dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3159.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k

lafgrk] 1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&

/kkjk ¼2½ lifBr tujy Dyktst vf/kfu;e] 1897 ¼1897 dk

vf/kfu;e la- 10½ dh /kkjk 16 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, fnukad 20&6&2012 dh foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la-

202@5@2011&,ohMh&II }kjk tkjh Jh f'ko pju yky 'kekZ] odhy

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

ds :i esa fu;qfDr dks jí djrh gSA

[la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2012

S.O. 3159.— In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby cancel the appointment of Shri Shiv Charan Lal

Sharma, Advocate as Public Prosecutor on contract basis

in the Central Bureau of Investigation issued by this

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

20-6-2012.

[No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 42]

ubZ fnYyh, vDrwcj 14—vDrwcj 20] 2012] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 22—vkf'ou 28] 1934

No. 42]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 14—OCTOBER 20, 2012, SATURDAY/ASVINA 22—ASVINA 28, 1934

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

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

Hkkx IIó[k.M 3ómi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

3811 GI/2012

(7671)

7672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3160.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k lafgrk

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½

lifBr tujy Dyktst vf/kfu;e] 1897 ¼1897 dk vf/kfu;e la-

10½ dh /kkjk 16 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad

24&10&2011 dh foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II

}kjk tkjh Jh ,y-,e-,l- fc"V] odhy dh vuqca/k vk/kkj ij dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks esa yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qfDr dks jí djrh gSA

[la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2012

S.O. 3160.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby cancel the appointment of Shri L.M.S. Bist, Advocate

as Public Prosecutor on contract basis in the Central Bureau

of Investigation issued by this Department Notification

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

[No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3161.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk n.M izfØ;k lafgrk

1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e la- 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½

lifBr tujy Dyktst vf/kfu;e] 1897 ¼1897 dk vf/kfu;e

la- 10½ dh /kkjk 16 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnukad

20&6&2012 dh foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II }kjk

tkjh Jh ekul dqekj e.My] odhy dh vuqca/k vk/kkj ij dsUnzh;

vUos"k.k C;wjks esa yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qfDr dks jí djrh gSA

[la- 202@5@2011&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2012

S.O. 3161.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby cancel the appointment of Shri Manas Kumar

Mandal, Advocate as Public Prosecutor on contract basis

in the Central Bureau of Investigation issued by this

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

20-06-2012.

[No. 202/5/2011-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

lhek&'kqYd ds eq[; vk;qDr] xqtjkr {ks= dk dk;kZy;

vgenkckn] 26 flrEcj] 2012

la- 3@2012—13 lhek 'kqYd] xqtjkr

dk-vk- 3162.—Hkkjr ljdkj] foÙk ea=ky;] jktLo foHkkx]

ubZ fnYyh] }kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk la- 33@94&lhek&'kqYd ¼,u-Vh-½

fnukad 01 tqykbZ] 1994 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ vkSj vf/klwpuk la[;k

14@2002&lhek&'kqYd ¼,u-Vh-½ fnukad 7 ekpZ] 2002 ¼;Fkk

la'kksfèr½ }kjk] lhek&'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 152 [kaM

(a) vkSj lhek&'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk (1)

ds varxZr iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSa] gal dqekj tSu] eq[;

vk;qDr] lhek&'kqYd] xqtjkr {ks=] vgenkckn] xqtjkr jkT; ds

varxZr vejsyh ftys ds jktqyk rkyqdk esa fLFkr xkao ^^jkeijk**] dks]

lhek&'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 9 ds rgr ^^osvjgkmflax

LVs'ku** ?kksf"kr djrk gwaA

[Qk- la- VIII/48-179/Vh@lhlhvks/2010]

gal dqekj tSu] eq[; vk;qDr lhek&'kqYd

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS, GUJARAT ZONE

Ahmedabad, the 26th September, 2012

No. 3/2012-13-Customs, Gujarat

S.O. 3162.—In exercise of powers conferred vide

Notification No. 33/94-Cus. (N.T.) dated 1-7-1994 (as

amended) and Notification No. 14/2002-Cus. (N.T.) dated

07-03-2002 (as amended) issued by Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi,

under clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962

and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962

respectively, I, Hans Kumar Jain, Chief Commissioner of

Customs, Gujarat Zone, Ahmedabad, hereby declare village

‘‘Rampara’’ falling under Rajula Taluka of Amreli District, in

the State of Gujarat, as ‘Warehousing Station’ under Section

9 of the Customs Act, 1962.

[F. No. VIII/48-179/T/CCO/2010]

HANS KUMAR JAIN, Chief Commissioner of Customs

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7673

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk-3163.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh /kkjk 19 ds [k.M ¼d½ vkSj /kkjk 20 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

cSad ls ijke'kZ ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds ekStwnk mi

izca/k funs'kd] Jh ,l- fo'oukFku ¼tUe frfFk 30&4&1954½ dks

muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 30 vizSy] 2014 rd

vFkkZr~ muds vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] 75]500&80]000 #i, ds osrueku

esa Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/k funs'kd ds rkSj ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 2@1@2011&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2012

S.O. 3163.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of Section 19 and sub-section (1) of Section 20

of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central

Government, after consultation with Reserve Bank of India,

hereby appoints Shri S. Visvanathan (DoB : 30-04-1954)

presently Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India

as Managing Director, State Bank of India in the pay scale

of ` 75,500-80,000, with effect from the date of taking over

charge of the post till 30th April, 2014 i.e. the date of his

attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 2/1/2011-BO- I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3164.—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/kfu;e] 1981

¼1981 dk 28½ dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼³½ ds

mi&[kaM (i) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

,rn~}kjk] foÙk ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds eq[; vkfFkZd lykgdkj

MkW- j?kqjke th- jktu dks MkW- dkSf'kd clq ds LFkku ij Hkkjrh;

fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 9@16@2012&vkbZ,Q&I]

,l- xksiky d`".k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2012

S.O. 3164.—In pursuance of sub-clause (i) of clasue

(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import

Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), Central Government

hereby nominates Dr. Raghuram G. Rajan, Chief Economic

Advisor, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as director on the

Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of India vice

Dr. Kaushik Basu.

[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]

S. GOPAL KRISHNA, Under Secy.

fons'k ea=ky;

¼lhihoh izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3165.—jktuf;d vkSj dksalyh; vkWfQlj ¼'kiFk

vkSj Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 41½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM

¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn}kjk Jh fou; 'kekZ] lgk;d

dks 9 vDrwcj] 2012 ls Hkkjr ds dkSalykokl esa lgk;d dksalqyj

vf/kdkjh ds dÙkZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[la- Vh- 4330@01@2006]

vkj- ds- isfjufM;k] voj lfpo ¼dksalqyj½

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2012

S.O. 3165.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

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

hereby authorize Shri Vinay Sharma, Assistant Consulate

General of India, Shanghai to perform the duties of Assistant

Consular Officer with effect from 9th October, 2012.

[No. T. 4330/01/2006]

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

ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;

¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk ;wfuV½

ubZ fnYYkh] 4 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3166.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; ¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

7674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds varxZr] i- }kjdk izlkn feJ]Hkkjrh; lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh] vfHkdYiu

,oa fofuekZ.k laLFkku] tcyiqj dks ,sls dk;kZy; ds :i esa] ftlds

80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[la- 11011&1@2011&jk-Hkk-,-]

vuUr dqekj ¯lg] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2012

S.O. 3166.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

the Pt. Dwarka Prasad Mishra, Indian Institute of

Information Technology, Design & Manufacturing Jabalpur

under the Ministry of Human Resource Development,

(Deptt. of Higher Education) as office, whose more than

80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge

of Hindi.

[No. 11011-1/2011-O.L.U.]

ANANT KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;

¼nwjlapkj foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3167.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1987½ ds

fu;e 10¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;]

nwjlapkj foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZYk;ksa

ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS %

1- eq[; egkizca/kd] jk"Vªh; bysDVªkWfud fLopu dsUnz] >aMsokyku]

ubZ fnYyh_

2- eq[; egkizca/kd] vaMeku ,oa fudksckj nwjlapkj ifjeaMy]

VsyhQksu Hkou] iksVZ Cys;j&744101_

3- eq[; egkizca/kd] nwjlapkj xq.koÙkk vk'oklu ifjeaMy]

csaxyw:&41 -

[la- bZ- 11016@1@2009&jk-Hkk- ]

Hkkjr Hkw"k.k dkSjk] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications)

(OFFICIAL LANGUAGE DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2012

S.O. 3167.—In pursuance of Rule 10(4) of the Official

Language (use for official purposes of the Union), rules,

1976 the Central Government hereby notifies following

offices under the administrative control of Ministry of

Communications and I.T., Department of Tele-

communications where of more than 80% staff have

acquired working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Chief General Manager, National Electronic Swichan

Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi;

2. Chief General Manager, Andaman & Nicobar Telecom

Circle, Port Blair-744101;

3. Chief General Manager, Telecom Quality Assurance

Circle, Bangalore-41.

[No.E. 11016/1/2009(O.L.)]

BHARAT BHUSHAN KAURA, Jt. Secy.

;qok dk;ZØe ,oa [ksy ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3168.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rnn~okjk jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&

fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;qok dk;ZØe vkSj [ksy ea=ky; ds

Lok;Ùk'kklh dk;kZy;]Hkkjrh; [ksy izkf/kdj.k&mi dsUnz] xqokgkVh]

vle] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk

dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- bZ-&11011@2@2008&fg-,-]

Fkaxysefy;u] mi lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7675

MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2012

S.O. 3168.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

Sports Authority of India-Sub Centre, Guwahati, Assam

an autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,

whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

THANGLEMLIAN, Dy. Secy.

laLd`fr ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3169.—dsanzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa laLd`fr ea=ky; ds lac) dk;kZy; Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo

losZ{k.k ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa ftuds 80 izfr'kr

ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS

dks vf/klwfpr djrh gS%µ

1- ckxokuh izHkkx lañ 1] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] vkxjkA

2- mi&eaMy }kjdk] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.kA

3- {ks=h; funs'kd dk dk;kZy; ¼e/; {ks=½] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo

losZ{k.k] Hkksiky ¼e/; izns'k½A

4- Jhuxj eaMy] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] tEewA

5- nsgjknwu eaMy] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] nsgjknwu eaMy] nsgjknwu

¼mÙkjk[kaM½A

6- mi eaMy nsgjknwu dfyaxk] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] nsgjknwu

¼mÙkjk[kaM½A

7- mi eaMy vYeksM+k] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] vYeksM+k]

¼mÙkjk[kaM½A

8- mi eaMy dk'khiqj] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] nzks.k lkxj]

dk'khiqjA

9- mi eaMy] xksis'oj] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] xksihukFk ifjlj]

xksis'ojA

10- p.Mhx<+ eaMy] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] p.Mhx<+A

[Qk- la- 13016@1@2011&fganh]

vjfoan eathr ¯lg] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CULTURE

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2012

S.O. 3169.—In pursuance of sub-rules (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby

notifies the following offices of Archaeological Survey of

India, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 under the administrative

control of the Ministry of Culture, whereof more than 80%

of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:—

1. Horticulture Division No. 1, Archaeological Survey

of India, Agra.

2. Sub-Circle Dwarka, Archaeological Survey of India.

3. Office of the Regional Director (Central Region),

Archaeological Survey of India, Bhopal (Madhya

Pradesh).

4. Sri Nagar Circle, Archaeological Survey of India,

Jammu.

5. Dehradun Circle, Archaeological Survey of India,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

6. Sub-Circle, Dehradun, Archaeological Survey of

India, Uttarakhand, Kalinga Monument, Dehradun.

7. Sub-Circle, Almora, Archaeological Survey of India

Almora, Uttarakhand.

8. Sub-Circle, Kashipur, Archaeological Survey of India,

Dronasagar, Kashipur.

9. Sub-Circle, Gopeshwar, Archaeological Survey of

India, Gopinath Temple Complex, Gopeshwar.

10. Chandigarh Circle, Archaeological Survey of India,

Chandigarh.

[F.No. 13016/1/2011-Hindi]

ARVIND MANJIT SINGH, Jt. Secy.

7676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 3170.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ekWMy vuqeksnu izek.k&i= ds lkFk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus

ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd mDr fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk

60½ rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 1987 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh

vof/k esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼7½ vkSj mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ okeu baLVªwesaV~l daiuh] 4090] pkSFkk ry] HkaMqi bafLVª;y ,LVsV] iUukyky daikmaM] ,y ch ,l ekxZ] HkaMwi] eqacbZ&400078 }kjk fofufeZr

fo'ks"k ;FkkFkZrk ¼;FkkFkZrk oxZ I½ okys ^^oh,&4** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼VscyVki izdkj½ ds ekWMy dk]

ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^okeu** gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpø vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@132 leuqnsf'kr

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

mDr ekWMy ,d bySDVªkseSxusfVd QkslZ dEisuls'ku fizalhiy ij vk/kkfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k gSA bldh vf/kdre {kerk 220 xzkñ

gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 fe-xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼bZ½ 1 feñxzkñ gSA blesa ,d vk/ks;rqy;u ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr&izfr'kr O;odyukRed

/kkfjr vf/k;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM ¼, bZ Mh½ izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke minf'kZr djrk gSA midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ èkjk

fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA

vkd`fr&2 % ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc) Mk;xzke A

Ldsy dh ckMh esa fn, x, gksYt esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj lhfyax dh xbZ gSA ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/k dk ,d iz:ih

;kstukc) Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA

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

Hkh fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼12½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr

ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i= ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl)kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr

ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofufeZr mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 1 fe-xzk- ;k blls

vfèd ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 50]000 ;k vfèd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/kdre {kerk okys gSa

vkSj ^^bZ** eku ds 1x10^ds ;k 2x10^ds ;k 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /kukRed ;k _.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSaA

[Qk- la- MCY;w ,e&21¼105½@2010]

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7677

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2010

S.O. 3170.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

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

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

Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render

accurate service under varied conditions;

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

Central Government hereby approves and issues the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic weighing

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of special accuracy (Accuracy class-I) of series "VA-4" and with brand

name "VAMAN" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), manufactured by M/s. Vaman Instruments Company, 4090, 4th

Floor, Bhandup Industrial Estate, Pannalal Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai- 400078 and which is assigned the

approval mark IND/0910/132;

The said Model is an electro magnetic force compensation principle non-automatic weighing instrument with a

maximum capacity of 220g. and minimum capacity of 100mg. The verification scale interval(e) is 1mg. It has a tare device with

a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The LED display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on

230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Sealing Diagram

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes in the top cover and bottom.

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

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

disable access to external calibration.

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

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

accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval(n) in the range

of 50,000 or above for 'e' value of 1mg. or more and with 'e' value of 1×10^k, 2×10^k or 5×10^k, where k is a positive or negative

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

materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21(105)/2010]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

7678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 3171.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ekWMy vuqeksnu izek.k&i= ds lkFk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus

ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd mDr fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk

60½ rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 1987 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh

vofè esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼7½ vkSj mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ

okeu baLVªwesaV~l daiuh] 4090] pkSFkk ry] HkaMqi bafLVª;y ,LVsV] iUukyky daikmaM] ,y ch ,l ekxZ] HkaMwi] eqacbZ&400078 }kjk fofufeZr fo'ks"k

;FkkFkZrk ¼;FkkFkZrk oxZ II½ okys ^^oh ch** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼VscyVki izdkj½ ds ekWMy dk] ftlds

czkaM dk uke ^^okeu** gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpø vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@133 leuqnsf'kr fd;k

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

mDr ekWMy ,d fod`r xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kkfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼VscyVki izdkj½ gSA bldh vf/kdre {kerk

20 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 50 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky ¼bZ½ 1 xzkñ gSA blesa ,d vk/ks;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;dyukRed /kkfjr vk/ks;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM ¼,y bZ Mh½ izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke minf'kZr djrk gSA

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

vkd`fr&2 % ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc) Mk;xzkeA

Ldsy dh ckMh esa fn, x, gksYt esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj lhfyax dh xbZ gSA ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/k dk ,d iz:ih

;kstukc) Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA

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

Hkh fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼12½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr

ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki= ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl)kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr

ekMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofufeZr mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 1 fe-xzk- ls 50 fe-xzk-

rd ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 50]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ vkSj 100 fe- xzk- ;k mlls vfèd ds ^^bZ** eku ds

fy, 5000 ls 50]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu varjky ¼,u½ lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/kdre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku ds 1x10^ds]

2x10^ds] 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /kukRed ;k _.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSaA

[Qk- la- MCY;w- ,e-&21¼105½@2010]

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7679

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2010

S.O. 3171.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

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

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

Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render

accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class-II) of series “VB” and with brand name

“VAMAN” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Vaman Instruments Company, 4090, 4th Floor,

Bhandup Industrial Estate, Pannalal Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai-400078 which is assigned the approval

mark IND/09/10/133.

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

maximum capacity of 20 kg. and minimum capacity of 50g. The verification scale interval (e) is 1g. It has a tare device with

a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The

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

Figure-1 Mode l

Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes. A typical schematic diagram

of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

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

hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make

and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the

range of 100 to 50,000 for ‘e’ value of 1 mg. to 50 mg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000

to 50,000 for 'e' value of 100mg or more and with 'e' value 1×10^k, 2×10^k or 5×10^k, k being the positive or negative whole number

or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same

materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21(105)/2010]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

7680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 3172.—dsUæh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ekWMy vuqeksnu izek.k&i= ds lkFk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus

ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd mDr fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk

60½ rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 1987 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh

vof/k esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUæh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼7½ vkSj mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ okeu baLVªwesaV~l daiuh] 4090] pkSFkk ry] HkaMqi baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] iUukyky daikmaM] ,y ch ,l ekxZ] HkaMwi] eqacbZ&400078 }kjk fofufeZr

e/;e ;FkkFkZrk ¼;FkkFkZrk oxZ III½ okys ^^oh Vh** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼VscyVki izdkj½ ds ekWMy dk]

ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^okeu** gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpg~u vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@134

leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i= tkjh djrh gSA

mDr ekWMy ,d fod`r xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kkfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼VscyVki izdkj½ gSA bldh vf/kdre {kerk

30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky ¼bZ½ 5 xzk- gSA blesa ,d vk/ks;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr&izfr'kr

O;odyukRed /kkfjr vk/ks;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM ¼,y bZ Mh½ izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke minf'kZr djrk gSA midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj

50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kkjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA

vkd`fr&2 % ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc) Mk;xzke A

Ldsy dh ckMh esa fn, x, gksYt esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudkydj lhfyax dh xbZ gSA ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/k dk ,d iz:ih

;kstukc) Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA

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

Hkh fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼12½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr

ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki= ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl)kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr

ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofufeZr mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 100 fe-xzk- ls 2 xzk-

rd ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/kd ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 500

ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/kdre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1×10^ds] 2×10^ds]

5×10^ds ds gSa] tks /kukRed ;k _.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSaA

[Qk-la- MCY;w ,e&21¼105½@2010]

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7681

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2010.

S.O. 3172.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

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

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

Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render

accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Tabletop type) with digital indication, belonging to Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series "VT" and

with brand name "VAMAN" (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Vaman Instruments Company,

4090, 4th Floor, Bhandup Industrial Estate, Pannalal Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai-400078 which is assigned

the approval mark IND/09/10/134.

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

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

a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The

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

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes. A typical schematic diagram

of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

disable access to external calibration.

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

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

accuracy, performance and of the same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of verification scale

interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for 'e' value of 100mg to 2g and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the

range of 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 5g or more and with 'e' value 1×10^k, 2×10^k or 5×10^k, k being the positive or negative whole

number or equal to zero, manufactured by the said manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and materials

with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21(105)/2010]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

7682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 3173.—dsUæh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ekWMy vuqeksnu izek.k i= ds lkFk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus

ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd mDr fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk

60½ rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 1987 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh

vof/k esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUæh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&èkjk ¼7½ vkSj mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ okeu baLVªwesaV~l daiuh] 4090] pkSFkk ry] HkaMqi baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] iUukyky daikmaM] ,y ch ,l ekxZ] HkaMqi] eqacbZ&400078 }kjk fofufeZr

e/;e ;FkkFkZrk ¼;FkkFkZrk oxZ III½ okys ^^oh ih** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼IysVQkeZ izdkj½ ds ekWMy dk]

ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^okeu** gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpg~u vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@135

leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i= tkjh djrh gSA

mDr ekWMy ,d fod`r xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kkfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼IysVQkeZ izdkj½ gSA bldh vf/kdre {kerk 500

fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 2 fd-xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky ¼bZ½ 100 xzk- gSA blesa ,d vk/ks;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr O;odyukRed

/kkfjr vk/ks;rqyu izHkko gSA izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM ¼,y bZ Mh½ izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke minf'kZr djrk gSA midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ

/kkjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA

vko`Qfr&2 % ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukcð Mk;xzke`

Ldsy dh ckMh esa fn, x, gksYt esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj lhfyax dh xbZ gSA ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/k dk ,d iz:ih

;kstukc) Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA

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

Hkh fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼12½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr

ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki= ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl)kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr

ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofufeZr mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vfèd

ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/kdre {kerk

okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^ds ;k 5x10^ds ds gSa] tks /kukRed ;k _.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSaA

[Qk-la- MCY;w ,e&21¼105½@2010]

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7683

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2010

S.O. 3173.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

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

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

Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render

accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series "VP" and with brand

name "VAMAN" (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Vaman Instruments Company, 4090, 4th

Floor, Bhandup Industrial Estate, Pannalal Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai- 400078 which is assigned the

approval mark IND/09/10/135

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

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

a 100 percent substractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The

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

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 : Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model.

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes. A typical schematic diagram

of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

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

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

accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. up to 5000kg. with verification scale interval

(n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 5g or more and with 'e' value of 1×10^k, 2×10^k or 5×10^k, where k is a positive or

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

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

[F.No. WM-21(105)/2010]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

7684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 18 vizSy] 2010

dk-vk- 3174.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/kdkjh ,uMCY;w,e,y] feMylSDl] ;wukbfVM fdaxMe }kjk tkjh ekWMy vuqeksnu

izek.k&i= ds lkFk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd mDr fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½

ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼1976 dk 60½ rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 1987 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i

gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vofè esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku

djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&èkjk ¼7½ vkSj mi&/kkjk ¼8½ }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ

,ulhvkj dkWjiksjs'kal] 2651] lsVsykbV ch-,y-oh-Mh- MqyqFk] ftvksftZ;k] 30096] ;w-,l-,- }kjk fofufeZr e/;e ;FkkFkZrk ¼;FkkFkZrk III½ okys

¶fj;yLdsu 7874&5000¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼VscyVki izdkj½ ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

¶,ulhvkj¸ gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls eSllZ ,ulhvkj dkWjiksjs'kUl bafM;k izk- fy-] Qs;jek¡V ysoy 5] gkbZ

LVªhV] ghjkuUnkuh fctusl ikdZ] iksobZ eqacbZ&400093] egkjk"Vª }kjk Hkkjr esa foi.khr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpUg vkbZ,uMh@09@10@323

leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i= tkjh djrh gSA

mDr ekWMy ,d fod`r xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kkfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k ¼VscyVki izdkj½ gS A bldh vf/kdre {kerk

15 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gSA lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky ¼bZ½ 5 xzk- gS] blesa ,d vk/ks;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;odyukRed /kkfjr vk/ks;rqyu izHkko gSA fyfDoM fØLVy MkW;ksM ¼,ylhMh½ izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke minf'kZr djrk gSA midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj

50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kkjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gSA

Ldsy dh ckWMh ds Nsnksa esa ls lhfyax ok;j fudky dj lhfyax dh tkrh gSA ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/k dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc)

Mk;xzke Åij fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi&/kkjk ¼12½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr

ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i= ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl)kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr

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

1 fe-xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 10000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vfèd ds ^^bZ**

eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky ¼,u½ lfgr 15 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/kdre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku

1x10^ds] 2x10^ds ;k 5x10^ds ds gSa] tks /kukRed ;k _.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSaA

[Qk-la- MCY;w ,e&21¼207½@2010]

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

vko`Qfr 1

vkd`fr&2 ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc) Mk;xzke

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7685

New Delhi, the 18th April, 2010

S.O. 3174.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority along with the Model approval certificate issued by the NWML, Middlesex, United Kingdom is satisfied that the

model described in the said report (see the figure given below), is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of

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

1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under

varied condidions;

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

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

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) and series REALSCAN 7874-

5000 with brand name “NCR” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. NCR Corporation, 2651,

Satellite Byd, Duluth, Georgia, 30096, USA and marketed in India by M/s. NCR Corporations India Pvt. Ltd., Fairmont Level

5, High Street, Hiranandani Business Park Powai Mumbai 400093 Maharashtra which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/

10/323.

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

maximum capacity of 15kg and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with

a 100 per cent Substractive retained tare effect. The liquid crystal diode (LCD) indicates the weighing results. The instrument

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

Figure-1 Model

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

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes. A typical schematic diagram

of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

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

and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 15 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the

range of 100 to 10000 for 'e' value of 1mg to 2g and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000

for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1×10^k, 2×10^k or 5×10^k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal

to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials

with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21(207)/2010]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

7686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3175.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fu/kkZfjr izkf/kdkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd mDr

fjiksVZ esa of.kZr ekWMy ¼uhps nh xbZ vkd`fr ns[ksa½ fof/kd eki foKku vf/kfu;e] 2009 ¼2010 dk 1½ rFkk fof/kd eki foKku ¼ekWMyksa dk

vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 2011 ds mica/kksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/k esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk

vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk(

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] fof/kd eki foKku ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e ¼6½ vkSj fu;e 11 ds

mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds lkFk ifBr fof/kd eki foKku vf/kfu;e] 2009 ¼2010 dk 1½ dh /kkjk 22 }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ ,ydkWu

def'kZ;y izk- fy-] 106] jktk fnusUnz LVªhV] dksydkrk] fiu&700004] if'pe caxky }kjk fofufeZr ekud {kerk ekiu ekMy ¼izks¯ox eStj½

^,ydkWu@ih,eVh* J`a[kyk vkSj ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^,udkWu** gS ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS½ vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpø

vkbZ,uMh@09@12@182 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i= tkjh djrh gSA

mDr ekWMy ekud {kerk eki ¼izksfoax eStj½ gSA bldh ukfeuy {kerk 2000 yhVj gS vkSj vf/kdre vuqes; =qfV ± 1@2000

va'kkadu Xykl V~;wc ds fMLiys ds lkFk ukfeuy {kerk gSA

vkd`fr&1

vkd`fr&2 ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc) Mk;xzke

ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/k dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc) Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gSA

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj fof/kd eki foKku ¼ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu½ fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8 ds mi&fu;e ¼9½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

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

vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofufeZr mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds eki

midj.k ¼izksfoax eStj½ Hkh gksaxs ftudh vfèdre vuqes; =qfV ± 1@2000 ukfeuy {kerk ds 50 yhVj ls 5000 yhVj rd gSA

[Qk- la- MCY;w-,e-&21¼177½@2011]

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7687

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2012

S.O. 3175.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

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

the Legal Metrology, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the Legal Metrology (Approval of Models) Rules, 2011 and the said model is likely

to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Standard capacity measure (Proving

Measure) of series ‘‘ALECON/PMT’’ and with brand name ‘‘ALECON’’ (hereinafter referred to as the said model) manufactured

by M/s. Alecon Commercial Private Limited, 106, Raja Dinendra Street, Kolkata, Pin-700004, West Bengal and which is

assigned the approval mark IND/09/12/182;

The said model is a standard capacity mesure (Proving Measure) of nominal capacity of 2000 litre and Maximum

Permissible error is ± 1/2000 of the nominal capacity with display consisting of graduated glass tube.

Figure-1 Model

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

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

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

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

measuring instruments (Proving Measure) of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum permissible

error of ± 1/2000 of the nominal capacity for capacity from 50 litre to 5,000 litre manufactured by the same manufacturer in

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

manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21(177)/2011]

B.N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

7688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3176 .—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g® os LFkkfir gks x, g®%µ

vuqlwph

Ø-la-

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k]

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn

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

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l 15934 ¼Hkkx 1½% 2012@vkbZbZlh 61747&

ebZ 2012

1%2003 nzo fØLVy ,oa Bksl & voLFkk izn'kZu

;qfDr;k¡ Hkkx 1 lkekU; fof'kf"V

vkbZ,l 15934 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2012@vkbZbZlh 61747&

tqykbZ 2012

2%1998 nzo fØLVy ,oa Bksl & voLFkk izn'kZu

;qfDr;k¡ Hkkx 2 nzo fØLVy izn'kZu ekM~;wy &

fo"k; fof'kf"V

vkbZ,l 12193 ¼Hkkx 3½% 2012@vkbZbZlh 60315&

tqykbZ 2012

4%1997 fofHkUu mRltZu oxks± ds fy, jsfM;ks

fjlhojksa dh ekiu i)fr;ka Hkkx 3 vko`fr&

ekM~;wfyr /ofu izlkj.k mRltZu ds fy, fjlhoj

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 13987 ¼Hkkx 1½% 2012@vkbZbZlh 611141Ñ

vxLr 2012

1%1999 11@12 GHz c®M esa mixzg izlkj.k izs"k.k ds

fy, vfHkxzkgh ,aVhuk Hkkx 1 fo|qrh; ekiu ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 14493 ¼Hkkx 7½%2012@vkbZbZlh 61156&7%2003

tqykbZ 2012

fMftVy lapkj.k ds fy;s cgqdksM vkSj lefer

is;j@doSM dscy Hkkx 7 1200 MHz rd

lapj.k y{k.k okyh lefer is;j dscy &

fMftVy vkSj ,ukykWx lapkj.k dscyksa dh

vuqHkkxh; fof'kf"V

vkbZ,l 14686 ¼Hkkx 4½% 2012@vkbZbZlh 60966 &

tqykbZ 2012

4%2003 jsfM;ks ckjEckjrk vkSj lek{k dscy

leqPp;

Hkkx 4 vèZ&dBksj lek{k dscy leqPp; ds fy,

vuqHkkxh; fof'kf"V

vkbZ,l 14700 ¼Hkkx 4½% 2012@vkbZbZlh 61000&4&

tqykbZ 2012

5%2005 fo|qr pqEcdh; laxrrk ¼bZ ,e lh½

Hkkx 4 ijh{k.k vkSj ekiu rduhd— vuqHkkx 5 ltZ

izfrj{kk ijh{k.k

vkbZ,l 15116%2012@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh

tqykbZ 2012

10116%2006 lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh & lqj{kk rduhd &

n&fcV CykWd flQj ds izpkyu izdkj ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7689

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 24762%2008 lwpuk

tqykbZ 2012

izkS|ksfxdh & lqj{kk rduhd & lwpuk ,oa lapkj

izkS|ksfxdh ds fouk'k fjdojh lsokvksa ds fy,

fn'kkfunsZ'k

10-

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 27000%2009 lwpuk

tqykbZ 2012

izkS|ksfxdh & lqj{kk rduhd & lwpuk lqj{kk izcaèu

iz.kkfy;ka & leh{kk vkSj 'kCnkoyh

11-

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 27003%2010 lwpuk

tqykbZ 2012

izkS|ksfxdh & lqj{kk rduhd & lwpuk lqj{kk izcaè

iz.kkyh ifjikyu ekxZn'kZu

12-

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 27004%2009 lwpuk

tqykbZ 2012

izkS|ksfxdh & lqj{kk rduhd & lwpuk lqj{kk izcaè

ekiu

13-

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks@vkbZbZlh 27005%2008 lwpuk

tqykbZ 2012

izkS|ksfxdh & lqj{kk rduhd & lwpuk lqj{kk

tksf[ke izcaè

14-

vkbZ,l 14624 ¼Hkkx 2½%2012@vkbZbZlh 60825&

vxLr 2012

2%2005 yst+j mRikn dh lqj{kk

Hkkx 2 izdkf'kr Qkbcj lapkj iðfr dh lqj{kk

iz.kkfy;ka ¼vks,Qlh,l½ ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

15-

vkbZ,l 14976%2012@vkbZbZlh 61315%2005

vxLr 2012

izdkf'kd rarq ikoj ehVjksa dk va'k'kksèu ¼igyk

iqujh{k.k½

16-

vkbZ,l 15077 ¼Hkkx 1½%2012@vkbZbZlh 62007&

vxLr 2012

1%2008 izdkf'kd rarq fudk; esa vuqiz;ksxksa ds

fy, v)pkyd vkIVksbySDVªkWfudh ;qfDr;kW Hkkx 1

vfuok;Z jsfVax ,oa y{k.k ds fy, fof'kf"V VseIysV

fof'kf"V ¼izFke iqujh{k.k½

17-

vkbZ,l 15077 ¼Hkkx 2½%2012@vkbZbZlh 62007&

flrEcj 2012

2%2008 izdkf'kd rarq fudk; esa vuqiz;ksxksa ds

fy, v)pkyd vkIVksbySDVªkWfudh ;qfDr;k¡ Hkkx 2

ekiu i)fr;k¡ ¼izFke iqujh{k.k½

18-

vkbZ,l@vkbZbZlh 60862&1%2003 /ofu lacaèh

tqykbZ 2012

lrg rjax ¼,l , MCY;q½ fQYVj dh fuèkZfjr

xq.krk Hkkx 1 oxhZ; fof'kf"V

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa] ubZ

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

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè g®A

[ lanHkZ % ,y vkbZ Vh Mh@th&75]

ih- jk/kkd`".kk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼bySDVªkWfudh ,oa vkbZ Vh½

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

7690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2012

S.O. 3176.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and year of the Indian Standards

No. and year of Indian Standards,

Date of

No.

Estblished

if any, Superseded by the

Established

New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 15934 (part 1): 2012/IEC 61747-1: 2003

May 2012

Liquid crystal and solid-state display devices

Part 1 : Generic specification

IS 15934: 2012 (Part 2) : 2012/IEC 61747-

July 2012

2: 1998 Liquid Crystal and Solid-State

Display Devices Part 2 : Liquid crystal

display modules-Sectional specification

IS 12193 (Part 3) : 2012/IEC 60315-4: 1997

July 2012

Methods of measurement on radio receivers

for various classes of emission Part 3

Receivers for frequency-modulated sound

broadcasting emissions (First Revision)

IS 13987 (Part 1): 2012/IEC 61114-1: 1999

August 2012

Receiving Antennas For Satellite Broadcast

Transmissions in the 11/12 GHz Band Part 1

Electrical Measurements (First Revision)

IS 14493 (Part 7): 2012/IEC 61156-7: 2003

July 2012

Multicore And Symmetrical Pair/Quad

Cables for Digital Communications Part 7

Symmetrical Pair Cables With Transmission

Characteristics Up to 1 200 MHz-

Sectional Specification for Digital and

Analog Communication Cables

IS 14686 (Part-4): 2012/IEC 60966-4: 2003

July 2012

Radio frequency and coaxial cable

assemblies-Part 4: Sectional specification

for semi-rigid coaxial cable assemblies

IS 14700 (Part 4/Sec 5): 2012/IEC 61000-4-

July 2012

5: 2005 Electromagnetic compatibility

(EMC)-Part 4: Testing and Measurement

Techniques Section 5 Surge Immunity Test

IS 15116: 2012/ISO/IEC 10116: 2006

July 2012

Information technology-Security

techniques-Modes of operation for an n-bit

block cipher (First Revision)

IS/ISO/IEC 24762: 2008 Information

July 2012

technology-Securitry techniques-Guidelines

for information and communications technology

disaster recovery services

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7691

10.

IS/ISO/IEC 27000: 2009 Information

July 2012

technology-Secuirty Techniques-

Information security management systems-

Overview and vocabulary

11.

IS/ISO/IEC 27003: 2010 Information

July 2012

technology-Security Techniques-

Information security management system

implementation guidance

12.

IS/ISO/IEC 27004: 2009 Information

July 2012

technology-Security Techniques-

Information security management-

Measurement

13.

IS/ISO/IEC 27005: 2008 Information

July 2012

technology-Security Techniques-

Information security risk management

14.

IS 14624: (Part 2): 2012/IEC 60825-2: 2005

August 2012

Safety of laser products-Part 2: Safety

optical fibre communication systems

(OFCS) (First Revision)

15.

IS 14976: 2012/IEC 61315: 2005 Calibration

August 2012

of fibre-optic power meters (First Revision)

16.

IS 15077 (Part 1): 2012/IEC 62007-1: 2008

August 2012

Semiconductor Optoelectronic Devices for

Fibre Optic System Applications-Part 1:

Specification Template for Essential Ratings

and Characteristics (First Revision)

17.

IS 15077: (Part 2): 2012/IEC 62007-2: 2009

September 2012

Semiconductor Optoelectronic Devices for

Fibre Optic System Applications-Part 2:

Part 2: Measuring Methods (First Revision)

18.

IS/IEC 60862-1: 2003 Surface acoustic wave

July 2012

(SAW) filters of assessed quality Part 1

Generic Specification

Copies of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

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

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

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. : LITD/G-75]

P. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist 'F' & Head (LITD)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

7692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3177.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ esa [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~ }kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd vf/klwph esa fn;s x;s ekud¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa%

Øñlañ

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½dh

la'kks/ku dh la[;k

la'kks/ku ykxw

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

vkSj frfFk

gksus dh frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l 1161%1998 bLikr ufydk,a lajpukRed

la'kks/ku la[;k 5

04 vDrwcj] 2012

mi;ksxksa ds fy;s & fof'kf"V ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

flrEcj] 2012

vkbZ,l 1239 (Part 2)%2011 & bLikr dh ufy;ka]

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

04 vDrwcj] 2012

ufydkdkj lkefxz;ka rFkk bLikr dh vU; fQfVaxsa &

flrEcj] 2012

fof'kf"V Hkkx&2 bLikr dh ikbZi fQfVaxsa ¼ikapoka iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 3601%2006 ;kaf=dh; vkSj lkekU; bathfu;fjax mn~ns'; ds

la'kks/ku la[;k 1

04 vDrwcj] 2012

fy, bLikr ufydk,a & fof'kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

flrEcj] 2012

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

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

dkuiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ% ,eVhMh 19@Vh&2] 31] 3]

ih- ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2012

S.O. 3177.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

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

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

IS No. & Title of the

No. & year of the

Date from which

No.

amendment(s)

amendment

the amendment

shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 1161:1998 Steel tubes for structural purposes -

Amendment No. 5

04 October, 2012

Specification (fourth revision)

September, 2012

IS 1239 (Part 2):2011 Steel tubes, tubulars and other

Amendment No. 1

04 October, 2012

steel fittings - Specification Part-2 Steel pipe

September, 2012

fittings (fifth revision)

IS 3601:2006 Steel tubes for mechanical and general

Amendment No. 1

04 October, 2012

engineering purposes - Specification (second revision)

September, 2012

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

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

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

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref.: MTD 19/T-2, 31, 3]

P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' & Head (Met. Engg.)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7693

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3178.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~

}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%&

vuqlwph

Øñlañ

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir

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

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

frfFk

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

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l 2034%2012 eD[ku vkSj iuhj ds fy, xksy [kqys

vkbZ,l 2034%1987 eD[ku vkSj iuhj ds

30&09&2012

'kh"kZ LokLF;dj fMCcs & fof'kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

fy, xksy [kqys 'kh"kZ LokLF;dj fMCcs &

fof'k"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 11078%2012 nw/k ikmMj ds fy, [kqys mijh lsusVjh

vkbZ,l 11078%1993 nw/k ikmMj ds fy,

30&09&2012

fMCcs & fof'kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

[kqys mijh lsusVjh fMCcs & fof'kf"V

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ,l 11104%2012 mijh [kqys gq, lsusVjh fMCcksa ls

vkbZ,l 11104%1984 mijh [kqys gq, lsusVjh 30&09&2012

lacaf/kr iz;qDr 'kCnkofy;ka ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fMCcksa ls lacaf/kr 'kCnkofy;ka

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

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

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ% ,eVhMh 32@Vh&3] 7] 33]

ihñ ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2012

S.O. 3178.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule here

to annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & year of the

No. & year of the Indian

Date of

No.

Indian Standards Established

Standards, if any Superseded

Established

by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 2034:2012 Round open top sanitary cans for butter

IS 2034:1987 Round open top

30-09-2012

and cheese - Specification (second revision)

sanitary cans for butter and

cheese - Specification (first revision)

IS 11078:2012 Round open top sanitary cans for milk

IS 11078:1993 Round open top

30-09-2012

powder - Specification (second revision)

sanitary cans for milk powder -

Specification (first revision)

IS 11104:2012 Glossary of terms relating to open

IS 11104:1984 Glossary of terms

30-09-2012

top sanitary cans (first revision)

relating to open top sanitary cans

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

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

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

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref.: MTD 32/T-3, 7, 33]

P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' & Head (MTD)

7694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3179.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7

ds mifu;e ¼1½ esa [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps

vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%&

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ u;s Hkkjrh;

LFkkfir frfFk

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

ekud }kjk

vfrØfer

Hkkjrh; ekud

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k

vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼ 2 ½

¼3½

¼4½

1- vkbZ,l@vkbZbZlh 60071&2%1996

29&08&2012

Å"ekjks/ku leUo;u Hkkx 2

vuqiz;ksx dh ekxZnf'kZdk

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud

Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa

vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj]iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ% bZVh 19@Vh&22]

vkj-lh- eSF;w]oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2012

S.O. 3179 .—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule

(1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian

Standards, particulars of which is given in the Schedule

hereto annexed has been issued:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of

Date of

No.

Indian Standard

the Indian

Establishment

Standards, if any,

Superseded by

the New Indian

Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/IEC 60071-2:1996

29-08-2012

Insulation Coordination

Part 2: Application Guide

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the

Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices:

New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and

also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,

Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref.: ET 19/T-22]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3180.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7

ds mifu;e ¼1½ esa [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps

vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%—

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ¼dksa½ dh la[;k o"kZ

}kjk vfrØfer

vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok

ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼ 2 ½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l@vkbZbZlh 13730

29-08-2012

¼Hkkx 12½ % 2012 fo'ks"k

izdkj dh daqMy.k rkjksa dh

fof'kf"V Hkkx 12 iksyhfoukby

,lhVy vusefyr xksy

dkWij dh rkjsa] oxZ 120

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud

Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa%

vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ% bZVh 33@Vh&115]

vkj-lh- eSF;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7695

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2012

S.O. 3180.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule

(1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of India Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies

the Indian Standards, particulars of which is given in the

Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of the

Date of

No.

Indian Standard

Indian Standards, Establishment

if any, Superseded

by the New Indian

Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/IEC 13730

—

29-08-2012

(Part 12) :2012

Specifications for

Particular Types of

Winding Wires,

Part 12 Polyvinyl

Acetal Enamelled

Round Copper Wire,

Class 120

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the

Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional

Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai,

Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad,

Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore,

Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref.: ET 33/T-115]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3181.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7

ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps

vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%&

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

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

}kjk vfrØfer

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok

ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ- ,l-@vkbZ-bZ-lh- 62056&

29&08&2012

53%2006 fo|qr ehVjhax&ehVj

jhfMax] 'kqYd vkSj y?kq fu;a=.k

ds fy, vkWadM+ksa dk fofue;

Hkkx 53% lhñ vksñ ,lñ bñ ,eñ

vuqiz;ksx laLrj

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud

Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa%

vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ% bZVh 13@Vh&51]

vkj- lh- eSF;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2012

S.O. 3181.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule

(1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,

the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian

Standards, particulars of which is given in the Schedule

hereto annexed has been issued:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of the

Date of

No.

Indian Standard

Indian Standards, Establishment

if any, Superseded

by the New Indian

Standard

(1)

( 2 )

(3)

(4)

IS/IEC 62056-53:2006

—

29-08-2012

Electricity Metering—Data

Exchange for Meter Reading

Tariff, and Load Control—

Part 53: Cosem Application

Layer

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the

Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional

Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai,

Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad,

Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore,

Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. : ET 13/T-51]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

7696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 8 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3182.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7

ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps

vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%—

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

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

}kjk vfrØfer

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok

ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]

dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZñ ,lñ 13778

29&08&2012

¼Hkkx 3½% 2012 osLVu &

ijh{k.k i)fr;kWa Hkkx 3

;kaf=d xq.k&/keZ

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZñ ,lñ 13778

29&08&2012

¼Hkkx 5½% 2012 osLVu &

ijh{k.k i)fr;kWa Hkkx 5

fo|qr xq.k&/keZ

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud

Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa%

vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ% bZVh& 33/Vh-109, Vh-117]

vkj- lh- eSF;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2012

S.O. 3182 .—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule

(1) of of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,

1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the

Indian Standards, particulars of which is given in the

Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of the

Date of

No.

Indian Standard

Indian Standards, Establishment

if any, Superseded

by the New Indian

Standard

(1)

( 2 )

(3)

(4)

IS 13778 (Part 3): 2012

—

29-08-2012

Winding—Wires—

Test Methods, Part 3

Mechanical Properties

(First Revision)

IS 13778 (Part 5): 2012

—

29-08-2012

Winding Wires—Test

Methods, Part 5

Electrical Properties

(First Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the

Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices:

New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and

also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,

Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. : ET 33/T-109, T-117]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

dks;yk ea=ky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3183.—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½

vfèfu;e 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh

Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx&II, [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii), rkjh[k 11 flrEcj ls

17 flrEcj] 2011 ds izdk'ku gksus ij Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk

ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dk- vk- la[;kad 2525] fnukad 13 flrEcj]

2011 ij mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls

blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ esa [kku] [kqnkbZ djus] cksj

djus] [kkstus vkSj [kfut dk irk yxkus] dk;Z djus vkSj ys tkus dk

vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu]

lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esa

fufgr gks x, Fks(

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS] fd osLVuZ

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr daiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± dks] ftudks dsUnzh;

ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds

fy, jtkean gS(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh

gS] fd mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij bl izdkj fufgr lHkh vf/kdkj rkjh[k

17 flrEcj] 2011 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds

ctk,] fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh

daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~% —

1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk

vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oslh gh eanksa

dh ckcr~ fd, x, lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ

djsxh(

2- mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mDr

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7697

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu

fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/kdj.k vkSj vf/kdj.k dh

lgk;rk ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa mixr lHkh O;;]

ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr

mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/k esa

vihysa vkfn tSlh lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~ mixr]

lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(

3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls

fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj

fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds iwoksZDr vf/kdkjksa ds ckjsa esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha

dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(

4- ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk]

mDr Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr

ugha gksxh( vkSj

5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funsZ'kksa vkSj 'krks± dks] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

}kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds

fy, fy, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd, tk,aA

[Qk- la- 43015@27@2008&ih vkj vkbZ MCY;w&I]

,- ds- nkl] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 15th October, 2012

S.O. 3183.—Whereas on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S.O. 2525, dated the 13th September, 2011,

published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii), dated the 11th September to 17th September,

2011, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal

Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957

(20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the

lands and all rights in or over the land described in the

Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter

referred to as the said lands) are vested absolutely in the

Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-

section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied

that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (Maharashtra)

(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is

willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the

Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the said lands and all rights

in or over the said lands so vested shall, with effect from

the 17th September, 2011, instead of continuing to so vest

in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government

Company, subject to the following terms and conditions,

namely:—

1. The Government Company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as

determined under the provisions of the said Act;

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of

the said Act, for the purpose of determining the

amounts payable to the Central Government by the

Government Company under condition (1) and all

expenditure incurred in connection with any such

tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal

shall be borne by the Government Company and

similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal

proceedings like appeals, etc., for or in connection

with the rights in or over the said lands so vested,

shall also be borne by the Government Company;

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection

with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid

rights in or over the said lands so vested;

4. The Government Company shall have no power to

transfer the said lands and rights to any other person

without the prior approval of the Central

Government; and

5. The Government Company shall abide by such

directions and conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particular

areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F.No. 43015/27/2008-PRIW-I]

A.K. DAS, Under Secy.

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3184.—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½

vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh

dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;kad

dk- vk- 1775] rkjh[k 16 ebZ] 2012 ds Hkkjr ds jkti= Hkkx II, [kaM

3] mi&[kaM (ii) rkjh[k 20 ebZ ls 26 ebZ] 2012 esa izdkf'kr gksus ij

mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph& ^d* esa of.kZr 1-368 gsDVj

yxHkx ;k 3-38 ,dM+ yxHkx Hkwfe rFkk vuqlwph& ^[k* esa of.kZr

5-981 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 14-78 ,dM+ ¼YkxHkx½ eki okyh mDr

Hkwfe esa [kfutksa ds [kuu] [knku] cksj djus] mudh [kqnkbZ djus vkSj

7698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ryk'k djus] mUgsa izkIr djus] mu ij dke djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus

ds vfèdkj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] lHkh

foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;kafrd :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esa

fufgr gks x, Fks(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bZLVuZ

dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lSDVksfj;k] Mkd?kj fnlsjx<+] ftyk

c)Zoku&713333] if'peh caxky ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh

dEiuh dgk x;k gS½ ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± dk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

bl fufeÙk vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy,

jtkeanh gS(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh

gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj]

rkjh[k 26 ebZ] 2012 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus

dh ctk;] fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs gq,] mDr

daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %

¼1½ ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk

vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkuh vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr

fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dh izfriwfrZ djsxh(

¼2½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj 'krZ

¼1½ ds v/khu] daiuh }kjk dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k

djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk

rFkk ,sls fdlh vf/kdj.k vkSj vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds

fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa mixr lHkh O;;] mDr daiuh

}kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml

ij ds vf/kdkj ds fy, ;k mlds laca/k esa tSls vihy vkfn

lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] blh

izdkj mDr daiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs(

¼3½ ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls

vU; O;; ds laca/k esa] {kfriwfrZ djsaxh tks bl izdkj fufgr

mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds

laca/k esa vko';d gks(

¼4½ ljdkjh daiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk]

mDr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij bl izdkj fufgr vfèdkj

dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh(

vkSj

¼5½ ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dks] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

}kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds

fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd;s tk,a] ikyu djsxhA

[Qk-la- 43015@1@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

,-ds- nkl] voj lfpo

ORDER

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2012

S.O. 3184.—Whereas on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S.O. 1775, dated the 16th May, 2012,

published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii), dated the 20th May to 26th May, 2012, issued

under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), all rights in or over

1.368 hectares (approximately) or 3.38 acres (approximately)

of land mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ and mining rights for

mining, quarry bore, dig and search for win, work and carry

away minerals in the land measuring 5.981 hectares

(approximately) or 14.78 acres (approximately) of land

mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ appended to the said notification

(hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested absolutely

in the Central Government free from all encumbrances

under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that

the Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Post Office

Dishergarh, District-Burdwan-713 333, West Bengal

(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is

willing to company with such terms and conditions as the

Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby direct that the said lands and rights in

or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from 26th

May, 2012 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central

Government shall vest in the Government Company,

subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:—

(1) The Government Company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages and the like as

determined under the provisions of the said act;

(2) A tribunal shall be constituted for the under section

14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining

the amounts payable to the Central Government by

the Government Company under condition (1) and

all expenditure incurred in connection with any such

tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal

shall be borne by the Government Company and

similarly all expenditure incurred in respect of all

legal proceedings like appeals etc., for or in

connection with the rights in or over the said lands

so vested, shall also be borne by the Government

Company;

(3) The Government Company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its officials against any others

expenditure that may be necessary in connection

with any proceedings by or against the Central

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7699

Government or its officials, regarding the aforesaid

rights in or over the said lands so vested;

(4) The Government Company shall have no power to

transfer the said lands and the rights to any other

person without the prior approval of the Central

Government; and

(5) The Government Company shall abide by such

directions and conditions as may be given or imposed

by the Central Government for particular areas of the

said land, as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/1/2009-PRIW-I]

A. K. DAS, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3185.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd

blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ls dks;yk

vfHkizkI; fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS(

vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr {ks= ds varfoZ"V C;kSjs js[kkad

la[;k lh&1¼bZ½ III/tststsvkj@876 & 0512] rkjh[k 8 ebZ] 2012 dk

fujh{k.k] osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ¼jktLo foHkkx½ dksy bLVsV]

flfoy ykbZUl] ukxiqj&440 001 ¼egkjk"Vª½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k eq[;

egkizca/kd ¼[kkst izHkkx½] dsUnzh; [kku ;kstuk ,oa fMtkbu laLFkku]

xksaMokuk iWysl] dkads jksM] jkaph& 834 001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk

fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk& 700 001 ds dk;kZy;

esa ;k ftyk dysDVj] panziqj ¼egkjk"Vª½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk

ldrk gS(

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj

fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds

vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS(

mDr vuqlwph esa mYysf[kr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr—

(i) laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij

fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu ij vk{ksi dj ldsxk( ;k

(ii) Hkwfe ;k ,slh Hkwfe ij dksbZ vf/kdkj ;k Hkwfe ds izfrdj ds fgr

ds fy, nkok dj ldsxk( ;k

(iii) [kuu iêk vtZu djus ds v/khu vf/kdkjksa dh iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr

izHkkoghu gks tkus vkSj Hkwfe laca/kh lHkh uD'ks pkVks± rFkk vU;

nLrkostksa dk ifjnku] v;Ldksa ;k vU; [kfutksa ds uewuksa dk

Hkwfe ls laxzg.k vkSj mudk lE;d fo'ys"k.k djus ds fy, rFkk

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼7½ esa fufnZ"V dksbZ

vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa ;k lkefxz;ksa dh rS;kjh ds fy, izfrdj

dh ekax]

bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds

Hkhrj] {ks=h; egkizca/kd] osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] cYykjiqj

{ks=] iksLV lkLrh] rglhy jktqjk] ftyk panziqj& 442 701 ¼egkjk"Vª½

;k egkizca/kd] osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx]

dksy bZLVsV] flfoy ykbZUl] ukxiqj&440 001 ¼egkjk"Vª½ dks Hkst

ldsxkA

vuqlwph

lk[kjh&bZjkorh ¼ikSuh&III½ vksiudkLV ekbZu

cYykjiqj {ks=

ftyk — panziqj ¼egkjk"Vª½

[js[kkad la[;k lh&1¼bZ½ III/tststsvkj@876&0512] rkjh[k 8 ebZ] 2012]

lHkh vf/kdkj%

Øe

xzke dk uke

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=Qy ¼gsDVj esa½

dqy fVIif.k;ka

la-

lfdZy

vfHkd`fr

ljdkjh

la[;k

lk[kjh

jktqjk

panziqj

666-29

61-43

12-07

739-39

Hkkx

ojksM+k

jktqjk

panziqj

36-95

1-80

0-00

38-75

Hkkx

fpapksyh ¼[kk½

jktqjk

panziqj

42-16

0-00

42-16

Hkkx

dqy%

745-40

63-23

12-07

820-70

dqy {ks=% — 820-70 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 2027-95 ,dM+ ¼YkxHkkx½

7700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lhek o.kZu%—

d&[k%

js[kk] xzke ojksM+k esa fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS fQj

xzke ojksM+k ,oa xzke lk[kjh dh lfEefyr xzke lhek

dks ikj djrh gS fQj xzke lk[kjh ls gksdj xqtjrh gS

vkSj fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA

[k&x&?k%

js[kk] xzke lk[kjh ls gksdj ekyxqtkjh rkykc vkSj

ikSuh vkslhih&II dh vftZr Hkwfe ls yxdj xqtjrh

gS fQj fcUnq ^x* ds ikl ls xqtjrh gS vkSj ikSuh

vks- lh-ih- dh vftZr Hkwfe ds ikl ^?k* ij feyrh

gSA

?k&³ %

js[kk] xzke lk[kjh ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fQj xzke lk[kjh

,oa xzke fpapksyh ¼[kqnZ½ dh lfEefyr xzke lhek

ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^³* ij feyrh gSA

³&p&N%

js[kk xzke fpapksyh ¼[kqnZ½ ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fQj

js[kk fcUnq ^p* ds ikl ls xqtjrh gS fQj js[kk xzke

ghjkiqj ,oa xzke lk[kjh dh lfEefyr xzke lhek ls

yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^N* ij feyrh gSA

N&t&d%

js[kk xzke lk[kjh ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fQj js[kk xzke

lk[kjh ,oa xzke ojksM+k dh lfEefyr xzke lhek ls

yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj js[kk xzke ojksM+k ls gksdj

xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^t* ds ikl ls xqtjrh gS vkSj

vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@11@2012&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

,- ds- nkl] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2012

S.O. 3185.—Whereas, it appears to the Central

Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the

lands in the locality desired in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas, the plan bearing number C-1(E)III/

JJJR/876—0512, dated the 8th May, 2012 containing the

details of the areas described in the said Schedule can be

inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields limited

(Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines,

Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief

General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine

Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke

Road, Ranchi-834 001 or at the office of the Coal Controller,

1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of

the District Collector, Chandrapur (Maharashtra);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect

for coal from lands described in the said Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the

said Schedule may—

(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part

of the land, or of any rights in or over such land; or

(ii)claim an interest in compensation if the land or

any rights in or over such land; or

(iii) seek compensation for prospecting licences

ceasing to have effect, rights under mining leases being

acquired, and deliver all maps, charts and other documents

relating to the land, collection from the land of cores or

other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the

preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred

to in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act,

to the Office of the Area General Manager, Western

Coalfields Limited, Ballarpur Area, Post Sasti, Tahsil Rajura,

District Chandrapur (Maharashtra)-442 701 or General

Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue

Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001

(Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of

publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

SAKHARI-IRAWATI (PAUNI-III) OPENCAST MINE

BALLARPUR AREA

DISTRICT CHANDRAPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

[Plan bearing number C-1(E)III/JJJR/876-0512, dated the 8th May, 2012]

All Rights:

Sl.

Name of Village

Patwari

Tahsil

District

Area (In hectares)

Total

Remarks

No.

Circle

number

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

Sakhari

Rajura

Chandrapur

666.29

61.43

12.07

739.79

Part

Waroda

Rajura

Chandrapur

36.95

1.80

0.00

38.75

Part

Chincholi (KH.)

Rajura

Chandrapur

42.16

0.00

42.16

Part

Total :

745.40

63.23

12.07

820.70

—

Total area: 820.70 hectares (approximately)

or 2027.95 acres (approximately)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7701

Boundary description:

A-B:

Line starts from Point 'A' in village Waroda

than line crosses to the common village

boundary of villages Waroda and Sakhari,

then line passes through village Sakhari and

meets at Point 'B'.

B-C-D:

Line passes through village Sakhari along

the Malgujari Lake and acquired land

boundary of Pauni-II OCP then passes

nearby Point 'C' and meets at Point 'D' near

the acquired land of Pauni Opencast Mine.

D-E:

Line passes through village Sakhari, then

passes along the common village boundary

of villages Sakhari and Chincholi (KH.) and

meets at Point 'E'.

E-F-G:

Line passes through village Chincholi (KH.)

then line passes nearby Point 'F', then line

pases along the common village boundary

of villages Sakhari and Hirapur and meets

at Point 'G'.

G-H-A:

Line passes through village Sakhari then

the line passes along the common village

boundary of villages Sakhari and Waroda,

then line passes through village Waroda

and passes nearby Point 'H' and meets at

starting Point 'A'.

[F.No. 43015/11/2012-PRIW-I]

A.K. DAS, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3186.—dsUæh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu

vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa] blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds

v/khu t+kjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk

la[;kad dk-vk- 1697] rkjh[k 20 twu 2011] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=]

Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 25 twu] 2011 esa izdkf'kr dh

xbZ Fkh] n~okjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa ;Fkk of.kZr 58-70

gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 145-05 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa ;k

ml ij ds [kuu vf/kdkj ds vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk

nh Fkh(

vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds vuqlj.k

esa dsUæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS(

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj dk] iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds

i'pkr~ vkSj egkjk"Vª ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/kku

gks x;k gS] fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 58-70 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 145-05 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa [kfutksa ds [kuu]

[knku] cksj djus] mudh fjgkbZ djus] mUgsa izkIr djus gsrq ryk'k djus

vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A

vr%] vc dsUæh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj

fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk

¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd

vuqlwph esa of.kZr 58-70 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 145-05 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

eki okyh Hkwfe esa [kfutksa ds [kuu] [knku] cksj djus] mudh [kqnkbZ

djus] mUgsa izkIr djus gsrq ryk'k djus vkSj mUgsa ys tkus ds vf/kdkjksa

dk vtZu fd;k tkrk gSA

bl vf/klwpuk ds varxZr vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k

lh&1¼bZ½@III@,Qvkj@880&0712] rkjh[k 11 tqykbZ] 2012 dk

fujh{k.k dysDVj] ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk

fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk ¼fiu&700 001½ ds

dk;kZy; esa ;k osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo foHkkx½] dksy

,LVsV] flfoy ykbUl] ukxiqj&440 001 ¼egkjk"Vª½ ds dk;kZy; esa

fd;k tk ldrk gSA

vuqlwph

ok?kksM+k vaMjxzkmUM ekbZu

ukxiqj {ks=

ftyk & ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½

[js[kkad la[;k lh&I¼bZ½III/,Qvkj@880&0712]

rkjh[k 11 tqykbZ] 2012]

Ø-

xzke dk uke

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=Qy

fVIif.k;ka

la-

lfdZy

gsDVj esa

la[;k

lkousj

ukxiqj

58-70

Hkkx

dqy {ks=%&58-70 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 145-05 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

xzke lkousj esa vftZr fd, x, IykWV la[;kad%

245 Hkkx] 246 Hkkx] 248] 249] 250 Hkkx] 252 Hkkx] 253

Hkkx] 266 Hkkx] 661 Hkkx] 662] 663] 664] 665 Hkkx] 666 Hkkx]

667 Hkkx] 668 Hkkx] 669 Hkkx] 670 Hkkx] 672 Hkkx] 673 Hkkx]

678] 677 Hkkx] 679 Hkkx] 681] 682] 683] 684] 685 Hkkx] 686]

687 Hkkx] 689]690] 691] 692] 693] 694] 695] 696 Hkkx]

697] 698] 699] 700] 701 Hkkx] 702 Hkkx] 703] 704 Hkkx] 715

Hkkx] 1155] 1156] 1157] 1158] lM+d Hkkx] dksykj unh Hkkx]

'kkldh; Hkwfe HkkxA

lhek o.kZu%

d&[k%

js[kk fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lkousj ds

IykWV la[;kad 679] 678] 673] 672] 670] 669]

668] 667] 666] 665] 664] 663] dh ckg~;

lhek ds lkFk tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA

[k&x%

js[kk IykWV la[;k 662 dh ckg~; lhek ds lkFk tkrh

gqbZ IykWV la[;kad 661] 687] 685] 689] 266]

7702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

253] 252] 250] ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj IykWV

la[;kad 249] 248 dh ckg~; lhek ds lkFk tkrh

gqbZ IykWV la[;k 246] 'kkldh; Hkwfe rFkk IykWV

la[;k 245 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^x* ij

feyrh gSA

x&?k%

js[kk IykWV la[;k 245 rFkk 'kkldh; Hkwfe ls gksdj

xqtjrh gqbZ dksykj unh dks ikj djrh gS] vkSj IykWV

la[;k 696 ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ lM+d ikj djrh gS

vkSj IykWV la[;kad 704] 702] 701] 715 ls gksdj

xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA

?k&³%

js[kk IykWV la[;k 715 dh ckg~; lhek ds lkFk tkrh

gS vkSj fcUnq ^³* ij feyrh gSA

³&p%

js[kk lM+d ikj djrh gS vkSj IykWV la[;kad 698]

681 dh ckg~; lhek ds lkFk xqtjrh gqbZ unh dks

ikj djrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^p* ij feyrh gSA

p&N%

js[kk dksykj unh ds mRrjh fdukjs ds lkFk tkrh gqbZ

IykWV la[;k 684 dh ckg~; lhek ds lkFk xqtjrh gS

vkSj fcUnq ^N* ij feyrh gSA

N&d%

js[kk xzke lkousj ds IykWV la[;kad 663] 664 dh

ckg~; lhek ds lkFk tkrh gqbZ IykWV la[;kad 665]

666] 667] 668] 669] 670] 672] 673] 677]

679 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d*

ij feyrh gSA

[Qk-la- 43015@36@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

,-ds- nkl] voj lfpoA

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2012

S.O. 3186.—Whereas by the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Coal vide number

S.O. 1697, dated the 20th June, 2011, 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

part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India,

dated the 25th June, 2011, the Central Government gave

notice of its intention to acquire the lands measuring 58.70

hectares (approximately) or 145.05 acres (approximately)

and mining rights in and or as such lands as described 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;

And whereas, the Central Government after

considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the

Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that the rights to

mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for win work and carry

away minerals in the lands measuring 58.70 hectares

(approximately) or 145.05 acres (approximately) as described

in 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 rights to mine,

quarry, bore, dig and search for win, work and carry away

minerals in the lands measuring 58.70 hectares

(approximately) or 145.05 acres (approximately) described

in Schedule, are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number C-1(E) III/FR/880-0712,

dated the 11th July, 2012 of the area covered by this

notification, may be inspected in the office of the Collector,

Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller,

1, Council House Street, Kolkata (Pin 700 001) or in the

office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue

Department), Coal, Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001

(Maharashtra).

SCHEDULE

WAGHODA UNDERGROUND MINE

NAGPUR AREA

DISTRICT - NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

[Plan bearing number C-1(E) III/FR/880-0712,

dated the 11th July, 2012]

Sl.

Name of

Patwari

Tahsil District

Area in Remarks

No.

village

circle

hectares

number

Saoner

Saoner Nagpur

58.70

Part

Total: 58.70 hectares (approximately)

or 145.05 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers acquired in village Saoner:

245 Part, 246 Part, 248, 249, 250 Part, 252 Part, 253

Part, 266 Part, 661 Part, 662, 663, 664, 665 Part, 666 Part, 667

Part, 668 Part, 669 Part, 670 Part, 672 Part, 673 Part, 678, 677

Part, 679 Part, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685 Part, 686, 687 Part, 689,

690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696 Part, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701

Part, 702 Part, 703, 704 Part, 715 Part, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158,

Road Part, Kolar River Part, Government land Part.

Boundary description:

A—B:

Line starts from point 'A' and passes along

the outer boundary of plot numbers 679,

678, 673, 672, 670, 669, 668, 667, 666,

665, 664, 663 of village Saoner and meets

at point 'B'.

B—C:

Line passes along the outer boundary of

plot number 662 then passes through plot

numbers 661, 687, 685, 689, 266, 253, 252,

250, passes along the outer boundary of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7703

plot numbers 249, 248, then, proceeds

through plot number 246, Government land,

plot number 245 and meets at point 'C'.

C—D :

Line passes through plot number 245,

Government land, then crosses the river

Kolar, then passes through plot number 696,

then crosses the road then passes through

plot numbers 704, 702, 701, 715 and meets

at point 'D'.

D—E :

Line passes along the outer boundary of

plot number 715 and meets at point 'E'.

E—F :

Line crosses the road, then passes along

the outer boundary of plot numbers 698,

681, then crosses the river and meets at point

'F'.

F—G :

Line passes along the northern bank of Kolar

river, then proceeds along the outer

boundary of plot number 684 and meets at

point 'G'.

G—A :

Line passes along the outer boundary of

plot numbers 663, 664, then passes through

plot numbers 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670,

672, 673, 677, 679 of village Saoner and

meets at starting point 'A'.

[F.No. 43015/36/2009-PRIW-I]

A.K. DAS, Under Secy.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3187.—dsUnzh; ljdkj isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa uhps

nh xbZ vuqlwph ds LrEHk ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr O;fDr dks mDr vuqlwph

ds LrEHk ¼2½ esa dh rRLFkkuh izfof"V esa mfYyf[kr {ks= dh ckcr]

mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds d`R;ksa dk ikyu djus

ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS] vFkkZr%µ

vuqlwph

izkf/kdkjh dk uke vkSj irk

{ks=

Jh ,p-,l- jkor] fMIVh dysDVj ¼fjVk;MZ½

e/; izns'k jkT;

eYykoje & Hkksiky & fHkyokM+k & fot;iqj

uspqjy xSl ikbiykbu usVodZ

th,lih,y bafM;k VªkUldks fyfeVsM

?kj ua- 468] lsDVj&,] 'kkgiqjk]

Hkksiky & 462 016] e/; izns'k

2- ;g vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[Qk- la- ,y&14014@39@2011&th-ih]

,- xksLokeh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2012

S.O. 3187.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2

of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central

Government hereby Authorizes the person mentioned in

column (1) of the Schedule given below to perform the

functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act,

in respect of the areas mentioned in column (2) of the said

Schedule namely:—

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the

Area of Jurisdiction

Authority

Shri H.S. Rawat, Deputy

For the State of

Collector (Retd.)

Madhya Pradesh

Mallavarm - Bhopal -

Bhilwara - Vijaipur

Natural Gas Pipeline Network

GSPL INDIA TRANSCO

Limited (GITL)

468, Sector-A, Shahpura

Bhopal - 462 016, Madhya Pradesh

2. This notification will be effective from the date of

its issue.

[F.No. L-14014/39/2011-GP]

A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3188.— dsUnzh; ljdkj isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa uhps

nh xbZ vuqlwph ds LrEHk ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr O;fDr dks mDr vuqlwph

ds LrEHk ¼2½ esa dh rRLFkkuh izfof"V esa mfYyf[kr {ks= ds ckcr~ mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds d`R;ksa dk ikyu djus ds

fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS vFkkZr~%µ

vuqlwph

Øe-l-

izkf/kdkjh dk uke vkSj irk

vka/kz izns'k

U;kf;d {ks=

ds fy,

Jh fp- rstks HkkLdj jko] rglhynkj

eYykoje&Hkksiky&HkhyokM+k

fot;iqj uspqjy xSl ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk]

7704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

th,lih,y bafM;k Vªkaldks fyfeVsM

bZLV xksnkojh

Mksj ua- 82&18&11] [kku ys&vkmV]

xsy vkWfQl ds lkeus] jkteaMªh

LiksVZ~l Dyc ds lehi]

,-oh- vIikjko jksM] jkteaMªh&533103

ftyk% bZLV xksnkojh ¼vka/kz izns'k½

Jh fp- ,p-oh-vkj- 'kekZ] rglhynkj]

eYykoje&Hkksiky&HkhyokM+k&

fot;iqj uspqjy xSl ikbiykbu

ifj;kstuk]

th,lih,y bafM;k Vªkaldks fyfeVsM]

[kEee ,oa okjaxy

24&4&264@1] rhljh eafty]

jkekfd'kuk dkWyksuh] QkjsLV vkWfQl

ds lehi] gkuedksUMk]

ftyk% okjaxy ¼vka/kz izns'k½

Jh eks- vdcj uokt] rglhynkj]

eYykoje&Hkksiky&HkhyokM+k&

fot;iqj uspqjy xSl ikbiykbu

ifj;kstuk

th,lih,y bafM;k Vªkaldks fyfeVsM

djheuxj ,oa

¶ySV uañ 309] rhljh eafty]

vkfnykckn

Jh dSyklk jslhMsUlh

viksyks jhp gLirky ds lkeus]

jsyos LVs'ku jksM]

ftyk% djheuxj ¼vka/kz izns'k½

Jh ,e- jkek d`".kk] rglhynkj]

eYykoje&Hkksiky&HkhyokM+k&

fot;iqj uspqjy xSl ikbiykbu

ifj;kstuk

th,lih,y bafM;k Vªkaldks fyfeVsM

osLV xksnkojh

Mskj uañ 23B&4&14] lqcEeknsoh

Ldwy ysu] jkekpUnzkjko isVk] ,yw#]

ftyk% osLV xksnkojh ¼vka/kz izns'k½

;g vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[Qk-la-,y&14014@39@2012&th-ih-]

,-xksLokeh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2012

S.O. 3188.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2

of the Petroleum Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition and Right

of use in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central

Government hereby Authorizes the person mentioned in

column (2) of the Schedule given below to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for GITL's Mallavaram-

Bhopal-Bhilwara-Vijaipur pipeline under the said Act, in

respect of the areas mentioned in column (3) of the said

Schedule, namely:—

SCHEDULE

Sl.No. Name and Address of the Authority Area of

Jurisdiction

in the state of

Andhra

Pradesh

Sri Ch. Tejo Bhaskar Rao, Tehsildar

Mallavaram-Bhopal-Bhilwara-

Vijaipur Natural Gas

Pipeline Project,

GSPL India Transco Limited

For the

Door No. 82-18-11, Khan Layout

District of

Opp. GAIL Office, Near

East

Rajahmundry Sports Club,

Godavari

A.V. Apparao Road,

Rajahmundry-533103

Distt.-East Godavari (AP)

Sri Ch. H.V.R. Sharma, Tehsildar

Mallavaram-Bhopal-Bhilwara-

Vijaipur Natural Gas

Pipeline Project

GSPL India Transco Limited

For the

24-4-264/1, 3rd Floor,

District of

Ramakrishna Colony, Near

Khammam &

Forest Office, Hanamkonda,

Warangal

Distt.-Warangal (AP)

Sri Md. Akbar Nawaz, Tehsildar

Mallavaram-Bhopal-Bhilwara-

Vijaipur Natural Gas

Pipeline Project

GSPL India Transco Limited

For the

Flat No. 309, 3rd Floor,

District of

Sri Kailasa Residency,

Karimnagar

Opp. Apollo Reach Hospital,

& Adilabad

Railway Station Road,

Subhash Nagar, Village

Teegalagutapally,

Distt. Karimnagar (AP)

Sri M. Rama Krishna, Tehsildar

Mallavaram-Bhopal-Bhilwara-

Vijaipur Natural Gas

Pipeline Project

Øe-l-

izkf/kdkjh dk uke vkSj irk

vka/kz izns'k

U;kf;d {ks=

ds fy,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7705

GSPL India Transco Limited

For the

Door No. 23B-4-14,

District of

Subbammadevi School Lane

West

Ramachandrarao Pet, Eluru,

Godavari

Distt. West Godavari,

Pin-534002 (AP)

2. This notification will be effective from the date of

its issue.

[F. No. L-14014/39/2012-GP]

A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk-3189.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

flD;ksfjVh isij fey] gks'kaxkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh-

th-vkbZ-Vh-@,y-lh-@vkj-@64@04½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 20&9&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-&16011@04@2002&vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh-;w-½]

lqjsUnz dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2012

S.O. 3189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/64/04) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexe, in the Industrial

dispute between the General Manager, Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 20-09-2012.

[No. L-16011/04/2002-IR(DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/04

Presiding officer: SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

The General Secretary,

SPM Employees Union,

Type II/63, Phase II,

SPM, Hoshangabad

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager

Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of August 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-16011/4/2002-IR(DU) dated 20-5-2004

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal:—

“Whether the claim of the General Secretary, SPM

Employees Union, Hoshangabad for implementation

of the report of National Productivity Council (NPC)

recommending higher pay scales to the technical

employees of Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad is

legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned

workman are entitled to and from which date?”

2. The case of the Union in short is that the Security

Paper Mill, Hoshangabad (in short SPM) was modernized

in early 1980 to increase the production capacity. A job

study of the SPM was done by an independent agency

known as IBCON Ltd., Mumbai but the SPM Employees

Union did not agree to be a signatory for implementation

of IBCON Ltd. report. Thereafter Govt. of India, Ministry

of Finance appointed National Productivity Council (in

short NPC) to conduct a scientific study of manpower

assessment, job evaluation including job specifications,

pay scales, incentive and inprovisation of maintenance

practice of SPM. The recommendations of the NPC were

implemented w.e.f. 21-10-1992 through a tripartite agreement

whereby some of the existing posts were upgraded, some

posts had been redesignated and some posts had been

created. The NPC vide letter No. 5119 dated 15-11-88

recommended that the Technical employees should be

appointed as semi-skilled Trademan. The Union gave

representations to the management to implement the said

recommendation but no reply was given. It is stated that

there was anomalies in the pay scales of technical and

non-technical employees of the SPM which was necessary

Sl.No. Name and Address of the Authority Area of

Jurisdiction

in the state of

Andhra

Pradesh

7706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to be removed in view of recommendation and manpower

assessment and job evaluation. The NPC in the year 1999

submitted a report that the pay scale of technical employees

should be higher than that of non-technical employees.

This report was submitted back in the year 1992. The Union

raised the dispute when the management did not implement

the report. It is submitted that the claim of Union for

implementation of the report of NPC recommending higher

pay scales to technical employees of SPM, Hoshangabad

be declared as legal and justified.

3. The management appeared and filed Written

Statement. The case of the management, interalia, is that

admittedly SPM was modernized in early 1980 to increase

the production capacity and IBCON Ltd. Mumbai was

entrusted for job study of the mill. His report was not

acceptable to the SPM, Union and subsequently Govt. of

India appointed NPC to submit his recommendation after

scientific study for manpower assessment, job evaluation

including job specifications and pay scales etc. The

recommendations of the NPC was approved by the Govt.

and was agreed by the SPM Union and were implemented

w.e.f. 21-10-1992 through a tripartite agreement. It is denied

that the NPC vide letter No. 5119 dated 15-11-1988

recommended that the technical staffs should be appointed

as semi skilled tradesman rather it was a mere clarification

from NPC regarding one of the points that in Engineering

Sections basic qualification of fresh recruit should be ITI

and NPC accepted the said suggestion but in such a case,

the recruitment should be in the grade VII as "Mates" and

not as Mazdoor in Grade VIII. However in recruitment rules,

the basic qualification to the post of mazdoor is ITI. It is

stated that there is no recommendation either from NPC or

Pay Commission that technical employees should be given

higher pay scale. It is stated that in absence of any specific

recommendation by either NPC or Pay Commission, it is

not possible to accede to the demand of the Union for

higher pay scale to technical employees. It is denied that

the Union started representing to the management way

back in the year 1997 regarding the implementation of the

recommendations of NPC. The pay scales recommended

for technical employees were agreed by the recognized

Union as per the tripartite agreement. It is submitted that

the Union is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

following issues are framed for adjudication—

I. Whether the claim of the Union for implemenation of

the report of NPC recommending higher pay scales

to the Technical employees of SPM, Hoshangabad

is legal and justified?

II. To what relief the Union is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

following facts are admitted—

The SPM Hoshangabad was modernised in early

1980 to increase the productive capacity of the mill.

A job study of the SPM, Hoshangabad was done

by an independent agency known as IBCON Ltd.

Mumbai but the SPM Union did not agree to be

signatory for implementation of IBCON Ltd.

report.

Thereafter Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance

appointed NPC to conduct a scientific study of

manpower assessment, job evaluation including job

specifications, pay scales, incentive and

improvisation of maintenance practice of SPM.

The recommendations of the NPC were

implemented w.e.f. 21-10-1992 through a tripartite

agreement whereby some of the existing posts were

upgraded, some posts had been re-designated and

some posts had been created.

6. According to the Union, there are two classes of

employees in SPM, Hoshangabad—on technical

employees of engineering deptt. and another non-technical

employees of control and process department. The entry

point of Technical employee is the post of Mazdoor whereas

the entry point of non-technical employee is Paper Boy.

The educational and other qualification required at the entry

point in both categories of employees are also different.

The basis of the appointment for the post of mazdoor in

technical category, is matric and I.I.T recognised by the

Govt. whereas in non-technical as Paper Boy, the basis of

the appointment is Class VIIIth Pass and two years

experience of highly grade skilled worker in the Finishing

house of a Paper will/under the Govt./Govt. undertaking/

reputed companies. It is stated that there is difference in

pay scales of technical employees in higher grade in the

cadre and the non-technical employees are getting higher

scales in higher cadre. Moreover the period taken in

promotion to non-technical employees is less than the

technical employees. It is stated that the NPC had

recommended that entry of technical employee in

engineering Sections should be in the Grade VII as Mate

and not as Mazdoor in Grade VIII. It is stated that work of

the technical cadre is hazardous where as non-technical is

not as such. It is also stated that NPC had recommended

vide letter 5119 dated 15-11-88. On the other hand, the

management has contended that there is no specific

recommendation either by NPC or by Pay Commission to

upgrade the entry point of technical employee in

Engineering Section as Grade VII Mate instead of Mazdoor

Grade VIII. It is stated that the NPC vide letter No. 5119

dated 15-11-1988 had clarified regarding one of the points

that in Engineering Sections, basic qualification of fresh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7707

recruits should be ITI but in such case the recruitment

should be in the grade VII as Mates and not a Mazdoor in

Grade VIII. It is stated that it was not a specific

recommendation rather it was a suggestion given by the

NPC. It is stated that there is no specific recommendation

and there is no anomalies. It is also stated that the

recommendation of NPC were implemented through a

tripartite agreement and the SPM Union was party to it.

7. Now let us examine the evidence adduced by the

parties. To prove the case, the Union has examined two

witnesses. The Union witness Shri Santosh Gour is

President of the Union. He is Machine Operator Grade IV

in SPM, Hoshangabad.

He has supported the case of the Union. He has

stated that the NPC vide letter No. 5119 dated 15-11-1988

had recommended that the Technical employees should be

appointed as semi-skilled trademen. He has stated that the

Union had requested the management to put effect on the

said recommendations of the NPC. He has admitted that

there was tripartite settlement on 21-10-1992 with respect

to the recommendations of the NPC and a writ bearing no.

W.P. 5996 was also filed. He has further stated that lateron

a clarification of the NPC was also received and the

management had accepted the same. His evidence shows

that the NPC had recommended the case of the Technical

employee by way of clarification and the same was accepted

but it was not implemented by the management. Another

Union witness Shri K.P. Agrawal is working as Fitter Grade

VII in SPM Hoshangabad. He has also supported the case

of the Union. He has also stated that the NPC had

recommended vide letter 5119 dated 15-11-1988 that the

Technical employees should be appointed as semi skilled

Trademen. He has differentiated the Technical and non-

technical employee of the SPM Hoshangabad appointed

at the time of initial appointment and the pay scale in the

higher grades are also less which are as under:—

Qualification

Grade on

Garde on

Grade on

for initial

initial

1st

IInd

IIIrd

recruitment

Promotion

Non-

8th passed

Rs. 2650-4000

Rs. 3200-4900

Rs. 4000-6000

Rs. 4500-7000

Technical

Employees

Technical

I.T.I. +

Rs. 2650-4000

Rs. 3050-4590

Rs. 3200-4900

Rs. 4000-6000

Employees

Matric

This clearly shows that in the initial appointment

higher educational qualification and technical qualification

are required to the technical employee whereas it is not

necessary to the non-technical employee. This fact is not

challenged by the management. This witness has further

stated that there is discrimination between the technical

employees in respect of required service period to achieve

equivalent grades in promotion. This fact is also not denied

by the management that the non-technical employee

requires less period to achieve higher grade than the

Technical employee. Thus it is clear that non-technical

employees are getting promotion before the technical

employee.

8. The Union has also filed documentary evidence in

support of the case. These documents are admitted by the

management. Exhibit W/1 is the copy of the letter No. 5119

dated 15-1-88 of the NPC. The said letter shows that

clarification was sought on NPC report for implementation.

In Item No. 10, the clarification was sought that in

engineering sections, basic qualification of fresh recruits

should be ITI which is as under—

In engineering sections

In the interest of

Basic qualification of

implementations, the suggestion

Fresh recruits should be is accepted but in such a case,

ITI.

the recruitment should be in the

Grade VII as "Mate" and not as

Mazdoor in Grade VIII.

... ACCEPTED

In the said item, the NPC had clarified that in the interest

of implementation, the suggestion is accepted but in such

a case, the recruitment should be in the Grade VII as "Mate"

and not as Mazdoor in Grade VIII. The claficiation means

the process of making clear. This shows that the NPC had

clarified his recommendation made to the management.

This shows that it was not a suggestion rather it was the

recommendation of the NPC of his report that at the entry

point in the technical cadre, fresh recruit should be Grade

VII as "Mate". This document further shows that the

management had accepted the clarification made by the

NPC but the management contended that it was suggestion

about the entry of fresh recruit in Engineering Section in

the Grade VII as "Mate". This shows that if the qualification

is fixed as ITI then the entry for fresh recruitment in

engineering Section must be in Grade VII as "Mate" This

shows that it was not a suggestion but a recommendation.

This is clear that the action of the management is arbitrarily

that only part of the clarification is implemented without

pleading any sound reason.

9. Exhibit W/2 is the recommendation of NPC of non-

technical employees of SPM, Hoshangabad. This is filed

to show that the educational qualification of Paper Boy is

Class VIIIth pass. This further shows that the promotion in

this cadre is more quick than the technical cadre. It also

shows that in higher grade the pay scale is also higher

than the technical cadre in the same grade. Exhibit W/3 is

the recommendation of Technical employees of SPM,

7708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hoshangabad. This is filed to show that the employee of

this cadre is also appointed in the same scale and grade

though such employee possesses higher qualification but

is getting less pay on promotion in higher grade and also

takes more time in promotion. Thus, the documentary

evidence of the Union clearly shows that there is a

recommendation of the NPC that if the qualification is

fixed ITI, then the entry should be in grade VII as Mate

and the same was accepted by the management but the

management is not justified in accepting the educational

qualification for entry for fresh recruitment in Engineering

Section only. This clarification of NPC is deemed to be

part of the report. The said recommendations appears to

be not implemented by the management.

10. On the other hand the management has examined

only oral evidence. The management witness Shri K.N.

Mahapatra is Deputy Manager in SPM, Hoshangabad

(MP). He has stated that the recommendations of the NPC,

as approved by the Govt. and as agreed by the SPM

Employees Union, were implemented w.e.f. 21-10-1992

through a tripartite agreement. The said tripartite agreement

is not filed by the management. He has stated at Para 14

that a W.P.No. 5696/98 was filed before the Hon'ble High

Court and that case is different but partly related to this

case. The copy of the order dated 31-1-2006 passed in Writ

Petition No. 5696/98 is filed. The said order clearly shows

that the said tripartite settlement was declared illegal. The

Hon'ble High court held in para-18 that—

“For another reason, the said settlement cannot be

said to be a settlement in the eye of law because for

arriving at a settlement, the condition precedent is

that there should be a demand by the Union, a reply

should be filed by the management, negotiation

should take place and thereafter the settlement is to

be signed by the employer and in the case of the

workmen by an officer of the trade Union. In the case

of a conciliation settlement, the conciliation officer

is obliged to send a report to the Central Government

together with the copy of the settlement signed by

the parties to the dispute (in that regard the foot

note of Form II prescribed under Rule 58 may be

seen) in case of a mutual settlement, parties to the

settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the

Central Government, the Chief Labour Commissioner,

Regional Labour Commissioner and Assistant Labour

Commissioner. On going through Annexure A/1, the

settlement, no where it is gathered that it was ever

forwarded to either to Central Government or other

officers as required under Rule 58. Learned senior

counsel for the petitioner did not assail the award of

the Tribunal on its merit. The entire endeavour which

was putforth by him is in regard to the settlement

dated 21-10-1992 (Annexure A/21) which I have

already held hereinabove that it has no sanctity in

the eye of law.”

It is clear that the tripartite settlement was held illegal

and it shows that the management had accepted the

recommendation of the report of NPC on his own accord

and not on the tripartite settlement. This management

witness has also admitted that the letter No. 5119 dated

15-11-98 was clarification and suggestion. The

management witness has proved the same document which

is marked as W/1. He has further supported the case of the

Union that the educational qualification of the Mazdoor

in Engineering Section must be matric and ITI and the

qualification of Paper Boy is class VIIIth. He has further

stated that he had not seen any report that the clarification

report of the NPC was studied by the management. This

shows that the management had simply accepted the point

of qualification which was referred to the NPC and had

not implemented the entire clarification of the NPC which

was condition precedent to the educational qualification.

When the management has accepted the basic qualification

of entry in the Engineering Section, then it is to be in Grade

VII as "Mate" and not in Grade VIII as Mazdoor. Thus

this issue is decided in favour of the Union and against the

management.

11. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above, it is clear

that the claim of the Union is justified because the

management has party accepted the clarification of the

recommendation vide Exhibit W/1 but the other part of the

clarification that the recruitment should be in Grade VII as

"Mate" was condition precedent to the entire clarification.

The management is directed to implement the same w.e.f.

21-10-1992 after upgrading the post as grade VII "Mate" in

Engineering Sections and pay the differences of pay and

all other consequential benefits arising thereof. The

reference is, accordingly, answered.

12. In the result the award is passed without any

order to costs.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3190.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj vkQhlj bu pktZ]

,vj vjekesUV bULiSD'ku foax] pUækiqj ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-@,u-th-ih@08@2007½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 20&09&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@09@2006&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

lqjsUæ dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7709

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2012

S.O. 3190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/

NGP/08/2007) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between The Officer-

in-Charge, Air Armament Inspection Wing, Chandrapur and

others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 20-09-2012.

[No. L-14011/09/2006-IR(DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/08/2007

Date: 21-08-2012

Applicants

: 1. Shri Dilip Manikrao Mohod,

R/o. Chandika Ward No. 3,

Opp.

P.W.D.

Quarters,

Bhadravati, Tah. Bhadravati,

Chandrapur (MS)-4420902.

2. Smt.

Sulochana

Wd/o

Manikrao Mohod, Aged-59

Years, Occupation: Housewife,

R/o. Chandika Ward No. 3,

Opp.

P.W.D.

Quarters,

Bhadravati, Teh. Bhadravati,

Chandrapur (MS)-4420902.

Versus

Respondents

: 1. The Officer-in-charge,

Air Armament Inspection

Wing (DET), Post-Chanda

Ordnance Factory, Teh.

Bhadravati,

Chandrapur

(MS). 442501.

2. The Commandant,

Air Armament Inspection

Wing, DGADQA

Ministry

Defence,

Khamaria,

Jabalpur,

M.P. - 482005.

3. The Directorate General of

Aeronautical

Quality

Assurance,

Ministry

Defence,

H-Block,

New Delhi-110011.

AWARD

(Dated: 21st August, 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 Air Armament Inspection Wing (DET) and

Shri Dilip Manikrao Mohod, the son of the deceased

workmen, Manikrao Mohod, for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-14011/9/2006-IR (DU) dated 12-01-2007, with the

following schedule:—

“Whether the action of the management of Air

Armament Inspection Wing (DET), Chandrapur, in

not granting compassionate appointment to Shri Dilip

Manikrao Mohod son of Late Manikrao Mohod, Ex-

Chargeman, is legal & justified? If not, to what relief

the applicant 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 applicant, Shri Dilip Mohod,

filed the statement of claim on behalf of himself and his

mother, Smt. Sulochana and the respondents filed their

joint written statement.

The case of the applicant, Dilip as projected in the

statement of claim is that his father, Late Manikrao Mohod

was working in the Air Armament Inspection Wing,

DGAQA, Ministry of Defence, Chanda as a Chargeman,

Grade I and his father expired on 12-02-1999 in a road

accident at Bhandak Naka and he (the applicant) was born

on 07-05-1972 and he passed 12th Class in March, 1998

and he is a member of schedule caste and after the death of

his father, his mother on 16-03-1999 applied for his

compassionate appointment in accordance with the

Government Scheme and he was in urgent need of

compassionate appointment for bonafide reasons of having

no source of income and livelihood and all his eighteen

family members were dependent on his deceased father

and due to the untimely death of his father, the entire family

was in distress and as his elder brother, Vilas was working

as a labourer on daily wages, his elder brother did not

apply for compassionate appointment and from the leters

dated 22-11-2001 and 08-09-2002 issued by the respondents

No. 2 & 3 respectively, it was found that name of Vilas was

inserted and subsequently the application was rejected on

the ground that two sons of his deceased father are already

in Govt./Private service and payment of substantial amount

of terminal benefits to his family and such grounds were

not true and such action of party no. 1 clearly speaks about

their malafide intention and he filed an application for the

post of semi skilled worker for the second time on 23-02-

2001 and the respondent no. 1 called him for interview on

03-04-2001, for recruitment to the post of labourer on casual

basis for a period not exceeding 89 days and he was

appointed and worked on daily wages with party no. 1 for

89 days and also as Safai Karmachari on casual basis for

three days in a week and he was engaged as a casual labour

7710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for the periods from 23-12-2004 to 22-03-2005, 25-04-2005

to 24-05-2005, 25-05-2005 to 20-08-2005, 03-10-2005 to

30-12-2005, from 02-01-2006 to 28-01-2006, 01-02-2006 to

30-04-2006 and 01-05-2006 to 16-06-2006 by respondent

No. 1 and thereafter, he was discontinued orally without

any notice and since then, he is out of employment and his

application for compassionate appointment was rejected

by respondent no. 1 on the ground of having no

vacancy for compassionate appointment vide letter

dated 01-02-2002.

The further case of the applicant is that the

respondent no. 2 issued the reply on 26-09-2002 to the

applications made by him through his mother on 01-07-2002,

29-07-2002, 03-09-2002 and 14-09-2002, informing that, "son

Vilas had already crossed the prescribed age limit for

recruitment to the post of mazdoor/peon as per existing

rules and if ‘‘son Dilip applies, he can be considered for

recruitment to the post of group ‘D’ (Mazdoor/Peon)

against our advertisement as and when vacancy occurs’’

and the said reply was very vague and evasive, in

considering his case and his applications dated 27-11-2002,

30-01-2003 and 14-06-2003 were rejected by respondent

no. 2, vide letters dated 02-12-2002 and 30-06-2003, stating

there in that, ‘‘The applicant’s case for appointment on

compassionate ground could not be considered by their

HQ-DGAQA, New Delhi, as 5% quota is reserved and this

is already exhausted ‘‘and’’ the case of the applicant can

be considered for direct recruitment for group ‘D’ post

(Mazdoor/Peon) if he applies against our advertisement as

and when vacancy occurs’’ respectively and though he

continued persuasion for his appointment, he did not get

any positive response and all his applications were rejected

on the ground of imposition of ban by the Government for

recruitment and on 03-02-2004, his mother submitted another

application for compassionate appointment for him and

also made several requests to provide him any type of

appointment on compassionate ground and vide his letter

dated 08-05-2005, he requested to regularize his appointment

as casual labourer on daily wages on compassionate

ground and though the daily wages was Rs. 136- Rs. 142

he was actually paid @ 95 per day and he claimed the

difference in the payment, by letter dated 30-04-2006 and

neither his claim for regularisation was considered nor any

fresh appointment was provided to him on compassionate

ground and the respondents made discrimination and

appointed one Bablu Dhusia on compassionate ground

and posted at AAIW, Khamaria and the respondents acted

contrary to the rules and regulations and his engagement

on daily wages for 89 days for different periods shows that

though there were many vacancies at the relevant time, the

respondent no. 1 deliberately denied fair opportunity for

compassionate appointment to him with malafide intention

and many persons were appointed illegally and arbitrarily

by violating the procedure envisaged for compassionate

appointment and the reasoning given by respondent no. 1

appear to be deceptive in absence of seniority list of

applicants seeking for compassionate appointment not

being maintained. The applicant has prayed to declare the

action of the respondents in not giving him compassionate

appointment as illegal and unjustified and for a direction to

the respondents to provide him appointment on any

suitable post with continuity of service benefits and all

pecuniary benefits w.e.f. 16-06-2006 and to pay him daily

wages at the rate of Rs. 136-Rs. 142 for the periods for

which he had worked.

3. The respondents in their joint written statement

have pleaded inter-alia that respondent no. 1 is an Air

Armament Inspection Field unit and is functioning under

respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 directly deals with

appointment of non-selection post of non-industrial and

industrial employees (group ‘C’ and ‘D’) with the approval

of respondent no. 3 and cases of compassionate

appointment are directly considered by respondent no. 3

and Manikrao Mohod, the deceased father of applicant

no. 1, Dilip Kumar was working as a Charge-man, grade-I

under respondent no. 1 and he died on 12-02-1999 in a road

accident after duty hours and after the death of his father,

the applicant Dilip Kumar applied for compassionate

appointment and all cases of compassionate appointment

including the case of the applicant were considered in the

light of DOP & T OM no. 14014/6/94-Estt.I dated

09-10-1998, 14014/23/99-Estt.(D) dated 03-12-1999, 19(4)/

824-99/1998 (D) (LAB) dated 09-03-2001 and 14014/19-2002-

Estt.(D) dated 05-05-2003 by the respondent No. 3, and on

consideration of all the relevant factors as specified in the

government circulars mentioned above, such as more

liabilities, more number of family members, unmarried/small

daughters, less terminal benefits, sickness/ailment/

treatment and number of earning members of the family, it

was found that the applicant, Dilip Kumar could not be

appointed and in case of the applicant, it was found that all

four male members were major and three of them were

already married and two of them were already in service

(i.e. one in Army Service and the other in Private sector)

and as such, the case of the applicant could not be

recommended and the applicant was intimated about

closure of his case for compassionate appointment vide

letter dated 24-08-2006, but the applicant filed the statement

of claim on 30-08-2007, after expiry of one year i.e. beyond

the period of limitation of one year as prescribed in clause

(a), sub-section 1 of Section 21 of the Limitation Act and as

such, the application is liable to be dismissed on the point

of limitation.

It is further pleaded by the respondents that in the

application dated 16-03-1999 filed for compassionate

appointment of the applicant Dilip Kumar, it was mentioned

that deceased’s three married sons were already living

separately and there was no support from them, but in

paragraph 2 and 3 of the statement of claim, the truth has

been concealed and in the application dated 20-10-1999,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7711

the applicant had narrated that two earning members of the

deceased’s family were living separately and in the earlier

application, deceased’s father was not shown as a

dependent, but in the statement of claim, he has been shown

as a dependent, which proves the malafide intention of the

applicant and in 1982, the deceased father of the applicant

had submitted his family particulars indicating his four

sons, one daughter, his father and wife as dependents and

later in 1993, he had revised his family particulars indicating

his wife, three sons and father as dependents and as such,

the claim of the applicant in the statement of claim that one

daughter and four sons are dependents is false and the

same has been done with malafide intention and the

application is liable for dismissal on the ground of

concealment of material evidence and engagement of the

applicant as casual labourer on daily wages basis has no

relevance with compassionate appointment and it is already

held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the extention of scheme

regarding appointment on compassionate ground to all

sorts of casual, adhoc employees cannot be justified on

constitutional grounds and the applicant was paid wages

as per the instructions contained in MOD ID No. 4(1)/85/

D(Civil) dated 29-09-1988 and the claim of the applicant for

payment of wages at Nerrick rates is not tenable and no

injustice was caused to the applicant and the allegations

made in the statement of claim are baseless and the applicant

is not entitled to any relief.

4. Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

necessary to mention here that the reference has been made

for adjudication of the dispute as to whether the action of

the respondents in not providing compassionate

appointment to the applicant, Dilip Kumar is legal and

justified. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions that the Tribunal has no power or

jurisdiction to travel beyond the schedule of reference and

to decide any other issue raised by the parties. So, the issues

of non-payment of wages by the respondents as per nerrick

rates of Rs. 136 Rs. 142 per day or non regularisation of

the service of casual labourer on daily wages raised by the

applicant in the statement of claim cannot be considered

and adjudicated.

5. To substantiate their respective claims, both the

parties led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The applicant Dilip Kumar in his

examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit has reiterated

the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. However,

in his cross-examination, the applicant has admitted that

his wife Puja is working in the Ordnance Factory as a

Machinist, but her appointment was subsequent to the

filing of the petition for compassionate appointment and

his two elder brothers' work as labourers and his younger

brother is serving in the Military and his mother received

Rs. 4,21,523 as terminal benefits and she is also getting

Rs. 6500 as family pension and he is also working as a

labourer and getting Rs. 80 per day and they were staying

in the quarters allotted to his wife by the Ministry of

Defence.

6. One Kamalakanta R. Mulka, a Nodal Officer has been

examined as a witness on behalf of the respondents. His

examination-in-chief is also on affidavit. This witness has

also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted about

the death of the father of the applicant on 12-02-1999 in a

road accident while in service and the applicant applying

for compassionate appointment and engagement of the

applicant on daily wages for sometime and that Bablu Dusia

was

given

compassionate

appointment

27-04-2006.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the applicant that after the death of his father,

the applicant had submitted application for compassionate

appointment and the case of the applicant was not properly

considered and his application was rejected without due

consideration of the principles, guidelines and policy for

compassionate appointment and as the reference is made

by the Government of India vide order dated 12-01-2007,

the question of limitation is misconceived and without any

merit and the applicant, Dilip Kumar is entitled for

compassionate appointment.

8. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the respondents that the case of the applicant

for compassionate appointment was considered alongwith

all other cases of such appointment by the competent

authority as per law and rules and as the case of the

applicant was found not to be fit for appointment on

compassionate ground, his case was rejected and in the

year 1999, no appointment was given on compassionate

ground and compassionate appointment is given to wife,

son or daughter of a deceased employee, who are in

indigent condition and who are in need of immediate

assistance in the event of there being no other earning

member in the family to supplement the loss of income

from the bread winner to relieve the economic distress of

the members of the family and in the case of the applicant,

the applicant and his three brothers were already major

and two of the brothers of the applicant were already

earning and one of them was in the Army service and

another in private sector and at the time of consideration

of the cases of compassionate appointment, several factors,

such as limitation of 5% of vacancies falling under direct

recruitment, more liabilities, more number of family

members, unmarried/minor daughters, less terminal

benefits, sickness/ailment/treatment and number of earning

members in the family are to be taken into consideration by

the competent authority and it is very clear from the

Government Policy that after a lapse of three years,

compassionate appointment cannot be granted and it is

not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in

future. It was further submitted that the family members of

7712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the applicant received terminal benefits of Rs. 4,78,194 and

the mother of the applicant is also receiving Rs. 6500 per

month as family pension and wife of the applicant is also

working as Machinist in Ordnance Factory, Ambazari and

the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

9. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the

settled principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in number of decisions regarding compassionate

appointment. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court

that,

“The whole object of granting compassionate

appointment is to enable the family to tide the sudden

crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from

funancial destitution and to help to get over the

emergency.

Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of

course irrespective of the financial condition of the

family of the deceased or medically retired

government servant is legally impermissible.

Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after

lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right

which can be exercised at any time in future."

With the touch stone of the settled principles

enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in regard to

compassionate appointment, now the present case in hand

is to be considered.

10. In this case, it is the admitted case of the parties

that deceased Manikrao Mohod, the father of the applicant

Dilipkumar who was working in the Air Armament Inspection

Wing, Chandrapur Ordnance Factory, Chanda died on

12-02-1999 in a road accident and after the death of his

father, application for compassionate appointment was filed

for giving compassionate appointment to Dilip Kumar and

after consideration of the application, the respondent no. 3

rejected the same on the ground that the case of the

applicant was found not to be fit for compassionate

appointment and there was no vacancy for such

appointment as the quota of 5% reserved for such

appointment was already exhausted and rejection of the

application was duly intimated to the applicant. It is also

not disputed that the applicant, Dilip Kumar was appointed

for some periods as casual labourer on daily wages basis.

There is also no dispute that the family of the applicant got

a sum of Rs. 4,21,523 towards terminal benefits and wife of

deceased Manikrao is getting Rs. 6500 per month as family

pension and the applicant and his two elder brothers were

working as labourers and the younger brother of the

applicant is already in army service. Such facts have been

admitted by the applicant in his evidence.

In view of such admitted facts, I think that there is no

need to deal with the documents submitted by the applicant

in support of the above stated facts.

The respondents have filed all the relevant documents

regarding compassionate appointment including the

applications submitted by the applicant for compassionate

appointment and the assessment of comparative merit list

which was made for consideration of all the compassionate

appointment. The said documents have been admitted into

evidence on admission from the side of the applicant and

marked as Exts. M-I to M-XIII. Ext. M-XIII is the

comparative merit list prepared for compassionate

appointment. On perusal of Ext. M-XIII, it is found that the

case of the applicant was duly considered along with the

other cases of compassionate appointment as per rules

and guidelines prescribed by the government for

compassionate appointment and the case of the applicant

was found not fit for such appointment. It is clear from the

materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the

case that the application for compassionate appointment

of the applicant was rightly rejected by the respondent

no. 3 and there is no illegality in refusing to give

compassionate appointment to applicant, Dilip Kumar.

Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Air Armament

Inspection Wing (DET), Chandrapur, in not granting

compassionate appointment to Shri Dilip Manikrao

Mohod, son of Late Manikrao Mohod, Ex-Chargeman, is

legal and justified. The applicant is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh 20 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3191.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MkbjsDVj] vejhdu

,ecslh Ldwy ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 63@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20&09&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@86@2011&vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh-;w-½]

lqjsUnz dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2012

S.O. 3191.—.In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the Director, American Embassy

School and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 20-09-2012.

[No. L-42012/86/2011-IR(DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7713

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 63/2012

Shri Sarva Singh

R/o 503, Secor 3,

Pocket-16, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110078.

.........Workman

Versus

The Director,

The American Embassy School,

Chandra Gupta Marg,

Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi-110021.

.........Management

AWARD

The American Embassy School (in short the School)

employed Shri Sarva Singh as Laboratory Assistant, vide

letter dated 19.08.1983. His services were confirmed as

Assistant Technician (Laboratory) with effect from

22-02-1984, vide letter dated 06-02-1984. His serves were

dispensed with by the School on 30-06-2009, claiming that

his performance was not upto the mark. Aggrieved by the

act of the School, Shri Serva Singh raised a demand for

reinstatement in service. When his demand was not

conceded to, he raised an industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer. Since, the conciliation proceedings

failed, appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L-42012/86/2011-

IR (DU) dated 17-02-2012 with the following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of The

American Embassy School, Chanakyapuri, New

Delhi, in terminating the services of the workman,

Shri Sarva Singh with effect from 01-07-2009 (who

was appointed as ‘Laboratory Assistant’ with effect

from 22-08-1983 and continued in the employment

till 30-06-2009 after putting in 26 years of service) is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Sarva Singh

pleading therein that he was appointed as Laboratory

Assistant by the School vide appointment letter dated 19-

08-1983. He was working in the School to entire satisfaction

of his superiors. He was to retire from service on attaining

the age of 60 years. However, he was arbitrarily removed

from service with effect from 01-07-09, without assigning

any reason. He wrote a letter dated 27-12-2009 seeking

reinstatement in service. The School rejected his request

vide letter dated 12-01-2010, on vague grounds.

3. Claimant presents that he was an active member of

the Workers Association and the School was bent upon to

remove him from service on account of his participation in

association activities. In order to pressurise him, his

signatures were obtained on different papers, alleged to be

papers for contract of his service. He was made to receive

arrears of his terminal benefits, on the pretext that his case

for reinstatment would be sent to the higher authorities in

America. According to him, act of the School in removing

him from service is contrary to the provisions of law. He

claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

4. Claim was demurred by the School pleading that

the Central Government is not the appropriate Government

to make reference to the dispute to this Tribunal. Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) defines appropriate

Government and as per the definition contained therein,

Central Government is not the appropriate Government for

making reference of the dispute for adjudication. Only

appropriate Government can make reference of the dispute

to the Tribunal, by using its powers contained in section

10 of the Act, pleads the School.

5. The School is an instrumentality of the Government

of United States of America and operates in accordance

with the understanding between the Government of India

and Government of the United States of America, as

mentioned in letter dated 28-06-1973, issued by the Ministry

of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. As per

understanding, Ambassador of United States of America

in India administers the School and as such it is not an

industry within the meaning of the Act. Claimant was

employed on yearly contractual basis. His contract of

employment for the relevant period was from 01-07-2008 to

30-06-2009. His employment was for a fixed period and not

renewed thereafter. Act of the School does not tantamount

to retrenchment as defined by the Act. The School pleads

that the claimant was grossly insubordinate, used abusive

language and remained discourteous to the employees of

the School. Even then the School has followed principles

of natural justice when it decided not to renew his contract

of employment. There is no case in favour of the claimant

to seek reinstatement. His claim may be dismissed, pleads

the School.

6. On pleading of the parties, following preliminary

issues were settled:

(i) Whether the Central Government is not the

appropriate Government to make reference of the

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication?

(ii)Whether this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to

entertain the dispute, since it has not been referred

by the appropriate Government for adjudication?

7. Since issues referred above are legal, parties were

not called upon to adduce any evidence.

7714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri D.S. Patiyal,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Chander Shekkar, authorised

representative, presented facts on behalf of the School. I

have given my careful considerations to the arguments

advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the records.

My feelings on the preliminary issues are as follows:

9. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act defines

appropriate Government. It would be expedient to know

the definition of phrase 'appropriate Government'.

Consequently, definition of the phrase is extracted thus:

‘‘2(a)’’ appropriate Government" means—

(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any

industry carried on by or under the authority of the

Central Government or by a railway company or

concerning any such controlled industry as may be

specified in this behalf by the Central Government or

in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock

Labour Board established under Section 5A of the

Dock Workes (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948

(9 of 1948), or the Industrial Finance Corporation of

India Limited formed and registerd under the

Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Employees'

State Insurance Corporation established under

Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948

(34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees and the State

Board of Trustees section 5A and section 5B,

respectively, of the Employees' Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or

the Life Insurance Corporation of India established

under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Limited registerd under the Companies

Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or the Deposit Insurance and

Credit Guarantee Corporation established under

section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit

Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the

Central Warehousing Corporation established under

Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962

(58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established

under section 3 of Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of

1963), or the Food Corporation of India established

under section 3, or a Board of Management

established for two or more contiguous States under

section 16, of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of

1964), or the Airports Authority of India constituted

under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India

Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional Rural Bank

established under section 3 of the Regional Rural

Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and

Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial

Reconstruction Corporation of India Limited, the

National Housing Bank established under section 3

of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)

or the Banking Service Commission Act 1975 or an

air transport service, or a banking or an insurance

company, a mine, an oil field, a Cantonment Board, or

a major port, an company in which not less than fifty

one percent of the paid up share capital is held by

the Central Government, or any Corporation, not

being a Corporation referred to in this clause,

established by or under any law made by Parliament,

or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary

companies set up by the principal undertaking and

autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the

Central Government, the Central Government, and

(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State

public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set

up by the principal undertaking and autonomous

bodies owned or controlled by the State Government,

the State Government;

Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor

and the contract labour employed through the contractor

in any industrial establishment where such dispute first

arose, the appropriate Government shall be the Central

Government or the State Government, as the case may be,

which has control over such industrial establishment.

10. In relation to an industrial dispute, appropriate

Government can either mean the Central Government or

the State Government. The Central Government has been

defined under section 3(8) and the State Government under

section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In relation

to an industrial dispute concerning—

an industry carried on or under the authority of the

Central Government, or a railway company, or

an such controlled industry as may be specified in

this behalf by the Central Government, or

a Dock Labour Board established under Section

5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of

Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or

the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited

formed and registered under the Companies Act,

1956, or

the Employees' State Insurance Corporation

established under Section 3 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or

the Board of Trustees constituted under section

3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or

the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards

of Trustees constituted under section 5A and

section 5B, respectively, of the Employees'

Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952 (19 of 1952), or

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7715

the Life Insurance Corporation of India established

under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or

the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or

10. the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation established under Section 3 of the

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or

11. the Central Warehousing Corporation established

under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations

Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or

12. the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3

of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963),

13. the Food Corporation of India established under

Section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37 of

1964), or

14. a Board of Management established for two or more

contiguous States under Section 16 of the Food

Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or

15. the Airports Authority of India constituted under

Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act,

1994 (55 of 1994), or

16. a Regional Rural Bank established under Section 3

of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of

1976), or

17. the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation

Limited, or

18. the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited,

19. the National Housing Bank established under

Section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987

(53 of 1987), or

20. an air transport service, or

21. a banking company, or

22. an insurance company, or

23. a mine, or

24. an oil-field, or

25. a Cantonment Board, or

26. a "major port, or

27. any company in which not less than fifty-one per

cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the

Central Government, or

28. any corporation, not being a corporation referred

to in this clause, established by or under any law

made by Parliament, or

29. the Central public sector undertaking, or

30. subsidiary companies set up by the principal

undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or

controlled by the Central Government, the

appropriate Government would mean the Central

Government".

11. In relation to an industrial dispute appropriate

Government can either mean Central Government or State

Government. Central Government has been defined under

Section 3(8) and State Government under Section 3(60) of

the General Clauses Act 1897. In relation to any industrial

dispute, other than those specified in sub clause (i) of

clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, appropriate Government

would be State Government. In other words, all industrial

disputes which are outside the purview of sub-clause (i)

are concern of the State Government under sub-clause (ii)

of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act. Thus, the general rule

is that an industrial dispute raised between employer and

his employee would be referred for adjudication by the

State Government, except in cases falling under Section

2(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, where industrial dispute

which does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(a)(i) of the

Act, appropriate Government cannot be the Central

Government.

12. Now it would be to ascertained as to whether the

School falls within the ambit of Section 2(a)(i) of the Act,

so that the Central Government may exercise the functions

of the appropriate Government in the controversy. Letter

dated 20-11-2008, filed by the School, encompasses the

facts relevant for the present controversy. It is mentioned

therein that the School is a private co-educational school

operated by an association under the aegis of the American

Embassy. Claimant had not disputed the contents of the

said letter. Facts detailed in the letter, referred above, are

reaffirmed by letter dated 13-05-1982 addressed to His

Excellency, Mr. Harry G. Barnes, Junior Ambassador of the

United States of America, to India by Shri M.H. Ansari,

Chief of Protocol, Ministry of External Affairs, Government

of India, New Delhi, wherein it is mentioned that all

properties and assets of the School were transferred to the

Government of United States of America by the President

of India on 18-06-1973, in view of specific conditions spelt

out in Foreign Secretary's letter dated 18-06-1973,

confirmation of which was received under note No. 277

from the Embassy of United States of America dated 09-07-

1976. Thus, it is apparent that the School is a private co-

educational institute upon which Central Government does

not exercise any control. It is not an industry carried on or

under the authority of Central Government. It is also not a

controlled industry specified in this behalf by the Central

Government. Consequently, it is clear that the School is

neither controlled nor carried on or under the authority of

the Central Government. Dispute, referred by the Central

7716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government for adjudication, does not fall within the ambit

of Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, the Central Government

is not the appropriate Government for the dispute under

reference.

13. Who shall be the appropriate Government for the

present dispute? Answer has been provided in clause (a)(ii)

of Section 2 of the Act, which contemplates that in relation

to any other industrial dispute the State Government is the

appropriate Government. However, this Tribunal is not

oblivious of the proposition that union territory of Delhi

enjoins a special status under the Constitution. Delhi is a

Union Territory having some special provisions with

respect to its administration. Article 239 of the Constitution

speaks that every union territory shall be administered by

the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through

an administrator to be appointed by him with such

designation as he may specify. Article 239 AA makes special

provisions with respect to Delhi, detailing therein that the

union territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital

Territory of Delhi and the administrator thereof appointed

in article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor.

There shall be Legislative Assembly, and provisions of

article 324 to 327 and 329 shall apply in relation the

Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of

Delhi as they apply in relation to a State. The Legislative

Assembly shall have power to make laws for the whole or

any part of the National Capital Territory with respect to

the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent

List except the matters with respect to entries 1, 2 and 18 of

the State List and entries 64, 65 and 66 of that list, in so for

they relate to the said entries 1, 2 and 18. The Council of

Ministers shall be headed by the Chief Minister to aid and

advise the Lt. Governor in exercise of his functions in

relation of the matters with respect to which the Legislative

Assembly has power to make laws. In case difference of

opinion between Lt. Governor and his ministers on any

matter, the Lt. Governor shall refer it to the President for

decision and act according to the decision given thereon

by the President and pending such decision the Lt.

Governor is competent to take action in urgent matters.

The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the President

and Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the

advise of the Chief Minister. Therefore, it is evident that

though a Legislative Assembly is there in National Capital

Territory of Delhi, yet it is a union territory administered by

the President through the Administrator appointed by him.

In case of difference of opinion between the Administrator

and the Ministers, it is the decision of the President that

prevails. Consequently the State Government merges with

the Centre when Lt. Governor administer the Union

Territory or in case of difference of opinion the President

decides the issue.

14. State Government has been defined in clause (60)

of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in respect of

anything done or to be done after commencement of the

Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 in a case of State,

the Governor and in a Union Territory, the Central

Government. Therefore, it is evident that for a Union

Territory, no distinction has been made between the State

and the Central Government. The President administers

the Union Territory, through an Administrator appointed

by him. In case of National Capital Territory of Delhi, it is

being administered by the President though the Lieutenant

Governor. Though there is a legislative Assembly and

Council of Ministers, yet in case of difference of opinion

between the Lieutenant Governor and Council of Ministers,

the decision of the President shall prevail, which fact make

it clear that for the purpose of administration of the union

territory, the Central and the State Government merges over

certain matter.

15. High Court of Delhi was confronted with such a

proposition in M.K. Jain (1981 Lab. I.C. 62) wherein it was

laid as follows:

"The award was sought to be voided, inter alia, on

the ground that by virtue of the constitution and

composition of the Corporation, Central Government

was the only authority competent to make a reference

of the dispute to the Industrial Court and that the

reference by the Lieutenant Governor or Delhi was,

therefore, in excess of powers. Even otherwise no

exception could be taken to the order of reference,

even if it be assumed that Central Government was

the appropriate Government, in as much as the

distinction between the Central and the State

Government in relation to the Union Territory in our

constitutional framework is rendered illusory, Union

Territory is administered by the President of India

under Article 239 of the Constitution of India, acting

to such extent as he thinks fit. Therefore the

Administrator, to be appointed by him, in the case of

Union territory, there is an amalgamation of the

constitutional classification of legislative and

executive powers between the Centre and the States.

According to Section 3(60) of the General Clauses

Act, the "Central Government" in relation to the

administration of Union Territory means the

Administrator acting within the scope of authority

given to him under article 239 of the Constitution of

India and in terms of Section 3(60) of the General

Clauses Act, "State Government" as respects

anything done or to be done in the Union Territory

means the Central Government. In the case of Union

Territory, therefore, the Central and State

Governments merge and it is immaterial whether an

order of reference is made by one or the other. This

contention must, therefore, fail".

16. Again in Mahavir [97 (2002) DLT 922] the High Court

was confronted with the same proposition. Relying the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7717

precedent in M.K. Jain (supra) with profit it was ruled that

reference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi was

not bad despite the fact that appropriate Government was

the Central Government. Difference of State Government

and Central Government goes to the brink of abolition when

State Government has been defined as the Central

Government by clause (60) of Section 3 of the General

Clauses Act and Delhi is being administered by the President

through the Administrator appointed by him. Therefore,

the aforesaid precedents make it clear that a status of union

territory of Delhi can be termed as Central Government in

certain matters.

17. Whether the Central Government can be termed

as State Government for any purpose? Article 53 of the

Constitution provides that the executive power of the Union

shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him

either directly or through officers subordinate to him in

accordance with the Constitution. Article 73 defines extent

of executive power of the Centre, that is, on matters which

shall be controlled and administered by the Central

executive. It has been detailed therein that the executive

power of the union shall extend — (a) to the matters with

respect to which Parliament has power to make laws and

(b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction

as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of

any treaty or agreement. The extent of the State's executive

power is set out in Article 161 of the Constitution.

Administrative relations between the union and the states

is to be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Article

256, 257, 258, 258A, 260 and 261 of the Constitution. Article

258A was added by 7th Amendment Act, 1956 to make a

matching provision to clause (1) of Article 258 of the

Constitution. While exercising powers contained in clause

(1) of Article 258, the President is empowered to entrust

union functions to a State Government or its officers. There

was no provisions enabling the Governor of a State to

entrust state functions to the Central Government or its

officers. That lacuna was found to be of practicable

difficulty and provisions of Article 258A were inserted in

the Constitution. Thus it is evident that arena of union

executive powers and the state executive powers are well

defined.

18. Clause (8) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act

defines the Central Government in relation to administration

of Union Territory, the Administrator thereof acting within

the scope of authority given to him under Article 239 of the

Constitution. Therefore, it is evident that Administrator of

Government of N.C.T. Delhi has been defined to mean as

Central Government to administer the Union Territory of

Delhi. Hence for the limited purposes, provided in the

Constitution, executive functions of the Central

Government can be entrusted to Government of a State or

its Officers. The Central Government would not be termed

as the State Government, when those functions are being

executed by the State Government or its officers. So

executive power of the Union can be exercised, in certain

matters by the State Government or its officers but in that

situation too the Central Government would not be termed

as the State Government. The special provisions referred

above would not make the reference, made by the Central

Government as the reference made by Government of N.C.T.

of Delhi.

19. There is other facet of the coin. This Tribunal

was constituted vide notification No. A-11020/33/75-CLT

dated 30-9-76. It was provided in the notification that the

Tribunal has been constituted under the powers provided

in sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act, with its head

quarter at New Delhi. Another notification was issued on

that very date empowering the Tribunal to adjudicate

applications moved in sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of

the Act, in relation to the workman employed in any

'industry' in the Union Territory of Delhi, in respect of

which the Central Government is the appropriate

Government. Therefore, the Tribunal has been empowered

to adjudicate industrial disputes, in respect of which

Central Government is the appropriate Government. As

pointed out above, the appropriate Government in this

case is the State Government. The issue is thereafter

answered in favour of the School and against the claimant.

Issue No. 2.

20. Section 10(1)(d) of the Act empowers the

appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute or

any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to

such dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in

the Second or the Third Schedule of the Act for adjudication

to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. When a dispute

is referred to the Tribunal it is required to adjudicate the

industrial dispute. Therefore, it is apparent that the

appropriate Government can refer an industrial dispute to

the Tribunal, relating to any matter specified in the Second

or the Third Schedule of the Act. However, for making

such a reference, Government making the reference to the

Tribunal should be appropriate Government for that

industrial dispute. As pointed out above, the Central

Government is not the appropriate Government for the

dispute under reference. Consequently, it is clear that the

reference of the dispute by the Central Government is

incompetent and this Tribunal cannot invoke its

jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. Therefore, the issue

is answered in favour of the School and against the claimant.

21. In view of the findings recorded on the issues,

referred above, it is concluded that the reference of the

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication is incompetent,

since the Central Government is not the appropriate

Government for this dispute. When Central Government is

not the appropriate Government for making reference of

the dispute for adjudication, this Tribunal cannot invoke

its jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues on merits.

Consequently, the Tribunal refrains its hands from

7718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

adjudication. An award is passed, in view of the

observations made above. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 22-08-2012

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk-3192.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

izca/k ra= ds lEc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@37@2009&vkbZ-vkj-¼ch&I½]

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2012mber, 2012

S.O. 3192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2009) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 21-09-2012.

[No. L-12012/37/2009-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI.

I.D. No. 36/2009

Smt. Sheela Devi w/o late Shri Satya Prakash,

R/o H.No. 445, Village & P.O. Bakhtawarpur, Delhi-110036.

Workman

Versus

The Asstt. General Manager,

Region-IV, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

11, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

The Dy. General Manager,

Delhi Zone Office-II,

11, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

Managements

AWARD

In 1984 communal riots took place in the country. In

those riots many persons lost their previous lives. Shri

Satya Prakash, husband of Smt. Sheela Devi, was also killed

in riots. Government of India instructed Public Sector

Undertakings to appoint widows of the persons, who lost

their lives in riots, on compassionate grounds. In pursuance

of those directions Smt. Sheela Devi was appointed as sub

staff by State Bank of India (in short the bank) on 21-1-1987.

Initially she joined at Service Branch, Parliament Street,

New Delhi from where she was transferred to Shakti Nagar

Branch of the Bank. She was subsequently transferred to

Chitana, Seelampur, Ghonda, Palla and Sameypur branches

during tenure of her service. She absented herself from

1988 onwards. A charge-sheet dated 31-3-1994 was served

upon her for authorized absence of 461 days from 26-9-1990

to 29-12-1993. Vide order dated 7-10-1994 punishment of

warning was given to her for the said mis-conduct. However,

she did not improve her conduct. Another charge-sheet

dated 27-8-2004 was served upon her for misconducts of

unauthorized absence, willful insubordination, refusal to

accept lawful orders, habitual late coming and leaving early

and not wearing uniform, creating riotous conditions in

the premises of the bank and creating over-draft in her

account in violation of settlement dated 10-4-2000. A

departmental inquiry was conducted and penalty of removal

from service was imposed upon her with effect from

13-4-2007. Aggrieved by the said order, Smt. Sheela raised

a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The Bank

contested her claim and it resulted in failure of conciliation

proceedings. On consideration of failure report submitted

by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No. L-12012/37/2009-IR (B-I), New Delhi dated 23-7-2009

with following terms:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, New Delhi in terminating services of

Smt. Sheela Devi, Ex-Farash-cum-Waterman with

effect from 13-4-2007 is justified and legal, if not, to

what relief she is entitled?’’

2. Claim statement was filed by Smt. Sheela Devi

pleading therein that she was appointed by the bank on

compassionate ground on 21-12-1987, since her husband

was killed in 1984 riots at Delhi. She is an illiterate lady and

belongs to country-side. She was given designation of

farash-cum-water woman but was forced to work as

messenger and as such she was ill-treated and harassed.

Work of farash-cum-water woman was never taken from

her.

3. She pleaded that she was ill-treated with indecent

behavior by staff members. When she made a complaint to

the Branch Manager, he sheltered and patronised those

employees. Once a messenger pulled back the stool on

which she was sitting as a result of which she fell down on

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7719

floor. Every body in the hall laughed at her. When she

made a complaint to the Branch Manager, no action was

taken. Often and then staff members used to pass ugly and

filthy remarks on her. Her complaint in that regard proved

to be futile. She was subjected to various transfer to Shakti

Nagar, Chitana, Seelampur, Ghonda, Palla and Sameypur

branches of the bank. Those branches were 15 to 50 kms.

away from her residence. Those transfers were in violation

of Shastri Award. Her transfer to various places project

that the bank was vindictive qua her.

4. Smt. Sheela Devi claims that her basic salary was

fixed at Rs. 815.00 on 21.12.1987. Her salary was revised

to Rs. 2000.00 with effect from 1.12.1992. thereafter

various revisions in pay-scales of subordinate staff took

place in terms of 6th, 7th, 8th bipartite settlements but her

basic salary was never increased. Since 1994 till 2006 she

was paid basic salary of Rs. 2000.00 per month only, which

act is a clear example of harassment and victimization

continuously for 12 years. Another example of harassment

is apparent from the fact that after her hospitalisation from

5.5.2003 to 4.5.2003 she submitted medical bill of Rs. 40793

for reimbursement, on joining her duties. With a view to

harass her, the aforesaid bill was not re-imbrused on the

pretext that it was mis-placed. No yearly increment was

paid to her for the last 12 years, which act is contrary to

service rules. For grant of increment and release of pay in

revised pay-scales she raised an industrial dispute. On

28.9.2006 the Assistant General Manager admitted before

the Conciliation Officer that 90% arrears of her increments

would be released within 15 days and remaining 10%

would be released within another 15 days after receipt of

confirmation of calculation of amount, submitted by her

before the Conciliation Officer. Arrears of her wages were

not released in accordance with the undertaking given

before the Conciliation Officer.

5. In a bid to get rid of her, a charge sheet was served

upon her. Charges were false and whimsical. A farce

enquiry was conducted and show-cause notice on proposed

punishment was served upon her on 27.10.2006. She

replied the show-cause notice, vide letter dated 3.11.2006.

Disciplinary Authority passed on order of her removal from

service on 13.4.2007, which order was violative of the

provision of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in

short the Act), since the disciplinary proceedings were

pending before the Conciliation Officer. She filed an Appeal

which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide order

dated 29.8.2007.

6. The claimant further pleads that the enquiry conducted

by the bank was not legal. Malafide is writ large as the

action of the bank, since after lapse of several years

domestic action was initiated against her. Opportunity to

defend was not given to her. She was not allowed to defend

herself through representative of her union. The entire

action was a sham show. Since the enquiry was violative of

principles of natural justice, she is entitled for re-instatement

in service with continuity and all other consequential

benefits, pleads the claimant.

7. The bank made a demurral pleading that the claim

made by Smt. Sheela to the effect that she was ill-treated

and harassed, is unfounded. She never made any complaint

to the authorities relating to her ill-treatment/indecent

behaviour by the employees. There was no question of

any shelter or patronisation of any staff member. Had she

ever complained to the authorities, action would have been

taken as per rules. The incidents of ill-treatment narrated

by her are figment of imagination, with a view to extort

undue gain from the bank. Her transfer orders were as per

exigencies of service. Provisions of Shastri Award were

not violated in that regard. The bank presents that issue

relating to her release of increments and wages is subject

matter of another industrial dispute and it is uncalled for

to make reference of that dispute in the present

proceedings.

8. Smt. Sheela remained absent in an unauthorized

manner from 1998 to 2001 for a considerable long period.

Her explanations were called for in that regard. Charge-

sheet dated 31.3.1994 was served upon her. She was charge

sheeted for various charges such as unauthorized absences,

willful insubordination, refusal to accept lawful orders,

habitual late coming and leaving early, subversive acts of

indiscipline, not wearing uniform supplied by the bank,

creating riotous conditions with the help of the outsiders

in the premises of the bank and creating over-draft in her

account in violation of settlement dated 10.4.2002.

Departmental enquiry was held in consonance with rules

and principles of natural justice. When charges were

proved against her, penalty of removal from service with

effect from 13.4.2007 was awarded to her. she preferred

an appeal against the order awarding penalty to her, which

came to be dismissed. Enquiry was fair and proper and

punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to her

mis-conduct. Her entire dues were paid to her according

to service conditions.

9. The claimant had not explained any facts which may

show that the Disciplinary Authority was biased qua her.

The claimant participated in the enquiry and was given

full opportunities to defend herself. Since rules do not

permit to be defended by an advocate, her request in that

regard, made vide letter dated 19.2.2007, was declined.

She was entitled to be represented by a representative of a

registered trade union. However, she herself contested the

inquiry with a view to defend the domestic action. Enquiry

proceedings were recorded in Hindi and copy of

proceedings were tendered to her but she refused to accept.

No material came over the record which may reflect on

virus of the enquiry. Punishment awarded to her cannot be

termed excessive. Her claim being devoid of merits may be

dismissed, pleads the bank.

7720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. On pleadings of the parties following issues were

settled:—

Whether the enquiry conducted by the

management was fair ?

As in terms of reference.

Relief.

11. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary issue.

When called upon to adduce evidence, the claimant

testified facts to substantiate her claim. Shri S.K. Garg,

Manager (HR), entered the witness box to detail facts on

behalf of the bank. No other witness was examined by

either of the parties.

12. It would not be out of place to mention here that

a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act was filed by the

claimant, projecting that termination of her service by the

bank on 13-4-2007 was in violation of the provision of

Section 33 of the Act. During the course of adjudication of

the said complaint, it was ruled vide award dated 27-7-2010

that the bank was under an obligation to seek approval of

their action as contemplated by Section 33(2)(b) of the

Act. Since no approval was obtained, action of the bank in

award of punishment of removal from service, vide order

dated 13-4-2007 was violative of section 33(2)(b) of the

Act.

13. Parties were called upon to advance arguments

on the preliminary issue. In view of the above finding

recording by the Tribunal in award dated 27-07-2010 it was

concluded that the bank cannot be permitted to claim that

the order dated 13-4-2007 was justified. Since the order

impunged was void, the bank could not agitate that the

enquiry was in consonance with the principles of natural

justice. Consequently the issue relating to virus of the

enquiry was answered in favour of the claimant and against

the bank, vide order dated 27-7-2010.

14. Shri S.K. Garg entered the witness box again to

prove that the claimant remained absent in an unauthorized

manner for a period of 763 days from 3-6-1998 to 20-7-2000.

He unfolds that from 1-4-1998 to 11-4-2007 the claimant

remained absent in unauthorized manner for 1090 days,

without any intimation to the bank. Shri V.K. Nayyar was

also examined by the bank to prove her disorderly

behaviour, acts subversive of discipline and indecent

behaviour qua him on 9-12-1996. No other witness was

examined by the bank.

15. To dispel facts unfolded by Shri Garg and Shri

Nayyar claimant had entered in the witness box again. She

had also examined Shri V.K. Sharma in her defence. No

other witness was examined on her behalf.

16. Instead of making oral submissions, Shri Ajay

Garg, authorized representative, filed written arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Miss Kittu Bajaj, authorized

representative for the bank, also filed written submissions.

Parties opted not to advance oral arguments. Record was

perused carefully. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:—

Issue No. 2 :

17. In his affidavit Ex.MW-1/B Shri S.K. Garg,

Manager, presents that the claimant remained absent for

763 days continuously from 3-6-1998 to 24-7-2000. He also

relied upon Ex. MW-1/4 wherein it has been projected that

from 3-6-1998 to 4-7-2000 the claimant remained absent for

783 days. On calculation it was noted that a period of 783

days elapsed from 3-6-1998 to 24-7-2000 and there is clerical

mistake in affidavit Ex. MW1/B in that regard. He further

unfolds that from 1-5-1998 to 11-5-2007 claimant was absent

in unauthorized manner for 1090 days, even without

intimation to the bank. During course of cross-examination,

he projects that in the after-noon of 2-6-1998 the claimant

was relieved from Seelampur branch to join Ghonda Branch of

the Bank. She joined her duties at Ghonda branch on 25-7-2000.

No wages had been paid to her for that period of absence.

18. Shri V.K. Nayyar details in his affidavit Ex. MW-2/

A, tendered as evidence, that on 9-12-1996 transfer orders

of Smt. Sheela Devi were served upon her. she refused to

accept the letter and continued to visit that branch

unauthorizedly and marked her attendance. On 2-8-1996

she refused to perform her duties. On his insistance she

refused to carry out his orders. She used un-parliamentary,

abusive, derogatory and vulgar language. She called names

‘‘KUTEY KI AULAD’’ and ‘‘HARAM KE BEEJ’’, besides

other dirty abuses hurled in presence of staff members and

customers. She disturbed peace of the branch by shouting

and abusing consistently for 20 minutes. On 3-8-1996, she

was given a memo for that behaviour which is Ex. MW2/1.

Entire staff made a complaint against her which is Ex. MW-

2/2. When memos Ex. MW-2/3 to Ex. MW2/5 were tendered

to her she refused to accept the same. She never wore

uniform supplied to her and warning letter was issued in

that regard on 7-10-1994.

19. In her affidavit Ex. WW-1/B, tendered as evidence,

Smt. Sheela Devi presents that she was not absent for 783

days from 3-6-1998 to 24-7-2000. According to her, her salary

for that period was released. She projects that leave record/

attendance record has not been filed by the bank. There is

nothing on record to show that she was absent in an

unauthorized manner for a spell of 31 days, 68, 14, 10, 17, 16

days, besides other period mentioned in Ex.MW 1/4 from

1998 to 2006, but on most of those days she was on sick

leave. She claims to be obedient, disciplined and respectful

to her superiors. She never used any abusive or vulgar

language to anybody. No memo was served upon her in

1996. Shri V.K. Sharma, her authorized representative, went

to bank to inspect record relating to her leaves as well as

salary paid to her. The bank failed to produce relevant

record before him. During course of her cross examination,

she was questioned to produced orders on the strength of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7721

which leaves were sanctioned but she opted not to reply

the question. When asked to produce any record of her

wages for the period for which she has been projected as

absent in chart Ex. MW1/4, she opted not to answer the

proposition. Same was the case when she was asked to tell

whether Ex. MW2/1 bears here signature. She admits that

in the year 1996 transfer orders. transferring her from

Seelampur branch to Ghonda branch of the bank were

served upon her. She however projects that those orders

were complied by her in 1998. When asked to produce any

record relating to compliance of transfer order in 1998, she

observed an eerie silence. She admits that she never

challenged her transfer orders before a court of law.

20. Shri V.K. Sharma unfolds that he visited various

branches of the bank of inspect service records of the

claimant. Though he visited service branch, Parliament

Street, Palla, Shakti Nagar, Ghonda, Seelampur and other

branches of the bank but branch managers showed inability

to produce any record relating to leave availed by the

claimant and salary paid to her. During the course of his

cross examination he concedes that he had not given any

letter in writing to Manager (HR) complaining that records

were not shown to him by the heads of the branches visited

by him.

21. When facts unfolded by Shri Garg. Shri Nayyar

and the claimant are appreciated, it emerged over the record

that on 2-6-1996 the claimant was serving in Seelampur

branch of the bank. On that day Shri Nayyar asked the

claimant to hand over some cash vouchers to the Cashier

for payment. She refused to carry out those oral orders of

Shri Nayyar. When he persisted in his request she did not

get up from her seat and started abusing Shri Nayyar in

filthiest language. She called him "KUTEY KI AULAD' and

"HARAM KE BEEJ" besides other bad names. Staff posted

in that branch tried to intervene but to no avail. She

continued abusing him for a period of 15-20 minutes. Memo

dated 3-8-1996, which is Ex. MW2/1, was served upon her.

Though she received that memo but opted not to offer an

explanation. Facts detailed in that memo gets reaffirmation

from Ex.MW-1/2 which was written by the Secretary, State

Bank of India Staff Association, to the Branch Manager

and counter-signed by 18 other members of the staff posted

at Seelampur branch of the bank. In Ex.MW2/2 it is

mentioned that on 2-8-1996 at 1.15 P.M. Smt. Sheela refused

to hand over case vouchers to Cashier, when she was so

requested by Shri V.K. Nayyar, Accountant. On this

persistent request she started abusing him in filthiest

language. The employees posted at that branch showed

their inability to work in the Branch, on account of indecent

behaviour of the claimant. During course of cross-

examination of Shri Nayyar, the claimant failed to dispel

facts detailed in Ex.MW-2/1 and Ex.MW-2/2. The claimant

adopted posture of skip over in Ex. WW-1/B, relating to

contents of Ex. MW-2/1 and Ex.MW-2/2. During course of

her cross-examination, she evaded questions relating to

service of memo Ex. MW-2/1 on her. Therefore, it is evident

that the claimant had no defence to project relating to service

of memo Ex.MW-2/1 and its contents thereof. She nowhere

disputes letter ExMW-2/2. These documents are to be read

against her. When appreciated these documents crystallized

that on 2-8-1996 the claimant refused to carry out lawful

orders of Shri Nayyar. She was duty bound to place cash

vouchers on the seat of the Cashier, when so asked by Shri

Nayyar. It is apparent that intentionally Smt. Sheela Devi

opted to defy orders of her superiors.

22. It is also apparent that when Shri Nayyar insisted

upon her to carry out the lawful orders, she showed

insubordination and opted not to get up from her seat.

Contra to it she used filthiest language against Shri Nayyar.

The language used by the claimant is not only indecent

but it does not behave for a lady to utter such words that

too in presence of the staff and customers of the bank.

When such picture is perceived, it emerges that there was

a scene of indiscipline and indignance in the premises of

the bank. An employee, who was duty bound to carry out

ordrs of her superior, not only put decorum of the office at

naught but she crossed all parameters of decency and

behavior. She not only humiliated her superior but

employees present in the bank, customers who were there

and the institution also. Such behavior degrades the

institution to the lowest level in case it becomes a routine

amongst its employees. Conseqeuntly an ordinary prudent

man would form an opinion that behavior projected by the

claimant on 2.8.1996 at 1:15 pm at Seelampur branch of the

bank was debase. Such a behavior amounts to gross

misconduct.

23. Shri Nayyar proves document Ex.MW2/3 to

Ex.MW2/7 Ex.MW2/3 is a memo addressed to the claimant,

wherein it has been detailed that she visits as well as leaves

the branch at her convenience. It has also been detailed

therein that on 8 and 9 of August 1996 she had not carried

out any work in the branch. She was called upon to explain

as to why her wages for those two days may not be

deducted on the doctrine of "no work no pay". She refuses

to accept that memo. Memo Ex.MW2/4 was also not

accepted by her. Ex MW2/5 was not accepted by the lady

when tendered to her Ex.MW2/6 is the copy of attendance

recorded to the effect that claimant signs attendance record

in the morning and at that very time she records here time

of departure too for that day It has also been mentioned

therein that she leaves the bank at her convenience and

does not work at all. These documents remained unassailed.

Therefore, it is apparent that Smt. Sheela not only refused

to accept letters/memos but behaved in an arrogant manner.

She had taken all officers and employees of the branch for

granted and acted according to her whims and convenience.

7722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Discipline, decorum and decency were the first casualties,

made by her acts and conduct. Consequently it is apparent

that the claimant had behaved in most irresponsible manner

and her acts and conduct were subversive of discipline.

24. Shri S.K. Garg presents facts which make the

situation more alarming. He highlights that Smt. Sheela

remained absent in an unauthorised manner from 3-6-1998

to 24-7-2000. he details during course of his cross

examination that the claimant remained posted in Seelampur

branch of the bank till 2-6-1998. She was relieved from

Seelampur branch in afternoon of 2-6-1998 to join Ghonda

branch of the bank. She remained absent till 24-7-2000 and

joined her duties at Ghonda branch on 25-7-2000 only. Her

attendance record. which is Ex.MW1/W1, projects that fact.

When she was confronted with the factum of her absence

from 3-6-1996 to 24-7-2000, she could not offer any

explanation. Question was put repeatedly calling upon her

to explain as to when she joined Ghonda branch of the

bank, but she opted not to reply it. Out of above facts,

testified by Shri Garg, it emrges that the claimant remained

absent from 3-6-1998 to 24-7-2000, that is, for a period of

783 days.

25. Shri Garg, also presents that Smt. Sheela Devi

remained absent for a period of 31 days from 6-9-2001 to

6-10-2001, 68 days from 5-5-2003 to 11-7-2003, 14 days from

17-12-2004 to 30-12-2004, 10 days from 31-1-2005 to

9-2-2005, 17 days from 7-11-2005 to 23-11-2005, 16 days

from 13-12-2005 to 8-12-2005 and 6 days from 2-11-2006 to

7-11-2006, besides various other periods of absence detailed

in Ex.MW1/4. When he was confronted with the attendance

record he conceded that it was mentioned therein that on

11-4-2001, 12-4-2001, 20-11-2001, 5-12-2001, 6-12-2001,

2-1-2002, 31-1-2002, 8-2-2002, 18-2-2002, 28-2-2002,

18-3-2002, 31-3-2002, 27-4-2002, 1-5-2002, 2-5-2002,

18-6-2002, 13-9-2002, 13-11-2002, 13-1-2003, 26-8-2003,

11-9-2003, 8-10-2005, 6-2-2007, 7-2-2007 and 11-4-2007 the

claimant was on leave. However, he explains that it had

been so recorded due to inadvertence. He makes it clear

that her leave for the aforesaid periods were not sanctioned.

It was not brought over the record by the claimant that

leaves for above dates were sanctioned by the bank. Even

otherwise the dates referred above projects spells of 1 or 2

days only. For longer periods, referred above, for which

Smt. Sheela Devi remained absent unauthorizedly, no

eyebrows were raised on the testimony of Shri Garg. It is

evident that the bank has been able to bring it over the

record that Smt. Sheela Devi was a habitual absentee from

her duties for a longer period at intervals. She made a faint

attempt to project that her attendance/leave record was

not made available. Had she been on leave on medical

ground or otherwise there would have been some record in

her possession also to show that leave applications were

moved by her. She could not raise even a ripple to the

effect that she moved leave applications which were granted

in her favour. Therefore, it stands crystallized that Sheela

Devi absented herself from duties unauthorizedly, even

without intimating the bank.

26. It would be considered now as to whether above

acts/conduct of the claimant amount to gross misconduct?

For an answer the history of disciplinary action for award

staff is to be traced. For an answer to proposition so raised,

it is expedient to detail disciplinary powers available to the

bank. Shastri Award enlists gross misconduct and minor

misconduct in respect of which disciplinary action may be

taken against an employee. In para 521 (4) it defines gross

misconduct as following acts and omissions on the part of

an employee:

‘‘(4)

By the expression ‘‘gross miscondut’’ shall be

meant any of the following acts an omissions on the part of

an employee;

(a) engaging in any trade or business outside the scope

of his duties except with the permission of the bank;

(b) unauthorized disclosure of information regarding

the affairs of the bank or any of its customers or

any other person connected with the business of

the bank which is confidential or the disclosure of

which is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of

the bank;

behaviour on the premises of the bank;

(d) willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the

property of the bank or any of its customers;

(e) willful insubordination or disobedience of any

lawful and reasonable order of the management or

of a superior;

(f)

habitual doing of any act which amounts to "minor

misconduct" as defined below, "habitual" meaning

a course of action taken or persisted in

notwithstanding that at least on three previous

occasions censure or warnings have been

administered or an adverse remark has been entered

against him;

(g) wilful slowing down in performance of work;

(h) gambling or betting on the premises of the bank;

(i)

speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any

commodity, whether on his account or that of any

other persons;

(j)

doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the

bank, or gross negligence or negligence involving

or likely to involve the bank in serious loss;

(k) giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from

a customer or an employees of the bank;

(l)

abetment or instigation of any of the acts or

omissions above mentioned’’.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7723

27. In para 521(5) penalties which may be imposed for

gross misconduct have been detailed which are extracted

thus:

"(5)

An employee found guilty of gross misconduct

may:

(a) be dismissed without notice, or

(b) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark

entered against him, or

(d) have his increment stopped, or

(e) have his miconduct condoned and be merely

discharged.

28. Minor misconduct shall mean any of the following

acts and omission on the part of an employee, as obtained

in para 521(6) of the Shastri Award:

"(6)

By the expression "minor misconduct" shall be

meant any of the following acts and omissions on the part

of an employee;

(a) absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned

leave without sufficient grounds;

(b) unpunctual or irregullar attendance;

(d) breach of any rule of business of the bank or

instruction for the running of any department;

(e) committing nuisance on the premises of the bank;

(f)

entering or leaving the premises of the bank except

by an entrance provided for the purpose;

(g) attempt to collect or collecting monies within the

premises of the bank without the previous

permission of the management or except as allowed

by any rule or law for the time being in force;

(h) holding or attempting to hold or attending any

meeting on the premises of the bank without the

previous permission of the management or except

in accordance with the provisions of any rule or

law for the time being in force;

(i)

canvassing for union membership or collection of

union dues or subscriptions within the premises of

the bank without the previous permission of the

management or except in accordance with the

provisions of any rule or law for the time being in

force;

(j)

failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or

attention towards officers, customers or other

employees of the bank; unseemly or unsatisfactory

behaviour while on duty;

(k) marked disregard of ordinary requirements of decency

and cleanliness in person or dress;

(l)

incurring debts to an extent considered by the

management as excessive;

29. Punishment while may be awarded for minor

misconduct have been maintained in para 521(7) of the

said award, which are extracted thus:

‘‘(7)

An employee found guilty of minor misconduct

may;

(a) be warned or censured; or

(b) have an adverse remark entered against him, or

than six months’’.

30. In para 18.28, Desai Award makes it clear that

procedure laid down by Shastri Tribunal "for termination

of employment and taking other disciplinary action" in

paragraphs 520 and 521 and in paragraphs 518 and 519 to

the extent quoted above, subject to the modification

indicated shall remain the same.

31. In bipartite settlement dated 19th October, 1966

commonly known as 1st bipartite settlement no change

was made either in the misconducts described as gross

misconduct or minor misconduct, besides penalties

provided for the same. In para 19.9 it was mentioned that a

workman found guilty of a misconduct, whether gross or

minor, shall not be given more than one punishment in

respect of any one charge. In settlement dated 22-11-79,

punishments provided for gross-misconduct were

supplemented with following punishments, besides those

already provided:

(a) have his special allowance withdrawn, or

(b) have his pay reduced to the next lower stage up to

a maximum period of two years, in case he had

reached the maximum in the scale of pay.

32. In sixth bipartite settlement dated 14-2-95 following

sub-clauses were added under the head "gross

misconduct’’, defined in 1st bipartite settlement and Shastri

Award:

(p) remaining unauthorisedly absent without intimation

continously for a period exceeding 30 days;

(q) misbehaviour towards customers arising out of

bank's business;

(r)

contesting election for Parliament/Legislative

Assembly/Legislative Council/local bodies/

municipal corporation/panchayat, without explicit

written permission of the bank;

33. Following clauses were also added under "minor

misconduct" defined in 1st bipartite settlement and Shastri

Award:

(n) refusal to attend training programmes without

assigning sufficient and valid reason.

(o) not wearing while on duty, identity card issued by

the bank.

7724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

34. Punishments, provided for gross misconduct by

Shastri Award and 1st bipartite settlement were substituted

by sixth bipartite settlement. In para 21(4) following

punishments were provided for gross misconduct.

(a) be dismissed without notice; or

(b) be removed from service with superannuation

benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and

Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules

or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and

without disqualification from future employment;

benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident fund and

Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules

or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and

without disqualification from future employment;

(d) be discharged from service with superannuation

benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and

Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules

or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and

without disqualification from future employment; or

(e) be brought down to lower stage in the scale of pay

up to a maximum of two stages; or

(f)

have his increment/s stopped with or without

cumulative effect; or

(g) have his special pay withdrawn; or

(h) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark

entered against him; or

(i)

be find.

35. Various acts of misconduct were added to the

definition of "gross misconduct" by bipartite settlement

dated 10-4-2002. Sub-para (5) of the said settlement defines

"gross-misconduct" as any of the following acts and

omissions on the part of an employee:

"(5) By the expression "gross misconduct" shall be

meant any of the following acts and omissions on

the part of an employee:

(a) engaging in any trade or business outside the scope

of his duties except with the written permission of

the bank;

(b) unauthorized disclosure of information regarding the

affairs of the bank or any of its customers or any

other person connected with the business of the

bank which is confidential or the disclosure of which

is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the bank;

behavior on the premises of the bank;

(d) willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the

property of the bank or any of its customers;

(e) willful insubordination or disobedience of any

lawful and reasonable order of the management or

of a superior;

(f)

habitual doing of any act which amounts to "minor

misconduct" as defined below "habitual" meaning

a course of action taken or persisted in,

notwithstanding that at least on three previous

occasions censure or warnings have been

administered or an adverse remark has been entered

against him;

(g) willful slowing down in performance of work;

(h) gambling or betting on the premises of the bank;

(i)

speculation in stocks, shares, securities or any

commodity whether on his account or that of any

other persons;

(j)

doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

or gross negligence or negligence involving or

likely to involve the bank in serious loss;

(k) giving or taking a bribe or illegal gratification from

a customer or an employee of the bank;

(l)

abetment or instigation of any of the acts or

omission above mentioned;

(m) knowingly making a false statement in any

document pertaining to or in connection with his

employment in the bank;

(n) resorting to unfair practice of any nature

whatsoever in any examination conducted by the

Indian Institute of Bankers or by or on behalf of the

bank and where the employee is caught in the act

of resorting to such unfair practice and a report to

that effect has been received by the bank from the

concerned authority;

(o) resorting to unfair practice of any nature whatsoever

in any examination conducted by the Indian Institute

of Bankers or by or on behalf of the bank in cases

not covered by the above Sub-Clause (n) and where

a report to that effect has been received by the bank

from the concerned authority and the employee does

not accept the charge;

(p) remaining unauthorisedly absent without intimation

continuously for a period exceeding 30 days;

(q) misbehaviour towards customers arising out of

bank's business;

(r)

contesting election for Parliament/Legislative

Assembly/Legislative Council/local bodies/

municipal corporation/panchayat, without explicit

written permission of the bank;

(s) conviction by a criminal Court of Law for an offence

involving moral turpitude;

(t)

indulging in any act of 'sexual harassment' of any

woman at her workplace;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7725

Note: Sexual harassment shall include such

unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether

directly or otherwise) as—

(a) physical contact and advances;

(b) demand or request for sexual favours;

(d) showing pornography; or

(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-

verbal conduct of a sexual nature;

(u) (For State Bank of India)

the giving or taking or abetting the giving or taking

of dowry or demanding directly or indirectly from the

parents or guardians of a bride or bridegroom, as the case

may be, any dowry’’.

36. Punishments for ‘‘gross misconduct’’ were

enlisted in sub-para (6) of the said settlement as follows:

‘‘(6) An employee found guilty of gross misconduct

may:

(a) be dismissed without notice; or

(b) be removed from service with superannuation

benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and

Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules

or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and

without disqualification from future employment;

i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as

would be due otherwise under the Rules or

Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and

without disqualification from future employment; or

(d) be discharged from service with superannuation

benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and

Gratuity as would be due otherwise under Rules or

Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and

without disqualification from future employment; or

(e) be brought down to lower stage in the scale of pay

up to a maximum of two stages; or

(f)

have his increment/s stopped with or without

cumulative effect; or

(g) have his special pay withdrawn; or

(h) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark

entered against him; or

(i)

be find.

37. Sub-para (7) of the said settlement defines ‘‘minor

misconduct’’ as any of the following acts and omissions

on the part of an employee:

(a) absence without leave or overstaying sanctioned

leave without sufficient grounds;

(b) unpunctual or irregular attendance;

(d) breach of any rule of business of the bank or

instruction for the running of any department;

(e) committing nuisance on the premises of the bank;

(f)

entering or leaving the premises of the bank except

by an entrance provided for the purpose;

(g) attempt to collect or collecting moneys within the

permises of the bank without the previous

permission of the management or except as allowed

by any rule or law for the time being in force;

(h) holding or attempting to hold or attending any

meeting on the premises of the bank without the

previous permission of the management or except

in accordance with the provisions of any rule or

law for the time being in force;

(i)

canvassing for union membership or collection of

union dues or subscriptions within the premises of

the bank without the previous permission of the

management or except in accordance with the

provisions of any rule or law for the time being in

force;

(j)

failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or

attention towards officers, customers or other

employees of the bank, unseemly or unsatisfactory

behaviour while on duty;

(k) marked disregard of ordinary requirements of

decency and cleanliness in person or dress;

(l)

incurring debts to an extent considered by the

management as excessive;

(m) resorting to unfair practice or any nature

whatsoever in any examination conducted by the

Indian Institute Bankers or by or on behalf of the

bank in cases not covered by sub-clause (n) under

‘‘Gross Misconduct’’ and where a report to that

effect has been received by the bank from the

concerned authority and the employee accepts the

charge;

(n) refusal to attend training programmes without

assigning sufficient and valid reasons;

(o) Not wearing, while on duty, identity card issued by

the bank;

(p) Not wearing, while on duty, the uniforms supplied

by the bank, in clean condition.

38. Punishments which may be awarded for minor

misconduct, are detailed in sub-para (8) of the settlement

as follows:

‘‘8. An employee found guilty of minor misconduct

may:

(a) be warned or censured; or

7726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b) have an adverse remark entered against him; or

than six months".

39. From the above facts relating to the service

conditions of award staff of the bank it is emerging that

unauthorized absence without intimation exceeding for a

period of 30 days, willful insubordination, refusal to accept

lawful orders, acts subversive of discipline, riotous and

disorderly behaviour on the premises of the bank are gross

misconduct. Question for consideration would be as to

what punishment would be appropriate to such misconducts

committed by the claimant. An employee is under an

obligation not to absent himself from work place without

good cause. Absence without leave is misconduct in

industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment.

Habitual absence from duty without leave has also been

made misconduct under model standing orders framed

under the Industrial Employment. (Standing Orders) Act

1946. When an employee absents himself, he must have

applied for an obtained leave from the employer. No

employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right

and remaining absent without leave will constitute violation

of discipline. Quantum of punishment for such cases would

depend upon facts of each case. In order to justify extreme

penalty of discharge or dismissal it is to be proved that the

employee remained absent without leave for an inordinate

long period or has habituated to absent himself from duty.

Here in the case the bank has been able to project that the

claimant remained absent without leave for an inordinate

long period, besides being habituated to absent herself

from duty. Her removal from service would be justified, on

account of her inordinate long absence without leave.

40. She behaved in a riotous and disorderly manner

on 2-8-1996 at 1.20 P.M. at Seelampur Branch of the bank.

Riotous or disorderly behaviour was committed by her

during business hours of the bank, that too in presence of

customers. It led other employees to feel that it would be

difficult for them to serve the branch, under the conditions

which prevailed that day. That act was subversive of

discipline also. Besides that the claimant refused to accept

memos and carry out lawful orders of her superiour.

Consequently it is evident that dis-orderly behaviour

committed by her within the premises of the bank is of

alarming complexion.

41. Her refusal to carry out orders of her superior's

amount to insubordination. She was under an obligation

to obey lawful orders given to her by her superiors. It was

beyond her competence to defy those orders. She opted

not to submit her to the authorities of her superiors and

thus committed serious misconduct. Willful insubordination

or disobedience of orders of her superiors has been treated

a serious misconduct under the industrial law. All these

circumstances make me to comment that her continuance

in the service of the bank is not justified. Consequently

punishment of removal from service with superannuation

benefits is found proportionate to her misconduct. it is,

therefore, announced that her removal from service with

superannunation benefits is neither disproportionate nor

amounts to act of victimization or unfair labour practice.

42. Whether penalty of removal from service would

relate back to the date of order passed by the bank? For an

answer, it is expedient to consider the precedents handed

down by the Apex Court. In Ranipur Colliery [(1959) Supp.

2 SCR 719] the employer conducted a domestic enquiry

though defective and passed an order of dismissal and

moved the Tribunal for approval of that order. It was ruled

therein that if the enquiry is not defective, the Tribunal has

only to see whether there was a prima facie case for

dismissal and whether the employer had come to the

bonafide conclusion that the employee was guilty of

misconduct. Thereafter on coming to that conclusion that

the employer had bonafide come to the conclusion that the

employee was guilty, that is, there was no unfair labour

practice and no victimization, the Tribunal would grant the

approval which would relate back to the date from which

the employer had ordered the dismissal. If the enquiry is

defective for any reason, the Tribunal would also have to

consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it

whether the dismissal was justified. However on coming to

the conclusion on its own appraisal of evidence adduced

before it that the dismissal was justified its approval of the

order of dismissal made by the employer on defective

enquiry would still relate back to the date when order was

made.

43. In Phulbari Tea Estate [1960 (i) S.C.R. 32] the

domestic enquiry held by the employer culminating in the

order of dismissal was found to be invalid, being in gross

violation of the rules of natural justice. Even before the

Tribunal, the employer did not lead proper evidence to

justify the order of dismissal and contended itself by merely

producing the statement of certain witnesses recorded

during the domestic enquiry and the workman had no

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses before the

Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence before it, justifying

the dismissal, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal

and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which

order was upheld by the Apex Court. In that case question

of relating back of the order of dismissal did not arise.

44. In P.H. Kalyani [1963 (1) LLJ 673] the employer

dismissed the workman after holding a domestic enquiry

into the charges. Since some dispute was pending before

the Industrial Tribunal, the employer applied for "approval"

of action of dismissal in compliance with the proviso to

section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The workman made an

application under section 33-A of the Act. Apart from relying

on validity of domestic enquiry, the employer adduced all

the evidence before the Tribunal in support of its action.

On basis of evidence before it, the Tribunal came to the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7727

conclusion that the facts of misconduct committed by the

workman were of serious nature involving danger to human

life and therefore dismissed the application under section

33-A and accorded "approval" to the action of dismissal

taken by the employer. In this situation the Apex Court

held that if the enquiry is not defective and the action of

the employer is bonafide, the Tribunal will grant the

approval" and the dismissal would "relate back to the date

from which the employer had ordered dismissal". If the

enquiry is invalid for any reason, the Tribunal will have to

consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it,

whether the dismissal was justified. If it comes to the

conclusion on its own appraisal of such evidence that the

dismissal was justified, the dismissal would "still relate

back to the date when the order was made". Sasa Musa

Sugar Works case (supra) was distinguished saying that

observations made therein "apply only to a case where the

employer had neither dismissed the employee nor had come

to the conclusion that a case for dismissal had been made.

In that case, the dismissal of the employee takes effect

from the date of the award and so until then the relation of

employer and employee will continue in law and in fact".

45. D.C. Roy [(1976) Lab. I.C. 1142] is the illustration

where domestic enquiry held by the employer was found

to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice

and the employer had justified the order of dismissal by

leading evidence before the Labour Court, on appraisal of

which the Labour Court found the order of dismissal

justified. In appeal, the Apex Court upheld the award with

the observation that "the ratio of Kalyani's case (supra)

would therefore, govern the case and the judgement of the

Labour Court must relate back to the date on which the

order of dismissal was passed".

46. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. [1980 (1) LLJ 137]

inverted image of the D.C. Roy's case was presented by a

majority of three judge bench wherein it was held that

"where no enquiry has preceded punitive discharge, and

the Tribunal for the first time upholds the punishment, this

court in D.C. Roy vs. Presiding Officer (supra) has taken

the view that full wages be paid untill the date of the award.

There cannot be any relation back of the date of dismissal

when the management passed the void order’’. Though

the court ruled that law laid in D.C. Roy is correct yet it

followed obiter instead of the decision. Observations of

the Apex Court in above decision, bearing on the relate

back rule, were faulted in R. Thiruvirkolam [1997 (1) SCC 9]

on the ground that they ‘‘are not in the line with the decision

in Kalyani which was binding or with D.C. Roy to which

Learned Judge Krishna Iyer J. was a party. It also does not

match with the juristic principle discussed in Wade’’. The

view taken in R. Thiruvirkolam (supra) was affirmed in

Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. [1997 (2) LLJ

1041].

47. In view of the catena of decisions, detailed above,

it is clear that an employer can justify its action by leading

evidence before the Tribunal. This equally applies to cases

of total absence of enquiry and defective enquiry. A case

of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no

enquiry. If no evidence is led or evidence adduced does

not justify the dismissal by the employer, the Tribunal can

order reinstatement or payment of compensation as it may

think fit. But if it finds on the evidence adduced before it

that the dismissal is justified, the doctrine of relate back is

pressed into service to bridge the time gap between the

rupture of the relationship of employer and employee and

the finding of the Tribunal.

48. If the workman is to be paid wages upto the date

of the award of the Tribunal, the Parliament has to enact

so, declares the Delhi High Court in Ranjit Singh Tomar

(ILR 1983 Delhi 802). Obviously the Act does not make any

provision for the situation. Precedents in Ghanshyam Das

Shrivastava [1973 (1) SCC 656], Capt. M. Paul Anthony

[1999 (3) SCC 679] and South Bengal State Transport

Corporation [2006 (2) SCC 584] nowhere deal with the

controversy, hence are not discussed.

49. However it is settled a proposition that there is a

distinction between the order which is void and an order

which suffers from irregularities. The order which is void

cannot relate back, while the order which suffers from some

irregularities may relate back to the date of punishment.

The Apex Court in Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. [1980 (40)

F.L.R.152] took note of such a situation, which proposition

was reafirmed in Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees

Union [2004 (100) F.L.R. 843]. The law so laid is reproduced

below:

"Kalyani was cited to support the view of relation

back of the Award to the date of the employer's

termination orders. We do not agree that the ratio of

Kalyani corroborates the proposition propounded.

Jurisprudentially, approval is not creative but

confirmatory and therefore relates back. A void

dismissal is just void and does not exist. If the

Tribunal, for the first time, passes an order recording

a frinding of misconduct and thus breathes life into

the dead shall of the Management's order, predating

of the nativity does not arise. The reference to Sasa

Musa in Kalyani enlightens this position. The latter

case of D.C. Roy v. The Presiding Officer, Madhya

Pradesh Industrial Court, Indore and others (supra)

specifically refers to Kalyani's case and Sasa Musa's

case and holds that where the Management

discharges a workman by an order which is void for

want of an enquiry or for blatant violation of rules of

natural justice, the relation back doctrine cannot be

invoked. The jurisprudential difference between a

void order, which by a subsequent judicial

7728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

resuscitation comes into being de novo, and an order,

which may suffer from some defects but is not still

born or void and all that is needed in the law to make

it good is a subsequent approval by a Tribunal which

is granted. cannot be obfuscated.’’

‘‘When in terms of the proviso appended to clause

(b) of section 33 of the Act, an approval is sought for

and is refused, the order of dismissal becomes void.

If an approval is not obtained still, the order of

punishment cannot be given effect to. It is, therefore,

not correct to content that the Tribunal in a reference

under Section 10 of the Act, when passes an order

recording a finding of misconduct, bring life into the

dead. Unfortunately, the Court did not take notice of

the binding decisions in Motipur Sugar Factory's

case (supra) and Firestone's case (supra)’’.

50. In view of above discussion, it is concluded that

order of removal from service with superannuation benefits,

which is found proportionate to the misconduct committed

by Smt. Sheela would not relate back to the date when the

bank passed that order on 13-4-2007. As detailed above, in

award dated 27-7-2010, the order of punishment passed by

the bank was held to be non-est, being violative of the

provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the Act. By way of findings

recorded by the Trinunal, it does not attempt to rejuvenate

that order. Resultantly the order of removal from service

would come into operation from the date of the award.

Therefore awarding punishment of removal from service

with superannuation benefits to Smt. Sheela Devi, an award

is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Date: 31-08-2012

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk-3193.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSusteSUV]

vkWfMusUl QSDVªh] bVkjlh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-@,y-lh-@vkj-@82@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14012@54@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lqjsUnz dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2012

S.O. 3193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/82/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the General

Management, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

21-09-2012.

[No. L-14012/54/2003-IR(DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/82/2004

Presiding Officer: Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri Ram Kishore Chourey,

Qr. No. 1103/A, Ayudh Nagar,

Itarsi

. . .Workman

Versus

General Management,

Ordnance Factory,

Itarsi,

. . . Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of August, 2012

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-14012/54/2003-IR(DU) dated

22-6-2004 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Ordnance Factory, Itarsi in imposing the

penalty of reduction of pay by three stages of the

grade of Darwan from Rs. 3140 to Rs. 2960 per month

in the time scale of pay of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200

for a period of one year with cumulative effect and

also imposing compulsory retirement from service in

respect of Shri Ram Kishore Chourey is justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?’’

2. The case of the workman, in short, is that he was

Darwan in the management department, Itarsi and was in

night duty on 20-1-2001. He was served with a chargesheet

dated 24-2-2001 under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for

attending duty after consuming alcohol for abusing and

misbehaving with the superiors on duty and for a conduct

unbecoming of a Govt. servant. He denied the charges by

giving reply. The Disciplinary Authority was unsatisfied

from his reply and initiated a departmental enquiry. The

Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed.

The delinquent workman was also assisted by the Defence

Assistant. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

enquiry report holding him guilty of the charges. The

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7729

Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings imposed

the penalty of reduction of three stages in the time scale of

pay. The workman preferred an appeal. The Appellate

Authority disagreed with the penalty imposed on the

workman considering the seriousness of the charges and

enhanced the punishment by awarding the compulsory

retirement from the service vide order dated 8-8-2002. It is

stated that the superiors were annoyed with the workman

due to union activity. It is stated that the findings of the

Enquiry Officer is perverse. It is stated that the punishment

is highly harsh and excessive. It is submitted that the

reference be answered in his favour with all back wages.

3. The management appeared and filed Written

Statement in the case. The case of the management,

interalia, is that the workman was admittedly Darwan in

night shift on 20/21-1-2001 when he was in alcoholic

condition and misbehaved with the superiors. He was

chargesheeted on 24-2-2001 for the alleged misconduct.

After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the

charges and submitted his report. The Disciplinary

Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer

and imposed the punishment in reduction of pay scale.

The workman preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority

disagreed with the punishment as the charges proved was

serious in nature and issued show cause to the workman

who gave representation. After considering the entire

materials, the Appellate Authority passed the order of

compulsory retirement from services on 8-8-2002. It is stated

that the witnesses had supported the charges of the

workman and the finding of the enquiry officer is not

perverse. It is submitted that there is no illegality in

awarding the punishment to the workman. He is not entitled

to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

following issues are formulated—

I. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by the

management against the workman is legal and proper?

II. Whether the findings of the Enquiry officer is

perverse?

III. If not, whether the punishment awarded to the

workman is disproportionate to the charges proved

against him?

IV. To what relief, the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

This issue is taken up as preliminary issue. After

hearing the parties and after perusing the entire

documents of the departmental proceedings, it is

held that the departmental proceeding conducted

against the workman is legal and proper on 6-6-2011.

Thus it is clear that this issue is already decided

earlier against the workman and the same is not

challenged in any court of law.

6. Issue No. II

It is not out of place to say that none of the party has

adduced any fresh evidence on the point of charges.

The evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer

shows that six witnesses were examined by the

management against the workman who were cross-

examined by the Defence Assistant. It also appears

that two witnesses in defence were also examined. It

is clear from page 49 of the departmental proceedings

that the doctor Shri N.R. Lalji, Senior Medical officer

was also examined. He had stated that he found the

workman positive in alcoholic condition. This itself

shows that he was in alcoholic condition on duty.

The witnesses had also supported that he had

misbehaved with the superiors at the alleged time.

Thus I find that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is

not perverse. This issue is decided against the

workman and in favour of the management.

7. Issue No. III

On the basis of the discussion made above, it is clear

that the enquiry proceedings is already held as legal

and proper on 6-6-2011 and the findings of the

Enquiry Officer appears to be not perverse and no

fresh evidence on the point of charges is adduced in

the case. Thus it is not proper to re-appreciate the

evidence and to interfere with the punishment

imposed on the workman. I find no reason to interfere

in the punishment order passed by the Appelate

Authority.

8. The learned counsel for the management has

argued that this is a case of compulsory retirement and it

doesnot come within the purview of Section 11A of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). It

appears that the Section 11A of the Act, 1947 is with regard

to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal

of workmen. This case doesnot come in the purview of

Section 11A of the Act. I, therefore also agree that the

interference in the punishment order is not justified. This

issue is also decided against the workman and in favour of

the management.

9. Issue No. IV

It is clear that the action of the management in

awarding the aforesaid punishment to the workman is legal

and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Accordingly the reference is answered.

10. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

7730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3194-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

enj Msjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2011½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21&9&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la-,y-&42011@41@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

lqjsUnz dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2012

S.O. 3194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the General Manager, Mother

Dairy and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 21-09-2012.

[No. L-42012/41/2000-IR(DU)]

SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI

I.D.No. 58/2011

Shri Dalip Singh,

H.No. 4/194, Lalita Park,

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092

....Claimant

Versus

The General Manager,

Mother Dairy,

Patparganj,

New Delhi

...Management

ORDER

An industrial dispute, referred to this Tribunal for

adjudication, vide order No. L-42011/41/2000-IR(DU),

New Delhi, dated 28th September, 2000 was articulated vide

award dated on 20-07-2012. Inadvertently on first page of

the award, party to the dispute viz. General Manager, Mother

Dairy, Patparganj, New Delhi was reflected as General

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Parliament Street,

New Delhi.

2. Letter dated 04-09-2012 was transmitted by the

Section Officer, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt.

of India, New Delhi, wherein above mistake has been

highlighted. A request has been made to make necessary

correction in the award, in that regard.

3. Rule 28 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules

1957 provides for correction of errors. For sake of ready

reference aforesaid rule is extracted thus:

‘‘The Labour Court, Tribunal National Tribunal or

Arbitrator may correct any clerical mistake or error

arising from an accidental slip or omission in any

award it/he issues’’.

4. Clerical error can be defined as an error in a

document which can only by explained by considering it

to be a slip or mistake of the party preparing or copying it.

Literally an error is said to be ‘‘clerical’’ where it is made by

a clerk or some subordinate agent, but actually, it means an

error committed it the performance of clerical work, whether

by the Court, the draftsman of the Act or by the clerk. It is

an error which cannot reasonably be attributed to the

exercise of judicial consideration or discretion. Clerical error

is in the nature of an inadvertent omission or mistake. The

term ‘‘clerical error’’ which is amendable nunc pro tunc is

distinguishable from a ‘‘judicial error’’ which can be

corrected only on review or an appeal. Reference can be

made to precedents in Rosamma Punnose (AIR 1958 Ker.

154) and Mansha Ram L. Jagdish Rai (AIR 1962 Punj. 110).

5. Accidental slip occurs when something is wrongly

put in by an accident and an accidental omission occurs

when something is left out by accident. The expression

‘‘accidental slip’’ as occurring in section 152 (new) of the

Code of Civil Procedure was construed by the Federal Court

in Sachindara Nath Kolya (5 DLR 68), wherein it was

observed as a follows:

‘‘It needs to be stressed that the keyword in the

relevant phrase is ‘‘accidental’’ and it qualifies

‘‘omission’’ also, with the result that the procedure

provided by section cannot be used to correct

omission, however erroneous, which are intentional,

not indeed in the sense of conscious choice, for no

court, is supposed to commit an error knowing it to

be such, but in the sense that the Court meant not to

omit what was omitted’’.

6. Apex Court in Tulsipur Sugar Company Ltd. [1969

(2) SCC 100] had occasion to consider correctional

jurisdiction of the Labour Court constituted under the UP

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that precedent the Apex

Court made reference to the provisions of Section 152 of

the Code of Civil Procedure and rule 28 of the Rules and

announced that power of correction of error is a limited

one, which can be exercised only to cases where mistake,

clerical or arithmetical or an error arising from an accidental

slip or omission had occurred. It was ruled therein that this

power is limited only to cases where clerical or arithmetical

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7731

mistake or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission

have occurred.

7. After ascertaining the scope of powers of

correction of errors available to this Tribunal, now it would

be addressed as to whether mention of General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001 in the award was on account of

conscious choice of the Tribunal. Answer lies in negative.

It was recorded on account of accidental mistake. This

Tribunal has power to correct the accidental mistake.

Accordingly, it is ordered that address of the management,

recorded as General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office,

Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001, in the award may be

read as General Manager, Mother Dairy, Patparganj, New

Delhi, where ever it occurs. Ordered accordingly. The

appropriate Government may be communicated of

correction, so made in the award, for publication.

Dated: 10-09-2012

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 58/2011

Shri Dalip Singh,

H. No. 4/194, Lalita Park,

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.

...Claimant

Versus

The General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001

...Management

AWARD

Under an Apprenticeship Agreement Dalip Singh

was taken as an apprentice by the Mother Dairy

(hereinafter referred to as the Dairy) from 28-3-1995 to

27-3-1996, under the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961.

Subsequently offer for imparting training was given to

Dalip Singh and in consonance with that offer he joined

as trainee with Dairy on 8-4-1996, for a period of two years.

During the course of his training, he had to undergo heart

surgery. After recovery he joined his training on 11th

December, 1997. He could not continue with his training

and was sent to Computer Branch for work. Dalip Singh

alleged that on 6-1-1998 he was not allowed to resume his

duties. On the other hand, the Dairy projects that since he

was unable to do strenuous job, he abandoned his training.

On 10-3-1999 Dalip Singh served a notice of demand on

the Dairy through the Conciliation Officer seeking his re-

instatement as a trainee with continuity and full back

wages. His demand was not conceded to. He raised an

industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings ended into a

failure. On consideration of failure report the appropriate

Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication, vide order No. L-42011/41/2000-IR(DU), New

Delhi, dated 28th September, 2000, with following terms:—

“Whether the action of the General Manager, Mother

Dairy, Patparganj, Delhi, in stopping from service all

of a sudden to Sh.Dalip Singh, ex-trainee (Welder)

with effect from 8-1-1998 is justified, reasonable, legal

and valid? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Dalip Singh

pleading therein that he completed education for Welder

Trade from ITI, Vivek Vihar, Delhi in July, 1991. He was

selected for apprenticeship in the trade of welder in Mother

Dairy on 29-3-1998. He was sent to undergo medical

examination by the Dairy. On being found medically fit he

was taken as an apprentice. He completed his

apprenticeship on 28-3-1996. Vide letter dated 28-3-1996,

the Mother Dairy informed him that he was selected as a

trainee. He was sent for medical check up to Ghaziabad

where he was declared medically fit. He was taken in

employment by the Mother Dairy on 8-4-1996. He was

periodically examined at ESI Hospital, Mayur Vihar, as per

directions of the Dairy. He suffered from Jaundice and

took treatment for the ailment from ESI Hospital, Jhilmil,

Shahdara. He was referred to G.B. Pant Hospital where he

was operated for his heart ailment. He was discharged

from the hospital on 2-10-1997. On being declared fit, he

went to the Dairy on 16-11-1997 to resume his duties. He

was advised by the Manager (Personnel) to take rest.

When he was issued fitness certificate he resumed his

duties on 11th December, 1997.

3. On 17th November, 1997 a letter was served upon

him, informing him that “Kaizen Award” would be given to

him for commendable contribution in his work area. Though

his work was commendable, yet on 9-1-1998 he was

stopped at the outer gate of the Dairy. He was not permitted

to enter inside the dairy premises to join his duties. He

was not permitted to see the General Manager, Mother

Dairy. He sent two letters to the General Manager

requesting him to allow him to resume duties but to no

avail. He approached the Hotel Workers Union and the

Secretary of that union raised an industrial dispute. He

claimed that action of the Dairy is violative of the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and cannot stand.

He seeks his re-instatement as a trainee with continuity

and full back wages.

4. The claim was resisted by the Dairy pleading that

Shri Dalip Singh was taken as an apprentice (Welder) for a

fixed period of one year under the provisions of the

7732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Apprentices Act, 1961. Being an apprentice he was not a

workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). After completion of his

apprenticeship, Dalip Singh was taken as a trainee (Welder)

for a specific period of two years vide offer for imparting

training dated 4-4-1994. Dalip Singh joined as a trainee

(Welder) on 8-4-1996. His training period was up to

7-4-1998.

5. The Dairy pleads that Shri Dalip Singh was

operated upon for his heart ailment in G.B. Pant Hospital,

New Delhi, and his heart valve was replaced. Owing to his

operation, he became incapable of undergoing requisite

period of training in Welder Trade, which involved

strenuous nature of work. Consequently he stopped

coming to the Dairy for his training on his own accord.

One of the term of offer for imparting training provides

that on completion of his training Dalip Singh will

immediately and automatically cease to be a trainee and

no separate notice was required to be served in that regard.

The Dairy has not given any guarantee for employment to

Dalip Singh on completion of full period of training. Since

his training in welder trade was for a fixed and specified

period no notice or retrenchment benefits were required

to be given to him, in terms of the provisions of the Act.

His period of training ended on 7-4-1998. His case is

squarely covered under the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb)

of the Act. The Dairy further pleaded that without prejudice

to the above facts absorption of Shri Dalip Singh was

subject to completion of training period, depending upon

availability of vacancy in the trade. Neither he completed

training satisfactorily nor there was any vacancy in the

trade of welder. It has further been pleaded that Shri Dalip

Singh was required to produce a medical fitness certificate

from Civil Surgeon/Medical Superintendent at the time of

his joining training. He produced a certificate issued by

Civil Surgeon, Ghaziabad. He was not required to get

himself periodically examined in ESI Hospital. Dalip Singh

produced medical fitness certificate dated 3-10-1997 issued

by G.B. Pant Hospital along with his letter dated 23-1-1998.

It is not disputed that “Kaizen Award” was given to the

claimant. The Dairy pleads that “Kaizen” was done by a

team of four persons, headed by Shri K. S. Chauhan.

“Kaizen” was with regard to rectification of driver’s seat

of the milk tanker. Individual letters were issued to all

members of the team and awards were given to them.

“Kaizen” award has nothing to do with his training as a

welder. During the training Shri Dalip Singh was getting

stipend. The Dairy projects that case of Dalip Singh does

not fall within the ambit of ‘retrenchment’ as defined under

the Act. On the other hand no batch mate of Dalip Singh

for welder trade has been absorbed in Dairy. It has been

claimed that claim presented by Dalip Singh deserves

dismissal, being devoid of merits.

6. In rejoinder claimant reiterated facts pleaded in

the claim statement. However, he presents therein that

letter dated 23-1-1998 was submitted by him on an advice

of the Manager, so that he may continue with the training.

7. On pleadings of the parties following issues were

framed by my learned predecessor:

Whether the workman/ex-trainee did not complete

requisite period of training and abandoned the

training in mid way? If so, its effect?

Whether Shri Dalip Singh workman/welder is

covered under the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb)

of Industrial Disputes Act? If so, its effect?

Whether the action of the General Manager, Mother

Dairy, Patparganj in stopping Dalip Singh

ex-trainee welder with effect from 8-1-1998 from

service all of a sudden is justified, reasonable, legal

and valid? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?

8. Claimant has examined himself in support of his

claim. Shri R. T. Wadhwa, Senior Officer (HR), entered the

witness box on behalf of the Dairy. No other witness was

examined by either of the parties.

9. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II), New Delhi,

dated 11-2-2008 the case was transferred by the appropriate

Government to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II,

New Delhi, for adjudication. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-

IR(C-II), New Delhi, dated 30-3-2011, the case was re-

transferred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government

for adjudication.

10. Arguments were heard at the bar, Shri I. A.

Rehmani, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Ms. Raavi Birbal, authorized

representative, presented facts on behalf of the Dairy. I

have given my careful consideration to the arguments

advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.

My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as

follows:—

ISSUE NO. 1

11. In his affidavit Ex. WW-1/1, tendered as evidence,

the claimant swears that he was selected for apprenticeship

in welder trade on 29-3-1997 by the Dairy. He completed

apprenticeship on 28-3-1996. Apprentice certificate was

issued in his favour on 28-3-1996 which is Ex. WW-1/A.

Vide letter dated 8-4-1996 the Dairy appointed him for a

period of two years on monthly salary of Rs. 1750 for the

first year and Rs. 1850 per month for the next year. He

joined his duties with the Dairy on 8-4-1996. His

appointment letter is Ex-WW-1/D. He suffered from

Jaundice and got treatment at ESI Hospital, Jhilmil Colony,

Delhi. He was referred to GB Pant Hospital where he

remained admitted from 4-8-1997 to 15-8-1997. During his

examination doctor detected that he was having problem

in his heart. He was again admitted in GB Pant Hospital on

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7733

11-6-1997 and on 24-9-1997 heart surgery was performed.

He was discharged from the hospital on 2-10-1997. He was

declared fit to resume his duties on 16-11-1997 vide medical

fitness certificate Ex. WW-1/E. He joined his duties on

16-11-1997. He was advised by the Manager (Personnel)

to take further bed rest. As such he did not join his duties.

He was declared fit vide certificate dated 10-12-1997 to

resume his duties and as such he resumed his duties on

11-12-1997.

12. “Kaizen Award” was given to him on 4-12-1997

and letter dated 17-11-1997 was written by the Dairy in

that regard. Though he was doing his duties with utmost

sincerity and honesty yet Transport Manager was

harassing him. He was taking more work than his capacity.

On 8-1-1998 he was stopped outside gate of the Dairy and

not permitted even to meet the General Manager. He wrote

letters to the General Manager but needful was not done.

Copies of letters written to General Manager are Ex.WW-

1/H and WW1/1. During the course of his cross-

examination he concedes that he was taken as a trainee for

specified period of 2 years w.e.f. 8-4-1996. He further

concedes that on account of the fact that he suffered heart

problem and was operated upon on 24-9-1997, he could

not complete his training. He does not dispute that during

the period of training he was given stipend. He further

concedes that he submitted medical fitness certificate

issued by G.B. Pant Hospital along with his letter dated

9-1-1998. He nowhere disputes that he was issued

attendance punching card, which card remained in his

possession.

13. Shri R.T. Wadhwa, Senior Officer (HR), swears in

his affidavit Ex. MW-1/A, tendered as evidence, that Shri

Dalip Singh was taken as trainee for a period of 2 years

vide offer for imparting training dated 4-11-1996. His training

started from 8-4-1996. There was no provision for renewal

of contract with Shri Dalip Singh. He was operated upon

in G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi, in September, 1997 for his

heart ailment and valve of his heart was replaced. Due to

his operation he became incapable of undergoing requisite

period of training in Welder Trade, since it involved

strenuous nature of work. Therefore, at his own accord

Dilip Singh stopped coming to the Dairy for training. No

trainee in Welder Trade has been absorbed against any

vacancy in the Dairy.

14. Out of facts unfolded by the claimant and Shri

Wadhwa it came to light that initially the claimant joined

as apprentice with the Dairy under the Apprentice Act

1961. He completed apprentice training and certificate Ex.

WW-1/A was issued in his favour by the Dairy. This

certificate makes it clear that the claimant joined as an

apprentice with the Dairy on 28-3-1995 under Apprentice

Act 1961. Vide letter Ex.WW1/D the claimant was given an

offer for imparting training for a period of 2 years. Ex.

WW-1/M2 contains the terms on which the said offer for

imparting training was given to the claimant. Clause (iii) of

the said letter makes it clear that performance of the trainee

must be to the entire satisfaction of the Dairy, failing which

training was to be discontinued without any notice and

without assigning any reason to the trainee. It was further

provided in clause (v) that on completion of the period of

training immediately and automatically Shri Dalip Singh

was to cease to be trainee and no separate notice was

required to be served upon him. It would be in the fitness

of things to reproduce the said clauses, which are extracted

thus:—

“(iii) your performance during the period of training must

be to our entire satisfaction failing which your

training will discontinue without any notice and

without assigning any reason whatsoever, and the

decision of the Dairy shall be final in this matter. You

are required to give one month notice in writing or

pay one month's stipend in lieu thereof if you decide

to discontinue with your training in the Dairy’’.

‘‘(v) On completion of full period of your training you will

immediately and automatically cease to be the trainee

and no separate notice will be served upon you by

this Dairy in this regard. This Dairy also does not

undertake to guarantee employment to you on

completion of your full period of training.’’

15. As projected above performance of the trainee

was to remain to entire satisfaction of the Dairy failing

which training could be dis-continued without any notice

and decision of the Dairy in that regard was to be taken as

final. On the other hand the trainee was given an option to

give one months notice in writing or one month's stipend

in lieu thereof in case he decides to dis-continue with the

training in the Dairy. The stipulation contained in Ex.WW1/

D makes it clear that training period can be determined by

either side. In case the Dairy takes a decision to determine

the period of training, it can do so when performance of

the trainee is not found to the entire satisfaction of the

Dairy. In such a situation the Dairy retains a right to

discontinue training without any notice or without

assigning reason whatsoever in that regard. When the

trainee takes a decision to discontinue with the training

he was under an obligation to serve one month's notice in

writing or to pay one month's stipend in lieu thereof.

16. Fractural matrix is to be considered in order to

adjudicate as to whether clause (iii) of Ex. WW1/M2 ever

came into operation. It is not a matter of dispute that the

claimant was admitted in G.B. Pant Hospital where he was

operated upon and valve of his heart was replaced. The

claimant remained on medical leave and resumed his duties

on 11th December, 1997. According to the claimant, he

wrote letter dated 23-1-1998 to the General Manager.

Writing of this letter is not a matter of dispute since the

Dairy projects that along with this letter the claimant

submitted his fitness certificate. Since letter dated

7734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23-1-1998 is not disputed the Tribunal can read it in

evidence. When contents of letter dated 23-1-1998 are

perused it emerges over the record that the claimant

presents that he joined his duties on 11th December, 1997.

He was sent to Computer Branch for lighter job. He details

that he served in Computer Branch upto 6-1-1998.

Thereafter, Manager (Transport) told him not to report for

duties. Contents of the letter make it clear that the claimant

requested that he should be taken on training for a lighter

job. It is an admitted case of the parties that Shri Dalip

Singh was given an offer for imparting training in welder

trade. Admittedly welder trade requires strenuous work.

Claimant projects in his letter dated 23-1-1998 that he can

perform some lighter job. than strenuous work involved in

welder trade. It is apparent, out of the contents of the

above letter, that he never wanted to resume his duties in

welder trade. Therefore, it is emerging over the record that

the claimant opted to dis-continue with his training.

However, he had not given one month's notice in writing

or one month's stipend in lieu of notice. When claimant

made his intention known to dis-continue with the training,

it was incumbent upon him to give one month's stipend in

lieu of notice. However, the Dairy had not insisted for

payment of one month's stipend in lieu of notice.

Consequently it is emerging over the record that on the

strength of this letter dated 23-1-1998 the claimant made

the authorities known that he wants to dis-continue his

training in welder trade. I have no hesitation in concluding

that it was the claimant who dis-continued his training.

The issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the Dairy

and against the claimant.

ISSUE NO. 2:

17. Admittedly the claimant was taken as an

apprentice by the Dairy on 28-3-1995 under Apprenticeship

Act, 1961. On completion of his apprenticeship he was

given an offer for imparting training in welder trade for a

period of two years vide letter dated 4-4-1996. He joined

training on 8-4-1996. Questions for consideration comes

as to whether the claimant is a workman? For an answer

definition of terms "workman" is to be considered. The

term has been defined by the Act, which definition is

extracted thus:

"(s) Workman means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950),

or the Army Act 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act,

1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer

or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity; or

(iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity,

draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature

of the duties attached to the office or by reason of

the powers vested in him functions mainly of a

managerial nature.

18. As provisions of clause (s) of Section 2 of the

Act highlight, an apprentice has specifically been included

in the definition of ‘‘workman’’ but provisions of the

Apprentices Act defines the term ‘‘apprentice’’ to mean

‘‘a person who is undergoing apprentice-ship training in a

designated trade in pursuance of a contract of apprentice-

ship". Section 18 of the Apprentices Act provides that an

apprentice shall be a trainee and not workmen. It has further

been stipulated therein that the provisions of any law with

respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such

apprentice. For sake of convenience provisions of Section

18 of Apprentices Act are extracted thus:—

‘‘18. Apprentice are trainees and not workers—save

as otherwise provided in this Act,—

(a) Every apprentice undergoing apprenticeship

training in a designated trade in an establishment

shall be trainee and not a worker, and

(b) The provision of any law with respect to labour

shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice’’.

19. It is relevant to note that the word ‘‘apprentice’’

as defined in clause (aa) of Section 2 of the Apprentices

Act makes it clear that an apprentice shall only be a trainee

and not a ‘‘worker’’ and the provision of ‘‘any law with

respect to labour’’ shall not apply to or in relation to him.

Employees under various labour laws have been defined

by different expressions. For instance, in the Factories

Act 1948, the expression ‘‘workers’’ has been used, in the

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 the expression

‘‘employee’’ has been used while in Section 2 (s) of the

Act, the expression ‘‘workman’’ has been used which

means ‘‘any person including an apprentice’’ employed in

any industry ............’’

20. The Apex Court in Employees State Insurance

Corporation [1976 (1) LLJ-81] considered the scheme of

Apprentices Act 1961 particularly the definition of

‘‘apprentice’’ in Section 2 (aa) and provisions of Section

18 of that Act and the definition of ‘‘employee’’ in Section

2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 and ruled

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7735

that an ‘‘apprentice’’ is not ‘‘employee’’ as defined in the

Employees State Insurance Act. The Court made a

significant observation that if the legislature intended to

enlarge the definition of word ‘‘employee’’ in section 2(9)

of the Employees State Insurance Act; it could have

included word ‘‘apprentice’’ in it, as has been done in

section 2(s) of the Act. Such a deliberate omission, on the

part of the legislature, can be attributed only to the well

known concept of ‘‘apprenticeship’’ which the legislature

assumed and took note of for the purpose of the Act. That

is not to say if the legislature intended, it could not have

enlarged the definition of word ‘‘employee’’ even to include

‘‘apprentice’’, but the legislature did not choose to do so.

21. In Hanuman Parsad Choudhary (1986 Lab IC 1014)

the Rajasthan High Court was confronted with the

proposition as to whether an ‘‘apprentice’’ as defined in

Section 2(aa) and the provision of Section 18 of the

Apprentices Act will not be ‘‘workman’’ as defined in

Section 2(s) of the Act, despite having specifically been

included in the definition. The Court pointed out that the

Apex Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation

(supra) had not considered the definition of "workman" in

Section 2 (s) of the Act in conjunction with the provision

of Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, since the Court was

primarily concerned with the question as to whether an

apprentice could be regarded as an employee under

Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

The High Court ruled that the said decision cannot be

read as laying down that in spite of the provisions of

Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, an ‘‘apprentice’’

governed by the Apprentices Act is to be treated as a

‘‘workman’’ under Section 2(s) of the Act. The High Court,

therefore, held that an apprentice governed by the

Apprentices Act is not workmen for the purpose of the

Act and the provision of the Act would not be applicable

to him.

22. A contract of apprenticeship under the provision

of Apprentices Act, is required to be registered. Section 4

of the Apprentices Act contemplates existence of a

concluded contract of apprenticeship which is required to

be sent for registration. For sake of convenience

provisions of Section 4 of the Apprentices Act, are

extracted thus:—

‘‘4.

Contract to apprenticeship—

(1) No person shall be engaged as an apprentice to

undergo apprenticeship training in a designated

trade unless such person or, if he is minor, his

guardian has entered into a contract of

apprenticeship with the employer.

(2) The apprenticeship training shall be deemed to

have commenced on the date on which the contract

of apprenticeship has been entered into under sub-

section (1).

(3) Every contract of apprenticeship may contain such

terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the

parties to the contract:

Provided that no such term or condition shall be

inconsistent with any provision of this Act or any

rule made there under.

(4) Every contract of apprenticeship entered into under

sub-section (1) shall be sent by the employer with

in such period as may be prescribed to the

Apprenticeship Adviser for registeration.

(5) The Apprenticeship Adviser shall not register a

contract of apprenticeship unless he is satisfied

that the person described as an apprentice in the

contract is qualified under this Act for being

engaged as an apprentice to undergo apprenticeship

training in the designated trade specified in the

contract.

(6) Where the Central Government, after consulting

the Central Apprenticeship Council, makes any rule

varing the terms and conditions of apprenticeship

training of any category of apprentices undergoing

such training, then, the terms and conditions of

every contract of apprenticeship relating to that

category of apprentices and subsisting immediately

before the making of such rule shall be deemed to

have been modified accordingly".

23. As emerged out of the provision Section 4 of the

Apprentices Act, as apprenticeship contract is required

to be registered to become a contract of apprenticeship,

as contemplated by sub Section (4) of the said section. An

apprenticeship contract, under the provision of

Apprentices Act, shall exclude applicability of any

provision of any law with respect to labour to an

apprentice. A person who has been engaged as an

apprentice shall be a trainee and not a workman.

Consequently an apprentice under the Apprentices Act

shall not fall within the ambit of definition of "workman"

as contained in Section 2(s) of the Act. However an

apprentice, whose case does not fall within the ambit of

the provisions of the Apprentices Act, shall be a workman

within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act.

24. The claimant was taken as a trainee with effect

from 8.4.1996 for a specified period of two years. This

traineeship was not registered under the Apprentices Act,

1961. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant was a

trainee under the Apprentices Act and was not clothed

with the status of a workman, as defined by clause(s) of

Section 2 of the Act. Consequently, it is concluded that

the claimant was a workman when he joined as trainee

with the Dairy with effect from 8-4-1996. Now not question,

which is to be addressed, is as to whether services of the

claimant were retrenched by the Dairy? Retrenchement

has been defined in clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act,

which definition is reproduced thus:

7736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"(oo)

"retrenchment" means the termination by the

employer of the service of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary

action but does not include—

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman

concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;

(bb)

termination of the service of the workman as a

result of the non renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under the stipulation

in that behalf contained therein; or

(c)

termination of the service of a workman on the

ground of continued ill-health,"

25. As referred above, definition of word

"retrenchment" consists of following four requirements:—

(a) Termination of services of workman

(b) By the employer

(d) Otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way

of disciplinary action.

26. As projected above termination of services of

workman by an employer for any reason whatsoever

otherwise than a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action would answer the definition of term

"retrenchment". In second limb a few exceptions are

provided, which would not fall within the ambit of definition

of "retrenchement". Therefore, it is evident that to answer

definition of term "retrenchement", there should be an act

of termination of service of a workman on the part of

employer. If there is no act on the part of an employer then

it would not answer the definition of "retrenchment". As

projected above, the claimant made it clear that he was

unable to continue with the training, which involved

strenuous work. For a certain period he worked in the

Computer Branch, though he was a trainee in welder trade.

When he was given work in Computer Branch, he requested

the authorities to take him on training for some lighter job.

He never wanted to continue with his training. Thus it is

apparent that the claimant dis-continued training himself.

Circumstances surrounding the controversy project that

it was the claimant who dis-continued training in welder

trade.

27. Whether the fact that the claimant was permitted

to work in Computer Branch for a certain period would

show that a new agreement of employment was entered

into between the parties. When claimant was assigned

work in Computer Branch, at that juncture intention of the

parties to abandon or dis-continue the earlier agreement

emerges over the record. Can it be inferrred that the Dairy

engaged him afresh in computer branch. For an answer to

this proposition, it is to be appreciated as to how a contract

of service is entered into. The relationship of employer

and employee is constituted by a contract, express or

implied between employer and employee. A contract of

service is one in which a person undertakes to serve

another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope

of the duty undertaken. A contract of employment may be

inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a

contract was intended although never expressed and when

there has, in fact, been employment of the kind usually

performed by the employees. Any such inference,

however, is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation

between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing

or the parties were relations or partners or were directors

of a limited company which employed no staff. While the

employee, at the time, when his services were engaged,

need not have known the identity of his employer, there

must have been some act or contract by which the parties

recognized one another as master or servant.

28. Engagement of the claimant in Computer Branch

was not in consonance with the terms contained in offer

for importing training, which is dated 4.4.1996. As detailed

above, the Dairy had not undertaken any guarantee to

employ the claimant after completion of his training.

However, when claimant joined the Dairy after his

operation, he was engaged in computer branch with effect

from 11-12-1997, as projected in letter 23-1-1998. The

claimant worked in the Computer Branch upto 6-1-1998

only. Consequently it is evident that it was his fresh

engagement. The claiment had not rendered continous

serivce of a year, in computer branch. When claimant had

not rendered continuous service of more than 240 days,

provisions of Section 25F of the Act does not come into

operation. In view of these reasons it is clear that the

services of the claimant were dispensed with, but his new

engagement in Computer Branch did not last for a period

of 240 days. Though termination of the claimant from

services, after his new engagement in Computer Branch,

answers the definition of ‘‘retrenchment’’, provided in

clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act, yet procedure for

retrenchment provided in Section 25F was not required to

be followed. Issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the

Dairy and against the claimant.

ISSUE NO. 3:

29. Termination of services of the claimant from

Computer Branch of the dairy on 8-1-1998 amounts to

retrenchment. However, the claimant has not been able to

show that any person junior to him was retained in service

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7737

and he was made to go. Therefore, it is crystal clear that

neither the provisions of Section 25F nor 25G of the Act

came into play. All these reasons persuade me to conclude

that act of the Dairy in terminating the services of the

claimant on 8-1-1998 from its Computer Branch was legal

and valid.

30. For consideration of aspects of social justice,

the Tribunal has to keep in mind that the Act is a beneficiary

legislation calculated to ensure social justice to both

employers and employees and advance progress of

industry by bringing harmony and cordial relationship

between the parties. The Act empowers adjudicating

authorities to abrogate conditions in contract of

employment, in the interest of social justice. Social and

economic justice is ultimate ideal of industrial adjudication.

Social and economic justice has been given place of pride

in our Constitution and doctrine of absolute freedom of

contract has thus to yield to the higher claims for social

justice. See Raibahadur Deewan Badri Das [1962 (II) LLI

366].

31. Social justice is not based on contractual

relations and is not to be enforced on principles of contract

of service. It is something outside these principles and

invoked to do justice without a contract to back out.

Reference can be made to precedent in Rashtriya Mill

Mazdoor Sangh [1960 (II) LLI 263]. In J.K. Cotton Spinning

& Weaving Mills Company Ltd. [1963 (II) LLI 435] the

Apex Court ruled that industrial disputes are to be

adjudicated laced with the concept of social justice. It

would be expedient to reproduce the observations made

by the Apex Court which are extracted thus:

"In our opinion the argument that the considerations

of social justice are irrelevant and untennable in

dealing with industrial disputes, has to be rejected

without any hesitation. The development of

industrial law during the last decade and several

decisions of this court in dealing with industrial

matters have emphasised the relevence, validity and

significance of doctrine of social justice..... Indeed

the concept of social justice has now become such

an integral part of industrial law that it would be idle

for any party to suggest that industrial adjudication

can or should ignore the claim of social justice in

dealing with industrial disputes. The concept of

social justice is not narrow or one sided, or pedantic,

and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone.

Its sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the

basic idea of socio economic equality and its aim is

to assist the removal of socio economic disparties

and inequalities".

32. In Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico

Printing Company Ltd. [1972 (II) LLJ 165] the above

principles were reiterated by the Apex Court. Therefore,

the law laid down by Apex Court makes it clear that the

industrial adjudication cannot and should not ignore the

claims of social justice. Same views were expressed in Basti

Sagar Mills Company Ltd. [1978 (II) LLJ 412]. Therefore

this Tribunal has to consider the case on the touch stone

of social justice also.

33. As detailed above the claimant was taken as a

trainee welder on 8-4-1996 for a specified period of 2 years.

He was to be paid stipend at the rate of Rs. 1750 p.m. in

the first year and at the rate of Rs. 1850.00 for the second

year. Ex. WW/M2 makes it explicit that on completion of

full period of training the claimant was to cease as a trainee

immediately and automatically and no separate notice was

to be served by the Dairy in that regard. The Dairy made it

abundantly clear that it does not undertake to guarantee

employment to the claimant on completion of full period

of training. It is crystal clear that the parties were well

aware that on completion of the training, the claimant was

not to be offered any job by the Dairy. Requirement of

service of notice was also dispensed with by the parties

and status of claimant as a trainee was to come to an end

immediately and automatically on completion of full period

of training. As referred above the claimant failed to complete

his training. On compassionate ground he was offered job

in Computer Branch from 11-12-1997 to 6-1-1998. This

compassionate appointment, which was for a very short

period, does not constrain the Dairy to continue with his

employment.

34. Admittedly the claimant underwent operation for

replacement of heart value, during the period of his training.

Training in welder trade has not led the claimant to this

ailment. Replacement of his heart valve was not a

consequence of strenuous duties performed during

training. Hence, an ordinary prudent man will not say that

ailment with which the claiment suffered was a result of

his training exercise. Since the parties had clearly well

defined the parameter in Ex.WW-1/M2, wherein no

obligation was imposed on the Dairy to offer him with a

job on completion of training, it cannot be said that the

Dairy was supposed to offer a compassionate

appointment to the claimant on a lighter job. All these

aspects make me to comment that even on consideration

of standards of social justice it cannot be said that the

Dairy is under an obligation to give an employment to the

claimant in some other discipline than one in which he

was undergoing training. Action of the Dairy is,

accordingly, found to be reasonable and justifiable. No

case is there which may persuade this Tribunal to command

the Diary to offer a job on compassionate ground to the

claimant. I find no merit in his claim statement. Accordingly

claim statement put forward by Shri Dalip Singh is brushed

aside. An Award is passed in favour of the Dairy and

against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 20-7-2012

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

7738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3195-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoksZÙkj jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@38@2009&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Purvottar Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24-09-2012.

[No. L-41012/38/2009-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. MANJU NI GAM, PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 11/2011

Ref. No. L-41012/38/2009-IR(B-I) dated: 01-02-2011

BETWEEN

Shri Wilson Soni S/o Late Suny Mehtab

C/o Sh. Parvez Alam, Shram Kanoon Salahkaar

283/63 Kh, Garhi Kannora

Lucknow-16

AND

Varisth Mandal Karmik Adhikari

Purvottar Railway, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/38/2009-IR(B-I) dated:

01-02-2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Shri Wilson Soni

S/o Late Suny Mehtab, C/o Sh. Parvez Alam, Shram

Kanoon Salahkaar, 283/63 Kh, Garhi Kannora, Lucknow

and Varisth Mandal Karmik Adhikari, Purvottar Railway,

Ashok Marg, Lucknow or adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

‘‘Whether the Action of the Management of North-

Eastern Railway, Lucknow in not taking Shri Wilson

Soni in panel of 1983-84 above his junior and in not

granting him benefits of ACP is legal and justified?

to what relief the workman is entitled?’’

3.The case of the workman, Wilson Soni, in brief, is

that he was appointed as casual labour on 15-08-75 and

got temporary status on completion of 120 days as per

Rule 2211 of Chapter XXV and Rule 2304 of Chapter XXIII.

It has been alleged by the workman that on getting

temporary status he is entitled for getting all benefits

available to regular employees; but he was not given

pension, DCRG, leave encashment, insurance and

provident fund etc. consequent to superannuation on

30-09-2009. Moreover, he had not been included in the

panel of year 1983-84 above juniors nor was given benefits

of ACP, which was ought to be given to the workman

under Rules. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that

he be included in the panel of the year 1983-84 along with

the benefits of ACP and retrial benefits.

4.The management of the railways has disputed the

claim of the workman by filing written statement; wherein

it has submitted that the workman was a temporary status

employee and was not a regular railway employee. He

retired on 30-09-1999. It has been submitted by the

management that the workman was screened vide

screening test dated 11-02-2005, therefore, demand to

include him in the panel for the year 1983-84 is unjustified.

It has further submitted that the workman retired on the

post of Substitute Khalasi/casual labour and accordingly,

not entitled for pensionery benefits as per Para 31 and 32

of the Railway Services Pension Rule, 1993. Likewise no

GIS deduction was made from his salary hence no provident

fund was paid to him; and no leave encashment was made

due to zero balance in his leave account. However, the

workman has been paid Rs. 36,520 on 30-09-99.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim

of the workman be rejected without any relief to him.

5.After filing the written statement by the

management on 09-12-2011 the workman was directed to

file its rejoinder by 06-01-2012; but workman failed to file

any rejoinder even on the successive dates. On 03-03-2012,

the authorized representative of the workman informed

the Tribunal that the workman has since died on

24-06-2011 and made an endorsement to the effect on the

margin of the order sheet; accordingly, 04-07-2012 was

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7739

fixed for further order. On 04-07-2012 and subsequent date

i.e. 30-08-2012 none appeared from the workman nor any

information has been furnished to this Tribunal that any

substitution application on behalf of the legal heirs of the

workman is pending before the Central Government.

6.In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove,

it is very much clear that the workman had died on 24-06-

2011 since then no substitution application was filed by

his legal heirs till date, which clearly indicates that either

there is no one to press the case or no one is interested to

peruse the case; hence, there is no justification to lingering

the case any more; accordingly, no claim award is given.

7.The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

Lucknow :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

03-09-2012

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3196-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoksZÙkj jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 111@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@34@2011&vkbZ vkj¼ch&I½]

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 111/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Purvottar Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24-09-2012.

[No. L-41011/34/2011-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 111/2011

Ref. No. L-41011/34/2011-IR(B-I) dated: 28-7-2011

BETWEEN

Mandal Sangthan Mantri,

Purvottar Railway Mazdoor Union

96/196 Purana Ganesh Ganj

Lucknow

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

Purvottar Railway, Ashok Marg,

Lucknow

Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer

Purvottar Railway, DRM Officer,

Ashok Marg, Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/34/2011-IR(B-I) dated

28-07-2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Mandal Sangthan

Mantri, Purvottar Railway Mazdoor Union, 96/196 Purana

Ganesh Ganj, Lucknow (Espousing cause of Sri Munna

S/o Sri Maiku) and the Divisional Railway Manager,

Purvottar Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and the

Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Purvottar Railway,

DRM Office, Lucknow Marg, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

‘‘Whether The Demand of the Union, Purvottar

Railway Union for Quashing the Penalty Order Dated

12-2-2009 and 17-2-2009 Served on Sri Munna,

Safaiwala, is legal and justified? to what relief the

union/workman is entitled?’’

3. The order of reference was endorsed to the Mandal

Sangathan Mantri, Purvottar Railway Mazdoor Union, 96/

196 Purana Ganesh Ganj, Lucknow with the direction to

the party raising the dispute to filed the statement of claim

along with relevant documents, list of reliance and

witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the

receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy

of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties

involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial

Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

4. The order of reference was registered in the

Tribunal on 16-08-2011 and notice was issued for filing

statement of claim by the workman; but no statement of

claim together with documents etc. was filed. However,

one Sri P.K. Tewari appeared on 05-01-2012 and 25-05-

2012 but neither filed any authority or claim statement.

Moreover, adjournment dated 05-01-2012 and 25-05-2012

7740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

were moved seeking time to file claim statement. Since

from the date of registration several dates were given to

workman union but no one appeared on behalf of workman

union nor was any claim statement filed.

5. In the above circumstances, it appears that the

workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on the

basis of which it has raised present industrial dispute;

therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there

is no grievance left with the workman. Resultantly no relief

is required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6. Award as above.

Lucknow: Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

10-09-2012

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3197-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj&iwoZ jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2007½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@85@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11/2007) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24-09-2012.

[No. L-41012/85/2006-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. MANJU NIGAM

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 11/2007

Ref. No. L-41012/85/2006-IR(B-1) dated: 07-02-2007

BETWEEN

The Member Executive, P.R.S.S., (BMS)

C/o D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar

Lucknow-226004 (U.P.)

(Espousing cause of Shri Lotan)

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

North Eastern Railway

Ashok Marg, Lucknow.

The Assistant Divisional Engineer

North Eastern Railway

Ashok Marg, Lucknow.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/85/2006-IR(B-I) dated: 07-

02-2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the Member Executive, P.R.S.S.,

(BMS), C/o D.P. Awasthi, 49, Tilak Nagar, Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Lotan) and the Divisional Railway

Manager, North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow

& the Assistant Divisional Engineer, North Eastern

Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

‘‘Kya Prabandhan, Poorvottar Railway, Lucknow

Dwara Shri Lotan, Putra Swa. Mahavir, T.S. Lohar Se

Dinank 16.05.1984 Ke Baad Lagataar Karya Liye Jaate

Rahne Ke Baad Bhi Lohaar Ke Pad Par Niyamit Na

Karna Naayochit Evam Vaidh Hai? Yadi Nahi, To

Kaamgaar Kis Rahat ko Pane ka Haqdaar Hai?’’

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Lotan was appointed as Casual Labour Black Smith on

16-05-1984 and after completion of 120 days' continuous,

casual services, he was given temporary status in the

grade of Rs. 260-400 (time scale) and he is working since

then as such, till he superannuated. It is also admitted

that; and he was assigned seniority against the post of

substitute Black Smith vide letter dated 09-10-93 and was

declared eligible in medical category A/3.

4. It has been alleged by the workman's union that

though the workman was appointed on the post of Casual

Labour Black Smith on 16-10-1972 and was given

temporary status on 16-09-1984; but his services have not

been regularized against said post even lapse of more than

25 years' continuous service as substitute Black Smith

though he passed medical examination in A/3 category. It

has further been alleged by the workman's union that the

services of the workman has been regularized against the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7741

post of gang man, which is a class IV post, though he was

entitled to be regularized against the post of Black Smith,

which is a class III post. Accordingly, the workman's union

has prayed that the workman be ordered to be regularized

against the post of Black Smith.

5. On the other hand the management of the Railways

has denied the allegations of the workman's union and

has submitted that workman has been screened and found

fit for the post of Gangman vide their office order dated

10-12-97 and accordingly, regularized against said post.

Regarding non-consideration of the workman against the

post of Black Smith it has been submitted by the

management that the said post of Black Smith falls in

'Artisan category', in which 50% of the posts (25% by ITI

qualified & Act Apprentice + 25% High School Pass) are

filled on direct recruitment basis and rest 50% is filled on

the basis of option given, by the regular departmental

Group IV artisan helper, in commercial examination; and

since the workman did not bear educational qualification

in this category, accordingly, there arise no question of

absorbing the workman agaisnt the post of Black Smith

which falls in 'Artisan category'. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman's

union be rejected without any relief to the workman

concerned.

6. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder

wherein apart from reiterating the averments made by them

in their statement of claim it has stated that other similarly

situated workmen have been regularized in skilled grade,

but not in Class IV posts.

7. The parties have filed documentary proof in

support of their respective cases. The workman has

examined himself whereas the management examined

Shri Satish Chandra, PWS and Shri Imtiyaz Ashraf, Section

Engineer in support of their respective stands. The parties

availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other's

witnesses apart from putting oral as well as written

arguments.

8. Heard, representatives of the parties and perused

entire evidence on records.

9. The authorized representative appearing the

workman's union contended that the workman was re-

engaged as casual labour Black Smith on 16-05-84 and

after continuous working for 120 days he was given

temporary status w.e.f. 16-09-84 in pay scale of Rs. 260-400

and has continuously rendered his services as Black Smith,

which is a class III post, till he superannuated on

30-03-2009; but, his services has not been regularized

against said post, in spite of Railway Board's instructions

vide their letter dated 11-12-96. It has further contended

that the railway administration has, illegally regularized

the workman against the post of Gangman which a class

IV post in spite of being declared medically fit for the

category A/3. The authorized representative of the union

has argued that the workman has been working on the

post of Black Smith since 16-05-84 and getting salary

accordingly, therefore he is entitled for regularization from

the said date or latest from 10-12-1997 and should be

allowed pension, DCRG and other retrial benefits as

admissible under existing Rules.

10. Per contra, the authorized representative of the

management of the railways has submitted that the

workman was screened and found fit for the post of

Gangman; and accordingly, was posted against said post,

but he did not join and continued to work as substitute

Black Smith till he got superannuated. As regards

regularizing the workman, in artisan category, it has been

contended that in the artisan category, 50% of the

vacancies pertain to the DR quota and rest 50% vacancies

are filled on the basis of commercial examination, conducted

on the basis of option given by the regular departmental

class IV artisan helpers; since the workman did not full fill

the required qualification in the said category i.e. DR quota,

which required that candidate should either be ITI pass &

Apprentice Act or High School pass he could not be

absorbed against post of Black Smith.

11. I have given my thought full consideration to

the rival contentions of the parties and gone through entire

evidence relied by them in support of their case.

12. It is the case of the workman's union that the

workman was given temporary status as casual Black Smith

on 16-09-84 in time scale of Rs. 260-400; but could not be

regularized against said post in spite of being declared fit

in A/3 medical category, instead he had been regularized

against the post of Gangman, which is a class IV post. The

management on the other hand has denied the claim of the

workman's union, submitting that the workman was

granted temporary status as casual Black Smith and was

posted as Gangman on being found fit for the said post in

the screening test vide order dated 10-12-97. It is also the

case of the management that the workman could not be

absorbed against the post of Black Smith as it was a class

III post and the same could have been filled in terms of

prescribed Rules. Since the workman did not fullfil requisite

norms, it was not possible to absorb the workman against

the post of Black Smith.

13. The workman, in his cross-examination, has

stated that he has no educational qualification; likewise

he has not gone through any commercial course. He has

also stated that he was appointed as casual Black Smith

and continued to work as such till date. In rebuttal the

management witness Shri Satish Chandra has stated that

the workman was appointed as casual Black Smith and

was given temporary status as class IV employee and he

has further stated that temporary status is not given in

class III. He has further stated that the workman was

screened and posted against the post of Gangman, but he

7742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

did not join on the said post. He has also stated that since

the workman did not bear required educational

qualification, prescribed for artisan category, he could not

be absorbed against the post of Black Smith. However, it

was admitted by him that the workman continue to draw

his salary, till date for class III. Another witness,

Shri Imtiyaz Ashraf (MW-2), in his cross-examination, on

be being questioned by the A/R of the workman's union

that as to why the workman was not regularized on the

post of Black Smith when was successful in screening

test on 10-12-97, answered that the said screening was for

the post of Gangman, which was conducted by Assistant

Engineer who is authorized for Gangman or Class IV. He

has also admitted that the post of Black Smith is that of

Class III and the workman, Lautan did the job of Lohaar

(Black Smith) till the date of his retirement.

14. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made above,

it is evident that the workman was appointed on 16-05-84

as casual labourer and later was made substitute casual

Black Smith. Thereafter, on completion of 120 days'

continuous working he was given temporary status under

Rules, mandatory to be given to casual labourers engaged

for carrying out works related to Class IV. Subsequently,

the workman was screened by the Assistant Engineer vide

their office order dated 10-12-97, paper No. C-12, and on

being found fit, was posted against the vacant post of

Gangman, a class IV post. But the workman did not join

the said post of Gangman and continued to work as

substitute casual Black Smith and drawn his salary etc.

accordingly, till he retired on 30-04-2009. As far as the

contention of the workman's union regarding not

regularizing the workman on the post of Black Smith is

concerned, the submission of the management, that the

workman could not be regularized on the post of Black

Smith as the said post falls in artisan category and the

workman could not fulfill the educational qualification

prescribed for the said post, appears to be irrelevant in

view of the fact that the workman actually worked at the

post of Black Smith, which is a class III post and drawn

salary for the same post. This fact is also corroborated by

the management witness, Shri Imtiyas Ashraf who stated

that post of Black Smith is class III psot and the workman,

Lautan did the job of Black Smith till retirement. Another

management witness, Shri Satish Chandra also stated that

this is true that the salary, the workman received up till

now is that of class III.

In practice, there are so many examples where work

associated to the post of higher grade is being taken from

a person getting salary of lower grade; but in this case,

the workman was appointed on 16-05-84 as casual labourer

and later was made substitute casual Black Smith and

worked as such, subsequently, he was given temporary

status as casual Black Smith on 16-09-84 in time scale of

Rs. 260—400; but could not be regularized against said

post; in spite of the fact that he has been getting salary for

the post on which he was working i.e. Black Smith. The

management has contended that he has been screened

and found fit for the post of Gangman and also that the

workman did not joined the said post. But it could not

apprise this court as to what action has been taken against

the workan on not joining the post of Gangman; and why

he has been allowed to continue to work as Black Smith

and was being paid the salary accordingly? This puts the

management on the back foot.

15. The workman was doing the work of Black Smith,

which he continued to do till the date of retirement. This

fact was admitted by the witnesses of the management.

Not only he was doing the work of Black Smith but also he

was given the salary for Black Smith, which is class III

post land he continued to receive the salary for that post

till the date of retirement. The contention of the

management is that the workman neither possessed

educational qualification nor passed any trade test, making

him eligible for the post of Black Smith; but this admitted

that he worked and was paid for the said post till the date

of retirement. Keeping in view this fact, the contentions of

the management are not reliable as when a person is

performing duty on a post for a long span of time i.e. for

more than 25 years then there lies nothing in the mouth of

the management to say that he was not qualified for the

post and the benefits attached to said post could not be

denied for the reasons that he does not posses educational

or technical qualification prescribed for the said post. If a

person continuously performs a particular work for a long

period of time of 25 years, even though he is literally

unqualified for that post, without any complaints and

objections, it may be safely concluded that the person is

efficient and competent for to perform that particular work.

Had there been any dificiency in the skill of the workman

to perform the duties of the Black Smith, he might not

have allowed to continue the job of Black Smith and also

might not have paid. But when the management has taken

the work from the workman on a particular post for quiet a

long period of time then coming forward with the plea that

he is not educationally and technically qualified is nothing

but to deprive him of the benefits attached to the post

after retirement, in as much as the management has not

given any explanation to the effect that why the work of

Black Smith was taken from a person who was not qualified

for the post and payment were also made to him. The fact

that the workman had been working on the post of Black

Smith for more than 25 years and was paid salary for the

said itself shows that he was working flawlessly on the

said post. There is no explanation by the management

that if as per version of management workman was not

qualified for the post then why the work of Black Smith

was taken from the workman for such a long time i.e. about

25 years and he was accordingly paid salary for the post.

After taking the work of Black Smith from the workman for

20-25 years. It is not open for the management to say that

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7743

he was not qualified for the post; and accordingly, had

been regularized formally against the post of Black Smith

he might have been extended all the benefits available to

the post of Black Smith.

16. The workman has relied on 2008 (119) FLR 43

Mohammed Ali vs. State of Rajasthan and another,

wherein Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, allowing the

petition seeking grant of regular pay scale of the post of

Pump Driver and regularization on the said post, has

opined that denial of regularization, and regular pay scale

to the petitioner after lapse of 20 years is illegal. In the

said case law Hon'ble High Court, relying upon directives

of Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case, has observed

that it is the duty of respondents to take proper action

for granting regularization and regular pay scale to those

employees who had completed more than 10-15 years of

service.

In the present case the workman has been

working on the post of Black Smith w.e.f. 16-05-84 and

getting salary accordingly for more than 25 years.

Accordingly, the legal position laid down by Hon'ble

Rajasthan High Court in above case law and Hon'ble

Apex Court in Uma Devi's case it is a just case where

management of the railways may be directed to consider

the case of the workman for regularization from the

said date he has been given temporary status while

working as substitute Black Smith; and should be

allowed pension, DCRG and other retiral benefits as

admissible under existing Rules.

17. Hence, in view of the discussions made above, I

come to the conclusion that the action of the management

of North Eastern Railway in not regularizing the workman

on the post of Black Smith is unjustified and illegal; and

accordingly, the workman is entitled for regularization from

the date he has been given temporary status i.e. 16-09-1984

while working as substitute Black Smith and is also entitled

for pension, DCRG and other retiral benefits on the rates

and on the date of the retirement, as admissible under

relevant Rules. The management of the North Eastern

Railways is further directed to comply with above

directions and release all related payment(s) to the workman

within a period of 04 weeks from the date of notification of

this award, failing which the workman shall be entitled for

simple interest @ 7% on the dues payable to him under

Rules, from the date of award till the date of actual payment.

18. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

19. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

03-09-2012.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3198-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2007½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&09&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@118@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh]

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3198.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 47/2007) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Wani North Area of

WCL, Rajur Sub Area of WCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 24-09-2012

[No. L-22012/118/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/47/2007

Date: 11-09-2012

Party No. 1

The Chief General Manager,

Wani North Area of WCL

Post Bhalar,

Yavatmal (M.S.)

The Sub Area Manager,

Rajur Sub Area of WCL,

Post: Rajur Colliery, Tah. Wani.

Yavatmal (MS).

Versus

Party No. 2

The President,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

Rajur Br. Rajur Sub Area of

WCL, Post Rajur, Tah. Wani,

Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 11th September, 2012)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

7744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (‘‘the Act’’ in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Smt. Shashikala,

for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/118/2007-IR (CM-

II) dated 22-08-2007, with the following schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of WCL in

not correcting the date of Birth of Smt. Shashikala is

legal & justified? If not, to what relief is she entitled?’’

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the workman,

Smt. Shashikala, (‘‘the workman’’ in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of WCL, (‘‘Party

No. 1’’ in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that she was appointed in the year

1997, on compassionate ground, on the death of her

husband, Late Mahadev Warpatkar, at Rajura Colliery,

Wani North Area, on the post of conductor and at the time

of her appointment, her initial medical examination ("IME"

in short) was done by the doctor of party no. 1 and her age

was recorded as 48 years as on 24-09-1997 by the concerned

doctor and as at the time of her appointment, her school

leaving certificate was not available with her, she produced

the voter's identity card, in which her age was mentioned

as 36 years as on 01-01-1994, but the same was not accepted

by the Board Members, because she failed to produce

any document in support of her date of birth at the time of

her appointment and as per her school leaving certificate,

her date of birth is 15-10-1956 and the fact of recording of

her age as 48 years in all relevant records was not known

to her and her signatures were taken by the Board Members

on the relevant record, which was in English language

and the report of her IME was not served on her and when

the fact of recording of her age as 48 years came to her

knowledge, she raised objection and filed the school

leaving certificate in support of her age and as per the

date of her birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate,

she was 41 years old at the time of her appointment, but

the party no. 1 was not ready to consider the same and at

the time of her initial IME, the party no. 1 has not

constituted any official committee for the IME and she

was examined only by one Medical Officer and no other

Medical Officer was appointed by the Board Members for

her such examination and signature of other medical

officers were obtained on the report after the examination

test was over.

It is further pleaded by the workman that at the time

of her appointment, there was clear cut instruction in clause

9.5.0. of the National Coal Wage Agreement that, If the

age of female dependent is above 45 years she should not

get employment, only monetary compensation can be

granted and inspite of such instructions, she was given

employment by party no. 1, which shows that she was not

above the age of 45 years and party no. 1 violated their

own norms and instruction and as at the time of her

appointment, she did not posses her school leaving

certificate, she arranged for the same and produced the

same before the party no. 1 and requested to correct her

date of birth in the concerned record, vide her application

dated 03-03-1999, 26-10-2002 and 20-01-2006, but party

No. 1 was not ready to make the correction of her date of birth.

The workman has prayed to direct the party no. 1 to

correct her date of birth as 15-10-1956. By way of

amendment, the workman has also made a prayer that as

during the pendency of the reference, she had been

superannuated by the party no. 1 on 01-09-2009, the order

dated 01-09-2009 be set aside and she be reinstated in

service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

3. The party no. 1 in their written statement have

pleaded inter-alia that the workman was appointed on

04-11-1997, as the dependent of her husband, Late

Mahadeo Warpartkar, who expired on 10-04-1996 and after

the death of her husband, her case for employment was

processed under the provisions of NCWA-IV, in which

there was provision that spouse shall not have the age

limit for employment and on that basis, she was provided

with employment and as per the provisions of WCL and

NCWA, everyone have to undergo the Medical

examination and after being found fit medically, the offer

of appointment is given on the terms and conditions of

employment and as per the National Coal Wage Agreement,

the candidate have to give her/his date of birth certificate

to record her/his age and in case, the candidate does not

have the date of birth certificate, her/his date of birth is

determined by the Medical Board at the time of IME and

the date of birth as decided by the Board Members and

decision of IME have to be accepted by the candidates as

well as the Management and as the workman was not

having school leaving certificate at the time of her initial

appointment, after her IME, the Board examined her case

and decided her age as 48 years as on 24-09-1997 and the

same was accepted by the workman and the management

and the said date of birth was recorded in all the official

records and the workman neither produced any proof of

her date of birth at the time of her IME or at the time of

filling of the official records, after her appointment and the

workman is literate and had given her acceptance to her

age as 48 years on 24-09-1997, by signing the official

documents, such as service book, form B register and other

relevant documents and she did not raise the dispute for

correction of her age till 2006 and as soon as her claim for

correction of date of birth was replied to by them in negative

and it was informed to her of having no scope of correction

of her date of birth, she raised the dispute and the

correction of date of birth, is not possible at the fag end of

her service.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7745

After amendment of the statement of claim regarding

the superannuation of the workman on 30-09-2009, by way

of amendment, it is pleaded by the party no. 1 that as the

workman was superannuated from the service w.e.f. 30-09-

2009, the correction of date of birth of a retired employee

at the belated stage is not possible and at the time of

filling up of the official records, the contents of the records

in vernacular language and the fact of recording of her

age as 48 years as on 24-09-1997 were very well explained

to the workman and she signed all the relevant official

records after knowing her recorded date of birth and there

is no scope for correction of her date of birth in such a

belated stage and such correction is also not permissible

as per the provision of the implementation instruction No.

76, clause 9 (b), on the basis of the school leaving certificate

of the workman, as the same was issued after the date of

her appointment.

It is also pleaded by the party no. 1 that the date of

birth of the workman was determined by following all the

provisions of NCWA and instruction of joint bipartite

committee for coal industries and the workman had

obtained a false and fabricated school leaving certificate

after her appointment and trying to change her date of

birth basing on such fabricated and false document and

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Apart from placing reliance on the documentary

evidence, the workman led oral evidence in support of her

claim. The workman in support of her case besides

examining herself as a witness also examined one Shri

Chandrashekhar Keshavrao Khond, an office

Superintendent and Joint Secretary, of the trade union,

‘‘Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh’’ as a witness.

No oral evidence adduced on behalf of the party no. 1.

5. The workman in her examination-in-chief, which

is on affidavfit, has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim. She has also proved the documents

produced by her as a Exts. W-I to W-XIII. In her cross-

examination, the workman has admitted that after the death

of her husband, she filed an application for compassionate

appointment on 20-05-1996 and in that application, she

had put her LTI and Ext. M-I is her said application and

she was medically examined by the Medical Board of the

WCL for determination of her age and in his medical

examination report, Ext. M-II, her age has been mentioned

as 48 years as on 24-09-1997 and in Ext. W-II, the voter

identity card her age has been mentioned as 36 years as

on 01-01-1994 and according to the school leaving

certificate, her date of birth is 15-10-1956. She has

categorically admitted that she knew very well that her

medical examination was done for determination of her

age and after the medical examination, she was intimated

that her age was 48 years on the date of her medical

examination and Ext. W-II was issued on 05-10-1998 and

the same was obtained by her after one year of her

appointment and she had no document to show her date

of birth prior to 05-10-1998 and the age as mentioned in

the identity card was mentioned as per her version. She

has further admitted in her cross-examination that ‘‘B-

Form’’ register is being maintained by the management in

respect of every employee of WCL and Ext. M-III is the

‘‘B-Form’’ register in respect of herself containing his

signature and the same was prepared on 17-08-1998 i.e.

one year after her appointment and at the time of

preparation of the ‘‘B-Form’’ register, she did not produce

the school leaving certificate or any other document

regarding her age and she did not raise any objection

regarding the age mentioned in ‘‘B-Form’’ register and she

also did not produce any document in support of her age

at the time of opening of the service register and the second

service register was opened having her photograph, LTI

and signature and Ext. M-V is the said service register and

Ext. M. VI is the declaration form given by her for coal

mines provident fund and she cannot say if in his service

been mentioned as 24-09-1949.

6. Witness, Chandrashekhar Keshavrao Khond

examined on behalf of the workman in his evidence has

stated that at the time of processing of the application of

the workman for compassionate appointment, NCWA V

was in force and as per clause 3.4 of NCWA V (Clause

9.5.0), the age limit of the female depandent should be

below 45 years for consideration of her claim for

compassionate employment. The further evidence of this

witness is in the line of the stands taken by the workman

in her statement of claim. In his cross-examination, this

witness has admitted that at the time of appointment of

the workman, her age was determined by the medical board

and at the time of her appointment, the workman did not

file any document in regard to her date of birth.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

employed on compassionate ground on 04-01-1997, due

to the death of her husband and at the time of her IME, her

age was determined as 48 years as on 24-09-1997 and as

the school leaving certificate of the workman was not

available with her at the time of her appointment, she

produced the voter identity card, Ext. W-II, in which her

age was mentioned as 36 years as on 01-01-1994 and as

per the school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the

workman is 15-10-1956 and the workman made number of

applications alongwith the copy of the school leaving

certificate for correction of her date of birth, but

management of WCL did not agree to correct her date of

birth and according to the school leaving certificate, the

workman was only 41 years of old at the time of her

appointment, but the management of WCL did not

consider the same and at the time of employment of the

workman, NCWA V was in force and according to clause

9.5.0 of the said NCWA V, the case of a female dependent

7746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for compassionate appointment was required to be

considered, only is she is below 45 years of age and as the

workman was given employment under the provisions of

NCWA-V, then her age must have been below 45 years

and as such, the recording of the age of the workman as 48

years as on 24-09-1997 is not correct and in view of the

documents produced by the workman,, it was necessary

to correct her date of birth by the WCL and their was no

delay in raising the dispute, as the workman did not know

about recording of her age as 48 years as on 24.09.1997 on

the records of WCL and as soon as it came to her

knowledge, she raised objection and made representations

for correction of her date of birth and as the workman in

the meantime has already been superannuated by the

WCL, it is necessary to correct her date of birth as

15.10.1956 and to instate her in service with back wages

and all consequential benefits. In support of such

contention, the learned advocate for the workman placed

reliance on the decision reported in (2009) I SCC-80 (Mohd.

Yunus Khan Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.)

8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party No. 1 that at the time of her

appointment, the workman did not produce any document

in support of her date of birth, so as per rules and various

settlements, the age of the workman was determined by

her medical examination and her age was found to be 48

years as on 24.09.1997 and accordingly, her age was

recorded as 48 years in the records of the company

including “B-Form” Register and service register and the

workman was informed about the determination of her age

to be 48 years and she did not raise any objection, but

signed the records in acceptance of her age as 48 years on

24.09.1997 and it is clear from the evidence on record that

she obtained documents Ext. W-II and W-III after her

appointment, so the claim of the workman that she had

produced the voter identity card Ext-W-II at the time of

her appointment is not true and basing on the documents

produced by the workman, it is not permissible to correct

her date of birth, in view of the implementation instruction

no. 76, which is binding on the parties and the workman in

her cross-examination has admitted that she knew about

determination of her age as 48 years as on 24-09-1997 and

she did not raise any objection about her age till January,

2006 and at the fag end of her service, she applied for

correction of her date of birth, so the same was rejected

following the provisions of NCWA and the said fact was

duly informed to the workman on 07-07-2006 and at the

time of the employment of the workman, NCWA-IV was in

force, where in, there was no age bar for appointment of

the female dependent on compassionate ground and as

the date of birth of the workman as per records is 24.09.1949,

she was superannuated from services w.e.f. 01.10.2009 and

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, learned advocate

for the management placed reliance on the decisions

reported in (2010) 9SCC-209 (Madan Mohan Singh Vs.

Rajnikant), (2010) 8 SCC-714 (Satpal Singh Vs. State of

Haryana), (2005) 6 SCC-49 (State of UP Vs. Shiv Narain)

and (2006) 5 SCC-584 (Ravinder Singh Vs. State of UP).

So, keeping in view, the principles enunciated by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited by the

learned advocates for the parties, now, the present case in

hand is to be considered.

9. It is the undisputed case of the parties that the

workman was given appointment on 04-01-1997, on

compassionate ground, due to the death of her husband

and she was medically examined and her age was

determined by medical examination as 48 years as on 24-

09-1997. According to the claim of the workman, as she

was not in possession of the school leaving certificate at

the time of her appointment, she produced the voter

identity card, Ext. W-II, in which her age was mentioned as

36 years as on 01-01-1994, before the authorities of party

no. 1 but the party no. 1 did not take the same into

consideration. However, I find no force in the said

contention, as because, in her cross-examination, the

workman has categorically admitted that the voter identity

card Ext. W-2 was issued on 05-10-1998 and Ext. W-2 was

obtained by her one year after her appointment and she

had no document to show her date of birth prior to 05-10-

1998. If Ext. W-2 was obtained by the workman on 05-10-

1988, then there was no question of producing the Identity

card, Ext. W-2 at the time of her employment before the

authorities of the party no. 1.

The workman in her statement of claim and in her

evidence on affidavit has stated that the fact of recording

of her age as 48 years as on 24-09-1997 in all relevant

records of party no. 1 was not known to her. However, in

her cross-examination, demolishing her own pleadings,

the workman has admitted that she was medically examined

by the Medical Board of WCL for determination of her age

and in the medical examination report, her age has been

mentioned as 48 years as on 24-09-1997. It is clear from the

materials on records and the pleading of the parties that

the workman knew very well that her age was determined

as 48 years by medical examination and her such age was

recorded in the relevant records of party no. 1 including

the “B” form register and service register and the workman

acknowledging her age has signed on the concern

documents.

10. Admittedly, the workman was appointed on 04-

01-1997. It is found from the document, Ext. W-XIV that

NCWA-VI was in force at the relevant time and neither

NCWA-IV nor NCWA-V was in operation. From Ext.

W-XIV, it is found that NCWA-VI was force from 01-07-

1996 to 30-06-2001. It is also found from the provisions of

clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI that in case of death, total

permanent disablement due to causes other than mine

accident and medical unfitness, if the female dependent is

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7747

up to the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to

accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2000 per month

or employment. In this case, it is not disputed that the

appointment of the worman was done by party no. 1 even

if her age was determined as 48 years by the Medical Board.

As because the workman was given compassionate

appointment, even if her age was determined as 48 years

as on 24.09.1997, in contravention of clause 9.5.0 of the

NCWA, it cannot be said that the age of the workman was

below 45 years, without sufficient proof in support of the

same.

11. It is not disputed that as per the rules and the

settlements entered into by the unions and WCL the

determination of the age of an appointee at the time of the

appointment is to be made by medical examination, in the

case of an illiterate employee or in case of non-production

of any document in support of his/her date of birth. It is

also not disputed that implementation instruction 76

prescribes the procedure for determination/verification of

age of employees. In this case, the workman did not

produce any document in support of her date of birth at

the time of her appointment. So the party no. 1 determined

her age to be 48 years as on 24.09.1997, after her medical

examination as per rules. the workman did not raise any

dispute regarding determination of her age as 48 years by

the medical board. It is also provided in the implementation

instruction no. 76 that the date of birth as determined by

the colliery medical officer shall be treated as correct date

of birth and the same will not be altered under any

circumstances.

12. The workman raised the dispute to change her

date of birth on the basis of the school leaving certificate

obtained by her. According to her, her date of birth is

15-10-1956 and as such, it is necessary to correct her

date of birth in her service records as 15-10-1956.

Implementation instruction no. 76 provides the procedure

for review/determination of date of birth in respect of

existing employees. Para ‘B’ of the said instruction,

provides that in the case of the existing employees

matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate

issued by the recognized universities or board or middle

pass certificate issued by the board of education and/or

department of public instruction and admit cards issued

by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct,

provided they were issued by the said universities/

boards/institutions prior to the date of employment. In

this case the school leaving certificate produced by the

workman, Ext. W-III has been issued by the Head Master,

Jilla Parishad Varist Prathamic Shala Board. Ext. W-III is

not a certificate as required under para B of

implementation instruction no. 76. Moreover, Ext. W-III

was issued on 05-10-1998 and not prior to the date of

employment of the workman. In view of such facts, the

date of birth of the workman cannot be corrected basing

on Ext. W-III.

13. Apart from the facts mentioned above, it is found

from the documents filed by the workman herself that she

has not given her correct date of birth in the said documents

and she is also not sure of her real date of birth. In Ext. W-

II, the voter Identity card, the age of the workman has

been mentioned as 36 years as on 01-01-1994. By taking

the said age of the workman into consideration, on

calculation, it is found that the date of birth of the workman

is 01-01-1958, whereas, in Ext. W-III, the school leaving

certificate, the date of birth has been mentioned as 15-10-

1956. From Ext. W-V, which is the copy of the application

submitted by the workman to the ALC Chandrapur, and

Ext. W-VII, the letter submitted by the union to the ALC

Chandrapur it is found that, the workman had filed the

application for compassionate appointment on 25.01.1997

and in that application, she had mentioned her age as 35

years. So, according to her said application, the date of

birth of the workman is 25-01-1962. It is also found from

Exts. W-V and W-VII that in the gratuity nomination form,

Form-F, the age of the workman was mentioned as 22 years

by her husband on 07-10-1984. According to the said

statement, the date of birth of the workman is 07-10-1962.

As the workman herself has not produced any reliable

document in support of her real date of birth, she is also

not entitled for correction of her date of birth.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions

made above, it is found that the management of WCL did

not commit any illegality or irregularity in not correcting

the date of birth of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of WCL in not correcting

the date of Birth of Smt. Shashikala is legal & justified. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3199-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh- ,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lacð fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@169@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2008) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

7748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited, and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 24-09-2012.

[No. L-22012/169/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/03/2008

Date: 12-09-2012

Party No. 1

The Sub Area Manager,

Nandgaon U/G Mines, Western

Coalfields Limited, Hindustan Lalpeth

U/G Sub Area, Post: Lalpeth,

Chandrapur.

Versus

Applicant

The President,

Lal Zhanda Coal Mines Mazdoor

Union, Qtr. No. M-305, Shaktinagar

Colony, Durgapur, Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 12th September, 2012)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (‘‘the Act’’ in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri Ondal

Mallaya Gundaya, for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-22012/169/2007-IR (CM-II) dated 23-01-2008, with

the following schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

M/s. WCL in rejecting the claim of Shri Ondal Mallaya

Gundaya, dependent Son of Late Mallaya Gundaya

for employment is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the dependent entitled?’’

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the union, "Lal Zhanda

Coal Mines Mazdoor Union", ("the Union" in short) filed

the statement of claim on behalf of the applicant Shri Ondal

Mallaya Gundaya, ("the applicant" in short) and the

management of W.C.L., ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their

written statement.

The case of the applicant as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that the party no. 1 is a public

sector undertaking of the Government of India and is a

subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., the Apex Public Coal Company

and late Mallaya Gundaya, the father of the applicant was

employed in the post of Haulage Khalasi in Nandgaon

U/G Mines of WCL and he was declared medically unfit

on 13-02-1992 and later on he expired on 14-01-1993 and

consequent upon the untimely cessation of employment

on medical ground and later on death of Late Mallaya, the

only bread earner of the family, his eldest son, Komrelli

Mallaya was offered employment on compassionate

ground in terms of the scheme framed under the NCWA-V,

but Komrelli could not join duty, as he was found unfit by

the Medical Board of party No. 1 on 21-12-1996,

consequently, the legitimate claim of compassionate

appointment to a depedent of the deceased employee

remained unfulfilled and at the time of declaring Komrelli

Mallaya unfit for taking duty by party no. 1, his family

members were Smt. Rambai Mallaya (wife, aged about 59

years and not fit for employment), Komralli Mallaya (Son

aged about 21 years and declared unfit for employment)

Indira Mallaya (daughter aged about 17 years, who got

married), Tirpua Mallaya (daughter aged about 15 years)

and Ondal Mallaya (son aged about 11 years).

The further case of the union on behalf of the

applicant is that after Komrelli was declared unfit to take

up the job, the party no. 1 did not make any correspondence

with the family of the applicant and Smt. Rambai, wife of

the deceased employee did not claim any monetary

compensation, she was entitled to get in terms of the

NCWA, instead, she prayed for giving employment to her

second son after attaining majority, as had been done in

the case of similarly situated persons and on attaining

majority on 08-10-2002, the applicant, second son of

deceased workman, made an application for providing him

employment on compassionate ground and the party no.

1 received the application and sought for necessary

documents to process his case for employment and the

applicant complied with the direction and provided all the

necessary documents to party No. 1 and accordingly, his

case was duly processed and sent to the competent

authority to issue necessary appointment order in favour

of the applicant, but party no. 1 failed to consider the

issue of providing employment to the applicant and instead

intimated him on 10-07-2006 that his case could not be

considered as the matter was about 13 years old and the

failure of party no. 1 to provide employment to the applicant

runs counter to the specific provision made in NCWA and

the implementation instruction No. 6 by the Coal India

Limited and the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated

about his family members to be in distressed financial

condition and his employment was necessary to tide over

the crises and under such circumstances, the decision of

the party No. 1 to deny employment to the applicant is

wholly unfair and smacks of arbitrariness and similarly

placed dependents of other deceased employees were

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7749

being provided suitable employment, where as the

applicant is being assiduously discriminated in a show of

colourable exercise of employer's right.

The union has prayed to direct the party no. 1 to

provide employment to the applicant in any suitable post

in terms of the provision of NCWA-V as well as

implementation instruction No. 8 issued by Coal India

Limited.

3. The party no. 1 in their written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that Mallaya Gundaya, while in service

as a Haulage Khalasi at Nandgaon underground was

declared medically unfit on 13-02-1992 and unfortunately

he died on 14-01-1993 and as per the records available

with them, deceased Mallaya Gundaya was having two

sons and two daughters and his eldest son, Komrelli

Mallaya applied for employment as dependent of the

deceased employee and his application was considered

by them and before offering him employment, he was

declared medically unfit by the medical board on 21-12-

1996 and therefore, his claim for appointment as dependent

of Late Mallaya could not be considered and accordingly,

communication was made by them to that effect and Late

Gundaya Mallaya had left behind him his two sons and

two daughters, besides his wife aged about 59 years and

at the time of death of Late Mallaya in 1993, NCWA-V was

in operation and as per chapter IX concerning Social

Security of the said agreement, there was provisions for

employment of dependants of the employees, who die in

harness, in accordance with the conditions laid down there

in and accordingly, the application of Shri Momrelli

Mallaya, who was the only major son of the deceased was

duly considered and one of the criteria before offering

employment to the dependent was that the said person

should be medically fit to perform duties, but unfortunately

however, Shri Komrelli when examined by the Medical

Board was declared medically unfit to perform the duties

and hence his claim for employment was not considered

favourably and the applicant, the other son of Late Mallaya

Ondal was aged 11 years, a minor at that time and therefore

could not be offered employment and after lapse of a period

of more than 13 years, in 2002, they received the application

of the applicant requesting to give him employment and

since, there was inordinate delay and also falling outside

the consideration zone, his claim could not be considered

and accordingly, the same came to be disallowed and wife

of Late Mallaya refused to accept monetary grant as

admissible under NCWA. it is further pleaded by the party

no. 1 that as the union has not produced any material on

record to show that they are entitled to raise the dispute

on behalf of the applicant and the claim in question

tentament to an industrial dispute in accordance with

section 2-K of the Act, the same is liable to be rejected and

the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

4. The union has examined its Secretary, S.H. Baig

as a witness in support of the claim of the applicant. In his

evidence on affidavit, the witness has reiterated the facts

mentioned in the statement of claim. However, in his cross-

examination, the witness has admitted that on 13-02-1992,

deceased Mallaya was declared unfit for work by the

Medical Board and Mallaya Gundaya died on 14-01-1993

and at the time of death of Mallaya, his son, Komrelli

Mallaya was the only eligible member for appointment

and Komrelli had applied for his employment in place of

his deceased father and WCL had considered his

application for employment and sent him for his medical

examination and Komrelli was found unfit for employment

on his medical examination, so the management rejected

his application and he cannot say when the applicant for

the first time applied for appointment, but about 13 years

after the death of his father, the applicant applied for

employment.

5. On perusal of the materials on record including

the pleadings of the parties it is found that there is no

dispute that deceased Mallaya Gundayya was working as

a Haulage Khalasi in Nandgaon underground coal mine

and he was declared medically unfit to do the job on

13-02-1992 and later, he expired on 14-01-1993 and Komrelli

Mallaya, the eldest son of the deceased workman Mallaya

Gundaya and the only eligible person for compassionate

appointment as per the provisions of NCWA-V applied

for his employment and party no. 1 considered his claim

and sent him for his medical examination and as

unfortunately he was found unfit for employment by the

Medical Board after his medical examination, his

application for employment was rejected and he was not

given employment. It is also not disputed by the parties

that the applicant filed the application on 08-10-2002, to

give employment on compassionate ground.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the applicant that the parties are

bound by the provisions of National Coal Wage

Agreement which was in force at the relevant time and

when the father of the applicant was declared medically

unfit to do the job and when he died, NCWA-V was in

force and provisions of Social Security were incorporated

in chapter-IX of the said NCWA and provision of

compassionate appointment was provided in clause 9.5.0

of the said chapter and as there was nothing in clause

9.5.0 regarding any time limit for filing application for

compassionate appointment, the rejection of the

application of the applicant for compassionate

appointment on the ground of delay is illegal and as such,

the applicant is entitled for employment in a suitable post

in accordance with the provisions of NCWA-V.

7. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the

party No. 1 submitted that the application for

compassionate appointment of the applicant was

7750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

considered by party no. 1, but as there was delay of 13

years in filing the application and as the applicant was not

entitled for such employment as per the provision of

NCWA-V, his application was rejected and the applicant

is not entitled to any relief.

8. For better appreciation of the matter for

consideration, I think it proper to mention the provision of

clause 9.5.0 of chapter-IX of NCWA-V, which are as

follows:—

"Employment/Monetary compensation to female

dependent

Provision of employment/monetary compensation to

female dependants of workmen who die while in

service and who are declared medically unfit as per

clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:—

(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for

other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0,

if no employment has been offered and the male

dependent of the concerned worker is 15 years and

above in age he will be kept on a live roster and

would be provided employment commensurate with

his skill and qualification when he attains the age of

18 years. During the period the male dependent is on

live roster, the female dependant will be paid

monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii)

above."

It is clear from the provisions of clause 9.5.0 that in

case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons

or medical unfitness of an employee under clause 9.4.0, if

no employment has been offered and the male dependent

of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he

will be kept on a live roaster and would be provided

employment commensurate with his skill and qualification,

when he attains the age of 18 years.

In this case, the eldest son of the deceased workman

was not given employment as he was medically found

unfit. It is also the admitted case of the applicant that at

the time of declaration of his father medically unfit, he was

11 years old. As the age of the applicant at that time was

not 15 years or above, there was no question to keep his

name on the live roaster and to provide him employment

on his attaining 18 years of age.

Admittedly, no time limit has been prescribed for

submission of application for compassionate appointment

in NCWA. However, it is settled beyond doubt in chain of

decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the object of

making appointment on compassionate grounds is to

provide immediate substance to dependent family members

of deceased employee. The very object of making

appointment on compassionate grounds is to rehabilitate

the family in distress of the deceased employee who dies

in harness, so belated claim for compassionate

appointment cannot be entertained.

In this case, admittedly the father of the applicant

declared medically unfit on 13-02-1992 and the applicant

filed the application for compassionate appointment on

08-10-2002, more than ten years after the declaration of his

father being unfit to do the job. The case of the apllicant is

that he was 11 years old on 13-02-1992. So he must have

attained majority i.e. 18 years of age in February, 1999.

However, he filed the application for compassionate

appointment on 08-10-2002, more than three years of

attaining majority. As there was inordinate delay in

submission of the application by the applicant, the same

was rightly not entertained by the party No. 1.

From the materials on record and the discussions

made above, it is found that party no. 1 rightly had rejected

the application of the applicant for compassionate

appointment. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. WCL in rejecting

the claim of Shri Ondal Mallaya Gundaya, dependent Son

of Late Mallaya Gundaya for employment is legal &

justified. The applicant is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3200-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k]Je&U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2002

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&09&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@62@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial disputes between the management of Hindustan

Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of WCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 24-09-2012.

[No. L-22012/62/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7751

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/01/2002

Date: 12.09.2012

Party No. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of WCL

PO: Lalpeth

Chandraput (MS)

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri R.B. Mistry, Secretary,

Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

(AITUC), Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub

Area, Post: Lalpeth, Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 12th September, 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

disputes between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri Shankar

Bankar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/62/2001-

IR (CM-II) dated 19-12-2001, with the following schedule:—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

Nandgaon Incline of Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub

Area of WCL, Chandrapur in dismissing Shri Shankar

Narayan Bankar, Clerk from services vide order no.

WLC/CHA/HLUGSA/NI/SOM/PER/0131dated

13-04-2000 and order No. WCL/CHA/HLUGSA/NI/

SOM/PER/389 dated 15-05-2000 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief he is entitled?’’

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Shankar

Bankar, (‘‘the workman’’ in short) filed the statement of

claim and the management of WCL Hindustan Lalpeth

Area (‘‘party no. 1’’ in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he was appointed on 20-03-1975

and since then, he was working to the satisfaction of party

no. 1 and while he was working as a magazine clerk in the

explosive magazine of Nandgaon mine of Hindustan

Lalpeth, a charge sheet was submitted against him on

03-10-1991, on the allegation of his involvement in a case

of theft of detonator and gelatin, as one Shri B.K. Tekam,

an explosive carrier during interrogation by police, named

him as a culprit in committing theft of detonator and gelatin

of party no. 1 and there was no written complaint against

him and the enquiry officer did not supply him the copy of

the complaint, even though the charges were based on

such complaint and in the departmental proceedings,

neither the complaint nor the police authorities on whose

initiative the charge sheet was submitted against him were

produced and Shri Tekam was also not produced as a

witnesses and there was no evidence in the departmental

enquiry to hold him guilty of the charges and the charges

were not proved in the departmental enquiry and he was

not given proper opportunity to defend himself in the

enquiry and principles of natural justice were violated and

copy of the enquiry proceedings was not supplied to him

and the enquiry officer was biased and not impartial and

the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and he was

wrongfully dismissed from services. The further case of

the workman is that though Shri B. K. Tekam was the main

culprit and Shri B.K. Tekam was arrested by the police,

while trying to sell the detonator and gelatin and a charge

sheet was issued against Shri Tekam, subsequently, the

party no. 1 cancelled the charge sheet and the action of

party no. 1 is discriminatory and in the criminal case

initiated by the police, he was discharged by the court on

25-02-2000 and he submitted the order passed by the court

before the party no. 1 on 02-03-2000, but party no. 1 without

taking the same into consideration, issued order of

dismissal on 13-04-2000, but the said order was kept in

abeyance and the party no. 1 issued another dismissal

order on 15-05-2000 and in view of his discharge in the

criminal case, the party no. 1 should have dropped the

departmental proceedings and second show cause notice

was not issued to him and when he filed an appeal against

the order of dismissal dated 13-04-2000, which was received

by the party no. 1 on 17-04-2000, the party no. 1 realized

the mistake committed by it and kept the order of dismissal

in abeyance and after manufacturing a false show cause

notice and showing the same to have been issued on

11-04-2000 again dismissed him from service by letter dated

15-04-2000 and from the show cause notice dated

11-04-2000 produced by the party no. 1, it can be found

that the same is not genuine, as because by that letter, he

was allowed 72 hours to file his show cause, but before

lapse of 72 hours i.e. within 48 hours, the order of dismissal

was passed on 13-04-2000 and the party no. 1 violated the

principles of natural justice and the entire action of the

party no. 1 is malafide and colourable exercise of power

and the same is also violative of the provision of the clause

28 of the Certified Standing Order, as the approval of

competent authority was not taken for his dismissal from

services. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement

in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the workman before being dismissed from

the services was working as a magazine clerk at Nandgaon

incline and was assigned the duty of issuing explosives

and maintaining their proper records and the explosives

are being used in the mine for blasting of coal and the job

of the clerk dealing with explosives is highly responsible

and required high degree of integrity, sincerity and

7752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

devotion and on 29-09-1999, a complaint was received from

the police that one Baliram, an explosive carrier of

Nandgaon Incline was cut hold of by them, while selling

detonator and gelatins and said Baliram before the police

disclosed that he had obtained the explosives from the

workman and the workman was arrested as an accomplice

in the said illegal act and was arrested by the police and

for that, the workman was charge sheeted and placed under

suspension, pending enquiry, vide charged sheet dated

04-11-1999 and the workman was asked to submit his written

explanation within 72 hours of the receipt of the charge

sheet and the records and registers regarding issue of

explosives for the relevant periods were checked and it

was noticed that there were lot of cuttings and over

writting in the registers maintained by the workman, which

were obviously done with an ulterior motive and the

workman submitted his written explanation on 09-10-1999

and as the explanation was found not to be satisfactory, a

departmental enquiry was ordered and one Shri D.K.

Chandok was appointed as the enquiry officer and the

workman appeared in the enquiry along with his co-worker

and when the workman did not admit the charges, the

management representative made a statement and

produced the complaint received from the police and also

produced the relevant portions of the issue and return

registers regarding the explosive, showing over writings

and the documents were seen and noted by the workman

and his co-worker and were duly marked as exhibits in the

enquiry and the workman was given the opportunity to

cross-examine the management representative, but he

declined to cross-examine, on the ground that a criminal

case is subjudiced against him in that regard and therefore,

the departmental proceedings be stayed till the disposal

of criminal case and the workman also declined to

participate in the enquiry, so the enquiry was adjourned

to 04-11-1999, on which date, the workman fully

participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the witness

of the management and the workman was also given scope

to adduce evidence in his defence and the workman

examined himself and he was cross-examined by the

management representative and thereafter, the enquiry was

closed and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding

the workman guilty of the charges leveled against him and

the enquiry officer analyzed the evidence led by the parties

and arrived at the findings in an objective manner and the

disciplinary authority by taking into consideration the

materials on record concluded that the charges levelled

against the workman to have been proved beyond doubt

and considering the seriousness of the misconduct, he

passed the punishment of dismissal from services against

the workman; after obtaining approval of the competent

authority, as per order dated 13-04-2000, but as before the

dismissal of the workman, he was not supplied with the

copy of the enquiry report and was not offered opportunity

to make representation, a copy of enquiry report was

supplied to the workman dated 11-04-2000 and he was

asked to show cause within 72 hours of receipt of the

letter and in view of the same, the order of dismissal dated

13-04-2000 was kept in abeyance and the second show

cause submitted by the workman was received on 17-04-

2000 and the reply of the workman was considered and as

the reply was found not satisfactory, it was decided to

dismiss him from services and accordingly the case was

referred to the Chief General Manager, for grant of his

approval and after receipt of the approval of the Chief

General Manager, the workman was finally dismissed from

the services by order dated 15-05-2000. It is further pleaded

by the party no. 1 that the enquiry was fair and proper and

in accordance with the principles of natural justice and

the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after conducting a departmental enquiry against

the workman, the validity and fairness of the departmental

enquiry was taken for consideration as a preliminary issue

and by order dated 21-02-2012, the departmental enquiry

was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice.

5. In the written notes of argument, it was submitted

by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman

was working as a magazine clerk in the explosive Magazine

of Nandgaon Mine and his duty was to issue detonator

explosive to the short firer and explosive carrier on the

basis of requisition signed by the shot firer and counter

signed by the Assistant Manager of the shift and as per

the provision of coal mines regulation, detonators are

issued only to the short firer and the unused detonators

are returned by the shot firer and accordingly, the stock

entries of detonators are maintained and during the service

period of the workman, there was never any discrepancy

between the physical stock position of detonators and

stock position of detonators in the stock register and it

was also admitted by the management that there was neither

any excess or shortage of detonators in the stock of

detonators during inspection of the record and according

to the case of the management, one Mr. B.K. Tekam, an

explosive carrier was caught hold of by the police, while

selling detonators in the market and during his

interrogation, he gave out the involvement of the workman

in the incident and as per the information of Mr. Tekam

before the police, a criminal case for commission of theft

was initiated against the workman by the police bearing

No. 230/1999, but the workman was acquitted in the criminal

case, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. It was further

submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that

the party no. 1 also served the charge sheet dated 04-10-

1999 on the workman for the same incident and charges

under clause 26.15, 26.22, 26.27 and 26.30 were levelled

against him and punishment of dismissal from services

was passed against him and before passing of the order of

punishment, second show cause notice was not issued

and as such, imposition of the punishment is illegal and

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7753

the copy of the enquiry report was also not supplied to the

workman and the order of dismissal from services dated

14-04-2000 was kept in abeyance and he was finally

dismissed from services by order dated 15-05-2000 and the

findings of the enquiry officer are based on no evidence

and this is a case of no evidence and the findings are

perverse and as the punishment against the workman was

passed, basing on such perverse findings, the same is illegal

and the enquiry officer did not consider the acquittal of the

workman from the charges of theft by the court and the

punishment is highly disproportionate.

It is necessary to mention here that though the

learned advocate for the workman referred about two

judgments, K.P. Gupta Vs. SBI (4) LLJ-775 (Goa HC) and

Kanubai P. Shah Vs. Bank of Baroda-2006 III CLR-592 (Guj.

HC-DB) in the written notes of argument, he did not file

the said judgments for perusal of the Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 that in this case, the Tribunal

has already held the departmental enquiry conducted

against the workman to be legal, proper and in accordance

with the principles of natural justice and though the

workman in the statement has mentioned that the findings

of the enquiry officer are perverse, such claim has neither

been specified nor proved by referring to specific instances

in the findings, which could render the same perverse and

mere allegation cannot be accepted unless specifically

proved and the same has not been done by the workman.

It was further submitted that the enquiry officer while

recording his findings has specifically mentioned that after

examining and going through the entire enquiry

proceedings and circumstantial evidence and documents

filed by the management, he had come to the conclusion

that charges levelled against the workman were proved

and the materials on record show that the enquiry officer

was neither biased nor his report was perverse and it is

well settled by the Hon'ble courts by the pronouncement

in different judgments that the report of an enquiry officer

can be held to be perverse, if the report is not based on

evidence on record, if the report is contrary to the records

and if the report is such, which could not have been arrived

at by any reasonable person and as in this case, the report

of the enquiry officer is based on materials on record, the

same is also not contrary to the evidence on record nor it

is such that no reasonable man could have arrived at, the

report of the enquiry officer cannot be termed as perverse

and the workman tampered with the register and did

manipulations by over writing to cover up the pilferage of

the explosive materials, which were found by the police,

while being sold by Shri Tekam and Shri Tekam made a

statement before the police that he had obtained the

explosive material from the workman and the workman was

arrested by the police and on receipt of the police report,

the explosive issue register was checked and it was found

that there had been over writing and manipulations and as

there was a prima facie case against the workman, charge

sheet was submitted against him and departmental

proceedings and criminal proceedings being different, do

not bind each other and initially, the workman was

dismissed without supplying him the copy of the enquiry

report and when the same was found not to be proper, a

copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the workman

for submission of his say and inview of the said position,

the earlier order of dismissal was kept in abeyance and the

workman submitted his reply, which was examined and

found not satisfactory, so he was finally dismissed on

15-05-2000.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the party no. 1 that Shri Tekam was also charge sheeted

and a departmental enquiry was held against him and as

he was found guilty in the enquiry, he was dismissed from

services vide order no. 2650 dated 11-02-2002 and there

was no discrimination and the workman has not claimed

that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges

much less shockingly disproportionate to the charge and

therefore, the question of going into this aspect of the

matter does not arise and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

In support of the contentions, the learned advocate

for the party no. 1 placed reliance on the decisions reported

in AIR 1970 SC-1334 (M/s. Perry and Co. Ltd. Vs. P.C.

Paul), AIR 1972 SC-3182 (BEL and P. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court

No. 2), LAB I.C. 2367 (Syed Rahimuddin Vs. Director

General, CISR), 1996 LAB I.C.-462 (Union of India Vs. B.C.

Chaturvedi), 2003 LAB I.C.-575 (Regional Manager,

UPSRTC Etwa Vs. Hotelal & Others), 2005 LAB I.C.-4158

(V.Raman Vs. APSRTC) and 2005 LAB I.C.-854 (Bharat

Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nekate).

7. It is clear from the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1 that the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters for

punishment cannot be equated with an appellate

jurisdiction and the Tribunal cannot interfere with the

findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority

where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse and the

power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is

conferred on the competent authority either by an act of

legislature or rules made under the provision to Article

309 of the Constitution and if there has been an enquiry

consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles

of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends

of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of

the competent authority and if the penalty can be lawfully

imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the

Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for

that of the authority.

It is also settled beyond doubt that a disciplinary

proceeding is not a criminal trial and the standard of proof

7754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

required is that of preponderance of probability and not

proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled that

the technical rules which govern criminal trials in court

may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings,

but never the less, the principles that in punishing the

guilty, scrupulous care must be taken to see that the

innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular

criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the

statutory rules.

It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a

finding recorded in a domestic enquiry cannot be

characterized as perverse by the labour court, unless it

can be shown that such a finding is not supported by any

evidence, or is entirely opposed to the whole body of the

evidence adduced. In a domestic enquiry once a conclusion

is deducted from the evidence, it is not permissible to

assail the conclusion even though it is possible for some

other authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the

same evidence, but finding based on no evidence can be

rejected as perverse and interference with the finding of

fact in disciplinary enquiry is permissible only when there

is no material for the said conclusion or that on the

materials, the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable

man.

So keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned

above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.

8. Before delving into the merit of the matters, I think

it proper to mention the charges levelled against the

workman.

The English version of the charge sheet submit against

the workman is as follows:—

Western Coal Fields Limited

Office of the Superintendent of Mines/Manager,

Nandgaon Incline, Lalpeth underground Sub-Area.

To,

Shri Shankar Narayan Bankar,

Clerk, Nandgaon Incline,

Charge Sheet

You are working as the magazine clerk at Nandgaon

Incline. On 29-09-1999, a complaint against you was

received that Shri Baliram Kishan Tikaram, explosive carrier,

Nandgaon Incline, who had sold detonator and gelatin

informed the police that in the sale of detonator and gelatin

made by Shri Baliram Tekam, you were an accomplice, for

which police detained/arrested you on 29-09-1999.

Complaint and information had been received against a

clerk working in a responsible, important and sensitive

post like you and your action amounts to misconduct under

the following clauses of the certified standing orders of

the company for which appropriate punishment has been

prescribed. The clauses of the certified standing orders of

the company are as follows:

Clause 26.15

Any breach of the Mines Act, 1952 or

any other Act or any Rules, Regulations

or by laws thereunder.

Clause 26.22

Any willful and deliberate act which is

subversive of discipline or which may be

detrimental to the interest of the company.

Clause 26.39

Abetment of any misconduct.

As the charges levelled against you are very grave

in nature and taking into consideration the gravity of the

charges, you are put under immediate suspension.

You are directed to submit your written explanation

to the charge sheet within 72 hours to the under signed. If

your written explanation will not be received by the under

signed within the stipulated period, then it will be deemed

that you do not have any explanation to offer and the

management will be compelled to take further action in the

matter.

During the period of suspension, you have to appear

and mark your attendance before the attendance clerk in

the attendance room each day at 9.00 AM to receive further

intimation.

Superintendent of Mines/Manager,

Nandgaon Incline

9. On bare perusal of the allegations made against

the workman and the charges levelled against him in the

charge sheet, it is clear that the allegations do not

constitute any of the charges levelled against the workman.

No allegation was made in the charge sheet against the

workman that he made cuttings and over writing in the

relevant records and registers regarding issue of

explosives with ulterior motive to cover up the pilferage of

the explosive materials or that there was actually any

pilferage of the explosive materials.

In the departmental enquiry held against the

workman, management examined the management

representative as a witness, which is not permissible

according to law. Moreover, it is clear from the materials

on record that the management representative has only

stated about the case of the management in his evidence

and he was not an eye witness to any allegation made

against the workman.

Except the management representative, management

did not examine any other witness to prove the charge

against the workman. Neither Shri Baliram Kishan Tekam,

the explosive carrier, basing on whose statement police

registered a criminal case against the workman and arrested

him, nor the police officer before whom, Shri Baliram gave

his statement, or the police officer, who gave the

information to the management about the involvement of

the workman in commission of the offence and about the

arrest or the person, who verified the concerned records

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7755

and register of issuance of explosive materials was

examined in the enquiry. It was never the case of the

management that the physical stock of the explosive

materials was verified with reference to the concerned

records and registers and discrepancy was found in

the physical stock position and the stock position

shown in the records and registers. On perusal of the

materials on records, it is found that neither there is

any direct evidence nor any circumstantial evidence

or record to prove the charges against the workman. It

is a case of no evidence against the workman. It is

also found that the findings of the enquiry officer is

wholly against the evidence on record of the enquiry

proceeding and the findings are perverse. As the

findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and basing

on such perverse findings, the disciplinary authority

has imposed the punishment of dismissal of the

workman from services, the same is illegal and cannot

be sustained.

Taking into consideration the entire facts and

circumstance of the case, it is held that the workman is

entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and

50% of back wages and all other consequential benefits.

Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Nandgaon Incline

of Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of WCL, Chandrapur

in dismissing Shri Shankar Narayan Bankar, Clerk from

services vide order no. WLC/CHA/HLUGSA/NI/SOM/

PER/0131 dated 13.04.2000 and order No. WLC/CHA/

HLUGSA/NI/SOM/PER/389 dated 15.05.2000 is illegal and

unjustified. The party no. 1 is directed to reinstate the

workman, Shri Shankar Narayan Bankar in service with

continuity and 50% of back wages and all other

consequential benefits within one month from the date of

Publication of the award in the Official Gazette.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3201-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ-lh-,y- ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vlalksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@22@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2010) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Ukhra Regional Work

Shop, M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24-09-2012.

[No. L-22012/22/2009-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 03 OF 2010.

PARTIES:

The General Secretary, KMC,

Asansol (WB)

Vs.

The GM, Ukhra Regional

Workshop, M/s, ECL, Burdwan

(W.B.)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the mangement:

None

For the union (Workman): Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.

Representative

INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE:WEST BENGAL

Dated: 30.08.2012

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/

22/2009/IR(CM-II) dated 18-01-2010 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL

in denying employment to the dependant of Late

Dip Narayan Singh, Ex-Driver is legal and justified?

To what relief is the claimant entitled for?"

7756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/22/

2009/IR(CM-II) dated 18-01-2010 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

3 of 2010 was registered on 29-01-2010 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the registered post to the parties concerned directing them

to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their

written statements alongwith the relevant documents and

a list of writnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Representative of the Union,

appears and submits that the workman is not interested

to contest the case further. Since the workman is no more

interested to proceed with the case further, the case is

closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute" is hereby

passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as no

dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt.

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3202-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½]dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vksfj,.Vy

ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM] iq.ks ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iq.ks ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 41@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@6@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th September, 2012

S.O. 3202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Pune now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 18-09-2012.

[No. L-17012/6/2005-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No. 41 of 2005

The Regional Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Process House, Pune-Mumbai Road, Pune-5.

The Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Jeevan Darshan Bldg., N.C. Kelkar Road, Narayan

Peth, Pune-30.

....First Party

AND

Ganesh Gulab Pandit

Type 2 No. 6/12

Range Hills, Pune-411020

....Second Party

CORAM : M. G. Choudhary, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES: Shri A.K. Gupta, Advocate for First

Party, Shri Y.Y. Gaikwad, Advocate for

Second Party.

AWARD

(17-07-2012)

The Government of India through Ministry of

Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Sefction 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the industrial

dispute between above named parties for adjudication by

this Tribunal. The demand of the Second Party workman

i.e. industrial dispute which is referred to this tribunal for

adjudication is mentioned in the Schedule of the reference

order which reads as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental

Insurance Co. in initiating disciplinary action after

lapse of more than 2 years and dismissing Shri. Pandit

for absenteeism is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal,

the Second Party appeared and filed statement of claim in

the matter at Exh. U-3, and contended that he was in the

employment of the First Party initially appointed as part

time employee from 14-12-1998 and according to him, he

was regularly performing his duties. However, due to piles

he was unable to move. Hence he remained absent from

duty from 6.11.2000 and thereafter he informed the First

Party about his illness and for the said illness he was

taking treatment from the Doctor and to that effect

application and medical certificate were submitted.

According to Second party thereafter there was a quarrel

with his relative which was resulted in the injury, for that

he was hospitalised for three days. According to Second

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7757

Party thereafter he resumed the duties after submitting

Fitness Certificate. It is contention of the Second Party

that from 6-11-2000 to 15-3-2001, he was continuously

absent from duty and before that he did not take prior

permission of his absence. According to Second Party

again he remained absent from duties due to his illness for

a continuous period of 130 days. According to Second

Party, as he started regularly remaining present on his

duties from 16-3-2001, thereafter he was made Full Time

Employee. It is contention of the Second party that female

employees in the office used to tell him private work for

purchasing vegetables, and when he started refusing to

do their work the female employees made complaint against

him to the officer alleging that the Second Party is singing

vulgar songs and using filthy language. According to

Second party, after the period of two years, he was given

one chargesheet in which allegations were made that he

remained absent from 6-11-2000 to 15-3-2001, and thereafter

enquiry was held. On the basis of enquiry report, he came

to be terminated from the services. Thus, according to

Second Party the action of the First Party against him is

illegal and wrongful and lastly requested to allow the

reference.

3. The First Party in written statement at Exh. C-6

denied the allegations as alleged in the state of claim and

contended that present reference is not maintainable as it

is not sponsored by union or workmen. According to First

Party, the Second Party was initially appointed as Part

Time Sweeper vide appointment letter dated 14-12-1998

(Date of joining of 22-12-1998). He was appointed as a Full

Time Sweeper vide appointment letter dated 27-2-2002 (Date

of joining 1-3-2001) on probation for six months. His

probation was extended by letter dated 14-1-2003 as his

performance during the probation was not satisfactory.

Again his probation was extended by letter dated

30-5-2003 for six months. His performance report dated

31-3-2003 shows that his performance was not satisfactory.

According to First Party, a complaint was made by lady

staff members by letter dated 27-9-2002 against the Second

Party. According to First Party, he has issued chargesheet

to him on 3-3-2003 for unauthorised absence for the period

from 6-11-2000 to 15-3-2001 for 130 days. According to

First Party, considering the probation of the Second Party

there was no lapse on the part of the First Party to issue

chargesheet after some time, and action against the Second

Party is fully justified and legal. It is denied action against

the Second Party is illegal and wrongful as alleged.

According to First Party, the Second Party admitted his

absence by letter dated 21-3-2003. Hence his termination

was effected by letter dated 8-8-2003. Thereafter, appeal

was preferred by him. The same came to be rejected on

17-10-2003. Thereafter, the Second Party submitted his

memorial as per rules. The same was also rejected on

19-5-2005. Thus, on all these background lastly requested

to reject the reference.

4. Here I would like to mention that this Court by

order dated 5-7-2011 tried two preliminary issues, one is

about fairness of enquiry and another is about perversity

of findings and this Court observed in the order that the

enquiry conducted against the Second Part workman is

just, legal and proper and misconduct is proved on the

basis of evidence recorded in the enquiry and now this

Tribunal is deciding remaining issues by this final award.

5. Following issues are framed in the matter at Exh.

O-6 by my Ld. Predecessor on 17-8-2007 which arise for

my determination:—

(1) Whether enquiry is fair, legal and proper?

(2) Whether misconduct is proved on the basis of

evidence recorded in an enquiry?

(3) If not, whether the misconduct is proved on the

basis of evidence recorded before the Court?

(4) Whether termination of services of Second Party is

illegal?

(5) What reliefs Second Party is entitled?

(6) What award?

My findings to above issues for the reasons recorded

below are as under:—

(1) Already decided as per order dated 5-7-2011;

(2) Already decided as per order dated 5-7-2011;

(3) Does not survive;

(4) No;

(5) Not entitled;

(6) Reference stands rejected, as per order below.

REASONS

6. Both the parties have produced the documents

on record. The Second Party has produced documents

with list Exh. U-14 and U-6 namely appointment letter,

medical certificate, complaint, reply, representation. The

First Party also produced documents on record with list

Exh. C-8 i.e. enquiry proceedings, appointment order, orders

passed by appeallate authority, past service record, copies

of order of probation, copies of order of extention of period

of probation etc.

7. The Second Party in order to prove his case

deposed in the matter at Exh. U-12, and in his examination

in chief, he has stated that his termination of services was

illegal and he is not employed after his termination from

8-8-2003 and he has repeated the same things as per his

stand in statement of claim by way of affidavit. In cross

examination, he has stated that he cannot tell why he has

not pleaded in statement of claim to that effect that he was

not gainfully employed after his termination. He has stated

that after his termination he did not try for alternate

employment. He has admitted that as he did not try for

alternate employment after termination, hence, he did not

get work. Questions were put to him about maintinance of

his family members and he has stated that his mother is

7758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

getting pension. He has admitted that he gave application

at Exh. C-11 in the enquiry by which he admitted his

absenteeism. He has admitted that alongwith the

application Exh. C-11, he did not attach medical certificate.

He has admitted that First Party gave him a letter dated

27-9-2002 alleging that he was signing songs towards

looking at the female staff in the office and also using

vulgar language. He has admitted that he gave reply to

this letter in which it is mentioned that he is ready to

tender apology of concern female staff and also in future

he will be very cautious about his behaviour in the office.

He has admitted that he was given warning letter dated

3-10-2002 for the allegations made in the letter dated

27-9-2002. He has admitted that warning letters which are

on record are at Exh. U-15, U-16, U-17 and he has denied

other suggestions given to him in his cross examination.

The First Party has not examined any witness vide purshis

Exh. C-22.

8. With the help of material on record I have heard

the argument of Advocates for both the parties at length

and both of them have submitted their case as per material

on record. In addition to that the Advocate for the second

party in support of his argument relied on the case law

reported in 2012-(2)-MhL. J.-617, Shivdas S/o Dodku Borker

V/s. District and Session Judge, Nagpur and another; 2012-

(2)-Mh. L.J.-795. Madhukar V. Wagh V/s. Chief Executive

Officer, Alibag and another.

On the other hand, the Advocate for First Party in

support of his argument relied on the case law reported in

2011-III-CLR-38, NRC Limited V/s. NRC Employees Union;

2008-LAB-I.C.-415-SC, M/s. L & T Komatsu Ltd. V/s. N.

Udayakumar; 2004-III-CLR-289-SC, Delhi Transport

Corporation V/s. Sardar Singh.

Considering the ratio of the case law cited by

Advocate for both parties and considering the facts of

the present reference, I am passing final award in this

matter.

9. The First Party contended in written statement

that the present reference is not maintainable as it is not

sponsored by the union or workmen. However, as present

reference is u/s 2A r/w section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, as such the industrial dispute raised by the

individual employee to challenge his dismissal is perfectly

maintainable. Hence, the present reference is perfectly

maintainable in the Tribunal.

10. Admittedly, the Second Party workman initially

was on probation and during probation his work was not

satisfactory. Hence, his probation period was extended

time to time, and he was given one chargesheet dated

3-3-2003 in which allegations were made against him that

he remained absent from 6-11-2000 to 15-3-2001 to 130

days, and thereafter enquiry was held. This Court by order

on preliminary point on 5-3-2011 declared that enquiry

held against the Second Party was just, legal and proper

and further observed that as per enquiry report,

misconduct is proved on the basis of evidence recorded

in the enquiry. Thus, now the only point which remains to

be decided in this matter is about quantum of punishment.

Thus in view of the order passed by this Court on

preliminary point on 5-7-2011, Issue No. 3 does not survive

at all. Hence, I answer issue No. 3 accordingly.

11.As I have already pointed out that misconduct of

absenteeism was levelled against the Second Party

workmen as per chargesheet dated 3-3-2003 for the period

from 6-11-2000 to 15-3-2001 for 130 days and this

absenteeism was admitted by the Second Party workman

in the statement of claim as well as in this evidence and

even in the domestic enquiry, as such the competent

authority i.e. punishing authority inflicted the punishment

of removal from services i.e. terminated his services by

order dated 8-8-2003, thereafter, the Second Party workman

preferred an appeal, the same was rejected. The Second

Party admitted that warnings were given to him during

probation period for the allegations that he was singing

vulgar songs towards looking at the female staff members

working in the office and also using filthy language to

them. Though the Second Party contended that after the

period of two years chargesheet was given to him but on

the background of his probation period which was

extended time to time, in my opinion, the First Party was

justified giving an opportunity to the Second Party

workman for taking action against him for absenteeism

even after two years. Considering the absenteeism of the

Second Party was for 130 days which was unauthorised

absenteeism of the Second Party from duties, in my opinion,

the punishment awarded to him is just, legal and proper

and no lineancy can be shown to the Second Party in

exercise of the powers conferred U/s 11-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to this Tribunal. The Second Party

failed to established that termination of his services is

illegal and improper. Hence, I answer Issue No. 4 in the

negative.

12. In view of my finding on above issues, I have no

hesitation to hold in this matter that action of the First

Party - The Oriential Insurance Company Limited in

initiating disciplinary action after lapse of more than two

years and dismissing Second Party for his absenteeism is

legal and justified, hence, the Second Party workman is

not entitled for any reliefs. Hence, the reference is liable to

be rejected. In view of this I answer issue No. 5 and 6

accordingly and proceed to pass the following award:

AWARD

The Reference (IT) No. 41/2005 stands rejected.

No order as to costs.

Copies of this award be sent of appropriate

Government for necessary action.

M.G. CHOUDHARY, Presiding Officer

Pune

Date: 17-07-2012

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7759

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2012

dk- vk- 3203-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 61@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj 25-09-2012 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&12012@91@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2012

S.O. 3203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 25-09-2012.

[No. L-12012/91/2008-IR(B-I)]

Ramesh Singh, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 61/2008

Date of Passing Award-10th September, 2012

Between :

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Bapujinagar

Branch, Dist. Khurda, (Orissa),

Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

...1st Party-Management

(And)

Their workman Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar, Unit-3,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

...2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES :

Shri Alok Das,

...

For the 1st Party-

Authorized

Management

Representative

None.

...

For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred the present dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of

India and their workman under clause (d) of sub-section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 vide Letter No. L-12012/91/2008-IR

(B-I), dated 06-10-2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication to

the following effect :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar, in terminating

the services of Sri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan w.e.f.

30-9-2004 without complying the provisions of the

I.D. Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman concerned entitled"?

2. The 2nd Party-Workman has filed his statement of

claim alleging that he had joined his services as a

Messenger on 03-11-1991 after succeeding in interview.

He was assured to get permanent appointment order after

one year or on completion of 240 days, work in a calendar

year, but despite completion of several years of continuous

satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days'

work in each year he was not regularized, instead terminated

and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the 1st Party-

Management without any written communication or

payment of compensation. The 1st Party-Management in

refusing employment to him violated all principles of natural

justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought the

matter into the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. of the State

Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing nothing,

he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) Vide his letter dated 25-10-2007.

Conciliation proceedings were started, but they failed and

thereupon a failure report was submitted to the Government

and the Government made the present reference. He is thus

entitled to get full back wages and reinstatement with

continuity of service with effect from 30-9-2004.

3. The 1st Party-Management in its reply through written

statement has stated that the present dispute is misleading

and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party-workman

had already raised a similar dispute along with 124 other

workers through the State Bank of India Temporary 4th

Grade Employees Union before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar challenging their

alleged termination of service by the 1st Party-Management.

In the said dispute the failure report was sent by the Asst.

Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar to the

Ministry of Labour who in turn referred the matter to this

Tribunal for adjudication and the same is pending before

this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007. The name of the

2nd Party-workman is appearing at Sl. No. 11 in Annexure-

A to the said reference. Thus, raising a common dispute for

same cause of action and again raising individual dispute

7760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for same relief is nothing but an abuse of the process of

law and amounts to multiplicity of litigation. The Asst.

Labour Commissioner (Central) while conciliating the

individual disputes disregarded the direction of the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) not to take any further

action on the separate disputes raised by the same workers

for the same cause of action. The allegation of the 2nd

Party-workman that he had joined the Bank on 3-11-1991

and he was discontinued from service on 30-9-2004 is not

correct. He was engaged intermittently on temporary/daily

wage basis due to exigencies of work. When his services

were no more required he was not engaged further. It is

further denied that he was performing his duties with all

sincerity and honesty and to the best of satisfaction of the

Authority. The 2nd Party-workman has neither completed

several years of continuous service in the Bank nor he has

completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar

year preceding the date of his alleged termination. In order

to give an opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex-

temporary employees/daily wagers in the Bank in view of

the various settlements entered into between the All India

State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

of the State Bank of India all eligible persons were called

for interview and those succeeded were appointed as per

panel till 31-3-1997. But the Union or the 2nd Party-workman

has never challenged the implementation of the settlement

which has now gained finality. It is further submitted that

some of the wait-listed candidates, who could not be

absorbed in the Bank's service due to expiry of the panel

on 31st March, 1997, filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble

High Court of Orissa. But the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa

by a common order dated 15-5-1998 passed in O.J.C. No.

2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions and upheld

the action of the Management of the Bank. This order of

the Hon'ble High Court was also upheld by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC-3082/1999. Hence

the above matter has attained finality and cannot be

re-agitated. Since the services of Sri Pradhan were

discontinued much earlier to 30-9-2004 i.e. on 9-8-1998 his

claim has become stale by raising the dispute after nine

years. It is a settled principle of law that delay destroys the

right to remedy. Thus the present dispute is liable to be

rejected on the above grounds.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were

framed:—

ISSUES

Whether the present reference of the individual

workman during the pendency of the I.D. Case No.

7/2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue is

legal and justified?

Whether the workman has worked for 240 days as

required under section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act?

Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch,

Bhubaneswar in terminating services of Shri Pabitra

Mohan Pradhan, w.e.f. 30-9-2004 is fair, legal and

justified?

To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

The 2nd Party-workman despite giving sufficient

opportunity did not produce any evidence either

oral or documentary in support of his claim and

willingly kept himself out of the proceedings at the

stage of evidence by absenting himself or his Union

representative.

The 1st Party-Management has adduced the oral

evidence of Shri Abhay Kumar Das as M.W.-1 and

filed documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-J in

refutation of the claim of the 2nd Party-workman.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party-

Management that a group of 125 employees including the

2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute

in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same

relief which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as

referred to in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 is given below for

comparison with the dispute in the present case:—

Whether the action of the Management of State Bank

of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not

considering the case of 125 workmen whose details

are in Annexure-A for re-employment as per Section

25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?

8. The name of the 2nd party-workman appears at Sl.

No. 11 in Annexure-A to the above reference. In both the

cases the matter of disengagement or so called

retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the

other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-

employment. But challenge has been made more specifically

against the termination of service of the 2nd Party-workman

in the present case while in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 prayer has

been made with regard to consideration of the case of 125

workmen for re-employment as per Section 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, in the latter case the

workmen have submitted or virtually surrendered to their

cessation of employment or alleged termination, whereas

in the present case they have challenged their termination

on facts and law. Virtually in the present case validity and

legality of the alleged termination has to be tested at the

alter of facts and legal propositions. Therefore it cannot be

said that the issues involved in both the cases are same.

This case can proceed despite pendency of I.D. Case No.

7/2007 and the present reference by the individual workman

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7761

pending for adjudication is maintainable being legal and

justified. This issue is therefore decided in the affirmative

and against the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman has

completed one year or 240 days of continuous service

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his alleged termination or disengagement from service

lies on him, but the 2nd Party-workman has not adduced

any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his

contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim

that he had joined the service in the year 1991 and worked

till 30.9.2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis, but

he has not filed any certificate or reliable document

showing the break-up of year-wise service rendered by

him under the 1st Party-Management during the above

period. The 1st Party-Management, on the other hand, has

alleged that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged

intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to

exigencies of work and he had never completed 240 days

continuous service in a calendar year.

M.W.-1 Shri Abhaya Kumar Das in his statement before

the Court has stated that "The disputant was working

intermittently for few days in our Branch on daily wage

basis in exigencies..........He had not completed 240 days

of continuous and uninterrupted service preceding the

alleged date of the termination". He has denied the

allegation that the workman was discontinued from service

with effect from 30-09-2004, but has stated that "In fact the

workman left working in the Branch on 9-8-1998." The 2nd

Party-workman has to disprove the evidence led by the 1st

Party-Management, but he has not come before the Court

to give evidence. A temporary or daily wage worker has

not right to claim reinstatement and particularly when such

an employee had not worked for 240 days continuously

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his so-called termination. Thus he is not entitled to get

benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

This issue is hereby decided against the 2nd Party-workman

for failing to prove that he had worked for 240 days

continuously during a period of 12 calendar months

preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination from service.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove

that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under

the 1st Party-Management during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination, he is not entitled for re-employment even in

case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination.

Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/daily wage

employee. His services can be terminated at any time

without assigning any cause by the 1st Party-Management.

He has no legal right to be retained in service for the

extended period, if he was appointed for a certain period or

when no time is specified. The 2nd Party-workman has not

filed any letter of appointment or proof of having rendered

service under the 1st Party-Management for a specified

period against a regular post. The 1st Party-Management

has further alleged that in time of exigencies only the 2nd

Party-workman was employed. It means that with the end

of exigencies his job also came to an end. In view of the

matter the action of the management of State Bank of India,

Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of

Sri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan with effect from the alleged

date of his termination is fair, legal and justified. this issue

is accordingly decided in the affirmative and against the

2nd Party-workman.

ISSUE NO. 4

11. In view of the findings recorded above under

Issues No. 2 and 3, the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled

to any relief whatsoever claimed.

12. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3204-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w-lh-,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@149@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2012

S.O. 3204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2004)

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 25-09-2012.

[No. L-22012/149/2002-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/35/2004 Date : 14.09.2012.

7762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No. 1

: The General Manager,

Central Workshop Tadali of WCL,

Post-Tadali

Chandrapur (M.S.)

Versus

Party No. 2

: Shri P.B. Waghamare, President,

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union

(CITU), Br. Central Workshop Tadali,

Post-Tadali, Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated : 14th September, 2012)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Central Workshop Tadali of WCL and their

workman, Shri Trilesh Mallaiya Gumpalwar, for adjudication,

as per letter No. L-22012/149/2002-IR (CM-II) dated

23-02-2004, with the following schedule :—

“Whether the management of M/s. Western

Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Central Workshop,

Post Tadali Distt. Chandrapur represented by the

Chief General Manager is justified in denying

regularization of the workman Shri Trilesh Mallaiya

Gumpalwar in the post of Clerk, Grade-III with

retrospective effect i.e. from 01-07-1999 in the pay

scale of Rs. 1826-60-2666 as it stood on that date

(Subsequently revised to Rs. 3545-87-5111 effective

from 01.07.1999 as per NCWA-VI) with all

consequential monetary and other benefits? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, Lal Zanda Coal Mines

Mazdoor Union (CITU) (“the Union” in short), filed the

statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Trilesh

Mallaiya Gumpalwar (“the workman” in short) and the

management of Western Coalfields Ltd. (“Party No. 1” in

short) filed its written statement.

In the statement of claim, it was claimed by the union to

regularize the workman in Clerical Grade-III w.e.f. 01.07.1999

in view of the regularization order dated 28/29-08-1999.

3. In the written statement, the Party No. 1 pleaded inter

alia that the workman is not entitled for any relief.

4. On 14.09.2012, the case was fixed for filing of rejoinder

if any and evidence on affidavit from the side of the

workman. Instead of filing the rejoinder, the workman filed

a pursis stating therein that he is not interested to prosecute

the matter. The workman also filed another application in

person stating that he is not interested in prosecuting the

reference and he has already withdrawn the authorization

given in favour of the union. Copies of the application and

pursis were served on the advocate for the management.

5. Perused the records. As the workman himself does

not want to proceed with the reference, it is necessary to

pass a “no dispute” award. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference be treated as “no dispute” award. The

workman is not entitled to any relief. The pursis filed by

the advocated for the workman and the application filed by

the workman be treated as part of the award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE CGIT, NAGPUR

CGIT/NGP/35/2004

Central Workshop, Tadali Ruksana

Vs.

I.Z.C.M.M.U.

PURSIS

In this matter the Party No. 2 Union has informed the

counsel that the workman Shri Trilesh Malliaya

Gumplawar has intimated to the union in writing that he is

not interested to prosecute the matter in the current

proceeding.

Hence this pursis.

Nagpur

Counsel for the Party no. 2 (Union)

Dated : 14-09-2012

eSa bl dsl dks vkxs ugha c<+kuk pkgrk gw¡ A

Signature of Workman

(TRILESH GUMPALWAR)

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

Ref. Case No. 35/2004

Party No. 1:

The General Manager,

Central Workshop Tadali,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Post-Tadali, Distt. Chandrapur

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri P.B. Waghamare,

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union

Applicant :

Trilesh Mallaiya Gumpalwar

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7763

PURSIS

The Party No. 2 most respectfully begs to submit as

under:

1. That the present reference has been initiated by the

party no. 2 union on behalf of the applicant mentioned

herein above. The present reference has been remanded

back to this Hon’ble Tribunal for fresh adjudication, by the

Hon’ble High Court.

2. That the applicant in the year 2004 had asked the

Party No. 2 union that he is not desirous of contesting the

present reference any further and hence the union should

withdraw the same and the fact that the reference has been

withdrawn was communicated to the Party No. 1-

management in the year 2004 itself and accordingly neither

the party no. 1 nor the party no. 2 had attended the case till

passing of the award.

3. That even after passing off the award the applicant

had issued the letter dt. 22-3-2011 pointing that he had

alerady requested the part no. 2 — union to withdraw the

reference in the year 2004.

4. That the applicant was not served with the copy of

writ petition of the Hon’ble High Court and the applicant

was also not aware about the outcome of the said petition.

5. Be that as it may as I have got two promotions after

my conversion into Grade III and as now I am working in

Grade I. I once again confirm that I am not interested in

prosecuting the reference any further and the same may be

closed as such.

6. I further state that I have also withdrawn the

authorization given to the part no. 2 — union to prosecute

the present reference.

7. Hence this Pursis.

Nagpur

Dt. 14-09-2012

(Trilesh Gumpalwar)

Store Keeper

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3205-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@360@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II]

ch-,e- iVuk;d] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2012

S.O. 3205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 25-09-2012.

[No. L-22012/360/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 76/2008

Ref. No. L-22012/360/2002-IR (CM-II) dated 11-07-2003

BETWEEN

The Joint Secretary

Food Corpoation of India Workers Union

58/1, Diamand Harbour Road,

Kolkata-700023

AND

The Sr. Regional Manager

Food Corporation of India

5-6, Habibullah Estate

Hazratganj

Lucknow-226001

AWARD

1. By order No. L-22012/360/2002-IR (CM-II) dated

11-07-2003 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

31-07-2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between the Joint Secretary, Food

Corporation of India Workers Union, 58/1, Diamond

Harbour Road, Kolkata and the Sr. Regional Manager, Food

Corporation of India, 5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj,

Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is :

“Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Lucknow in not providing

employment to next kins of workers (list enclosed)

already retried on submission of their application on

medical grounds is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief they are entitled?"

3. The case of the workman’s union, in brief, is that

30 handling labours of Food Storage Depot, Azamgarh

7764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

submitted applications for appointment of their sons on

compassionate ground on the basis of circular of Food

Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as FCI, dated

03-07-96, which provide recruitment procedure of

appointment of next kin of departmental workers who seek

premature retirement on medical ground at their own

request. It has been submitted that out of those, claim of 09

workmen has been rejected. It has been submitted by the

workman’s union that it had been provided vide circular

dated 03-07-96 that the worker who seeks voluntary

retirement on medical grounds should apply within age

limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing benefit of

compassionate appointment and also provided different

conditions. It is stated that all the conditions had been

fulfilled by the claimants and they applied within the 55

years of age and the management on the one hand accepted

premature retirement and on the other they rejected the

claim of appointment of next kin for which circular was

issued. Accordingly, it has been prayed by the workman’s

union that directions be issued to the management to

provided appointment to the next kin of the workmen and

they be paid salary and other benefits for that period as

they have been prematurely retired and affected service of

five years.

4. The above claim of the workman’s union has been

opposed by the management of FCI by filing its written

statement; whereby it has submitted that it has conducted

itself in purely bonafide manner in rejecting the

appointment on compassionate ground of next kin of

claimant workers who had applied for vluntary retirement

on medical ground in wake of circular dated 03-07-97. It has

been submitted by the FCI that the applications

submitted by the claimant workmen did not fulfill the

conditions given in the circular dated 03-07-96. Moreover,

none of the claimant had applied within the age limit of 55

years and also did not fulfill other necessary conditions

given in the circular dated 03-07-96 as such; their respective

applications for appointment of their next kin on

compassionate ground were rightly rejected. Hence the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman’s

union be rejected without any relief to the workman

concerned.

5. The workman’s union has filed its rejoineder; wherein

it has not brought any new fact apart from reiterating the

averments already made by it in its statement of claim.

6. The parties filed documentary proof in support of

their respective claim. The workman’s union examined its

Vice-President, Shri M.C. Parida and Shambhu Prasad

S/o of workman Ram Das whereas the management

examined Shri Ashok Kumar, Area Manager in support of

their respective claim. The parties cross-examined the

witnesses of each other and availed opportunity for oral

submissions.

7. Heard representatives of the parties and scanned

entire evidence on record.

8. The list of the workmen, enclosed with the reference

order, contains names of as many as 30 workman; but

during the pendency of the case before this Tribunal the

authorized representative of the workman made a statement

in writing, paper No. C-26, that all the workers for whom the

matter was referred for adjudication have settled their

dispute with the FCI and they have been appointed by the

FCI except one viz. Shambhu Prasad s/o Ram Das;

accordingly, at present this Tribunal has to adjudicated the

matter in respect of workman Ram Das whose name finds

its reference at serial no. 12 of list enclosed with reference

order.

9. The authorized representative of the workman’s union

has argued that the management of FCI has adopted unfair

labour practice as on one hand they retried the workman

prematurely and on the other hand rejected claim of

appointment of their next kin without any basis whereas

some of them were appointed by the management in the

wake of orders of Hon’ble High Court, relaxing the eligibility

creteria. He has put emphasis over the annexure-II, filed

with the evidence of the management, paper No. 45/9;

wherein in the detail of nine workers, whose case had been

espoused in the present industrial dispute had been

provided. It has been contended by the representative of

the workman that the management’s version is that the

workman moved application for premature retirement on

medical ground and appointment of their next kin after

attaining age of 55, which was mandatory in the circular

dated 03-07-96; and it is evident from the details of the

workmen in paper No. 45/9 that all the nine workmen

moved the application after attaining the age of 55; but the

management appointed the next kins of all 08 workmen out

of them and spared only Shamboo Prasad S/o Ram Das;

which is unjustified.

10. Per contra, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the application of the

workman was rightly rejected by the management and has

further contended that in compliance of Hon'ble High

Court, Allahabad order dated 17-10-2003 in W.P. No. 10452/

03 and order dated 17-3-2004 passed in contempt case no.

793/04, case of Shri Suraj Bali for the appointment of his

son Shri Virendra Kumar on compassionate ground, was

re-examined in the light of the Hqr. circular dated

17-12-1997. In the said circular, it was provided that the

dependents of those departmental workers who have

already applied for retirement on medical ground within

age of 56 years at the time of application up to 01-10-97

may be considered for compassionate appointment.

Therefore, the Competent Authority had given the

appointment to Shri Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Suraj Bali on

compassionate ground. Further, submitted that the cases

of remaining 07 workers were considered in the light of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7765

aforesaid orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court,

Allahabad wherein the Court had stated if the applications

have been received before attaining the age of 55 years their

case may be considered even if the medical certificates were

not enclosed along with it. As such after re-examination

of initial application of remaining 08 workers, it was

observed that out of 08 workers 07 of them had applied for

voluntary retirement on medical ground and requested for

appoint of their sons on compassionate ground within the

age of 55 years; accordingly, 07 workers were given

appointment on compassionate ground, leaving son of Ram

Das. The authorized representative of the management has

relied on the paper No. 22/9, which is details of appointment

of 08 workers and the same is given hereunder:

1. S/Sh. Shiv Nath

Dt. of application

1-1-99

Dt. of birth

2-3-44

Age on the date of

54Yrs. 11 Months

application

29 days

2. Shiv Darshan

Dt. of application

28-5-1998

Dt. of birth

4-6-1943

Age on the date of

54 Yrs. 11 months

application

24 days

3. Ram Naresh

Dt. of application

19-1-1998

(Gang No. 11)

Dt. of birth

14-2-1943

Age on the date of

54 Yrs. 11 months

application

05 days

4. Chhedi Lal

Dt. of application

20-9-1997

Dt. of birth

24-4-1943

Age on the date of

54 Yrs. 04 months

application

26 days

5. Mewa Lal

Dt. of application

20-5-1998

Dt. of birth

11-6-1943

Age on the date of

54 Yrs. 11 months

application

09 days

6. Sahdeo

Dt. of application

25-1-1997

Dt. of birth

02-1-1943

Age on the date of

54 Years 23 days

application

7. Narain

Dt. of application

18-2-1999

Dt. of birth

3-4-1944

Age on the date of

54 Yrs. 10 months

application

15 days

8. Ram Dass

Dt. of application

0-2-1998

Dt. of birth

3-2-1943

Age on the date of

55 Years 07 days

application.

REJECATED

However, the above document, paper No. 22/9, which

is Annexure No. 3 is not much relecany as Hukum Singh

was not produced for cross-examination.

11. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions of the parties and perused evidence in light

thereof.

12. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Ram Das submitted application for appointment of his son

on compassionate ground on the basis of circular of FCI

vide dated 03-07-1996; whereby the workers seeking

voluntary retirement on medical ground were ought to

apply within the age limit of 55 years for the purpose of

availing the benefits of compassionate ground appointment

to their kins and the workman with other 29 workmen applied

for the same. When the case was referred by the appropriate

Government to this Tribunal for adjudication, only next

kins of 09 of them were to be given appointment and

grievances of rest 21 workmen were settled by the

management of FCI; and accordingly, claim statement for

extending relief to 09 workmen was filed before this tribunal.

During pendency of the case, the management re-examined

the applications of the 09 remaining workmen in light of

orders of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and consequent

circular dated 17-12-1997 and appointed 08 of them, leaving

Shambhoo Prasad S/o Ram Dass.

13. The crux of the case is that the management of FCI

vide their circular dated 03-07-1996, circulated the

recruitment procedure for appointment of next kin of

departmental workers who seek retirement on medical

ground at their own request in relaxation of the procedure

of getting sponsored from employment exchange; wherein

apart from other conditions it was necessary for a workman,

seeking benefit of the said circular should apply within the

age limit of 55 years. Later on when one of the workman

approached Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, then Hon'ble

High Court vide its order dated 17-10-2003 in W.P. No.

10452/03 and order dated 17-3-2004 passed an order in

contempt case no. 793/04, in the case of Shri Suraj Bali for

the appointment of his son Shri Virendra Kumar on

compassionate ground, the applications of Virendra Kumar

was re-examined in the light of the Hqr. circular dated

17-12-1997. Later, the applications of 07 other workmen

were also re-examined in the light of circular dated

17-12-1997 and their kins were appointed on compassionate

ground leaving Shamboo Prasad S/o Ram Das.

The FCI's Hqr circular No. IR(L)/31(15)/96 dated

17-12-1997 is worth material for proper adjudication of this

case. The relevant portion of the said circular is reproduced

hereunder:

“As regards the demand for relaxation in age limit

of 55 years, it was agreed that the applications

already received up to 1-10-97 from the departmental

workers who had sought retirement on medical

grounds, for compassionate appointment of their

dependents, will be considered upto the age limit of

56 years instead of 55 years of such departmental

workers, for the benefit of appointment of next

kin of such departmental workers. In other words,

the dependents of those departmental workers

who have already applied for retirement on

medical grounds within the age of 56 years at the

time of application up to 1-10-97, may be

considered for compassionate appointment. As

such, the condition of age limit of 55 years has

7766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

been relaxed up to 56 years in those cases whose

applications

were

received

1-10-97 only. The other terms and conditions

shall remain unchanged as circulated in various

Circulars of Headquarters including dated

3-7 96...................................It means that in case of the

applications received from departmental labourers

for retirement on medical ground and compassionate

appointment of their dependent after 1-10-97

onwards, the condition of age limit of 55 years shall

be strictly followed along with other terms and

conditions.”

This goes to show that initially the age limit for making

an application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds

and compassionate appointment of a kin was 55 years vide

circular dated 03-07-96, which was later extended to 56 years

only in those cases where such application was moved

upto 01-10-97 and in cases where the application for

voluntary retirement on medical grounds was moved after

01-12-97 the age limit was 55 years.

The paper No. 45/9 on record, which is Annexure-II

to the affidavit of the management witness, Shri Ashok

Kumar, Area Manager, is the details of 09 whose has initially

been espoused in the present dispute and during pendency

kins of 08 out of them were given appointment on

compassionate ground. The relevant columns of the said

annexure is given hereunder :

S. Name of

Name of

Date of

Age on date

No.the employee sons

application

appli-

cation

Shiv

Gulab Singh 28-5-98

55 Yrs.

2 months

24 days

Ram Das

Shamboo

10-2-98

55 Yrs.

Pd.

7 days

Shahdeo

Ram Singh

25-01-99

55 Yrs.

23 days

Ram

Next kin already

Naresh

appointed

Mewa Lal

Hari Prasad

N.A

On the date

of Med.

Exami-

nations

55 Yrs.

5 months

26 days

Suraj Bali

Birendra

8-8-97

55 years

Kumar

5 months

20 days.

Shiv Nath

Ram

N.A.

On dt. of

Prakash

M/Exm.

55 Yrs.

10 months

02 days

Chhedi Lal

Indra Pal

20-9-99

55 Years

Gautam

4 months

26 days

Narayan

Hari Lal

18-2-99

55 Yrs 08

31-12-99

months 28

days on

31-12-99.

The management witness has stated that the claim

of Shamboo Prasad is not sustainable as application for

appointment on compassionate ground was moved by Ram

Das attaining the age of 55 years. In cross- examination he

stated that application for compassionate appointment of

those 07 workers who were given appointment was moved

before attaining the age of 55 years by their respective

fathers. He stated the names of said 07 workers whose

name finds reference in the Annexure-II of his affidavit.

14. From bare perusal of Circular dated 17-12-97 it

becomes apparent that age relaxation of 56 years was

available to those who preferred the application for

voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment upto

01-10-97 only; also Hon'ble High Court Allahabad

underlined this relaxation whereas for the applicants who

applied after 01-10-97 it was mandatory that they should

have applied within the age of 55 years; but on going

through Annexure-II to the Affidavit of the management

witness, paper No. 45/9 it comes out that none of the 08

workmen moved application up to 01-10-97 even then they

were given appointment in spite of the fact that they had

crossed the mandatory age of 55 years and the age

relaxation of 56 was not available to them.

15. Thus, from above chart which is annexed with

affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar, Area Manager of FCI it is

apparent that all the 08 workmen’s kins who have been

given appointment on the compassionate ground, and the

workmen whose names find reference in Annexure-II of the

affidavit of the Management witness, paper No. 45/9 had

applied after 01-10-97 and all of them had crossed the age

of 55 years; accordingly the age relaxation provided vide

circular dated 17-12-97 was not available to them, even

then the management not only considered their application

but also given compassionate appointment to their kins,

sparing Shamboo Prasad S/o Ram Dass who had attained

age of 55 years 7 days only on the date of application

whereas all the other workmen who had applied for the

appointment on compassionate ground were, on the date

of application, crossed the more age than Ram Das.

16. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above, I

am of the considered opinion that the action of the

management of Food Corporation of India, Lucknow in not

providing employment to Shamboo Prasad, the next kin of

Ram Das, already retired on submission of application on

medical ground is neither legal nor justified.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7767

17. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against

the management of Food Corporation of India, and as such,

I come to the conclusion that the workman, Ram Das is

entitled for appointment of his kin Shamboo Prasad from

the date the workman Ram Das retired with consequential

benefits.

18. Award as above.

Lucknow.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

4-09-2012.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3206-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 25&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@14@2008&vkbZvkj¼ch&I)]

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2012

S.O. 3206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2008)

of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

25-09-2012.

[No. L-12012/14/2008-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 24/2008

Date of Passing Award-12th September, 2012

Between :

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Banki Branch, At./Po. Banki,

Dist. Cuttack.

...

1st Party-

Management

(And)

Their workman Sri Dinabandhu Das,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar, Unit-3,

Bhubaneshwar. (ORISSA)

...

2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

Shri Alok Das,

...

For the 1st Party-

Authorized Representative

Management

None.

...

For the 2nd Party

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has

referred the present dispute existing between the employers

in relation to the Management of State Bank of India and

their workman under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-

section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 vide Letter No. L-12012/14/2008-IR (B-I), dated

13-05-2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect :

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India, Banki Branch in terminating the services of

Sri Dinabandhu Das, Ex-workman w.e.f. 30-9-2004

without complying the provisions of the ID Act, is

legal and justified? To what relief is he entitled?”

2. The 2nd Party-Workman has filed his statement of

claim alleging that he had joined his services as a

Messenger on 01-01-1984 after succeeding in interview.

He was assured to get permanent appointment order after

one year or on completion of 240 days' work in a calendar

year, but despite completion of several years of continuous

satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days'

work in each year he was not regularized, instead terminated

and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the 1st Party-

Management without any written communication or

payment of compensation. The 1st Party-Management in

refusing employment to him violated all principles of natural

justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought the

matter into the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. of the State

Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing nothing,

he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated 25-02-2005.

Conciliation proceedings were started, but they failed and

thereupon a failure report was submitted to the Government

and the Government made the present reference. He is thus

entitled to get full back wages and reinstatement with

continuity of service with effect from 30-9-2004.

3. The 1st Party-Management in its reply through

written statement has stated that the present dispute is

misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party-

workman had already raised a similar dispute along with

7768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

124 other workers through the State Bank of India

Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st

Party-Management. In the said dispute the failure report

was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn referred

the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is

pending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007.

The name of the 2nd Party-workman is appearing at Sl. No.

119 in Annexure-A to the said reference. Thus, raising a

common dispute for same cause of action and again raising

individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an abuse

of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of

litigation. The Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) while

conciliating the individual disputes disregarded the

direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central) not to take any further action on the separate

disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of

action. The allegation of the 2nd Party-workman that he

had joined the Bank on 01-01-1984 and he was discontinued

from service on 30-9-2004 is not correct. He was engaged

intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to

exigencies of work. When his services were no more required

he was not engaged further. It is further denied that he was

performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty and to

the best of satisfaction of the Authority. The 2nd Party-

workman has neither completed several years of continuous

service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 days of

continuous service in any calendar year preceding the date

of his alleged termination. In order to give an opportunity

for permanent absorption to the ex-temporary employees/

daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various sattlements

entered into between the All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation and the Management of the State Bank of India

all eligible persons including the 2nd Party-workman were

called for interview in the year 1993 and those succeeded

were appointed as per panel till 31-3-1997. As the 2nd Party-

workman did not succeed in the interview, he could not be

appointed in the Bank. But the Union or the 2nd Party-

workman has never challenged the implementation of the

settlement which has now gained finality. It is further

submitted that some of the wait-listed candidates, who

could not be absorbed in the Bank's service due to expiry

of the panel on 31st March, 1997, filed Writ Petitions before

the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon'ble High

Court of Orissa by a common order dated 15-5-1998 passed

in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions

and upheld the action of the Management of the Bank.

This order of the Hon'ble High Court was also upheld by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC-3082/

1999. Hence the above matter has attained finality and

cannot be re-agitated. Since the services of Sri Das were

discontinued much earlier to 30-9-2004 his claim has become

stale by raising the dispute after ten years. It is a settled

principle of law that delay destroys the right to remedy.

Thus the present dispute is liable to be rejected on the

above grounds.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed:—

I S S U E S

1. Whether the present reference of the individual

workman during the pendency of the I.D. Case No. 7/2007

before this Tribunal on the same issue is legal and justified?

2. Whether the workman has worked for 240 days

as enumerated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act?

3. Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India, Banki Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating

the services of Shri Dinabandhu Das, Ex-workman w.e.f.

30-9-2004 without complying the provisions of the I.D. Act,

1947 is legal and justified?

4. To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

5. The 2nd Party-workman despite giving sufficient

opportunity did not adduce any evidence either oral or

documentary in support of his claim and willingly kept

himself out of the proceedings at the stage of evidence by

absenting himself or his Union representative.

6. The 1st Party-Management has adduced the oral

evidence of Shri Biswajit Mishra as M.W.-1 and filed

documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-J in refutation of the

claim of the 2nd Party-workman.

F I N D I N G S

ISSUE NO. 1

7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party-

Management that a group of 125 employees including the

2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in

I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same relief

which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as referred

to in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 is given below for comparison

with the dispute in the present case—

Whether the action of the Management of State Bank

of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not

considering the case of 125 workman whose details

are in Annexure-A for re-employment as per Section

25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?

8. The name of the 2nd Party-workman appears at Sl.

No. 119 in Annexure-A to the above reference. In both the

cases the matter of disengagement or so called

retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the

other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7769

employment. But challenge has been made more specifically

against the termination of service of the 2nd Party-workman

in the present case while in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 prayer has

been made with regard to consideration of the case of 125

workmen for re-employment as per Section 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, in the latter case the

workmen have submitted or virtually surrendered to their

cessation of employment or alleged termination, whereas

in the present case they have challenged their termination

on facts and law. Virtually in the present case validity and

legality of the alleged termination has to be tested at the

alter of facts and legal propositions. Therefore it cannot be

said that the issues involved in both the cases are same.

This case can proceed despite pendency of I.D. Case No.

7/2007 and the present reference by the individual workman

pending for adjudication is maintainable being legal and

justified. This issue is therefore decided in the affirmative

and against the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman

has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his alleged termination or disengagement from service

lies on him, but the 2nd Party-workman has not adduced

any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his

contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim

that he had joined the service on 01-01-1984 and worked till

30-9-2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis, but he

has not filed any certificate or reliable document showing

the break-up of year-wise service rendered by him under

the 1st Party-Management during the above period. The

1st Party-Management, on the other hand, has alleged that

the 2nd Party-workman was engaged intermittently on

temporary/daily wage basis due to exigencies of work and

he had never completed 240 days continuous service in a

calendar year. M.W.-1 Shri Biswajit Mishra in his statement

before the Court has stated that "The disputant was working

intermittently for few days in our Branch on daily wage

basis in exigencies........ . He had not completed 240 days of

continuous and uninterrupted service preceding the alleged

date of the termination". He has denied the allegation that

the workman was discontinued from service with effect

from 30-9-2004, but has stated that "In fact that workman

left working in the Branch in 1991." The 2nd Party-workman

has to disprove the evidence led by the 1st Party-

Management, but he has not come before the Court to give

evidence. A temporary or daily wage worker has no right to

claim reinstatement and particularly when such an

employee had not worked for 240 days continuously

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his so-called termination. Thus he is not entitled to get

benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

This issue is hereby decided against the 2nd Party-workman

for failing to prove that he had worked for 240 days

continuously during a period of 12 calendar months

proceeding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination from service.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove

that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under

the 1st Party-Management during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination, he is not entitled for re-employment even in

case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination.

Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/daily wage

employees. His service can be terminated at any time

without assigning any cause by the 1st Party-Management.

He has no legal right to be retained in service for the

extended period, if he was appointed for a certain period or

when no time is specified. The 2nd Party-workman has

not filed any letter of appointment or proof of having

rendered service under the 1st Party-Management for a

specified period against a regular post. The 1st Party-

Management has further alleged that in time of exigencies

only the 2nd Party-workman was employed. It means that

with the end of exigencies his job also came to an end. In

view of the matter the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Banki Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating

the services of Sri Dinabandhu Das, ex-workman with effect

from the alleged date of his termination is fair, legal and

justified. This issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative

and against the 2nd Party-workman.

ISSUE NO. 4

11. In view of the findings recorded above under

Issues No. 2 and 3, the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled

to any relief whatsoever claimed.

12. Reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3207-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dukZVdk cSad

fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@2003½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25&09&2012 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@200@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2012

S.O. 3207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2003)

7770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Karnataka Bank

Limited and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 25-09-2012.

[No. L-12012/200/2003-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 3rd July, 2012

PRESENT

Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 57/2003

I PARTY

II PARTY

Shri S.G. Goni,

The Chairman & Managing

H. No. 52,

Director, Karnataka Bank

Defence Colony,

Limited, P.B. No. 599

Laxminagar, Ganeshpur,

Head Office Complex,

Hindalga, Belgaum

Mahaveera Circle,

P.O. Kankanady,

Mangalore-575002

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No.

L-12012/200/2003-IR (B-I) dated 08-10-2003 for adjudication

on the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the management of Karnataka Bank

Limited is justified in dismissing the services of

Shri S.G. Goni, Clerk? If not to what relief the workman

is entitled?”

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 Statement and Counter

Statement.

3. My Learned Predecessor having regard to certain

allegations made in the Claim Statement regarding fairness

of the Domestic Enquiry formulated a preliminary issue as to

“Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first

party by the second party is fair and proper”? on

24-11-2005 and after receiving the evidence adduced by both

the sides and hearing the arguments addressed by the

learned advocates by order dated 30-06-2011 the said issue

came to be answered in the affirmative holding that the

Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party being

fair and proper. Thereafter the arguments addressed by the

learned advocates appearing for both the sides were heard

on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the first party

having regard to the fact that the CSE/first party had admitted

the charges levelled against him before the enquiry officer

and the charge against him was held proved did not address

any arguments as to the validity of the finding of the enquiry

officer and simply relying on the decision reported in 2009-

CLR, Part III Page 645 Supreme Court of India in the case of

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd., & Anr.

Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors urged that for the

absence of 138 days the punishment imposed in

dismissing the servics of the first party is disproportionate

and same may be set aside and some reasonable

punishment like withholding of increment may be passed.

Inter alia the learned advocate appearing for the second

party urged when this court after receiving the evidence of

both sides and hearing arguments hold the Domestic

Enquiry being fair and proper and the learned counsel

appearing for the first party failed to demonstrate the

finding of the enquiry officer being perverse the only

question remains for consideration is whether the

punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges

proved against the first party and as the charge disclose

the first party who remained unauthorisedly absent for a

period of 138 days from 17-04-1998 to 01-09-1998 without

prior intimation or sanction of leave only on publication of

notice of 'Voluntary Abandonment of Service' in Samyukta

Karnataka Daily Newspaper dated 04-08-1998 reported to

duty on 2-09-1998 and even thereafter failed to submit even

leave application for regularization of the absence and even

earlier on 3 occasions vide orders dated 12-10-1992,

3-11-1992 and 26-09-1996 he was punished for remaining

unauthorized absent and failed to submit leave application

since do amounts to a gross misconduct as per Para 19.5(p)

& (f) of Bipartite Settlement 1966 the punishment of

dismissal imposed is proportionate as such there is no

need to interfere either in the finding of the enquiry officer

or the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority

and in support of his arguments relied upon the decisions

reported in 2008 LLR 113 SC in the case of M/s. L&T

Komatsu Ltd. Vs. M Udyakumar & 2008 LLR 440 SC in the

case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vipin Behari Lal

Srivastava.

4. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the

case with the arguments addressed by the learned

advocates appearing for both sides, I am of the considered

view that there is no reason to say the finding of the enquiry

officer being perverse or the punishment imposed is

disproportionate and the reference is liable to be rejected

for the following reasons:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7771

Reasons :

It is borne out from the records that the first party

who was appointed as a Probationary Attender on

25.09.1972 at Almel Branch of the second party and was

promoted as a Probationary Clerk and confirmed in that

post w.e.f. 1.06.1979 while working in Gadag branch of the

second party was served with charge sheet dated 30th

October, 1998 which reads as under:—

Charge Sheet :

“It is reported against you as under:—

(i) That you are in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly

absent from duty without adhering to Leave Rules

and Regulations inspite of you being advised

repeatedly and punished earlier in the matter. You

have remained absent on loss of pay for more than

380 days and on unauthorized absence for more than

1375 days as on 11-09-1998.

(ii) You have remained unauthorisedly absent from duty

for a period of 138 days from 17-04-198 without prior

intimation or sanction of leave. You reported for duty

on 02-09-1998 on publication of Notice of “Voluntary

Abandonment of Service” on 04-08-1998 in Samyukta

Karnataka, a Kannada Daily. Even on reporting for

duty, you have failed to submit leave application for

regularization of your absence.

(iii) You have failed to submit leave application for

regularization of your aforesaid absence inspite of

you being punished on three occasions vide oroders

dated 12-10-1992, 03-11-1992 and 26-09-1996 for your

willful failure to submit leave application.

The Bank therefore charges you as under:—

(a) Your conduct of remaining unauthorisedly absent

from duty without prior intimation or sanction of

leave as stated in para above constitutes a gross

misconduct under para 19.5(p) of Bipartite

Settlement, 1966.

(b) Your willful failure to submit the leave application

inspite of you being punished earlier for similar

misconduct in the past, is an act constituting a

gross misconduct under para 19.5(f) of Bipartite

Settlement 1966.

You are therefore hereby called upon to submit your

reply if any, within seven days from the date of receipt

of this charge sheet, failing which further

proceedings will follow.”

and appointed Shri B.H. Ramaprasad, Manager as Enquiry

Officer. The enquiry officer while securing the presence of

the first party when read over and explained the charge he

admitted the same and inspite of it the enquiry officer while

recording the evidence of two witnesses as MW1 & MW2

for the management and exhibiting 13 documents as

Exs. M1 to M13 having regard to the evidence while holding

that the CSE/first party was a chronic absentee and not

adhering to leave rules and regulations remained

unauthorisedly absent for 138 days without intimation or

sanction of leave inspite of being punished on 3 occasions

previously for remaining unauthorisedly absent and failing

to submit leave application the charge has been proved.

Then the Disciplinary Authority after affording opportunity

of hearing imposed the punishment of dismissal by his

order dated 3.09.1999 and on appeal by the first party/CSE

the Appellate Authority also affording opportunity of

hearning confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

Then on failure of the conciliation proceedings initiated at

the instance of the CSE/first party the Central Government

made this reference for adjudication.

As already adverted to by me above, the Domestic

Enquiry conducted by the second party being held fair

and proper by order dated 30th June, 2011 and having

regard to the admission of the charge by the CSE/first party

before the enquiry officer and the evidence brought on

record the learned advocate appearing for the first party

fairly without making any attempt to urge that the finding

of the enquiry officer is perverse, just urged the punishment

imposed being disproportionate relying on the decision

reported in 2009-CLR, Part III Page 645 Supreme Court of

India in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal

India Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors.

Therefoere, the only point that remains for my consideration

is ‘whether the punishment of dismissal imposed by the

Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate

Authority is disproportionate to the admitted charge by

the CSE/first party?’ In the case of Chairman-cum-

Managing Director, Coal India Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar

Choudhuri & Ors reported in 2009-CLR, Part III Page 645

Supreme Court of India relied upon by the learned advocate

appearing for the first party since the charge of

unauthorized absence for six months admitted by the

employee punishment of removal is held as unduly harsh

and held that justice would be met if he is reinstated denying

back wages from the date of his removal until reinstantement,

but in the instant case it is not just a case of simple

unauthorised absence and it is a case where CSE/first party

remained absent from 17-04-1998 and on publication of

notice of ‘Voluntary Abandonment of Service’ in Samyukta

Karnataka Newspaper dated 4-08-1998 reported for duty

on 2.9.1998 (after a period o 138 days) and failed to submit

leave application for regularization of his absence and on 3

earlier occasions for the similar conduct i.e. remaining

unauthorized absent and failing to submit leave application

he was punished, as per Para 19.5(p) and 19.5(f) of Bi-

partite Settlement it constitutes a gross-misconduct, as

such, the facts and circumstances in the case of Chairman-

cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Mukul

Kumar Choudhuri & Ors reported in 2009-CLR, Part III Page

7772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

645 Supreme Court of India cannot be made applicable to

the case on hand. On the other hand the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of M/s L&T Komatsu Ltd Vs. M.

Udyakumar reported in 2008 LLR 440 SC relied on by the

learned advocate appearing for the second party held leave

not being a matter of right, habitual absenteeism amounts

to gross violation of discipline as such punishment of

dismissal is justified. Therefore, the facts and circumstances

of the case of habitual unauthorized absence and not

applying for leave and reporting to duty after issue of notice

of Voluntary Abandonment of Service through daily

newspaper being a gross-misconduct it is not a case to be

viewed leniently to interfere in the punishment of dismissal

imposed by the management/second party. Under the

circumstance I find no reason to interfere either in the

finding of the enquiry officer or the punishment imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate

Authority. In the result I pass the following award:

AWARD

The reference is rejected holding that the management

of Karnataka Bank Limited is justified in dismissing the

services of Shri S.G. Goni, Clerk and that he is not entitle

for any relief.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed

by me on 3rd July, 2012)

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses for the Management/Second party

examined in the Domestic Enquiry

Shri K.S. Ganapathi, Manager

MW1

Shri R.T. Hullur, Branch Manager

MW2

List of documents marked for the Second party/

Management in the Domestic Enquriry

Office copy of the Charge Sheet issued to

first party dated 30-10-1998.

Ex.M1

First party’s reply to the charge sheet

dated 9-11-1998

Ex.M2

Letter written by the branch Manager

Gadag dated 30-4-1998

Ex.M3

Office copy of the letter addressed

to CSE dated 13-05-98

Ex.M4

Registered post acknowledgement due

notice returned unnerved with

acknowledgement Card.

Ex.M5

Office copy of the Registered Notice

issued to CSE dated 17-07-1998

Ex.M6

Publication of notice in Samyukta

Karnataka Newspaper dated 4-8-98

Ex.M7

Duty joining letter of the CSE dated

2-09-98

Ex.M8

Photocopy of extract of leave record

Ex.M9

10. Office copy of the memorandum for

unauthorized absence dated 11-9-98

Ex.M10

11. Photocopy of order passed by the

Disciplinary authority dated 12-10-1992

Ex.M11

12. Photocopy of order passed by the

Disciplinary authority dated 3-11-1992

Ex.M.12

13. Photocopy of order passed by the

disciplinary authority dated 25-09-1996

Ex.M13

List of witnesses examined for the First Party in the

Domestic Enquiry

Nil

List of documents marked for the First Party

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3208-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds

izca/k ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2008½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@60@2008&vkbZvkj¼ch&I)]

jes'k ¯lg ] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2012

S.O. 3208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2008) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

26-09-2012.

[No. L-12012/60/2008-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 52/2008

Date of Passing Award-17th September, 2012

Between :

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch

Dist. Khurda, Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

... 1st Party-Management

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7773

And

Their workman Sri Santosh Kumar Prusty,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar, Unit-3,

Bhubaneswar. (Orissa)

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

Shri Alok Das,

....

For the 1st Party-

Authorized Representative

Management

None.

....

For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred the present dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of

India and their workman under clause (d) of sub-section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 vide Letter No. L-12012/60/2008-IR

(B-I), dated 10-07-2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication to

the following effect :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar, in terminating

the services of Sri Santosh Kumar Prusty, ex-workman

w.e.f. 30-9-2004, is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to"?

2. The 2nd Party-Workman has filed his statement of

claim alleging that he had joined his services as a

Messenger on 30-12-1989 after succeeding in interview.

He was assured to get permanent appointment order after

one year or on completion of 240 days’ work in a calendar

year, but despite completion of several years of continuous

satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days’

work in each year he was not regularized, instead terminated

and refused employment from 30-9-2004 by the 1st Party-

Management without any written communication or

payment of compensation. The 1st Party-Management in

refusing employment to him violated all principles of natural

justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought the

matter into the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. of the State

Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing nothing

he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated

21-02-2005. Conciliation proceedings were started, but they

failed and thereupon a failure report was submitted to the

Government and the Government made the present

reference. He is thus entitled to get full back wages and

reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from

30-9-2004.

3. The 1st Party-Management in its reply through written

statement has stated that the present dispute is

misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2nd Party-

workman had already raised a similar dispute along with

124 other workers through the State Bank of India

Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1st

Party-Management. In the said dispute the failure report

was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn referred

the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is

pending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007.

The name of the 2nd Party-workman is appearing at Sl.

No.3 in Annexure-A to the said reference. Thus, raising a

common dispute for same cause of action and again raising

individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an abuse

of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of

litigation. The Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) while

conciliating the individual disputes disregarded the

direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central) not to take any further action on the separate

disputes raised by the Same workers for the same cause of

action. The allegation of the 2nd Party-workman that he

had joined the Bank on 30-12-1989 and he was discontinued

from service on 30-9-2004 is not correct. He was engaged

intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to

exigencies of work. When his services were no more required

he was not engaged further. It is further denied that he was

performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty and to

the best of satisfaction of the Authority. The 2nd Party-

workman has neither completed several years of continuous

service in the Bank nor he has completed 240 days of

continuous service in any calendar year preceding the date

of his alleged termination. In order to give an opportunity

for permanent absorption to the ex-temporary employees/

daily wagers in the Bank in view of the various settlements

entered into between the All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation and the Management of the State Bank of India

all eligible persons including the 2nd Party-workman were

called for interview in the year 1993 and those succeeded

were appointed as per panel till 31-3-1997. As the 2nd Party-

workman did not succeed in the interview, he could not be

appointed in the Bank. But the Union or the 2nd Party-

workman has never challenged the implementation of the

settlement which has now gained finality. It is further

submitted that some of the wait-listed candidates, who

could not be absorbed in the Bank's service due to expiry

of the panel on 31st March, 1997, filed Writ Petitions before

the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. But the Hon'ble High

Court of Orissa by a common order dated 15-5-1998 passed

in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions

and upheld the action of the Management of the Bank.

This order of the Hon’ble High Court was also unheld by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. CC -3082/

1999. Hence the above matter has attained finality and

cannot be re-agitated. Since the services of Sri Prusty were

discontinued much earlier to 30-9-2004, his claim has

become stale by raising the dispute after seven years. It is

7774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a settled principle of law that delay destroys the right to

remedy. Thus the present dispute is liable to be rejected on

the above grounds.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were

framed:—

ISSUES

Whether the present reference of the individual

workman during the pendency of the I.D. Case

No.7 /2007 before this Tribunal on the same issue

is legal and justified?

Whether the workman has worked for 240 days as

enumerated under Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act?

Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar, in

terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar

Prusty, Ex-workman with effect from 30-9-2004, is

legal and justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled?

The 2nd Party-workman despite giving sufficient

opportunity did not adduce any evidence either oral

or documentary in support of his claim and

willingly kept himself out of the proceedings at

the stage of evidence by absenting himself or his

Union representative.

The 1st Party-Management has adduced the oral

evidence of Shri Abhay Kumar Das as M. W.-1

and filed documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-J in

refutation of the claim of the 2nd Party-workman.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1st Party-

Management that a group of 125 employees including the

2nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in

I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same relief

which is pending for adjudication. .The dispute as referred

to in I.D. Case No.7 /2007 is given below for comparison

with the dispute in the present case —

“Whether the action of the Management of State

Bank of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not

considering the case of 125 workmen whose details

are in Annexure-A for re-employment as per Section

25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

8. The name of the 2nd party-workman appears at Sl.

No.3 in Annexure-A to the above reference. In both the

cases the matter of disengagement or so called

retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the

other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-

employment. But challenge has been made more specifically

against the termination of service of the 2nd Party-workman

in the present case while in I.D. Case No.7 /2007 prayer has

been made with regard to consideration of the case of 125

workmen for re-employment as per Section 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, in the latter case the

workmen have submitted or virtually surrendered to their

cessation of employment or alleged termination, whereas

in the present case they have challenged their termination

on facts and law. Virtually in the present case validity and

legality of the alleged termination has to be tested at the

alter of facts and legal propositions. Therefore it cannot be

said that the issues involved in both the cases are same.

This case can proceed despite pendency of I.D. Case No.

7/ 2007 and the present reference by the individual workman

pending for adjudication is maintainable being legal and

justified. This issue is therefore decided in the affirmative

and against the 1st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

9. The onus to prove that the 2nd Party-workman has

completed one year or 240 days of continuous service

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his alleged termination or disengagement from service

lies on him, but the 2nd Party-workman has not adduced

any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his

contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim

that he had joined the service on 30-12-1989 and worked till

30-9-2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis, but he

has not filed any certificate or reliable document showing

the break-up of year-wise service rendered by him under

the 1st Party-Management during the above period. The

1st Party-Management, on the other hand, has alleged that

the 2nd Party-workman was engaged intermittently on

temporary/daily wage basis due to exigencies of work and

he had never completed 240 days continuous service in a

calendar year. M. W.-1 Shri Abhay Kumar Das in his

statement before the Court has stated that "The disputant

was working intermittently for few days in our Branch on

daily wage basis in exigencies...... He had not completed

240 days of continuous and uninterrupted service

preceding the alleged date of the termination". He has

denied the allegation that the workman was discontinued

from service with effect from 30-9-2004, but has stated that

"In fact the workman left working in the Branch on

1-9-1998." The 2nd Party-workman has to disprove the

evidence led by the 1st Party-Management, but he has not

come before the Court to give evidence. A temporary or

daily wage worker has no right to claim reinstatement and

particularly when such an employee had not worked for

240 days continuously during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his so-called termination.

Thus he is not entitled to get benefit of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This issue is hereby decided

against the 2nd Party-workman for failing to prove that he

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7775

had worked for 240 days continuously during a period of

12 calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement

or alleged termination from service.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. Since the 2nd Party-workman could not prove that

he had rendered 240 days continuous service under the

1st Party-Management during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination, he is not entitled for re-employment even in

case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination.

Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/daily wage

employee. His services can be terminated at any time

without assigning any cause by the 1st Party-Management.

He has no legal right to be retained in service for the

extended period, if he was appointed for a certain period or

when no time is specified. The 2nd Party-workman has not

filed any letter of appointment or proof of having rendered

service under the 1st Party-Management for a specified

period against a regular post. The 1st Party-Management

has further alleged that in time of exigencies only the 2nd

Party-workman was employed. It means that with the end

of exigencies his job also came to an end. In view of the

matter the action of the management of State Bank of India,

Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of

Sri Santosh Kumar Prusty, ex-workman with effect from the

alleged date of his termination is fair, legal and justified.

This issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative and

against the 2nd Party-workman.

ISSUE NO. 4

11. In view of the findings recorded above under Issue

Nos. 2 and 3, the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled to any

relief whatsoever claimed.

12. Reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2012

dk-vk- 3209.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26&09&2012 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@01@2010 vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2012

S.O. 3209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2011)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Southern Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

26-09-2012.

[No. L-41012/01/2010-IR(B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 20th September, 2012

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. No. 12/2011

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Southern Railway and their Workman)

BETWEEN

Sri. A. Natarajan

: 1st Party-/Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Administrative Officer, : 2nd Party/

Southern Railway,

Respondent

Egmore,

Chennai-600008

Appearances :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: M/s S. Meenakshi,

D. Arun, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Managment

: Sri K. Muthamil Raja,

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and

Employment vide its Order L-41012/01/2010-IR (B-I) dated

11.02.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Southern

Railway in terminating services of Sri. A. Natarajan,

S/o Sri V. Adimoolam, w.e.f. 12-09-2005 is legal and

justified? To what relief the workman is entitiled?

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 12/2011 and issued notices

to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter

Statement as the case may be.

7776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The contentions in the Claim Statement briefly

read as follows :

Petitioner employed as a Bungalow Lascar in the

office of Himanshu Goswami, Deputy Chief Engineer

at Trichy on reporting duty for the first time in 2003

was asked to attend work at his Bungalow the next

day itself. He joined the Officer on 09.06.2003. Wife

of the Officer paid him Rs. 500/- per month from June,

2003 to March, 2005. After sometime petitioner's father

requested the Officer to send a proposal for the

petitioner's appointment to which Officer demanded

Rs. 1.00 lakh as being needed for his father's heart

operation. On persuasion reduced the amount to Rs.

50,000 with instantaneous payment of Rs. 25,000

which petitioner paid on 26-06-2004 raising a loan.

Then the officer sent proposal on 02-07-2004 to the

Chief Personnel Officer, Madras for sanction to

appoint him as Bungalow Lascar with documents,

certificates and conduct certificates. Ten days

thereafter officer and his wife called his father to his

residence and demanded Rs. 5.00 lakhs upon which

petitioner left the services since his father could not

afford the payment. The Officer returned Rs. 25,000

two days later. Afterwards on the persuasion of

father's friend Mr. Zaheer Hussain, he was permitted

to return to work without monetary demands. On the

transfer of the officer to Trichy in March, 2005

petitioner and his father were instructed to go

alongwith him to help in shifting. Petitioner continued

to work at Trichy Bungalow of the Officer. On

12.04.2005 the Officer sent a second proposal to the

Chief Administrative Officer, Constructions, Chennai

for petitioner's appointment as Bungalow Lascar,

which was forwarded to the General Manager on

26-04-2005. General Manager's approval was

communicated on 25-05-2005. Petitioner being found

medically fit appointment order dated 16-06-2005 was

issued, retaining which Officer demanded Rs. 50,000

should the petitioner need work. He was also asked

to give Rs. 2,000 to them every month. Raising loans

and sundry borrowings by him and his father on

28-06-2005 Rs. 50,000 was paid upon which the

appointment order was handed over to him. Officer

issued confirmation letter dated 01-07-2005 for his

appointment from 16-06-2005. In August 2005 the

Officer's wife took Rs. 2500 from petitioner's salary

for July 2005. Thereafter they told him that someone

from their village was ready to give Rs. 5,00,000 for

the same job and demanded Rs. 5,00,000. Petitioner

was also asked to surrender his full salary to them

for the next three years. On his reluctance he was

denied food and was also compelled to work late in

the night. The Officer started harassing him from

September 2005 stopping him from coming to work.

The Officer returned Rs. 50,000 to his father taken

before for appointment, asking father to state in

writing that petitioner does not require job. Officer

thereafter began to mark petitioner absent in the

Attendance Register from 12-09-2005. After

06-10-2005 Officer again instructed him not to come

for work. His request to allow to work was turned

down by not allowing to enter the Bungalow.

Afterwards he understood from the Personnel Branch

Office that his services were terminated. Termination

Order dated 14-10-2005 w.e.f. 12-09-2005 was served

stating his performance as unsatisfactory and that

he was unauthorizedly absent. It was without an

enquiry or proper application of mind. Pursuant

to complaint from the petitioner he himself and father

attended the enquiry. Information under Right to

Information Act dated 10-08-2010 disclosed that the

case was closed by the Railway Board on 01-07-2010

which should not have been done. He represented

on 31-01-2007 to the General Manager, Southern

Railway for reinstatement which was followed by a

reminder dated 11-10-2007 but in vain. He also sent

representation dated 23-04-2008 to the Chief

Personnel Officer and Dy. Chief Engineer. Officer and

his wife are fully satisfied with his work. Never was

any warning issued to him. He was not paid salary

for September. He is remaining unemployed. ID raised

having failed the reference is caused to be made. His

termination is illegal, unfair and arbitrary which was

without any enquiry on alleged misconduct of

unauthorized absence and unsatisfactory service and

is wholly illegal and unjust. If termination is not

punitive it is in violation of Section-25G and H of ID

Act. He is entitled to reinstatement with all benefits

which is prayed for.

4. Counter Statement averments bereft of unnecessary

details read as follows:

The post of Lascar to do domestic service is of the

choice of the Officer on whose recommendation the

candidate will be appointed and as such is not

governed by normal recruitment rules. His service is

purely temporary liable to be terminated within one

year of service if found unsatisfactory or if his Officer

is transferred to other Railways. Term "Industry" does

not cover domestic service. He cannot invoke ID

Act provisions. He is not a workman. Domestic

Service is not included under Section-2(i) of ID Act.

The dispute is not maintainable. In terms of decision

of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi

petitioner is not a Railway Servant and his service

can be terminated for unsatisfactory work without

enquiry and the petition is to be dismissed. Petitioner's

appointment was under a clear instruction that his

service will be terminated if found unsatisfactory or

on his Officer getting transferred to other Railways.

His Officer Himanshu Goswami had found his

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7777

performance unsatisfactory and also that he was

unauthorizedly absent from 12-09-2005. Hence the

action terminating his services from 12-09-2005. The

matter was advised to the Chief Personnel Officer

and his services were discontinued from the

substitute engagement within four months vide letter

dated 26-03-2007. As per Condition No. 4 his services

are liable to be terminated within three years. He

served as Bungalow Peon just for 89 days. He was

not provided with temporary status at the time of

termination. Under IREM Rule 1502(i) he is not

entitled for any notice of termination or

compensation. Allegations of demands for money

from him are false. Enquiry based on complaint to

Vigilance Department of Railways is under

investigation. Section-25G and 25H of ID Act are not

applicable. Petitioner is governed by the terms of the

contract. His appointment was not based on normal

recruitment rules applicable to the Railway Servant.

He is entitled for appointment in Railway only after

completion of three years of service.

5. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the termination from service of Sri. A.

Natarajan by Southern Railway w.e.f. 12.09.2005 is

legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

6. Evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1 and Ex.

W1 to Ex. W17 on the petitioner's side and that of MW1

and Ex. M1 to Ex. M10 on the Respondent's side.

Points (i) & (ii)

7. Heard both sides. Perused the records, documents

and evidence. Both sides keenly argued in terms of their

contentions in the respective pleadings with reference to

documents and evidence. Prominent arguments advanced

on behalf of the petitioner are that the appointment of the

petitioner having been approved on 20-05-2005 which

signifies his date of entry into service for all purposes and

benefits, his termination is bad in law. No Charge Sheet

was issued or any enquiry held. His wages were being paid

by the Railway. As admitted by MW1 no Charge Sheet or

enquiry was held for proved misconduct committed by the

workman. There is non compliance of Section-25F of the

ID Act. Section-11A of the ID Act is applicable to him.

8. Contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent are

that he was appointed on the recommendation of an

individual officer of the Railway. His work was not

satisfactory. He also remained unauthoorizedly absent.

He has not worked for 120 days in order to enable him to

attain temporary status. Under Rule-1502 of the IREM no

notice is needed for termination if he has not completed

120 days of service. There is no need of enquiry.

9. In support of petitioner’s contentions the learned

counsel invited this Court’s attention to a number of

decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court as are

mentioned below :

In the case of ANOOP SHARMA VS. EXECUTIVE

ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION-I,

PANIPAT (2010-5-SCC-497) Supreme Court held that

“leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no

hesitation to hold that termination of service of an

employee by way of retrenchment without

complying with the requirement of giving one

month's notice or pay in leiu thereof and

compensation in terms of Sections-25F(a) and (b)

has the effect of rendering the action of the employer

as nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in

employment as if his service was not terminated”.

In the case of NAR SINGH PAL VS. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS (2000-3-SCC-588) Supreme

Court held “applying the above principles, the order

in the instant case, cannot be treated to be a simple

order of retrenchment. It was an order passed by

way of punishment and, therefore, was an order of

dismissal which, having been passed without

holding a regular departmental enquiry, cannot be

sustained”.

In case of MOHANLAL VS. BHARAT

ELECTRONICS LTD. (1981-2-LLJ-70) Supreme Court

held “we hold that the termination of service of the

appellant was ab initio void and inoperative and a

declaration is made that he continues to be in services

with all consequential benefits, namely, back wages,

in full and other benefits, if any”.

In the case of THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT

BRANCH PRESS AND ANOTHER VS. D.B.

BELLIAPPA (1979-1-SCC-477) Supreme Court

held “it is true that the competent authority has

discretion under the conditions of service governing

the employee concerned to terminate the latter's

employment without notice. But, such discretion has

to be exercised in accordance with the reason and

fair play and not capriciously. Bereft of rationality

and fairness, discretion degenerates into arbitrariness

which is the very antithesis of the rule of law on

which our democratic policy is founded. Arbitrary

invocation or enforcement of a service condition

terminating the service of a temporary employee may

itself constitute denial of equal protection and offend

the equality clause in articies 14 and 16 (1)”.

In the case of DILIP HANUMANTHRAO SHIRKE

AND OTHERS VS. ZILA PARISHAD,

YAVATMAL AND OTHERS (1990-1-LLJ-445)

High Court of Bombay held “to make appointments

for specific periods did not absolve the management

7778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from complying with the conditions stipulated under

Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act at the time

the period of employment comes to an end. The benfit

of law laid down by the Supreme Court was extended

to all the workmen, even to those who were employed

for specific work or for a particular job and even to

casual labourers who were engaged merely to

complete casual nature of work”.

In the case of K. RAJENDRAN VS. DIRECTOR

(PERSONNEL PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT

CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

AND ANOTHER (1992-1-LLN-150) Madras High

Court held “in view of the discussion, there is no

difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the

termination of service of the petitioner in this case

amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of

S. 2(oo) of the Act and that the respondent has not

complied with the mandatory provision of S.25F of

the Act by paying the retrenchment compensation

to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order

of the respondent terminating the service of the

petitioner is bad in law and the same is liable to be

set aside”.

In the case of D.K.YADAV VS J.M.A. INDUSTRIES

LTD.(1993-3-SCC-259) Supreme Court held “the

cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every

case, is whether the person concerned should have

a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and

the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and

impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to

act fairly, namely, the procedure adopted must be

just, fair and reasonable in the particular

circumstances of the case. In other words application

of the principles of natural justice that no man should

be condemned unheard intends to prevent the

authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights

of the concerned person”.

In the case of DHARMANAND AND ANOTHER

VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2004-10-SCC-

609) Supreme Court held ''we are of the view that if

these petitioners should have been treated as

government servants, the services could not have

been terminated on the ground that their services

were no longer required. The only ground stated for

terminating service was that it was only for 5 years’

tenure and their services were not longer required.

We hold that termination was illegal and the

petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service

forthwith. The petitioners are also entitled to get

consequential benefits''.

In the case of L. ROBERT D’ SOUZA VS. EXECUTIVE

ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND

ANOTHER (1982-1-SCC-645) Supreme Court held

“absence without leave is a misconduct and

termination of service on such ground without

complying with minimum principles of natural justice

would not be justified”.

In the case of MANAGER (P&A), ONGC LTD.,

CHENNAI VS. G. RADHAKRISHNAN (2005-2-LLN-

881) High Court of Madras held “on a plain reading

of S.2(oo) (bb), it is quite clear that such term based

employment would fall out side the scope of

‘retrenchment’ is long as the requirement of such

fixed period of employment was bona fide required

by the employer. It was, therefore, repeatedly pointed

out that such excepted categories requires a rigorous

test rather than accepting the plea of employer on

its face value or otherwise it would cause serious

prejudice to an employee, who can be taken for a ride

by unscrupulous employers by contending that the

term of employment was for specific period though

as a matter of fact such period of employment lasted

quite for a long spel”.

In the case of M/s J.K.COTTON SPINNING AND

WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LTD. VS. THE

LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA, IIIrd

BRANCH, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS (AIR-1964-

SC-737) Supreme Court held “while we are dealing

with this point, it is necessary to bear in mind that

the bungalow are owned by the appellant and they

are allotted to the officers as required by the terms

and conditions of the officer’s employment. Since

the bungalows are allotted to the officers, it is the

duty of the appellant to look after the bungalows

and take care of the gardens attached to them. If the

terms and conditions of service require that the

officers should be given bungalows and gardens are

attached to such bungalows, it is diffiicult to see

why in the case of Malis who are employed by the

appellant, are paid by it, and who work subject to its

control and supervision and discharge the function

of looking after the appellant's property, it should be

said that the work done by them has no relation with

the industry carried on by the appellant. The

employment is by the appellant, the conditions of

service are determined by the appellant, the

continuance of service depends upon the pleasure

of the appellant, subject, of course, to the Standing

Orders prescribed in that behalf and the work

assigned to the Malis is the work of looking after the

properties which have been allotted to the officers

of the appellant. Like the transport amenity provided

by the factory to its employees, bungalows and

gardens are also a king of amenity supplied by the

employer to his officers and the drivers who look

after the buses and the Malis who look after the

gardens must, therefore, be held to be engaged in

operations which are incidentally connected with the

main industry carried on by the employer”.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vDrwcj 20] 2012@vkf'ou 28] 1934

7779

In the case of V.P. AHUJA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

AND OTHERS (2000-3-SCC-239) Supreme Court held

“a probationer like a temporary servant, is also

entitled to certain protection and his services cannot

be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be

terminated in a punitive manner without complying

with principles of natural justice”.

10. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied on

the decision in ONGC AND OTHERS VS. M.D.S. ISKANDR

ALI (1980-3-SCC-428) where it is held by the Supreme Court

that it is well settled by a long course of decisions of this

Court that in the case of a probationer or a temporary

employee, who has no right to the post such a termination

of the services is valid and does not attract Article-311 of

the Constitution.

11. In the present reference the termination from service

of the petitioner-workman appointed as Substitute

Bungalow Laskar by the General Manager of the Southern

Railway is in challenge. The noteworthy contentions on

behalf of the petitioner precisely are that the termination

was one brought about without holding an enquiry

rendering it illegal and void ab initio. The impugned

termination is not an order of termination simplicitor but is

a punitive one for which departmental enquiry is a sine-

quanon. Even if it is not a punitive one, it could only be a

retrenchment for which compensation was to have been

given but has not been paid. There has not had been any

complaint or warning against the petitioner before. The

termination of service of the petitioner in any view of the

matter is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against the principles

of natural justice. It lacks bona fides. The ground for the

termination held out as unsatisfactory performance or

unatuthorized absence of the petitioner is not at all

established by any evidence. Going by Ex. W4/M4-

Appointment Order, Ex. M9-Policy of Appointment, it could

be gathered that the appointment of the petitioner as

Bungalow Laskar constitutes another the line of recruitment

independent of the normal recruitment rules applicable

generally to the Railway Administration. A Bungalow Laskar

after having been once appointed, as to what shall be the

career progression avenues that may enure to him and the

norms and conditions of his services are also provided. It

includes grant of temporary status by which he is entitled

to all rights and privileges admissible to temporary railway

servants. He will be eligible for regularization against

Group ‘D’ vacancies in the open line field units subject to

medical fitness after completion of 3 years continuous

service from the date of temporary status. After absorption

if he is not required for any reason such as transfer of the

Officer or by his successsor he will be transferred to the

unit where his lien is to be maintained. The very provisions

as above amply go to show that Bungalow Laskar is not

to be thrown out simplicitor. The ground for termination

is unsatisfactory work within 3 years. The termination of

petitioner from service cannot be understood to be one

due to any unsatisfactory work or unauthorized absence

of the petitioner. It is on a report of the individual Officer

as to the unsatisfactory performance of work or

unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 12-09-2005

that he was thereafter terminated w.e.f. 12-09-2005 under

Ex. M6-Termination Order dated 14-10-2005. The order is

in its nature in a laconic expression as to the misconduct

of the workman without any details. When the case of

petitioner is that he was being terminated from service

from that day the rival case of the Management is that he

was unauthorizedly absenting himself from that day. To

many an accusation of the petitioner against the Officer

alleging the latter to have had demanded money by way

of gratification, the case of the Respondent is not specific

to deny it except saying that nothing of that sort has

happened. The testimony of the petitioner by way of oath

against oath is not rendered so improbable as to discern

that there is no some grain of truth in it to render the case

of the petitioner more probable. Though enquiry is not

held or is absolutely not necessary that does not obliterate

the necessity of giving a reasoned order to the petitioner

terminating his service. The termination is quite arbitrary.

It is quite illegal. It is a malafide action. That the petitioner

was only a Bungalow Laskar, proved appointed on the

recommendation of his very officer does not mean that he

could be dealt with by the very officer in any way he

pleases. Even though a menial, constitutional guarantee

of fundamental rights, freedom and right to dignity and

decent living could never be negated to him. He cannot

but be subjected to Certified Standing Orders of the

Management. It is good to remember in this context the

settled law on the fact that Certified Standing Orders have

statutory force which do not expressly exclude the

application of the principles of natural justice (1993-3-

SCC-259 of the Apex Court already quoted above). The

post in which the petitioner is borne cannot be read as

one to which he has no right of a lien in as much as the Ex.

W4/M4-Appointment Order clearly intends the career

progression of the petitioner once he entered into service

as a Bungalow Laskar. His entitlement as admitted by the

Management regarding service though purely temporary

in nature and is with liability to be discharged within 3

years for unsatisfactory work, when he is discharged for

that reason that should be substantiated by the

Management before he is terminated. The termination is

not one simplicitor but is punitive. Here the absence of

enquiry is quite illegal and arbitrary and it springs much

against the Management’s highly inhuman action. The

decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner

fully support the above view. The decision upon which

reliance was placed by Respondent’s Learned Counsel are

not squarely applicable to the facts. The absence of holding

an enquiry and allowing servants like the petitioner being

terminated from service in an arbitrary manner is totally

unjust. It will lower the condition of employment of such

workmen subject to the sweet will and pleasure of his

7780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2012/ASVINA 28, 1934

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employer, whoever he is, relegating it to the ancient concept

of employment by kings, former rulers of erstwhile kingdoms

known as “pleasure tenure” with a transient life, lasting

for a time until only the workman or employee is able to

keep his employer exhilarated in any situation irrespective

of whether or not that could be really possible of being

done by the employee invariably. It is quite improper in a

refined Society and for a civilized life. It is also too

undemocratic an approach to be sustained. Hence, it is

only to be held that the termination of service of the

petitioner is illegal and unjustified. The same is set aside.

The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service

forthwith with continuity of service and all attendant

benefits, but not with backwages.

12. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 20th September, 2012)

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

WW1.

Sri

Natarajan

For the 2nd Party/Management:

MW1, Sri G.S. Kumar

Documents Marked:—

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

12.01.2004

Proposal for appointment of the

petitioner by Himanshu Goswami

Ex.W2

26.04.2005

Proposal

sent

Chief

Administrative Officer regarding

appointment of Substitute

Bungalow Lscar to Himanshu

Goswami

Ex. W3

25.05.2005

Approval order for A. Natarajan

issued by the Chief Personnel

Officer regarding engagement of

Substitute Bungalow Lascar

Ex. W4

16.06.2005

Appointment Order issued by

Executive Engineer to A. Natarajan

Ex. W5

01.07.2005

Memorandum

relating

petitioner’s appointment

Ex. W6

14.10.2005

Termination order issued by

Deputy Chief Engineer

Ex. W7

29.10.2005

Complaint of the petitioner to the

Vigilance Department

Ex. W8

24.06.2005

Loan receipt from Railway

Employees Co-operative Credit

Society Ltd.

Ex. W9

12.01.2006

Receipt of confirmation of

complaint from the Vigilance

Department

Ex. W10

31.01.2007

Representation of the petitioner to

the General Manager seeking

reinstatement

Ex. W11

11.10.2007

Representation to the General

Manager seeking reinstatement

Ex. W12

17.04.2009

Letter of the petitioner to the Asstt.

Commissioner of Labour regarding

reinstatement

Ex. W13

14.07.2009

Reply filed by the Respondent in

2A petition

Ex. W14

20.07.2009

Industrial Dispute raised before

the Asstt. Commissioner of

Labour under Section-2A of the

ID Act (Conciliation)

Ex W15

01.12.2009

Failure report sent by Asstt.

Commissioner of Labour to

Ministry of Labour

Ex. W16

10.08.2010

RTI Reply to the application under

RTI Act.

Ex. W17

11.02.2011

Reference to Central Government

Industrial Tribunal

On the Management side :

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

31.05.2012

Authorization letter

Ex. M2

07.04.2005

Letter from the petitioner to

Respondent

Ex. M3

25.05.2005

Approval of General Manager,

Southern Railway for appointment

of the petitioner

Ex. M4

16.06.2005

Appointment letter order of the

petitioner

Ex. M5

01.07.2005

Memorandum for joining duty

issued to the Respondent

Ex. M6

14.10.2005

Termination Order

Ex. M7

26.03.2007

Letter from the Respondent to the

Chief Personnel Officer

Ex. M8

Indian Railway Establishment

Manual 1502

Ex. M9

12.12.2002

Policy/Instructions

for

recruitment of Bungalow Lascar

Ex. M10

12.02.1999

Central Administrative Tribunal,

New Delhi order

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.