , question of relief sought does not arise . It has further been contended that the Mess Management Committee is a voluntary managed autonomous system by the trainees themselves duly guided and supervised by the staff of the Zonal Training School . The said committee of the trainees runby the trainees and for the trainees undergoing training in the institute. Since , the trainees are coming in the institute for short duration courses and are changing frequently, in order to streamline the working and for providing supervisory guidance in the working of mess , some ofthe faculty members are also nominated as Secretary , Vice- chairman and Chairman etc. Being the head of the institute , thePrincipal , Zonal Training School functions as ex- officio chairman of this committee as a patron and all the day to dayworking ofmess is controlled by trainees through this committee . Thus , there is no relevancy of comparison of pay scales between Railway servants and mess workers because pay scales of mess employees are decided at local level and as per agreement between employees & committee consisting of trainees among others . Neither they are recruited by Railway nor being paid by Railway. Theworkmen are paid from the messing charges oftrainees . Therefore, question regarding provision of passes , PTOS, Retirement benefits as applicable to railway servants , does not arise at all , which are separately governed by Railway's Rules . The non - applicant has further contended that the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 is not relevant in this case because Mess Management Committee is neither a contractor ofRailway Administration nor the employees of mess are contract labour. They are engaged and paid exactly on the basis of inutually agreed upon terms and conditions between all the workmen and theMess Management Committee . Hence , there is no

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

question of depriving them of proper wages . Therefore, the claim of the union be dismissed .

4. The union in support of its claim has filed the affidavits of Sh . Keshar Singh and Sh . Amrital Dangi , whereas in rebuttal , the non - applicant has filed the counter affidavits of Sh . Hardeep Singh , Secretary, MMC and Sh . Champalal , Vice- Principal , ZTS .

5. In documentary evidence , the union has filed documents marked Ex ' A ' to Ex ' P ' and copy of the memorandum of settlement before the Labour Enforcement officer anu Conciliation Officer, Udaipur dated 31-10-90 Ex- W- 1 . The management has filed the copy of the agreement between the Mess Management Committee and workers of the mess ( Ex -M- 1 ) and a statement ofwages of theworkmen of the M.M.C. (Ex- M -2).

6. Heard die content as advanced by the learned representatives on behalf of both the parties & perused the relevant record.

7.The learned representative on behalf of the union has contended that the workmen are entitled for similar pay & similar pay condition as are applicable for regular and permanent Railway employees working in the railway doing similar type ofjob . He has further contended that since the Principal , Zonal Training School has not registered his establishment with the A.L.C ( Central ), Ajmer and the Mess Management Committee has not taken the license from the A.L.C. (Central ) , Ajmer till date and as such this Management Committee is a bogus and illegai organization . It is not understood as to what is status of thisMess Management Committee. Since the Principai Employer and the Mess Management Committee not observed the labour laws , the function of the management committee andthe taking work from the Mess Management Committee by the Principal Employer is wrong and deceiving action because the Principal , Zonal Training School is the President of the Mess Management Committee and on the other hand , he is the Principal employer as a Principal , Zonal Training School . None of the trainee is ever nominated as a President, Vice President orthe Secretary of the Mess Management Committee. It is an organization made by some interested persons for their own interest which is much against the interest ofthe labour working in the mess by depriving them from their due right ofequal wages for equal work and the service conditions par with the permanent Railway Employees . The management has adopted unfair labour practice . It has also been contended that the Mess Management Committee is processing the food activities for the trainees , so it is an ' industry' and the workmen working in the mess are workmen under the provision of the I.D.Act . Further, it is not clear whether the Mess Management Committee is a contractor or something else under the law . Since. provisions ofthe Act have been violated, the functioning of the Mess Management Committee as a contractor or 6357

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

school . It is also not in dispute that 8 persons in group ' C' &45 persons in group ' D ' were working at the time of filing claim statement whose names have been mentioned in the list enclosed with the claim statement . It is an admitted fact by the non -applicant that principal , Zonal Training School is functioning as the ex- officio chairman of the Mess Management Committee and faculty members of the training institute are being nominated as Secretary, Vice Chairman and Chairman . It is also an admitted fact that wages, passes , PTOS, Retirement benefits as applicable to Railway servants are not given to the workmen.

any other body is a sham, a mere nuse & camouflage, therefore, the workmen should be treated as employees of the principal employer who is principle of Zonal Training School . In support of his contentions , he has relied upon the decisions AIR 1995 SC 1899 , FGR (S.C. ) 319 , order of the CAT, Madras in O.A. 305/88 dated 28-6-90 . He has also referred letter ofthe Railway Board, New Delhi dated 29-8- 2006 and circular of Ministry, of Railway, Government of India, dated 18-5-1990 regarding implementation of Supreme Courtjudgment M.M.R Khari & others V/s . Union of India pertaining to Canteen employees .

12. The union witnesses Sh. Keshar Singh and Sh . Amritlal Dangi have deposed that they are working as Cook and Manager Account respectively in the mess run by the Zonal Training School . Both the witnesses have stated that the Zonal Training School is not registered under section 7 of the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation ) Act, 1970 and no license has been taken by the Mess Management Committee ujs 12 of the said Act . Therefore , the workmen be treated as employed by the management itself. They have also stated that they are entitled for wages in paritywith Railway Employees doing similar work onthe basis ofprinciple of equal pay for equal work .

13. In rebuttal , the management witnesses Sh . Hardeep Singh , Secretary, MMC and Sh . Champalal, Vice- principal , ZTS , have stated that the mess is run by the MessManagement Committee which is running on the basis of ' no profit no loss ' . The Mess Management Committee is not a contractor therefore, there was no need for obtaining license . The workmen of the mess are getting salaries and other allowances as per agreement dated 9-2- 99between the Mess Management Committee and workmen ofthe mess . They have not been given appointment by the Railway department .

8. Per Contra, the learned representative for the management has submitted that no appointment letter was ever issued by the Railway to the workmen and they were engaged by the Mess Management Committee which runs the mess. Expenditure pertaining to mess & wages of the person employed in the mess are being paid from the amount collected from the trainees . The mess is run on the basis of 'no profit no loss and Railway is not concerned with it . He has further submitted that the MMS is formed by the trainees themselves & it is an autonomous body. Railway department has no control over it and Rules of the Railway department are not applicable on the employees of the MessManagement Committee . The said Committee can close the mess without any information and can disengage employees working therein without any approval from the management ofthe Railway. He has also submitted that the workmen are being paid as per agreement dated 9-2-99. The said agreement bears the signature of the workmen and is an admitted document . It has also been subinitted that the Mess Management Committee has not been impleaded as a party in the present matter, therefore , the claim is not maintainable due to non -joinder of party. In support of his contentions the learned representative has relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1197/07dated 14-7-2011 Union of India V/s . Ram Singh &ors . and SCC 1996 (2) 258 Union of India V/s . J.V. Subhaia &ors .

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival submissions of the learned representative of both the parties & have gone through the decisions referred to by them .

14. The learned representative on behalf, ofthe union has referred decision rendered in AIR 1995 ( SC) 1983 in support of his contentions that the principal employer i.e. Zonal Training School is not registered u/s . 7 of the Act, 1970 and , the Mess Management Committee has not obtained any license u/s . 12 of the said Act and the said Committee is a bogus intervening agency ; that the workmen of the mess should be deemed to the employees of the principal employer i.e. Zonal Training School and employees of the mess be treated as regular Railway employees .

10. In view of the rival submissions from both the sides , the questions emerges for considerations are as to whether the workmen working in the mess of the Zonal Training School can be deemed to be employees of the Zonal Training School or can be treated regular Railway employees and whether they are entitled for similar wages and service conditions as are applicable to group ' D ' and group ' C ' Railway employees doing similar type ofwork in the Railway department .

15. In decision supra the question under consideration were whether an industrial dispute can be raised for abolition of the contract labour system in view of the provisions of the Act (b) if so , who can raised such dispute ( c) whether the Industrial Tribunal or the appropriate Government has powers to abolish the contract labour system and (d ) in case the contract labour system is abolished wha is the status of the erstwhile workmen of the contractor. In the said . case, the workmen were engaged 11. These facts are not in dispute that there is a mess for the Zonal Training School , which is cooking meals and serving to the trainees who are taking training in the said 6358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

by the contractor. While considering the above questions Hon'ble court has observed as below :-

"However, the authority to abolish the contract labour under S.10 of the Act comes into play only where there exists a genuine contract . If there is no genuine contract and the so called contract is sham or a camouflage to hid the reality, the said provisions are inapplicable . When , in such circumstances , the concerned workmen raise an industrial dispute for relief that they should be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer, the Court or the Industrial adjudicator will have jurisdiction to ' entertain the dispute and grant the necessary relief. The question whether the contract is genuine , or not canbe examined and adjudicated upon by the Court or the industrial adjudicator, as the case may by. Hence in such cases , the workmen can make a grievance thatthere is no genuine contract and that they are in factthe employees of the principal employer. "

16. In present case , neither the Mess Management Committee is functioning as a contractor for providing workers to Railway administration for running mess nor there was any agreement in this regard . The Settlement/ Agreement between the Mess Management Committee & workers working in the mess Ex- M 1 dated 9-2-99 which has been admitted by the witnesses of the union , also fortifies that the Mess Management Committee was not functioning as a ' contractor ' for providing workers to the Railway administration . The facts of the case in hand are distinguishable from the facts of the decision supra.

17. The contention of the learned representative for the union regarding non -compliance of the provisions U/ s 7 and 12 of the Act finds its answer in decision in 1992 1 SCC 695 Dena Nath V/s National Fertilizers Ltd. which has been noticed in the AIR 1995 SC 1983 referred to by the learned representative for the union , the question involved was whether, if the principal employer does not get registration under Section 7 and/or the contractor does not get licence under Section 12 of the Act , the labour engaged by the principal employer through the contractor is deemed to be the direct employees of the principal employer or not . While considering the above question Hon'ble Apex Court held that the only consequence provided under the Act where either the principal employer or the labour contractor violates the provisions of Section 7 or 12 as the case may be , is the penalty as envisaged under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act . Merely because a contractor or an employer has violated a provision of the Act or the Rules , the Court cannot issue any mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees ofthe principal employer.

18. In view of the above legal proposition the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the union that due to non - compliance ofprovisions of Sections 7& 12 of the Act , the employees of the mess be deemed to

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

be the employees of the Railway department is not tenable .

19. In reference under adjudication , the only question referred for consideration is as to whether the demand of the union for granting similar wages and service conditions as are applicable to group ' D ' & group ' C ' Railway employees is legal & justified . The union in its claim statement has not claimed that workmen be declared as employees of the Railway. The union has only claimed their parity with the employees of the Railway performing similar nature of work . In the prayerayer clause of the claim statement also the prayer is only for grant of similar wages &service conditions for employees working in the mess of the Zonal Training School .

20. It is well settled that a tribunal cannot go beyond the point referred to in the reference . As per Section 10(4) of the I.D.Act , the tribunal can adjudicate on those points which appropriate government has specified in the reference matter & the matter incidental thereto. In a claim for parity of pay scales the contention on behalf of the union that employees of the mess be treated or declared as railway employees is beyond the scope of the reference . Therefore , the contention of the union in this regard is sustainable .

21. The facts of the decision rendered in NF of RBB &Bearscase referred to by the learned representative for the union are distinguishable . In the said case , the employees who were initially engaged as Parcel Porters through contractor & continuously working with Railway were absorbed as regular employees . The facts of the above decision referred to turn on its own facts which are quite dissimilar to the facts of the present case . The contention of the union does not derive any assistance from the said decision .

22. The learned representative for the union in support ofhis contention that the workmen of the mess of the Zonal Training School are entitled for parity in wages &serviceconditions as are applicable to group ' D' & group ' C' of the Railway employees has submitted the decision of the CAT, Madras Bench O.A.no.305/ 88 circular issued for implementation of the decision rendered in MMR Khan's case .

23. In order of the CAT, Madras Bench passed in O.A. no.305/88 , Railwayemployees of the Co - operative stores in the southern railway stores situated in Tamilnadu claimed parity in the pay scales with the regular railway. servants in corresponding posts . While relying on decision ofHon'ble Apex Court rendered in MMR Khan & ors . V/ s Union of India AIR 1999 SC 937 directions were given to treat the employees of the railway employee Co - operative stores as a regular railway servant & given them the pay scale that are given to regular railway servant in corresponding posts .

24. The said decision of CAT, Madras Bench & decision of High Court & Apex Court upholding the 6359

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012 / श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

decision of CAT, Madras Bench have been considered in decision 1996 SCC (2 ) 258 referred to by the learned representative for the management . The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MMR Khan's Case relied upon by the CAT, Madras Bench has also been considered.

25. In decision rendered in 1996 SCC (2 ) 258 , the respondents therein were appointed in Railway Employees' Consumer Co- operative stores. They filed different O.As in CAT, Hyderabad seeking declaration that they are regular railway employees in class III posts & are entitled to be paid regular salary for continuous services from the date of the respective appointments in the Societies . The CAT, Hyderabad following the decision of the Madras Bench delivered on 29-6-90 in O.A. no . 305/88 , allowed the O. As & gavethe directions for grant of relief referred to earlier . The question under consideration was whether the officers , employees& servants appointed by the Co- operative society organized under the Railway Establishment Manual could betreated as Railway servants . While considering the said question Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:--

" If the employees of the societies like Co - operative canteens are declared as railway servants there would arise dual control over them by the Registrar and Railway Administration but the same was not brought to the attention of the court when M.M. Khan case wasdecided .

It istrue that the order of the Two - Judge Bench ofthis Court had upheld the order of the CAT, Madras Bench which had become final . With due and great respect to our learned brethren constituting the Bench , these features noted by us do not appear to have been put up for their consideration and so they did not have occasion to consider the impact as envisaged hereinbefore ."

26. Hon'ble Court has further observed :-

" In view of the above discussion and in view of the legal setting referred to hereinbefore , we are of the considered view that the Bench had not laid down any law except approving the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Madras Bench of the CAT. The Madras Bench had merely referred to the provisions in the Manual and proceeded on the premise that they gave rise to a legal base to treat the employees of the Stores as the Railway employees . The reasoning is wholly illegal and unsustainable for the reasons stated above . "

27. With above observations it has been held:-

"We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the officers , employees and servants appointed by the Railway Co - operative Stores /Societies cannot be treated on par with Railway servants under paragraph 10 B ofthe Railway Establishment Code nor they can be given parity of status , promotions, scales of pay increments etc. as ordered by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench . "

28. In view of above legal proposition, laid down in the decision supra , the contention of the union on the basis of decision rendered in MMR Khan's case & circular dated 18-5-90 regarding implementation of the said decision, for parity of wages & service conditions with the Railway employees of group'C ' & ' D ' is not acceptable .

29. The learned representative on behalf of the management has referred another decision ofHon'ble Apex Court in civil appeal no . 1197/07 dated 14-7-2011 . In the said decision while setting aside the decision of the Gujrat High Court in special civil appeal 536/03 & order of the CAT dated 28-3-02 whereby directions were given to regularize the workmen Working in mess in the Railway Staff College for regularization in Railway service , it has been observed:

" It appears that the respondents were working in a Mess run by the trainee officers in the Railway Staff College. That Mess was not run by the railways but was run by the trainee officers themselves so that they could get proper meals . It is evident that the respondents were not railway employees , but a direction has been given that they be regularized in railway service . "

30. In decision 1990 2 SCC 542 All India Railway

Institute Employees Association V /s Union of India noticed in 1996 SCC( 2 ) 258 , the question under consideration was whether the employees appointed in the institute or clubs maintained by the Railway employees as welfare measure could be treated as Railway employees on par with Railway Canteen employees (Statutory or non statutory recognized canteen) , Hon'ble Apex Court recognizing that establishment of the institutes or clubs , though recognized by the Railway was only welfare measure , had held that "formation of the institutes or clubs was not mandatory they are established as a part of welfare measure for the Railway staff and the kind of activities they conduct , depends , among other things , on the funds available to them . The activities have to conform to the objects since by their very nature the funds are not only limited but keep on fluctuating . The institutes or clubs and the benefits thatwould flow on them will depend upon the budgetary provisions for the institutes and clubs and keep flowing from time to time . If the employees working in the institutes or clubs are recognized as Railway employees it will have snow balling effect on other welfare activities carried out bythe Railway and similar activities carried on by all other organizations ."

31. In the present case , the witnesses of the union Sh . Keshar Singh , Cook & Amritlal Dangi , Manager Account, have admitted in their cross examination that the amount for running the mess is used to be taken from trainees & Rs. 130 per day is being taken from a trainee of 6360

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

the Zonal Training School . They have also admitted that anagreement Ex M - 1 dated 9-2-99 bears their signatures the and said agreement was between the Mess Management Committee & the employees of the mess . Theyhave also admitted that from time to time their salary & allowances have been enhanced & Ex - M - 3 is a comparative statement in this regard . The witness Sh. Keshar Singh has also admitted that their salary is being paid from the amount taken from the trainees and theyare claiming parity with the Railway employees because they are serving the employees ofthe Railway. Sh. Amritlal Dangi has also admitted that profit or loss is not the object for providing food to the trainees .

32. Further , the union has not brought any material on record to show that the Railway Administration had control over selection , appointment & payment of salaries to the staff of the mess & Railway Administration has managerial or administrative control over the staff of the mess . Admittedly, the salary of the staff is being paid out ofarmount received from the trainees . There is no allocation ofseparate budget for running the mess . The conditions of the service of the employees of the Railway are not applicable to them . The Railway Establishment Code or Railway Establishment Manual is not applicable to them . Running ofmess is not mandatory requirement for Railway Administration .

33. Therefore , in view of above factual backdrop & legal proposition laid down in decisions rendered in 1990 2 SCC 542, 1996 SCC (2) 258 & civil appeal no. 1197/07 dated 14-7-2011 , the contention of the learned representative for the union for treating the employees of the mess of the Zonal Training School as regular Railway employees & to consider them at par with the Railway employees of group'C' &' D ' in respect ofwages & service conditions is not sustainable.

34. For the foregoing reasons , the workmen working in the mess run in Zonal Training School , Udaipur are not entitled for similar wages & service conditions as are applicable to group'C ' & group ' D ' Railway employees. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

35. Award as above.

36. Let a copy of the award by sent to Central Government for publication u/s 17 (1 ) ofthe I. D. Act .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 13 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2581.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-07-2012

को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/211/2005- आई आर (बी. - 1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th July, 2012

S. O.2581 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 2/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Central Office , and their workmen, received bythe Central Government on 13-7-2012 .

[No. L- 12012 /211 /2005 - IR (B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR PRESENT N. K. PROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. 2/2006

Reference No. L - 12012 /211 /2005 - IR (B - I ) Dated:02-12-2005

The Vice- President All Bank Safai Karamchari Sangh 50/138 , Rajat Path , Mansarover , Jaipur

V/s

1. The Dy . General Manager ( Personal) ICICI Bank , Sardar Pate ! Marg , C-Scheme, Zonal Office, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Manager ICICI Bank , Parivahan Marg, JaipurBranch.

(After merger of the Bank of Rajasthan with ICICI Bank, the ICICI Bank has been impleaded as a party in place of Bank of Rajasthan )

Present :

FortheApplicant Union : Ex-Party

Forthe Non - applicant

: Sh. Alok Fatehpuria, Adv.

AWARD 9-5-2012

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d ) of Sub-section 1 & 2 ( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:--

"Whether the action of the management of the Bank ofRajasthan Ltd. , Jaipur through Dy . General Manager in terminating the services of workman Shri Rambabu Godiwal , PTS w.e.f. 2-7-2002 and also not giving the 1/3 wages of pay scale is legal & justified ? If not , what relicef the claimant is entitled to and from which date ?" [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6361 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2582:-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-07-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the contesting parties . On behalf of the bank, Officer - In - charge put his appearance but despite the service ofthe registered notice on the applicant union, none appeared on its behalf, therefore , an award was passed on 15-2-2006 against the applicant union and in favour of the non- applicant bank . Subsequently, the said award was set aside vide order dated 20-5-2010 and case wasrestored on its original number.

[सं. एल-41012/154/96 आई आर ( बी. - 1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th July, 2012

3. Statement of claim on behalf of the union was filed on 26-7-2010 . At the stage of filing reply an application on behalf of the union was moved stating that bank of Rajasthan has merged with ICICI Bank therefore , the ICICI bank may be impleaded as party.

4. Vide order dated 14-12-2011 the ICICI bank has been impleaded as a party in place of Bank of Rajasthan .

S.O. 2582.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 2/98) of the Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-07-2012.

[No. L-41012/ 154/96- IR (B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबंध

न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज.

5. Upon perusal of the proceedings , it reveals that none appeared on behalf of the union on 25-5-11 , 21-7-11 and 10-10-11 , therefore , order to proceed ex- party against the union was passed on 10-10-11 . It further reveals that on 4-1-12 representative on behalf of the union was present but he did not move any application for setting aside the ex - party order . Thereafter on 14-2-12 , 10-4-12 and 26-4-12 , none appeared on behalf of the union .

पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , आर.एच.जे.एस. निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक : औ. न्या. 2/98

दिनांक स्थापित : 2-2-98

प्रसंग : भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल-41012/ 154/96- आईआर ( बी ) दि. 19 8 97 व अन्तरण पत्र 6. The reply to the claim statement was filed on 7-5-12 but learned representative on behalf of the non- applicant submitted that non - applicant bank does not want to lead any evidence . Under these circumstances , after hearing the learned representative on behalf of the non -applicant , case was reserved for passing the award.

दि. 28-1-98

निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 110 ( 1 ) ( घ )

औद्योगिक. विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

मध्य

7. Since , the claim of the union has been denied by the management of the bank , initial burden was on the union to prove that action of the management of the bank in terminating the services of the workman and not giving 1 / 3rd wages of pay scale is illegal and unjustified.

देवेन्द्र शर्मा द्वारा मण्डल मंत्री , पश्चिम रेलवे कर्मचारी परिषद्, कोटा

-प्रार्थी श्रमिक/कर्मकार

एवं

डिविजनल रेलवे मैनेजर , पश्चिम रेलवे , कोटा ।

-अप्रार्थी नियोजक 8. It was the bounded duty of the applicant union to lead the evidence to establish its case set forth in the claim statement , but no evidence could be lead and even after filing claim statement none appeared on behalf of the applicant union to contest the case further .

उपस्थित

श्री एम. के. जैन

श्री रामकल्याण शर्मा

प्रार्थी श्रमिक/कर्मकार की ओर से प्रतिनिधि :- अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि:-

9. In above factual backdrop , there is no material on record to adjudicate the reference under consideration on merits . It appears that the union is not interested in contesting the case further . Therefore , "No Claim Award" is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक : 274 2012

10. Award as above .

अधिनिर्णय

11. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/s 17 ( 1 ) of the I.D. Act .

. N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा निम्न निर्देश ( रेफ्रेन्स) अपनी अधिसूचना/आदेश दि. 19-8-97 के द्वारा पूर्व में अहमदाबाद

2817 GI/2012-10 [PART H-SEC . 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6362

तथा धारा 25 एच के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन नहीं हुआ है । प्रार्थी ने किसी प्रकार के कोई दस्तावेज न्यायालय में पेश नहीं किये. अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट खारिज किये जाने की मांग अप्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब के माध्यम से की है ।

औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (जिसे तदुपरान्त" अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ) के अन्तर्गत भेजा गया था फिर बाद में श्रम मंत्रालय के पत्र दि. 28-1 98 के द्वारा अहमदाबाद से वह रेफ्रेन्स आहरित कर इस न्यायाधिकरण के विचारण हेतु भेजा गया । रेफ्रेन्स में विनिश्चय क लिए विवाद का बिन्दु निम्न है:-

5. इसके पश्चात् साक्ष्य प्रार्थी में प्रार्थी देवेन्द्र शर्मा ने स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र पेश किया । अप्रार्थी द्वारा उससे जिरह की गयी । साक्ष्य अप्रार्थी में गवाह अजीजुद्दीन का शपथ- पत्र पेश किया गया , प्रार्थी की ओर से उससे जिरह की गयी । दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी कैर्मकार की ओर से प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. । जो प्रार्थी कर्मकार को दि. 1-5-91 से अस्थाई श्रमिक का दर्जा दिये जाने बाबत है , उसकी फोटोप्रति पेश की गयी ।

! "Whether the action of the Div. Rly. Manager , W. Rly. Kota Division Kota in terminating the services of their workman Sh . Devender Sharma S/ o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma temporary Status holder w.e.f. 17-4-92 and not giving him re- employment in preference to new faces is fair and just. If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date . "

2. न्यायाधिकरण में निर्देश ( रेफ्रेन्स ) प्राप्त होने पर दर्ज संर किया जाकर पक्षकारों को सूचना पत्र जारी किये गये ।

3. प्रार्थी की ओर से अपना क्लेम स्टेमेन्ट पेश किया नया जिसमें यह वर्णितः किया गया कि प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी ने दि. 26-3-87 को आकस्मिक मजदूर की हैसियत से काम पर लगाया । प्रार्थी ने रस दिनांक से लेकर 16-4-92 तक कई टुकड़ों में काम किया. उसके पश्चात् प्रार्थी को कार्य पर नहीं लिया गया । प्रार्थी को दि. 17-10-91 को अप्रार्थी ने अस्थाई कर्मकार का दर्जा भी प्रदान किया जो 1-5-91 से प्रभावी था । रेलवे बोर्ड के आदेशानुसार आकस्मिक नजयों को भर्ती पर दि. 14-7-81 से रोक लगी हुई थी परन्तु फिर भी मोहम्मद अली को अपने आदेश दि. 21-3-94, किशन मिश्र को आदेश दि. 7-4-94, महेन्द्रप्रतापसिंह को आदेश दि. 6-34 भर्ती करते हुए उन्हें नौकरी पर लिया व नियमित भी कर दिया, क प्रार्थी कर्मकार को नौकरी पर नहीं रखा । प्रार्थी को नौकरी से हटाने के पश्चात् नयी भर्ती के समय पुनः नौकरी पर नहीं रखना धारा 25 - एच के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन है । प्रार्थी को नौकरी से निकालने के समय धारा 25 - एफ की पालना भी नहीं की गयी क्योंकि उसे ना तो नोटिस दिया गया , ना ही नोटिस अवधि का वेतन दिया गया एवं ना ही मुआवजा दिया गया । अतः प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के माध्यम से उसे पिछले समस्त बकाया वेतन एवं अन्य परिलाभों सहित सेवा की निरन्तरता के साथ पुनर्स्थापित किये जाने के अनुतोषी मांग की ।

4. प्रार्थी के क्लेम स्टेमेन्ट का जवाब अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें यह वर्णित किया गया कि प्रार्थी कर्मकार

अप्रार्थी के यहां 26-3-87 से 16-4-92 तक लगातार ए

कार्य किये जाने का अभिकथन किया है किन्तु ऐसा कोई

नहीं किया है एवं ना ही कार्य से हटाये जाने का विवरण पेश किया

6. साक्ष्य समाप्ति के पश्चात् उभयपक्ष द्वारा लिखित बहस पेश की गयी व तदुपरान्त उभयपक्ष ने मौखिक बहस की मौखिक बहस के दौरान प्रार्थी कर्मकार की ओर से मुख्य दलील यह दी गयी किप्रार्थी कर्मकार को दि. 26-3-87 को दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी आकस्मिक कर्मकार के रूप में रखा गया । उम्म 1591 की प्रभावशील तिथि से अस्थायी कर्मकार का दर्जा भी प्रदान किया गया जिसकी पुष्टि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. । से होती है । हटाने से पहले प्रार्थो कर्मकार को कोई नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन या मुआवजा आदि नहीं दिया गया तथा धारा 25 एच के प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की गयी। प्रार्थी को निकालने के बाद अन्य कर्मकारों जिनके कि नाम क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में वर्णित हुए हैं, उन्हें रखते समय भी प्रार्थी को पुनः नियोजन में रखा जाकर धारा 25 एच के प्रावधानों की भी पालना नहीं की गयी । अतः अप्रार्थी का प्रार्थी को संत्रा में हटा देने का कृत्य पुर्ण रूप से स्वेच्छाचारी , निरंकुश व अन्यायपूर्ण है । अप्रार्थी का जो गवाद परीक्षित हुआ उसने भी कई बातों की जानकारी नहीं होने का कथन किया है । अतः ऐसी परिस्थितियों में प्रार्थी कर्मकार की सेवामुक्ति धारा 25 - एफ के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होने से अनुचित व अवैध है , अतः प्रार्थी कर्मकार को पिछले समस्त बकाया वेतन व परिलाभों सहित सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित किये जाने का आदेश दिया जावे तथा प्रार्थी कर्मकार की ओर से इस सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत माननीय राज. उच्च का न्यायनिर्णय " निदेशक, दूरदर्शनू केन्द्र बनाय न्यायाधीश , केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण एवं अन्य-2006 ( 1 ) सीडीओर 43 ! ( राज. ) महत्वपूर्ण है जिसमें यह प्रतिपादित किया गया कि 95 दिन काम करने वाला कर्मकार भी धारा 25 एच के तहत संरक्ष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है । प्रबन्धन ने अन्य कनिष्ठ श्रमिका को सेवा में रखा , अतः प्रार्थी के प्रतिकर के स्थान पर पुनः सपना का अनुतोष उचित है क्योंकि पुनः स्थापन एक नियम है . प्रधिकार एना अपवाद है । ऐसी ही एक और न्यायनिर्णय " प्रबन्धक बोज निगन मन्दा एग्रीकल्चर फार्म बनाम रूधा व अन्य 2010( 1 ) सीडीआर 388 ( राज. ) ", को उद्धृत किया गया । इस मामले में भो कर्मकार की सेवामुक्ति अवैध होने से उसके नियोक्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत अपोल को खारिज कर दिया गया ।

तक कि प्रत्येक प्रकरण में महाप्रबंधक , पश्चिम रेलवे की व्यक्तिगत

हैं । रेलवे बोर्ड के निर्देश आदेश के अनुसार 14-7-81 के पा कोई भी आकस्मिक मजदूर कार्य पर नहीं लगाया जा सकता है, जब स्वीकृति प्राप्त नहीं कर ली गयी हो । प्रार्थी द्वारा बताये गये तीनों व्यक्तियों की नियमित नियुक्ति महाप्रबन्धक महोबरपर

अनुमति के बाद ही की गयी है, अः ये अनियमितनि

7. इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी की ओर से बहस के दौरान दलील दी गयी कि प्रार्थी अपने आपको अप्रार्थी द्वारा उसे 16-4-92 से सेवा से हटाये जाने का अभिकथन कर रहा है परन्तु सेवा से हटाये जाने का कोई उपदेश प्रार्थी द्वारा पेश नहीं किया गया , केवल जबानी रूप से 6363

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

प्रार्थी यह अभिकथन कर रहा है । वस्तुस्थिति यह है कि प्रार्थी को कभी हटाया नहीं बल्किप्रार्थी स्वयं ही अपनी इच्छा से काम छोड़कर चला गया एवं काम पर ही उपस्थित नहीं हुआ एवं बाद में उसे मालूम चला कि अन्य व्यक्तियों को नये तौर पर सेवा में लिया तो प्रार्थी ने 5 साल बाद यह मामला उठाया है । यदि प्रार्थी हटाने से व्यथित था तो उसके द्वारा 5 वर्ष की देरी विवाद उठाने में नहीं की जाती । इसके अलावा रेलवे में वर्ष 81 के बाद से ही आकस्मिक मजदूरों की नियुक्ति मण्डल स्तर पर किये जाने का निषेध है । प्रार्थी जिन कर्मकार मोहम्मद अली , किशन मिश्रा व महेन्द्रप्रताप सिंह आदि की नियुक्तिवर्ष 1994 में किया जाना बता रहा है , इस सम्बन्ध में अप्रार्थी यह प्रकट करना चाहेगा कि ये नियुक्तियां मण्डल रेल प्रबन्धक द्वारा अपनी ओर से नहीं की गयी हैं बल्कि जोनल कार्यालय के निर्देश एवं अनुमतिके बाद ही ये नियुक्तियां की गयी हैं । यह अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत पत्र दि.4-2-94, 21-3-94 व 7-4-94 से स्पष्ट जाहिर होता है । अतः प्रार्थी की इस दलील में भी कोई सार नहीं है कि पश्चात्वर्ती भर्ती के समय प्रार्थी को प्राथमिकता नहीं दी गयी । इसके अलावा यह भी दलील दी गयी कि प्रार्थी ने कब- कब , किस-किस के अधीन क्या- क्या कार्य किया , स्पष्ट वर्णित नहीं किया है, अतः इसके अभाव में यह कैसे माना जा सकता है कि प्रार्थी ने उसके द्वारा बतायी जा रही अवधि में लगातार कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी ने कहीं पर भी पुनः नियोजन हेतु कोई दरख्वास्त आदि भी अप्रार्थी के यहां पेश की हो, यह भी पेश करने में वह विफल रहा है । रेलवे मण्डल प्रबन्धक, कोटा द्वारा कोई नियुक्तिअपनी इच्छा अनुसार रेलवे बोर्ड के रोक के आदेश के बाद नहीं की गयी प्रार्थी पूरा ही मामला एक काल्पनिक लेकर आया है । ना तो प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी ने निकाला एवं ना ही अप्रार्थी ने पश्चात्वर्ती भर्ती के समय कोई विभागीय नियमों की अवहेलना की तथा अस्थायी कर्मकार का दर्जा दे दिये जाने से कर्मकार हमेशा के लिए नौकरी पर बनाये रखने का अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं कर लेता व ऐसी स्थिति में जबकि कर्मकार स्वयं ही कार्य छोड़कर चला जावे एवं जिस अस्थायी दर्जे बाबत कर्मकार अभिकथन कर रहा है , उस पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. । के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट जाहिर हो जाता है कि कर्मकार को यह अस्थायी दर्जा केवल ग्रीष्मकालीन समय के लिए दिया है , अर्थात् अंशकालीन कार्य रेलवे प्लेटफार्म पर पानी पिलाने आदि के लिए ही था ना कि पूरे वर्ष भर के लिए । अतः प्रार्थी हस्तगत मामले में कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है , अतः क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट खारिज किया जावे ।

ने लिखित बहस में प्रदर्श एम. 1 के रूप में अंकित किया है । इसके अलावा पत्रावली में प्रार्थी कर्मकार की ओर से उसकी सेवा- पुस्तिका की फोटोप्रति पेश हुई है । उसका अवलोकन किया जावे तो प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 90 व वर्ष 91 में अलग-अलग समय पर अलग- अलग दिन काम किया है । अब क्या प्रार्थी द्वारा लगातार 240 दिन सेवा समाप्ति से पहले कलेण्डर वर्ष में कार्य किया गया या नहीं ? प्रार्थी अपनी सेवा समाप्ति दि. 17-4-92 बता रहा है । अतः इस लिहाज से इस सेवा समाप्ति के ठीक एक वर्ष की विगत अवधि अर्थात् 12 कलेण्डर माह में प्रार्थी ने कितना कार्य किया , इस बाबत यदि इस दस्तावेज का अवलोकन किया जावे तो प्रार्थी द्वारा 8-4-91 से 11-4-91 तक कुल 4दिन , बाद में 14-4-91 से 19-6-91 तक 67 दिन व 21-6-91 से 30-6-91 तक 10 दिन , इस प्रकार कुल ४। दिन काम किया जाना प्रकट होता है । कहीं पर भी सेवा समाप्ति से ठीक पूर्व के एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन प्रार्थी द्वारा लगातार कार्य किया जाना प्रकट नहीं होता है । प्रार्थी ने भी अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में यही वर्णित किया कि उसने 16-4-92 तक कई टुकड़ों में कार्य किया । परन्तु सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व ठीक एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में प्रार्थी द्वारा लगातार 240 दिन तक काम किया हो , ऐसा अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में वर्णित नहीं किया है । शपथ- पत्र में भी प्रार्थी ने यह कथन किया कि उसकी नियुक्ति26-3-87 को हुई और उसके द्वारा लगातार 120 दिन कार्य 6-4-90 से किया गया । इसकी पुष्टि भी प्रार्थी के किसी भी दस्तावेज से नहीं होती है और ना ही ऐसा विवरण प्रार्थी ने अपनी इस कार्यावधि के बारे में दिया , यहां तक कि प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जो सेवा- पुस्तिका कीफोटोप्रति, हालांकि इसे प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रदर्शित नहीं कराया गया है, उससे भी पुष्टि नहीं होती है । इसमें भी प्रार्थी का दि. 16-4-91 से 19-6-91 तक 65 दिन , 21-691 से 30 691 तक 10 दिन व 27-3-92 से 16-4-92 तक 21 दिन इस प्रकार कुल 96 दिन कार्य किया जाना प्रकट होता है । अब प्रार्थी को अस्थायी दर्जा दिये जाने का आदेश प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. । जो पेश हुआ है , उसका अवलोकन किया जावे तो उसमें भी यह स्पष्ट वर्णित है कि एवजी का अस्थायी स्तर मिल जाने से व रेल सेवा में नियुक्तियाँ विलियन के लिए तब तक या हकदार नहीं हो जाते जब तक कि ए.ओ. नियुक्ति के लिए सलेक्शन सूची में स्थिति के आधार पर और या नियमित रेल सेवा पद पर नियुक्ति के लिए उसका अनुमोदित तरीके से सलेक्शन नहीं हो जाता है। इस पत्र में नीचे प्रार्थी कर्मकार देवेन्द्र कुमार शर्मा को ग्रीष्मकालीन पानी वाला आगरा किला के रूप में पदनामित किया गया है एवं अस्थायी स्तर ग्रीष्मकालीन समय के लिए दिया गया है । प्रार्थी की सेवा पुस्तिका की फोटोप्रति में भी ग्रीष्मकालीन मौसम के लिए पानी पिलाने वाला अंकित किया गया है ।

४. हमने उभयपक्ष की दलीलों पर मनन किया तथा उदृत किये गये न्यायनिर्णयों में प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों पर भी मनन किया । पत्रावली पर आयी हुई साक्ष्य व सामग्री का भी परिशीलन किया ।

10. अतः इन पूरे तथ्यों से यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि प्रार्थी, अप्रार्थी के यहाँ नियमित रूप से कार्यरत नहीं होकर वे केवल ग्रीष्मकालीन मौसम में पानी पिलाने के कार्य को अन्जात देता था । अप्रार्थी का संस्थान मौसमी प्रकार का नहीं है अपितु वह तो लगातार कार्यरत संस्थान है, हाँ परन्तु इसमें प्रार्थी के लिए जो कार्य था वह ग्रीष्मकाल अवधि में पानी पिलाने का कार्य था । प्रार्थी ने जैसा कि ऊपर वर्णित किया जा चुका है कि उसकी सेवा समाप्ति तिथि जो प्रार्थी द्वारा 17-4-92 बतायी जा रही है , उसके ठीक पूर्व के 12 माह ५. सर्वप्रथम तो पत्रावली पर जो उभयपक्ष की सामग्री साक्ष्य केदौरान आयी है उसमें प्रार्थी कर्मकार की ओर से प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. । का अवलम्ब लिया गया है । इसका अवलोकन किया जावे तो इसमें प्रार्थी को ग्रीष्मकालीन पानी वाले में 26-3-87 को प्रारम्भिक नियुक्त किया जाना प्रकट किया गया है । दि. 6-4-90 से उसके द्वारा कार्य किया जाना प्रकट किया गया एवं 1-5-91 से उसे अस्थायी दर्जा दिया जाना प्रकट होता है । इसमें यह भी अंकित किया गया है कि अस्थायी स्तर केवल ग्रीष्मकालीन समय के लिए देय है । इसी दस्तावेज को अप्रार्थी 6364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20, 1934

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

जाता है कि सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा अनुमोदन मिलने पर ही उनकी नियुक्ति की गयी हैं । अतः प्रार्थी की इस दलील में भी यह न्यायाधि करण कोई बल महसूस नहीं करता है ।

के कलेण्डर वर्ष में ना तो 240 दिन कार्य किया जाना प्रकट होता है एवं ना ही सेवा समाप्ति के विगत के 6 माह में 120 दिन कार्य किया जाना प्रकट होता है । अर्थात् प्रार्थी अपनी सेवा समाप्ति के ठीक 6 माह के पूर्व की अवधि में लगातार 120 दिन कार्यरत रहा हो या सेवा समाप्ति के ठीक पूर्व की एक वर्ष की अवधि में 240 दिन तक कार्यरत रहा हो , ये दोनों ही तथ्य प्रार्थी साबित करने में विफल रहा है ।

12. इसके अलावा प्रार्थी को किसी मौसम विशेष के लिए अर्थात् ग्रीष्मकालीन अवधि के लिए पानी पिलाने वाले व्यक्ति के रूप में रखा भी गया है तो यह उसका कार्य एक मौसमी प्रकृति का था । प्रार्थी की सेवा पुस्तिका जिसकी फोटोप्रति पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है , उसमें भी प्रार्थी को केवल ग्रीष्मकालीन अवधि माह अप्रैल , मई, जून 90 , 91 में ही कार्य किया जाना प्रकट होता है । वर्ष 92 में भी प्रार्थी द्वारा 27-3-92 से 16-4-92 तक की अवधि के लिए उक्त कार्य किया जाना प्रकट होता है । अर्थात् ग्रीष्मकालीन अवधि में प्रार्थी रेल यात्रियों को रेलवे स्टेशन पर पानी पिलाने का कार्य करता था । इसके अलावा बाकी अवधि में प्रार्थी द्वा अप्रार्थी के यहाँ कार्य किया जाना प्रकट नहीं होता है । जैसा कि वर वर्णित किया जा चुका है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा अपनी सेवा समाप्ति से ठीक पूर्व के 6 माह में 120 दिन या उसके सेवा से हटाने के पूर्व के 12 कलेण्डर माह में 240 दिन कार्य किया गया हो , यह कहीं साबित किये जाने का प्रयास नहीं किया गया है, जबकि माननीय उच्चतम न्यामालय ने अपने कुई न्यायनिर्णयों " सुरेन्द्रनगर जिला पंचायत बनाम भाई , पीताच्चरभाई-( 2005 ) 8 एस.सी.सी. पृष्ठ 450 , उत्तरप्रदेश ताय सुनार प्यारेलाल-2005 एलएलआर पृष्ठ 865 ( इला. उ. न्या. ) , भोगपुर सहकारी चीनी मिल्स लि. बनाम हरमेशकुमार-2007 एलएलआर ( एम.सी. ) ( पृष्ठ 183 ) " आदि मामलों यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि जहाँ कर्मकार किसी संस्थान में 240 दिन तक लगातार कार्य किया जामा प्रकट करता है तो यह साबित करने का भार उसी पर होगा । इस मामले में प्रार्थी कर्मकार ने कहीं पर भी अपनी कार्यावधि का विवरण व सेवा से हटाने से पहले के 6 माह में 120 दिन या 12 कलेण्डर माह में 240 दिन कार्य किया हो , ऐसा कोई स्पष्ट अभिकथनों के साथ अभिकथन ना तो अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट या शपथ- पत्र में अंकित किया है. एवं ना ही साबित किये जाने का प्रयास किया है एवं उसकी सेवापुस्तिका की फोटोप्रति से भी उसका यह तथ्य साबित नहीं होता है । किसी भी मामले में कर्मकार को किसी प्रकार की राहत प्रदान करने के पहले इस तथ्य का साबित होना अति आवश्यक है कि कर्मकार ने ऊपर वर्णित सेवा अवधि उसको सेवा से हटाने के पहले पूरी कर ली । इस मामले में प्रार्थी कर्मकार यह तथ्य साबित नहीं कर पाया है । विभाग द्वारा उसे अस्थायी कर्मकार का जो दर्जा दिया गया है वह भी पूरे वर्ष भर के लिए नहीं दिया जाकर केत्रल एक ग्रीष्मकालीन अवधि के लिए ही दिया गया है एवं इसी आधार पर प्रार्थी किसी नियमित पद पर पुर्नस्थापित होने का अधिकारी नहीं बनता है, जैसा कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा " सचिव , कर्नाटक राज्य बनाम उमा देवी- 2006 ( 109 ) एफएलआर ( एस.सी ) पृष्ठ 826 एवं राजस्थान राज्य एवं अन्य बनाम दद्यालाल व अन्य 2011 (128 ) एफएलआर ( एस.सी. ) पृष्ठ 928 " में यह प्रतिपादित किया गया है किकोई भी कर्मकार भले ही वह दैनिक रूप से या अस्थायी रूप से या तदर्थ रूप से नियोजित हो तो भी वह किसी भी नियमित सेवा में नियोजित होने का अधिकारी तब तक नहीं होता जब तक कि वह उस पद के लिए अपेक्षित अर्हतायें या विहित प्रक्रिया से नियुक्ति हेतु गुजर ना जावे ।

11. प्रार्थी अपने आपको अस्थायी दर्जा दिया जाना बता रहा है तो क्या इसी आधार पर प्रार्थी, अप्रार्थी के यहाँ पुनः नियोजित होने का अधिकारी है ? इस सम्बन्ध में सर्वप्रथम तो यह न्यायाधिकरण यह प्रकट करना चाहेगा कि प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटा दिया गया हो , ऐसा कोई लिखित आदेश ना तो प्रार्थी की ओर से पेश किया गया है एवं ना ही अप्रार्थी की ओर से पेश किया गया है । केवल मात्र जबानी रूप से ही यह सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि प्रार्थी द्वारा बतायी जा रही है । प्रार्थी की इस सम्बन्ध में मुख्य दलील यह रही है कि प्रार्थी को हटाने के बाद में अन्य कर्मकार मोहम्मद अली , महेन्द्रप्रताप सिंह व संजय मिश्रा आदि को सेवा में अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियोजित किया गया । हालांकि एक और कर्मकार श्रीकिशन मिश्रा का नाम भी अप्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के जवाब में वर्णित किया है , परन्तु बाद में अप्रार्थी ने इस सम्बन्ध में एक प्रार्थना-पत्र 15-5-99 को पेश कर यह स्पष्ट किया कि श्रीकिशन को अप्रार्थी द्वारा नियुक्त नहीं किया गया । अतः क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के जवाब जो तथ्य वर्णित किये उसमें किशन का नाम विलोपित माना जावे । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी एवं अप्रार्थी , दोनों के अनुसार मोहम्मद अली, संजय मिश्रा व महेन्द्रप्रतापसिंह की नियुक्तिप्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति के बाद हुई है । इन नियुक्तियों के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी की ओर से दलील दी गयी कि रेलवे द्वारा वर्ष 81 में ही किसी भी नियुक्ति पर रोक लगा दी गयी थी परन्तु इसके बावजूद भी अप्रार्थी द्वारा तीन कर्मकारों की नियुक्ति प्रार्थी को हटाने के बाद की गयी है । इसका खण्डन अप्रार्थी की ओर से किया गया व कथन किया गया कि रेलवे ने वर्ष 81 में आदेश निकाला था , उसके बाद में अप्रार्थी मण्डल रेलवे प्रबन्धक द्वारा कोई नियुक्ति नहीं की गयी एवं ऊपर वर्णित इन तीन कर्मकारों की नियुक्ति का जो सवाल है , उसमें यह स्पष्ट प्रकट वर्णित किया गया कि सक्षम प्राधिकारी महाप्रबन्धक रेलवे के अनुमोदन के पश्चात् ही संजय मिश्रा , महेन्द्रप्रतापसिंह व मोह. अली की नियुक्ति की गयी है एवं उनके आदेश में ही ऐसा वर्णित किया गया कि सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा अनुमोदन किये जाने के बाद ही यह नियुक्ति की जा रही है । इस सम्बन्ध में उनकी ओर से लिखित बहस के साथ व पूर्व में इन कर्मकारों के सम्बन्ध में नियुक्ति पत्र की फोटोप्रतियां भी पेश की गयी । इनका अवलोकन किया जावे तो यह स्पष्ट होता है कि ये नियक्तियाँ मण्डल रेलवे प्रबन्धक, कोटा द्वारा अपने ही अधिकार के तहत नहीं की गयी अपितु इन नियुक्ति आदेशों में स्पष्ट वर्णित है कि सक्षम प्राधिकारी महाप्रबन्धक , पश्चिम रेलवे द्वारा अनुमोदन किये जाने के पश्चात् इन कर्मकारों संजय मिश्रा , महेन्द्रप्रताप सिंह व मौहम्मद अली आदि की नियुक्ति की गयी । अतः ऐसी परिस्थिति में इन नियुक्तियों के सम्बन्ध में यह नहीं कहा जा सकता है कि प्रार्थी को हटाकर ही मनमाने तरीके से अप्रार्थी ने इन कर्मकारों को नियुक्तियाँ दे दी हों अपितु इन कर्मकारों के नियुक्ति आदेश से ही यह स्पष्ट हो [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

6365

गयी हैं तथा कोई भी कर्मकार माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के " राज. राज्य एवं अन्य बनाम दयालाल " के निर्णय के अनुसार केवल लम्बे समय तक अस्थायी या तदर्थ आधार पर या दैनिक वेतन भोगी रूप में कार्यरत होते हुए भी नियुक्ति के लिए या पुर्नस्थापना के लिए तब तक पात्र नहीं होता जब तक कि वह एक स्वीकृत पद ना हो तथा उसके लिए वांछित योग्यता धारण करने के साथ ही नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया से गुजर न गया हो । इन तथ्यों बाबत भी प्रार्थी का इस मामले में भी कोई अभिकथन नहीं रहा है । अतः समस्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थी हस्तगत प्रकरण में कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होना नहीं पाया जाता है ।

परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश सं. 41012/ 154196/ आईआर ( बी ) दि. 19-8-97 व अन्तरण पत्र दि. 28-1-98 के द्वारा सम्प्रेषित निर्देश/रेफ्रेन्स/ को अधिनिर्णित कर इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी कर्मकार देवेन्द्र शर्मा की अप्रार्थी मण्डल रेल प्रबन्धक, पश्चिम रेलवे , कोटा द्वारा दि. 17-4-92 को सेवा समाप्ति का तथ्य प्रार्थी कर्मकार साबित नहीं कर पाया है , अतः प्रार्थी इस मामले में किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई , 2012 13. इस मामले में सर्वप्रथम तो जैसा कि ऊपर विवेचित भी किया जा चुका है कि प्रार्थी अपने आपको मौखिक रूप से अप्रार्थी द्वारा दि. 17-4-92 को सेवा से हटाये जाने का कथन कर रहा है , जबकि अप्रार्थी का यह कथन रहा है कि प्रार्थी स्वयं ही कार्य पर नहीं आया । इस सम्बन्ध में इस न्यायाधिकरण का यह अभिमत है कि सर्वप्रथम तो यदि अप्रार्थी के यहाँ किसी कर्मकार की आवश्यकता थी एवं प्रार्थी कर्मकार के कार्य , व्यवहार व आचरण से अप्रार्थी की कोई शिकायत नहीं थी तो क्योंकर अप्रार्थी बिना कारण के प्रार्थी कर्मकार को हटायेगा । इसके अलावा प्रार्थी के प्रति अप्रार्थी की कोई दुर्भावना , दुराशय या रंजिश आदि भी कहीं प्रकट नहीं हुई है जिसके कारण ही प्रार्थी को हटाया गया हो एवं ऐसा भी नहीं है कि जिन कर्मकारों मोह. अली , संजय मिश्रा व महेन्द्रप्रतापसिंह को बाद में नियुक्त किया गया है, वे प्रार्थी को हटाने के तत्काल बाद प्रार्थी के कार्यरत पद पर ही नियुक्त किये गये हों अपितु इन तीनों को तो सक्षम प्राधिकारी के अनुमोदन के पश्चात् अलग- अलग तिथियों में प्रार्थी के तथाकथित सेवामुक्तिके करीबन 2 वर्ष बाद में प्रार्थी के वाटरमेन ( पानी पिलाने वाले ) के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया जाकर अन्य पद पर नियुक्त किये गये हैं । अतः केवल इन कर्मकारों को रखने के लिए ही प्रार्थी कर्मकार को हटाया गया है , यह तथ्य किसी भी रूप में साबित नहीं होता है एवं ना ही प्रार्थी द्वारा उसे 17-4-92 को अप्रार्थी द्वारा हटाये जाने का तथ्य कहीं साबित कर पाया है , अतः धारा 25 एफ व एच के उल्लंघन का मामला भी नहीं बनता है । अतः प्रार्थी कर्मकार की ओर से दी गयी इस दलील में भी यह न्यायाधिकरण कोई बल महसूस नहीं करता है कि प्रार्थी को हटाने के बाद में उसे सेवा में पुनः नियोजन का अवसर नहीं देकर इन कर्मकारों को रख लिया गया हो ।

का.आ. 2583.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-07-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/298/91 आई आर ( बी. -1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th July 2012 14. प्रार्थी कर्मकार अपने आपको अप्रार्थी द्वारा 17-4-92 को हटाना बता रहा है, रेफ्रेन्स उसके 5 वर्ष से ज्यादा समय के बाद हुआ है , यदि प्रार्थी वास्तव में अपनी सेवामुक्ति से व्यथित होता तो वह इतनी लम्बी अवधि तक विवाद उठाने में देरी नहीं करता अपितु तत्काल विवाद उठाता । अतः विवाद उठाने में देरी से भी इस उपधारणा को बल मिलता है कि प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी द्वारा नहीं हटाया गया अपितु प्रार्थी ने स्वयं ही स्वेच्छा से कार्यनिवृत्ति ले ली एवं स्वेच्छा से कार्यनिवृत्ति को छंटनी नहीं माना जा सकता ।

S. 0.2583 .- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. no . 63/2003) of the Cent. Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur 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 17-7- 2012.

[No. L-12012/298/ 91 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/ NGP / 63/2003

Date: 25-6-2012

Party No. 1: The Branch Manager. State Bank of India.

Badnera (Rly . ) Branch . Badnera .

Distt. Amravati (M.S .)-444601 .

15. इस प्रकार ऊपर किये गये समस्त विवेचन के आधार पर इस मामले में प्रार्थी कर्मकार अपनी सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व के 6 माह में लगातार 120 दिन या पूर्व के 12 कलेण्डर माह में 240 दिन तक लगातार कार्य किया है , यह तथ्य साबित नहीं कर पाया है कि जबकि इसे साबित करने का भार भी उसी पर था । इसके अलावा प्रार्थी कर्मकार को केवल ग्रीष्मकालीन अवधि के लिए अस्थायी दर्जा वाटरमैन ( पानी पिलाने ) के रूप में दिया गया था , उसका कार्य मौसमी प्रकृति का था एवं उसी के आधार पर प्रार्थी किसी नियमित पद के मुकाबले में सेवा में नियोजित होने का तब तक अधिकारी नहीं होता जब तक कि उस पद पर नियोजित होने के लिए सम्बन्धित प्रक्रिया से गुजर न जावे एवं उसकी वांछित योग्यताएं भी धारण करता हो । प्रार्थी अन्य जिन कर्मकारों की नियुक्ति होना बता रहा है, उनका प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति से कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं है , वे नियुक्तियाँ सक्षम प्राधिकारी की अनुमति से प्रार्थी के सेवामुक्ति के काफी समय बाद की PART 11-SEC: 30) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6366

Versus

Party No. 2 : Shri Sanjay Bhimrao Kamble , PO : Badnera Rly. , Distt . Amravati .

AWARD

(Dated: 25th June, 2012) .

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of S.B.I. and their workman , Shri Sanjay Kamble , for adjudication , to CGIT- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as per letter No. L- 12012/298/91 - IR (B - III ) dated 17-02-92, with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India was justified in terminating the services of shri Sanjay Bhimrao Kamble ? If not ,to whatrelief he is entitled?"

Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.

3. The party no . I in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was appointed purely on temporary basis intermittently as a messenger- cum - farash waterman etc. due to administrative exigencies in Badnera branch and he had never worked for 240 days in any calendar year and as the workman was working temporarily. there was no need to ask for documents in support of his qualification , age etc. and when applications were called for from all . the eligible temporary candidates , for consideration of I their names for permanent employment , the workman was directed to furnish the necessary documents regarding his age , qualification etc and when he submitted the documents regarding his age it was found! that he was under age , as per the terms of settlement reached between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and as such , he was found unfit for consideration for permanent employment and as soon as it came to their notice about the workman to be under aged , his services being temporary and no more required , he was discontinued and his initial appointment was also irregular, so the question of complyingwith the provisions of Section 25 - F or any other provision ofthe Act does not arise at all . It is also pleaded by party no . 1 that the workman did not work continuously from 9-7-1987 to 7-7-1989 and he did not work for 299 days in the year preceding the date of his termination and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

2. On receipt ot the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union , " State Bank Worker'sOrganisation" , (" the union " in short ) , filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , Shri Sanjay Kamble, ( ' theworkman " in short ) , and the management of $ .B.1 . , (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement . i

4. The workman , besides placing reliance on documentary evidence . examined himself as a witness , in support of the claun made in the tatement of claim . In his examination - in- chief, which is on affidavit , the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim .

In his cross -examination, the workman has stated that he was appointed orally by Shri R.G. Deshpande , the Bank Manager and his appointment was temporary and no written order of appointment or of renewal was given to him and he was not appointed in clear vacancy, but it was on temporary basis .

5. The workman also examined one Sashikant Ramchandra Siras as a witness on his behalf. Witness Sashikant has stated that he was working in Badnera Branch of State Bank of India from 1990 to 1992 and when the workman raised the dispute before the ALC , Bank had deputed him to attend the conciliation and as per the direction of ALC , he gathered the information about the actual working days of the workman from the Bank's record and submitted. the same under his signature to ALC in 1991. In his cross - examination , this witness has admitted thathe has not filed any document to show that from 1990 to 1992, he was working at Badnera Branch of the Bank and in his affidavit , he has not mentioned as to before which ALC, the dispute was raised and he has also not filed any document to show that he was authorized by the Bank to appear before the ALC and the ALC directed him in writing to submit the information about the actual The case ofthe workman as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that the workman was appointed as a temporary employee by party no . I w.e.f. 9-7-1987 and he was discharging the duty as a messenger and he worked continuously without any break till 7-7-1989 , for a period of. about more than two years and he was being paid his salary monthly at the rate of Rs . 12/ - per day and he had worked more than 240 days continuously and without any reason, the party no . 1 terminated his services orally w.e.f. $-7-1989 and no show cause notice was given to him to facilitate him to put forward his claim and there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act and as such , the action of the party no . I was totally illegal and the post in which the workman was working is still vacant and after the termination of the workman , one Kisan S/o. Ambadas Kaore was appointed by the party no.1 in his place and the workman by letter dated 7-10-1989 requested the party no.1 to reinstate him in service with continuity and back wages , but the same fell to the deaf ears of party no. l'and party no . 1 has admitted about his working for more than 270 days in aggregate in continuous block of 36 calendar months and actually he worked for 299 days continuously in the preceding year of his termination i.e. between 8-7-1988 to 7-7-1989 the action of the party no. I is illegal , the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages .

भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6367

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

ofKarnatak) , 2006 SCC ( L & S) -753 ( Secretary State of Karnatak Vs. Uma Devi ) , 2009 LIC 1731 ( State of Karnatak VS. G. V. Chandra Shekhar ) and many others . Keeping in view the principles enunciated by the , Hon'ble Courts in the decisions relied on by the , parties , now, the present case in hand is to be considered .

working days of the workman , but he has not filed the ietter issued by the ALC . This witness has denied the suggestion that the statement regarding the working days ofthe workman , submitted by him before the ALC does not tally with the records of the Bank and the said statement was not prepared , with reference to the records ofthe Bank .

10. As the party no . I has denied the claim of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination i.e.8-7- 1989, it is necessary for the workman to prove that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of 8-7-1989 . For better appreciation of the dispute , I think it opposite to mention about the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard.

The Hon 'ble Apex court , in the decision reported in AIR 1966 SC - 75 ( Employees , Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their workmen) have held that : -

6. The party no . 1 in support oftheir plea has examined one Shri Harishchandra N. Tajane as a witness . The evidence of this witness is on affidavit and in his examination - in - chief, he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement . In his cross - examination , this witness has stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the appointment and retrenchment of the workman and as per records , the workman was engaged as a messenger- cum- farash in Badnera Branch and document Ext . W- VII is a copy of the certificate issued by the Branch Manager of the Bank on 6-9-1989 .

7. It is clear from the evidence on record that the engagement of the workman as messenger- cum-farash was temporary in nature on daily wages and his appointment was not a regular appointment or as per the Recruitment Rules of party no . 1.

"Though Section 25- F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled . The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read into section 25 -B . The fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year . The amended Section 25 -B only consolidates the provisions of Section 25 ( B ) and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters . The purport of the new provisions , however, is not different . In fact . the amendment of Section 25 - F of the principal Actby substituting in clause ( b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service " has removed a discordance between the unamended Section 25 B and the unamended Cl . ( b ) of section 25 - F. No uninterrupted service is necessary, if the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months either before the several changes or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made . The last amendment has now removed a vagueness which existed in the unamended Section 25- B" .

8. According to the learned advocate for the workman , the workman had worked more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of termination and at the time of termination ofhis services , the mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act were not complied with and as such , the termination is illegal and therefore, The workman , is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages . In support of such cotrons , the learned advocate for the workman has on the decisions reported in ( 2007 ) II SCC -92 ( D.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey) , 2011 ( II ) CLR 986 ( Shivamma Vs. Krishna Gramin Bank , Gulburga ) . 1998 ( Vol . 3) LLJ ( Suppl) -714 Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India ) , 2012 I CLR - 580 ( Engineer Vs. Suryanarayan Paswan ) , 2012 I CLR - 670 ( Debnath Chakrobarty Vs. Union of India) , 2011 II CLR 678 (Divisional Engineer Vs. Lachhiram ) and 2011 1 CLR 1011 ( Yograj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh) .

In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC - 1253 (Mehanlal Vs. M/ s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. ) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that ,

"Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947). Section 25 - B (1) and (2) - Continuous service Scope of sub- sections ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) is different , ( words and phrases- Continuous Service)

9. On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman worked on arely casual and temporary capacity, due to administrative exigencies and need of work and not as per procedure for permanent staff and his initial appointment was by the Branch Manager, who had no authority to appoint any person on permanent basis and the termination of the services of the workman cannot be construed to be retrenchment and arbitrary and therefore , the workman is not entitled for reinstatement or any other relief.

Before a workman can complain of retrenchment being not in consonance with Section 25- F, he has to show that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year under that employer, who has retrenched him from service . Section 25 - B as the dictionary clause for the expression" continuous " . Both in principle and are precedent it must be held that Section 25 - B ( 2 ) comprehends a Insupport of such contentions , the learned advocate for the party no.1 has placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1997 SC - 3657 ( Himanshu Kumar Vs. State ofBihar ) , 2003 LIC 1196 ( Ramkrishna Kamat Vs. State 6368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

situation where a workman to not in employment for a period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date ile . the date of retrenchment . If he has , he would be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Section 25 - B and chapter V-A " .

The Hon ' ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC- 38 ( M /s . Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) have held that:

"Industrial Disputes . Act ( 14 of 1947 ) S. 25- F, 10- Retrenchment compensation - Termination of services without payment of Dispute referred to Tribunal - Case of workman/claimant that he had worked for 240 day in a year preceding his termination- Claim denied by management- Onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year - In absence ofproofof receipt of salary, the affidavit of the workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination ."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2005) 5 SCC - 100 ( Reserve Bank of India Vs. S.Mani ) have heldthat:-

"Industrial Disputes Act , 1947-Ss.25 - F, 25 - N , 25 - B and 11-240 days ' continuous Service -Onus and burden of proof with respect to- Evidence sufficient to discharge- Failure of , Employer to prove a defence ( or abandonment of service ) if sufficient or amounted to an admission , discharging the said burden of proof on the workman discharged , merely because employer fails to prove a defence or an alternative plea of abandonment of service - Filing of affidavit of workman to the effect that he had worked for 240 days continuously or that the workman had repeated representations or raised demands for reinstatement , is not sufficient evidence that can discharge the said burden- Other substantive evidence needs to be adduced to prove 240 days ' continuous service - Instances of such evidence given .

The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service . The Tribunal did not consider the question from that angle . It held that the burden of proof was upon the appellant on the premise that they have failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service . Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court of. Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had in fact , worked for 2-10 days in a year. Such evidence might include proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period or the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment , or by examination of any other witness in support of his case.

So , it is clear from the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that for applicability of Section 25 - F of the Act , it is necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240days

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

in the preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is upon the workman .

11. In this case , besides the oral evidence , the workman has , relied on the document i.c. the statement of working days prepared by the witness Sashikant . Party no . I has filed copies of receipts regarding payment of wages to the workman for the months of January 1989 to July 1989 and some others of 1987. However, party no. 1 did not file the receipts relating to the year 1988 , in respect of the workman . Though , during the cross- examination of the witness , Sashikant , it was suggested to him by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that the statement prepared by him is not correct and not in accordance with the records of the bank , on verification of the said statement with reference to the receipts produced by the Bank, it is found that the working days as mentioned in the said statement fully tallies with the working -days mentioned in the receipts from January 1989 to July 1989. So , the genuineness of the statement of working days filed by the workman cannot be doubted and reliance can be placed on the same . On calculation of the working days as mentioned in the statement of working days , it is found that the workman had worked for 252 days from 8-7-1988 to 7-7-1989 i.c. the preceding 12 months of the date of termination of the workman . Admittedly, in this case before the termination of the services of the workman , the mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act were not complied with . So , the termination of the services of the workman on 8-7-1989 without compliance of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act is found to be illegal and that such termination amounts to retrenchment , as defined under Section 2 ( 00 ) of the Act .

12. Now, the question remains for consideralion is as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled to .

So far back wages is concerned, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that for grant of back wages , it is necessary for the workman to plead and prove that since the date of alleged termination , he is not in gainful employment . In this case , the workman has neither pleaded anything in that regard in the statement of claim nor adduced any evidence in support of the same. Rather , in hiscross- examination , he has admitted that he is selling vegetables and earning Rs . 40 to 50 per day. Hence it is found that the workman is not entitled to back wages .

13. So far reinstatement in service is concerned , with respect , I am of the view that the decisions reported in (2007) II SCC- 92 ( Supra ) and 2011 11 CLR 986 ( Supra ) have no application to the present case in hand , as the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the said decision are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand .

Inthedecision reported in 1998 ( Vol . 3 ) LLJ ( Supl . ) 714 ( Supra ) the Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleasedto direct payment of Rs . 25000 instead of reinstatement . In [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6369

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

opinion the compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs . 1,00,000 ) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable" .

the decisions reported in 2011 I CLR 1011 ( Supra ) , 2012 1 CLR-580 (Supra) and 2012 1 CLR 670 ( Supra), the Hon'ble High Courts have been pleased to grant the relief of reinstatement ofthe concerned workman due to termination of services without compliance ofthe provisions of Section 25- F of the Act . However, at this juncture , I think it necessary to mention about the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard as reported in 2010 ( 8 ) SCALE - 5,83 ( In charge Officer and another v/s . Shankar Shetty) . The Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold that :-

14. Admittedly, in this case , the engagement. of the workman was on daily wages basis and such engagement was not done - in accordance , with the Recruitment Rules ofparty no.1 . The engagement of the workman was for the period from 9-7-1987 to 7-7-1989 and such engagement wasmade about 23 years back . So , applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 1998 (vol . 3 ) LLJ ( Suppl . ) 714 ( Supra) and 2010 (8 ) SCALE - 583 ( Supra ) to the present case in hand and taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case into consideration , I think that the relief of reinstatement in service will not be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice in this case . In my considered opinion , the compensation of 30,000 (Rupeesthirty thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. Hence it is ordered:-

ORDER

" It is true that the earlier view of this court articulated inmany decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the reliefof reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases , this court has consistently taken the view that relief by way reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention ofthe prescribed procedure . Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice" .

The action ofthe management of State Bank of India was unjustified in terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Bhimrao Kamble . The workman is entitled for monetary compensation of Rs . 30,000 in lieu of reinstatement . He is not entitled for any other relief.

The Hon'ble Apex Court have further held that: -

The party no . 1 is directed, to pay the compensation of Rs . 30,000 to the workman within one month from the date of Publication of the award in the official Gazette .

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 17 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2584.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 क़ा 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/223/95- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th July, 2012 " Industrial Disputes Act 1947/ Section 25F / Daily wager/ Termination of service in violation of Section 25 ( F ) /Award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement / Respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by appellants in 1978 /His engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 6-9-85/Respondent raised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of procedure prescribed in Sec . 25 (F) , the Act/ Labour Court rejected respondents claim : holding of that Section 25(F) ofthe Act was not attracted since the workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination 6-9-85 . On appeal , High Court directed reinstatement of Respondent into service holding thattermination of respondent was illegal- Whether an order of reinstatement will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a daily wager has beenbrought to an end in violation of Section 25 (F) oftheAct-Allowing the appeal -held :

S.O. 2584.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 95/2004 ) of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Nagpur 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 17-7-2012.

A. The High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent . The respondent was engaged às daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 year intermittently up to September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back . In a case such as the present. one it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice. In our considered

[No. L- 12012/223/95-IR ( B- I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

2817 GI /2012-11 [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6370

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Date : 06-06-2012

Case No. CGIT/NGP/95 /2004

Party No. 1 : The Asstt . General Manager, Zonal Inspection Office , State Bank of India , Kingsway, Nagpur .

Versus

Party No. 2 : The Zonal Secretary,

State BankWorker's Organisation , H. No. 542 , Dr. Munje Marg , Congress Nagar , Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 6th June , 2012)

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, Shri Vivek Wankar and Shri V. P. Mohabe , for adjudication , to CGIT-Cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as per letter No. L- 12012/223/95 - IR (B - 1 ) dated 29-01-1997/05-02-1997 with the following schedule: --

"Whether Sh . Vivek Wankar , Messenger and Sh . V. P. Mohabe , Messenger, have acted as " Head Messenger" at Zonal Inspection Office , State Bank ofIndia , Nagpur for the period from 04-10-1991 to 26-10-1992 and from 27-10-1992 to 21-06-1994 , respectively ? If so , whether their claim for the payment of the acting allowance for the said acting period as 'Head Messenger ' made through State Bank Workers' Organisation , Nagpur, is justified and proper? If so , what relief they entitled to ? "

Subsequently, the case 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 , union , " State Bank Worker'sOrganisation ("the union" in short ) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workmen , Shuri Vivek Wankar and Shri V. P. Mohabe , (the workmen " in short) and the management of SBI (" Party No. 1 " in hort) filed the written statement .

3. The case of the two workmen as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that the workmen , Shri Vivek Wanker and Shri V. P. Mohobe acted temporally in the capacity of Head Messenger for the period from 04-12-1991 to 26-10-1992 and 27-10-1992 to 21-06-1994 respectively and performed actual duties attached to the said post till the posting of a permanent Head Messengers at Zonal Inspection Office , Nagpur , Shri Dhoke , Shri Wankar and Shri Mohobe were working as messenger in order of service seniority and a post of record keeper was sanctioned at the office in May, 1991 and a post of Head Messenger was sanctioned w.e.f. 04-12-1991 and by virtue of seniority and due to vacancy of the post of Record Keeper, Shri Dhoke acted as the Record Keeper and received acting allowance accordingly and Shri Dhoke subsequently promoted as a clerk and was transferred to some other Branch and the duties of Head Messenger from 04-12-1991 to 26-10-1992 were performed by Shri Wankar and after transfer of Shri Dhoke to some other branch , Shri Wankar started to act as record keeper from 27-10-1992 and as such, Shri Wankar claimed the acting allowance of Head Messenger from the date of sanction of the post to his actual working before his elevation to record keeper's post and Shri Vivek Mohobe joined in the office of Zonal Inspection as a full time permanent employee on 12-10-1992 and as Shri Wankar was elevated tothe post of Record Keeper from 27-10-1992 , Shri Mohobe took over the duties of Head messenger from the very date27-10-1992 and performed such duties till 21-05-1994 and the permanent Head Messenger, Shri Nikunj reported for duty in the office on 22-06-1994 and as such , Shri Mohobe claimed the acting allowance of Head Messenger from 27-10-1992 to 21-06-1994 and the workmen Shri Wankar and Shri Mohobe represented to the concerned authorities of Zonal Inspection office , Nagpur to make the payment of acting allowance by their applications dated 16-09-1994 and 19-03-1994 respectively, but the party no. 1 declined their claim on the plea that they had not performed the duties of Head Messenger and according to Bank's instructions , when an employee acts temporarily in in - cadre higher appointments , he is paid acting allowance and as the two workmen shifted their allegiance from the majority union to their union , the refusal of making payment of acting allowance to the two workmen came under the influence of majority union .

Prayer has been made by the union to direct the party no . 1 to make payment of acting allowance of Head Messenger to the two workmen as claimed with 18% interest on the amount till the date of payment .

4. The party no. I in its written statement has pleaded inter alia that the Zonal Inspection office mainly looks after the inspection and audit work of the branches/ onice under its control and the major workforce of the office remains on mobile duty to inspect the branches periodically and it is an administrative office with no public transaction or dealing of any nature or in other words , usual banking transactions not take place in the said office and the General Manager (Inspection and Audit ) is the head of this office , being assisted by about 7 locally sanctioned officers , besides a dozen of clerical staff and a few subordinate staff and a post of Head Messenger came to be created in the said office on 04-12-1991 and the first iteLambent reported for the post on 22-06-1994 and the 6371

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

fact that no post of Head Messenger was there in the said office since November, 1982 till 04-12-1991 , shows that the post was not an essential one and in absence of the incumbent of such post, the office worked normally and the two workmen , Shri Wankar and Shri Mohobe were discharging their usual duties of the post occupied by them , during the material time and after sanctioning of the post of Head Messenger on 04-12-1991 , a wicked idea struck to the mind of the two workmen and after joining of the first incumbent on 22-06-1994 in the said post, they lodged- their frivolous and false claim for having performed the duties of the Head messenger and such claim was lodged only on 16-09-1994 and 19-03-1994 , by Shri Wankar and Shri Mohobe respectively i.e. after a delay of four years and it is not known what they had been doing for a such a long period , more so , when the employees were unionized and the Bank had never directed to any of the two workmen to officiate on the post of Head Messenger and no specific additional work that a messenger performs had been assigned for the post of Head Messenger and the Bank has been creating such posts to afford a reasonable opportunity for in -cadre higher promotion for subordinate staff and the two workmen want to take undue and illegal advantage of mere sanction of such post and it is a settled fact and law that mere existence of post does not entitle any person to claim the incumbency and it is the choice of the bank to fill up such post at appropriate time depending upon the requirement, exigencies and other administrative considerations .

It is further pleaded by the party no . 1 that individual dispute has been referred under the grab of industrial dispute and the same is impermissible and illegal and the records does not reveal that no authority has been signed bytheworkmen in favour ofthe union and the two workmen were never called upon to act as Head Messenger and without the specific instruction of the Bank, they cannot act on higher post and in Banking Industry, anybody, who works in the higher post even for a week immediately claims the allowance in the same month and it is surprising to note that in spite of non - receipt of " officiating allowance , the workmen were allegedly continue to work on the higher post for years together and it is highly unbelievable that the workmen shall be waiting for years to even apply for such claim and in the Bank, such claim is normally paid along with the salary in each month expediously without fail and nobody can work on his own as a Head Messenger and start claiming the allowance and mere existence ofthe post does not give any specific right in favour of any workman to work in such post, unless he has been specifically appointed in such post and the dispute is purely individual dispute and it is not an issue , which has any connection with other workmen and the alleged dispute does not fall within the meaning of Section 2 (K) of the Act and as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the two workmen are not entitled to any relief. It is also pleaded that there was 3 to 4 years delay in raising the dispute and such delay has not been explained and as such , the reference should not have been made.

5.Besidesplacing reliance on documentary evidence, the union has examined the two workmen as witnesses in support of the claim.

No oral evidence has been adduced by the party no.1 on its behalf.

Theexamination - in -chief ofthe two workmen are on affidavit. In their examination - in- chief, both the workmen have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. However, workmen , Shri Mohobe in his cross- examination has stated that orders are issued by the Bank in case of promotions and transfers and in the Bank, additional allowance is paid, when any person holds the additional charge and the allowance is paid along with the salary every month and Bank has not issued any letter directing him to hold the additional charge and to perform the additional work of the post of Head Messenger and he had not made any complaint to the management during 27-10-1992 to 19-03-1994 for payment of acting allowance and his application dated 19-03-1994 for payment of acting allowance was rejected by the management .

Likewise, workman , Shri Wankar has admitted in his cross-examination that whenever an employee of the Bank ispromoted or transferred, a written order to that effect is given to the said employee and whenever any employee of the Bank is entrusted with additional charge , he is being paid additional allowance alongwith the monthly salary and the Bank had never given any letter to him to act as the Head Messenger or the additional charge of Head Messenger and in his affidavit , he has not mentioned which additional duties of Head Messenger were performed by- him and he did not give in writing anything to the Bank, when the allowance of Head Messenger was not paid to him with the monthly salary and he also did not give any complaint to the Bank authorities regarding the nonpayment of allowance in between , from 04-12-1991 to 26-10-1992 and only after joining of the regular Head Messenger , he raised the dispute .

6. So far the documentary evidence is concerned, the union has filed copies of some correspondence made between the Bank authorities regarding creation of the post of Jamadars and Head Messengers and sanctioned ofthepost ofHead Messenger in the office of the General Manager (Inspection and Audit), Zonal Office , Nagpur and the copy of the applications submitted by the two workmen for payment of allowance dated 16-12-1994 and 19-03-1994.

It is necessary to mention here that not a single document has been filed either by the union or the two 6372

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

workmen in support of the claim that the two workmen acted as Head Messenger.

7.At the , time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the union that both the workmen acted as the Head Messenger and it is clear from the instructions issued by the Bank regarding payment of acting allowance as given in the Hand Book on staff matter that there is no necessity to issue the permanent order of posting to perform the duties of the Head Messenger , once the post is sanctioned by the competent authority and as such , both the workmen are entitled for the allowance as claimed by them .

8. On the other hand , learned advocate for party no . 1 submitted that it is clear from the admission of both the workmen in their cross - examination that most of the employees of party no . I used to remain outside for the purpose of inspection of different branches and the post ofthe Head Messenger was created on 04-12-1991 and Bank had not issued any letter to them directing to hold additional charge and to perform the additional work of the post of Head Messenger and they did not make any complaint even though they did not the acting allowance along with their salaries and after joining of the regular Head Messenger, both of them wrote letters to the Bank for payment of the allowance claiming to have acted as Head Messenger, which clearly prove that both the workmen were neither directed to work in the capacity of Head Messenger nor they worked as such , for the period they claimed and taking advantage of the vacant post of Head Messenger from 04-12-1991 to 21-06-1994, they claimed the acting allowance , which was rightly rejected by the Bank and the two workmen are not entitled to any relief. It was also submitted that the dispute in question is not an industrial dispute and the union has no authority to raise the dispute on behalf of the two workmen .

9. As the two workmen have claimed that they worked as Head Messenger , the onus to prove the same lies upon them. They have to show that infact , workman , Shri Wankar acted as the Head Messenger temporarily for the period from 04-12-1991 to 26-10-1992 and workman , Shri Mohobe acted as the Head Messenger from 27-10-1992 to 21-06-1994 respectively.

Onperusal of the record, it is found that neither in the statement of claim nor in their affidavits , the workmen have claimed that any order was issue by party no . 1 in their favour to act as the Head Messenger temporarily. In the statement of claim , nothing has also been mentioned that party no.f orally directed them to act as Head Messenger temporarily. Except their own affidavits , no other evidence of any kind has been adduced by the two workmen in support of their claim . The filing of the respective affidavits claiming that they had acted as Head Messenger and are entitied for allowance cannot be considered to be sufficient to prove their claim, as the same are self serving documents . Both the workmen in their cross-examination have admitted that no order was issued by the party no.1 in their favour to act as the Head Messenger. Both the workmen have also admitted that in theBank, additional allowance is paid to an employee along with the salary every month and though they were not paid the allowance with their monthly salary, they did not complain against the same and only in 1994 , they submitted applications for payment of the allowance . The said facts clearly show that the two workmen actually did not act as Head Messenger and the post remained vacant till 21-06-1994 after creation of the post on 04-12-1991 , taking advanta of the same , they put their claim for getting the allowance. Had the two workmen actually acted as the Head Messenger, then they should have claimed the allowance in the very first month ofacting as the Head Messenger.

The contention raised by the learned advocate for the workmen that no written order was necessary for acting as Head Messenger by the two workmer; in view of the instructions contained in the Hand Book of State Bank ofIndia (Page nos . 368, 366 , 386, 542 and 624 ) is found to be without merit , as the said instructions clearly show that an order is required to be passed by the competent authority in favour of a Messenger to act in an in-cadre higher post and the same cannot be done automatically, whenever there is a temporary vacancy in the in- cadre higher post as claimed by the union on behalf of the two workmen.

From the materials on record and the discussions made above , it is found that the two workmen , Shri Wankar and Shri Mohobe have failed to prove that they acted as Head Messenger for the period from 04-12-1991 to 26-10-1992 and 27-10-1992 to 21-06-1994 respectively and assuch , they are not entitled for any allowance . Hence , it isordered :-

ORDER

SheVivek Wankar, Messenger and Sh. V.P. Mohabe , Messenger , did not act as " Head Messenger " at Zonal InspectionOffice, State Bank of India, Nagpur for the period from 04-10-1991 to 26-10-1992 and from 27-10-1992 to 21-06-1994 , respectively. Their claim for the payment of the acting allowance for the said acting period as ' Head Messenger ' made through State Bank Workers ' Organiza- tion , Nagpur, is unjustified and improper. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer Dated, Dhanbad , the 19th March , 2012 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6373

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 17 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2585. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार गल्फ एयर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या सी.जी.आई टी -1/20 ऑफ 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/7/2006- आई आर ( सीएम -1 ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th July, 2012

S.O. 2585.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT- 1 / 20 of2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No.1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Gulf Air and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 17-7-2012 .

[No. L - 11012/7/2006- IR(CM - I) ] AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI

JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1/20 of 2006

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of GulfAir And Their Workmen

Appearances:

For the Management : Shri Ganesh Desai , Adv.

Forthe Workmen : Shri V. Narayanan , Adv.

State :

Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 17th day ofApril , 2012 .

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause (d) ofsub- section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of the reference given in the schedule are as follows:

Whether the management of Gulf Air, Mumbai is justified in not extending the benefits of Memorandum of settlement signed on 25-3-2004 to (1 ) Sh.Niranjan Shetty (2 ) Dinyar Hormasji Sarkari

(3) Shri Wilfred Fernandez (4 ) Shri Unni Cherugote (5) Shri R.V.Narayan ( 6) Shri Suresh Kaku ( 7) Mrs.Laxmi Radhakrishnan ( 8 ) Mr. R.Venu Gopalamurthy ( 9) Shri Jagdish Parekh , who were on roll during the period of operation of said settlement from 1-10-2000 to 31-3-2003 and retired under (VRS) during theMonth of Feb. and March, 2003 ? If not, to what relief are the said workmen entitled ?

According to the statement of claim the details of the date of employment and the position held by the workmen are as under:

Sl . No. Name

Designation

Retirement Date

Date of joining

1. Shri N. Shetty

Station Mtce . 15-4-1981 5-4-2003 Manager

2. Shri D.H.Sarkari Accounts & 1-2-1979 27-3-2003 Admin.Supervisor

3. Shri Wilfred Fernandes

Expenditure Supervisor 1-1-975 14-3-2003

4. Shri C. Unni

1-9-77 14-3-2003

Res/Tkt Controller

5. Shri R.V.L.Narayan Pers . & Admn . 1-4-1979 31-3-2003 Assistant

6. Shri Suresh Kaku Acct. Assistant 1-12-1977 14-3-2003

7. Smt.L. Radhakrishnan Res /Tkt 18-2-1977 14-2-2003 Controller

8. Shri R. Venugopala murthy

Sales 30-8-1977 28-2-2003 Representative

9. Shri Jagdish Parekh Sales

1-10-1979 28-2-2003 Representative

Pursuant to the circular dt . 17-10-2002 the workmen opted for VRS . The Gulf Air Employees Association , Mumbai vide charter of demand dt. 2-8-2000 raised certain demands and ultimately a settlement was arrived at vide memorandum of settlementdt. 12-3-2004 which was to be: effective from 1-10-2000 . The workmen , therefore , requested the management to extend to them all benefits under the memorandum of settlement dt.12-3-2004. However, the management did not respond to the repeated requests of the workmen . The workmen are entitled to receive arrears and benefits as stated in para no.15 of the statement of claim . It has been stated in the statement of claimthat all retired employees were given all benefits under the memorandum of settlement dt . 15-4-1998 and, therefore , the workmen are entitled to receive all benefits under the memorandum of settlement dt. 12-3-2004 . It has also been stated that some of the workmen were designated as Managers and Supervisors but in fact they were doing manual and clerical work and , therefore , they are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) ofthe Act . The workmen have, therefore, requested that the management be directed to extend all benefits such as salary arrears , VRS arrears , travel benefits , I.D. card facilities to the workmen with interest @ 21 % per annum.

According to the written statement filed by the first partythe demand raised by the workman is misconceived, [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6374

has been cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman . The first party has also examined Deepak Desai .

Heard Shri V. Narayanan learned counsel for the workmen and Shri Ashok Desai learned counsel for the firstparty.

baseless, frivolous and unsustainable. The dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 (k ) of the Act and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute . The workmen were employed mainly in managerial and/or administrative and/or supervisory capacity and they are not workmen within the definition of Section 2(s) ofthe Act . The workmen were drawing monthly basic salary as under :

Total Arrears Rs .

VRS Arrears Rs.

Salary Arrears Rs .

SI Name N

23,40,580

10,49,984

12,90,596

1. Shri N.Shetty

ISSUE No. 1 : The burden to prove this issue is on the workmen . However , out of the 9 workmen the affidavit ofonly one workman Wilfred Fernandes has been filed to prove this issue. The other witness Narayan Bhaguram More is General Secretary ofAll India Gulf Air Employees Association.

6,81,153

Shri LD.H.Sarkari

4,18,850 2,62,303 ,

15,52,816

7,31,991 8,20,825

Shri Wilfred Fernandes

8,35,445

Shri C.Unni

3,60,098

4,75,347

6,83,539

2,83,553

3,99,986

5 Shri R.V.L.Narayan

8,58,340

3,69,496

Shri Suresh Kaku

4,88,844

The first party has filed affidavit of Hyacinth D'Mello who is working as Human Resources Officer Outstations . He has stated that all the 9 workmen were employed mainly in managerial and/ or administrative and/or supervisory capacity. He states:

5,68,740

2,22,592

3,46,148

Smt . L. Radhakrishnan

7 .

7,38,620

4,53,246 2,85,374

8. Shri R. Venugopalamurthy

8,15,278

3,45,726

4,69,552

9 . Shri Jagdish Parekh

The memorandum of settlementdt. 12-3-2004 applied only to the existing employees who were on rolls of the first party on the date of signing the settlement whereas the workmen ceased to be in the employment of the first party during the period from February 2003 to April 2003 by opting VRS offered by the first party and thus the reference is not maintainable . The first party has , therefore, prayed that the demand of the workmen be rejected.

Theworkmen have filed rejoinder wherein they have reiterated their stand .

By order dated 24-8-2010 passed by this Tribunal following issues have been framed:

1. Do the second party prove that they are "workmen" as defined under Section 2(s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

I say that Mr. Niranjan Shetty was employed in the Engineering Department. As Station Manager , he was In-charge of the Engineering Department. Mr. Shetty was responsible for ensuring adequate manpower available at all stations at all times to cover for the normal and ad- hoc operation, he was arranging the relief Engineers within his area to cover leave or other reasons , it was his duty to ensure that his staff shall have adequate technical coverage for their respective stations . It was his duty to arrange for a recovery team in case of AOG within his area, to prepare reports for all delays of flights within his area and take corrective actions etc. I say that 19 employees were working under his supervision and control . As Station Maintenance Manager he was representing the Mumbai Office and for the said purpose he was traveling abroad for work and conferences . Mr. Shetty has attended the various conferences in the headquarters of the Company in Bahrain discuss the issues about his to department

2.Do the second party prove that the dispute raised by them is an " industrial dispute " as defined under Section 2(k) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ?

3. Do the second party prove that the Hon'ble Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute raised by them ?

Mr. Sarkari was authorized to take decisions inthe absence of Financial Controller India and the Department Head. I say that several employees were working under his supervision and control . Mr.Sarkari was attending the seminars conducted by the Headquarters in Bahrain of the Company.............

4. Do the second party prove that the reference is maintainable under the provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ?

5.Do the second party prove that they are entitled to the benefits and arrears arising out of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 12-3-2004 ?

6.Whether the second party are entitled to the reliefs asclaimed ?

Mr. Wilfred Fernandes was employed in the Finance Department . As an Expenditure Supervisor Mr.Fernandes was performing the work of supervisory nature in the expenditure section of the Finance Department . Mr.John Rajan , Account Assistant and Mr.Suresh Gandhi Account Assistant were working under his supervision and control . Mr. Fernandes was the signatory to the Bank Accounts of the Company. He was signing cheques on behalf of the Company. He was appraising the The workmen have filed affidavits ofWilfred Floriano Fernandes and Narayan Bhaguram More who have been cross-examined by learned counsel for the first party. The firstParty has filed affidavit of Hyacinth D, Mello and he भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6375

भारत का रांजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

performance of the employees working under him and signing their appraisal forms . The VRS calculations were prepared under the guidance and instructions of Mr.Fernandes . Mr. Fernandes was representing his Department in the conferences at abroad . While I was in Finance Department during the periodfrom 1976 to 1987 , I have worked under the supervision and control of Mr. Fernandes by virtue of being the Secretary in the Finance Department..

Mr. C.Unni was employed in the Sales & Marketing Department. As Reservation/Ticketing Controller Mr. Unni was performing the work of ensuring that passengers/ agents travel needs were attended to by the staff in his department . Mr. Unni was stationed at Chennai and was supervising of the GSA staff under

Mr.R.V. L.Narayana was employed in the Personnel and Administration Department . As Personnel and Administration Assistant Mr. Narayana was performing the work relating to personnel & administration . I say that two employees were working under his supervision and control...

Mrs.I .. Radhakrishnan was employed in the Sales and Marketing Department . Reservation /Ticketing Controller. As Mrs. Radhakrishnan was performing the work of ensuring that passengers travel needs were attended to by the staff in her department . She was stationed at Trivandrum and was supervising and controllingthe work of GSA staff working under her..

Mr.R. Venugopalamurthy was employed in the Sales and Marketing Department . As Reservation / Ticketing Agent Mr. Venugopalamurthy was performing the work of attending to passengers travel needs.

Mr. Jagdish Parekh was employed in the Marketing Department . As Sales Representative Mr. Parekh was performing the work of Sales promotion and procuring business for the Company. Ms. Michelle D'Costa , Sales Secretary was working under his supervision and control ............

In rebuttal the workmen N.H.Shetty, D.H.Sarkari , C.Unni , R.V.L.Narayan, Suresh Kaku , Smt . L. Radhakrishnan , R.Venugopalamurthy and Jagdish Parekh have not come in the witness box and have not filed their affidavits .

Wilfred Ferandes has filed his affidavit but in cross- examination he admits " M - 37 to M - 40 are annual performarice appraisal reports of John Rajan which have been filled, up by him " The above admission is clear enough to prove that some persons were working under him . Under Section 2(s) of the Act a person is not a workman if he is employedmainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or, being employed in a supervisory capacity , draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason ofthe powers vested in him , functions mainly of amanagerial nature.

Almost unrebutted statement of Hyacinth D'Mello proves that the workmen were employed mainly in managerial or administrative or supervisory capacity and they were drawing monthly basic salary ranging from Rs.34, 133 to Rs.93,095 .

It isthus clear that the workmen , being employed in managerial or supervisory capacity, drew wages exceeding rupees ten thousand per mensem and exercised , by the nature of their duties or by reason of the powers vested in them , function of a managerial nature . As such , they are not 'workmen' as defined in Section 2 ( s) of the Act.

Issue no.l is, therefore , decided against the workmen .

ISSUE No.2 : Under Section 2 ( k) of the Act " industrial disput " means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen . This is not a dispute between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen and, therefore , it is not an industrial dispute .

Issue no.2 is decided against the workmen.

ISSUE No. 3 : learned counsel for the first party has notcontended that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute . There is nothing on record to suggest that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction .

Issue no.3 is , therefore , decided in favour of the workmen.

ISSUE No.4 : Issues nos . 1 and 2 have been decided against the workmen . Therefore , the logical conclusion is thatthe reference is not maintainable under the Act .

Issue no.3 is decided against the workmen .

ISSUE No. 5 : The settlement is dt. 12-3-2004 whereas the workmen voluntarily retired between February 2003 to April2003.

Shri V.Narayanan , learned counsel for the workmen , has contended that as per clause 34 ( c) of the settlement it has been made effective from 1-10-2000 and , therefore , workmen are entitled the ed to the benefits and arrears . arising out of it.

Shri Ashok Desai , learned counsel for the first party, has argued that it has been made clear in clause I ( a) of the settlement that it applide to the existing employees and since the workmen retired long before the date of the settlement they could not derive any benefit out of it . He hasfurther argued that the first party has examined Deepak Desai to prove the letter Ex.M-42 writtenby Gulf Air Employees Association wherein it has been stated that the association is not pressing to include VRS or resigned personels to receive the rewards of the settlement dt . 12-3-2004 [PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 6376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

and thus it becomes amply clear that the benefits given by the settlementdt . 12-3-2004 are not available to the workmen.

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 146/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL . , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 18-7-2012 .

[No. L- 20012 /388 / 1993 - IR (C- 1 ) ] AJEET KUMAR , Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference U/ s 10 ( 1 ) (d) ( 2A) ofthe

Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 Reference No. 146 of 1994

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Dugda CoalWashery of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : D. K. Verma, Advocate .

For the Workmen: Shri D. Mukherjee , Secretary, BiharColliery Kamgar Union .

The workmen have received compensation under the VRS along with gratuity and other dues ( excluding PF) ranging from Rs . 24,34,187 to Rs . 58,49,981 . This shows that a considerable amount has been paid to the workmen ex -gratia besides the terminal benefits . The amounts have been paid not for doing any work or rendering any service but it has been paid in lieu of the employees themselves leaving the services of the first party and foregoing all their claims or rights in the same . It has a package deal of give and take . It is known as golden hand shake in the business world. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee . After the amount is paid the employees ceased to be under the employment ofthe first party. They left with all their rights and there is no question of their again agitating for any kind of past rights with the first party including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period . If the employees are still permitted to raise the grievances regarding enhancement of pay scale or other benefits from a retrospective date even after they have opted for voluntary retirement scheme and have accepted the amount paid to them the whole purpose of introducing the scheme would be frustrated .

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated, the 29-3-2012

AWARD

Therefore, without going into the merits of the rival contentions of learned advocates I am of the opinion that once the workmen have opted for voluntary retirement under the VRS they cannot claim any benefit under the settlement arrived at long after their voluntary retirement.

relief. Issue no . 5 is , therefore decided against the workmen. ISSUE NO . 6 : The workmen are not entitled to any

By Order No. L- 20012/388/93 - IR ( Coal - I ) dated 10-6-94 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:

ISSUE NO. 7 : The management of GulfAir, Mumbai isjustified in not extending the benefits of memorandum of settlementdt. 12-3-2004 to the workmen .

Award is passed accordingly .

JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

"Whether the demand of the union for regularisation ofthe services of S/ Sri Shadhan Munda and three others (as per annexure below) by the management of Dugda Coal Washery is justified ? If so , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ? "

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2012

ANNEXURE

Permanent address

Workman's name Father's name

Sri Jatal Mandal Vill.- Dugda,

1. Premnath Mandal

P. S. & P.O. Dugda.

Dist. Giridih (Bihar) .

2. Shadhan Munda Sri Chhedi Mahali Vill.- Chanduwadih

P. O. & P.S. Dugda

Dist. Giridih ( Bihar ) .

Sri Dinu Mahto

3. Maharu Mahto

Vill.- Khalcho , का.आ. 2586.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14. ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 146/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

1. S. Nawadih,

P.O. Tele ,

Dist. Giridih ( Bihar) .

[सं. एल-20012/388/1993- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी

4. Dinu Mahto

Sri Mamal Mahto Vill.- Parsbuni ,

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2012

P. S. Nawadih ,

P.O. Tele ,

Dist. Giridih (Bihar) S.O. 2586. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 14 of 1947) , the Central [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6377

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

occasion, there was no scope for any workman completing 240 days of attendance in a calendar year as a result the legal formalities relating to termination of service of the contract workers did not arise at any point of time . The contractjobs are awarded only in case there is no notification prohibiting engagement of contract labour. It has been submitted that the sponsoring union has no case for getting the concerned persons recruited into the employment of the management as they were neither employed by the management at any point of time nor were employed by any contractor on any jobs on which engagement of contract labour has been prohibited by any notification issued by the Central Government .

Under the facts and circumstances stated above , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass the award holding that the concerned persons are 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. The management produced MW- I , Y. N. Singh andMW- 2 , Arun Kumar Roy.

2. The case of the concerned workmen is that they have been performing permanent and prohibited nature of job , such as , Magnetite Handling/charging Mazdoor at DugdaCoal Washery since long. They have been rendering services for the benefit of the management . They are working under direct control and supervision of the management . The implements for execution ofjob are being supplied by the management . In spite of the aforesaid fact the management have been disburding the wages of the concerned workmen in the name of certain intermediary only to pay them wages below the rate of NCWA . Though the management have implemented the NCWA still then the management have been paying them below the minimum rate prescribed in NCWA . The concerned workmen represented before the management several times for their regularisation as Plant Clearing Mazdoors and atleast payment of Category- I wages but without any effect . So , seeing no other alternative an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad, which ended in failure. Thereafter the dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . The action of the management in not regularising the concerned workman and not paying the concerned workmen atleast minimum wages as prescribed inNCWA are illegal , arbitrary, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice .

The concerned workmen produced WW- 1 , Prem Nath Mandal and proved documents ' X' to ' X - 10 for identification .

It has bee prayed before this Hon'ble Tribunal to answer the reference in favour ofthe workmenby directing the management to regularise the concerned workmen with retrospective effect with all arrear of wages and consequential benefits .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workmen is that they are working with the management and performing the jobs as magnetite handling/ charging mazdoor. The management is not paying them as per NCWA wages though theirjob is of permanent and perennial nature of job under the direct control and supervision of the management . They represented before the management for their regularisation as Plant Cleaning Mazdoors and payment of Category-1 wages , but without anyeffect.

The management's representative angued that the concerned persons are not their workman. They have not employed the concerned persons . They have sometime worked for plant cleaning mazdoor. But the management is not taking any work from any of the concerned persons because plant cleaning work is prohibited category job as perNotification No S.0.3103 dated 6-8-1983 by the Central Governmcan . So , no contract can be given for permanent nature of job to the contractor as per Notification of the Government . The management awarded contract to different parties , M/ s . Joginder Construction , M/s.Deo Contruction , M/ s . Rajan construction , M/ s . S. P. Construction and Shri S. K. Pasn at different periods of time mainly on the civil construction besides some miscellaneous jobs , so they cannot be regularised in any way.

In this respect the statement of the concerned workman is very important . WW- 1 in his cross -examination 3. The case of the management is that the concerned persons were never engaged by the management , either as plant clearing mazdoor or as magnetite handling or charging mazdoors and no contractor has been engaged on the jobs ofplant clering or magnetite handling or charging mazdoors atDugda Coal Washery. Therefore , the demand of the concerned persons is false , baseless and imaginary and the reference is liable to be rejected . No employer employee relationship ever existed between the management and the concerned persons at any point of time and therefore the question of regularing them on the service of the campanydoes not and cannot arise . It has been submitted that the management awarded contract works to different parties. Since the sponsoring union has not come out with clean hand by not viving the name of the contractor under whom they(concerned persons) had worked , it is difficult to say if any of them had over worked under any of the contractor . The contractor after receiving the work order selects and recruits the workmen capable of performing the contractjobs awarded to him . The contractor supervises all the contract work directly himself or through his supervisors and munshis . He exercises control over his workmen and terminates their services after the contract job becomes over. As the contract jobs were never continuous and could be available intermittently on some

2817 G1/2012-12 [PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii )) 6378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD Present: SHRI KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Disputes under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947

Reference No. 135 of 1996

Parties:

stated that I have got no appointment letter. I have got no pay slip. I was member ofcooperative society. Cooperative Societywas taking contract . We were doing the work which the society was taking . Cheque was issued by the management to the society. Cheque was deposited in the sccount of the Society. It was distributed to the members of the society. I have got no engagement letter from the management.

Employers in relation to the management of Jamadoba Colliery ofTISCO and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfof the workman : Mr. Samrendra Singh, Ld .

Adv. & workman himself.

The above statement of the concerned workman shows that they are members of Cooperative Society and the Society was taking contract from the management and payment ismade by the Society. So, they are not under the direct control and supervision of the management .

Onbehalf ofthe management : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate

Industry: Coal

State: Jharkhand

Dated , Dhanbad, the 19th March , 2012

AWARD

Another argument advanced an behalf of the concerned workman is that Indentity Card has been issued for work in the premises of the management . This has got no value as Indentity Card is issued to the contractor for gotting the contract work through his workers .

Considering the above facts and circumstances , 1 come to the conclusion that the demand of the union for regularisation of the services of the concerned workman is notjustified.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/381 /95 - IR (Coal . 1 )dt. 21-11-1996 .

7. In the result, I render the following award:

SCHEDULE

That the demand of the union for regularisation of the services of S/Sri Bhadhan & three others , the names mentioned in the order of reference , by the management of Dugda Coal Washery is not justified . Hence, they are not entitled to any relief.

"Whether the demand of the Union for the reinstatement of Shri Samrendra Singh , Ex- Head Clerk by the management of Jamadoba Colliery of M/ s TISCO is legal and justified ? If so , to what relief is theworkman entitled ?"

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2012

का. आ. 2587. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947.(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 135/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-20012/381/1995- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 18th July, 2012

S.O. 2587. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 135/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . TISCO and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-7-2012 .

2. The case of workman Samrendra Singh is that after hisappointment at Jamadoba Colliery of the Management on 27-9-1973 , he was duly confirmed and promoted to the postofHead Clerk on 15-4-1983 on selection after interview. While continuing to work on the post the Management of Tisco Colliery in December 1993 introduced a Scheme of Voluntary Retirement (hereafter referred to VRS ) for its employees completing 10 years of service or 40 years of age . Though under the influence of his friends and persuation ofthe Management official for it because ofhis being the Secretary of Jharkhand Collicry Mazdoor Union , Jamadoba for some years , he exercised his right of voluntary retirement in view of negligible benefits to the tune of Rs . 1,12,020 only, he applied to the management by depositing it in the office ofthe Dy. Div. Manager, Jamadoba on 22-1-1994 for withdrawal of his V.R.S. application choosing for remaining in the service . Another copy ofthe application was also received on 24-1-1994 with official rubber stamp . But viewing the attitude ofthe Management creating trouble in accepting his withdrawal petition , he demanded for seven lac rupees compensation as Voluntary Retirement Benefit accruable one completion ofhis service athis 60 years in addition to his normal retiral one. In spite ofhisbonafide undertaking as desired by the Management not to indulge in any union activity , the management sent him the letterdt : 24-1-1994 about the acceptance of his [No. L-20012/381 / 1995 - IR (C-I )] AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer 6379 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

V.R.S. w.e.f. 3-2-1994 which was receivedby him on 11-3-1994, i.e. , after two months ofhis choice for remaining in service. The letter unsigned by the General Manager incompetent to accept his V.R.S. was false and fabricated.

got enrollment as a member of Dhanbad Bar Association on 18-7-1996, yet his earning negligible. He had not intended tojoin any Trade Union because of his simplicity. Despite hisrepeated objection , the management illegally started to deduct money from his wages toward union subscription, aswell as threatened him of penalisation by imposition of penal rent on him illegally. He has always taken the shelter oflaw for his survival with his family.

5.Whereas challenging the reference being individual as unmaintainable, the contra pleaded case of the Management with categorical denials is that the dispute being unsponsored by any trade union recognised or any group ofworkmen of the establishment to convert it into an industrial dispute is summarily unacceptable . Workman Samerendra Singh was appointed as a Clerk Gr. III on 27-9-1973 , promoted to Gr. II on 15-4-1983 and to the post ofHead Clerk w.e.f. 15-4-1983 , and continued so at Jamadoba Colliery on 12-1-1994 when he submitted his resignation under V.R.S. Since the introduction of several modern techniques by the Management for efficient operation in various mining processes increased out- put per man shift rendered some persons surplus to the need in lieu of retrenchment of employees in the normal course. Underthe provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for optimum man power, the management as per circular dt. 28-12-1993 introducing a voluntary retirement scheme fortemporary period from 1-1-94 to 28-2-1994 offered better benefits gratuity, PF, unpaid wages, if any, encashment of unavailed leave, one and half month salary multiplied by balance months ofserv ice retirement on 60 years whichever lower for their voluntary option for V.R.S. for which the total amount payable under the sub-clause (b) was not exceeding Rs . 5 lac:

3. The further case of the workman is that he had given a choice to the Management to accept his resignation on the condition for payment of seven lac rupees as adequate retirement benefit and compensation under a special contract which was accepted by the Management asits letterdt. 22/25-3-1994 but after timely withdrawal of his choice for retirement on 22-1-94 they had no right to retire him under the V.R.S. Scheme whereas his V.R.S. was to be effective from 3-2-1994 and the alleged letter of acceptance of his voluntary retirement was issued to him on 11-3-1994 without signature of the General Manager which was against the Certified Standing Order of the Company. The Management vindictively deprived him of his service and the contractual amount of Rs . 7 lacs, and also denied to pay it, and to reinstate him . Moreover, the acceptance ofhis voluntary retirement was not permissible bythe scheme itself, as he was not a surplus workman and the management has filled up the post by placing another Head Clerk . It is also alleged that the V.R.S. Scheme had two formatsA and B Annexures as the letters of acceptance and regret for the employees whose requests were accepted or unconsidered by the Management according its full discretion as per its para 2 ( VIII ) ( III ) . It was the unilateral act of theManagement to accept or reject it . Similarly the workman had the unilateral act to submit his application for V.R.S. or to withdraw it, choosing to remain in his service. Sothewithdrawal ofhis V.R.S. application by the workman was valid in law. The acceptance of voluntary retirement ofthe workmen and no permission for resumption of his duty are the vindictive action of the Management and contrary to the law. After a few months of termination of his service, the Management had introduced another scheme of V.R.S. which was more beneficial to the employees of the Company. The management allowed the withdrawal of V.R.S. of some workmen after acceptance. So he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and due compensation for his sorrowful sufferance due to the

vindictiveact ofthe management.

6. Itispleaded by the Management that the workman submitted his application dt . 12-1-1994 for his voluntary retirement with a view to get good amount under the scheme. His application was duly accepted by the Competent Authority and informed of it by the Management as per letter dt. 24-1-1994, instructing him to receive the payment from the management . But after the receipt of the management's letter, he represented by his letter predated 22-1-1994 for withdrawal his aforesaid application under V.R.S. on the ground of the benefits under the Scheme not upto his expectation, and demanded Rs . 7 ( seven ) Lac as compensation for accepting his resignation under V.R.S. Hesubmitting of his aforesaid predated application on 24-1-1994 was in fact his afterthought one with a view to unauthorisedly occupy the Company's quarter as a trade union Leader - cum-Advocate at Dhanbad. On already acceptance of his applicationdt . 12-1-1994 by the Competent Authority, there was no scope for accepting to hiswithdrawal of his aforesaid resignation nor for his reinstatement in his original job . So the action of the managment in accepting his resignation under the V.R.S. was legal and justified. By unauthorisely occupying the 4.Theworkman in its rejoinder with specific denials has pleaded that the management officials had enticed him to seek V.R.S. by informing him of the enhancement of its benefits, so he submitted an application in the prescribed format on 12-1-1994, but seeing it no chance ofcoming any revised circular for enhanced benefit , he as per his application dt . 22-1-1994 withdrew his aforesaid application. He is not unauthorisedly occupying the quarter in question, for which the management is adopting various tactics to illegally evict him . While terminating his service bythe Management, he was not a Law Graduate , so after passing L.L.B. Examination and taking his provisional certificate of it from Vinoba Bhave University on 26-3-1996, he though 6380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANΝΑ 20 , 1934

Company'squarter alloted to him while in service, the workmancontinues to practice as an Advocate at Dhanbad Court and also carries an anti -management activities as trade union ones highly prejudicial to the management for payment of Rs . 7 (seven) lac for leaving the quarter. No entitlement to any relief is alleged against the workman .

7.The management with specific denials pleaded in its rejoinder that the due appointment and promotion of the workman is admitted just as submitting of the resignation bythe workman being eligible for it under V.R.S. The management was unaware of his being Secretary of the Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union unexisting in the Company'sColliery, also of the facts under which he submitted his resignation under the scheme . The withdrawal letterdt . 22-1-94 of resignation under VRS by the workman was received by the management on 24-1-1994 after the entire process for acceptance of his V.R.application was over.

8. Upon remanding of the case by the Hon'ble High Court at Ranchi for afresh hearing, further pleading of the management as stated in its additional written statement asintegral part of its earlier one , shown of repeated facts , is that the V.R.S. as per the circular dt . 28-12-1993 of the management validity w.e.f. 1-1-1994 till 28-2-1994 manadatorily but specifically stipulated under its clause (iv) its terms & conditions : That ' the amount payable on voluntary retirement of the employee not to exceed the anmount equivalent to 1 1/2 months salary for each complete year of service or monthly salary at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months ofthe salary left before the date of retirement in super annuation (60 years ) whichever lower in any case shall not exceed Rs . 5 lac in case ofsuch employee' and under its para 3 : " The payment under this scheme to be made only after handing over the Company's accomodation if any alloted to and compliance with other requirements for receiving the settlement dues . "

9. Further it is alleged in the addl . written statement that once the offer of the workman as per his letter dt . 12-1-94 for his voluntary retirement from the service ofthe Company on the terms and conditions of the V.R.S. was unequivocally accepted on 22-1-1994 which was also orally communicatedto the workman on the same date itself, because a binding contract since then itself between both the parties . The workman can not claim contrary to his unequivocally accepted terms of the VRS on any of the pleas of the withdrawal of his offer for V.R. by his letter allegedlydt . 22-1-1994 but actually received in the office of the colliery on 24-1-94 or of the communication letter of the managementdt . 24-1-94 that stipulated the acceptance to be effective from 3-2-1994 . Because the workman by his alleged letter dt . 22-1-1994 has demanded for Rs . 7 lac towards voluntary retirement benefit which is not only contrary to the limit ofthe V.R.S. but also a clear breach of his undertaking as per his offferdt . 12-1-94. The cut off date 3-2-1994 can not be construed as a date for accepting

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

the VR which was already accepted on 22-1-94 prior to the receipt ofthe letter ofthe workmandt . 24-1-94, rather it was for other limited purpose , i.e. for receiving the benefits on compliance with the stipulation for vacating the quarter , other formalities and final settlement as under the scheme . The workman being gainfully as an active Advocate can not be treated as an employee . The downsizing of the manpower in the Jharia Division Colliery including Jamadoba is a continuous process and on date no vacancy. exists for accomodating any additional hand in the said cadre . Thus the release of the petitioner is justified and valid under the V.R. Scheme. the workman's only claim is for the amount to be calculated and communicated to him in the terms of the V.R. Scheme. less his already drawn amount Rs . 2,56,181.80 u/ s 17 B of the 1. D Act which consequent upon setting aside of the award became adjustable just as any dues Rs . 3,659.74 equating to the period of 70months from March, 2004 to December, 2009 against his payment.

10. In response to it the specifically denialful further pleading of the workman in his rejoinder to the additional written statement of the management the acceptance ofhis offer for retirement under V.R.S. ( Ext . M- 5 marked with objection) is a fabricated document , as the entire V.R. Scheme unmentioning any such format. No Management can restrict him from exercising his legal right to withdraw it not the Scheme nor the Service rule standing order provides for it . The management under para 8 of its original written statement had stated the date of acceptance as 24- 1-1994 but never as 22-1-1994 . The withdrawal letterdt . 22- 1-1994 was handed over to the management of the Colliery (HOD) personally by the workman on the same date , and a copy of the said letter was got received in the office with official seal and signature so as not to be denied by the management its receipt . The voluntarily retirement letter dt. 12-1-1994 in the format supplied by the management wasa one month's notice (30 days) under clause 13 of the Certified Standing Order of the Company and acceptance of voluntarily retirement application before expiry of 30 days notice period failing which was illegal termination . Thedemand ofRs . 7 Lac was an alternative one . The General Manager'sletter dt. 24-1-1994 was illegal . The management hascommitted illegalities violating all the laws relevantto the case. The income of the workman from practice of law as an advocate is Rs . 250 per month , though negligible , yet itcanbe deducted by the management per month from his . back wages at the same rate as charged by the management against him . The workman is entirely dependant upon the friendly loan to maintain his family.

FINDING WITH REASONING

11. Consequent upon remand of the case after rescinding the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 390/2003 as well as the order ( dt . 27-8-2002) ofthe Industrial Tribunal as per orderdt . 15-7-2010 ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.. P. A. No. 03/2010 Samenrenda Singh Vs. Employer, it came for a fresh decision 6381

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the Company as per his application under his signaturedt . 12-1-1994 on the condition stipulated therein (his application Ext . W2 Ext.M9( 1 ), in accordance with law after hearing both sides . The typographical error 2-3-1994 in line No. 19 of the page of the said order dt. 15-7-2010 has been instructed to read it as3-2-1994 as per order dt. 29-6-2011 ofthe Hon'ble High Court in l.A.No. 558/2011 in the aforesaid L.P.A.

(iii)But theworkman by his applicationdt . 22-1-1994 opted for treating his V.R.S. application as cancelled and withdrawn for its benefits as meagre under the V.R.S. , simultaneously offering the Company to pay him Rs. 07 (Seven ) Lac for it , otherwise he would continue in his service.

(iv) The workman alleged that his application dt . 22-1-1994 was acknowledged by the management as perits letter dt . 22/25-3-1994 ( Ext. W-4 ), But this letter of the Management refers two letters first on 8-3-1994 concerning his request to cancel his retirement under V.R.S. and to resume his duty and other letterdt. 22/25th March , 94 which reads as such:

Onperusal of the case record , I find that WWI Samarendra Singh, workman himself on his behalf and MWI A.K. Sharan, the Manager for the Management were earlier examined, but on its remand, the workman declined to produce a witness on his behalf, the management filed its Addl .Written Statement on 11-1-2011 to which a rejoinder filed on 18-1-2011 by the workman , and thereafter further one witness MW1 Dinesh Kumar Sharma , the Hd . Clerk, wasexamined by the management and cross - examined by the workman . The witness MWI Dinesh Kumar Sharma (onRemand) has proved five letters : one of workman and rest of the management as Ext . M - 10 series in addition to the four letters ofthe workman filed by management marked asExt. M.11 series (on admission) .

"you ......... confirmed your willingness to retire under the above scheme. Accordingly, your request was sympathetically considered and you have been allowedto retire under V.R.S. w.e.f. 3-2-1994.

12. It is pertinent to note that afresh adjudication of the case needs inevitably application of the principles to the facts of the case as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the order dt. 15-7-2010 which are as under:

Sinceyou have already retired from Company' service under the above scheme , you will appreciate our inability to accede to your request at this stage . " (1)The voluntary retirement would become effective by having the effect of terminating the service w.e.f. 3-2-1994 , i.e. , the date of on which acceptance expressly states the same to be become effective ,

(2) Therefore, withdrawal was permissible at anytime uptill 2-3-1994(nowbe read as 3-2-1994 in stead ofit as per the Hon'ble High Court's order dt . 29-6-2011 in I. A. No. 558/2011 in the aforesaid L. P.A. No.03/ 2010).

(3) The request for withdrawal of resignation in the present case reached the employer on 24-1-1994, i.e. wellwithin time . "

13. The present adjudication acts upon the main issue whether the voluntarily retirement applicationdt . 12-1-1994 (Ext . W- 2) of the workman become efective under the provision of the Indian Contract Act 1872.

On evoluation of the materials available on the case record, I find the facts as such :

(v) Meanwhile, the management as per its letter dt. 14/17-2-1994 ( Ext . W- 6 - Ext.M - 10 /4 ) addressed to the workman on his home address ) with reference to his application dt . 1-2-1994 for extension of his leavefor 15 days w.e.f. 3-2-1994 affirmed that since thealreadyacceptance ofhis request for V.R.S. w.e.f. 3-2-1994 vide letter no. JNB/474/000721 dt . 24-1-1994 (Ext. W-6/ 1 ) as its enclosure and he ceased to be in theCompany'semployment since then , so question ofgranting extension of 15 days leave did not arise . The aforesaid letterdt. 24-1-1994 of the G.M. (Ext. W.6/ 1 ) on the homeaddress of the workman in reference to his V.R.S. applicationdt . 12-1-1994 confirms the acceptance ofhis V.R.S. applicationby the management w.e.f. 3-2-1994. In response to the workman's applicationdt. 25-3-1994 about his alleged stoppage from duty,the management as per its letterdt . 13-5/3-6-1994 (Ext.W-7) tohim onhis home address regreted his request to resume his duty from 2-2-1994, as he had already retired fromthe Company's service from 2-2-1994, and he had receive theManagement's original letter dt.24-1-1994 (Ext.M-3) ofretirement acceptance on 11-3-1994 as per its record.

( i) The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. , Jamshedpur (management ) as per its circular dt . 28-12-93 issued the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S. ) for the period 1-1-1994 to 28-2-1994 (Ext . M.1 ) The V.R.S. under its Serial No. 2 IV ( IV) stipulated the amount payable to the V.R.S. seeker not exceeding the amount equivalent to one and one half month's salary for each completed year of service or monthly salary at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left prior to his retirement in superannuation (60 years ), which ever lower, but in any case, not exceeding Rs . 5 (Five) lac in case of such employce .

(ii ) Workman Samarendra Singh , the Head Clerk, voluntarily applied for his Voluntary Retirement from

14. Accordingto the management, the workman's request for retirement under V.R.S. was alleged to be accepted on 22-1-1994 by the Authority concerned which under the signature of Mr. S.N. Sinha , D.M. ( P & W) dt . 21-1-1994 and Mr. S. D. Luther, Dy. P.M. (AI ) dt . Nil ( Letter written in pen) out of four printed members P.S. Singh , Sr. D.M. ( O) , R.K. Lahiri , D.M. (Engg ), A.N. Mitra , D.M. (Washery) and aforesaid one had written member of Recommendation Committee on stencil printed form (Ext. M.7).

6382

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 11 , 2012 / SHRAVANA 20, 1934

Dinesh Kr. Sharma ( MW1 ) on remand of the case hasto saythat the workman letter dt. 8-3-1994 (Ext . M. - 10 concerning his request for cancellation of his V.R.S. with assurance to abide by the Company's Rules ) has neither official forwarding nor comments and the management's letter dt . 20/25-4-1994 and 1-8-1994 ( Ext . M.10/1-2 respectively) in reference to the workman's letter dt . 29-3-1994 regarding payment of his unpaid dues gratuity and V.R.S. Ex -gratia) are officially copies ofthe Dy. D.M. and the G.M. concerned . Admittedly, the workman was paid (Rs . 2,56,171.80) under Sec . 17(B) of the Industrial DisputeAct as per the original letterdt. 1-12-2011 ofthe HeadAccounts (Ext . M.10/3 in three sheets ) . The workman byhis letter dt. 29-4-1994 (Ext . W.8 -Ext. M.11 /3 same) has stressed for the payment of Rs . 07 (Seven) lac (as his partly offer accepted) etc. in stead ofGratuity and retirement compensationetc being paid.

It is an indisputable fact that the workman was meanwhile granted ten days leave from 22-1-94 to 2-2-94 by the Manager concerned under his signature (dateless) on his leave Application dt. 21-1-94 (Ext. M.11 ) but his second written applicationdt. 1-2-94 for extension of his 15days leave from 3-2-1994 as per the Dy. D. M.'s Letter dt . 14/17-2-1994 (( Ext . M. 10/4) was unconsidered for cessation ofhis sevice w.e.f. 3-2-1994 as result of the acceptance of hisV.R.S. by the Management on 22-1-94 .

15. Mr. D.K. Verma , the Ld . Advocate for the Management referring to 2003 SCC. ( L& S) 289 (D.B. ) , P. Lal Vs. Union of India ( A) contends that ' The moment the Government accepted the notice of volunatry retirement, the retirement became effective and relationship of master & servant stood severed ; neither communication nor gazette notification of the acceptance was necessary for thatpurpose, hence grant of permission at a subsequent stage for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was held as bad. It is related toAll India Services (Death - cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 Rs . 16(2) & (2- A) . According to him , the acceptance of the workman's voluntary offer for voluntary retirement on the agreed terms on 22-1-1994 ( Ext . M.5) which was orally communicated to him as assertedby M.W.I A.K. Saran resulted in a binding and enforceable conclusive contract between both the workman and the management , and any stand of the workman for withdrawal ofhis V. R. Application is unsustainable because of it being conditional for claim of Rs . 7 Lac beyond the limit of the V.R.S. which was a vivid breach ofthe contract ; that the date 3-2-1994 referred to in the GM.'s letter dt. 24-1-1994 ( Ext . M.- 3 which refers to date 2-2-1994 ) was a cut off date for two reasons to release his dues under the scheme and all other normal retrial benefits , but subject to the vacation of the Company'saccomodation, and observation of the usual formalities byhim.

16. On the other hand , Mr. Samdrendra Singh , the workman him self stating his career right from his appointment as Clerk Grade III on 27-9-1973 to Head Clerk since January, 1984 in Jamadoba Colliery has to submit that on display of the notice for V.R.S. by the Manage- ment on 7-1-1984, he submitted his application for V.R.S. on 12-1-1994 ( on prescribed proforma- Ext.M. 9( 1) but after seeing no enhancement of monetary benefits he submitted his application for withdrawal of his V.R. S. application on 22-1-1994 and another copy of his withdrawal application was sent on 24-1-1994 ( Ext. W- 3 ) and that despite his application dt . 8-3-1994 ( Ext.M - 10 ) about his undertaking not to involve in any union his V.R.S. was accepted w.e.f. 3-2-1994 as evident from the Management's letters dt . 22/ 25-3-1994, 14/1-2-1994 and 24-1-1994 ( Ext . W-4 , 6 and 6/1 respectively) , but the Management's . letter dt.24-1-1994 concerning the acceptance of his V.R.S. by the Management admittedly reached to and received by him. on 11-3-1994 as also stated in his representation dt . 15-2-1995 (Ext .W.4/2 ) .The argument advanced in that light bythe workman himseli now an advocate practising law is that his withdrawal of his V.R.S. with perspective effective date was well within time and withdrawal as held in the case of Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Mishra reported in A.1 . R. 1978 SC 694 as also followed in the case ofUnion of India Vs. Wing Commander T.Parthasartahy, 2001 ( 1 ) JLJ (SC)307.

17. The logic of the workman that his conditional V.R ( Voluntary Retirement ) application dt 22-1-994 ( second copy) which was received on 24-1-1994 ( Ext . W.3 ) and acknowledged by the Management as per its letter dt.22/ 25thMarch , 1994 (Ext . W.4) is untenable as this letter of the Management refers to his letterdt.8th March , 1994 (Ext.M.10 ) related to his assurance with request for cancellation of his V.R.S. acceptance letter. It is a misconception for a possible error in misdating 22-1-1994 inview of his optional , applicationdt. 12-1-1994 for his voluntary retirement.

Moreover the plea of the workman for termination of hisservice illegally in view of clause 13 of the Standing Order, the Statutory force (Ext . W-13 ) according to which hisapplicationdt . 12-1-1994 was a 30 days notice , but its acceptance by the management within 12 days appears to be baseless , because the matter of termination though implied pleaded yet unproved as an incidental issue.

Likewise all the representations of the workman as Ext. 9 series send to the Desk Officer concerned for amendment of the present 1. D. Schedule are quite irrelevant to the case under afresh adjudication . The workman was given the Advocate Noticedt . 8-7-1997 by regd . post in behalf of the management (Ext . W - 12 ) for penal rent of Rs. 1,500 per month for his alleged illegal occupation ofthe management's quarter while his substantial matter was sub- judice.

18. In view of the proved factum of the case as stands before me, it is pertinent to refer the Sec . 5 of the 6383

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ].

India Contract Act , 1872 under heading Revocation of proposals and acceptances " which reads ander its sub- para as such :

"As acceptance may be revoked at any time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor , but not afterwards . "

In this light , the acceptance of the workman's Voluntary Retirement Applicationdt . 12-1-1994 by the Management under the V.R.S. concerned is alleged on 22-1-1994 and its communication letterdt. 24-1-1994 by the management admittedly being his V.R.S. w.e.f.3-2-1994 reached to and received by the workman on his home address on 11-3-1994 much later than the workman's applicationdt. 22-1-1994 for (though conditional ) withdrawal of his said voluntarily Retirement indisputably received under the seal of the Management but muchbefor the communication of the acceptance was complete as against the Management accepter . Thus the termination of the workman's service was accepted with prospective effective from 3-2-1994 , as he was admittedly on leave upto 2-2-1994 ( Ext . M.11 ).

In this case , the coincidence of the 22nd the 24th Jan. 1994 of the workman's application for withdrawal with the same dates of the management's alleged acceptance of his V.R.S. is though most misleading yet its ambiguity stands vivid from the Management's letterdt . 24-1-1994 rather it contradicterily mentions the acceptance of his V.R.S. w.e.l. 2-2-1994:

Under this circumstances, I find that the authority byMr.Verma . L.d. Counsel as well as his submission for the management being distinctive from the factum of the case appears not to hold water and unpersuasive , whereas the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid principle of perspective effectiveness of V.R.S. as also observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi holds good with the case under adjudication .

19. Further, with reference of the case of Metropolitan Fransport Corpn . Vs. V. Venkatessan ( 2009 ) 2. SCC ( L & S ) 71908 ) . Mr. Verma , the Id . Counsel for the management has submitted that since the workman has been gainfully employed as an advocate in regular active practice of law so he can neither be treated as an employee nor be entitled to any back wages , because the income received while pursuing legal profession to be treated as income from gainful employment as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid ruling . The workman has admitted that after passing 1.1.B. in the year 1996 ,he got enrolled as Advocate on 18-7-1996. His admission as per his assurance letter dt. 8-3-199-1 ( ext.M. 10 ) , related to request for concellation ofhis V.R S. acceptance letter: -

"( ii) I shall give up my appearance on behalf of the workman against the management before the Tribunal or Labour Court of any concillation Oflicer. " - proves his prior such conduct towards the management .

At this point, the contention of the workan is that his statement about his earning as an Advoca , les an Rs.250 per month or Rs.300 and the same amount may be treated after one year of his emoluments in 18-7-1996 in view ofthe decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of' S.M.Saiyad Vs. Barada Municipal Corporation , 1984 Lab.I.C.1446 wherein it has been held that no one can earn from the day first he joined the profession , it will take at least one year to have a footing in the profession to earn something . Here the workman has no such specific pleading except negligible which is unsubstantiated.

20. But in view of the admission of the workman practising the Law since 18-7-1996, I am also ofthe view as recently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 of the case ofMetropolitan Transport Corp. Vs. V. Venkatesan (Supra) which also refers to aforesaid the case of Saiyad that ' reasonable deduction needs to be made while determining the backwages to which the workman may be entitled.

21. After taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances including as the aspect of the Law advocacy of the workman w.e.f. 18-7-1996, it is awarded that the demand of the Union for the reinstatement of Samerendra Singh , Ex - Head Clerk by the Management of Jamadoba Colliery ofM /s . TISCO is quite legal and justified. So the workman is entitled to his reinstatement with full backes after reasonable deduction of his earning from his practice of Law at the rate of Rs . 1000 per month from August , 1997 and in case of his superannuation , to all his retiral benefits as usual . The Management is directed to implement the award within two months from the date of its receipt after its publication in the Gazette of India .

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2588. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एयर इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या सी.बी.आई. टी 2/27 ऑफ 2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है. जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18 7 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं. एल 11012/10/2011 आई आर ( सीएम -1 ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th July, 2012

S.O. 2588.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.CGIT- 2/ 27 of2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No.2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . Air India Limited and their workmen , 6384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20, 1934

which was received by the Central Government on 18-7-2012.

[No. L- 11012/ 10/2011 - IR (CM- I)]

AJEET KUMAR , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE , PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT -2/27 of 2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AIR INDIA LTD .

Ms. Meenakshi Kashyap AGM- IR Air IndiaLtd. , Mumbai-400021 .

AND TheirWorkman

Shri A. R. Joshi Row House No.21 GodaiNagar ChakanRoad Opp.Hotel Aishwarya TalegaonDabhade MS.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. L.L.D'Souza, Representative .

FOR THE WORKMAN : In person .

Mumbai , datedthe 29th February, 2012

AWARD PART- I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L- 11012/ 10/2011 - IR (CM - I) , dated 29-3-2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal . for Adjudication:

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Anil Rajaram Joshi , by order dated 6th December 1996 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Shri Joshi entitled to?"

2.After receipt of the reference from the Ministry, both the parties were served with the notices . First party appeared through their legal representative and second party workman appeared in person . The second party workman has filed his statement ofclaim at Ex-6. According to the second party, he was serving with the first party since 1971. According to him there was a strike called by Air IndiaEmployees Guild in 1995/1996. The workman was not evenmember ofthe said union . He helped the company to ensure departure of flights in the best manner. However purely by way of vindictiveness and in order to victimize

PART II SEC. 30 )

the workman , disciplinary action was initiated against him . A farce ofdepartmental inquiry was conducted against the workman. The company also had taken disciplinary action against the union leaders Mr. George and Mr. Bhoge They were also dismissed from service . However the company reinstated all ofthem except the workman.

3. Accordingto him, departmental inquiry was conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice . The report and findings of inquiry officer are in perverse . There was no evidence in respect of the charges leveled against the workman . The company issued show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal . Workman challenged the same before Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition . High Court was likely to pass order in favour of theworkman. Company therefore had withdrawn the notice and had undertaken to hold de novo inquiry . However they had dismissed the workman and filed Approval Application no . CGIT- 1 / 17 of 1996. The approval application came to be withdrawn . They had made another farce of departmental inquiry with an intention to hold him guilty and to dismiss him from the service . Accordingly they dismissed the second party from service and filed another Approval Application No.91 / 1996 before National Industrial Tribunal , Mumbai which was not tenable in the eyeof law.

4. Initially National Industrial Tribunal granted approval . Workman challenged the said order before Hon'bleHigh Court . Hon'ble High Court set aside the order ofgranting approval to the dismissal of the second party and remanded the matter back to the National Industrial Tribunal for re-hearing . On re- hearing , National Industrial Tribunal rejected the approval application and reinstated the workman with full back- wages , continuity of service and all other consequential benefits . The company challenged thejudgement and order of NIT before Hon'ble High Court in writ Petition no.2671 /2002 . Single Judge granted stay to the operation of the judgment and order of N IT. The second party preferred appcal and the Division Bench vacated the stay and directed the company to reinstate him with continuity of service in the alternativeto pay his monthly wages and other benefits from time to time. Theworkman was superannuated from 31-5-2005. Till thatdate he received full wages . However inspite of order of reinstatement, they paid gratuity and PF only till the date of his initial dismissal and not till the date of his superannuation . It indicates that company has harassed him at every stage .

5.By the time the aforesaid writ petition came up for final hearing, the NIT had passed final award in Ref. I of 1990 and held that Air India was not party to the dispute concerned therein . Based on the said findings when the aforesaid writ petition came up for final hearing , company pleaded that in view of aforesaid findings ofNIT, there was no need to file approval application and thus judgment and order in the approval application became infructuous . The said award was challenged before IHon'ble High Court [ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

6385

in WP no.780/2005 . In the writ Petition Union of India filed affidavit in reply to the effect that award is not acceptable to the Central Government and Central Government is considering remand of the same award for fresh consideration.

ofthe first party and instigated other employees who had reported for duty in other areas . He instigated them to join illegal strike sponsored by a group of employees . The second party workman threatened the staffs who were sent from Major Maintenance Division to Line Maintenance Division to meet the exigencies of work . These acts ofthe workman amount to misconduct under the Model Standing Orders. Therefore he was charge-sheeted vide letter dated 1-2-1996. He was charged for inciting other workers to strike the work and was also charged for riotous or disorderly behaviour at the premises of the establishment or any act subversive of discipline . Show cause notice was issued to him to explain in writing within 48 hours to the said charges . However the workman did not submit any reply within the stipulated period . Therefore the competent authority constituted an inquiry committee and the said action was communicated to the second party. The second party attended the inquiry proceeding. He defended himself. The inquiry committee found him guilty of the charges levelled against him . The committee submitted its report . The competent authority vide its letterdt . 7-3-1996 forwarded copy of the report of the inquiry committee with showcause notice to the workman to explain within 48 hours as to why finding of inquiry committee should not beaccepted. Second party addressed a letterdt . 11-3-1996 to the MD with a note stating that same be treated as his reply to the showcause notice .

6. According to second party, in another case of Capt . Vishal Kapoor , Air India misled Hon'ble Supreme Court and suppressed the aforesaid affidavit of Government . In the circumstances , Hon'ble Supreme Court made passing observation that , Air India is not party to Ref. 1 of 1990. Based on the said observation , singlejudge ofBombay High Court allowed writ petition ofthe company holding that as Air India was not party to the reference , there was no need to file Approval Application . Hence the judgement and order passed by NIT in approval application has become infructuous . The workman challenged the said judgement and order before Division Bench. Division Bench directed him to approach Hon'ble Supreme Court and to move appropriate application in aforesaid Vishal Kapoor's case . Workman accordingly preferred the application . However Supreme Court refused to interfere . Therefore appeal of the workman came to be dismissed. Workman approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP. The Hon'ble Court directed the Government to refer the industrial dispu and also directed that the reference should be disposed of within a year . Accordingly this reference was sent by Government to this Tribunal .

9. By their letterdt. 14-3-1996 , competent authority after considering the report and the explanation of the workman and looking into the grave nature of misconduct of the workman , proposed to impose punishment of dismissal and workman was given 72 hours' time to reply the said notice. He replied the notice vide his letter dt.17-3-1996 . As his reply was not satisfactory, the competent authority dismissed him from service by its order dated 19-3-1996 . The order was to take effect from the date ofcommunication . It was communicated on 21-3-1996 . The first party also sent a cheque of Rs.11.014.55 being the wages of one month as required under clause ( b ) of sub- section( 2) of Section 33 of the industrial Disputes Act equal to his last pay. Simultaneously an approval application was also filed before NIT on 21st March , 1996 , 7. According to the second party the disciplinary action against him was pre - determined in order to victimize him and to dismiss him from service for false reason . The workman has never participated in the strike . The evidence led in the inquiry proceeding is very poor and week . It has no nexus with the charges levelled against the workman . The inquiry was not held in accordance with the settled principle of law. The workman therefore prays that the action of dismissal of the second party be declared as not legal , proper and justified and the same be set aside . He also prays that the company be directed to pay compensation to him for dismissing him illegally and also prays for direction to the company to pay his unpaid gratuity, PF and all other amount due to him till the date of his superannuation and also seek for direction to grant all the post- retirement benefits as applicable to his grade since the date of his dismissal till the date of superannuation and also prays for cost and compensation .

10. The second party challenged the said order in WP no. 600/1996 . The Hon'ble High Court set aside the cid of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for re -hearing ofthe inquiry. The inquiry committee re - commencedthe proceeding . Second party workman participated in the proceeding . He was represented by Mr. Tomichan as per his choice. The inquiry committee found the second party workman guilty of the charges based on the evidence adduced before the inquiry committee . The competcat authority forwarded the copy of report of inquiry and called upon the second party to showcause as to why findings should not be accepted . The second party workman submitted his replydt . 26-10-1996 . As per the stand taken 8. The first party management resisted the statement ofclaim vide its written statement Ex- 15. According to them , the second party workman during the course of his service was promoted as Senior Aircraft Technician , Master Technician , Foreman and Sr. Foreman . It was reported that although the second party workman did not report his duty on February 1 , 1996 in pursuance to the demonstrations held on 4th and 5th January, 1996 and hunger strike from 15th January to i 8th January 1996 at Old Airport and during working hours, the second party workman entered in the premises

2817 GI/2012-13 [PART 11-SBC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6386

by its order dt . 6-9-2004 has observed that Air India could not be a party to the reference as the reference was made byCentral Government in respect ofdispute between Indian Airlines and its employees. Hon'ble National Industrial Tribunal further observed in Part - 1 award that the award would be binding on Indian Airlines and its employees only. Tribunal found that reference cannot cover any industrial dispute between Air India and its workmen as theorder ofCentral Government is confined to the disputes between Indian Airlines and its workmen . Therefore in the circumstances, the Ld. Representative for the first party submitted that the Approval Application was not at all necessary. The Ld. Adv further pointed out that the first partyhad challenged the said order of approval in Writ Petitionno. 2671 of 2002 wherein Hon'ble Single judge of BombayHigh Court in para 9 ofthejudgment has observed that;

"Consequently on this point the writ petitions shall have to be allowed and the impugned order passed bythe National Industrial Tribunal shall have to be set aside. It is needless to say that the respondents wouldbe at liberty to make reference under Section 10(10) ofthe 1.D. Act..... "

by the second-party.He was served through Director of Engineering, and he was cullid upon to show causewhy the findings should not be avcepted: Second party subponittediris reply dated 11-11-1996. Competent authority carefully considered ther report of the inquiry committee and the submission made by the second party and heldthe second party geilty of the misconduct for which hewas charge- sheeted. Competent authority proposed the punistament of drianised from services and the second partywas sorved will show eduse notice to that effect. The second party submitted His replydt. 27-11-1996. The competent, authority considered all the facts and circumstances . Also considered the submissions and allegations made by the second pasty workman and by its orderdt . 3-12-1996 competent authority dismissed the second party from the services of the company and the samewas to take effect from the date ofits communication. The order was communicated to the second party on 6-12-1996 with a chequeof Rs. 16,829 being wages ofone month as required under section 33 (2) (b) ofthe I.D.Act. Accordingto them , the action ofthe competent authority is just, legal and proper.The punishment is also proportionate to the proved misconduct . They denied all the allegations made by the second party in his statement off claim and pray that thereference be dismissed with cost .

H.Following arethe preliminary issues framedatEx- 16 for my deterrimation: Frecord my findings thereon for the reasons to follows

Issues

St. No.

Findings

Yes

Whether the inquiry cowduated by the management against MeAnil R. Joski is fair and propor ?

Il'yes, whether the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse?

What order ?

As per final order.

NEADONS

Issues nos . 1 & 2:-

12. The second party workman in this case has not led any evidence either documentary or oral. He has passed parshis to that effect at Ex-17. He mainly relied upon the carlier decisions in this matter at various levels . He submitted that the National Industrial Tribunal in Approval proceeding held that the inquiry conductedby the inquiry officer was not fair and proper. According to him the said judgment of National Industrial Tribunal and findings therein are still intact and binding, therefore , according to him , the same point need not be re-considered again by this Tribunal . In short, according te him, this Tribunal should follow the decision given by the NFT inApproval Application No.NTB. $1 of 1996 arising ont ofRof. NTB. I of1990.

14. The Ld. Representative further pointed out that thisorder of single judge was challenged by the second party in Appeal no.1142/2005 before Division Bench of Hon'bleHigh Court . After hearing both the parties, Hon'ble DivisionBench by its order dated 31-3-2010 dismissed the appeal . Ld. Representative of the first party further submitted that against the order of Division Bench, the second party had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition to file appeal bearing no . Civil nos.16982/2010. The Hon'ble Apex Courtdismissed the SLLP asnot pressed with a direction to Central Government to refer the reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as to whether dismissal of the second party is legal and justified. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also given direction to this Tribunal to dispose ofthe matter expeditiously within twelve months from the date of notice to the parties . In short accordingto the Ld . Representative ofthe first party theapproval application was wrongly filedbythem. Hon'ble High Court held that as Air India was not party to the reference no . 1 of 1990. He further pointed out that, Part- award passed by NIT in the said reference specifically excludetheAir India and its employees . Therefore approval to the termination of services ofemployce ofAir India was not necessary. The Ld. Representative therefore rightly submitted that the findings of NIT in the said Approval Application no . 91/1996 are non -extant . He further submitted that there is clear finding ofHon'ble High Court in Writ Petition no . 2671/2002. He further submitted that thesaid order inwrit petition was confirmed by the Division Bench in appeal no. 1142 of2005. The said order has reached to its finality as Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed.

13 As against this, the Ld. Representative of the first party setsmitted that , witile deciding the referenceno. NFBI of 1990, the National Tindastrini Tribunal , Mumbai [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1387

भारत : अगस्त 11 , 2012/20 1934

15. The Ld. Representative ofthe first party further submitted that as approval was not necessary, the decision in such approval application is no decision at all. In support of his argument, he resorted to Apex Court ruling in PandurangV/s . State ofMaharashtra AIR 1987 SC535.

that: Where in the Hon'ble Court on the point observed

"Even a right decision by a wrong ferum is no decision. It is non-existent in the eye of law. And hence nullity. "

16. In the light of above discussion it is clearthat the decision given byNational Industrial Tribunal has become infructuous as Hon'ble High Court held that the approval application was not necessary as Air India was not a party to the earlier Reference no.1 of 1990. In short , the anid decision inApproval Application is not in existence in the eye of law. Therefore the same cannot be looked into or taken into account for the purpose ofdeciding the issue of fairness of inquiry.

17. Though the second party has challenged the fairness and legality of inquiry, he has not pointed out specificallythe illegality, in the inquiry proceeding. Hehas also not led any evidence in that respect . Not even stated on oath howthe inquiry officer hans violated the principles ofnaturaljustice . On the other hand the second partyhas admitted the documents of inquiry proceedings at Ex-19 (Colly) . These documents page nos.1 to 45 cach page thereof bears the signature of the second party workman. From these documents it is revealed that , the inquiry committee explained the charges to the second party workman . The second party workman appointed Mr.Tomichari to defend him in the inquiry proceeding and committee accepted him as the defence counsel . The witnesses ofmanagement were exar nined before the inquiry committee in presence of the second party and his defence Mr. Tomichan has cross examined the witnesses . Opportunitywas also given to the second party to exarmine himself and his witnesses . In this respect the Lid. Representative of the first party also submitted that while inquiry proceeding was in progress , the second party moved an appeal to change the inquiry committe . He also took time as his defence counsel was not available . The inquiry committee has given sufficient time and dateswore given as per the convenience of second party and his defence representative . Second party workman himself cross examined some ofthe witnesses and some.witnesses were cross examined by his defence counsel ..After completion of the inquiry, the second party has raised some objections that, earlier statements of the witnesses were giventothewitnesses for reacting . However for refreshment ofmemory, showing such a statements to the witnesses does not make any effect on the merit of the inquiry proceeding. Itdoes not cause any prejudice to the second party. The inquiry committee submitted its report and findings recorded on the basis of evidence on record. Copy ofthe report was sent to the- scenté party workmen witha show.cause satinc as to why his arrvices should not he teaminated. The sesamik party workman submitted his my anti after considering the inquity report and reply of the workman, the competent authority has terminstall the services of the workman. From the inquity poscastling Ex-19, it is revealothsteach page ofthe inquiry is signed by the workmanaleeg with the concerne and the members ofthe inquiry committee .

18. The second party workmen neither enter witness box nor pointed out how the inquiry committee has violated the principles of natucal justice. He has also not pointed outwhy, how and who vistimined him. Nickas also not pointed out now the findings of the inquiry committee are perverse. Evaninhis pleadings in Statement ofclaim Ex- 6, it is not explained bow the principles ofnatural justice were violated and hausthe findings.ace perverse : It is also not.ouplained in the ploadingsastowhy the inquiry committoc.and others victimized him. The workman has also not ledany evidence in support of his pleadings ille merely relied and referred in the pleadings the various jwigments such as award ofNational Industrial Tribunal . Jusigement and orders passed by Hon'ble High Courtsand ofHon'ble Apex Court . However they are not at all helpful to the workman as discussed hereinabove .

19. Inshort , it is cloanthat the chargesheet was served on the workmen . He replied the same . Charges were explained to him. He fully took part in the proceeding.He appointed defence counsel of his choice. Defence counsel and he himself cross examined the witnesses of management . He was also given an opportunity to examine himself and to call his witnesses. However he has not examined any witness . The copy ofthe report and findings with showcause notice were served.on the second party. After considering his explanation, the competent authority passedtheorder oftermination and it was served upen the workman. It indicates that the workanan was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. There was no violation of principles of natural justice as has been alleged . The findings ofthe inquiry committee are based on the evidence on record. Therefore the findings, also cannot be called perverse. Thus I decide this issue no. 1 in the affirmative and issue no. 2 in the negative . Thus I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(1) The inquiry is held fair and proper.

(ii) The findings ofthe inquiry committee are declared not perverse.

(ⅲ) The parties and their legal representatives to remain present before the Tribunal on 12-4-2012 to argue on the point of punishment or to lead evidence ifany.

Date:29-2-2012

Κ.Β ΚΑΤΑΚΗ, PresidingOfficer [PART 11-SBC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6388

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2012

का.अ .2589. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 5/1986 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/03/85- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2012

S.O. 2589.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes theAward ( Ref. No. 5/1986) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Uttar Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 17-7-2012.

[No. L-41011 /03/85 - IR ( B- 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

...Workman I.D.No.5/1986 Shri Chander Pal & others . Through the General Secretary, ZilaTrade Union Council , C/ o Dena Bank , Moradabad , UttarPradesh

Versus

The Mess Comnnittee , Uttar Railway, Training School , Chandausi , Zila,Moradabad

U.P.

"Whether the action ofthe President , Mess Committee , Uttar Railway Zonal Training School , Chandosi , Muradabad, terminating the services of 25 workmen with effect from 16-8-1984 is justified? Ifyes , to what reliefthe workmen are entitled to ?"

'Whether the service conditions of all the workers of Mess Committee should be in accordance with the service conditions of railway workers ? If yes , to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?'

Whether all the workers of Mess Committee should be on par with industrial workers and given D.A. and bonus . Ifyes , to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

"Whether the President , Mess Committee is justified in compulsory retiring Moti Ram, Safaiwalle, Chokhe Safaiwala and Roop Ram Chapatiman from 31st July, 1984. If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimants pleading that Mess Committee is run in accordance with the provisions of Indian Railway Establishment Manual , on similar grounds as applicable to administration of employees of non- statutory canteen for welfare of railway staff. Railway administration controls management of Mess Committee . Designation of employees ofthe Mess Committee arecook, server, chapattiman , chakki mistri , cleaner, assistant cook and head cook . Nature of their job are Similar to the employees of other statutory and non statutory canteens run by the Indian Railways . Employees of statutory and non statutory canteens are treated as Railway servants in the matter of pay scales , tenure of service , dearness allowance , house rent allowance and other privileges . There were about 80 workmen who used to perform permanent nature of work .

....Managements

AWARD

Moti Ram , Chokhey and Roop Ram were compulsorily retired from service on 31-7-1984 . Services of 25 claimants were dispensed with by the Mess Committee on 16-8-1984 . A charter ofdemand was served by Northern Railway Zonal Training Centre Mess Karamchari Union, Chandosi ( in short the Union ), which demandswere not conceded. Adispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No. L -41011 (3 )/85 - D- II (B) , NewDelhi dated 30-11-1985 with following terms: -- 3. Mess Committee had treated them as domestic servants . They have been exploited, adopting policy of higher and fire . Privileges applicable to employees of statutory and non statutory canteens were not accorded to them, plead the claimants . The Union served charter of demands dated 24-7-1984 on the Mess Committee . A deaf ear was put to their demands . On the other hand their harassment started. Threats were extended to the office bearers of the union , as well as its members . As anti labour. compaign , the management victimized Chokhey Lal , Roop Ram and Moti Ram by retiring them compulsorily in an illegal andwrongful manner. Secretary of the union served a notice dated 7-8-1984 in that regard . The claimant started agitating against unfair labour practice . The management declared an illegal lock - out . The union protested against the said lock out and in order to frustrate the protest , workers were forced to sign cyclostyled letters of apology . At the same time their services were orally terminated w.e.f. 16-8- 1984. particulars of the persons whose services were so dispensed with are given as below:

6389 [ भाग 11---खण्ड 3 ( ii ) )

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

S.No. Name

Date of Appointment

1. Chander Pal

27-8-1965

20-3-1973

2. Kedar Singh

24-7-1972

3. ChoteyLal

13-11-1973

4. Meera Singh

14-3-1972

5. BankeyLal

6-10-1976

6. Raghuwar Dayal

7. Sukh Pal

1976

10-10-1970

8. Ram Chander

22-5-1972

9. Leela Dhar

20-7-1972

10. Raghuveer

1-6-1962

11 . Naubat Ram

23-12-1956

12 . Shabbirval Hassan

1-1-1962

13. Bhupal Chaudhary

14. Dallu

14-3-1972

26-4-1973

15. Amir Singh

1-4-1964

16. Munna Lal

1-4-1964

17. Virender Singh

12-12-1967

18 . Trimohan Dutt Tiwari

13-12-1966

19. Ram Swrup

not amount to industrial establishment or undertaking . MessCommittee run the mess for the benefit of trainee officers,who reach the Zonal Training Center from various places for training . Trainee officers may have their food even from outside . In order to make effective control on food,mess on cooperative basis is being run under direct control of the Treasurer and the President of the Mess Committee. Messing arrangements are being made by the trainees themselves through the Mess Committee which comprises of representatives of trainees themselves . Principal and Vice - Principal of the Zonal Training Centre are ex-officio President and Vice President of the Mess Committee. The employees of the Mess Committee are neither railway servants the canteen employees . They are likedomestic servants . Expenses of messing are met from allowances of railway trainees which is fixed at Rs . 13 - per day per trainee. Mess Committee was arranging food for thetrainees with meager resources , The Mess Committee ispurely private body which is not getting any aid or subsidy from railways . the claimants are servants of the MessCommittee and they are not at par with the statutory or non statutory canteen employees . Mess Committee is not a canteen. Employees of the Mess Committee cannot be termed as the employees of the railways.

20. Nekesh

22-5-1972

Prasandi

21.

1-5-1979

12-5-1972

22. Jawhar

13-11-1973

23. Banwari

14-12-1966

24. Krishna Behari

11-10-1973

25. Prem Kishore

4.Claimants submitted their apology letter to the MessCommittee but they were not allowed to resumetheir duties . Termination of their services is illegal , which amounts to retrenchment. Provisions of Section 25F ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( in short the Act) were not compliedwith. Neither notice nor wages in lieu thereofand retrenchment compensation was paid to them . Provision of Section 25G of the Act were also not complied with. Nowthe Mess Committee is taking the work, which was being performed by the claimants, from a contractor. The claimants are entitled to their reinstatement in service .

7.RailwayBoard's decision No. E( LWA) 6184/AD/1-6 dated 21-7-1965 exempts railway schools and railway training schools from the provisions of the Act pleads the MessCommittee. The fact that railways contribute towards the capital investment viz crockery, cutlery, gas, building etc. , will not necessarily render mess as railway establishment . Employees of the Mess Committee are appointed by its President and not by the Principal ofthe Zonal Training Center. Employees ofthe Mess Committee cannot claim applicability of service rules which are applicableto railway employees . Shri Chokhey, Roop Chand and Moti Ram attained the age of 58 years , hence they were retired. They were not keeping good health and unable torender proper and requisite services to the trainees .Other claimants mis-conducted themselves and action taken by. theMess Committee wasjustified. Since claimants deprived trainees from food, there was no option for the Mess Committee but to terminate their services . It has been claimed that termination of their services was legal and justified. Since Mess Committee was not an industry, there was no obligation on it to comply with the provisions of theAct. Engagement of a contractor to supply food to the trainees is not a matter of dispute. A claim has been made that claimants are not entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. Their claim statement being devoid of merits, maybe discarded.

5. It has been projected that the claimants were industrial workers and as such entitled for dearness allowance and bonus as applicable to railway establishment . Compulsory retirement of Moti Ram , Chokhey andRoop Ram is also illegal . The claimants have not been able to secure alternative jobs despite their best efforts. It has been prayed that reference order should be answered in their favour, by reinstating the claimants in service and granting benefits of D.A and bonus , besides applicability of service conditions as applicable to railway employees.

6. Claim was demurred by the Mess Committee pleading that it is not an industry. Running of mess does

8. Shri Chander Pal was exmined on behalf ofthe claimants to substantiate their claim. Shri Manmohan Mal Singhvi testified facts on behalf of the Mess Committee. No other witness was examined on behalf of either of the parties.

6390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

9. An award was passed by the Tribunal on 30-9-1993declaring therein that claimants do not become railway employeesby any stretch of imagination , since their appointment and conditions were governed wholly and solelybytheMess Committee or the President ofthe Mess Committee . For sake of convenience , the observations made by the Tribunal are re-produced thus:-

"Theyhave never been recruited RailwayBoard in accordance with Railway Board Decision . Besides in accordancewiththejudgment of the Hon'ble Judge ( DB) of the Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad, delivered on 12-5-1987 at Hyderabad, it clearly indicates that no funds are contributed or given by the railway administration for running the mess . The fact is that the railway contributed towards capital investment, cutlery, will not necessarily render the mess as railway establishment. The conditions and terms of service and other rules and regulations governing the service conditions ofmess domestic servants of Zonal Training SchoolMess Committee are approved by the managing Committee where in representative of the Managing Committee are trainees only. The conditions of the employment, service are governed purely by these rules. It has given an affidavit and established fact that appointment ofthe Mess Committee servant is notmade by the railwaybut only by the President Zonal Training School Mess Committee and that none of the rules governing railwayemployment are applicable to the mess domestic servants. The messdomestic servants posts arenot createdby the railway nor these are being abolished by the railway. The conditions of service ofthe post are governed or regulated by the rules framed by the General Body of the Mess Committee. The duties of the Mess Committee servants are only for the benefit of the trainees in theirprivate capacity. Salaries are not paid out ofthe revenue of railway. The appointment and conditions of service of the mess domestic servants are governed by theMess Committee only.

"As a result of my discussion above , I am of the opinion that the act of the management is fully justified and theworkmen are not entitled to any relief. Parties are left tobear their own costs" .

10.When questioned byway ofwrit petition before HighCourt ofDelhi the aforesaid award was re - affirmed by the single Judge vide his order dated 2-9-2006 . The High Court ruled that the Mess was not an industry. It could be expedient to extract the findings of the single judge, which are reproduced thus:-

"7.An organization in order to qualify as an industry must satisfy the triple test laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V/s A. Rajappa 1978 (2 SCC 213 ) viz. (i ) systematic activity (ii) co-operation between employer and employee and

[PART 11-SEC . 3(ii)]

(iii) production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes . It is obvious that the production and distribution of goods and services envisaged by the Supreme Court are thus in which the employer produces or generates for others ; if employer produces or generates goods or services with the help ofan employee by his own consumption then it cannotbe said that the organization or committee is an industry.

8. In the present case Mess Committee had employed members of petitioner to cook food etc. for their own consumption . They had not employed the petitioners toproduce goods for services to satisfy the needs of others.

9. I therefore consider that the tribunal rightly held that the respondent was not an industry and I find no force inthe Writ Petition . Accordingly the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed".

11. In letter patient appeal the Division Bench concluded that in spite of laying down correct principles relating to industry, in our view the Ld . Single Judge had erred in holding that the aforesaid test ( i ) systematic activity, (ii) co-operation between employer and employee, and

(iii) production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes do not apply tothe present case . The Division Bench ruled that it was not a dispute that the members of the petitioner union were employed in the mess to cook and serve food for the trainees . Thus there was definitely a systematic activity of production of food for consumption by the trainees of the Railway Training Center. This obviously involves co- operation between the employer, the mess and the employee i.e. the member of the petition union satisfying 1st and 2nd tests formulated in the judgment ofBangalore Water Supply. Third test relates to production and distribution of goods and services collected to satisfy human wants and wishes. The production of food stuff and distribution thereof obviously satisfies the thirdtest applied in the above judgment . There canbe no other basic human want than hunger. The Division Bench concluded that all the 3 tests laid downby the Bangalore Water Supply case being satisfied , the dismissal ofthe claim and the Writ Petition on the ground of test of " Industry " not having being satisfied . was clearly unsustainable . In view of above findings the letter patient appeal was granted vide judgment dated 15-10-2008.

12. In a special leave petition the Apex Court opted not to interfere with the judgment handed down by the Division Bench . However in its order dated 12-7-2011 the Apex Court left open the question of law and fact including the question whether the petitioner in the petition is an industry to be adjudicated by this tribunal .

13. When matter was so transmitted back to this Tribunal , as detailed above , parties were called upon to advance arguments . Shri B. K. Pal , authorized representative . advanced arguments on behalf of the claimants . Shri Atul [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

6391

Bhardwaj , authorized representative, assisted by Shri AsharHussain and Shri Vikas, Commercial Inspectors, raised submissions on behalf of the Mess Committee . 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 areas follows .

establishment or undertaking means an establishment or an undertaking inwhich any industry is carried on . Since mess isbeing run for benefit of trainees, it is not an industry. Messing arrangements are being done by the trainees themselves through Mess Committee. The Principal and Vice Principal are ex-officio President and Vice-President respectively. Servants of the Mess Committee are neither railway servants nor canteen employees . The entire expenditure of messing are met with from the allowances of traineeswhich is fixed at Rs. 20- per trainee per day to be deducted fromtheir allowances . With this meager resource theMess Committee was arranging meals for the trainees. Increase in wages and other facilities of the claimants were made fromtimeto time . Mess Committee is purely a private body and not getting any aid or subsidy from the railways . Claimants are not at par with statutory or non statutory canteen employees . Posts of mess workers are not created by railways . Claimants were governed and regulated by rules framedbytheGoverning Body ofthe Mess Committee,which is being run on cooperative basis by the trainces . During the course of his cross -examination , he concedes that trainees are railway employees . An agricultural farm , attached to the Zonal Training Center, supplies vegetables and cereals to MessCommittee on payment . Disciplinary authority, in respect ofMess Workers , is President of the Mess Committee. Identity cards Ex .W- 33 and W-34 were issuedby the Mess Committee.

16. When facts unfolded by Shri Chander Pal and Shri Manmohan Mal Singhvi are appreciated it came to light that bothofthem concede that the claimants were appointed by theMessCommittee and their wages were being paid, by an office bearer ofthe Mess Committee . It is also not a matter of dispute that the Mess Committee used to prepare eatables for the trainee officers , undergoing training in the training Center. The canteen being run by the Mess Committee was not open for generał public . It was for use and benefits of the hostellers, trainees , officers and other staff of the training Center. One ofthe prime question, which needs adjudication iswhether Mess Committee is a non statutory recognized canteen . As laid by the Apex Court in MMR Khan ( 1990 Suppl . SSC 191 ) Railway Establishment Canteens fall into three categories namely:--

(i) Statutory Canteens which are required to be provided compulsorily in view of the provisions of section 46ofthe FactoriesAct, 1948 , where the number ofemployces employed in an industrial establishment exceed 250.

14. Shri Chander Pal swears in his affidavit Ex.WWI / A, tendered as evidence , that he was in regular employment ofMess Committee as Head Cook since1963. He has been a member ofthe Mess Canteen Karamchari Union , Chandosi , which union has espoused the present dispute. The Mess Committee has refused to take him and others on duty w.e.f. 25-9-1984 . Shri Moti Ram , Chokhey and Roop Ram were compulsorily retired in an illegal manner w.e.f. 31-7-1984 . The Mess Committee is an industry, since it is involved in systematic activity carried on by cooperation between the Mess Committee and its employee for production , supply and distribution of food, to meet requirements of railway students , trainees , officials and other employees . The claimants were appointed in various capacities by the Pricipal of the Training Center , who happens to be an employee of railways . The Principal of the Training Center is their administrative and disciplinary authorty. The claimants were issued memos and charge- sheet froin time to time by the Principal of the Training Center. The Mess Committee was engaged in operations which were directly connected with main activities of railways. Claimantswere being paid by the Mess Committee and due supervision and control was exercised over them by the Principal of the Training Center. They cannotbe compared todomestic servants. Claimants marked attendance in the duty register and carried out work assigned to them in terms oftheir appointment letters. Work performed by them was being checked by the official's ofthe Training Center including its Principal . The mess is not a voluntary organization. It is not being run by the trainees , but by and under the authority of the Training Centre . They raiseddemands on the Mess Committee and organized demonstration, relay hunger strikes and strike from 8-8-1984 till 13-8-1984 . Against this peaceful agitation the management sealed the mess rooms , kitchens , store room as well as dining hall . They were not allowed tojoin their duties .A few of them were forced to sign an undertaking and thereafter were allowed to resume duty. Police forcewas called to terrorize them on 28-8-1984 and notice was displayed containing false facts . Their services were terminated on 16-8-1984. Services ofa few ofthe claimants wereterminated on 25-9-1984 . During the course of cross examination, he concedes that Mess Warden used to pay theirwages , who was office bearer of the Mess Committee.

(ii) Non - Statutory Recognized Canteens are run in an establishment, which mayor may not be governed by the FactoriesActbut admittedly employ 250 or less than 250 but more than 100 employee. These canteens are established with prior approval and recognition of the Railway Board under Railway Establishment Manual , and

15. Shri Manmohan Mal Singhwi swears in his affidavit dated 19-1-1990 , tendered as evidence , that railway schools and railway training institutions are exempt from the provisions of the Act, vide Railway Board letter No.EL.W(6580 )/AD/ 1-6 dated 21-7-1965 . Industrial 6392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

(iii) Non - Statutory Non Recognized Canteens are runby an establishment which employ 100 or less than 100 employees and are established without prior approval or the recognition of the Railway Board.

17. In order to consider whether Mess Committee is a statutory canteen , it is expedient to have a glance onthe provisions ofSection 46 ofthe Factories Act , 1948 , which provisions are extracted thus: -

"46. Canteens -

(1 ) The State Government may make rules requiring that in any specified factory wherein more than two hundred and fifty workers are ordinarily employed , a canteen or canteens shallbe provided and maintained by the occupier for the use of the workers .

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for--

(a) the date bywhich such canteen shall be provided;

(b)the standards in respect of construction , accommodation , furniture and other equipment of the canteen;

(d)theconstitution of a managing committee for the canteen and representation of the workers in the management of the canteen;

(dd) the items of expenditure in the running of the canteenwhich are not to be taken into account in fixing the cost offoodstuffs and which shall be borne by the employer ;

(e) the delegation to the Chief Inspector, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, of the power to make rules under clause(c).

18.Asenactedby the provisions of Section 46 ofthe Factories Act , a statutory obligation is cast on the occupier ofa specified factory to provide for a canteen , when there aremore than 250 workers employed in the factory. The statutory obligation cast on the occupier of factory lays emphasis on constitution ofa managing committee for the canteen and representation of the workers in its management , which fact makes it clear that while fixing charges for the food stuff a care has to be taken that generally canteen should be run on no profit basis . The canteen, provided under statutory obligation , shall be part and parcel of the main establishment and employees of such statutory canteen shall be employees of the factory. Para 2829 ofchapter XXVIII ofthe Railway Establishment Manual also imposes statutory obligation on railway administration to set up canteens in the establishments , whichare covered by the Factories Act and employ more than 250 persons .

19. Whether the Training Centre, where mess was being run by the Mess Committee can be declared as

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

factory? For answer to the above proposition , the definition of word " factory " is to be taken into account . Word "factory" has been defined in clause ( m ) of Section 2 of the FactoriesAct, as follows: -

(m) " factory " means any premises including the precincts thereof

(i) whereon ten or more workers are working , or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months , and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power , or is ordinarily sq carried on, or

(ii )whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months , and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on,-

butdoes not include a mine subject to the operation of [ the Mines Act , 1952 (35 of 1952 ) ] , or a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces ofthe Union , railway running shed or a hotel , restaurant or eating place.

(Explanation 1.- For computing the number of workers for the purposes of this clause all the workers in different groups and relays in a day shall be taken into account; )

(Explanation II .- For the purposes of this clause, the mere fact that an Electronic Data Processing Unit or a Computer Unit is installed in any premises or part thereof, shall not be construed to make it a factory if no manufacturing process is being carried on in such premises orpart thereof; )

20.In order to declare any establishment as a factory, apart from number of workmen as mentioned in the definiton itisa pre- condition to establish that in such premises or in any part thereof a manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of power or otherwise. Consequently, definition of words " manufacturing process" also gains importance for declaring any establishment as a factory. Manufacturing process has been defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of Factories Act thus:-

(k) "manufacturing process " means any process for- ( i ) making , altering , repairing , ornamenting , finishing, packing , oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up , demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article orsubstance with a view to its use , sale , transport ,delivery ordisposal , or

( ii ) pumping oil , water, sewage or any other substance ; or

power; or ( iii) generating, transforming or transmitting

(iv) composing types for printing , printingby letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding; or [ भाग II---खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

6393

(v) constructing, reconstructing , repairing , refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels ; or

(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold

storage;

21. In order to show that the Training Centre is a factory, it is incumbent upon the claimants to establish that manufacturing process was going on at the said Training Center, and the said process falls within the ambit ofthedefinition detailed above . The manufacturing process should be connected with the manufacture or production of excisable goods . A process which has nothing to do with the manufacture or production of excisable goods would not bring that establishment within the ambit of a factory. Admittedly the employees of the railway establishment were sent for training to the Training Center. No manufacturing process was going on at the Training Center. The claimants have not been able to project that any manufacturing process or production of excisable goodswas going on at the Training Center. Hence , it cannot be said that Training Center was a factory, within the meaning of clause ( m) ofSection 2 of the Factories Act . In such a situation provision of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 would not apply to the Training Center. It cannot be said that there was a statutory obligation on the railway administration to provide for a canteen at the Training Center, in consonance with the provis Section 46 of the FactoriesAct 1948 .

22. Whether the Mess Committee was a Non Statutory Recognized Canteen ? For an answer it is expedientto know as to how Non Statutory Canteens are recognized by the railways . The Apex Court in M.M.R. Khan(supra) considered paragraphs 2830, 2831 and 2833 of the Railway Establishment Manual and recorded its conclusion as follows:

in the canteen, recurring and non -recurring expenditure etc. are regulated . The only material difference between the statutory canteen and non - statutory recognized canteen is that while one is obligatory under the said Act the other is not . However, there is no difference in the management of the two types of canteen as is evident from the provisions of paragraphs 2832 and 2833 which respectively provide for their management . Regarding the incidence of cost to be borne by the Railways again , as far as theManual is concerned , the only additional obligation cast on the Administration, in the case of the statutory canteens is that in addition to the facilities given to the non -statutory canteens, the Administration has also to meet the statutory obligations in respect of the expenditure for providing and maintaining canteens arising from the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. A perusal of the relevant provisions shows that the said Act and the rules made thereunder do not make demands on the Administration for more expenditure than what is provided. for in the Railway Manual for the non - statutory canteens . We have already referred to the service conditions applicable to the employees of the statutory and non- statutory canteens . Besides , while discussing the employees in statutory canteens we have pointed out the relevant provisions of the Administrative Instructions on Department Canteens in Government Officers and Govt . Industrial Establishments . These Instructions are applicable to both statutory and non- statutory recognized canteens . The Instructions do not make any difference between the two so far as their applicability is concerned . In fact these Instructions require that the canteens run by engaging solely part -time daily- wage workers may be converted to departmental canteens ( para 1.3 ) . Hence we do not see why any distinction be made between the employees of the two types of canteens so far as their service conditions are concerned. For this very reason, the two notifications ofDecember 11 , 1979 and December 23 , 1980 ( supra) should also be equally applicable to the employees of these canteens . Ifthis is so, then these employees would also be entitled to be treated as railway servants . A classification madebetween the employees of the two types of canteens would be unreasonable and will have no rational nexus with the purpose of the classification. Surely it cannot be argued that the employees who otherwise do the same work and work under the same conditions and under a similar management have to be treated differently merely because the canteen happens to be run at an establishment which employ 250 or less than 250 members of the staff. The smaller strength of the staff may justify a smaller number of the canteen workers to serve them . But that does not make any difference to the working conditions of such workers" .

In the first instance , there is hardly any difference between the statutory inteens and non- statutory recognized canteens . The statutory canteens are established wherever the railway establishments employ more than 250 persons as is mandatory under the provisions ofSection 46 of the Act while non - statutory canteens are required to be established under paragraph 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual where the strength of the staff is 100 or more . In terms of the said paragraph , the non- statutory canteens to be recognized have to be approved of by the Railway Board in advance . Every railway administration seeking to set up such canteens is required to approach the Railway Board for their prior approval/ recognition indicating financial implications involved duly vettedby the Financial Advisor and ChiefAccounts Officer ofthe Railway concerned . It is only when the approval is accorded by the Railway Board that the canteen is treated as a recognized non - statutory canteen. By the sanction, the details in regard to the number of staff to be employed

23. For setting up of non - statutory canteen it is expedient that approval is to be obtained from Railway

2817 G1 /2012-14 [ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 6394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

Board, Hence, no evidence is there on the record to show that the mess is a non -statutory recognized canteen . Consequently, I have no hesitation in concluding that mess, being run at the Training Centre . Chandosi . is a non- statutory non - recognized canteen .

26. Whether employees of a non - statutory non recognized canteen can claim themselves to be employees ofthe railways?The Apex Court in MMR Khan ( supra ) has ruled that employees of non - statutory non - recognized canteen are not entitled to the status of railway servant . The observations made by the court is reproduced thus:

Board in advance. When soekran approval is accordedby theRailway Beanі, а потымимогу recognized canteen can be set ap. Therefore itirmontapon the claimants to project that before swing the moss/canteen at the Training Cemre , Rufway Board was approached for prior approval , indloating financiu imptiocions involvedduly vettedby the Financial Advisor andChiefAccountsOfficer. It is also to breaublished dur approval was accordedby the Railway Boardau sutaprinesu/catver at the Training Comre.No suthi evidence harbour brought over the record. Thus it has not boor combfished thar the mess/canteen ron at the Training Centre, Chanderi ) was a non- statutory recognized canteuni

24. Rodonty polley for setting up of a non- statutory recognized sanean has undergone a change. Lotter No. E(W) 1996ACL- 03F AD 19-12-2001 presents polleywhich isto be followed by the RailwayAdministration for setting up of nem motery recognized canteen, contents of the said Tower are reproducedherein below: -

"For some time Boardhadande consideration a few proposals regarding rougrinondopwamentalization of another recognised canteen femertoning in railway establishments whiemdu Rochavo Boud's approval though the same was nedomander Chapter (XXH) Section ' F ' ofIndian Railway Кланный Enablishment (Volume II ) for opening canteens. Mous of savis canteens are learnt to be operating on coopodobnie, registered as Cooperative Sociutios , Nattway adintatadonare also providing various amenities to such sartoons viz aceommodation , electricity, water etc. , since the censuseful for the staff.

(ii) In the changed sweats the railway is now faced with cutting down of non plun expenditure, specially by way of restrictiing ratiway mat power, has been in the major thrust area in the railways plans for the future.

(iii) In view of the changed priorities the Railway Board is deciding not to deprenentalize unrecognized cartoons int future of to open new departmental canteens .

"The difference between the non - statutory recognised and non- statutory non - recognised canteen is that these canteens are not started with the approval ofthe Railway Board as required under paragraph 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual . Though , they are started inthe premises belonging to the Railways they are so started with the permission of the local officers . They are not required to be managed either as per the provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual or the Administrative Instructions (supra). There is no obligation on the Railway Administration to provide them with any facilities including the furniture, utensils , electricity and water. These canteens are further not entitled to nor are they given any subsidies or loans . They are run by private contractors and there is no continuity either of the contractors or the workers engaged by them. More often than not the workers go out with the contractors . There is further no obligation cast even on the local officers to supervise the working ofthese canteens . No rules whatsoever are applicable to the recruitment of the workers and their service conditions . The canteens are run more or less on ad-hoc basis , the RailwayAdministration having no control on their working neither is there a record of these canteens or of the contractors who run them who keep on changing , much less of the workers engaged in these can- teens . In the circumstances we are ofthe view that the workers engaged inthese canteens are not entitled to claim the status of the railway servants " .

Therefore no continent should be entered into in this regard. At the same time Zonal Railway etc. should Lake adequate care to cristire that their involvement in the unrecognized cartoons is restriced to bear minimum expenditure by providing only the essential inescapable antenities ifalready being provided

(iv) It is ones agahr reiterated that proposals for setting up of any type of enmens should be referred to RailwayBoard for their sporitio approval ."

27. Whether the claimants could project that despite being a non -statutory non- recognized canteen , the mess was run by the railways ? On that count Shri Chander Pal and Shri Ram Kumar unfold that Principal and Vice Principal ofthe Training Center were the President and Vice President respectively ofthe Mess Committee . They further highlight that the President of the Mess Committee was empowered tonominate Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer ofthe Mess Committee. It has been argued on their behalf that theMess Committee was being run by the Principal ofthe Training Centre , hence it was an instrumentality of the railways . Their thrust of contention has been that the mess , being run at the Training Centre, was not a voluntary organization . When facts unfolded by these two witnesses 25. Thus, it revident that for departmentalization ofnon statutory eбиться прототиблоvognkion of Railway Board is & mout . Railways have decided not to departmentalite any non- attery canteen. The claimants nowhere project that mene being ron the at the Training Center, Chandesi , was ever recognized by the Railway [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6395

भारत का राजपत्र 11201220 , 1934

recognized canteen is not as instrumentality of railways . Ermployees of themess , whosantha claimants herein.compot claim a status of mileny employers. Sincethe chimantsare mat railway employees , question as to the legality and justifiability ofaction of terminating their services by the President of the Mens Committee cannot be addameed to for adjudication by this Tribunal, for wont of jurisdiction... This Tribunal cannot entertain the claim put forwenkby the claimants . Their cleim deserves dismissal .. The same is, accordingly, dismissed and an award is passed in favour of theMess Committee and against the claimant. It be sept.to the appropriate Government for publication . Dnted 4-5-2012

DARK.YADAW / Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 18 पुरुवई: 2012 are appreciated, it came to light that mess was being run toprovide proper meals to the bostlers , trainees , officers , and staff ofthe Training Contre, who used to contribute tomessing charges out of their daily allowanee . Railways does not pay any money either as subsidy or as loan to the:Mess Committee . Undoubtedly, premises , furniture , utensils, electricity and water were being provided to the Mess Committee by the Training Centre . It was so done to facilitate the hostlers , Trainees , officers and staff of theTraining Centre , as a welfare measure. That fact would not make the mess as an establishment being run by the railways. The fact that the principal and Vice Principal of the Training Centre are ex- officio , President and Vice President of the Mess Committee would nat.clothe it with a status of railway establishment . For being an establishment ofrailways , prior approval ofthe Railway Board istobe obtained . Principal or Vice Principal ofthe Training Centre has no power to start an establishment on behalf of railways . Since the mess was started as a welfaremeasure to facilitatehostiors , trainees , officers and other staffofthe Training Centre, it would not fall within theambit ofa non-statutory recognized canteen.

पहला, 2500 , मेरियम , 1947 ( 1947 14) की 17 के अनुकर उग्ररके आजको संमद मियों के बीत, अनुबंध में सिलिटरेशको सरकार औद्योगिक मेरित करती है, जो 17-7-2012 को आप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/34/415 आई आर ( श्री-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह खेर अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2012

S.O. 2590.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14. of 1947), the Gontral Government bereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 26/1989) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Lebeur Court, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Jadustrial Disputebetween the employers in relation to the management of Uttar Railway and their workman , received by the CentralGovernment on 17-7-2012 .

[No. L-41011 /34/86+ IR (B- 1 ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 28.TheApex Court in Ram Singh Thakar [JT2011 (8) SC 502 ] has held that a moss run by traince officers in railway staffcollege would not become an instrumentality ofthe railways. Employees of such a mess have no right for their regularization in the services of railways . Same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in MMR. Khan (supra) .Applying above ratio of law, it cannot be saidthat mere factum ofPrincipal and Vice Principal , acting asex-officio President and Vice President of the Mess Committee would convert the mess into an establishment ofrailways. As held above, no evidence is there over the record that approval ofthe Railway Board was obtained in advance to run the mess. Till date no steps were taken for gettingapproval/recognition of the RailwayBeard forthat mess. Consequently, it is clear that the mess, being run at the Training Centre , is not an instrumentality of the railways.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DRIR.K. YADAV, PRESIDINGOFIGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TURIINAL NOA , KARKARDOOMA GOURES COMPLEX,

LD No0611909

The Secretary,

Uttar Railway Zonal Training School

Mess Contcon Keramcheri Union.

Chendeusi , Distt . Moradabad.

UttarPradesh .

....Workman

Veraus

ThePrincipal/President,

MassCommittee,

29. When Mess Committee is an organization different than railways , in that situation , question as to whether theMess Committee is an industryver net, would haveno significance.Assuming, for the sale ofarguments, that the Mess Committee is an industry, even then the claimants will not get any accolade. IfMess Committee is heldtobean industry, the case would not take a different turn for adjudication . In that eventuality the appropriate Government for making a reference of the dispute for adjudication would be the State Government and not the CentralGovernment. This Tribunal would lack jurisdiction to entertain thedispute for adjudication . Resultantly, the question astowhether the Mess Committee is an industry or not, is not addressed to.

Zonal Training School ,

NorthernRailway. Chandansi ,

Distt. Moradabad, U.P.

...Managements 30. In view of the reasons detailed above , it is concluded that the mess being a non- statutory non- 6396

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

AWARD

hence those activities fall within the ambit of " industry" as defined by theAct . Being employees of the Mess Committee , they fall within the ambit of definition of "workmen " as contained in clause ( s) of section 2 of the Act . They cannot be equated to domestic servants , since they have marked their attendance in duty register and worked under supervision of railway officials . Mess , being run at the Training Center, is not a voluntary organization.

Northern Railway runs Zonal Training Center (hereinafter referred to as the Training Center) at Chandousi , District Moradabad, U.P. where trainee officers' undergo various courses oftraining for different durations . The said Training Center provides , hostel facilities for the trainees , including a mess . The mess , so started in the Training Center, caterers to the need and requirements of hostelers , trainees , officers and other staff of the Training Center. Mess is being run by Mess Committee , consisting of President , Vice President , Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Members . The Principal of the Training Centre is ex-officio President, while Vice Principal is ex-officio Vice President of the Mess Committee, Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer of the Mess Committee are nominated by the President of the Mess Committee from amongst the instructors of the Training Center. The Professors posted at the Training Center, are ex -officio executive members ofthe Mess Committee . Mess Monitors are elected from amongst the trainees , who attend General Body Meetings and menu meetings of the Mess Committee . They carry out inspection of food and monitor necessary checks in messing regarding quality, preparation and cleanliness of food stuff and mess premises . Mess workers are appointed to prepare food and serve it to the hostelers, trainees , officers and staff of the Training Center . Claimants, who are 38 in number as per annexure appended to the reference order, were working as mess workers. Show cause notice dated 25-9-1984 was served upon them and their services were dispensed with by the Mess Committee. They raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kanpur, for adjudication , vide order No. L-41011 /34/85 -D2 (B) New Delhi dtd.22-7-1988, with the following terms .

" क्या मैस समिति क्षेत्रीय प्रशिक्षण विद्यालय उत्तर रेलवे, चन्दोसी के अध्यक्ष ' ए' में लिखित 38 मैस कर्मचारियों की सेवायें समाप्त करने की कार्यवाही प्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोश के हकदार हैं? "

4.The claimants project that they were members of the RailwayBoardMess Centeen, Karamchari Union , Chandousi , which Union submitted a charter ofdemand dated 24-7-1984 . Since the management refused to meet their demand, they participated in peaceful demonstration on 8th August, 1984, relay hunger strike on 9th and 10th August, 1984 and resorted to action of strike from 13th to 15th August, 1984. There was no violence ofany nature . On the other hand the management sealed and locked the mess rooms, kitchen and store etc. in the morning of 13th August, 1984. Their services were terminatedby the management thereafter. When they reported for their duties , they were not allowed to resume the same . The management took written apology from a few of the claimants and allowed them to resume their duties . The written apology was in the form of an undertaking to the effect that in future they will not resort to such action . The text ofthe written apology make it clear that such act on the part of the management was malafide, illegal , unfair and unjustified. The aforesaid union raised an industrial dispute seeking a declaration to the effect that- lock- out and termination of their services , besides compulsory retrenchment of five claimants , were illegal and unjustified. During the pendency ofthe said dispute , the claimants made a joint protest against the act of obtaining written apology bythe management . On 26-9-1984 the management assured inwriting before the Conciliation Officer, Dheradun , that normal working conditions would be restored and the claimants would be taken on duty. On 27-9-1984 a show- causenotice was served upon them. They madejoint protest agaist the said show -case notice . Their services were terminated by the management , thereafter. Neither one month'snotice nor wages in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation were given to them . Act of terminating their service is malafide , punitive , wrong , illegal, unfair and unjustified. They are not gainfully employed since the date oftermination of their services. They claim that action of termination of their services may be held illegal and they may be reinstated in the services of the management with back wages and consequential benefits .

2.Exercising its powers under section 33B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) the appropriate Government transferred the dispute to this Tribunal , vide order No.L-41011 /34/85 -D-2(B) New Delhi dated nil , which order was received in this Tribunal on 6-4-1985, fordisposal .

5. TheMess Committee demurred the claim pleading that railway schools , railway training schools and such other institutions are not industries within the meaning of clause (J) ofsection 2ofthe Act . According to the Mess Committee, theTraining Center is not an industrial establishment . Mess , being runbythe Mess Committee is for the benefit oftrainees who reach there from various stations to attend training for different durations . They contribute their messing charges 3. Claim statement was on behalf of the claimants pleading that they were canteen employees and railway servants . The Mess Committee carry out systematic activities in co-operation with the workmen concerned for production , supply and distribution of food for trainee railway employees and other railway officials , 6397

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

out ofallowances paid to them by the railways . There is no restriction on a trainee to have his food from outside. However in order to exercise effective control over food mess on cooperative basis is being run under supervision and control ofthe Trainee Officers . The persons employed by the Mess Committee assist in procurement and preparation ofmeals for trainees on no profit no loss basis. The employees of the mess are like domestic servants and cannotbetermed as " workmen" within the meaning ofthe definition provided under the Act . They are neither railway servants nor canteen employees. Entire expenditure of messing, including that of meals of Training Officers, are met from the allowance being paid to the trainee officers. TheMess Committee arranges meal for trainee officers by giving them maximum possible facilities and pay wages to mess workers out of its meager resources , contributed by the trainee officer, out of their daily allowances . The Mess Committee is purely a private body which does not receive any aid or subsidy from the railways . The mess worker, being servants ofthe Mess Committee , are not at par with statutory or non-statutory canteen employees.

6. The Mess Committee projects that the posts of mess workers are neither created by the railways nor their service conditions are regulated by the rules , applicable to the railway employees . The mess workers work for the benefit oftrainees in their private capacity, hence it cannot be said that they work in connection with the affairs ofthe railways . The claimants were engaged to prepare and serve meals to the trainees and not to provide any service to the railways . Their appointment and conditions of service are governed and controlled solely by the Mess Committee . The Mess Committee pleads that these facts pushes them out ofthe arena of definition of "workmen" .

7. TheMess Committee does not dispute in specific words that the claimants participated in peaceful demonstration on 8th August, 1984, relay hunger strike on 9th and 10th August 1984 and resorted to action of strike from 13th to 15th August, 1984. It has been pleaded that on 13th August 1984 the claimants locked the kitchen , store rooms and mess rooms . Since they indulged in indiscipline andmisconduct, their services were dispensed with . It has not at all been disputed that written apology was obtained from few ofthe claimants and they were allowed to resume duties. It is also not a matter of dispute that the claimants were forced to raise an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officers . A claim has been made that being domestic servants claimants are not entitled to relief of re- instatement. Their claim , being devoid of merits , may be dismissed, pleads the Mess Committee.

8. In rejoinder facts pleaded in the claim statement were reiterated.

9.Without recording any evidence in the matter or clubbing it with the Industrial Dispute No.5 / 1986 , a common award was passed by the Tribunal on 30-7-1993 declaring thereinthat claimants never became railway employeesby any stretch of imagination , since their appointment and conditions ofservice were governed wholly and solelyby the Mess Committee or the President of the Mess Committee . For sake of convenience , observations made bythe Tribunal are re- produced thus:-

"The present claim filed by the employees of the MessCommittee is not based on facts and figures. They do not become railway employees by any stretch of imagination . Their mode of recruitment etc. all lead to this conclusion only.

Theyhave never been recruited by Railway Board in accordance with Railway Board Decision. Besides in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Judge (DB) of the Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad, delivered on 12-5-1987 at Hyderabad. It clearly indicates that no funds are contributed or given by the Railway Administration for running the mess . The fact is that the Railway contributed towards capital investment viz. cutlery, crokery, will not necessarily render the Mess as Railway Establishment. The conditions and terms of service and other rules and regulations governing the service conditions of Mess domestic servants of Zonal Training School Mess Committee are approved by the managing committee , wherein representative of the Managing Committee are trainees only. The conditions of the employment service are governed purely by these rules . It is quite evident and established fact that appointment of the Mess Committee servant is not made by the Railway but only by the President of the Zonal Training School Mess Committee and that none of the rules governing railway employment are applicable to the mess domestic servants . Mess domestic servants posts are not created bythe railway nor these are being abolished by the railway. The conditions of service of the post are governed or regulated by the rules framed by the General Body ofthe Mess Committee . The duties of the Mess Committee servants are only for the benefit of the trainees in their private capacity. Salaries are not paid out ofthe revenue of the Railway. The appointment and conditions of service of the mess domestic servants are governed by Mess Committee only.

"As a result of my discussion above, I am of the opinion that the act of the management is fully justified andthe workmen are not entitled to any relief. Parties are left to bear their own costs".

10. When questioned by way of writ petition before High Court of Delhi , the aforesaid award was re -affirmed by the Single Judge vide his order dated 2-9-2006 . The High Court ruled that the Mess was not an industry. It could be expedient to extract the findings of Single Judge, which are reproduced thus:-

"7-An organization in order to qualify as an industry must satisfy the triple test laid down by the Supreme Court [PART IISEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11,2012/ SHRAVANA20, 1934

6398

in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs.A. Rajappa [ 1978 (2) SCC 213 ] viz. ( i) systematic activity, (ii) co-operation between employer and employee, and (ii) production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes . It is obvious that the production and distribution of goods and services envisaged by the Supreme Court are thus in which the employer produces or generates for others; if employer produces or generates goods or services with the help ofan employee for his own consumption then it cannot be said that the organization or committee is an industry."

8. In the present case Mess Committee had employed members of petitioner to cook food etc. for their own consumption . They had not employed the petitioners to produce goods or services to satisfy the needs of others .

9. I therefore consider that the tribunal rightly held that the respondent was not an industry and I find no foreein theWrit Petition .Accordingly the Writ Petition is herebydismissed."

11. In letter patent appeal the Division Bench concluded that in spite of laying down correct principles relatingto industry, in our view the Id . Single Judge had erred in holding that the aforesaid tests of ( i ) systematic activity, (ii ) co-operation between employer and employee , and (iii ) production and distribution ofgoods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes do not apply to the present case . The Division Bench ruled that itwas not a dispute that the members of the petitioner unionwere employed in the mess to cook and serve food for the trainees . Thus there was definitely a systematic activity of production of food for consumption by the trainees of the Railway Training Center . This obviously involves co-operation between the employer, the mess and the employee i.e. the member ofthe petitioner union satisfying first and second tests formulated in the Judgment ofBangalore Water Supply. Third test relates to production and distribution of goods and services calculatedto satisfy human wants and wishes . The production of food stuff and distribution thereof obviously satisfies the third test applied in the above judgment . There can be no other basic human want than hunger. The Division Bench concluded that all the three tests laid down by the Bangalore Water Supply on being satisfied , the dismissal of the claim and the Writ Petition on the ground of test of " Industry " not having being satisfied, was clearly unsustainable. In view of above findings the letter patent appeal was granted , vide judgment dated 15-10-2008 .

12. In special leave petition, the Apex Court opted not to interfere with the judgment handed down by the Division Bench . However in its order dated 12-7-2011 the Apex Court left open questions oflaw and fact, including the question whether the petitioner in the petition is an industry, to be adjudicated by this Tribunal .

13.When matter was so transmitted back, this Tribunal opted to examine the witnesses of respective parties. Shri Chander Pal and Shri Ram Kumar entered the witness boxonbehalfofthe claimants . Though affidavit ofKamlesh Kumar Mishra was tendered as evidence on behalf of the MessCommittee yet he opted not to face ordeal of cross examination . Thus , facts sworn by Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, inhisaffidavit dated 2-3-2012, cannot be read in evidence since opportunity was not accorded to the claimants to purify facts by ordeal of cross examination. In view of all these facts and circumstances , affidavit of Shri Mishra is hereby discarded from consideration in the case . No other witness was brought forward by any of the parties.

14. Arguments were heard at bar . Shri B.K.Pal , authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimants . Shri Atul Bhardwaj , authorized representative , assisted by Shri Ashar Hussain and Shri Vikas, Commercial Inspectors , raised submissions on behalf ofthe MessCommittee . I have given my careful considerationto the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows .

15. Shri Chander Pal sewers in his affidavit Ex . WW1 / A, tendered as evidence , that he was regular employee of MessCommittee as Head Cook since 1963. He has been a member of the Mess Canteen Karamchari Union , Chandosi , which union has espoused the present dispute . The Mess Committee has refused to take him and others on duty w.e.f. 25-9-1984 . Shri Moti Ram , Chokhey and Roop Ram were compulsorily retired in an illegal manner w.c.f. 31-7-1984 . The Mess Committee is an industry since it is involved in systematic activity, carried on by cooperation between the MessCommittee and its employee for production , supply and distribution of food to meet requirements of railway students , trainees , officials and other employees . The claimants were appointed in various capacities by the Principal , Training Center , who happens to be an employee of railways. The Principal of the Training Center is their administrative and disciplinary authority. The claimants were issued memos and charge - sheets from time to time by the Principal of the Training Center. The Mess Committee was engaged in operations which were directly connected with mainactivities ofrailways . Claimants were being paid by the MessCommittee and due supervision and control were exercised over them by Principal of the Training Center. They cannotbe compared to domestic servants . Claimants marked attendance in duty register and carried out work assigried to them in terms of their appointment letters . Work performed by them was being checked by the officials ofthe Training Center, including its Principal . The mess is not a voluntary organization . It is not being run by the trainees , butby and under the authority of the Training Centre. They 6399 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

(iii) Non - StatutoryNon Recognized Canteens are runbyan establishment which employ 100 or less than 100 employees and are established without prior approval or the recognition of the Railway Board.

18. In order to consider whether Mess Committee is a statutory canteen , it is expedient to have a glance on the provisions ofsection 46 of the FactoriesAct, 1948, which provisions are extracted thus:---

"46. Canteens-

raised demands on the Mess Committee and organized demonstration , relay hunger strikes and strike from 8-8-1984 till 13-8-1984 . Against this peaceful agitation, the management sealed mess rooms, kitchens, store room as well as dinning hall . They were not allowed to join their duties. A few of them were forced to sign an undertaking and thereafter were allowed to resume duty. Police force was called to terrorize them . On 28-8-1984 a notice was displayed containing false facts . Their services were terminated on 16-8-1984. Services ofa few ofthe claimants wereterminated on 25-9-1984. During the course of cross examination he concedes that Mess Warden used to pay their wages , who was an office bearer of the Mess Committee.

(1)The StateGovernment may make rules requiring that in anyspecified factorywherein more than two hundred and fifty workers are ordinarily employed, a canteen or canteens shall be provided and maintained by the occupier for the use ofthe workers.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for-

(a) thedatebywhich such canteen shall be provided;

(b) the standards in respect of construction, accommodation , furniture and other equipment of the canteen;

(c)the foodstuffs to be served therein and the charges which may be made therefor;

(d)the constitution of a managing committee for the canteen and representation of the workers in the management ofthe canteen;

16.Inhisaffidavit Ex . WW2/A, tendered as evidence, Shri Ram Kumar details facsimile facts as mentioned in affidavit Ex . WW1 /A . In his cross examination, he concedes that the Mess Warden used to pay his wages, who was an office bearer ofthe Mess Committee . According to him , Mess Committee used to prepare food items and tea and sell it to trainee employees . However he concedes that an outsider was not allowed to purchase food items from the canteen run bythe Mess Committee. He declares that the canteenrunby the Mess Committee was not open for public. According to him, the Principal ofthe Training Centerused to constitute Mess Committee . He projects that the trainee officers were never appointed in the Mess Committee .

(dd) the items of expenditure in the running ofthe canteenwhich are not to be taken into account in fixing the costoffoodstuffs and which shall be borne by the employer,

(c)thedelegation to the Chief Inspector, subjectto such conditions as may be prescribed, of the power to make rules under clause(c).

17. When facts unfolded by Shri Chander Pal and Ram Kumar are appreciated it came to light that both of them concede that they were appointed by the Mess Committee and their wages were being paid , by an office bearer of the Mess Committee . It is also not a matter of dispute that the Mess Committee used to prepare eatables forthe trainee officers , undergoing training in the Training Center. The cariteen being run by the Mess Committee was not open for general public. It was for use and benefits of the hostelers , trainees , officers and other staff of the Training Center In view of these admitted facts, one ofthe prime question , which needs adjudication is whetherMess Committee is a statutory or non -statutory recognized canteen. For an answer to this proposition , law laid by the Apex Court in M.M.R. Khan [ 1990 ( Suppl .) SSC 191 ] would prove to be a beacon light . As held therein, Railway Establishment Canteens fall into three categories namely:

(i ) Statutory Canteens which are required to be provided compulsorily in view ofthe provisions of section 46 of the Factories Act 1948 , where the number of employees employed in an industrial establishment exceed 250.

19.Asenactedby the provisions ofSection46ofthe FactoriesAct, a statutory obligation is cast on the occupier ofaspecified factory to provide for a canteen , when there are more than 250 workers employed in the factory. The statutory obligation cast on the occupier of factory lays emphasis on constitution of a managing committee for the canteen and representation of the workers in its management, which fact makes it clear that while fixing charges for the food stuff a care has to be taken that generally canteen should be run on no profit basis. The canteen, provided under statutory obligation, shall be part and parcel of the main establishment and employees of such statutory canteen shall be employees of the factory. Para2829 ofChapter XXVIII ofthe Railway Establishment Manual also imposes statutory obligation on railway administration to set up canteens in the establishments, which are coveredby the Factories Act and employ more than250 persons .

20. Whether the Training Centre , where mess wäs being run by the mess committee can be declared as factory? For answer to the above proposition , the definition ofword " factory" is to be taken into account . Word (ii) Non-Statutory Recognied Canteens are run in an establishment, which may not be governed by the Factories Actbut admittedly employ 250 or less than 250 butmore than 100 employees . These canteens are established with prior approval and recognition ofthe Railway Board under Railway Establishment Manual , and 6400

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

other similar process or book binding ; or "factory" has been defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, as follows:-

(v) constructing , reconstructing , repairing , refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; or

(m)" factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof-

(vi ) preserving or storing any article in cold storage;

whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day ofthe preceding twelve months , and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid ofpower, or is ordinarily so carried on , or

(ji) whereon twenty or more workers are working , orwere working on any day of the preceding twelve months , and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include a mine subject to the operation of [ the Mines Act , 1952 (35 of 1952)] , or [ a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the Union , railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place] .

[Explanation I. For computing the number of workers for the purposes ofthis clause all the workers in different groups and relays in a day shall be taken into account; ]

22. In order to show that the Training Centre is a factory, it is incumbent upon the claimants to establish that manufacturing process was going on at the said Training Center, and the said process falls within the ambit of the definition detailed above . The manufacturing process should be connectedwith the manufacture or production of excisable goods . A process which has nothing to do with the manufacture or production of excisable goods would not bring that establishment within the ambit of a factory. Admittedly the employees of the railway establishment were sent for training to the Training Centre . No manufacturing process was going on at the Training Center. The claimants have not been able to project that any manufacturing process or production of excisable goods was going on at the Training Center. Hence, it cannot be said that Training Center was a factory, within the meaning of clause (m) of Section2 ofthe Factories Act . In such a situation provision of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 , would not apply to the Training Center. It cannot be said that there was a statutory obligation on the railway administration to provide for a canteen at the Training Center , in consonance with the provision of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948.

[ Explanation II . For the purposes of this clause , the mere fact that an Electronic Data Processing Unit or a Computer Unit is installed in any premises or part thereof, shall not be construed to make it a factory if no manufacturing process is being carried on in such premises orpart thereof; ]

23. Whether the Mess Committee was a Non Statutory Recognized Canteen? For an answer it is expedient toknow as to how Non -Statutory Canteens are recognized by the railways . The Apex Court in M.M.R. Khan (supra) considered paragraphs 2830 , 2831 and 2833 of the Railway Establishment Manual and recorded its conclusion as follows:

21. In order to declare any establishment as a factory, apart from number of workmen as mentioned in the definition, it is a pre -condition to establish that in such premises or in any part thereof a manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of power or otherwise . Consequently, definition of words "manufacturing process " also gains importance for declaring any establishment as a factory. Manufacturing process has been defined in clause (K) of section 2 of Factories Act thus:-

(k) " manufacturing process " means any process

for-

(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting , finishing, packing, oiling, washing , cleaning, breaking up , demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance withaviewto its use , sale , transport, delivery ordisposal; or

( ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or

(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or

(iv) composing types for printing , printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or

In the first instance , there is hardly any differencebetween the statutory canteens and non -statutory recognized canteens . The statutory canteens are established wherever the railway establishments employ more than 250 persons as is mandatory under the provisions of Section 46 of the Act while non-statutory canteens are required to be established under paragraph 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual where the strength of the staff is 100 or more. In terms of the said paragraph , the non -statutory canteens to be recognized have to be approved of by the Railway Board in advance . Every railway administration seeking to set up such canteens is required to approach the Railway Board for their prior approval/recognition indicating financial implications involved duly vetted by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the Railway concerned. It is only when the approval is accorded by the Railway Board that the canteen is treated as a recognized non -statutory canteen . By the sanction, the details in regard to the number ofstaff to be employed in the canteen, recurring and non - recurring expenditure etc. are regulated. The only material difference between the statutory canteen and non- statutory recognized canteen is that while one is obligatory [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6401

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/श्रावण 20 , 1934

forprior approval, indicating financial implications involved duly vetted by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer. It is alsoto be established that approval was accorded bythe RailwayBoard to set up mess/canteen at the Training Centre. No such evidence has been brought over the record. Thus it has not been established that the mess/canteen run at the Training Centre , Chandosi , was a non - statutory recognized canteen.

25. Recently policy for setting up of a non-statutory recognized canteen has undergone a change. Letter No.E(W) 1996/CL - 1 / 31 dated 19-12-2001 presents policy which is to be followed by the Railway Administration for setting up of non - statutory recognized canteen , contents ofthe said letter are re - proudced here in below:---

" For some time Board had under consideration a few proposals regarding recognition/departmentalization of another recognized canteen functioning railway establishments which do not have Board's approval though the same was necessary under Chapter ( XXII ) Section 'F' of Indian RailwayManual Establishment ( Volume II) for opening canteens . Most of such canteens are learnt to be operating on cooperative basis , registered as Cooperative Societies . Railway administration are also providing various amenities to such canteens viz accommodation, electricity, water etc. , since these canteens are useful for the staff.

(ii) In the changed scenario the railway is now faced with cutting down of non plan expenditure , specially byway ofrestricting railway man power has been in the major thrust area in the railways plans for the future .

(iii) In view ofthe changed priorities the Railway Board is deciding not to departmentalize unrecognized canteens in future or to open new departmental canteens . Therefore no commitment should be entered into in this regard. At the same time Zonal Railwayetc. should take adequate care to ensure that their involvement in the unrecognized canteens isrestricted to bear minimum expenditure by providing only the essential inescapable amenities if already being provided .

(iv) It is once again reiterated that proposals for setting up of any type of canteens should be referred to Railway Board for their specific approval . "

under the said Act the other is not . However, there is no difference in the management ofthe two types of canteen as is evident from the provisions of paragraphs 2832 and 2833 which respectively provide for their management. Regarding the incidence of cost to be borne by the Railways again , as far as the Manual is concerned , the only additional obligation cast on the Administration, in the case of the statutory canteens is that in addition to the facilities given to the non - statutory canteens, the Administration has also to meet the statutory obligations in respect of the expenditure for providing and maintaining canteens arising from the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. A perusal of the relevant provisions shows that the said Act and the rules made thereunder do not make demands on the Administration for more expenditure thanwhat is provided for in the Railway Manual for the non -statutory canteens . We have already referred to the service conditions applicable to the employees of the statutory and non - statutory canteens . Besides , while discussing the employees in statutory canteens we have pointed out the relevant provisions of the Administrative Instructions on Department Canteens in Government Officers and Govt . Industrial Establishments . These Instructions are applicable to both statutory and non- statutory recognized canteens . The Instructions do not make any diffe ce between the two so far as their applicability is concerned. In fact these Instructions require that the canteens run by engaging solely part-timedaily- wageworkers may be converted to departmental canteens (para 1.3) . Hence we do not see why any distinctionbe made between the einployees of the two types of canteens so far as their service conditions are concerned . For this very reason, the two notifications of December 11 , 1979 and December 23 , 1980 ( supra ) should also be equally applicable to the employees of these canteens . Ifthis is so, thenthese employees would also be entitled to be treated as railway servants . A classification made between the employees of the two types of canteens would be unreasonable and will have no rational nexus with the purpose of the classification . Surely it cannot be argued that the employees who otherwise do the same work and work under the same conditions and under a similar management have to be treated differently merely because the canteen happens to be run at an establishment which employ 250 or less than 250 members of the staff. The smaller strength ofthe staff mayjustify a smaller number of the cariteen workers to serve them. But that does not make any difference to the working conditions of such workers".

26. Thus, it is evident that for departmentalization of non statutory canteen approval / recognition of Railway Board is a must. Railways have decided not to departmentalize any non statutory canteen . The claimants nowhere project that the mess, being run at the Training Center, Chandosi , was ever recognized by the Railway Board . Hence, no evidence is there on the record to show that the mess is a non statutory recognized canteen. Consequently, I have no hesitation in concluding that mess , being run at the Training Centre, Chandosi , is a non - statutory non -recognized canteen.

27. Whether employees of a non- statutory non recognized canteen can claim themselves to be employees ofthe railways ? The Apex Court in MMR Khan (supra) has ruled that employees of non - statutory non- recognized canteen are not entitled to the status of railway servant . The observations made by the court is reproduced thus:

24. For setting up of non - statutory canteen it is expedient that approval is to be obtained from Railway Board in advance . When such an approval is accorded bythe Railway Board , a non - statutory recognized canteen can be set up . Therefore , it is incumbent upon the claimants to project that before setting the mess/canteen at the Training Centre, Railway Board was approached

2817 GI/2012-15 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6402

thePrincipal and Vice Principal ofthe Training Centre are ex- officio, President and Vice President ofthe Mess Committee would not clothe it with a status of railway establishment. Forbeing an establishment ofrailways, prior approval of the Railway Board is to be obtained. Principal or Vice Principal oftheTraining Centre has no power to start an establishment onbehalfofrailways . Since the mess was started as a welfare measure to facilitate hostlers, trainees , officers and other staffofthe Training Centre , it would not fall within the ambit ofanon- statutory recognized canteen .

29.TheApex Court in Ram Singh Thakur [ JT 2011 (8) SC502] has held that a mess run by trainee officers in railway staff college would not become an instrumentality of the railways . Employees of such a mess have no right for their regularization in the services of railways . Same view has beenexpressedby the Apex Court in M.M.R. Khan (supra). Applying above ratio of law, it cannot be said that mere factum ofPrincipal and Vice Principal , acting as ex -officio President and Vice President ofthe Mess Committeewould convert the mess in to an establishment of railways . As held above, no evidence is there over the record that approval of the RailwayBoard was obtained in advance to run the mess. Tilldate no steps were taken for getting approval /recognition ofthe RailwayBoard for that mess Consequently, it is clear that the mess,being run at the Training Centre is not an instrumnetality ofthe railways.

"The difference between the non-statutory recognised and non- statutory non- recognised canteen isthat these canteens arenotatedwith the approval of the Railway Board as required under paragraph 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual. Though, they are started in the premises bolonging to the Railways they are so started with the permission ofthelocal officers. They are not required to be managed either as per the provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual or the Administrative Instructions ( supra) . There is no obligation on theRuibway Administrationto providethem with any facilities including the furniture, utensils, electricity andwater. These cantoons are further not entitled to nor are they given any subsidies or loans. They are run by private contractors and there is no continuity either ofthe contractors or theworkers engaged by them, More often than not the workers go out with the contractors. There is further ne obligation cast even on the local officers to supervise the working of these canteens. No rules whatsoever are applicable to the recruitment of the workers and their service conditions. The canteens are now more or lese on ad-hoc basis the Railway Administration Beving no control on their working neither is there arecord ofthese canteens or of the contractors who run then who keep on changing, much less of the workers engaged in these canteens . In the circumstanens we are of the view that the workers engaged in these castooms are not entitled to claim the status of the railway servants".

30.WhenMess Committee is an organization different than railways, in that situation , question as to whether the Mess Committee is an industry or not , would have no significance. Assuming, for the sake of arguments, that the Mess Committee is an industry, even than the claimants will not get any accolade. If Mess Committee is held to be an industry, the case would not take a different turn for adjudication . In that eventuality the appropriate Government formaking a reference ofthe dispute for adjudication would be the StateGovernment and not the Central Government . ThisTribunal would lack jurisdiction to entertain the dispute for adjudication . Resultantly, the question as to whetherthe MessCommittee is an industry or not, is not addressedto.

31. In view ofthe reasons detailed above, it is concluded that the messbeing a non- statutory non - recognized canteen is not an instrumentality of railways. Employees ofthe mess, who are the claimants herein , cannot claim a status ofrailway. employees. Since the claimants are not railway employees , question as to the legality and justifiability of action of terminating their services by the President of the Mess Committee cannot be addressed to for adjudication by this Tribunal, for want of jurisdiction . This Tribunal cannot entertain the claim put forward by the claimants . Their claim deserves dismissal . The same is , accordingly, dismissed and an award is passed in favour of the Mess Committee and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate Government forpublication.

Dated: 4-5-2012

28.Whether the claimants could project that despite being a non-statutory non- recognized canteen, the mess was run by the railways? On that count Shri Chander Pal and Shri Ram Kunter unfold that Principal and Vice Principal ofthe Training Canterwere the President and VicePresident respectively ofthe Mess Committee. They farther highlight that the President oftheMess Committee was empowered to nominate Secretary, Joint Secretary andTreasurer ofthe Moss Committee. It has been argued on their behalf that the Mess Committee was being run bythe Principal ofthe Training Centre, hence it was an instrumentality ofthe railways. Theirthrust ofcontention has been that the mess, being run at the Training Centre , was not a voluntary organization . When facts unfolded by these two witnesses are appreciated, it came to light that messwas being ran to provide proper meals to the Hostlers, trainees, officers, and staff of the Training Centre, who used to contribute to messing charges out oftheir dailyallowance. Railways does not pay anymoney either as subsidy or as loon to the Mess Committee. Undoubtedly premises, furniture, utensils, electricity and water were being provided to the Mess Committee by the Training Centre. It was so done to facilitate the hostlers, trainees, officers and stoff ofthe Training Centre , as a welfare measure. That fact would not make the mess as an establishment being run by the railways. The fact that

Dr. R.K.YADAV, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

6403

भारत का प्रथमत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ वण 20 , 1934

नई दिल्ली , 19 जुलाई , 2012

Muslim, T.No.437 and Indrabhan Tiwari, T.No.439 (whose names wore included in the promotion.order dated 14-6-94) from the revised promotion order dated 21-9-95 is logal and justified. Ifnot, towhat reliefare theworkmen ontitled andwhich date?" का.आ. 2591.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संखापा 218/97) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/303/1996 - आई आर (सी-1 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2591.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 218/97) 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 SECL and their workman, whichwas received bythe Central Government on 19-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/303/1996-IR(C-II )]

2.The case of the Union/ workmen in short is that32 employees including the workmen named in the refoconce order were promoted vide order dated 14-6-94 after the recommendation of the Departmental Prometion Committee( in short DPC) . The said.prometion onderwas kept inabeyance vide order dated 22-6-94 for the reasons best known to the management. It is stated that excopt the workmen named in the reference case other omployees were promoted vide order dated 21-9-95 . These workmen inseferencewere victimized in arbitrary and illegal manner. The promotion orders of these workanen were issued on 14-6-94 after getting approval of sanctioned post . These workmen were found fit for promotion by the DPC. The action of the management ofKotma colliery of Jamuna and Kotma area of SECL in not promoting these workanen is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. It is submitted that the managementbe directed to promote these workanen as por order dated 14-6-94 w.e.f. 1-1-94.

B. M. PATNAIK, SectionOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CG IT/LC/R/218/97

Presiding Officer, Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

TheSecretary, Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation , PostKotma Colliery,

...Workman

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the case . The case of the management , interalia, is that admittedly a promotion order dated 14-6-94 was passed in which the names of the workmen in reference were also included. The said order was stayod by Kotma coillery management . Vide order dated 21/22-6-94. It is stated that there was some defect in the recommendation of the DPC and as such the promtion order was stayed . After removing the defect of the DPC . the employees were promoted vide onder dated 21-9-95.on the basis of availability of posts which was legal and in accordance with rules . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

SubAreaManager,

Kotma R.O of SECL, PostKotma Colliery, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of June 2012

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/303/96- IR(C-11 ) dated 24-7-97 has referredthe following dispute for adjudicationby this tribunal:-.

4.Duringthe course of proceeding ofreference case, the Union through Joint General Secretary ( C ), Rashtriya colliery workers Federation filed an application dated 8-4-2012 stating therein that the workmen in dispute have alreadybeen promoted on the posts claimedby them and there is no dispute in existence . It is submitted that accordingly the case be closed . The management representative, Shri P. Mohanti, Personnel Manager, Konna has also acknowledged the facts ofthe Union. This shows that dispute is resolved between them and now there is no dispute in existence . Accordingly the reference is answered.

5. In the result, no dispute award is passed without any order to costs.

"Whether the action of the management of Kotma R.O of SECL Jamuna and Kotma Area in deleting the names of S/Shri Ramakant , T. No. 507, Κ . Ρ. Shukla, T. No. 1649, R. K. Jain , T.No. 1647 , Mohd.

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer [PART IISEC . 3(ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 11 , 2012 / SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

6404

नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई, 2012

birth as 1-1-1933 and date of first joining as 10-2-67 respectively recorded in the service records of Shri Garib Narayan Sharma, Ex. Pump Operator is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

का.आ. 2592.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 188/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/245/1995- आई आर ( सी- II) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2592.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 188/95 ) 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 SECL and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 19-7-2012 .

[No. L-22012/245/ 1995 - IR(C- II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The case of the workman, in short, is that he was appointed in Surakachar colliery on 19-7-65 where his service record and all statutory record were prepared. He was transferred from Surakachar Colliery to Banki colliery on 20-1-1969. He is literate and had passed Class IVth . It is stated that on the basis of educational qualification and transfer certificate , his date of birth was recorded in the service record and Form B and other statutory records at Surakachar Colliery as 6-11-1938 . It isstated that on 24-6-87 the copy of service excerpt was supplied to him wherein the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 1-1-1933 . He protested that his date of appointment should be 19-7-65 and date of birth should be 6-11-1938. It is . stated that the age determination. committee and apex medical board had not performed their statutory duty and without cogent reason declared the date ofbirth as 1-1-1933 . It is stated that dispute regarding date ofbirth in the coalfields are to be solved according to the statutory procedure known as Implementation Instruction No. 76 ( in short I.I , No.76) . He was a trade Union leader as such the management was annoyed and was revengeful towards the workman . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workman .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 188/95

Presiding Officer: Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri Garib Narayan Sharma,

Ex. Pump Operator, Category VI , SECLBanki Colliery, Gajra Basti,

Workman

Near High School , Post-Banki Mongra, Bilaspur

Deputy General Manager ,

Management

SECL , Banki Colliery, Post Banki Mongra, Distt. Bilaspur

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of June 2012

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L-22012/245/95/IR(C- II ) dated 31-10-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:--

3. The management appeared and filed written statement. The case of the management, inter alia, is that the workman was appointed on 10-2-67 at Surakachar Collieiry. Subsequently it is stated that he was appointed atBanki Colliery on 10-2-67. He had declared his date of birth as 1-1-1933 which was entered in Form B register over which he had signed . The Banki Colliery was owned by National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. ( in short NCDC Ltd) a Govt . of India company. In the service record maintained by the NCDC of the workman , the date of birth was recorded as 1-1-1933 and date of appointment was recorded as 10-2-1967 which was accepted by him by putting his signature on those records . The management issued service excerpt giving all particulars of the workman and invited objection, ifany. The workman raised objection for the first time about his date of birth and date of appointment . His case was referred to the Age Determination Committee ( in short ADC) . The workman was given opportunity to represent his case . The ADC decided the age of the workman and communicated the order dated 25-11-89 that his date of birth was rightly recorded in the office record . The workman again represented his case which was referred to Apex Medical Board. The Apex Medical Board also confirmed the date of birth as correct and communicated vide letter dated 20-11-92. The workman relied upon a so called school "Whether the action of the management of SECL, Banki Colliery, Bilaspur in not changing the date of 6405

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

leaving certificate which appears to be not applicable in view of I.1 . No. 76. It is stated that the alleged certificate was not at all genuine and the same was not produced before the ADC . It is submitted that the action of the management in retiring the workman taking into account his date of birth as 1-1-1933 is legal , proper and justified.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are for adjudication-

1. Whether the date of first joining of the workman recorded in the service record is correct ?

II . Whether the action of the management in not changing the date of birth recorded in service record as1-1-1933 is justified?

III . To what relief the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

According to the workman , he was initially appointed at Surakachar colliery on 19-7-65 whereas the management says that he was appointed on and from 10-2-67 at Surakachar colliery. Subsequently it is stated that at the time of appointment of the workman on 10-2-67 at Banki colliery he had declared his date ofbirth as 1-1-1933 . This shows that there are two cases of the management that on 10-2-67 he was appointed at Surakachar colliery and also at Banki colliery which is humanely not possible . Now let us examine the evidence adduced by the parties . The workınan Shri Garib Narayan Sharma has supported his case in his evidence . He has stated that he was appointed on 19-7-65 at Surakachar colliery of NCDC. He has stated that he had not received any paper at the time of appointment . There is no such case of any party that appointment letter was issued . He has stated in examination - in - chief that his service record was prepared at Surakachar colliery and he worked till 16-1-1969 thereafter he was transferred to Banki colliery. In support of his case , the workman has filed office order dated 17-1-1969 which is marked as Exhibit W/l . This office order dated 17-1-1969 appears to have been issued by the Deputy Superintendent ofcollieries, Surakachar of NCDC whereby the workman Garib Narayan was transferred to Banki colliery. This is filed to show that the first joining ofthe workman was not at Banki colliery. This document shows that he was initially appointed at Surakachar colliery. There is no case of the management that as to when he wasappointed at Surakachar when he was alleged to have beenappointed at Banki colliery on 10-2-67. There is only a case of the workman that he was initially appointed at Surakachar on 19-7-1965. Moreover there is no third story ofthe date of initial appointment of the workman and the same cannot be accepted as has not been pleaded by either of the parties. Thus it is clear that from the office order dated 17-1-1969 ( Exhibit W / 1 ) it is established that he was appointed at Surakachar colliery and from there he was transferred to Banki colliery and Banki collierywas not the place of his first appointment . The only story of initial appointment is on 19-7-1965 at Surakachar colliery of the workman which is acceptable .

6. On the other hand , the management has also adduced evidence . The management witness Shri Surya Prakash Patnaikwas Personnel Manager ofBanki colliery. He has stated at para-22 that he was appointed at Banki and Surakachar Project . He has admitted the office order dated 17-1-1969 which is marked as Exhibit W/l . The said office order shows that the workman was transferred from Surakachar Colliery to Banki Colliery. The evidence ofthis witness clearly shows that the management had no definite case as to whether he was initially appointed at Surakachar or Banki.colliery. His evidence is not reliable on the point of initial appointment.

7.Another management witness Dr. Y. S. Pariharwas working as Chief Medical Officer in SECL . He is not on the point of initial appointment of the workman. The management has filed the original service records but has not filed even a chit of paper to show that he was ever appointed at Surakachar colliery and when . Though these original records are not denied by the workman . The Service Register of the workman shows that he was initially appointed on 10-2-67 at Banki Colliery of NCDC. This Service Register is contradictory to Exhibit W/ 1 whereby the workman was transferred from Surakachar colliery to Banki colliery. This fact clearly shows that this service record is not sufficient to prove that the workman was initially appointed on 10-2-67 at Banki colliery. The management has failed to file any document including Form B of Surakachar Colliery to show the date of appointment of the workman as it is established that he wasinitially worked at Surakachar colliery and from there hewas transferred to Banki colliery. The only definite case ofthe workman is that he was appointed on 19-7-65 at Surakachar colliery is to be acceptable . Thus this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

8. Issue No. II

Another question for determination is as to whether the date of birth of workman is 1-1-1933 or 6-11-1938 ? According to the workman , his date of birth was recorded in the Service record and Form B and other statutory record at Surakachar colliery as 6-11-1938 and he raised dispute when service excerpt was supplied on 24-6-87 whereas according to management, the date of birth recorded in Banki colliery of the then NCDC in statutory service record and Form B is 1-1-1933 . The workman admittedly raised dispute on supply of service excerpt . The ADC thereafter Apex Medical Board decided the same age i.e. 1-1-1933 ofthe workman.

9. Now the evidence adduced by the parties are to be examined in the case . The workman Shri Garib Narayan [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] 6406

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA20 , 1934

the member ofApexMedical Board constituted on 11-9-92 for determination of age of the workman . He has stated that for determination ofage, the workman was examined clinically.Photocopy ofthe report ofthe Board is filed .He has further stated that X-ray of the workman was taken. Eye-and teethwere also examined for preparing the medical report and report was prepared. The photocopy of the Medical report shows that the Apex Medical Board had confirmed the age recorded in Form-B as 1-1-1933. The workman has also admitted in his evidence that he had once appeared before Medical Board. It is clear thatthere is no reason to disbelieve the age determined by the Apex Medical Board as 1-1-1933 when there was a dispute in recording the correct age in the statutory records . I find that there is no other reliable evidence to rebut the evidence oftheApex Medical Expert who had determined the age as 1-1-1933 . Thus this issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

13. Issue No. III

Sharma has stated that his date of birth is 6-11-1938 and the same was recorded in the records of Surakachar colliery at the time of initial appointment . He has also stated that he raised dispute on supply of service excerpt but theMedical Board had told him to produce document and had not medically examined to determine the age. In cross-examination , the has stated that he had not produced any document at the time of initial appointment as it was not demanded. He has further stated that he is Class IVth passandwhen he left the school , he got transfer certificate . The workman has filed a photocopy of the Transfer Certificate . The said certificate shows that it was issued on 5-1-88 whereas he left the school on 31-12-1950 . This shows that this is not the said transfer certificate which was issued in 1950. Moreover the Transfer Certificate is nottenable in view of 1.1.No. 76 as the pass certificate or admit cards issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction prior to the date of employment are only admissible for determining the date ofbirth of any employee of the company. The workman has not filed any document in support of age which was issued by Surakachar colliery at the time of initial appointment.

10. Admittedly the management has not produced anydocument of Surakachar colliery where the workman appears to have been initially appointed and from there he was transferred to Banki colliery . Admittedly the management had invited objection on dispute of date of birth by supplying service excerpts to the workers and the workman Shri Garib Narayan Sharma raised dispute of his age Admittedly his dispute was referred to ADC who after considering the records decided not to change the date ofbirth . Admittedly the workman again raised dispute by filing representation and the same was referred to Apex Medical Board who also confirmed the same date of birth i.e. 1-1-1933 .

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the action of the management in not changing thedate ofbirth recorded in the service record as 1-1-1933 isjustified because the age was also determined by the ADC as well as by the Apex Medical Board. However the management was not justified in coming to the finding that the workman was initially appointed on 10-2-67 at Banki colliery in accordance with the records of the management. Specially from Exhibit W/ 1 office order dated 17-1-1969 it is conclusivelyproved that the workman was also working at Surakachar colliery and from there he was transferred to Banki colliery and the only case of the workman about his joining on 19-7-65 at Surakachar colliery is established. Thus the management is directed to calculate his length of the service for all retirement benefits from 19-7-65 instead of10-2-67 and pass order and pay the differences , if any within two months from the date ofaward. Accordinglythe reference is answered .

14. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2593.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ।4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

11. The management witness Shri Surya Prakash Patnaik has supported the case of the management. He has stated that as per Service Book as well as Form-B register the date of birth of the workman is 1-1-1933 maintained at Banki . colliery and the same was accepted by the workman by putting his signature . It is established that he was initially appointed at Surakachar colliery. Thus it is not an initial document prepared at the time of appointment by the management . He has further stated that on representation his case was referred to the Apex MedicalBoard and the Apex Medical Board confirmed the date ofbirth ofthe workman as 1-1-1933 . This witness has been cross - examined at length but there is nothing to disbelieve this witness . His evidence establishes that the workman raised dispute of his age and his age was determinedbythe Apex Medical Board as 1-1-1933 .

[सं. एल -22012/566/ 1995 आई आर ( सी -11 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी 12. Another Management witness is Dr.-Y. S. Parihar who was Chief Medical Officer in SECL . He was one of 6407

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[भाग II .खण्ड 3(ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2593.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-7-2012 .

"Whether the action of the management of Ib ValleyArea of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Distt. Jharsuguda, Orissa in terminating the services of Sh.Bidyanand Badhai w.e.f. 6-11-84 is lawful and justified? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman concerned isentitled to?"

[No. L-22012/566/1995- IR(C-II) ]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer,

C.GI.T. -cum -Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 19/2001

DateofPassing Award - 5th July, 2012

Between:

TheGeneral Manager,

Po.Brajrajnagar,

IstParty-Management

Ib Valley Area, MCL, Dist. Jharsuguda.

(And)

Theirworkman Sri Bidyanand,

Badhai , Village Baraplli ,

Po. Charpali , Barapali,

2nd Party-Workman.

Dist.Jharsuguda.

APPEARANCES :

M/s. G.K. Satpathy,

Advocate.

... For the 1st Party Management.

For the 2nd Party- Workman.

M/s. S. Hota, Advocate.

AWARD

2.The2nd Party-workman in pursuance ofthe order ofthe reference filed his statement ofclaim alleging that he was an I.T.I. student and was allowed to work under the 1st party-Management as an apprentice on agreement. He completed his apprenticeship in Orient workshop Brajarajnagar Coal Fiekt on 3-6-1984.Having regardtohis good performance he was appointed as Time Rated Category- 1 General Mazdoor by letter No. 21089 dated 9-8-1984.He reported for duty on 14-8-1984 to the Project Officer, BOCM . Even though he was performing his duty honestly, sincerely and efficiently to the entire satisfaction of the authorities the Project Officer hatched a plan to remove him from his service and in furtherance ofhis evil design he concocted a false case of theft against the 2nd Party-workman and lodged an FIR alleging theft of Alternator from Dumper bearing No. 1767, on the basis of which the police registered G..R. Case No. 682/84 under Section 379/411 1.P.C. and arrested him . Latter on he was released on bail . The Project Officer simultaneously informed the higher authorities who without conducting an enquiry terminated his service by letter No. 3398, dated 2-11-1994 on the ground that his performanceand conduct duringprobation period was not satisfactory. But no prior notice was given to him to explain his performance and conduct being unsatisfactory nor he was given any chance to improve his performance and conduct at any timeprior totermination of his services . It is crystal clear that the service ofthe 2nd Party-workman was terminated because of allegation of theft and not on account of unsatisfactory performance and conduct . A stigma was cast on the 2nd Party- workman indirectly because of allegation of theft. So before terminating his services a dutywas cast on the Management to call for his explanation but, nothing of any sort having been done by the Management the termination order becomes illegal and unjustified, particularly when the allegation of theft was found to be false and he was acquitted of the charge by theCourt on 8-9-1992. After waiting for expiry of limitation period of appeal against the order of acquittal he approached the General Manager, IB Valley Area on 5-1-1993 for his reinstatement in service . Having no response, he sent registered letters on 19-5-1994 and . 27-6-1995 . But having failed to get any response from the General Manager he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Rourkela on 28-10-1995 and where-after the matter came upbefore this Tribunal for adjudication . In this way it would be seen that there is no TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management ofMCL and their workman vide their letter No. L- 22012/566/95- IR (C - II ) , dated 26-9-1996 in respect of the matter specified herein below:---

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 6408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

W.W..2 and relied on six documents marked as Ext . - 1 to Ext.-6.

delayonthepart ofthe 2nd Party-workman in seeking his relief. The claim is well within time . It has therefore, been prayedthat the 2nd Party- workman be reinstated in service with full backwages and consequential benefits holding the termination order as illegal and unjustified.

6. The Ist Party- Management examined only one witness named as Shri Samares Bandopadhaya as M.W. -1 and relied on two documents marked as Ext . -A andB.

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. 1

7. From the pleadings of the parties it comes out that the 2nd Party- workman was given appointment as Time Rated Category- 1 General Mazdoor by the 1st Party- Management after successful completion of apprenticeship in Orient workshop, Brajrajnagar Coal Field on 3-6-1984 vide its letter No. 21089 , dated 9-8-1984 and the 2nd Party - workman joined the service on 14-8-1984 . He was placed on probation for a period ofone year and his retention in service was subjected to satisfactory performance , but before completion of one year'sprobation period he was terminated from service on the ground that his performance and conduct during the probation period was not found satisfactory. His appointment letter and termination letter have been filed in the shape of xerox copies and marked as Ext. -A and Ext. -B..

3. The Ist Party - Management in its written statement has stated that the averments made by the 2nd Party-workman in its statement of claim are false hence denied. Ithas been submitted that the 2nd Party-workman was a probationer under the 1st Party - Management for a period of one year under a contract of appointment vide office order/ letter dated 9-8-1984 which was unconditionally acceptedby the 2nd Party- workman . The appointment order clearly stipulates that the retention of the 2nd Party was subject to verification of his character, antecedents and performance , givmg right to the Ist Party- Managernent to terminate his service, if his service is found unsatisfactory. Since his performance was not found satisfactory during the period of probation , his services were terminated w.e.f. 6-11-1984 . It is well within its sight to, judge the suitability of the employee under probation in service. Therefore the question of affording opportunity to explain and improve before termination does not arise at all . The criminal proceeding against the 2nd Party-workman having got no connection the order oftermination, the outcome of the same has got no bearing onthe letter oftermination dated 2-6-1984. Since the claim ofthe2nd Party -workman is hopelessly barred by limitation , the workman is trying to connect the aforesaid criminal case unnecessarily to mislead the Tribunal . The report regarding the alleged theft and the matter of G..R . Case having never been taken note of in the matter of termination ofthe2nd Party- workman the same has got nothing to do with the present case . The reference being filed after lapse ofnearly 10 years and 10 months is not maintainable in the eyeof law.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the following Issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the management of Ib Valley Area of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. , Dist . Jharsuguda , Orissa in terminating the services of Sh. Bidyanand Badhai w.e.f. 6-11-84 is lawful and justified?

2. Ifnot, what reliefthe workman concerned is entitied to?

3. Whether the reference is barred by law of limitation?

5. The 2nd Party- workman Shri Bidyanand Badhai examined himselfas W. W. - I and Shri Srinivas Pradhan as

8. The allegation of the 2nd Party -workman is that the Project Officer , Mr. Bandopadhaya sometimes used to ask him to do his house work . One day he asked him to domarketing for his house , but he politely refused telling that his mother was sick and hospitalized . So he felt annoyed and asked him to go away. 'Some days thereafter he was entangled with a theft case and dismissed from service on the pretext of unsatisfactory performance and conduct. This allegation of the 2nd Party - workman has also been supportedby W. W. - 2 Shri Srinivas Pradhan , who was on security duty as home guard in the quarter of Shri Bandopadhaya at the relevant time. Shri Bandopadhaya has been examined as M. W.- 1 by the 1st Party-Management who has denied the allegations of taking the services of the 2nd Party- workman for his domestic work. He has also denied having any grudge against the 2nd Party- workman for his refusal to do the domestic work . He has stated that " the services of the 2nd Party was terminated during his probation period on the ground that his performance was not satisfactory" . But there was no written complaint against the 2nd Party workman from any quarter relating to his performance being un - satisfactory . He has adınitted in his cross examination that " there was no written complaint from the Supervisor against the 2nd Party that the performance of the2nd Party was not satisfactory " . But he has stated that there was oral complaint from the Supervisor and on 6409

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

how an authority came to a conclusion within a period of three months of probation that the conduct and performance of a workman is unsatisfactory when the whole of the probation period has not expired . The 2nd Party-workman was put to one year's probation and in a quarter of that period his performance and conduct was held unsatisfactory and that also without any written complaint of a Supervisor or a report worth the name.

believing verbal statement of the Supervisor he passed the order of termination and did not insist to give in writing that the performance of the 2nd Party- workman was not satisfactory . The above statement of the management witness does not inspire confidence . How can an officer act upon the verbal statement of the supervising staff regarding one's performance and conduct and terminate one's service when such a person was duly appointed through a written appointment letter and was under ,probation for one year .

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " The Management of the Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. , Madurai and other-Versus - The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Maduari and another " reported in AIR 1964 SC 806 has ruled that " Without anything more an appointment on probation for six months gives the employer no right to terminate the service of an employee before six months had expired except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient reasons in which case even the services of a permanent employee could be terminated . At the end of the six months period the employer can either confirm him or terminate his services , because his service is found unsatisfactory" .

9. The 2nd Party - workman has stated in his statement before the Tribunal that before termination of his services no domestic enquiry was started nor any show cause notice was given to him . He was never asked to improve his performance . On receiving his termination order he went to his officer and the latter asked him to come after disposal of the theft case . In reply to his contention, M.W. - 1 Shri Samresh Bandopadhaya has stated in his cross examination that " I do not remember presently that if I had assured the 2nd Party that his request of reinstatement will be considered after the disposal of the criminal case" . As per assurance of the officer , when the 2nd Party - workrnan was acquitted of the charge of theft by the competent court , he demanded reinstatement. but the 1st Party- Management turned it down . He has filed two petitions Ext . -2 and 3 which were sent to the rnanagement for reinstaternent When his Petitions got no response he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and filed Ext- before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jharsuguda and Ext - 5 before the A.L.C (C) , Rourkela . He has also filed Ext. -6 copy of the judgement passed in G.R. Case No. 682/84 by the Court of S.D.J.M. , Jharsuguda . He has further alleged that he was entangled in false case of theft and to avoid the rigour of law he was terminated simply mentioning in the letter of termination that the removal was on account of performance and conduct being un satisfactory during the probation period. As such his termination order is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed.

12. In another case viz . the management of "Utkal Machinery Ltd. versus Santi Patnaik" ( AIR 1966 SC 1051 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held " where the management having a contractual right to terminate the services ofan employee and the validity ofthe termination is challenged in an industrial adjudication, it would be competent to the Industrial Tribunal to enquire whether the order of termination has been effected in the bona fide exercise of its power , the Industrial Tribunal will not interfere with it, but it is open to the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether the order of termination is mala fide or whether it amounts to victimization of the employee or an unfair labour practice of is so capricious or unreasonable as would lead to the interference that it has been passed for ulterior motives and not in bona fide exercise of the power arising out of the contract . In such a case it is open to the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the order of the management and to afford proper relief to the employee" .

13. Further it was held that " unsatisfactory work may be treated as misconduct and discharge is tantamount to punishment for misconduct. Discharge Discharge without holding proper inquiry into such misconduct is not justified . Absence of evidence with regard to unsatisfactory work, discharge from service is mala fide" .

14. In the present case there is no substantial evidence to hold or even to say that the performance and conduct of the 2nd Party- workman was unsatisfactory. No instance of misconduct has been quoted in the order of termination of service , The 2nd Party- workman was 10. On considering the evidence on record and facts of the case it becomes evidently clear that the order of termination of service of the 2nd Party- workman before completion of one years of probation period was passed on no sufficient ground . The authority concerned should have not acted on the verbal statement of Supervisor regarding the performance and conduct of the workman being unsatisfactory unless he has got some complaint or report in writing and found truth made after enquiry. The concerned Supervisor has also not been examined in evidence on whose verbal statement the concerned authority has acted to terminate the services of the 2nd Party- workman . It is also strange to note that

2817 GI/2012-16 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6410

entangled in theft of an official article i.e. alternator but in that case as per own admission of M. W.-I the 2nd Party- workman was not namad in FIR but later on he was entangled and ultimately acquitted of the charges on being found not guilty of the offence . The trial court also ordered to enter this case as mistake of fact vide its judgement dated 8-9-1992, copy ofwhich has been filed as Ext.-6 by the 2nd Party-workman .As such it cannot be held that the 2nd Party-workman has done any misconduct in service and his performance was not satisfactory while on probation.Even if it is takento be true that his performance and conduct was not satisfactory, the Management should have held domestic enquiry into the facts and found out whether his performance and conduct were unsatisfactory during the probation period. When no such enquiry was held and no notice was issued to the 2nd Party -workman to explain tile matter he cannot be punished for such an alleged charge by termination of his service.

15. In view of the above discussing I am of the opinion that the action of the Management of IB Valley Area ofMCI , Dioi . Jharsuguda, Orissa in terminating the services of Shri Bidyananda Badhai with effect from 6-11-1984 is un- lawful and unjustified as he was illegally terminated without any sufficient cause only due to personal grudge of the concerned Project Officer . This issue is decided against the 1st Party-Management and in favour of the 2nd Party-workrnan.

ISSUE No. 2

18. Here in the present case the 2nd Party-workman was entangled in a false theft case by the 1st Party- Management after few days when he refused to do the domestic work of Mr. Bandopadhaya and thereafter suddenly terminated from service on the pretext of his performance and conduct being unsatisfactoy. It can be certainly deduced from the above facts that he was made a prey for his refusal to do the domestic work . After termination of service he went to his superior officer. He was told to come after disposal of the theft case , to which allegation Shri Bandopadhaya in his evidence has only said that he does not remember that he had assured the 2nd Party that his request for reinstatement will be considered after the disposal of the criminal case . According to the 2nd Party- workman when he was acquitted in the criminal case in September , 1992 he sent two petitions to the 1st Party- Management, one on 5-1-1993 and the other sometimes thereafter. Having no response he approached the Dist . Labour Officer, Jharsuguda through a petition' dated 22-6-1994 and Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Rourkela through a petition dated 2-8-1995 . Thereafter the dispute was referred by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal , Bhubaneswar on 26-6-1996. Thus in my view the 2nd Party- workman has not slept over the matter unreasonably and caused any inordinate delay in seeking the relief. Therefore neither the present reference nor the claim of the 2nd Party- workman can be said to be stale by reason of undue delay and he cannot be denied of his lawful claim.

ISSUE No. 3

16. The Ist Party- Management has taken a plea that the reference is barred by law of limitation . But it is to be pointed out here that there is no limitation period prescribed under any law for seeking relief in the matter of an Industrial Dispute . It has been certainly held in several cases by the superior courts that a stale case filed after several years of accrual of cause of action cannot be allowed, but it is to be seen as to whether the workman had slept over the matter without any sufficient cause for years and then suddenly filed the claim after awakening on some assumed facts .

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Nadungadi , Bank Limited versus K.P. Madhavankutty and others" (2000 LAB- IC-703 has heldthat " law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate government to wercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act . It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled . Power is to beexercised reasonably and in rational manner. dispute which is stale could not be the subject matter of neference under Section ofthe Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stałe would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case" . A 19. Since the terminatioll of the 2nd Party- workman has been held unlawful and unjustified he would have othervise been entitled to be reinstated in service, but the matter is pretty old and relates back to the year 1984, hence it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to reinstate him in service and grant him back wages but certainly the 2nd Party- workman is entitled to appropriate relief in the form of compensation which in my view will be proper and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. I accordingly award him a sum of rupees one lakh to be paid by the 1st Party- Management within three months from the date of publication of the award . In case the amount so awarded is not paid in the above stipulated period the 1st Party-Management shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 % per annum on the awarded sum to the 2nd Party-workman .

20. Reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer 6411

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई , 2012

का.स. 2594.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 267/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-22012/387/1996- आई आर (सी- II) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi, the 19th July, 2012

2. The case of the Union/workman in short is that the worleman Shri Raghu Rai was working on the past of Mechanical Fitter Cat- V in Baigi Project of SECL. Hehada clean service record and ne adverse remark was ever communicated to him . He was eligible for promotion to Mechanical Fitter Cat -VI . The management is saidawkarve constituted Departmental Promotion Committee ( in short DPC) for selection on the post of Mechanical fitter Cat-VI. As per seniority list he was within the zame of consideration for promotion on Cat -VI . It is stated that the workmanwas very well in trade test but whenthe selection list was published, his name was not found place in the list though the junior Shri Phool Das was included in the selection list. It is stated that the worlumen was active member of Trade Union as such he was deprived fromhis legitimate claim of promotion . It is submitted that the management be directed to promote him on the post of Mechanical Finter Cat -VI from the date of his juniors were promotedwith all consequentialbenefits.

S.O. 2594.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 267/97) 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 SECL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 19-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/387/1996-IR (C - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CG IT/LC/R/267/97

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN

VicePresident , M.P.Koyla Shramik Sangh ( CITU ), Surakachar Colliery, PostBanki Mongra ,

...Workman

Distt. Bilaspur ( Chhattisgarh)

Versus

...Management

Sub Area Manager, Balgi Project, Post Balgi Project , Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 28th day of June , 2012

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management, interalia, is that the promotion is given on various grounds such as requirement , availability and sanction of post , eligibility of the candidates, recommendation of DPC, result in trade test and merit-cum- seniority. The workman was initially appointed as General . Mazdoor. Hewas given promotion time to time. Fle was working as Mechanical Fitter Cat-V, vide order 4160 dated 13-12-88. For giving promotion from Mechanical Fitter Cat- VtoCat -V1 , all eligible candidates including the workman were considered by the DPC which was held on 18-5-93 . In this cadrethe promotion on Cat -VI was also based on marit cum-seniority but when the trade test was conducted by the DPC, the workman failed to secure pass mark fixed by the committee for promotion to Mechanical Fitter Cat-VI . As such his name was not recommended by the DPC and was not promoted in Mechanical Fitter Cat -VI . However later his namewas again considered by the DPC for granting promotion and his name was recommended by the DPC . Hewas promoted on the post of Mechanical Fitter Cat-VI we.f. 19-9-02. After prometion , he gave a representation thathis reference is pending before CGIF and thereforehis promotionwas kept in abeyance vide order dated 31-10-02. It is submitted that the action of the management be declared legal and justified for not granting promotion to Mechanical Fitter Cat - VI in the year 1993 .

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No.1 . -22012/387/96- IR( C-II ) dated 22-8/2-9/ 97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

4.On the basis of the pleadings the following issues are for adjudication -

1.Whether the demand of the Union for promoting Shri Raghurai , Mech . Fitter Cat - V to Catvi w.e.f. May 1993 is legal andjustified.

II . To what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?

Whether the demand of the M.P.Koyla Shramik Sangh for promoting Shri Raghurai , Mech . Fitter Cat- V Balgi Project of SECL to the post ofMech. Fitter Cat - VI w.e.f. May, 1993 is legal and justified? If so ,to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date? " 6412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

5.On the pleading of the parties, the following facts are admitted which are not required to be proved-

1. The workman Shri Raghurai was working on the postofMechanical Fitter Cat- V vide order no. 4160 dated 13-12-1988 .

2. He was eligible for promotion to Mechanical Fitter, Cat VI and the management had constituted DPC in the year 1993 for selection on the post of MechanicalFitter Cat -VI .

3. The workman appeared before the DPC which was held on 18-5-93 and gave trade test as required for selection for promotion in Cat -VI .

4. The name of the workman did not find place in the candidates selected for promotion on the post of Mechanical Fitter Cat -VI in 1993 .

5. Shri Phool Das was not selected for promotion in Cat-VI in the year 1993 .

6. However the name of the workman was again considered by the DPC and he was promoted on the postofMechanical Fitter Cat - VI w.e.f. 19-9-02 .

6. Issue No. I

Now the important question is as to whether the workman Shri Raghurai was entitled to be promoted in Mechanical Fitter Cat- VI w.e.f. May 1993 instead of 19-9-02. The Union has examined oral and documentary evidence . The workman Shri Raghurai is examined in the case . He has stated that Shatrughan , Phool Das and Nasib Khan were juniors to him and they had been promoted in 1993 to Cat- VI . He has stated that he doesnot know the rules under which the promotion is done . He has further stated that the promotion was given on the recommendation of DPC and Trade Test was held but he doesnot know as to whether he passed in the said test . He has also stated that the promotion was to be given who passed the Trade Test . He doesnot know that the promotion in Cat - VI is to be given on the basis of merit- cum-seniority. He has further stated that there was no ill will between him and the officer. His evidence clearly shows that he doesnot know the procedure as to how the promotion is to be given from Mechanical Fitter Cat-V to Cat-VI . His evidence shows that the promotion in Cat- VI was to be given on the recommendation of DPC and on passing the Trade Test but he had no knowledge of the result of Trade Test . If is also clear from his evidence that the officer was not prejudiced from the workman at the time of said selection for promotion rather it was fair selection for promotion in Cat-VI .

7. The Union has filed an office order dated 13-12- 1989 which is admitted by the management and is marked as Exhibit W/ 1 . This is filed to show that the workman Shri Raghurai was promoted from Mechanical Fitter Cat- IV to Cat- V on the recommendation of DPC on 13-12-1989 . This is an admitted fact. Thus the evidence of the Union/

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

workman goes to show that there is no evidence that as to why he was not promoted in May 1993 from Mechanical Fitter Cat- V to Cat- VI when the management was not prejudiced to the workman.

8. On the other hand , the management has also examined oral and documentary evidence to establish as to why the workman was not promoted in May 1993 and was subsequently promoted on 19-9-2002 . The management has examined two witnesses . Shri S.R.Sharma isworking as Sub - Area Manager at Balgi Project of SECL. He has stated that the promotions are given as per cadre scheme in view of National Coal Wage Agreement ( in short NCWA) and the promotion from the post of Mechanical Fitter Cat- V to Cat - VI is given on the basis of merit- cum- seniority. The other requirements for promotion in the cadre scheme Annexure VII - 13 of NCWA in the said Category- VI are the recommendation for promotion by the DPC and on passing the Trade Test . He has stated that theworkmanwas not promoted in the year 1993 due to not passing the trade/skill test conducted by the committee in the year 1993. He has further stated that subsequently he was again considered by the DPC and was recommended for promotion to Cat - VI . He was accordingly promoted vide order dated 19-9-2002 . His evidence clearly shows that the essential requirement for promotion is to pass trade test and he failed in the said test in 1993 and was not thus recommended.

9. Another witness Shri K.Mathur is Senior AccountOfficer at Balgi Project in Korba Area . He has also corroborated the evidence of Shri S.R.Sharma . His evidence also shows that the workman did not pass the trade test conducted by the committee and as such his name was not recommended for promotion in Cat - VI . He was also member of DPC . He appears to be a competent witness to say that the workman did not secure the passing mark in the Trade Test . His evidence shows that the management is justified in not promoting him in 1993 to Cat-VI in view of the cadre scheme and its requirements .

10. The management has also adduced doumentary evidence which are admitted by the Union/workman. Exhibit M /l to M/4 is the Service Register of Phoot Das . This is filed to show that he was promoted to Cat- VI vide order dated 30-8-93 . Exhibit M/6 is the office order dated 13-12-98 . This is same order which is also filed by the workman and is marked as Exhibit W/ l . Exhibit M/5 is the cadre scheme of Mechanical Fitter . This is filed to show thatthe mode of promotion from Mechanical Fitter Cat- V to Cat-VI is the DPC and Trade Test. It also shows that the required trade test specification will be decided by the management . Exhibit M/ 7. is the result sheet of the Trade Test of the workman Shri Raghu Rai . This result sheet shows that the minimum qualifying marks was fixed as ten out of twenty marks and Shri Raghu Rai secured only 9 (nine) marks . This clearly shows that he did not qualify in 6413

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11, 2012/श्रावण 20 , 1934

[ भाग II खंण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the Trade Test . This document is admitted by the Union and clearly shows that the management action is legal and justified. Paper No. 15/2 is the Original Result Sheet filed by the management . This is proved by the management witness Shri K.Mathur in his evidence at Para-5 . There is no cross -examination to impeach the credit of the witness . The said result sheet shows that the workman Shri Raghurai failed in the trade test whereas Phool Das was successful in the trade test and as such Phool Das wasrightly recommended for promotion by the DPC .

11. Exhibit M/8 is the office order whereby the workman Shri Raghurai was subsequently promoted vide orderdated 19-9-02 on recommendation ofthe D.P.C. Exhibit M/9 is the representation filed by the workman to the management for keeping his promotion in abeyance in view of the reference pending before CGIT. Exhibit M/ 10 isthe office order dated 28/31-10-02 whereby the promotion order of Shri Raghurai is kept in abeyance in view of the pending reference till further order. These documents show that the management has rightly promoted the workman on 19-9-2002 on recommendation ofthe DPC in accordance withCadre Scheme of Mechanical Fitter. Considering the entire discussion, this issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management .

12. Issue No. II

Onthe basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and in view of cadre scheme of promotion of Mechanical Fitter Cat- VI , I find that the action of the management is legal andjustified in view of Cadre Scheme. This workman is only entitled to be promoted on the basis of the office order dated 19-9-2002 (Exhibit M/8) with difference ofpay w.e.f. 19-9-02 . The reference is , accordingly answered.

13. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2595.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 21/1998 एवं 31/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/580/ 1994- आई आर (सी- 11 ) ,

सं. एल -22012/581 / 1994- आई आर ( सी- II) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2595.-In pursuanceance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/1998 &31/ 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad 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 19-7-2012.

[No. L- 22012/580/1994- IR (C-II), No. L-22012/581 / 1994- IR (C- II) ] Β. Μ . PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD Inthe matter ofa reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act,

REFERENCE No. 21 of 1998 & 31 of 1998

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India Ltd. , Patna AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT: Shri H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer APPEARANCES :

Porthe Employers : Shri R. L Meena , Area Manager

For the Workman : Shri V. Kumar,

State: Bihar

Authorised Representative Industry: Food

Dated, the 3rd July, 2012 AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act , 1947 has refered the following disputesto this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-22012/580/ 1994- IR (C - II ) dated ' nil ' and No. L.-22012/ 581 /1994- IR (C - II) dated 11-6-98 respectively.

REFERENCE No. 21 of 1998

(Ministry's Order No. L -22012/580/ 1994-1R (C- II ) dated ' nil'

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Patna in retrenching S/Sri Upendra Kumar and Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 1-8-86 in contravention of Sec . 25-1 of the 1.D. Act , 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularisation of service as per H.Q. Circular dated 6-5-87 is legal and justified? If not, to whatrelief are the workmen entitled ? "

REFERENCE No. 31 of 1998

(Ministry'sOrder No. L- 22012/581 / 1994- IR (C- II ) Dt. 11-6-98

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Patna in retrenching S/SriManoj Kumar, Saroj Kumar , Akhilesh Kumar, [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 6414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/SHRAVANA 20, 1934

Arun Kumar and Arvind Singh w.e.f. 1-9-86 in contravention of Sec . 25 - F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularisation of service as per H.Q. Circulardated6-5-87 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled ? "

Patahi . The said finding was based on scrutiny of the relevant records including the cash book and contigency vouchers of the concerned storage depot by the Dist . AccountsOfficer in which no trace ofworking of any of the concerned workmen was found in the office . As the concerned workmen were not on the roll , there was no question of consideration of their regularisation in accordance with the policy decision dated 6-5-87. The Senior Regional Manager of Regional Office, Patna on the basis ofthe enquiry and report by the Dist .Manager , passed an order on 13-12-96 rejecting the representation of the concerned workman . So , they are not the workman under the management of F.C.I. under the ambit of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act . According to the headquarter's circular dated 6-5-87 the casual employees who fulfil the conditions as laid down in the said letter are to be regularised as Category- IV employees . The concerned workmen being not under the purview of the workmen/ employees and as they never worked at Food Storage Depot, Patahi and did not fulfil the conditions as laid down in the circular, the question of their reinstatement/ regularisation does not at all arise. There is absolutely no contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Since the concerned workmen were never the employees of the F.C.I. and were not the workmenwithin the definition of Sec . 2(s) of the I.D. Act, there is no question of payment of any wages including the back wages and/or regularisation of services . The certificate procured showing engagement of the concerned workmen at F.S.D. Patahi from interested officials of the management contrary to the records and the departmental norms and procedures is simply fraudulent and bogus and the same is not binding on the management .

Under such circumstances it has been prayed that the Hon'bleTribunal be pleased to pass an award holding thatthe concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.

2. The case of the concerned workman is that they were employed by the F.C.I. on 1-8-85 at FSD, Patahi as casual employee in subordinate cadre to act as watchman/ messenger. Their work was to fill loose grain in bags, sweep the godown and office, provide water to the staff, to watch and escort the foodgrains and to do all ancillary work as per the direction of their superior. They were paid their wages by the management of FSD , Patahi and their attendance was being marked by the staff of FSD , Patahi . But they were not allowed to put their signature in the attendance register . They were performing their duty regularly since 1-8-85 but suddenly on 1-9-86 they were stopped from attending their job verbally by the Asstt. Depot Superintendent , FSD, Patahi . They have already completed much more than 240 days service during 12 calendar months upto 31-8-86 . Therefore, their retrenchment from 1-9-86 in contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D Act is void ab- initio , illegal and unjustified and they are entitled to for their re - instatement with full backwages as a regular Class - IV employees w.e.f 1-9-86, besides , regularisation of their service in Class- IV and III post as per Hars . Circular dated 6-5-87 . The Hqrs . of FCI keeping in view the demand of the Union has issued a Circular on6-5-87 wherein it is stipulated that all casual / daily rated workman who have completed 90 days services on or before 2-5-86 shall be regularised against Class - III and IV post according to their qualification . Being dissatisfied withthe attitude and action of the management, the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute before A.L.C. (C) , Patna which ended in failure . Ultimately, the present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication .

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement.

5. The management produced MW- 1 , A Markendeyulu and proved documents as Ext.M - 1 to M-3 .

Theconcerned workman produced WW- 1 , Surajdeo Sharma and WW- 2, Ram Ahald Choudhary and documents have been marked as Exts . W-1 to W-21 .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workman holding therein that the action ofthe management of FCI , Patna in retrenching the concerned workman in contravention of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act w.e.f. 1-8-85, with back wages and other benefit as per H.Q. Circulat date 6-5-87 is not justified and the management be directed to re - instate and regularise the concerned workmen w.e.f. 1-8-85 against Class- IV posts with full back wages .

6. Both the above references have been heard analogously and a common award will be passed in both thefreference cases .

7. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that they have worked more than 240 days in a calendar year and their services have been terminated without any notice . It has also been argued that there was vacancy and the circular for regularising the persons who have worked for 90 days upto 2-5-86 are to be regularised against Class - III and IV post according to their qualification . But the management is not complying the same.

3.The case of the management is that in accordance withthe order dated 15-7-96 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi Benchi , in CWJC No. 1947/95 (R) the management on receipt of the representation by the workman, thoroughly examined the claim at various levels and from the documents available in the Office , it was found that the concerned workmen were never engaged , in any capacity in the Dist. Office, Muzaffarpur as claimed by them or anywhere else under the appellants and they have never worked at Food Storage Depot , [भाग 1 ] -- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6415

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

The management's witness MW-1 who was posted asDistrict Manager , FCI at Muzaffarpur from 30-9-95 to 17-1-97 . The above witness admitted in examination in chief that there was Patahi depot in Muzaffarpur under D.M. FCI , Muzaffarpur which was closed during 1989.He has also proved some documents on behalf of the management as Exts.M- 1 to M -3 . Ext.M- 1 is a letter by Sri A. Raza and M-2 is a report prepared by Sri M.L. Banerjee and signed by MW- 1 . Ext.M - 1 / 1 is unsinged statement, Ext.M-2/2 is contingent voucher w.e.f. September 85 to June 89 in respect of FSD Patahi , Ext.M -3 is a letter written by SRM to Sri Vijayandra Kumar denying the claim of concernedworkman . Exts . W-2 and W -3 are also proved by thiswitness . Ext. W- 2 is a letter written by District Manager Sri M.L. Sami enclosing the copies of attendance register of the concerned workman and one letter written by the DepotIncharge of FCI FSD Patahi wherein the claim ofthe concerned workmen regarding their work for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of their retrenchment and also about non observance/compliances of provision of Section 25- F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Thiswitness during cross -examination that he is not aware of the fact whether during the period from 1984 to 1986 there was any attendance register being maintained atPatahi depot in respect ofcasual employees . He has also admitted that Mr. M. L. Sami was District Manager prior to him and Mr. M. L. Banerjee was Chief Labour Inspector. He has also said that he is not in a position to state the name ofthe workmen employed during the relevant period i.e. 1985-86 . He has also said that attendance register is a vital document to show the attendance of the workman . This witness has admitted engagement of Sri Jagdish Mahto as a casual workman during relevant period at FSD Patahi . WW- 1 , Surajdeo Sharma has stated that he is presently working as a watchman at FSD , Muzaffarpur since 2000. Prior to his regularisation as watchman he was also employed at FSD Patahi alongwith 15 others w.e.f. 1-9- 86 to 1-4-88 . This wintness has further said that he alongwith 15 others were employed after the retrenchment ofthe concerned workmen of Reference No. 21 of 1998 and 31 of 1998. This witness has also said that the concerned workmen have completed much more than 240 days andno notice , notice pay and compensation was paid to them . He has also stated he and 15 others were engaged after the retrenchment of the concerned workman are junior as such the concerned workmen are entitled for their regularisation with full back wages .

WW- 2 , Ram Ahlad Chaudhary stated in his examination in chief that as per Hqrs circular Ext . W-4 a policy decision was taken by the FCI to regularise the service of casual workers against Class- III & Class - IV post according to their qualification if they have worked for 90days as on 2-5-1986. His cross-examination was deferred and he has not been cross -examined . The workmen have filed Exts .W-1 to W-21 . Ext. W- 1 is award of this Tribunal passed in Reference No. 94/96 in respect of Patahi Depot. Ext.W-2 is a letter written by Sri M. L. Sami , DM , Muzaffarpur enclosing therewith a copy ofattendance register . Ext .W-3 is also a letter dated 17-5-95 written by Sri M. A. Raza, D. M. for SRM Patna wherein the claim ofthe concerned workman is admitted. Exts . W-4 and W-4/ 1 are circular dated 6-5-87 and 9-9-96 issued by Headquarter, New Delhi , regarding regularisation of the casual workmen in FCI , Exts. W-5 to W-5/7 are the statement showing the vacancy position of FCI Bihar of different category including Category- IV. Ext . W-6 is the order of Hon'ble Patna High Court(Ranchi Bench) dated 20-1-1998 passed in CWJC No. 1364 of 1997 ( R) directing the Ministry to pass appropriate order for reference to the Tribunal . Ext . W-6/ 1 is an order of Hon'ble Court dated 19-8-98 . Exts . W- 7 to W-12 are the copies of award passed by the Tribunal in similar cases . Ext . W- 13 is a letter written by FCI to Labour Ministry in respect of the concerned workman . Exts . W- 14 to 16 are the order passed by FCI management for regularisation ofworkman . Ext. W- 17 is also a letter written by FCI to Ministry of Labour regarding the concerned workman. Exts . W- 18 & 19 are the FOC report written by ALC to the Ministry. Ext .W-21 is the complete attendance register of FSD Patahi of the concerned workman .

As per the document filed on behalf of the management it has been tried to show that only Jagdish Mahto was working as casual labour at Patahi who has been regularised during 1995 and no other workman are employed at FSD Patahi and the claim of the concerned workman are not justified. The aforesaid claim of the management of FCI will be falsified from the letter written by the FCI to its higher office regarding the claim ofthe concerned workman . In this context Ext .W - 2 along with its enclosures provedby MW- 1 is sufficient to falsify the case of the management and to prove the case of the workman . By Ext . W-2 the management of FCI has admitted entire case ofthe workmen regarding their engagement for more than 240 days in a year and also regarding non- compliance ofprovision of Sec . 25 - F of the I.D. Act as no notice or notice pay or compensation was given to the workman at the time of their retrenchment . As per Ext.W-2 the DistrictManager, Muzaffarpur recommended the case ofthe concernedworkmen for their regularisation .Ext.W-3 isalso a letter written by SRM to ZM whereas the case of the concerned workman regarding their employment at Patahi is admitted.Apart from this the Hors of FCI has also givencomments to the Ministry of Labour regarding the case ofthe concerned workmen vide Exts . W- 13 & W-17 in which the case of the concerned workman is admitted . In Exts .W-18 & 19 the conciliation officer in his report has also found the claim of the concerned workmen fully justified.Ext. W-21 shows that the concerned workmen have worked more than 240 days during 12 calendar months preceding the date of their retrenchment . Ext . W-4 shows [PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20 , 1934

64.15

1-8-1986 and 1-9-1986 respectively, in contravention ofSec . 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with full backwages and regularisation of service as per H.Q. Circular dated 6-5-87 is not legal and justified .

that the management of FCI has decided that all the daily rated employees who have completed 3 months service as on 2-5-1986 having requisite qualification shall be regularised against entry level Class - III & Class - IV post . This circular was issued on 6-5-1987 after been duly approved by the Board of Director. As per Exts . W- 2 and W-21 the concerned workmen have completed much more than 3 months service as on 2-5-1986 . The Headquarter issued Circular 6-5-87 for regularising the concerned workmen as Class - III & Class - IV post as per their qualification .As per Exts . W-5 to W- 7 there are vacancy in Watchman in Class - IV. So, the management must regularise the concerned workmen as Class- IV employees .

In the circumstances of the case I hold that the concerned workmen involved in Reference No. 21 of 1986 are entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of their retrenchment i.e. 1-8-1986 and the concerned workmen involved in Reference No. 31 of 1986 are entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of their retrenchment i.e. 1-9-1986 . All the concerned workmen of both the reference cases are also entitled to be regularised as per H.Q. Circular dated 6-5-1987 ( Ext. W -4 ) as Watchman in Category - IV with 75 % back wages from the date of reference i.e. 11-6-1998 and other consequential benefits. The management is directed to implement the award within two months from the date ofpublication of the award in the Gazette of India .

This ismy Award. H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2596.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निंयोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

8. The evidence of the management MW- 1 is very much material . He in his examination - in chief stated that he worked as Dist . Manager, FCI at Mazaffarpur from 30-9-95 to 17-1-97. There was a letter from Sr. Regional Manager , FCI , Patna for verification of record of the concerned workmen , Upendra Kumar and 6 others . The letter bears the signature of Dy. Manager (P) on behalf of Sr. Regional Manager, which is Ext.M- 1 . Ext.M- 2 is the report prepared by Mr. Banerjee and also verified it by registers and found the same to be correct. The payment vouchers , engagement of casual labour during February, 1985 to May, 1989, marked as Ext.M -2/ 1 . He has also proved another voucher showing contingency advance and contígency expenditure bill payment during the period September, 85 to June, 89 in respect of Patahi Depot, Ext.M2 /2 . He has also proved Ext.M - 3 which bears the signature of Sr. Regional Manager.

[सं. एल -22012/247/2003- आई आर (सी- II) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2596.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-7-2012 .

In his cross -examination at page 3 MW- 1 stated that I am not aware of the fact whether during the period from 1984 to 1986 there was any attendance register being maintained at Patahi Depot in respect of casual employees also . Prior to submission of my report ( Ext.M - 2 ) I had not obtained any report in writing from those Depot Incharges who were posted at Patahi Depot during the period between 1984 to 1986. In his cross - examination at page4 he has stated that I am not aware whether 16 persons who were said to have been working during the relevant period alongwith the concerned workmen as casual employees were regularised either in terms of the award or on the basis ofjudgements of Hon'ble High Court.

[No. L-22012/247/2003 - IR (C -II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Considering the above facts and circumstances , it shows that when there is vacancy and there is Circular dated 6-5-87 of management's Headquarter and the concerned workmen who have worked for 90 days upto 2-5-86, they should have been regularised because they have worked for more than 240 days or 90 days in a calendar year as per Ext .W- 2 and W-4.

9. In the result, I render the following award -

Case No. CGIT/NGP/56/2004 Date: 13-7-2012 PartyNo. 1 The General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area, Post Dungaria, Chhindwara.

The action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna in retrenching S/Sri Upendra Kumar and Ramesh Kumar of Reference No. 21 of 1998 and S /Sri Manoj Kumar, Saroj Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar, Arun Kumar and Arvind Singh of Reference No. 31 of 1998 w.e.f [भाग II....खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

Versus

PartyNo. 2 .

Shri D.N. Tripathi ,

Pench Kanhan Koyla Khadan Karamchari Sangh ,

Damua,

Chhindwara.

AWARD

(Dated: 13th July, 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 their workman , Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 22012 /247/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 24-05-2004 , with the following schedule: -

"Whether the action of the management ofWestern Coalfields Limited through the Chief General Manager ( Personnel ) , Kanhan Area, PO . Dungaria, Distt. Chhindwara , MP in not confirming / in not promoting Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi , Pump Operator, Tandsi Project as per the provision of clause 3.6 of the Certified Standing Orders w.e.f. 10-01-1997 is proper & justified ? If not , to what relief the said 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 , " Koyla Khadan Karamchari Sangh " , ( the " union " in short ) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman , Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi , ( the " workman " in short) and the management of Western Coalfields Limited , Kanhan Area, (" Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement.

The workman's case as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that the workman was appointed by Party No. 1 on compassionate ground , as his father was declared unfit for continuance in service with Party No. 1 and the workman was promoted to the post of Pump Operator in category II , in February, 1994 and due to the requirement of Party No. 1 , the workman was engaged by the Superior Officers to operate H.T. Pump of Zero level of the underground Mine No. 1/2 of Tansi Project , which was driven by 225 Horse Power Electric Motor on 10-01-1997 and since then , the workman operated the said pump under the supervision of the Overman , Mining Sirdar and Mechanical Fitter and the workman on 04-03-2001 submitted an application containing the recommendation of his superior officers to confirm him as pump operator , category IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 to the Project Officer and on receipt of the said application , the Party No. 1 confirmed the workman in pump operator category IV, w.e.f. 11-08-2001 , vide order

2817 61/ 12-17

6417

no .. K. Pra/16/4001-965 dated 11-08-2001 . The further case asprojected by the union is that the workman is governed by the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders and clause 3.6 of the said Certified Standing Orders deals with the procedure of promotion and as per the provisions of clause 3.6 of the Certified Standing Orders , the workman is entitled for confirmation as pump operator, category IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 , but the Party No. 1 instead of confirming the workman as pump operator , category IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 , promoted him as pump operator w.e.f. 11-08-2001 and the workman is entitled for the wages of category IV and all other benefits from the date of his taking over charge of the higher grade as per clause 3.6 of the Standing Orders and National Coal Wage agreement and as per the decision of the Hon ' ble Apex Court reported in 1985 SCC ( L& S) - 6 ( workmen employedby Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd. ), failure on the part of the employer to carry out the statutory obligations to classify the workmen would be violative of the Standing Orders and would bring into existence a dispute between the workmen and the employer and where the demand of the workmen was to confirm employees employed in an acting capacity in a grade , it would unquestionably be an industrial dispute and the workman's representation to confirm him as pump operator category IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 was not considered . The union has prayed to direct the Party No.1 to confirm the workman as pump operator category IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 and to make payment ofthe differential wages and other benefits .

3. The Party No.1 in its written statement has pleaded inter- alia that the union has no locus standi to raise any dispute against it , as the union has no followers and the same is a non existing union and the same is a one man self styled union of Shri D.N. Tripathi , who was an employce of WCL and so also the father of the workman and it gave compassionate appointment to the workman and after availing such concession , this dispute has been filed without any rhyme and reason and the workman has claimed promotion with effect from 1997 , whereas the dispute has been raised in 2004 and therefore , the dispute is highly belated and the reference is not maintainable on the ground of delay and latches . The further case of the party no. 1 is that granting promotion depend on various circumstances , such as recommendation of DPC , availability of sanctioned /vacant posts , administrative approval of competent authority and as such, the claim for promotion by way of raising the industrial dispute is not maintainable and the workman has already been granted the promotion as claimed , vide order dated 11-08-2001 , so the reference is not maintainable . It is also pleaded by the party no . 1 that the service conditions of the employees working in coal Industry are governed by various settlements arrived at from time to time , which are generally known as National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) and standing orders applicable to the colliery concerned and NCWA includes job nomenclature , cadre [ PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012 /SHRAVANA 20, 1934

6418

clause 3.6 of the Certified Standing Orders has no application to the case of the workman as clause 3.6 of the Standing Order deals with the case of probationer and the workman was never appointed as a probationer to fill up a vacancy in permanent post and the workman is also not entitled for promotion to category - IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 as he was never officiated in the capacity of category- IV and the workman was recommended for promotion to category- IV by the DPC in 2001 and accordingly he was promoted to category - IVby order dated 11-08-2001 and as such , the workman is not entitled for any relief.

6. Perused the record including the evidence adduced by the parties . The workman has claimed for promotion as Pump Operator , category - IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 on the basis of the provisions of clause 3.6 of the Certified Standing Order. Clause 3.6 of the Certified Standing Orders reads as follows:

scheme for each category of worker and the promotional channel , scale ofpay minimum qualification (educational / technical ) , eligibility for promotion and mode of promotion are given in the cadre scheme and the promotional channel for E & M personnel (operational pump khalasi /driver/ operator ) are given in Annexure VII - 2, circulated vide II No. 30 dated 26-06-1984 and the workman was initially appointed as a general mazdoor category I in the year 1992 and posted at Tandsi project and subsequently he was regularized as Pump Khalasi cat . II and the workman was engaged to operate the pump in the absence of the regular pump khalasi and he was promoted to pump khalasi cat. IV as per the order dated 11-08-2001 and the workman was not working under the supervision of overman , Mining Sirdar and mechanical fitter and the provisions of clause 3.6 of the certified standing orders are not applicable to the workman as he was not been kept on probation and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned in the statement of claim has no application to the case of the workman as the facts and the circumstances of both the cases are different and the workman did not officiate in the capacity of cat . IV from 10-01-1997 and as such , he is not entitled to any benefit from 10-01-1997 and the overman , mining sirdar and mechanical fitters are neither the supervisors nor the controlling authority of the workman and they do not have any authority to recommend for promotion of any employee and such recommendation is nonest in the eye of law and the case of the workman was recommended by the DPC and accordingly he was promoted to cat . IV wie.f. 11-08-2001 , which is legal and proper and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

A' probationer ' means a personrson who is provisionally employed to fill a vacancy in a permanent post for a period not exceeding 6 ( six ) months and who has not completed his probationary period provided that the period of probation may be extended by the management beyond the original period by not more than 3 ( three ) months for reasons to be recorded in writing . If a permanent workman is employed as a probationer in a new post , he may be at any time during the probationary period, not exceeding 6 ( six) months , be reverted to his old permanent post unless the probationary period is extended by another 3 ( three ) months for reasons to be recorded in writing . If no positive order is issued by the Management on the expiry of the probationary period or extended probationary period as the case may be , the employee concerned shall be deemed to have been confirmed .

4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence, both the parties led oral evidence in support of theirrespective claims. The workman examined himself as awitness in support of his case . The examination - in - chief ofthe workman is on affidavit . In his examination - in-chief, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . However, the workman in his cross- examination has admitted , that promotions are being given as per cadre scheme and for promotion , recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee is necessary and he was promoted as Pump Khalasi , Category - IV.

One Satish Kumar Dubey, a Deputy Manager (Personnel) of Tandsi Project was examined as a witness by Party No. 1. The evidence of this witness remained unchallenged as neither the petitioner nor anybody else on his behalf appeared to cross -examine him and on 20-04-2012, " поo cross " order was passed.

It is necessary to mention here that as the petitioner did not appear on 15-06-2012 , to which date the case was posted for argument , order was passed to proceed ex- parte against him .

7. It is clear from the provisions of clause 3.6 of the Standing Orders that when a permanent workman is employed as a probationer in a new post , he may be at any time during the probationary period, not exceeding six months , be reverted to his old permanent post , unless the probationary period is extended by another three months for reasons to be recorded in writing and if no positive order is issued by the management on the expiry of the probationary period or extended probationary period , as the case may be , the employee concerned shall be deemed to have been confirmed. So far application of the provisions of clause 3.6 , the first requirement is that the permanent workman must have been employed as a probationer in a new post . In this case , it is never the case ofthe workman that he was employed by party no . I in the post of pump operator cat . IV on probation w.e.f. 10-01-1997 . The workman neither in the statement of claim nor in his evidence has whispered a single word about his employment in the post of pump operator cat . IV on probation . There is also no other evidence on record to show that the workman was employed as a probationer in the new post . Hence , it is found that the provisions of 5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the provision of 6419

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20, 1934

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

clause 3.6 of the certified standing orders have no application to the case of the workman .

From the documents on record and the own admission oftheworkman , it is clear that for promotion to the post of pump operator cat . IV, the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee is necessary as per the cadre scheme. It is also found from the materials on record that after the recommendation of the DPC , the workman was promoted to pump operator cat . IV by order dated 11-08-2001 , From the materials on record and the discussions made above , it is found that the workman is not entitled tobe confirmed in the post of pump-operator cat . IV w.e.f. 10-01-1997 . Hence , it is ordered: -

ORDER

The action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited through the Chief General Manager (Personnel ) , Kanhan Area , PO Dungaria, Distt . Chhindwara, MP in not confirming in not promoting Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi , Pump Operator, Tandsi Project as per the provision of clause 3.6 ofthe Certified Standing Orders w.e.f. 10-01-1997 is proper and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 19 जुलाई , 2012

का.आ. 2597.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/06 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012/88/1994- आई आर ( सी- II) ]

बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th July, 2012

S.O. 2597.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 61/06) 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 SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-7-2012.

[No. L-22012/88/ 1994- IR (C- II)]

Β . Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC/R/61/06

Presidning Officer : SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN

The Secretary,

M.P.K. S. S. ( CITU) ,

PO KotmaColliery,

Workman Distt. Shahdol (MP)

2817 GI/2012-18

Versus

TheGeneral Manager ,

Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL , PO Jamuna Colliery,

...Management Distt. Shahdol (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of June , 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/88 / 1994- IR (C - II ) dated 18-9-06 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by thistribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of SECL in transferring Shri Prem Singh from Jamuna & KotmaArea of Bisrampur Area is legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. The Union/workman is issued notices repeatedly even by registered post to appear in the reference proceeding but even the Union/workman did not appear inspite of proper services of the notices in accordance with law. Thus the proceeding proceeded exparte against the Union/workman on 15-6-2011 .

3.Themanagement appeared and filed an application dated 14-5-2012 alongwith copy of settlement . It is stated that the dispute was resolved amicably and a settlement was arrived between the management and the workman. It is submitted that the reference be awarded in terms of settlement .

4.The copyof settlement dated 16-5-1995 is filed in the case . It appears that it was signed by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager on behalf of the management and Shri Prem Singh , the workman had signed himself on the other side, The settlement was also witnessed by two witnesses . I do not find any illegality in the settlement between the parties . The following are the terms and conditions of the settlement

1. That Shri Prem Singh , Driver will be transferred to Hasdeo Area instead of Bishrampur Area .

II . That the period from 21-9-91 to till date will be treated as " Dies non " and he will not be paid any wages on the basis ofNo work no pay. However his service would be treated as continuous for the purpose of gratuity etc.

III . That Shri Prem Singh will withdraw the dispute pending before any court of law/Labour Ministry through ALC( C) , Shahdol .

IV. Shri Prem Singh will submit a written apology that he would never repeat the misconduct in future.

V. The dispute is treated as closed full and final.

5. Considering the terms and conditions and the settlement between the parties , the reference is answered in terms of settlement .

6. In the result, the award is passed in terms of settlement without any order to costs .

SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer 6420

[PART 11-SBC. 3(日)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 11 , 2012/ SHRAVANA 20, 1934

नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई , 2012

नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2599.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा । सितम्बर , 2012 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 ( धारा-76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे:-

का.आ. 2598. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 1 सितम्बर , 2012 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे ,

अर्थात्:-

ग्राम पंचायतों के नाम जिलों के नाम क्र. राजस्व क्षेत्रों/ जे.एल.

संख्या नगर पालिका

स. मौजा के नाम

केन्द्र

1. गोपजन

निम्न क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले राजस्व गाँत्र

1. एलन्प्रकुट्टै

मुर्शिदाबाद राधारघाट ! ग्राम पंचायत

103

मुर्शिदाबाद 2. नागपाड़ा

2. पथरै

नामक्कल जिला में वेप्पोडै क्षेत्र

हातिनगर ग्राम पंचायत

3. शिबडांगा

3.सौधापुरम

4. अमंगूर

5. मोदमंगलम

6. मुष्णन्दम्मालयम

7. समयसंगिली

मुर्शिदाबाद मनिन्द्र नगर ग्राम पंचायत

बादारपुर

4. काशिमबाजार 102

मुर्शिदाबाद मनिन्द्र नगर ग्राम पंचायत

5. बानजेटिया 105

मुर्शिदाबाद मनिन्द्र नगर ग्राम पंचायत

6. गोराबाजार

४. कलिमपूर

[सं. एस-38013/25/2012-एस.एस. - 1 ]

नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव 90

मुर्शिदाबाद बरहमपूर नगरपालिका

मुर्शिदाबाद 7. गढ़ बरहमपूर 91 बरहमपूर नगरपालिका

मुर्शिदाबाद 8. खानड़ा

NewDelhi , the 25th July, 2012

S.O. 2598. -In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist September, 2012 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and45which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe saidAct shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:-

Centre

AreaComprising

The Revenue Villages of

1.Elanthakuttai

2. Patharai

Veppodai area in Namakkal District

बरहमपूर नगरपालिका

[सं. एस-38013/24/2012- एस.एस. - 1 ]

नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव NewDelhi ,the 25th July, 2012

S.O. 2599.-In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist September , 2012 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of West Bengal namely:-

Name of St. Name of J.L. Name ofMunci-

No.

No. Mouza

3.Sowdhapuram

4.Anangur

5.Modamangalam

District pality/Gram

Panchayat

Murshida- 18 Radharghar 1

1. Gopjan

6. Kuppendampalayam

7. Samayasangilli

8. Kalianoor

[No. S-38013/25/2012-S.S- I ] NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

Gram Panchayat bad

2. Nagpara 103

Murshida- bad

HatinagarGram Panchayat

Manindra Nagar

3. Shibdanga 79 Badarpur

Gram Panchayat

Murshida- bad [भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 11 , 2012/ श्रावण 20 , 1934

102

Murshida- 4. Cossim- Bezer

Manindra Nagar Gram Panchayat bad

5. Banjetia 105

Murshida-

bad

Manindra Nagar Gram Panchayat

6. Gorabezar 90

Murshida- bad

Berhampur Municipality

Murshida- bad 7. Garh Berhampur

Berhampur Municipality

8. Khagra 97

Murshida- bad

Berhampur Municipality

[No. S-38013 /24/2012-S.S. -1]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 26 जुलाई, 2012

का.आ. 2600, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा । सितम्बर , 2012 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( भारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

केन्द्र

निम्न क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले राजस्व

गाँव

वेलूर जिला में पलिलकोंडा केन्द्र में 1. सेदुवले

2. सत्यमंगलम

3. इरैवनकाडु

4.कीलचूर

6421

5.अगरम्चेरी

6. पलिलकोंडा

7. औक्कनपुरम

४. वेटुबनम

[सं. एस-38013/26/2012- एस.एस. - 1 ]

नरेश जायसवाल , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th July, 2012

S.O. 2600.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the CentralGovernment hereby appoints the 1st September, 2012 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely: -

Centre

AreaComprising The Revenue Villages

1. Seduvalai

Pallikonda Centre in VelloreDistrict

2.Sathyamangalam

3. Eraivankadu

4.Kilachur

5.Agaramcheri

6.Pallikonda

7.Okkanapuram

8. Vettuvanam

[No. S-38013 /26/2012- S.S. -1 ] NARESH JAISWAL . , Under Secy.

Printed hy the Manager, Government of India Press . Ring Road, Mayapuri . New Delhi - 11006-1

and Publishedby the Controller of Publications . Delhi - 110054.